Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Turntable report
Hi all,
A couple of weeks ago, I solicited opinions on whether I should pruchase a new lower cost TT like the Pro-ject, et al, or refurbish my old Denon DP-62-L that had been in storage for some time, as I reenter the analogue world. Well, I took the TT in to my trusty local store, Audio Ectasy, and had them mount a new Grado Red, Audioquest mat, and replace the stock cable with Audioquest. I also bought a Record Doctor and some isolation feet from Audio Advisor. I've lived with the combo for a few days now. The results? WONDERFUL! After having spent a week in Carnegie Hall recently, conducting and hearing 4 concerts, I now remember why I like analogue so much. It's MUCH more like music in a good hall. Thanks to everyone for your advice. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Jenn wrote:
Hi all, A couple of weeks ago, I solicited opinions on whether I should pruchase a new lower cost TT like the Pro-ject, et al, or refurbish my old Denon DP-62-L that had been in storage for some time, as I reenter the analogue world. Well, I took the TT in to my trusty local store, Audio Ectasy, and had them mount a new Grado Red, Audioquest mat, and replace the stock cable with Audioquest. I also bought a Record Doctor and some isolation feet from Audio Advisor. I've lived with the combo for a few days now. The results? WONDERFUL! After having spent a week in Carnegie Hall recently, conducting and hearing 4 concerts, I now remember why I like analogue so much. It's MUCH more like music in a good hall. Thanks to everyone for your advice. Hmmm, someone who lives with live music and thinks vinyl is much more like it than CD playback. And with an entry level system no less. I'm surprised no one has chimmed in and called you a promoter of mythology. I am glad you were able to find simple solutions to your needs and things worked out well. And just think, there is still much room for improvement should you choose to seek it. Enjoy the music. Thanks for the report. Scott Wheeler |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
wrote:
wrote: Jenn wrote: Hi all, A couple of weeks ago, I solicited opinions on whether I should pruchase a new lower cost TT like the Pro-ject, et al, or refurbish my old Denon DP-62-L that had been in storage for some time, as I reenter the analogue world. Well, I took the TT in to my trusty local store, Audio Ectasy, and had them mount a new Grado Red, Audioquest mat, and replace the stock cable with Audioquest. I also bought a Record Doctor and some isolation feet from Audio Advisor. I've lived with the combo for a few days now. The results? WONDERFUL! After having spent a week in Carnegie Hall recently, conducting and hearing 4 concerts, I now remember why I like analogue so much. It's MUCH more like music in a good hall. Thanks to everyone for your advice. Hmmm, someone who lives with live music and thinks vinyl is much more like it than CD playback. And with an entry level system no less. Hmmm, does this mean that the next time someone suggests that vinyl is less than perfect, we won't hear in response, "Well, that's because you've never heard a really high-end rig"? Who ever said vinyl was perfect? The point of using a high end rig for comparisons to CD is for the sake of hearing each medium at their best. What does it mean to say one prefers CD over vinyl when the comparison is made with inferior vinyl playback equipment? Scott Wheeler |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
chung wrote:
wrote: wrote: Jenn wrote: Hi all, A couple of weeks ago, I solicited opinions on whether I should pruchase a new lower cost TT like the Pro-ject, et al, or refurbish my old Denon DP-62-L that had been in storage for some time, as I reenter the analogue world. Well, I took the TT in to my trusty local store, Audio Ectasy, and had them mount a new Grado Red, Audioquest mat, and replace the stock cable with Audioquest. I also bought a Record Doctor and some isolation feet from Audio Advisor. I've lived with the combo for a few days now. The results? WONDERFUL! After having spent a week in Carnegie Hall recently, conducting and hearing 4 concerts, I now remember why I like analogue so much. It's MUCH more like music in a good hall. Thanks to everyone for your advice. Hmmm, someone who lives with live music and thinks vinyl is much more like it than CD playback. And with an entry level system no less. Hmmm, does this mean that the next time someone suggests that vinyl is less than perfect, we won't hear in response, "Well, that's because you've never heard a really high-end rig"? bob Well, I attended a piano recital by the rising star Yundi Li last week. And throughout the recital, I kept thinking how close my CD rig sounds to the live piano I was hearing. You know, the solid sustained notes, Solid sustained notes? I've certainly heard this on numerous CDs of piano but never on a live piano. This is one of the most easily identifiable shortcomings one can hear on most CDs. A sustained note on a real piano is anything but solid. the great dynamic range, and so on. There was no way the LP can reproduce that piano sound without very noticeable degradation. There is no way any recording/playback system can reproduce a live piano without very noticable degradation. I doubt your system CD player and all are really any exception. That was a reminder of why I like digital so much. As someone who owns a grand piano, I can say without any doubt that the CD sounds so much better than vinyl on piano music. Opinions abound. The person who started this thread clearly disagrees. It seems she does speak from considerable experience with live music. And to the OP, someone *could* have said "But you have not heard a decent CD rig and decently recorded CD's!" But of course, we won't resort to that. Of course not. You believe they all sound the same don't you? Does anybody believe all turntable rigs sound the same? BTW, none of Yundi Li's music is available on vinyl. Only on CD's. Only CD? Can't get it on MP3? Scott Wheeler |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
On 18 Apr 2005 03:33:41 GMT, wrote:
wrote: wrote: Hmmm, someone who lives with live music and thinks vinyl is much more like it than CD playback. And with an entry level system no less. Hmmm, does this mean that the next time someone suggests that vinyl is less than perfect, we won't hear in response, "Well, that's because you've never heard a really high-end rig"? Who ever said vinyl was perfect? The point of using a high end rig for comparisons to CD is for the sake of hearing each medium at their best. What does it mean to say one prefers CD over vinyl when the comparison is made with inferior vinyl playback equipment? It means that it's the standard copout for vinylphiles, much like the somewhat suspicious original post implying that those who live with live music prefer vinyl. Heads up now, what really launched CD into the mass market was *classical* music listeners, i.e. people who live with live music. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
In article , chung
wrote: Well, I attended a piano recital by the rising star Yundi Li last week. And throughout the recital, I kept thinking how close my CD rig sounds to the live piano I was hearing. You know, the solid sustained notes, the great dynamic range, and so on. There was no way the LP can reproduce that piano sound without very noticeable degradation. That was a reminder of why I like digital so much. As someone who owns a grand piano, I can say without any doubt that the CD sounds so much better than vinyl on piano music. I have heard that is the case. I don't know why the piano should almost always sound so much better on CD when other instruments don't (always). You might think it is the percussive qualities, which a needle in a groove might have trouble tracking, but certain drum sounds seem usually to work better on vinyl, although not as much so as they used to. There is no doubt CD is getting very good, which means it must be close to being replaced. Vinyl showed the most improvement after CD came out. Cd will probably do likewise when the next best thing comes along. Maybe that is SACD or DVD-A. Only time will tell. Then, of course, there will be the CD people who claim the new stuff doesn't sound as good, and it won't for a long time. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Stewart: It means that it's the standard copout for vinylphiles,
much like the somewhat suspicious original post implying that those who live with live music prefer vinyl. Heads up now, what really..... Pardon me.... I don't know makes my post "somewhat suspicious" to you, but... whatever. Nor did I imply "that those who live with live music prefer vinyl." I simply stated that ***I*** prefer vinyl. I also enjoy listening to CD at times. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
wrote:
chung wrote: wrote: wrote: Jenn wrote: Hi all, A couple of weeks ago, I solicited opinions on whether I should pruchase a new lower cost TT like the Pro-ject, et al, or refurbish my old Denon DP-62-L that had been in storage for some time, as I reenter the analogue world. Well, I took the TT in to my trusty local store, Audio Ectasy, and had them mount a new Grado Red, Audioquest mat, and replace the stock cable with Audioquest. I also bought a Record Doctor and some isolation feet from Audio Advisor. I've lived with the combo for a few days now. The results? WONDERFUL! After having spent a week in Carnegie Hall recently, conducting and hearing 4 concerts, I now remember why I like analogue so much. It's MUCH more like music in a good hall. Thanks to everyone for your advice. Hmmm, someone who lives with live music and thinks vinyl is much more like it than CD playback. And with an entry level system no less. Hmmm, does this mean that the next time someone suggests that vinyl is less than perfect, we won't hear in response, "Well, that's because you've never heard a really high-end rig"? bob Well, I attended a piano recital by the rising star Yundi Li last week. And throughout the recital, I kept thinking how close my CD rig sounds to the live piano I was hearing. You know, the solid sustained notes, Solid sustained notes? I've certainly heard this on numerous CDs of piano but never on a live piano. This is one of the most easily identifiable shortcomings one can hear on most CDs. A sustained note on a real piano is anything but solid. Well, I have a grand piano, and the sustained notes are solid. Perhaps you are too used to vinyl? You think there are some magical process in CD's that stabilize those "real-life" wavering notes? Hey, there will certainly be fame and riches for you if you could figure out how... the great dynamic range, and so on. There was no way the LP can reproduce that piano sound without very noticeable degradation. There is no way any recording/playback system can reproduce a live piano without very noticable degradation. I doubt your system CD player and all are really any exception. The degradations from a CD are much less than those from vinyl. In fact, I have piano recital CD's that sound very close to the real thing. That was a reminder of why I like digital so much. As someone who owns a grand piano, I can say without any doubt that the CD sounds so much better than vinyl on piano music. Opinions abound. The person who started this thread clearly disagrees. It seems she does speak from considerable experience with live music. That's my point, in case you missed it. Opinions abound. and I speak with considerable experience from listening to a live piano. In fact, I just did. And to the OP, someone *could* have said "But you have not heard a decent CD rig and decently recorded CD's!" But of course, we won't resort to that. Of course not. You believe they all sound the same don't you? Does anybody believe all turntable rigs sound the same? No, some CD rigs sound bad because of poor speakers. And then there are poorly recorded/mastered CD's. Of course, the competent CD players sound very similar, but you know that. BTW, none of Yundi Li's music is available on vinyl. Only on CD's. Only CD? Can't get it on MP3? You can make mp3's out of CD's, of course. What exactly is your point, or do you have one? |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Robert Peirce wrote:
In article , chung wrote: Well, I attended a piano recital by the rising star Yundi Li last week. And throughout the recital, I kept thinking how close my CD rig sounds to the live piano I was hearing. You know, the solid sustained notes, the great dynamic range, and so on. There was no way the LP can reproduce that piano sound without very noticeable degradation. That was a reminder of why I like digital so much. As someone who owns a grand piano, I can say without any doubt that the CD sounds so much better than vinyl on piano music. I have heard that is the case. I don't know why the piano should almost always sound so much better on CD when other instruments don't (always). You might think it is the percussive qualities, which a needle in a groove might have trouble tracking, but certain drum sounds seem usually to work better on vinyl, although not as much so as they used to. The wow and flutter have the biggest impact on solid sustained piano notes. Any inherent frquency instability (like wow and flutter) in the turntable, any slight error in the record (off-centered holes) etc., and of course any distortion and lack of dynamic range will show up readily, especially on piano solos. There is no doubt CD is getting very good, which means it must be close to being replaced. Assuming there are real advantages in the medium replacing it, of course. Vinyl showed the most improvement after CD came out. I am not sure if you can prove that statement. Some of the best discs I own are direct-to-discs made in the late 70's. Cd will probably do likewise when the next best thing comes along. Maybe that is SACD or DVD-A. Only time will tell. Time has apparently told that it is neither. Then, of course, there will be the CD people who claim the new stuff doesn't sound as good, and it won't for a long time. It's more like there will be people who claim the the new stiff don't sound better...I have yet to hear people say that the hi-rez formats have less accuracy. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Chung wrote:
wrote: chung wrote: wrote: wrote: Jenn wrote: Hi all, A couple of weeks ago, I solicited opinions on whether I should pruchase a new lower cost TT like the Pro-ject, et al, or refurbish my old Denon DP-62-L that had been in storage for some time, as I reenter the analogue world. Well, I took the TT in to my trusty local store, Audio Ectasy, and had them mount a new Grado Red, Audioquest mat, and replace the stock cable with Audioquest. I also bought a Record Doctor and some isolation feet from Audio Advisor. I've lived with the combo for a few days now. The results? WONDERFUL! After having spent a week in Carnegie Hall recently, conducting and hearing 4 concerts, I now remember why I like analogue so much. It's MUCH more like music in a good hall. Thanks to everyone for your advice. Hmmm, someone who lives with live music and thinks vinyl is much more like it than CD playback. And with an entry level system no less. Hmmm, does this mean that the next time someone suggests that vinyl is less than perfect, we won't hear in response, "Well, that's because you've never heard a really high-end rig"? bob Well, I attended a piano recital by the rising star Yundi Li last week. And throughout the recital, I kept thinking how close my CD rig sounds to the live piano I was hearing. You know, the solid sustained notes, Solid sustained notes? I've certainly heard this on numerous CDs of piano but never on a live piano. This is one of the most easily identifiable shortcomings one can hear on most CDs. A sustained note on a real piano is anything but solid. Well, I have a grand piano, and the sustained notes are solid. Perhaps you are too used to vinyl? No. It is not natural for any real paino to have solid sustained notes. The decay of a note from a live piano is anything but solid. You think there are some magical process in CD's that stabilize those "real-life" wavering notes? No. Simplifying a a complex signal is not magic. Hey, there will certainly be fame and riches for you if you could figure out how... No. Just lower the resolution of any signal and ou will loose information. I'm surprised you didn't know this already. the great dynamic range, and so on. There was no way the LP can reproduce that piano sound without very noticeable degradation. There is no way any recording/playback system can reproduce a live piano without very noticable degradation. I doubt your system CD player and all are really any exception. The degradations from a CD are much less than those from vinyl. In fact, I have piano recital CD's that sound very close to the real thing. Again. I am quite skeptical of such claims. But, if you cannot hear the complexity of the decay of a sustained note on a real live piano maybe you simply aren't picking up on the substantial differences between a live piano and the recording and playback of a live piano. That was a reminder of why I like digital so much. As someone who owns a grand piano, I can say without any doubt that the CD sounds so much better than vinyl on piano music. Opinions abound. The person who started this thread clearly disagrees. It seems she does speak from considerable experience with live music. That's my point, in case you missed it. Opinions abound. and I speak with considerable experience from listening to a live piano. And yet you think the decay of a sustained note is solid. I'm afraid that there is more to it than just experience. In fact, I just did. And to the OP, someone *could* have said "But you have not heard a decent CD rig and decently recorded CD's!" But of course, we won't resort to that. Of course not. You believe they all sound the same don't you? Does anybody believe all turntable rigs sound the same? No, some CD rigs sound bad because of poor speakers. And then there are poorly recorded/mastered CD's. Of course, the competent CD players sound very similar, but you know that. I don't know that. I know some people believe that and some believe otherwise. I have not spent much time c0omparing CD players myself. BTW, none of Yundi Li's music is available on vinyl. Only on CD's. Only CD? Can't get it on MP3? You can make mp3's out of CD's, of course. What exactly is your point, or do you have one? That it can be had on more than just CD. Wasn't it obvious? Scott Wheeler |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
"Jenn" wrote in message
... Stewart: It means that it's the standard copout for vinylphiles, much like the somewhat suspicious original post implying that those who live with live music prefer vinyl. Heads up now, what really..... Pardon me.... I don't know makes my post "somewhat suspicious" to you, but... whatever. Nor did I imply "that those who live with live music prefer vinyl." I simply stated that ***I*** prefer vinyl. I also enjoy listening to CD at times. Nevermind...your post is simply being used as a springboard for the personal agendas of some here. Doesn't mean they've actually read carefully or given any real consideration to what you said. That's increasingly commong on usenet these days, and unfortunately it has infected RAHE as well. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 18 Apr 2005 03:33:41 GMT, wrote: wrote: wrote: Hmmm, someone who lives with live music and thinks vinyl is much more like it than CD playback. And with an entry level system no less. Hmmm, does this mean that the next time someone suggests that vinyl is less than perfect, we won't hear in response, "Well, that's because you've never heard a really high-end rig"? Who ever said vinyl was perfect? The point of using a high end rig for comparisons to CD is for the sake of hearing each medium at their best. What does it mean to say one prefers CD over vinyl when the comparison is made with inferior vinyl playback equipment? It means that it's the standard copout for vinylphiles, much like the somewhat suspicious original post implying that those who live with live music prefer vinyl. Heads up now, what really launched CD into the mass market was *classical* music listeners, i.e. people who live with live music. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering Stewert gets his facts wrong again. What really launched CD into the masss market was the availablity of portable CD players and car CD players. The classical music listeners are very much a niche market that barely impact the commercial scene over all. By the way, many classical music lovers do not spend much time with live music. Scott Wheeler |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message
... Of course not. You believe they all sound the same don't you? Does anybody believe all turntable rigs sound the same? Of course not, and therein lies the problem with vinyl. The best turntable rig almost sounds as good as the least expensive CD player. Additionally the tonearm height needs to be altered whenever playing a thicker or thinner LP. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Chung wrote:
Robert Peirce wrote: In article , chung wrote: Well, I attended a piano recital by the rising star Yundi Li last week. And throughout the recital, I kept thinking how close my CD rig sounds to the live piano I was hearing. You know, the solid sustained notes, the great dynamic range, and so on. There was no way the LP can reproduce that piano sound without very noticeable degradation. That was a reminder of why I like digital so much. As someone who owns a grand piano, I can say without any doubt that the CD sounds so much better than vinyl on piano music. I have heard that is the case. I don't know why the piano should almost always sound so much better on CD when other instruments don't (always). You might think it is the percussive qualities, which a needle in a groove might have trouble tracking, but certain drum sounds seem usually to work better on vinyl, although not as much so as they used to. The wow and flutter have the biggest impact on solid sustained piano notes. Any inherent frquency instability (like wow and flutter) in the turntable, any slight error in the record (off-centered holes) etc., and of course any distortion and lack of dynamic range will show up readily, especially on piano solos. The wow/flutter issue shows up even more clearly on recordings of instruments where sustained notes don't necessarily decay...like organ and synthesizers. In that sense CD was the saviour of Bach *and* prog rock ; There is no doubt CD is getting very good, which means it must be close to being replaced. Assuming there are real advantages in the medium replacing it, of course. Vinyl showed the most improvement after CD came out. I am not sure if you can prove that statement. Some of the best discs I own are direct-to-discs made in the late 70's. Maybe he means turntable technology. Vinyl itself hasn't made any technological leaps, AFAIK. -- -S It's not my business to do intelligent work. -- D. Rumsfeld, testifying before the House Armed Services Committee |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
That's great! It is always a pleasure to be able to appreciate what
you have. -Bill www.uptownaudio.com Roanoke VA (540) 343-1250 "Jenn" wrote in message ... Hi all, A couple of weeks ago, I solicited opinions on whether I should pruchase a new lower cost TT like the Pro-ject, et al, or refurbish my old Denon DP-62-L that had been in storage for some time, as I reenter the analogue world. Well, I took the TT in to my trusty local store, Audio Ectasy, and had them mount a new Grado Red, Audioquest mat, and replace the stock cable with Audioquest. I also bought a Record Doctor and some isolation feet from Audio Advisor. I've lived with the combo for a few days now. The results? WONDERFUL! After having spent a week in Carnegie Hall recently, conducting and hearing 4 concerts, I now remember why I like analogue so much. It's MUCH more like music in a good hall. Thanks to everyone for your advice. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
wrote:
Chung wrote: wrote: chung wrote: wrote: wrote: Jenn wrote: Hi all, A couple of weeks ago, I solicited opinions on whether I should pruchase a new lower cost TT like the Pro-ject, et al, or refurbish my old Denon DP-62-L that had been in storage for some time, as I reenter the analogue world. Well, I took the TT in to my trusty local store, Audio Ectasy, and had them mount a new Grado Red, Audioquest mat, and replace the stock cable with Audioquest. I also bought a Record Doctor and some isolation feet from Audio Advisor. I've lived with the combo for a few days now. The results? WONDERFUL! After having spent a week in Carnegie Hall recently, conducting and hearing 4 concerts, I now remember why I like analogue so much. It's MUCH more like music in a good hall. Thanks to everyone for your advice. Hmmm, someone who lives with live music and thinks vinyl is much more like it than CD playback. And with an entry level system no less. Hmmm, does this mean that the next time someone suggests that vinyl is less than perfect, we won't hear in response, "Well, that's because you've never heard a really high-end rig"? bob Well, I attended a piano recital by the rising star Yundi Li last week. And throughout the recital, I kept thinking how close my CD rig sounds to the live piano I was hearing. You know, the solid sustained notes, Solid sustained notes? I've certainly heard this on numerous CDs of piano but never on a live piano. This is one of the most easily identifiable shortcomings one can hear on most CDs. A sustained note on a real piano is anything but solid. Well, I have a grand piano, and the sustained notes are solid. Perhaps you are too used to vinyl? No. It is not natural for any real paino to have solid sustained notes. The decay of a note from a live piano is anything but solid. Perhaps you were confused when I said solid sustained notes. I meant the frequency of the notes, and not amplitude. I thought it was obvious from the context, but I guess one never knows. So, it is perfectly natural for a real piano to have solid sustained notes in terms of frequency stability. Now, do you still want to argue that it's not the case? You think there are some magical process in CD's that stabilize those "real-life" wavering notes? No. Simplifying a a complex signal is not magic. Taking out the frequency variations (which caused the wavering of the pitch) is almost magic... Now, do you think the CD is capable of removing frequency instability? Hey, there will certainly be fame and riches for you if you could figure out how... No. Just lower the resolution of any signal and ou will loose information. I'm surprised you didn't know this already. If you can lower the resolution and hence remove the frequency instability, there will certainly be fame and riches for you. the great dynamic range, and so on. There was no way the LP can reproduce that piano sound without very noticeable degradation. There is no way any recording/playback system can reproduce a live piano without very noticable degradation. I doubt your system CD player and all are really any exception. The degradations from a CD are much less than those from vinyl. In fact, I have piano recital CD's that sound very close to the real thing. Again. I am quite skeptical of such claims. There is nothing like listening, I guess. Try recording the output of the phono stage onto CD's. Voila, all the magical "complex" signals that you claim can only be heard on vinyl are preserved! But, if you cannot hear the complexity of the decay of a sustained note on a real live piano maybe you simply aren't picking up on the substantial differences between a live piano and the recording and playback of a live piano. So you are saying that you cannot observe the complex amplitude decay of piano music on CD's? Here is a good one for you to try out: Emil Gilel's Beethoven Sonata #8 (Pathetique) on DG 400036-2. This is an early 1980 digital recording. You can easily find it at the local library. Check out track 1. Listen to the solid frequency stability of the big chords. See if that sounds like a real piano in your experience. That was a reminder of why I like digital so much. As someone who owns a grand piano, I can say without any doubt that the CD sounds so much better than vinyl on piano music. Opinions abound. The person who started this thread clearly disagrees. It seems she does speak from considerable experience with live music. That's my point, in case you missed it. Opinions abound. and I speak with considerable experience from listening to a live piano. And yet you think the decay of a sustained note is solid. I'm afraid that there is more to it than just experience. The frequency is solid. Not sure what solid decay means, since I never used that term... In fact, I just did. And to the OP, someone *could* have said "But you have not heard a decent CD rig and decently recorded CD's!" But of course, we won't resort to that. Of course not. You believe they all sound the same don't you? Does anybody believe all turntable rigs sound the same? No, some CD rigs sound bad because of poor speakers. And then there are poorly recorded/mastered CD's. Of course, the competent CD players sound very similar, but you know that. I don't know that. I know some people believe that and some believe otherwise. I have not spent much time c0omparing CD players myself. BTW, none of Yundi Li's music is available on vinyl. Only on CD's. Only CD? Can't get it on MP3? You can make mp3's out of CD's, of course. What exactly is your point, or do you have one? That it can be had on more than just CD. Wasn't it obvious? It is a rather, shall we say, pointless point then. You can of course make cassette tapes, MD tapes out of the CD. I guess according to your logic, when someone releases a movie on DVD, it is simultaneously released in divx, mpeg4, vcd, realmedia, windows media formats already. To make it easier for you to grasp, Yundi Li's music is not released in vinyl. So is a lot of new classical music. Scott Wheeler |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
On 19 Apr 2005 23:56:22 GMT, Steven Sullivan wrote:
Chung wrote: The wow and flutter have the biggest impact on solid sustained piano notes. Any inherent frquency instability (like wow and flutter) in the turntable, any slight error in the record (off-centered holes) etc., and of course any distortion and lack of dynamic range will show up readily, especially on piano solos. The wow/flutter issue shows up even more clearly on recordings of instruments where sustained notes don't necessarily decay...like organ and synthesizers. In that sense CD was the saviour of Bach *and* prog rock ; Sometimes they are the same - Switched on Bach, anyone? :-) There is no doubt CD is getting very good, which means it must be close to being replaced. Assuming there are real advantages in the medium replacing it, of course. There aren't, aside from multiple channels, but that won't stop the marketing boys selling the biggernumbers! I mean, it stands to reason that 24/96 just *must* sound better than 16/44............... OTOH, it does like as if SACD and the technologically superior DVD-A will *both* sink without trace after the 'format wars', leaving DVD-V and multi-channel DD/DTS as the market winners. Vinyl showed the most improvement after CD came out. I am not sure if you can prove that statement. Some of the best discs I own are direct-to-discs made in the late 70's. Maybe he means turntable technology. Vinyl itself hasn't made any technological leaps, AFAIK. Indeed so. The last 'improvement' was Direct Metal Mastering, and DMM records were notorious for really shrill treble. So far as the replay gear goes, and typically of the valves 'n vinyl brigade, some still swear by really crippled technologies from the '60s such as Decca carts and the Garrard 301/401 table. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Chung
wrote: And yet you think the decay of a sustained note is solid. I'm afraid that there is more to it than just experience. The frequency is solid. Not sure what solid decay means, since I never used that term... Scott Wheeler Just a technical question coming; at the attack of a piano tone the overtone spectra is quite large i think, ranging way up in frequence even, how are the overtones decaying on a tone like that? Somehow i get the feeling that if you'd analyze this note 1) at attack 2) 1 second later 3) 10 seconds later you'd get quite a variety of visible overtones thus suggesting not so solid decay? Excuse my lack of knowledge, the question is serious. Joakim -- Joakim Wendel Remove obvious mail JUNK block for mail reply. My homepage : http://violinist.nu |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 19 Apr 2005 23:54:39 GMT, wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: Heads up now, what really launched CD into the mass market was *classical* music listeners, i.e. people who live with live music. Stewert gets his facts wrong again. What really launched CD into the masss market was the availablity of portable CD players and car CD players. The classical music listeners are very much a niche market that barely impact the commercial scene over all. By the way, many classical music lovers do not spend much time with live music. This comes from a guy who has just attempted to tell someone who *owns* a grand piano, what sustained notes from it sound like...... What does Chungs inability to recognize that a sustained note from a live piano is not solifd but cmplex and constantly changing in tone? Does it make my true statement a false one? Where is your logic? Unfortunately for Wheeler, he doesn't get to write history books, and the plain *facts* of the matter are that CD sales in the first two years were below predictions, until the word began to spread among classical music lovers that this new medium simply did not suffer from wow and flutter (which, contrary to Wheeler's bizarre opinion, are horribly destructive of solo piano music), and had such low background noise that all kinds of musical subtleties became noticeable, which had previously been swamped by surface noise. It was the classical market which dragged CD out of the red in the early years, and everyone but you is well aware of this - ask any record store owner who was in business in the '80s, or of course go straight to RIAA sales archives. Fortunately for audiophiles Pinkerton does not get to rewrite history. The *fact* is that CD sales took off exactly when portable CD players and car CD players became widely available at affordable prices. Fortunately for people who enjoy CDs the success of that medium was driven by somethging more than a niche market like classical music. Certainly portable players and car players helped to boost volumes, but note that they did not become widespread (especially car players), until well after CD was firmly established. Wrong. The availablity of those players coicided exactly with CD becoming the dominant medium in music play back. It wasn't just a coincidence though. I would suggest that you take your own advice and check out the numbers on CD sales. You should be saavy enough with math to figure out that classical music sales didn't have much of an impact in making CDs the dominant medium for music. Scott Wheeler |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
This comes from a guy who has just attempted to tell someone who *owns* a grand piano, what sustained notes from it sound like...... I believe you are certainly correct. For me, one of the best musical experiences is Wagner opera, and Liszt lieder. The great dynamic range of these sources was really highlighted by CD. I am a record fan, and have lots of them. But there is no comparison. For anyone interested, I'd suggest the Levine/Met Ring (on CD--not the DVD which is a "live" performance and not of the technical quality of the studio set). The DGG engineers did a tremendous job at recreating the dynamics, and the recording is stupendous. [Here, I am speaking of the recording quality, only...I don't want to get into discussions or debates about Levine v Solti, et al!] michael |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
On 20 Apr 2005 23:59:14 GMT, Chung wrote:
wrote: But, if you cannot hear the complexity of the decay of a sustained note on a real live piano maybe you simply aren't picking up on the substantial differences between a live piano and the recording and playback of a live piano. So you are saying that you cannot observe the complex amplitude decay of piano music on CD's? Here is a good one for you to try out: Emil Gilel's Beethoven Sonata #8 (Pathetique) on DG 400036-2. This is an early 1980 digital recording. You can easily find it at the local library. Check out track 1. Listen to the solid frequency stability of the big chords. See if that sounds like a real piano in your experience. What a bizarre coincidence! I only have half a dozen or so solo piano recordings, but that superb performance is one of them, and the first part of the 'Pathetique' is indeed a superb recording of the natural decay of a solo piano, as is the 'Moonlight' on the same CD. On vinyl, there would be impossible distractions from wow and surface noise, but that CD is an immaculate recording which allows the natural sound of the piano to flow into your listening room. Wheeler is just plain wrong about this. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Joakim Wendel wrote:
In article , Chung wrote: And yet you think the decay of a sustained note is solid. I'm afraid that there is more to it than just experience. The frequency is solid. Not sure what solid decay means, since I never used that term... Scott Wheeler Just a technical question coming; at the attack of a piano tone the overtone spectra is quite large i think, ranging way up in frequence even, how are the overtones decaying on a tone like that? Somehow i get the feeling that if you'd analyze this note 1) at attack 2) 1 second later 3) 10 seconds later you'd get quite a variety of visible overtones thus suggesting not so solid decay? Excuse my lack of knowledge, the question is serious. Joakim Not sure what you meant by solid decay. You can certainly analyze the spectrum of the waveform of a sustained chord, and you see the amplitudes of the harmonics (including the fundamental) changing (decaying) over time. But the frequency should be stable, i.e., there is no frequency modulation on the tones. When I used the term solid sustained notes, I was referring to the frequency, not amplitude (which is of course decaying over time). |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 20 Apr 2005 23:59:14 GMT, Chung wrote: wrote: But, if you cannot hear the complexity of the decay of a sustained note on a real live piano maybe you simply aren't picking up on the substantial differences between a live piano and the recording and playback of a live piano. So you are saying that you cannot observe the complex amplitude decay of piano music on CD's? Here is a good one for you to try out: Emil Gilel's Beethoven Sonata #8 (Pathetique) on DG 400036-2. This is an early 1980 digital recording. You can easily find it at the local library. Check out track 1. Listen to the solid frequency stability of the big chords. See if that sounds like a real piano in your experience. What a bizarre coincidence! I only have half a dozen or so solo piano recordings, but that superb performance is one of them, and the first part of the 'Pathetique' is indeed a superb recording of the natural decay of a solo piano, as is the 'Moonlight' on the same CD. On vinyl, there would be impossible distractions from wow and surface noise, but that CD is an immaculate recording which allows the natural sound of the piano to flow into your listening room. Wheeler is just plain wrong about this. I mentioned that particular recording because I also have the vinyl version. Now someone may want to argue that I do not have the ultimate vinyl gear, but the CD is simply superior in every respect: stability of the tones (frequency domain) in sustained notes, the huge dynamic range that allows the big chords to decay to silence and the quiet passages (like the Moonlight Sonata) to come through cleanly, and the lack of any surface effects or tracking distortion. All this from a 1981 digital recording. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 19 Apr 2005 23:54:39 GMT, wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: Heads up now, what really launched CD into the mass market was *classical* music listeners, i.e. people who live with live music. Stewert gets his facts wrong again. What really launched CD into the masss market was the availablity of portable CD players and car CD players. The classical music listeners are very much a niche market that barely impact the commercial scene over all. By the way, many classical music lovers do not spend much time with live music. This comes from a guy who has just attempted to tell someone who *owns* a grand piano, what sustained notes from it sound like...... What does Chungs inability to recognize that a sustained note from a live piano is not solifd but cmplex and constantly changing in tone? As I suspect you well know, Chung is referring to the cyclic pitch instability always *added* in some degree to the recorded note, *as a result of* the inevitably imperfect pressing of vinyl, versus the granitically-stable presentation of sounded note and its audible harmonics, in all their 'complexity', by CD. I've heard records where sustained notes varied by as much as a semitone per rotation, due to bad pressing -- and never due to the interaction of the note with its overtones. You will *never* hear that sort of artifactual pitch instability added by CD playback. So please stop trying to obfuscate -- you aren't fooling anyone. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
|
#30
|
|||
|
|||
On 21 Apr 2005 23:55:47 GMT, Joakim Wendel
wrote: In article , Chung wrote: And yet you think the decay of a sustained note is solid. I'm afraid that there is more to it than just experience. The frequency is solid. Not sure what solid decay means, since I never used that term... Scott Wheeler Just a technical question coming; at the attack of a piano tone the overtone spectra is quite large i think, ranging way up in frequence even, how are the overtones decaying on a tone like that? In a typical listening room, the extreme treble will decay a little faster than bass, but there should not be any significant skew in the decay of a piano note. Somehow i get the feeling that if you'd analyze this note 1) at attack 2) 1 second later 3) 10 seconds later you'd get quite a variety of visible overtones thus suggesting not so solid decay? I believe that the recorded sound will match the live sound very well in this regard, and that the timbral character of the note does not dramatically change as it decays in either case. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 19 Apr 2005 23:54:39 GMT, wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: Heads up now, what really launched CD into the mass market was *classical* music listeners, i.e. people who live with live music. Stewert gets his facts wrong again. What really launched CD into the masss market was the availablity of portable CD players and car CD players. The classical music listeners are very much a niche market that barely impact the commercial scene over all. By the way, many classical music lovers do not spend much time with live music. This comes from a guy who has just attempted to tell someone who *owns* a grand piano, what sustained notes from it sound like...... What does Chungs inability to recognize that a sustained note from a live piano is not solifd but cmplex and constantly changing in tone? Does it make my true statement a false one? Where is your logic? Well, you choose to mis-interpret Chung's statement in a way that you could attack Chung's ability to listen. Despite the subsequent clarification by Chung. One would think that this is a display of your tendency to argue on semantics, and to burn the strawman. The statement that "many classical music lovers do not spend much time with live music" is patently false. Most classical music lovers I know of play instruments, attend concerts and recitals, and a lot them have children who play classical music. Out of curiosity, do you consider the jazz music market a "niche market that barely impact the commercial scene overall"? Unfortunately for Wheeler, he doesn't get to write history books, and the plain *facts* of the matter are that CD sales in the first two years were below predictions, until the word began to spread among classical music lovers that this new medium simply did not suffer from wow and flutter (which, contrary to Wheeler's bizarre opinion, are horribly destructive of solo piano music), and had such low background noise that all kinds of musical subtleties became noticeable, which had previously been swamped by surface noise. It was the classical market which dragged CD out of the red in the early years, and everyone but you is well aware of this - ask any record store owner who was in business in the '80s, or of course go straight to RIAA sales archives. Fortunately for audiophiles Pinkerton does not get to rewrite history. The *fact* is that CD sales took off exactly when portable CD players and car CD players became widely available at affordable prices. Fortunately for people who enjoy CDs the success of that medium was driven by somethging more than a niche market like classical music. Certainly portable players and car players helped to boost volumes, but note that they did not become widespread (especially car players), until well after CD was firmly established. Wrong. You are wrong, CD displaced vinyl several years before the widespread use of portable players and car players. As early as 1989, CD's already outsold vinyl LP's by a ratio of 2.7 to 1. In 1989, portable and car CD players were not in widespread use. For home audio, CD became the dominant medium as early as in the mid-to-late 80's. Of course, for mobile audio, CD did not replace cassette until mobile CD players became popular in the mid-90's. Wouldn't you call a medium that outsold vinyl LP 2.7 to 1 "firmly established"? |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
"Chung" wrote in message
... Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 20 Apr 2005 23:59:14 GMT, Chung wrote: wrote: But, if you cannot hear the complexity of the decay of a sustained note on a real live piano maybe you simply aren't picking up on the substantial differences between a live piano and the recording and playback of a live piano. So you are saying that you cannot observe the complex amplitude decay of piano music on CD's? Here is a good one for you to try out: Emil Gilel's Beethoven Sonata #8 (Pathetique) on DG 400036-2. This is an early 1980 digital recording. You can easily find it at the local library. Check out track 1. Listen to the solid frequency stability of the big chords. See if that sounds like a real piano in your experience. What a bizarre coincidence! I only have half a dozen or so solo piano recordings, but that superb performance is one of them, and the first part of the 'Pathetique' is indeed a superb recording of the natural decay of a solo piano, as is the 'Moonlight' on the same CD. On vinyl, there would be impossible distractions from wow and surface noise, but that CD is an immaculate recording which allows the natural sound of the piano to flow into your listening room. Wheeler is just plain wrong about this. I mentioned that particular recording because I also have the vinyl version. Now someone may want to argue that I do not have the ultimate vinyl gear, but the CD is simply superior in every respect: stability of the tones (frequency domain) in sustained notes, the huge dynamic range that allows the big chords to decay to silence and the quiet passages (like the Moonlight Sonata) to come through cleanly, and the lack of any surface effects or tracking distortion. All this from a 1981 digital recording. I continue to wonder if those who claim in the past to be horrified by wow and flutter on piano tones when playing vinyl, or who go on and on about clicks and pops, ever really optimized their vinyl setup. In the first place, no decent vinyl rig should have audible wow or flutter on its own. If it does, then it needs a belt, idler wheel, or DD motor replaced. Secondly, the arm and cartridge must be matched...high compliance cartridge with low mass arm, medium compliance with medium mass arm, and low compliance with high mass arm. Any other combination will result in anomanolies caused by stylus compression or unweighting. Third, records must be cleaned. I don't necessarily mean with a washer, but at least cleaned with a record brush before every playing or as I do using Last cleaner fluid and application brush. Otherwise the stylus will run into grunge in the grooves which will distort sound in addition to creating lots of the dread clicks and pops, which will only become worse with time if they are ground in by playing an uncleaned record. If you have a supply of Last record preservative (hard to get these days) treatment will create records that sound subtly cleaner in the mid's and high's, an effect that is permament (only need to treat once). It must also be mentioned that a bi-radius or line-contact stylus is necessary to minimize noise and get the most from the grooves. Finally, a record clamp is needed to prevent vinyl resonance..no using one will accentuate pops and clicks and can cause slight disintegration of image localization. All this of course is to naught if the cartridge is not matched properly to the preamp input. This requires an effort to get and understand information and to work to make whatever changes are required to get that optimization. This is one area where most high end phono preamps made the job much easier than lower priced preamps, which tended to be non-adjustable. Since 1990 I have used three different cartridges in three different turntable/arm/cable combos and into two different headamps/preamps. I hve never been unable to get the cartridge/turntable/preamp combo to sound tonally identical to my CD players during this period of time. There are still subtle differences, often to the preference (in my case) to phono, but they are subtle and not in any way major difference in tonality. When all is right, their needs be little or no difference between CD and vinyl. Including wow and flutter. Case in point, I picked the top record off the group of RCA's I had out, which was Van Cliburn playing the Rachmaninoff 2nd Piano Concerto with Fritz Reinger and the Chicago Symphony orchestra. I recently picked this up as a $2 used record, but only played it once now that I also have the SACD release of this same recording. This is not the original, but a Dynagroove re-release on inferior, thin vinyl. Accordingly it is somewhat warped and especially vulnerable to vinyl resonance. So put it on the turntable (at this point a modest Dual 701 with Accuphase AC-2 MC cartridge, into a modified Marcoff PPA-2 headamp). Cleaned it, clamped it, synced the start with my Sony C222ES SACD machine...and listened through the whole piece, occassionally switching back and forth CD to Vinyl and back. The two where reasonable level matched and synched. Other than an occassional low-level pop (maybe one a minute) I'd be hard pressed to remember which I was listeing to. Plenty of sustained tones and no difference in wow and flutter. The record was showing plenty of warp, but the cartridge and arm were riding the groove with equanimity and no sign of "bounce". My conclusion, if you really want to enjoy your records, make the time and effort to optimize your system...the annoyances of vinyl will be largely minimized and the sound quality may astound you. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Harry Lavo wrote:
I continue to wonder if those who claim in the past to be horrified by wow and flutter on piano tones when playing vinyl, or who go on and on about clicks and pops, ever really optimized their vinyl setup. In the first place, no decent vinyl rig should have audible wow or flutter on its own. If it does, then it needs a belt, idler wheel, or DD motor replaced. Secondly, the arm and cartridge must be matched...high compliance cartridge with low mass arm, medium compliance with medium mass arm, and low compliance with high mass arm. Any other combination will result in anomanolies caused by stylus compression or unweighting. Third, records must be cleaned. I don't necessarily mean with a washer, but at least cleaned with a record brush before every playing or as I do using Last cleaner fluid and application brush. Otherwise the stylus will run into grunge in the grooves which will distort sound in addition to creating lots of the dread clicks and pops, which will only become worse with time if they are ground in by playing an uncleaned record. If you have a supply of Last record preservative (hard to get these days) treatment will create records that sound subtly cleaner in the mid's and high's, an effect that is permament (only need to treat once). It must also be mentioned that a bi-radius or line-contact stylus is necessary to minimize noise and get the most from the grooves. Finally, a record clamp is needed to prevent vinyl resonance..no using one will accentuate pops and clicks and can cause slight disintegration of image localization. All this of course is to naught if the cartridge is not matched properly to the preamp input. This requires an effort to get and understand information and to work to make whatever changes are required to get that optimization. This is one area where most high end phono preamps made the job much easier than lower priced preamps, which tended to be non-adjustable. Since 1990 I have used three different cartridges in three different turntable/arm/cable combos and into two different headamps/preamps. I hve never been unable to get the cartridge/turntable/preamp combo to sound tonally identical to my CD players during this period of time. There are still subtle differences, often to the preference (in my case) to phono, but they are subtle and not in any way major difference in tonality. When all is right, their needs be little or no difference between CD and vinyl. Including wow and flutter. Case in point, I picked the top record off the group of RCA's I had out, which was Van Cliburn playing the Rachmaninoff 2nd Piano Concerto with Fritz Reinger and the Chicago Symphony orchestra. I recently picked this up as a $2 used record, but only played it once now that I also have the SACD release of this same recording. This is not the original, but a Dynagroove re-release on inferior, thin vinyl. Accordingly it is somewhat warped and especially vulnerable to vinyl resonance. So put it on the turntable (at this point a modest Dual 701 with Accuphase AC-2 MC cartridge, into a modified Marcoff PPA-2 headamp). Cleaned it, clamped it, synced the start with my Sony C222ES SACD machine...and listened through the whole piece, occassionally switching back and forth CD to Vinyl and back. The two where reasonable level matched and synched. Other than an occassional low-level pop (maybe one a minute) I'd be hard pressed to remember which I was listeing to. Plenty of sustained tones and no difference in wow and flutter. The record was showing plenty of warp, but the cartridge and arm were riding the groove with equanimity and no sign of "bounce". My conclusion, if you really want to enjoy your records, make the time and effort to optimize your system...the annoyances of vinyl will be largely minimized and the sound quality may astound you. This is a really fine description of what you have to go through as a black record fan. And I noted that Harry tries to avoid the usual hype about the sound. I have been doing the same from 1971 with a Thorens150 until 1985 when I got my first CD-player, a Philips 101 or whatever. I immediately tossed my in the mean time quite costly turntable rig and just started buying almost all the CDs that were available in those times, my record shop had around 50 then. I already had made many tapes to play on my reel to reel machine, because the 20min. to listen and then turn around the record were for me a PITA. It is the same with the collector spirit of vintage cars nowadays. But nobody claims that the performance is better than a modern car. Isn't it enough to ride a 50yrs. old Porsche356? There isn't even the question that a simple modern car will outperform it in all diciplines, but still the feeling of riding or rather cruising is untopped. The love for the car and the beauty will just go to the vintage model. This cannot be measured in contrary to speed and acceleration, and somehow I have the idea it might be similar with the vinyl-enthusiast. -- ciao Ban Bordighera, Italy |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Harry Lavo wrote:
"Chung" wrote in message ... Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 20 Apr 2005 23:59:14 GMT, Chung wrote: wrote: But, if you cannot hear the complexity of the decay of a sustained note on a real live piano maybe you simply aren't picking up on the substantial differences between a live piano and the recording and playback of a live piano. So you are saying that you cannot observe the complex amplitude decay of piano music on CD's? Here is a good one for you to try out: Emil Gilel's Beethoven Sonata #8 (Pathetique) on DG 400036-2. This is an early 1980 digital recording. You can easily find it at the local library. Check out track 1. Listen to the solid frequency stability of the big chords. See if that sounds like a real piano in your experience. What a bizarre coincidence! I only have half a dozen or so solo piano recordings, but that superb performance is one of them, and the first part of the 'Pathetique' is indeed a superb recording of the natural decay of a solo piano, as is the 'Moonlight' on the same CD. On vinyl, there would be impossible distractions from wow and surface noise, but that CD is an immaculate recording which allows the natural sound of the piano to flow into your listening room. Wheeler is just plain wrong about this. I mentioned that particular recording because I also have the vinyl version. Now someone may want to argue that I do not have the ultimate vinyl gear, but the CD is simply superior in every respect: stability of the tones (frequency domain) in sustained notes, the huge dynamic range that allows the big chords to decay to silence and the quiet passages (like the Moonlight Sonata) to come through cleanly, and the lack of any surface effects or tracking distortion. All this from a 1981 digital recording. I continue to wonder if those who claim in the past to be horrified by wow and flutter on piano tones when playing vinyl, or who go on and on about clicks and pops, ever really optimized their vinyl setup. In the first place, no decent vinyl rig should have audible wow or flutter on its own. If it does, then it needs a belt, idler wheel, or DD motor replaced. Secondly, the arm and cartridge must be matched...high compliance cartridge with low mass arm, medium compliance with medium mass arm, and low compliance with high mass arm. Any other combination will result in anomanolies caused by stylus compression or unweighting. Third, records must be cleaned. I don't necessarily mean with a washer, but at least cleaned with a record brush before every playing or as I do using Last cleaner fluid and application brush. Otherwise the stylus will run into grunge in the grooves which will distort sound in addition to creating lots of the dread clicks and pops, which will only become worse with time if they are ground in by playing an uncleaned record. If you have a supply of Last record preservative (hard to get these days) treatment will create records that sound subtly cleaner in the mid's and high's, an effect that is permament (only need to treat once). It must also be mentioned that a bi-radius or line-contact stylus is necessary to minimize noise and get the most from the grooves. Finally, a record clamp is needed to prevent vinyl resonance..no using one will accentuate pops and clicks and can cause slight disintegration of image localization. All this of course is to naught if the cartridge is not matched properly to the preamp input. This requires an effort to get and understand information and to work to make whatever changes are required to get that optimization. This is one area where most high end phono preamps made the job much easier than lower priced preamps, which tended to be non-adjustable. Since 1990 I have used three different cartridges in three different turntable/arm/cable combos and into two different headamps/preamps. I hve never been unable to get the cartridge/turntable/preamp combo to sound tonally identical to my CD players during this period of time. There are still subtle differences, often to the preference (in my case) to phono, but they are subtle and not in any way major difference in tonality. When all is right, That's a big "when"! their needs be little or no difference between CD and vinyl. Including wow and flutter. Case in point, I picked the top record off the group of RCA's I had out, which was Van Cliburn playing the Rachmaninoff 2nd Piano Concerto with Fritz Reinger and the Chicago Symphony orchestra. I recently picked this up as a $2 used record, but only played it once now that I also have the SACD release of this same recording. This is not the original, but a Dynagroove re-release on inferior, thin vinyl. Accordingly it is somewhat warped and especially vulnerable to vinyl resonance. So put it on the turntable (at this point a modest Dual 701 with Accuphase AC-2 MC cartridge, into a modified Marcoff PPA-2 headamp). Cleaned it, clamped it, synced the start with my Sony C222ES SACD machine...and listened through the whole piece, occassionally switching back and forth CD to Vinyl and back. The two where reasonable level matched and synched. Other than an occassional low-level pop (maybe one a minute) I'd be hard pressed to remember which I was listeing to. Plenty of sustained tones and no difference in wow and flutter. The record was showing plenty of warp, but the cartridge and arm were riding the groove with equanimity and no sign of "bounce". My conclusion, if you really want to enjoy your records, make the time and effort to optimize your system...the annoyances of vinyl will be largely minimized and the sound quality may astound you. If the preceding paragraphs have not scared off potential vinyl lovers already... Since Mr. Wheeler believes that the CD just cannot reproduce the live piano, unlike the vinyl, are you right or is he right? I can't see how you both can be right, since you seem to say that other than surface noise (which is a big degradation in solo piano pieces), the CD and vinyl sound about the same, while Mr. Wheeler believes that the CD just cannot reproduce the magical decay of complex piano notes (he said it's one of the most easily identified shortcomings on most CDs!). I would also grant you that some better-conditioned LP's have lower wow-and-flutter and surface noise than others, and better rigs can have less distortion. But compared to the CD, those imperfections are an order of magnitude larger still, and noticeable in sustained notes or in high dynamic range recordings, as in piano solos. Try comparing some more recent digital recordings of piano sonatas on the two media, Harry, like the one I mentioned. See if the difference is still unnoticeable to you. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Chung wrote:
wrote: Chung wrote: wrote: chung wrote: wrote: wrote: Jenn wrote: Hi all, A couple of weeks ago, I solicited opinions on whether I should pruchase a new lower cost TT like the Pro-ject, et al, or refurbish my old Denon DP-62-L that had been in storage for some time, as I reenter the analogue world. Well, I took the TT in to my trusty local store, Audio Ectasy, and had them mount a new Grado Red, Audioquest mat, and replace the stock cable with Audioquest. I also bought a Record Doctor and some isolation feet from Audio Advisor. I've lived with the combo for a few days now. The results? WONDERFUL! After having spent a week in Carnegie Hall recently, conducting and hearing 4 concerts, I now remember why I like analogue so much. It's MUCH more like music in a good hall. Thanks to everyone for your advice. Hmmm, someone who lives with live music and thinks vinyl is much more like it than CD playback. And with an entry level system no less. Hmmm, does this mean that the next time someone suggests that vinyl is less than perfect, we won't hear in response, "Well, that's because you've never heard a really high-end rig"? bob Well, I attended a piano recital by the rising star Yundi Li last week. And throughout the recital, I kept thinking how close my CD rig sounds to the live piano I was hearing. You know, the solid sustained notes, Solid sustained notes? I've certainly heard this on numerous CDs of piano but never on a live piano. This is one of the most easily identifiable shortcomings one can hear on most CDs. A sustained note on a real piano is anything but solid. Well, I have a grand piano, and the sustained notes are solid. Perhaps you are too used to vinyl? No. It is not natural for any real paino to have solid sustained notes. The decay of a note from a live piano is anything but solid. Perhaps you were confused when I said solid sustained notes. I don't think so. Perhaps you didn't mean what you said. Solid does have a pretty well known definition. (2) : joined without a hyphen a solid compound c : not interrupted by a break or opening a solid wall 3 a : of uniformly close and coherent texture : not loose or spongy : COMPACT b : possessing or characterized by the properties of a solid : neither gaseous nor liquid . I meant the frequency of the notes, and not amplitude. I thought it was obvious from the context, but I guess one never knows. Well there are several different overtones coming from a sustained note from a piano, Their decay patterns are each different which creates a sound that is constantly changing in tone, location and volume. By the above definitions how does one find such a character of decay solid? IMO the decay of a sustained note of a piano is quite the opposite of the above cited definitions of solid. So, it is perfectly natural for a real piano to have solid sustained notes in terms of frequency stability. Now, do you still want to argue that it's not the case? Yes. You are now changing your claim and yet it still doesn't hold water in terms of human perception. If one listens to a sustained note on a piano it does not *sound the same in tone* as it decays. Now if one were to take a test tone or a combination of test tones and dim the level at a constant rate in time you would have what I would call a solid sounding sustained note. That is nothing like what one hears from a live piano. It does acurately describe the sound of a sustained note on any number of CDs I have listened to. You think there are some magical process in CD's that stabilize those "real-life" wavering notes? No. Simplifying a a complex signal is not magic. Taking out the frequency variations (which caused the wavering of the pitch) is almost magic... No it's not. Now, do you think the CD is capable of removing frequency instability? I think it is possible to get CDs in which this has happened. I don't think it is magical or desireable. Hey, there will certainly be fame and riches for you if you could figure out how... No. Just lower the resolution of any signal and ou will loose information. I'm surprised you didn't know this already. If you can lower the resolution and hence remove the frequency instability, there will certainly be fame and riches for you. Really? It's that difficult to lower the resolution of a live piano in the recording and playback proccess? I think you are quite mistaken here. Any telephone will do the trick quite nicely. No fame or riches for me. Loss of resolution has been with us all along. the great dynamic range, and so on. There was no way the LP can reproduce that piano sound without very noticeable degradation. There is no way any recording/playback system can reproduce a live piano without very noticable degradation. I doubt your system CD player and all are really any exception. The degradations from a CD are much less than those from vinyl. In fact, I have piano recital CD's that sound very close to the real thing. Again. I am quite skeptical of such claims. There is nothing like listening, I guess. An odd guess. It seems you arte assuming that I am not listening to CDs of piano recordings. I suggest you listen more carefully if you really believe sustained piano notes sound "solid." Try recording the output of the phono stage onto CD's. Voila, all the magical "complex" signals that you claim can only be heard on vinyl are preserved! Been there, done that. Didn't seem to happen so well. But, if you cannot hear the complexity of the decay of a sustained note on a real live piano maybe you simply aren't picking up on the substantial differences between a live piano and the recording and playback of a live piano. So you are saying that you cannot observe the complex amplitude decay of piano music on CD's? I am saying that IME it is often reduced or lost on CDs. Here is a good one for you to try out: Emil Gilel's Beethoven Sonata #8 (Pathetique) on DG 400036-2. This is an early 1980 digital recording. You can easily find it at the local library. Check out track 1. Listen to the solid frequency stability of the big chords. See if that sounds like a real piano in your experience. I'll keep an eye out for it. I don't have high expectations though. I have heard nothing but awful sound from that label in that era. That was a reminder of why I like digital so much. As someone who owns a grand piano, I can say without any doubt that the CD sounds so much better than vinyl on piano music. Opinions abound. The person who started this thread clearly disagrees. It seems she does speak from considerable experience with live music. That's my point, in case you missed it. Opinions abound. and I speak with considerable experience from listening to a live piano. And yet you think the decay of a sustained note is solid. I'm afraid that there is more to it than just experience. The frequency is solid. The tone is not. That is what we percieve. Not sure what solid decay means, since I never used that term... You said sustained notes. They decay as they are sustained. decay:2 : to decrease gradually in quantity, activity, or force In fact, I just did. And to the OP, someone *could* have said "But you have not heard a decent CD rig and decently recorded CD's!" But of course, we won't resort to that. Of course not. You believe they all sound the same don't you? Does anybody believe all turntable rigs sound the same? No, some CD rigs sound bad because of poor speakers. And then there are poorly recorded/mastered CD's. Of course, the competent CD players sound very similar, but you know that. I don't know that. I know some people believe that and some believe otherwise. I have not spent much time c0omparing CD players myself. BTW, none of Yundi Li's music is available on vinyl. Only on CD's. Only CD? Can't get it on MP3? You can make mp3's out of CD's, of course. What exactly is your point, or do you have one? That it can be had on more than just CD. Wasn't it obvious? It is a rather, shall we say, pointless point then. No. You can of course make cassette tapes, MD tapes out of the CD. You can also legaly down load music on line in the form of MP3s. It is a different medium in which commercial music can be aquired and used. I guess according to your logic, when someone releases a movie on DVD, it is simultaneously released in divx, mpeg4, vcd, realmedia, windows media formats already. In some cases they are released on vcd. Most of those others would be pirate copies. I am not talking about pirated copies but legal releases on various formats. To make it easier for you to grasp, Yundi Li's music is not released in vinyl. So is a lot of new classical music. I guess *you* didn't get *my* point. Scott Wheeler |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Chung wrote:
wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 19 Apr 2005 23:54:39 GMT, wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: Heads up now, what really launched CD into the mass market was *classical* music listeners, i.e. people who live with live music. Stewert gets his facts wrong again. What really launched CD into the masss market was the availablity of portable CD players and car CD players. The classical music listeners are very much a niche market that barely impact the commercial scene over all. By the way, many classical music lovers do not spend much time with live music. This comes from a guy who has just attempted to tell someone who *owns* a grand piano, what sustained notes from it sound like...... What does Chungs inability to recognize that a sustained note from a live piano is not solifd but cmplex and constantly changing in tone? Does it make my true statement a false one? Where is your logic? Well, you choose to mis-interpret Chung's statement in a way that you could attack Chung's ability to listen. Despite the subsequent clarification by Chung. One would think that this is a display of your tendency to argue on semantics, and to burn the strawman. The statement that "many classical music lovers do not spend much time with live music" is patently false. Absolute balony. One need only look at concert ticket sales to see this. Most classical music lovers I know of play instruments, attend concerts and recitals, and a lot them have children who play classical music. Well that is a sound scientific rebutal of my claim. Not. Out of curiosity, do you consider the jazz music market a "niche market that barely impact the commercial scene overall"? Unfortunately, yes. Are you aware of the sales being done in the music industry? Unfortunately for Wheeler, he doesn't get to write history books, and the plain *facts* of the matter are that CD sales in the first two years were below predictions, until the word began to spread among classical music lovers that this new medium simply did not suffer from wow and flutter (which, contrary to Wheeler's bizarre opinion, are horribly destructive of solo piano music), and had such low background noise that all kinds of musical subtleties became noticeable, which had previously been swamped by surface noise. It was the classical market which dragged CD out of the red in the early years, and everyone but you is well aware of this - ask any record store owner who was in business in the '80s, or of course go straight to RIAA sales archives. Fortunately for audiophiles Pinkerton does not get to rewrite history. The *fact* is that CD sales took off exactly when portable CD players and car CD players became widely available at affordable prices. Fortunately for people who enjoy CDs the success of that medium was driven by somethging more than a niche market like classical music. Certainly portable players and car players helped to boost volumes, but note that they did not become widespread (especially car players), until well after CD was firmly established. Wrong. You are wrong, CD displaced vinyl several years before the widespread use of portable players and car players. Now you are ridiculously wrong. Lps were never displaced by CD in the first place. They were displaced by cassettes and for the very same reason. Portability and car play. As early as 1989, CD's already outsold vinyl LP's by a ratio of 2.7 to 1. In 1989 Cd was still not the dominant medium for music consumption. Nice try. Funny, It had been on the market for six years by then. Funny, when it did become the dominant medium it was when car players and portable CD players did become common and affordable. In 1989, portable and car CD players were not in widespread use. For home audio, CD became the dominant medium as early as in the mid-to-late 80's. Guess again. Actually dont guess, just look at sales. Of course, for mobile audio, CD did not replace cassette until mobile CD players became popular in the mid-90's. Sorry Stewert. You don't know what people were doing with their cassettes. We can look at sales. Sales support my claim not yours. Wouldn't you call a medium that outsold vinyl LP 2.7 to 1 "firmly established"? Seems you are now trying to change the subject. Scott Wheeler |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Steven Sullivan wrote:
wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 19 Apr 2005 23:54:39 GMT, wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: Heads up now, what really launched CD into the mass market was *classical* music listeners, i.e. people who live with live music. Stewert gets his facts wrong again. What really launched CD into the masss market was the availablity of portable CD players and car CD players. The classical music listeners are very much a niche market that barely impact the commercial scene over all. By the way, many classical music lovers do not spend much time with live music. This comes from a guy who has just attempted to tell someone who *owns* a grand piano, what sustained notes from it sound like...... What does Chungs inability to recognize that a sustained note from a live piano is not solifd but cmplex and constantly changing in tone? As I suspect you well know, Chung is referring to the cyclic pitch instability always *added* in some degree to the recorded note, *as a result of* the inevitably imperfect pressing of vinyl, versus the granitically-stable presentation of sounded note and its audible harmonics, in all their 'complexity', by CD. No. I am simply going by what he said. I have experienced CD recordings of painos in which the sustained noted do indeed sound solid by the defintion of the word solid. They were bad because of that solid sound. I've heard records where sustained notes varied by as much as a semitone per rotation, due to bad pressing -- and never due to the interaction of the note with its overtones. You will *never* hear that sort of artifactual pitch instability added by CD playback. So please stop trying to obfuscate -- you aren't fooling anyone. I am not trying to do either. Maybe you should stop misrepresenting my intentions. Scott Wheeler |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Ed Seedhouse wrote:
On 21 Apr 2005 23:59:10 GMT, wrote: Fortunately for audiophiles Pinkerton does not get to rewrite history. The *fact* is that CD sales took off exactly when portable CD players and car CD players became widely available at affordable prices. Fortunately for people who enjoy CDs the success of that medium was driven by somethging more than a niche market like classical music. This could go in a textbook as an example of bad reasoning! Balony. Correlation does not prove causation. It supports it. The fact that two things happen at the same time does not prove that one causes the other. It supports it. The fact that something occurs before something else does not prove it causes the something else. "Pos hoc, ergo propter hoc" is still a fallacy and always will be. Well the real bad reasoning is ignoring the fact that the medium was around for quite some time as a niche market product and did not dominate the market until such a time as it became convenient to play in the car and on portable players. It would be quite bad reasoning to ignore the fact that exactly the same "coincidence" took place with the previously dominant medium. It would also be poor logic to ignore the fact that classical music sales by their sheer lack of volume cannot possible impact the market the way sales due to portability can. Oh well. Scott Wheeler |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Ban wrote:
wrote: Of course not. You believe they all sound the same don't you? Does anybody believe all turntable rigs sound the same? Well, the crackles and the distortion sound similar, but of course each catridge has its own colour, which is superimposed on the music, much like a loudspeaker. Then some have more hum than others, and some are better isolated from vibrations. Scott, a simple test can be done: Record your favourite music from the rig to CD. Now start the turntable and play the record and when the sound arrives, start the CD player. listen with the headphone to the CD and synchronize the vinyl by slowing the platter with your hand. Now turn down the volume, switch the preamp over and turn up the volume to the same loudness. (It will be good to mark the 2 settings with a chalk pen). Have a friend or your wife switch without your knowledge. Now try to identify the real turntable. Can you do that? I have done comparisons of CDs ripped form my turntable and direct feed from my turntable. I have no problem hearing differences. BTW, none of Yundi Li's music is available on vinyl. Only on CD's. Only CD? Can't get it on MP3? Scott Wheeler Even MP3 is much more difficult to identify than vinyl, I wonder why? You have trouble hearing the colorations of MP3? Scott Wheeler |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
|
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Turntable report | Audio Opinions | |||
What are they Teaching | Audio Opinions | |||
TURNTABLE anyone? | Marketplace | |||
Need a working TURNTABLE? | Marketplace | |||
>>>>> TURNTABLE BONAZA <<<<< | Marketplace |