| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#1
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Food for Thought
My little group of audio nuts has been at it again. At a recent get together,
one of our older group members brought up an interesting point. He opined that since CD replaced vinyl as his major program source, he finds that he is more uneasy about the sound of his system and is less satisfied listening to it. This has brought on a spate of equipment upgrading, but he says that he has never been able to recreate the feeling of real music playing in real space with digital that he got from vinyl. His final "upgrade" was to go down into the basement and haul his old Empire 698 Troubadour turntable/arm/Sure V-15 out of storage and and hook it up. The first record he played (so he asserts) instantly brought back the sense of excitement and realism that he has been missing in his system since retiring his record playing apparatus. Others then chimed in (there are variably 6 to 10 of us in this group, 7 were at this meeting, including me). Several said that they had been harboring similar thoughts. One said that he no longer had a turntable setup but had thought seriously about buying a new one for some time. He said that he was encouraged by this discussion to move that project to the front burner. Several others agreed that they had long nursed a niggling suspicion that they no longer enjoyed listening to music with the passion and enthusiasm that had once characterized their involvement in the audio hobby. A few, myself included, said that they had never "abandoned" vinyl and listened to a mix of digital and analog sources on a regular basis. I mentioned that I had some records that were so much better than their CD counterparts, that it wasn't even a contest. The Mercury recording of Stravinky's "Firebird" by Antal Dorati and the Minneapolis Symphony Orchestra comes to mind here. The single-sided, multi-disc, virgin vinyl, 45-RPM pressing of this recording by Classic records sounds so much better, so much more real than does the SACD reissue (or the previous CD re-mastering supervised by the recording's original producer Wilma Cozert Fine) that its hard to believe that both versions come from the same master tape! On the other hand, I have digital recordings (both commercial and ones that I have made myself) that are so startlingly real as to raise goosebumps. I also have both vinyl and CD recordings that are simply atrocious. I have found, however, that I have a much higher percentage of LPs that sound unlistenably terrible than I do of CDs. Mostly, CDs range from lackluster and mundane sounding to truly great rather than awful to transcendently religious listening experiences which characterizes the gamut of LPs. So, What I'd like to do is get opinions from this board. Have any of you noticed that you don't enjoy listening to your audio system today as much as you did in vinyl days? If you fall into this category, do you have any theories as to why? If you have happily left LP behind with no regrets, I'd like to hear your opinions as to why you think many people still get more enjoyment from LP than CD and why you do not. Please, let's avoid the obvious remarks about about surface noise, limited dynamic range, wow-and-flutter (as obviously vinyl-philes seem to be able to listen around those and don't find them annoying). Let the games begin! |
|
#2
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Food for Thought
"Sonnova" wrote in message
... My little group of audio nuts has been at it again. At a recent get together, one of our older group members brought up an interesting point. He opined that since CD replaced vinyl as his major program source, he finds that he is more uneasy about the sound of his system and is less satisfied listening to it. This has brought on a spate of equipment upgrading, but he says that he has never been able to recreate the feeling of real music playing in real space with digital that he got from vinyl. His final "upgrade" was to go down into the basement and haul his old Empire 698 Troubadour turntable/arm/Sure V-15 out of storage and and hook it up. The first record he played (so he asserts) instantly brought back the sense of excitement and realism that he has been missing in his system since retiring his record playing apparatus. Others then chimed in (there are variably 6 to 10 of us in this group, 7 were at this meeting, including me). Several said that they had been harboring similar thoughts. One said that he no longer had a turntable setup but had thought seriously about buying a new one for some time. He said that he was encouraged by this discussion to move that project to the front burner. Several others agreed that they had long nursed a niggling suspicion that they no longer enjoyed listening to music with the passion and enthusiasm that had once characterized their involvement in the audio hobby. A few, myself included, said that they had never "abandoned" vinyl and listened to a mix of digital and analog sources on a regular basis. I mentioned that I had some records that were so much better than their CD counterparts, that it wasn't even a contest. The Mercury recording of Stravinky's "Firebird" by Antal Dorati and the Minneapolis Symphony Orchestra comes to mind here. The single-sided, multi-disc, virgin vinyl, 45-RPM pressing of this recording by Classic records sounds so much better, so much more real than does the SACD reissue (or the previous CD re-mastering supervised by the recording's original producer Wilma Cozert Fine) that its hard to believe that both versions come from the same master tape! On the other hand, I have digital recordings (both commercial and ones that I have made myself) that are so startlingly real as to raise goosebumps. I also have both vinyl and CD recordings that are simply atrocious. I have found, however, that I have a much higher percentage of LPs that sound unlistenably terrible than I do of CDs. Mostly, CDs range from lackluster and mundane sounding to truly great rather than awful to transcendently religious listening experiences which characterizes the gamut of LPs. So, What I'd like to do is get opinions from this board. Have any of you noticed that you don't enjoy listening to your audio system today as much as you did in vinyl days? If you fall into this category, do you have any theories as to why? If you have happily left LP behind with no regrets, I'd like to hear your opinions as to why you think many people still get more enjoyment from LP than CD and why you do not. Please, let's avoid the obvious remarks about about surface noise, limited dynamic range, wow-and-flutter (as obviously vinyl-philes seem to be able to listen around those and don't find them annoying). Let the games begin! I don't listen as much or enjoy recorded music as much since switching to digital as my main source, but this may because of being older as well as the change in medium. However, I really don't think so. In fact have a theory that one of the reason music became "background" and "transportable" to feed the ADD-like listening habits of teenagers and twenty-somethings is that digital doesn't hold interest like analogue. All I know is I enjoy my RTR tapes the most, many of my records, and my SACDs more than I do ordinary CD's. My listening increased greatly the first year or two after SACDs came out, but then the supply of music of interest to me dropped away and I eventually drifted away to my photographic hobby. |
|
#3
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Food for Thought
On Sep 27, 5:26 am, "Harry Lavo" wrote:
"Sonnova" wrote in message ... My little group of audio nuts has been at it again. At a recent get together, one of our older group members brought up an interesting point. He opined that since CD replaced vinyl as his major program source, he finds that he is more uneasy about the sound of his system and is less satisfied listening to it. This has brought on a spate of equipment upgrading, but he says that he has never been able to recreate the feeling of real music playing in real space with digital that he got from vinyl. His final "upgrade" was to go down into the basement and haul his old Empire 698 Troubadour turntable/arm/Sure V-15 out of storage and and hook it up. The first record he played (so he asserts) instantly brought back the sense of excitement and realism that he has been missing in his system since retiring his record playing apparatus. Others then chimed in (there are variably 6 to 10 of us in this group, 7 were at this meeting, including me). Several said that they had been harboring similar thoughts. One said that he no longer had a turntable setup but had thought seriously about buying a new one for some time. He said that he was encouraged by this discussion to move that project to the front burner. Several others agreed that they had long nursed a niggling suspicion that they no longer enjoyed listening to music with the passion and enthusiasm that had once characterized their involvement in the audio hobby. A few, myself included, said that they had never "abandoned" vinyl and listened to a mix of digital and analog sources on a regular basis. I mentioned that I had some records that were so much better than their CD counterparts, that it wasn't even a contest. The Mercury recording of Stravinky's "Firebird" by Antal Dorati and the Minneapolis Symphony Orchestra comes to mind here. The single-sided, multi-disc, virgin vinyl, 45-RPM pressing of this recording by Classic records sounds so much better, so much more real than does the SACD reissue (or the previous CD re-mastering supervised by the recording's original producer Wilma Cozert Fine) that its hard to believe that both versions come from the same master tape! On the other hand, I have digital recordings (both commercial and ones that I have made myself) that are so startlingly real as to raise goosebumps. I also have both vinyl and CD recordings that are simply atrocious. I have found, however, that I have a much higher percentage of LPs that sound unlistenably terrible than I do of CDs. Mostly, CDs range from lackluster and mundane sounding to truly great rather than awful to transcendently religious listening experiences which characterizes the gamut of LPs. So, What I'd like to do is get opinions from this board. Have any of you noticed that you don't enjoy listening to your audio system today as much as you did in vinyl days? If you fall into this category, do you have any theories as to why? If you have happily left LP behind with no regrets, I'd like to hear your opinions as to why you think many people still get more enjoyment from LP than CD and why you do not. Please, let's avoid the obvious remarks about about surface noise, limited dynamic range, wow-and-flutter (as obviously vinyl-philes seem to be able to listen around those and don't find them annoying). Let the games begin! I don't listen as much or enjoy recorded music as much since switching to digital as my main source, but this may because of being older as well as the change in medium. However, I really don't think so. In fact have a theory that one of the reason music became "background" and "transportable" to feed the ADD-like listening habits of teenagers and twenty-somethings is that digital doesn't hold interest like analogue. All I know is I enjoy my RTR tapes the most, many of my records, and my SACDs more than I do ordinary CD's. My listening increased greatly the first year or two after SACDs came out, but then the supply of music of interest to me dropped away and I eventually drifted away to my photographic hobby. LP's sound better: no one seems to know precisely why. The dialectic among audiophiles has continued for years and years, most discussants seeking, in the main, technical explanations/justifications. I, too, seldom find listening to a CD--and by now I have many--as satisfying as listening to my collection of LP's. After years of reading debates about the differences, and attending audiophile society meetings, I've come to think that techno jargon and techno hypotheses alone can't come up with persuasive reasons. Maybe listening is not just a 'aural' experience, maybe there are other factors at play. Perhaps those of us believe we hear a difference are "in" the music (or trying to be in it) with more than our ears. Maybe the listening we do is a cerebral activity, or an activity employing more than our ears - our minds, our bodies somehow. Perhaps we've been trying to explain the differences between the digital and the analog from the wrong premises. I'm not meaning to imply that vinyl listeners are "better" listeners or more "sensitive," only that maybe they hear differently, with other senses than just ears. In the end, there may be philosophical or even medical explanations for the question that has never been put to rest since the beginning of the wars between the vinylites and the cd-ites. Maybe we should look at ourselves, the vinylites, to learn how we listen, and compare ourselves to the honorable cd-ites, and see what they have or don't have, how they listen, etc. Maybe it's like red states and blue states or blue collar white collar or whatever. Let's look for reasons in new places. max |
|
#4
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Food for Thought
Harry Lavo wrote:
"Sonnova" wrote in message ... My little group of audio nuts has been at it again. At a recent get together, one of our older group members brought up an interesting point. He opined that since CD replaced vinyl as his major program source, he finds that he is more uneasy about the sound of his system and is less satisfied listening to it. This has brought on a spate of equipment upgrading, but he says that he has never been able to recreate the feeling of real music playing in real space with digital that he got from vinyl. His final "upgrade" was to go down into the basement and haul his old Empire 698 Troubadour turntable/arm/Sure V-15 out of storage and and hook it up. The first record he played (so he asserts) instantly brought back the sense of excitement and realism that he has been missing in his system since retiring his record playing apparatus. Others then chimed in (there are variably 6 to 10 of us in this group, 7 were at this meeting, including me). Several said that they had been harboring similar thoughts. One said that he no longer had a turntable setup but had thought seriously about buying a new one for some time. He said that he was encouraged by this discussion to move that project to the front burner. Several others agreed that they had long nursed a niggling suspicion that they no longer enjoyed listening to music with the passion and enthusiasm that had once characterized their involvement in the audio hobby. A few, myself included, said that they had never "abandoned" vinyl and listened to a mix of digital and analog sources on a regular basis. I mentioned that I had some records that were so much better than their CD counterparts, that it wasn't even a contest. The Mercury recording of Stravinky's "Firebird" by Antal Dorati and the Minneapolis Symphony Orchestra comes to mind here. The single-sided, multi-disc, virgin vinyl, 45-RPM pressing of this recording by Classic records sounds so much better, so much more real than does the SACD reissue (or the previous CD re-mastering supervised by the recording's original producer Wilma Cozert Fine) that its hard to believe that both versions come from the same master tape! On the other hand, I have digital recordings (both commercial and ones that I have made myself) that are so startlingly real as to raise goosebumps. I also have both vinyl and CD recordings that are simply atrocious. I have found, however, that I have a much higher percentage of LPs that sound unlistenably terrible than I do of CDs. Mostly, CDs range from lackluster and mundane sounding to truly great rather than awful to transcendently religious listening experiences which characterizes the gamut of LPs. So, What I'd like to do is get opinions from this board. Have any of you noticed that you don't enjoy listening to your audio system today as much as you did in vinyl days? If you fall into this category, do you have any theories as to why? If you have happily left LP behind with no regrets, I'd like to hear your opinions as to why you think many people still get more enjoyment from LP than CD and why you do not. Please, let's avoid the obvious remarks about about surface noise, limited dynamic range, wow-and-flutter (as obviously vinyl-philes seem to be able to listen around those and don't find them annoying). Let the games begin! I don't listen as much or enjoy recorded music as much since switching to digital as my main source, but this may because of being older as well as the change in medium. However, I really don't think so. I really do think so. Older vinyl lovers miss two things: the rituals of vinyl play (which encompass the appreciation of liner notes and larger album art, as well as actually preparing he LP and setup for playback) and the euphonic distortions of vinyl (which can be captured entirely on CD, by 'needledrops') Many times when they opine like this they are attempting the impossible: comparing what they hear now to what they recall hearing before 1985 or so...and from that dubious exercise of logic, they conclude that digital is flawed! -- -S A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence. -- David Hume, "On Miracles" (1748) |
|
#5
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Food for Thought
On Sat, 27 Sep 2008 02:26:28 -0700, Harry Lavo wrote
(in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message ... My little group of audio nuts has been at it again. At a recent get together, one of our older group members brought up an interesting point. He opined that since CD replaced vinyl as his major program source, he finds that he is more uneasy about the sound of his system and is less satisfied listening to it. This has brought on a spate of equipment upgrading, but he says that he has never been able to recreate the feeling of real music playing in real space with digital that he got from vinyl. His final "upgrade" was to go down into the basement and haul his old Empire 698 Troubadour turntable/arm/Sure V-15 out of storage and and hook it up. The first record he played (so he asserts) instantly brought back the sense of excitement and realism that he has been missing in his system since retiring his record playing apparatus. Others then chimed in (there are variably 6 to 10 of us in this group, 7 were at this meeting, including me). Several said that they had been harboring similar thoughts. One said that he no longer had a turntable setup but had thought seriously about buying a new one for some time. He said that he was encouraged by this discussion to move that project to the front burner. Several others agreed that they had long nursed a niggling suspicion that they no longer enjoyed listening to music with the passion and enthusiasm that had once characterized their involvement in the audio hobby. A few, myself included, said that they had never "abandoned" vinyl and listened to a mix of digital and analog sources on a regular basis. I mentioned that I had some records that were so much better than their CD counterparts, that it wasn't even a contest. The Mercury recording of Stravinky's "Firebird" by Antal Dorati and the Minneapolis Symphony Orchestra comes to mind here. The single-sided, multi-disc, virgin vinyl, 45-RPM pressing of this recording by Classic records sounds so much better, so much more real than does the SACD reissue (or the previous CD re-mastering supervised by the recording's original producer Wilma Cozert Fine) that its hard to believe that both versions come from the same master tape! On the other hand, I have digital recordings (both commercial and ones that I have made myself) that are so startlingly real as to raise goosebumps. I also have both vinyl and CD recordings that are simply atrocious. I have found, however, that I have a much higher percentage of LPs that sound unlistenably terrible than I do of CDs. Mostly, CDs range from lackluster and mundane sounding to truly great rather than awful to transcendently religious listening experiences which characterizes the gamut of LPs. So, What I'd like to do is get opinions from this board. Have any of you noticed that you don't enjoy listening to your audio system today as much as you did in vinyl days? If you fall into this category, do you have any theories as to why? If you have happily left LP behind with no regrets, I'd like to hear your opinions as to why you think many people still get more enjoyment from LP than CD and why you do not. Please, let's avoid the obvious remarks about about surface noise, limited dynamic range, wow-and-flutter (as obviously vinyl-philes seem to be able to listen around those and don't find them annoying). Let the games begin! I don't listen as much or enjoy recorded music as much since switching to digital as my main source, but this may because of being older as well as the change in medium. However, I really don't think so. In fact have a theory that one of the reason music became "background" and "transportable" to feed the ADD-like listening habits of teenagers and twenty-somethings is that digital doesn't hold interest like analogue. All I know is I enjoy my RTR tapes the most, many of my records, and my SACDs more than I do ordinary CD's. My listening increased greatly the first year or two after SACDs came out, but then the supply of music of interest to me dropped away and I eventually drifted away to my photographic hobby. Interesting. One thing that I have always found fascinating about the audiophile community is how many of us are photographers - and pretty serious ones, at that. I have met hundreds of audiophiles in my life and a very high percentage of them cite photography as their "other'" consuming interest. I wonder what that says about us as a group? |
|
#6
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Food for Thought
|
|
#7
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Food for Thought
In article ,
Sonnova writes: So, What I'd like to do is get opinions from this board. Have any of you noticed that you don't enjoy listening to your audio system today as much as you did in vinyl days? If you fall into this category, do you have any theories as to why? If you have happily left LP behind with no regrets, I'd like to hear your opinions as to why you think many people still get more enjoyment from LP than CD and why you do not. Please, let's avoid the obvious remarks about about surface noise, limited dynamic range, wow-and-flutter (as obviously vinyl-philes seem to be able to listen around those and don't find them annoying). I am just old enough to remember the dawning of the stereo era and my father had a excellent system based on an Akai RTR and a Garrard turntable. Several of my friends' fathers also had some excellent systems too. When I was in college I started spending a lot of time in high-end stores and bought a quite good but modest LP-based system. I continued upgrading my system after I graduated and was a happy LP camper until I heard an early CD system at a high-end salon playing "Brothers in Arms" by Dire Straits. I then began my CD odyssey and I've rarely looked back. For me, a well mastered CD has a superior soundstage and much better highs and lows than any LP I've heard. I do occasionally pull out a LP that I have not been able to find on CD and I really don't enjoy it. I still go to one of the few high-end stores that is in my area and I still prefer CDs. I was never really happy with any of the things you asked to not be mentioned above because I could never listen through them during soft passages. I also have never heard an LP that had convincingly real sounding cymbals, which is something CD can do very well for me. -- David Bath - RAHE Co-moderator |
|
#8
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Food for Thought
In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote: I really do think so. Older vinyl lovers miss two things: the rituals of vinyl play (which encompass the appreciation of liner notes and larger album art, as well as actually preparing he LP and setup for playback) Or alternatively: -- "Vinyl lovers" don't care a lick for the "rituals" including the album art, and just like the way some or all of them sound. -- "CD lovers" like the convenience, smaller size, and that they are more "modern", thereby affecting what they think they hear. |
|
#9
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Food for Thought
|
|
#10
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Food for Thought
"Sonnova" wrote in message
... snip So, What I'd like to do is get opinions from this board. Have any of you noticed that you don't enjoy listening to your audio system today as much as you did in vinyl days? If you fall into this category, do you have any theories as to why? If you have happily left LP behind with no regrets, I'd like to hear your opinions as to why you think many people still get more enjoyment from LP than CD and why you do not. Please, let's avoid the obvious remarks about about surface noise, limited dynamic range, wow-and-flutter (as obviously vinyl-philes seem to be able to listen around those and don't find them annoying). Let the games begin! At the risk of not being considered an audiophile, I listen as much now to classical CDs as I did to classical LPs two decades ago and RTR tapes three and four decades ago. I would certainly concur that some of the earliest CD releases were poorly mastered for the new medium, and that some of the best LPs sounded better than some of these early CDs. The best of the SACD remasterings of older recordings sound better than those old LPs, at least on my system. Regards, Ed Presson |
|
#11
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Food for Thought
"Sonnova" wrote in message
... On Sat, 27 Sep 2008 02:26:28 -0700, Harry Lavo wrote (in article ): snip I don't listen as much or enjoy recorded music as much since switching to digital as my main source, but this may because of being older as well as the change in medium. However, I really don't think so. In fact have a theory that one of the reason music became "background" and "transportable" to feed the ADD-like listening habits of teenagers and twenty-somethings is that digital doesn't hold interest like analogue. All I know is I enjoy my RTR tapes the most, many of my records, and my SACDs more than I do ordinary CD's. My listening increased greatly the first year or two after SACDs came out, but then the supply of music of interest to me dropped away and I eventually drifted away to my photographic hobby. Interesting. One thing that I have always found fascinating about the audiophile community is how many of us are photographers - and pretty serious ones, at that. I have met hundreds of audiophiles in my life and a very high percentage of them cite photography as their "other'" consuming interest. I wonder what that says about us as a group? Well, the cynical amd superficial amongst us might say both are hobbies involving lots of "boy toys". However, I think it goes deeper than that. The less cynical might say it involves economics...both tend to require a certain amount of affluence to participate fully (eg. acquire, use, and master to the state of the art).. However, I think it goes deeper than that as well. Both hobbies involve a very strong aesthetic appreciation as well as an appreciation of engineering excellence in the equipment used to reach the highest level plateaus of excellence. Both hobbies have both an active and a passive component to them, and therefore are adaptable to mood and circumstances. Both hobbies are essentially solo endeavors (although involving often other people on the periphery, the seminal decisions and much of the creativity involved are solo). Both hobbies require literally an "education" via reading and other assimilation in order to master them. I suspect somewhere in these factors lies the clue to the psychological profile of both groups. |
|
#12
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Food for Thought
Sonnova wrote:
Interesting. One thing that I have always found fascinating about the audiophile community is how many of us are photographers - and pretty serious ones, at that. Interesting. I do photograph, and I find digital to be ever so much better than film. I do miss the magic of the chemical process (I'm a chemist.) But digital really is oh so much better, and less frustrating. Digital has the magic of Photoshop to compensate for the lack of chemicals when doing your own darkroom stuff. Doug McDonald |
|
#13
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Food for Thought
Jenn wrote:
In article , Steven Sullivan wrote: I really do think so. Older vinyl lovers miss two things: the rituals of vinyl play (which encompass the appreciation of liner notes and larger album art, as well as actually preparing he LP and setup for playback) Or alternatively: -- "Vinyl lovers" don't care a lick for the "rituals" including the album art, I'd believe that if I hadn't read rather more than a few vinylphile testimonials to the contrary. Certainly *some* vinylphiles miss the ritual (which doesn't exclude also missing the 'sound') Indeed, the album art is the only this *I* miss about the LP era. and just like the way some or all of them sound. Yes, I didn't say otherwise. It wasn't an either/or claim. -- "CD lovers" like the convenience, smaller size, and that they are more "modern", thereby affecting what they think they hear. Undoubtedly we like most of those things, but as to modernity, CDs are hardly the latest technology, as perhaps you've noticed. As for what I 'think' they hear, I 'think' I hear perfect pitch stability and freedom from surface noise on CDs -- remedying two of the annoyances I 'thought' I heard on LPs. Happily, objective reality accords with what I 'think' in this case. Btw, it's also true that I prefer clear glass to colored glass, for seeing what's on the other side. I just 'think' it's a more accurate view. -- -S A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence. -- David Hume, "On Miracles" (1748) |
|
#14
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Food for Thought
So, What I'd like to do is get opinions from this board.
It's very simple. There are two things: some people actually are attuned to bad reproduction. They adore the erros of analog, especially clicks and pops and surface grunge. The second is that some people are attuned to tweeking. They love the care and feeding that LPs required. They are not as addicted to CDs (or MP3s) as they were to LPs because it is too easy. The addiction to LPs is actually an addiction to the sense of success that some people get when successful at something hard. Doug McDonald |
|
#15
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Food for Thought
On Sep 28, 4:23*pm, Doug McDonald wrote:
So, What I'd like to do is get opinions from this board. It's very simple. There are two things: some people actually are attuned to bad reproduction. They adore the erros of analog, especially clicks and pops and surface grunge. Not fair. Those are the errors that vinylphobes notice. Vinylphiles are more attracted the that warm, resonant phase distortion, some rolloff of otherwise harsh high frequencies, and maybe a little unintentional vibrato, aka flutter. The second is that some people are attuned to tweeking. They love the care and feeding that LPs required. They are not as addicted to CDs (or MP3s) as they were to LPs because it is too easy. The addiction to LPs is actually an addiction to the sense of success that some people get when successful at something hard. Addiction is the wrong word here, but the point is a good one. Getting good reproduction from digital is as easy as pushing a button. Getting good reproduction from analog is something you have to earn through hard work. Definitely a greater sense of accomplishment in the latter. bob |
|
#16
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Food for Thought
In article ,
Doug McDonald wrote: So, What I'd like to do is get opinions from this board. It's very simple. There are two things: some people actually are attuned to bad reproduction. They adore the erros of analog, especially clicks and pops and surface grunge. The second is that some people are attuned to tweeking. They love the care and feeding that LPs required. They are not as addicted to CDs (or MP3s) as they were to LPs because it is too easy. The addiction to LPs is actually an addiction to the sense of success that some people get when successful at something hard. You can't imagine other options? |
|
#17
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Food for Thought
On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 07:43:35 -0700, Doug McDonald wrote
(in article ): Sonnova wrote: Interesting. One thing that I have always found fascinating about the audiophile community is how many of us are photographers - and pretty serious ones, at that. Interesting. I do photograph, and I find digital to be ever so much better than film. I do miss the magic of the chemical process (I'm a chemist.) But digital really is oh so much better, and less frustrating. Digital has the magic of Photoshop to compensate for the lack of chemicals when doing your own darkroom stuff. Doug McDonald The only thing about digital vs film is that digital photographs are still not as good as Kodachrome slides. Sure, for snapshots, digital is great, and at 10 megapixels, its even great for large 16 X 20 prints. But on a big screen high-definition TV, whether direct view or a projection set, viewing digital pictures, even at 10 megapixels does not yield anywhere near the crystal-clear resolution and quality of a Kodachrome slide projected with a decent slide projector, and I miss that. Otherwise, what you say about the joys of digital photography are correct. |
|
#18
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Food for Thought
In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote: Jenn wrote: In article , Steven Sullivan wrote: I really do think so. Older vinyl lovers miss two things: the rituals of vinyl play (which encompass the appreciation of liner notes and larger album art, as well as actually preparing he LP and setup for playback) Or alternatively: -- "Vinyl lovers" don't care a lick for the "rituals" including the album art, I'd believe that if I hadn't read rather more than a few vinylphile testimonials to the contrary. Certainly *some* vinylphiles miss the ritual I'd accept that, but not the absolute sort of statement that "older vinyl lovers miss two things:" (which doesn't exclude also missing the 'sound') Indeed, the album art is the only this *I* miss about the LP era. and just like the way some or all of them sound. Yes, I didn't say otherwise. It wasn't an either/or claim. Well, you DID say vinyl lovers miss two things. Some do indeed like vinyl for other reasons. -- "CD lovers" like the convenience, smaller size, and that they are more "modern", thereby affecting what they think they hear. Undoubtedly we like most of those things, but as to modernity, CDs are hardly the latest technology, as perhaps you've noticed. Of course I've noticed. But as perhaps you've noticed, CDs are in the "modern" format of digital, as opposed to the older technology of analogue. As for what I 'think' they hear, I 'think' I hear perfect pitch stability and freedom from surface noise on CDs -- remedying two of the annoyances I 'thought' I heard on LPs. Happily, objective reality accords with what I 'think' in this case. Btw, it's also true that I prefer clear glass to colored glass, for seeing what's on the other side. I just 'think' it's a more accurate view. That's great; one should listen to what sounds better to them, based on their sonic priorities. |
|
#19
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Food for Thought
"Doug McDonald" wrote in message
... So, What I'd like to do is get opinions from this board. It's very simple. There are two things: some people actually are attuned to bad reproduction. They adore the erros of analog, especially clicks and pops and surface grunge. The second is that some people are attuned to tweeking. They love the care and feeding that LPs required. They are not as addicted to CDs (or MP3s) as they were to LPs because it is too easy. The addiction to LPs is actually an addiction to the sense of success that some people get when successful at something hard. Doug McDonald Personally speaking I abhor the care handling and cleaning routine that LPs necessarily require. As my general preference is towards listening to vinyl that routine is obviously essential to preserve the sonic quality of my recordings therefore I accept it but grudgingly. I have gone down that route of tranferring vinyl to CD but still prefer listening to the original LP. In my collection I've several same recordings on both CD and LP and in most cases I prefer the LP, to me it gives the illusion of being nearer to real music in a believable space that I escape into. Mike |
|
#20
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Food for Thought
On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 16:18:30 -0700, Mike Gilmour wrote
(in article ): "Doug McDonald" wrote in message ... So, What I'd like to do is get opinions from this board. It's very simple. There are two things: some people actually are attuned to bad reproduction. They adore the erros of analog, especially clicks and pops and surface grunge. The second is that some people are attuned to tweeking. They love the care and feeding that LPs required. They are not as addicted to CDs (or MP3s) as they were to LPs because it is too easy. The addiction to LPs is actually an addiction to the sense of success that some people get when successful at something hard. Doug McDonald Personally speaking I abhor the care handling and cleaning routine that LPs necessarily require. As my general preference is towards listening to vinyl that routine is obviously essential to preserve the sonic quality of my recordings therefore I accept it but grudgingly. I have gone down that route of tranferring vinyl to CD but still prefer listening to the original LP. On LPs that sound superior to their CD counterparts, I agree. However, I have found that transferring these LPs to CD STILL yields a CD that sounds superior to the CD release of the same title. I have to admit that I have NEVER done a blind comparison of one of these "super LPs" to a digital copy of itself to see if I can detect any difference between the LP and the CD copy of it. In my collection I've several same recordings on both CD and LP and in most cases I prefer the LP, to me it gives the illusion of being nearer to real music in a believable space that I escape into. Yes, that's a common comment and for the most part, I agree. I have lots of CDs and SACDs which were bought to replace LPs of the same title, often the LP still sounds better, but in some cases, the LP only hints at what was obviously on the master tape. A couple of cases in-point off the top of my head: The Vanguard LP of Virgil Thompson's "Plow that Broke The Plains" and "The River" suites with Leopold Stokowski and the St. Louis Symphony. I always thought that the LP sounded pretty good UNTIL I got the SACD re-release. I was bowled over by how much better the SACD sounded over the LP. Another case are all of the Everest releases (most of which were recorded by the late Bert Whyte). Every vinyl copy of any Everest recording I've ever heard was rubbish - including the original issues. The SACDs that have been released are beautiful. Also. most VOX/Nonesuch pressing were terrible. The recent SACD re-release of Ravel's Daphnis et Chloe ballet by Skrowejewski and the Minnesota Orchestra on Mobile Fidelity sounds glorious when compared with the original Vox-Box release on vinyl (which I have). OTOH, the Classic Records re-releases on vinyl of many of the RCA Victor Red Seals sound somewhat better than the BMC released SACDs of these same titles, with the 45-RPM/single sided reissues sounding best. But having said that, the Red Seal RCA SACDs sound better than ANY previous re-release of this material either on Vinyl or CD. I recognize that a lot of this has to do with the quality of the re-mastering more than it has to do with the media, but, there it is... |
|
#21
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Food for Thought
On Sep 28, 7:18*pm, "Mike Gilmour" wrote:
I have gone down that route of tranferring vinyl to CD but still prefer listening to the original LP. There are two possible explanations for this: 1) You don't make very good digital copies; or 2) There's something other than the sound which leads you to prefer playing the original LP. In my collection I've several same recordings on both CD and LP and in most cases I prefer the LP, to me it gives the illusion of being nearer to real music in a believable space that I escape into. Again, #2 above may offer at least a partial explanation for this. bob |
|
#22
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Food for Thought
"Sonnova" wrote in message
... On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 16:18:30 -0700, Mike Gilmour wrote (in article ): Personally speaking I abhor the care handling and cleaning routine that LPs necessarily require. As my general preference is towards listening to vinyl that routine is obviously essential to preserve the sonic quality of my recordings therefore I accept it but grudgingly. I have gone down that route of tranferring vinyl to CD but still prefer listening to the original LP. On LPs that sound superior to their CD counterparts, I agree. However, I have found that transferring these LPs to CD STILL yields a CD that sounds superior to the CD release of the same title. I have to admit that I have NEVER done a blind comparison of one of these "super LPs" to a digital copy of itself to see if I can detect any difference between the LP and the CD copy of it. It is just down to my personal preference, I also have never completed a strict blind comparison. I just feel although the CD copy is very good it still just doesn't for me have that indefinable believability of vinyl - its probably psychological in nature but there quite strongly for me never-the-less. Many may argue that because of the age of my system and the huge technological advances in the interim I could be convinced otherwise - (but have not yet been yet). My system harks back to ARC SP11 MkII, Koetsu Onyx platinum, NRG plus modified Ray Lumley amplifiers, Infinity RS1b speakers etc. - so generally very much of the 80's. In my collection I've several same recordings on both CD and LP and in most cases I prefer the LP, to me it gives the illusion of being nearer to real music in a believable space that I escape into. Yes, that's a common comment and for the most part, I agree. I have lots of CDs and SACDs which were bought to replace LPs of the same title, often the LP still sounds better, but in some cases, the LP only hints at what was obviously on the master tape. A couple of cases in-point off the top of my head: The Vanguard LP of Virgil Thompson's "Plow that Broke The Plains" and "The River" suites with Leopold Stokowski and the St. Louis Symphony. I always thought that the LP sounded pretty good UNTIL I got the SACD re-release. I was bowled over by how much better the SACD sounded over the LP. Another case are all of the Everest releases (most of which were recorded by the late Bert Whyte). Every vinyl copy of any Everest recording I've ever heard was rubbish - including the original issues. The SACDs that have been released are beautiful. Also. most VOX/Nonesuch pressing were terrible. The recent SACD re-release of Ravel's Daphnis et Chloe ballet by Skrowejewski and the Minnesota Orchestra on Mobile Fidelity sounds glorious when compared with the original Vox-Box release on vinyl (which I have). OTOH, the Classic Records re-releases on vinyl of many of the RCA Victor Red Seals sound somewhat better than the BMC released SACDs of these same titles, with the 45-RPM/single sided reissues sounding best. But having said that, the Red Seal RCA SACDs sound better than ANY previous re-release of this material either on Vinyl or CD. I recognize that a lot of this has to do with the quality of the re-mastering more than it has to do with the media, but, there it is... I haven't gone down the SACD route therefore I'm unable to comment but do note with great interest what you say about Red Seal RCA's of which I have a number. My LP listening last night was for example was mixed, Elgar's Apostles & The Kingdom, Boult. Shehedrin's Carmen. Beethoven Piano Concerto No 4 Ozwa, Chabrier Espana Paray and just for comparison the CD and LP of Mark Knopflers Shangri-Lar, right from the start listening to '5:15am' the LP won hands down. Because being content with my system over many years therefore I have not seeked advancement. I'm now 65 and probably have some age related HF loss however whilst my system still sounds stunning to me (and others) I'll just carry on finding good LP's and possibly now explore SACD. |
|
#23
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Food for Thought
On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 04:17:55 -0700, Mike Gilmour wrote
(in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message ... On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 16:18:30 -0700, Mike Gilmour wrote (in article ): Personally speaking I abhor the care handling and cleaning routine that LPs necessarily require. As my general preference is towards listening to vinyl that routine is obviously essential to preserve the sonic quality of my recordings therefore I accept it but grudgingly. I have gone down that route of tranferring vinyl to CD but still prefer listening to the original LP. On LPs that sound superior to their CD counterparts, I agree. However, I have found that transferring these LPs to CD STILL yields a CD that sounds superior to the CD release of the same title. I have to admit that I have NEVER done a blind comparison of one of these "super LPs" to a digital copy of itself to see if I can detect any difference between the LP and the CD copy of it. It is just down to my personal preference, I also have never completed a strict blind comparison. I just feel although the CD copy is very good it still just doesn't for me have that indefinable believability of vinyl - its probably psychological in nature but there quite strongly for me never-the-less. Many may argue that because of the age of my system and the huge technological advances in the interim I could be convinced otherwise - (but have not yet been yet). My system harks back to ARC SP11 MkII, Koetsu Onyx platinum, NRG plus modified Ray Lumley amplifiers, Infinity RS1b speakers etc. - so generally very much of the 80's. Yet, I doubt that most of your equipment would be bettered by anything newer (maybe speakers excepted - they have improved more than electronics). As an owner of an SP-11 MkII, myself, I can tell you that no modern preamp is any better, and damned few are as comprehensive or as flexible. It basically comes down to technology maturity. Amplifiers and preamp circuitry is a pretty mature technology and little has changed in the last 20 or so years (except the price). In my collection I've several same recordings on both CD and LP and in most cases I prefer the LP, to me it gives the illusion of being nearer to real music in a believable space that I escape into. Yes, that's a common comment and for the most part, I agree. I have lots of CDs and SACDs which were bought to replace LPs of the same title, often the LP still sounds better, but in some cases, the LP only hints at what was obviously on the master tape. A couple of cases in-point off the top of my head: The Vanguard LP of Virgil Thompson's "Plow that Broke The Plains" and "The River" suites with Leopold Stokowski and the St. Louis Symphony. I always thought that the LP sounded pretty good UNTIL I got the SACD re-release. I was bowled over by how much better the SACD sounded over the LP. Another case are all of the Everest releases (most of which were recorded by the late Bert Whyte). Every vinyl copy of any Everest recording I've ever heard was rubbish - including the original issues. The SACDs that have been released are beautiful. Also. most VOX/Nonesuch pressing were terrible. The recent SACD re-release of Ravel's Daphnis et Chloe ballet by Skrowejewski and the Minnesota Orchestra on Mobile Fidelity sounds glorious when compared with the original Vox-Box release on vinyl (which I have). OTOH, the Classic Records re-releases on vinyl of many of the RCA Victor Red Seals sound somewhat better than the BMC released SACDs of these same titles, with the 45-RPM/single sided reissues sounding best. But having said that, the Red Seal RCA SACDs sound better than ANY previous re-release of this material either on Vinyl or CD. I recognize that a lot of this has to do with the quality of the re-mastering more than it has to do with the media, but, there it is... I haven't gone down the SACD route therefore I'm unable to comment but do note with great interest what you say about Red Seal RCA's of which I have a number. My LP listening last night was for example was mixed, Elgar's Apostles & The Kingdom, Boult. Shehedrin's Carmen. Beethoven Piano Concerto No 4 Ozwa, Chabrier Espana Paray and just for comparison the CD and LP of Mark Knopflers Shangri-Lar, right from the start listening to '5:15am' the LP won hands down. Because being content with my system over many years therefore I have not seeked advancement. I'm now 65 and probably have some age related HF loss however whilst my system still sounds stunning to me (and others) I'll just carry on finding good LP's and possibly now explore SACD. I'm not sure you need to explore SACD. I don't find that it sounds appreciably different from a good, modern, CD player. I have and SACD player and hundreds of SACDs MOSTLY because Sony sent them to me to review. The marvelous RCA SACD reissues are hybrid, two-layer discs and the wonderful remastering that BMC has done on these perennials is as evident on the red book layer as it is on the SACD layer. While age is a factor with regard to HF extension in one's hearing, the brain marvelously compensates. My good friend, J. Gordon Holt is near 80, yet when he tells me that a certain speaker has terrible (or great) high frequency performance, I can bank on it being true. |
|
#24
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Food for Thought
On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 01:32:44 -0700, bob wrote
(in article ): On Sep 28, 7:18*pm, "Mike Gilmour" wrote: I have gone down that route of tranferring vinyl to CD but still prefer listening to the original LP. There are two possible explanations for this: 1) You don't make very good digital copies; or 2) There's something other than the sound which leads you to prefer playing the original LP. In my collection I've several same recordings on both CD and LP and in most cases I prefer the LP, to me it gives the illusion of being nearer to real music in a believable space that I escape into. Again, #2 above may offer at least a partial explanation for this. bob Or, it just might be that he finds that vinyl sounds more like real music played in real space to him - something that you seem to discount. There is a certain type of audiophile who is looking for an illusion. That illusion is of real musicians playing in real space in HIS listening room. We are, most of us, asking a two-channel medium with imperfect transducers at each end of the chain to do an impossible task. That being the case, we have to "fill-in" the reproduction voids with both imagination and technology which is psychoacoustically consonant with that goal. Since that is what we are dealing with, it becomes clear that the possibility exists that "accurate" actually does not necessarily equal more musical or even more real. For a large number of posters on this group, it seems that they believe that the more accurate the playback chain, the more realistic the presentation simply HAS TO BE. There is no doubt that CD is more accurate than LP, but for some reason, many people find LP more musically engaging. I believe, that at its best, LP is MORE musical than CD, which does suggest that the errors introduced by the old phonograph record and the system that produces and plays it, can be more consonant with the sound of real music played in a real space. And that this is so because and, in large measure, in spite of, the fact that it is not terribly accurate. That puts us in two camps: Those who say that the definition of High Fidelity - "Faithful to the original" is best served by the performance being recorded and played-back by systems which are as accurate as technology allows, and the others who believe that this goal is best served by a palpable illusion of the original performance. As I see it, neither side is strictly right or wrong. This is a hobby. One that is hopefully driven by a love of music. LP or CD, tubes or transistors, whatever gets one closer to the music, closer to one's own muse, is the correct path. |
|
#25
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Food for Thought
On Sep 29, 3:00*pm, Sonnova wrote:
Or, it just might be that he finds that vinyl sounds more like real music played in real space to him - something that you seem to discount. I discount it because it isn't physically possible, given what he's said. If he prefers the LP to an accurate CDR of the LP, then that preference is based on something other than the *sound* of them, because the sound of the two will be pretty much identical. You're right about the fact that this is all about illusion. But the illusion is not necessarily a function of the sound; it is a function of the entire experience of LP vs. CD. And once you eliminate sound as an explanation, you're left only with non-sonic factors. You seem to not want to give up sound as an explanation, but in the case of LP vs. CDR, that explanation isn't available. I believe, that at its best, LP is MORE musical than CD, which does suggest that the errors introduced by the old phonograph record and the system that produces and plays it, can be more consonant with the sound of real music played in a real space. And that this is so because and, in large measure, in spite of, the fact that it is not terribly accurate. You do realize how implausible that is, don't you? The only way that a more distorting medium can sound more like the original is if the added distortion somehow reverses distortion earlier in the chain. I think we can be pretty sure that's not what's happening. The more plausible explanations a 1) He just likes the sound with the added distortion, and convinces himself that he likes it because it "sounds closer to the real thing," even though it demonstrably doesn't. 2) The act of playing an LP influences his sonic judgment. bob |
|
#26
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Food for Thought
On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 13:07:10 -0700, bob wrote
(in article ): On Sep 29, 3:00*pm, Sonnova wrote: Or, it just might be that he finds that vinyl sounds more like real music played in real space to him - something that you seem to discount. I discount it because it isn't physically possible, given what he's said. If he prefers the LP to an accurate CDR of the LP, then that preference is based on something other than the *sound* of them, because the sound of the two will be pretty much identical. I can't answer that because I have never A-B'd the two in a blind test so as to make that determination. Logic says that they would be identical, and if, in a blind test, I couldn't tell the LP from a CD made from it, then I'd have to agree with that logic. You're right about the fact that this is all about illusion. But the illusion is not necessarily a function of the sound; it is a function of the entire experience of LP vs. CD. And once you eliminate sound as an explanation, you're left only with non-sonic factors. You seem to not want to give up sound as an explanation, but in the case of LP vs. CDR, that explanation isn't available. I don't give up the sound as an explanation. It is my theory that the analog distortions introduced by the LP are complementary to the music, and while definitely not accurate, are, nonetheless, more "musical". I believe, that at its best, LP is MORE musical than CD, which does suggest that the errors introduced by the old phonograph record and the system that produces and plays it, can be more consonant with the sound of real music played in a real space. And that this is so because and, in large measure, in spite of, the fact that it is not terribly accurate. You do realize how implausible that is, don't you? The only way that a more distorting medium can sound more like the original is if the added distortion somehow reverses distortion earlier in the chain. Ah, I think we have hit upon a key phrase that might explain the seeming difference in our outlook. You said, above, that more distortion can't sound more like the original unless that distortion cancels other distortions introduced earlier in the chain. At this point, it is not about the presentation sounding more like the original. See, most of us weren't there when the original was made, therefore the actual sound of the original is largely irrelevant to the listening experience. What is relevant is how musically satisfying the reproduction is to the listener. Whatever it takes to complete the mental "picture" of real musicians playing in real space is the important goal of music reproduction in the listening room - at least as I see it. If an LP does that better than a CD, then so be it. Like I've said before, I have LPs that sound so good, its difficult to believe that its a recording, on the other hand I've digital recordings that give mighty convincing glimpses of the muse too. I think we can be pretty sure that's not what's happening. I'm not as sure about that as you are. The more plausible explanations a 1) He just likes the sound with the added distortion, and convinces himself that he likes it because it "sounds closer to the real thing," even though it demonstrably doesn't. This is a good stab at it. It might not "sound closer to the real thing", but it might sound more like real music played in real space. Like I said. few of us have been lucky enough to be present at the "real thing", and thus don't know what it actually sounded like. What we do have is our own particular vision, based partially on aural memory and partly on imagination about what the real thing "ought" to sound like. BTW, I was lucky enough to be present at the recording of one very famous LP. The recording, by Verve, in the early 1960's of Stan Getz and Charlie Byrd's famous "Jazz Samba" album. It was recorded to 35mm magnetic film at "All Souls Unitarian Church" in Washington DC, and I was there courtesy of a radio station engineer friend of mine who found the venue for Byrd. 2) The act of playing an LP influences his sonic judgment. That MIGHT be true to some extent, but certainly in my case I don't give it much weight. bob There's no way that I'm going to convince you of this, but when distortion "fills-in the blanks" of an incomplete facsimile, the brain integrates those distortions into the overall experience, and depending upon what that experience is, it can enrichen that experience. Digital lacks the vinyl artifacts, therefore the facsimile of the performance in incomplete in a way that can sound threadbare to some listeners. The analog artifacts "complete" the picture, albeit with distortions not present in the original sound and this can sound more "whole" than the more accurate, but more incomplete digital presentation. This is hard to explain, but I hope that I have made my hypothesis clear. |
|
#27
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Food for Thought
"bob" wrote in message
... On Sep 28, 7:18 pm, "Mike Gilmour" wrote: I have gone down that route of tranferring vinyl to CD but still prefer listening to the original LP. There are two possible explanations for this: 1) You don't make very good digital copies; or 2) There's something other than the sound which leads you to prefer playing the original LP. I believe that is called "begging the question". You rule out any other possibility by fiat, then conclude it must be one of these two. |
|
#28
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Food for Thought
Doug McDonald wrote:
It's very simple. There are two things: some people actually are attuned to bad reproduction. They adore the erros of analog, especially clicks and pops and surface grunge. It might be that some older music lovers just have a lot of records and never got around to replacing them. The second is that some people are attuned to tweeking. They love the care and feeding that LPs required. I think there is a lot to that. I have a many records I listen to; they are in good shape and it's what I grew up on. I'd never advise anyone to get involved with records unless they just want to make it a hobby, and have plenty of disposable income. I personally don't see the point, from a music and sonic standpoint. Some music may sound as good on records, as CD. But, say, for lieder and Wagner opera, the limitations of records are very obvious. That does not mean one cannot enjoy them if that's what they have. But why start out backwards? Also, in many respects, phono cartridges are just men's jewelry. One only need look at the latest line of Koetsu pick-ups. Most men don't want to wear jade earrings. But they have no qualms about putting jade and gold on their record player. Michael |
|
#29
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Food for Thought
bob wrote:
On Sep 29, 3:00*pm, Sonnova wrote: Or, it just might be that he finds that vinyl sounds more like real music played in real space to him - something that you seem to discount. I discount it because it isn't physically possible, given what he's said. If he prefers the LP to an accurate CDR of the LP, then that preference is based on something other than the *sound* of them, because the sound of the two will be pretty much identical. It should be. There could be ways to screw that up, of course. Or even a simple thing like, the output level of the playback CDP being different enough from that of the phono stage, to produce an audible level difference (whcih can easily 'translate' into a report of 'quality' difference). Level matching would be a must for a fair comparison...as would doing the comparison 'blind', which would be tough since it would require time-synching. You're right about the fact that this is all about illusion. But the illusion is not necessarily a function of the sound; it is a function of the entire experience of LP vs. CD. And once you eliminate sound as an explanation, you're left only with non-sonic factors. You seem to not want to give up sound as an explanation, but in the case of LP vs. CDR, that explanation isn't available. Analogophiles, for whatever reason, seem to really want to believe that there's something ineffable that digital can't capture, even when it's just a 'capture' of an analog recording like an LP (rather than of a live event). I believe, that at its best, LP is MORE musical than CD, which does suggest that the errors introduced by the old phonograph record and the system that produces and plays it, can be more consonant with the sound of real music played in a real space. And that this is so because and, in large measure, in spite of, the fact that it is not terribly accurate. You do realize how implausible that is, don't you? The only way that a more distorting medium can sound more like the original is if the added distortion somehow reverses distortion earlier in the chain. Or later. The other way would be if it luckily mitigates 'typical' loudspeaker and listening room response errors...whatever those might be. (They'd have to be typical enough to account for LP preference in a wide variety of speakers and rooms.) All of which seems odd because, before the dawn of CD, the deficiencies of LP playback were a common source of complaint in the audio hobby world. Regardless of whether some feel CD did not fulfill the promise, they can't deny what the 'state of play' was before it, and how eagerly a new solution was awaited...and why. -- -S A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence. -- David Hume, "On Miracles" (1748) |
|
#30
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Food for Thought
I have not followed this thread in any detail but have seen the lines it
has taken. Aside from the obvious problem of comparing apples to apples for the same recording on different media we are left still where many of these questions start. What part of what is percieved is in the signal when it reaches the ear and what part the end product of the perception process of the brain. I mention again a test to address this question. A lp was recorded into a digital format. With the usual attempts to control potential confoundrs such as playback level etc. people were asked to tell which was which in a blind test. They could not. Thus any factor that is said to be added or lost or otherwise modified by media choice did not appear. What ever was on the lp was faithfully and realistically captured in full as far as listening alone goes. If a lp is made of a mic feed and from the same feed put on a cd then any difference appearing in the test would be most logically a product of something being added by the lp recording process and not the cd. This is because the above test already established that whatever signal is fed it is there to be played back via the cd. If the lp is said to have some different attribute then it is on the order of signal processing and added effects in nature that did not exist at the mic feed.. If the mic feed is as "real" as can be captured then whatever the added lp attribute can not bemore "real" nor "musical" compared to the music as it was being recorded and found at the mic feed. One can like the added signal processing and effects but that is another matter. It is a processing and effect outcome not intended by the artists involved or they would have added it themselves as an artistic decision. |
|
#31
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Food for Thought
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
... bob wrote: On Sep 29, 3:00 pm, Sonnova wrote: Or, it just might be that he finds that vinyl sounds more like real music played in real space to him - something that you seem to discount. I discount it because it isn't physically possible, given what he's said. If he prefers the LP to an accurate CDR of the LP, then that preference is based on something other than the *sound* of them, because the sound of the two will be pretty much identical. It should be. There could be ways to screw that up, of course. Or even a simple thing like, the output level of the playback CDP being different enough from that of the phono stage, to produce an audible level difference (whcih can easily 'translate' into a report of 'quality' difference). Level matching would be a must for a fair comparison...as would doing the comparison 'blind', which would be tough since it would require time-synching. FYI recording chain wes SP11 Delta DiO 2496 soundcard Adobe Audition CD Tried again today and recorded LP to CD, playback level matched and I still continue to prefer the LP to the CD copy, no doubt it's an illusion for whatever reason. However I accept illusionary as no double blind tests were involved in my choice of my equipment, just my ears after a period of home trial. I accepted this as with my choice of cables. I still prefer to this day the unmanageable and generally unsightly Cogan-Hall as I believe they sound much better than other cables I've heard the system though I'm sure double blind tests would show otherwise. I accept the illusion though scientifically I would really prefer to know the specific reason why this happens atall. You're right about the fact that this is all about illusion. But the illusion is not necessarily a function of the sound; it is a function of the entire experience of LP vs. CD. And once you eliminate sound as an explanation, you're left only with non-sonic factors. You seem to not want to give up sound as an explanation, but in the case of LP vs. CDR, that explanation isn't available. Analogophiles, for whatever reason, seem to really want to believe that there's something ineffable that digital can't capture, even when it's just a 'capture' of an analog recording like an LP (rather than of a live event). |
|
#32
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Food for Thought
On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 15:49:52 -0700, Mike Gilmour wrote
(in article ): "Steven Sullivan" wrote in message ... bob wrote: On Sep 29, 3:00 pm, Sonnova wrote: Or, it just might be that he finds that vinyl sounds more like real music played in real space to him - something that you seem to discount. I discount it because it isn't physically possible, given what he's said. If he prefers the LP to an accurate CDR of the LP, then that preference is based on something other than the *sound* of them, because the sound of the two will be pretty much identical. It should be. There could be ways to screw that up, of course. Or even a simple thing like, the output level of the playback CDP being different enough from that of the phono stage, to produce an audible level difference (whcih can easily 'translate' into a report of 'quality' difference). Level matching would be a must for a fair comparison...as would doing the comparison 'blind', which would be tough since it would require time-synching. FYI recording chain wes SP11 Delta DiO 2496 soundcard Adobe Audition CD Tried again today and recorded LP to CD, playback level matched and I still continue to prefer the LP to the CD copy, no doubt it's an illusion for whatever reason. However I accept illusionary as no double blind tests were involved in my choice of my equipment, just my ears after a period of home trial. I accepted this as with my choice of cables. I still prefer to this day the unmanageable and generally unsightly Cogan-Hall as I believe they sound much better than other cables I've heard the system though I'm sure double blind tests would show otherwise. I accept the illusion though scientifically I would really prefer to know the specific reason why this happens atall. For what it's worth, I don't think computer sound cards do a very good job at this (unless they are VERY expensive professional cards from the likes of Apogee, and the like). I've always had better results (sonically) from CDs made on my TASCAM CD-RW700 stand-alone CD recorder. |
|
#33
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Food for Thought
|
|
#34
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Food for Thought
"Sonnova" wrote in message
... On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 15:49:52 -0700, Mike Gilmour wrote (in article ): "Steven Sullivan" wrote in message ... bob wrote: On Sep 29, 3:00 pm, Sonnova wrote: Or, it just might be that he finds that vinyl sounds more like real music played in real space to him - something that you seem to discount. I discount it because it isn't physically possible, given what he's said. If he prefers the LP to an accurate CDR of the LP, then that preference is based on something other than the *sound* of them, because the sound of the two will be pretty much identical. It should be. There could be ways to screw that up, of course. Or even a simple thing like, the output level of the playback CDP being different enough from that of the phono stage, to produce an audible level difference (whcih can easily 'translate' into a report of 'quality' difference). Level matching would be a must for a fair comparison...as would doing the comparison 'blind', which would be tough since it would require time-synching. FYI recording chain wes SP11 Delta DiO 2496 soundcard Adobe Audition CD Tried again today and recorded LP to CD, playback level matched and I still continue to prefer the LP to the CD copy, no doubt it's an illusion for whatever reason. However I accept illusionary as no double blind tests were involved in my choice of my equipment, just my ears after a period of home trial. I accepted this as with my choice of cables. I still prefer to this day the unmanageable and generally unsightly Cogan-Hall as I believe they sound much better than other cables I've heard the system though I'm sure double blind tests would show otherwise. I accept the illusion though scientifically I would really prefer to know the specific reason why this happens atall. For what it's worth, I don't think computer sound cards do a very good job at this (unless they are VERY expensive professional cards from the likes of Apogee, and the like). I've always had better results (sonically) from CDs made on my TASCAM CD-RW700 stand-alone CD recorder. Ok, thanks, a valid point regarding the sound card. I'll try again tomorrow on what I have, which is a Tascam DA-45HR DAT and burn the CD from the digital output. I'll use high speed on the DAT to be at it's best quality. I've done many HR recordings of live venues on this DAT with Millenia Media HV-3B mic pre and Neumann mics in the past so I know of its transparency. Similiarly like you I also used to collect CD promo's, as I presented a two hour live jazz programme each week on local radio for years so still my jazz collection exceeds that of my classical choices by a considerable margin. (My only wish is that I'd done it all a lot earlier when vinyl promo's were available) |
|
#35
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Food for Thought
Sonnova wrote:
On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 15:49:52 -0700, Mike Gilmour wrote (in article ): "Steven Sullivan" wrote in message ... bob wrote: On Sep 29, 3:00 pm, Sonnova wrote: Or, it just might be that he finds that vinyl sounds more like real music played in real space to him - something that you seem to discount. I discount it because it isn't physically possible, given what he's said. If he prefers the LP to an accurate CDR of the LP, then that preference is based on something other than the *sound* of them, because the sound of the two will be pretty much identical. It should be. There could be ways to screw that up, of course. Or even a simple thing like, the output level of the playback CDP being different enough from that of the phono stage, to produce an audible level difference (whcih can easily 'translate' into a report of 'quality' difference). Level matching would be a must for a fair comparison...as would doing the comparison 'blind', which would be tough since it would require time-synching. FYI recording chain wes SP11 Delta DiO 2496 soundcard Adobe Audition CD Tried again today and recorded LP to CD, playback level matched and I still continue to prefer the LP to the CD copy, no doubt it's an illusion for whatever reason. However I accept illusionary as no double blind tests were involved in my choice of my equipment, just my ears after a period of home trial. I accepted this as with my choice of cables. I still prefer to this day the unmanageable and generally unsightly Cogan-Hall as I believe they sound much better than other cables I've heard the system though I'm sure double blind tests would show otherwise. I accept the illusion though scientifically I would really prefer to know the specific reason why this happens atall. For what it's worth, I don't think computer sound cards do a very good job at this (unless they are VERY expensive professional cards from the likes of Apogee, and the like) Actually, many modern computer sounds cards , and certainly those of the M-audio Delta class, do a *very* good job at this. I use an M-Audio 2496 myself for LP transfers. I've always had better results (sonically) from CDs made on my TASCAM CD-RW700 stand-alone CD recorder. But your evaluation probably suffered from the same methodologiccal flaw that the Mike acknowledges in his. I.e., it wasn't done double blind. And that's imporatant because there's no objective reason to expect a REAL sonic difference between recording from LP on a Delta 2496 and your standalone Tascam, assuming matched levels and a non-pathological computer environment for the M-audio card. -- -S A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence. -- David Hume, "On Miracles" (1748) |
|
#36
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Food for Thought
On Thu, 2 Oct 2008 05:59:36 -0700, Steven Sullivan wrote
(in article ): Sonnova wrote: On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 15:49:52 -0700, Mike Gilmour wrote (in article ): "Steven Sullivan" wrote in message ... bob wrote: On Sep 29, 3:00 pm, Sonnova wrote: Or, it just might be that he finds that vinyl sounds more like real music played in real space to him - something that you seem to discount. I discount it because it isn't physically possible, given what he's said. If he prefers the LP to an accurate CDR of the LP, then that preference is based on something other than the *sound* of them, because the sound of the two will be pretty much identical. It should be. There could be ways to screw that up, of course. Or even a simple thing like, the output level of the playback CDP being different enough from that of the phono stage, to produce an audible level difference (whcih can easily 'translate' into a report of 'quality' difference). Level matching would be a must for a fair comparison...as would doing the comparison 'blind', which would be tough since it would require time-synching. FYI recording chain wes SP11 Delta DiO 2496 soundcard Adobe Audition CD Tried again today and recorded LP to CD, playback level matched and I still continue to prefer the LP to the CD copy, no doubt it's an illusion for whatever reason. However I accept illusionary as no double blind tests were involved in my choice of my equipment, just my ears after a period of home trial. I accepted this as with my choice of cables. I still prefer to this day the unmanageable and generally unsightly Cogan-Hall as I believe they sound much better than other cables I've heard the system though I'm sure double blind tests would show otherwise. I accept the illusion though scientifically I would really prefer to know the specific reason why this happens atall. For what it's worth, I don't think computer sound cards do a very good job at this (unless they are VERY expensive professional cards from the likes of Apogee, and the like) Actually, many modern computer sounds cards , and certainly those of the M-audio Delta class, do a *very* good job at this. I use an M-Audio 2496 myself for LP transfers. I've always had better results (sonically) from CDs made on my TASCAM CD-RW700 stand-alone CD recorder. But your evaluation probably suffered from the same methodologiccal flaw that the Mike acknowledges in his. I.e., it wasn't done double blind. And that's imporatant because there's no objective reason to expect a REAL sonic difference between recording from LP on a Delta 2496 and your standalone Tascam, assuming matched levels and a non-pathological computer environment for the M-audio card. Computers tend to be noisy environments with all manner of high frequency square-waves and general hash flowing around and radiating from them. While many sound card vendors are careful to provide as much common-mode protection as possible, the amount of shielding needed to keep this garbage out of the incoming audio is generally only available in very expensive cards. Try this. using a shorting plug on the input, try making a CD on your computer of NOTHING and then play it back on your stereo system. You'll have to turn the volume up, of course, but you will hear what I'm talking about. Now, use a good, stand-alone recorder like the earlier mentioned TASCAM and make a recording on it from the similarly shorted analog inputs and listen to it. It will likely be pretty close to dead quiet. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Oil For Food? | Audio Opinions | |||
| Food for mind | Audio Opinions | |||
| More food for thought | Audio Opinions | |||
| Studio Food | Pro Audio | |||
Linear Mode
