Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl is Still the Best Listening Medium?
I've done a lot of pro audio recording in the last 20 years but haven't
listened to LPs much at all during that time. But in the last year I've been collecting some vinyl and bought a turntable. I was pretty amazed at how much more presence Albums have compared to CDs. Sure CDs may have more highs and lows but they really seem to be missing a lot of information in comparison. And my wife really noticed the difference (the old reliable "Girlfriend Test"). I put on an old Stones record (her favorite) and she really loved the sound. We then put on some cuts from the Stones' "40 Licks" CD and there was no comparison for listening pleasure...... "Can you really hear the difference?" I asked. After some thought she replied "Well I can Feel the difference". And you know she's right. We don't just hear sound. We always feel sound to. And records are the only playback medium that actually physically create a sound (a needle on vinyl that is then amplified.) All other mediums are reproductions of sound and are not actually physically re-creating a sound. (And of course speakers create sound in all mediums.) Anyway, we now play records most of the time and our listening pleasure has increased greatly. (Of course it helps that we happen to be OLD and like classic stuff.).... But records are a great bargin and more people should consider it as a listening medium. You can go to the used record store and get a nice collection for under $100 bucks! In defense of digital let me state that the problem seems in most part the resolution of CDs, 16bit/44khz. I record a lot at 24/96 and it's worlds better than CD. But vinyl still has a presence that's hard to beat. VB |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
vinyl believer wrote: I've done a lot of pro audio recording in the last 20 years but haven't listened to LPs much at all during that time. But in the last year I've been collecting some vinyl and bought a turntable. I was pretty amazed at how much more presence Albums have compared to CDs. Sure CDs may have more highs and lows but they really seem to be missing a lot of information in comparison. And my wife really noticed the difference (the old reliable "Girlfriend Test"). I put on an old Stones record (her favorite) and she really loved the sound. We then put on some cuts from the Stones' "40 Licks" CD and there was no comparison for listening pleasure...... "Can you really hear the difference?" I asked. After some thought she replied "Well I can Feel the difference". And you know she's right. We don't just hear sound. We always feel sound to. And records are the only playback medium that actually physically create a sound (a needle on vinyl that is then amplified.) All other mediums are reproductions of sound and are not actually physically re-creating a sound. (And of course speakers create sound in all mediums.) Anyway, we now play records most of the time and our listening pleasure has increased greatly. (Of course it helps that we happen to be OLD and like classic stuff.).... But records are a great bargin and more people should consider it as a listening medium. You can go to the used record store and get a nice collection for under $100 bucks! In defense of digital let me state that the problem seems in most part the resolution of CDs, 16bit/44khz. I record a lot at 24/96 and it's worlds better than CD. But vinyl still has a presence that's hard to beat. VB hhhmmmmm.....some good points. I've always liked the sound of records. I've always wanted to cut an album too. Where can you have that done? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Good vinyl is definately better than CDs. But 24-bit/96KHz is the best so
far. I have a Crystal Clear Records direct-to-disc recording of the Atlanta Symphony Orchestra performing various pieces and recently I played this disc and was astonished at how palpable the stereo image was, compared with my digitally-mastered CDs. In the fall, presuming my negotiation skills are up to it, I hope to be recording a regional orchestra in 24/96 x 8 channels. That should become my new benchmark recording. CDs just never sounded right for classical music. Too gritty on the pianissimo parts and definately lacking in interaural timing information (smears the position of instruments). -- Best Regards, Mark A. Weiss, P.E. www.mwcomms.com - |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
On 17 Apr 2005 23:29:23 -0700, "vinyl believer"
wrote: ---------------8---------------------- In defense of digital let me state that the problem seems in most part the resolution of CDs, 16bit/44khz. I record a lot at 24/96 and it's worlds better than CD. But vinyl still has a presence that's hard to beat. VB Well, I think that compared to any digital recording, a Neumann's DMM (direct-to-metal) cutting combined with direct-to-disk recording technique would be utterly speaking unbeatable. Edi Zubovic, Crikvenica, Croatia {PS. Sorry, I'm an old fa.......xyz, can't help} |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
vinyl believer wrote:
In defense of digital let me state that the problem seems in most part the resolution of CDs, 16bit/44khz. I record a lot at 24/96 and it's worlds better than CD. But vinyl still has a presence that's hard to beat. VB Wait for DVD-Audio to bridge that gap....24/192k and the ability to do 5.1. I can't wait to start listening to my own mixes in 24-bit 5.1!! Jonny Durango |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
I have a lot of records and a lot of CDs... it's funny how I hardly
ever listen to my CDs except in the car. I always seem to gravitate towards vinyl at home. The is some subliminal annoyance with CDs, they almost never sounds "right" to me. The problem could also be the converters in my consumer-grade CD player though... Al On 17 Apr 2005 23:29:23 -0700, "vinyl believer" wrote: I've done a lot of pro audio recording in the last 20 years but haven't listened to LPs much at all during that time. But in the last year I've been collecting some vinyl and bought a turntable. I was pretty amazed at how much more presence Albums have compared to CDs. Sure CDs may have more highs and lows but they really seem to be missing a lot of information in comparison. And my wife really noticed the difference (the old reliable "Girlfriend Test"). I put on an old Stones record (her favorite) and she really loved the sound. We then put on some cuts from the Stones' "40 Licks" CD and there was no comparison for listening pleasure...... "Can you really hear the difference?" I asked. After some thought she replied "Well I can Feel the difference". And you know she's right. We don't just hear sound. We always feel sound to. And records are the only playback medium that actually physically create a sound (a needle on vinyl that is then amplified.) All other mediums are reproductions of sound and are not actually physically re-creating a sound. (And of course speakers create sound in all mediums.) Anyway, we now play records most of the time and our listening pleasure has increased greatly. (Of course it helps that we happen to be OLD and like classic stuff.).... But records are a great bargin and more people should consider it as a listening medium. You can go to the used record store and get a nice collection for under $100 bucks! In defense of digital let me state that the problem seems in most part the resolution of CDs, 16bit/44khz. I record a lot at 24/96 and it's worlds better than CD. But vinyl still has a presence that's hard to beat. VB |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"vinyl believer" wrote in message In defense of digital let me state that the problem seems in most part the resolution of CDs, 16bit/44khz. I record a lot at 24/96 and it's worlds better than CD. But vinyl still has a presence that's hard to beat. What you are hearing and evidently preferring is distortion and bandwidth limitation. geoff |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"Mark & Mary Ann Weiss" wrote in message ink.net... Good vinyl is definately better than CDs. But 24-bit/96KHz is the best so far. I have a Crystal Clear Records direct-to-disc recording of the Atlanta Symphony Orchestra performing various pieces and recently I played this disc and was astonished at how palpable the stereo image was, compared with my digitally-mastered CDs. Try transcribing it to CD, and playing back to see if it isn't just like the vinyl. geoff |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
"Edi Zubovic" edi.zubovic[rem wrote in message ... On 17 Apr 2005 23:29:23 -0700, "vinyl believer" wrote: ---------------8---------------------- In defense of digital let me state that the problem seems in most part the resolution of CDs, 16bit/44khz. I record a lot at 24/96 and it's worlds better than CD. But vinyl still has a presence that's hard to beat. VB Well, I think that compared to any digital recording, a Neumann's DMM (direct-to-metal) cutting combined with direct-to-disk recording technique would be utterly speaking unbeatable. Apart from about 40dB s/n and several orders of magnitude of distortion. geoff |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
My vinyl lps also passed the "Girlfriend Test". It was actually kinda
funny because my wife had never heard an lp before she married me, and thought the whole turntable + big black disk contraption was weird & old fashioned. But she could tell there was something superior when I played them for her. Having said all that, the "Girlfriend Test" is hardly scientific! I encoded some sound clips to mp3 at various bitrates to try to determine the optimal rate to rip my cds & she couldn't tell them apart, not even 96 kpbs vs. the original uncompressed wave file--something that was quite apparent to even my old abused ears. vinyl believer wrote: And my wife really noticed the difference (the old reliable "Girlfriend Test"). I put on an old Stones record (her favorite) and she really loved the sound. We then put on some cuts from the Stones' "40 Licks" CD and there was no comparison for listening pleasure...... "Can you really hear the difference?" I asked. After some thought she replied "Well I can Feel the difference". |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
"playon" wrote in message ... I have a lot of records and a lot of CDs... it's funny how I hardly ever listen to my CDs except in the car. I always seem to gravitate towards vinyl at home. The is some subliminal annoyance with CDs, they almost never sounds "right" to me. The problem could also be the converters in my consumer-grade CD player though... Al On 17 Apr 2005 23:29:23 -0700, "vinyl believer" wrote: I've done a lot of pro audio recording in the last 20 years but haven't listened to LPs much at all during that time. But in the last year I've been collecting some vinyl and bought a turntable. I was pretty amazed at how much more presence Albums have compared to CDs. Sure CDs may have more highs and lows but they really seem to be missing a lot of information in comparison. And my wife really noticed the difference (the old reliable "Girlfriend Test"). I put on an old Stones record (her favorite) and she really loved the sound. We then put on some cuts from the Stones' "40 Licks" CD and there was no comparison for listening pleasure...... "Can you really hear the difference?" I asked. After some thought she replied "Well I can Feel the difference". And you know she's right. We don't just hear sound. We always feel sound to. And records are the only playback medium that actually physically create a sound (a needle on vinyl that is then amplified.) All other mediums are reproductions of sound and are not actually physically re-creating a sound. (And of course speakers create sound in all mediums.) Anyway, we now play records most of the time and our listening pleasure has increased greatly. (Of course it helps that we happen to be OLD and like classic stuff.).... But records are a great bargin and more people should consider it as a listening medium. You can go to the used record store and get a nice collection for under $100 bucks! In defense of digital let me state that the problem seems in most part the resolution of CDs, 16bit/44khz. I record a lot at 24/96 and it's worlds better than CD. But vinyl still has a presence that's hard to beat. VB IMHO CD has outrun its welcome in some circumstances. Before everyone starts getting off their high horses, please let me explain. Recording technology, reproduction equipment standards and in some cases consumer standards and expectations have moved on in the past 20 or so years. Over 20 years ago when CD first become available to the masses, we thought it was the answer to our prayers. Unfortunately I think CD and the sampling / encoding process technology behind it was perhaps a bit rushed. Albeit that 16 bits is deemed enough depth to over the dynamic range of music and 44.1kHz sampling enough to span the audible range, the end result just doesn't sound quite right for some music. In particular jazz and classical recordings. I tribute the harshness in the sound of CD evident on some recordings to the 22.05kHz brickwall upper frequency limit at encoding and trying to make the best out of a 16 bit recording / mastering depth. Increasing the sampling frequency to extend the upper frequency limit to twice that of CD at least pushes the potential phase and distortion problems encountered at the upper end of the audible range (18 - 20kHz) created by CD brickwall sampling limitations out well beyond what we can clearly hear. To my ears even 16/48 discs sound better than the same recording on CD at 16/44.1 I agree with some of the comment already made here about the difference in high resolution digital recordings at say 24/96 or better. I have quite a few DVD-A, DAD, HDAD, DualDisc and SACDs in my library. In most cases, they beat the same recoding on CD hands down and come closer to the vibrancy of good vinyl. The high resolution discs seem smoother sounding and more detailed without being bright or harsh. The only thing I've heard in the CD format that sounds better than standard CD is Super XRCD24 discs. Just my 2c worth. Cheers, Alan |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
revolutionary thoughts coming up...
Music mixed for Vinyl sounds better on Vinyl Music mixed foor CD sounds better on CD The problem with CD's is also that you need a serious CD player to hear it properly...I find relatively inexpensive turntables sound ok (except for the numark PT01 I just picked up and put on ebay straight away. YUCK). Also, CD's have been available at the same time as a quest for volume (hence badly mastered or dynamically butchered recordings) Personally, I prefer vinyl, but my taste in music is very 70's..new things I enjoy on CD. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
"The problem with CD's is also that you need a serious CD player to
hear it properly..." hallelujah brother! at last... I almost never take part to discussions about digital vs analogue, pcs vs macs, mackie vs behringer, fender vs gibson, 16/44.1 vs 24/96 and haagen daazs vs ben and jerry's but AT LAST... you've spoken words of steel. I was invited to a friend's place the other day so that the audio purists would prove to the frivolous music technologist the superioriry of vinyl compared to cd and the A/B testing was between a 20grand analogue system with monoblock tube amps, Thorens deck, 300pounds per meter speaker cables and a KEF play-it-all dvd/cd/jpeg/dvix/mp3/wma player (that costs about 30 bucks) through a marantz baseline amplifier and no-name Richer-sounds speakers... I suppose it's the same with digital photography... some people just care about the mega-pixel specs... Best wishes, Evangelos % Evangelos Himonides IoE, University of London tel: +44 2076126599 fax: +44 2076126741 "Allas to those who never sing but die with all their music in them..." Oliver Wendell Holmes % |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
"vinyl believer" wrote in message [...] In defense of digital let me state that the problem seems in most part the resolution of CDs, 16bit/44khz. I record a lot at 24/96 and it's worlds better than CD. But vinyl still has a presence that's hard to beat. The old TM guru, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, won't allow vedic pundit's chanting to be distributed on CD because the subtleties of the human voice are lost, in his opinion. Since his belief-system says that the effect of Vedic chanting is due to the phsyical effect of the sound, rather than due to some undetectable mystical thingie , this is an important issue. Apparently, with instrumental music, the issue isn't as important, because you CAN purchase sitar, etc., music on CDs via his organization. For Vedic hymns, audio-tapes only are allowed. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Geoff Wood wrote:
"Mark & Mary Ann Weiss" wrote in message ink.net... Good vinyl is definately better than CDs. But 24-bit/96KHz is the best so far. I have a Crystal Clear Records direct-to-disc recording of the Atlanta Symphony Orchestra performing various pieces and recently I played this disc and was astonished at how palpable the stereo image was, compared with my digitally-mastered CDs. Try transcribing it to CD, and playing back to see if it isn't just like the vinyl. Forget it Geoff, they are just trolling. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
I've done a lot of pro audio recording in the last 20 years but haven't
listened to LPs much at all during that time. But in the last year I've been collecting some vinyl and bought a turntable. I was pretty amazed at how much more presence Albums have compared to CDs. Sure CDs may have more highs and lows but they really seem to be missing a lot of information in comparison. I personally find these sorts of impressions hard to follow. First of all, I personally don't think that there's really all that much difference in presence, if you play both on a carefully laid out system. However, even if there were big differences in presence, I really don't think there's any way that it could come even close to compensating for vinyl's other limitations. You correctly pointed out the better highs and lows, and CDs also have far greater dynamic range and stereo separation. And even if those factors for some reason didn't matter, it's not as though all those obnoxious pops, wows, scraping sounds, and rumble were inaudible. I personally can't see any way that even a huge improvement in presence could compensate just for the noise alone, even without taking into account frequency- and dynamic-range improvements. I have always found presence to be a much bigger function of your speaker setup than anything else, such as how well-matched they are, and how well-placed they are. -- (Preferably reply to the newsgroup, please. If you reply by Email, I will sincerely try to receive your message, but it will probably get buried in spam.) |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Gary Morrison wrote:
vinyl believer wrote: I've done a lot of pro audio recording in the last 20 years but haven't listened to LPs much at all during that time. But in the last year I've been collecting some vinyl and bought a turntable. I was pretty amazed at how much more presence Albums have compared to CDs. Sure CDs may have more highs and lows but they really seem to be missing a lot of information in comparison. I personally find these sorts of impressions hard to follow. They are easy to explain. Hype, sentimentality, decreasing hearing acuity. First of all, I personally don't think that there's really all that much difference in presence, if you play both on a carefully laid out system. The first problem I see is the implicit claim by "vinyl believer" that one can so easily characterize all CDs and all LPs in terms of a vague parameter like presence. My experience is that vinyl varies all over the map, and CDs vary all over the map. However, even if there were big differences in presence, I really don't think there's any way that it could come even close to compensating for vinyl's other limitations. Indeed. Vinyl has well-known inherent technical failings of a fairly grotesque nature, as compared to the CD format. When I listen to old-tech recordings, I'm amazed they sound as good as they do, all things considered. You correctly pointed out the better highs and lows, and CDs also have far greater dynamic range and stereo separation. And even if those factors for some reason didn't matter, it's not as though all those obnoxious pops, wows, scraping sounds, and rumble were inaudible. In fact they may be severely attenuated for "vinyl believer", due to one or more of the issues I listed above. I personally can't see any way that even a huge improvement in presence could compensate just for the noise alone, even without taking into account frequency- and dynamic-range improvements. Totally agreed. It is generally accepted at this time that you can get facsimile reproduction of vinyl off of CD, but the inverse is not true. The reasons why are as obvious as the proverbial nose on the face, at least for a younger person with normal hearing. I have always found presence to be a much bigger function of your speaker setup than anything else, such as how well-matched they are, and how well-placed they are. Or, what's been done to tune them. I frequently find that vinylphiles tune their systems to conceal the technical failings of vinyl. Some of these tunings are unfavorable for the best possible reproduction of digital. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
vinyl believer wrote:
I've done a lot of pro audio recording in the last 20 years but haven't listened to LPs much at all during that time. But in the last year I've been collecting some vinyl and bought a turntable. I was pretty amazed at how much more presence Albums have compared to CDs. Sure CDs may have more highs and lows but they really seem to be missing a lot of information in comparison. For the most part, I think a lot of what you are hearing is the terrible remastering job that has been done to a lot of old material. For example, if you want to listen to the Eagle's _Hotel California_, you can either get the older CD issue that was made on a PCM 1610 machine, or the newer one that is compressed to hell and back. Needless to say, the LP sounds a whole lot better. In defense of digital let me state that the problem seems in most part the resolution of CDs, 16bit/44khz. I record a lot at 24/96 and it's worlds better than CD. But vinyl still has a presence that's hard to beat. No, I think the problem is the guy in the booth, not the medium itself. Higher sampling rates won't do anything to prevent tin-eared folks from making overcompressed crap. And while there are some excellent remastering jobs out there (the JVC XRCD stuff is the example I keep bringing up), they are in a tiny minority. So don't sell your turntable, because it's not going to get better, it is going to get worse. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
marysue wrote:
hhhmmmmm.....some good points. I've always liked the sound of records. I've always wanted to cut an album too. Where can you have that done? I do mastering for perhaps a dozen or so a year. You can take the lacquer and have it pressed in any one of a number of plants. I will strongly recommend RTI for high-grade pressing work, although recently I have been having a lot of work done at Alpha Records in Florida which does surprisingly decent work for cheap. They did the RAP LP compilation. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Geoff Wood wrote:
What you are hearing and evidently preferring is distortion and bandwidth limitation. You sure about that? |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
david morley wrote:
The problem with CD's is also that you need a serious CD player to hear it properly...I find relatively inexpensive turntables sound ok (except for the numark PT01 I just picked up and put on ebay straight away. YUCK). Wow is that backwards. I have never heard much difference in CD players. But a crappie turntable can sound atrocious. Where is a very good one (set up properly) can sound amazing. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Mark wrote:
that deep turntable rumble adds some nice warmth... Not here. Nothing between the warp mode and 20 KC. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Arny Krueger wrote:
Try transcribing it to CD, and playing back to see if it isn't just like the vinyl. Forget it Geoff, they are just trolling. What? What kind of ****ed up response is that? |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
It's part "gozinta" and part "gozouta". On the gozinta, if the source is THE deck-original stereo master, and if the A/D converter was good, the CD should be quite faithful to the original. On the gozouta, it needs to be a good CD player, amp, speakers. You can't compare a turntable (most today are the good audiophile ones) with a garden variety CD player. Certainly an average CD player sounds better than the average Webcor record player with detachable speakers of old! I like CDs for their resistance to scratches/pops and theoretical fidelity to the original. Slight variance in the gozinta RIAA curve and the gozouta RIAA curve can make vinyl sound quite different than the original. Same with pre/post emphasis on tape, especially in conjunction with NR. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
The old TM guru, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, won't allow vedic pundit's chanting to be distributed on CD because the subtleties of the human voice are lost, in his opinion. Since his belief-system says that the effect of Vedic chanting is due to the phsyical effect of the sound, rather than due to some undetectable mystical thingie , this is an important issue. Sexy Sadie; what have you done? You've made a fool of everyone. You've made a fool of everywuh uh uhn.. Sexy Sadie, what have you done? Chewy |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Well, I think that compared to any digital recording, a Neumann's DMM
(direct-to-metal) cutting combined with direct-to-disk recording technique would be utterly speaking unbeatable. Apart from about 40dB s/n and several orders of magnitude of distortion. geoff Well, I know Geoff is just a bloody troll but My many years of disc cutting force me to answer. I take it geoff has never heard a well cut lacquer disc, much less a DMM. You can get 110 db S/N from a lacquer and better from a DMM although that wasn't the point. And while some distortion is inevitable If you did a good job an playback was with a good stylus you wouldn't hear it. Sorry, I know I shouldn't feed the trolls but I couldn't help myself. Phil Brown |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
vinyl believer wrote:
In defense of digital let me state that the problem seems in most part the resolution of CDs, 16bit/44khz. I record a lot at 24/96 and it's worlds better than CD. But vinyl still has a presence that's hard to beat. I'd have to agree with you there. I used to have a quasi-surround system cobbled together in my bedroom, with tower speakers at the foot of the bed, bookshelf speakers on the headboard with their ground lifted (poor man's surround/cancellation setup), and a cheapie sub under the bed. Listening to the beginning of Pink Floyd's "The Wall", with the chopper coming in, you could literally "feel" it hovering overhead when sitting in the middle of the bed, playing from the old LP... the effect was lost when playing the CD. Same with some of the effects like at the beginning of "Money" (Dark Side of the Moon). The drawback of course, is that even the slightest dirt, scratch or other imperfection becomes VERY noticeable on LP, and every time you play it, you wear it just a little bit more. CDs may not be the infinite, imprevious medium it was originally promised to be, but it's a thousand times more durable than LP. I work with CCTV (closed-circuit) video systems. A lot of cheaper systems are running video multiplexers and time-lapse VCRs (fit up to 72 hours of 16 cameras onto a T-160 VHS tape shudder). People that have these systems are used to normally sitting and watching a clear direct-camera-to-monitor picture for regular monitoring. Looks like a nice clean cable-TV picture. Then we upgrade them to DVRs - up to 16 channels of digital video, in most systems, and up to 640x480 each. And immediately they complain that the picture (digitized on the computer monitor) isn't as clear. And they'll argue that they can't see details anymore, can't make out this or that, why are they paying all this extra money, blah blah blah. What they don't compare is the recorded digital picture, which will never degrade, with the PLAYBACK from the tape, which is lousy at best, and gets steadily worse with every pass. After three or four record passes, you start getting neat artifacts like color bands and images jumping between frames and what not, and tapes need to be replaced, on average, within 8-10 uses. Given that the main point of these systems is to be able to see what HAPPENED, not what is happening... --- avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 0515-6, 04/17/2005 Tested on: 4/18/2005 8:54:16 AM avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software. http://www.avast.com |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Oh please... not this argument again... one more time fron the top...
Back in the good old days, recording was much simpler, and playback systems provided much of the color. Nowadays playback systems are much more neutral, and the coloring is done in mixing/mastering. A good turntable will color the sound in a pleasant manner, leading people to think that LP's are more accurate, when they just sound better for certain recording types. That's why pro's call audiophiles "audiophools", they're misled into thinking they're getting closer to the "true sound". There is no better or best, only what is preferred. Just don't mix on an audiophile system... |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
philcycles wrote:
I take it geoff has never heard a well cut lacquer disc, much less a DMM. You can get 110 db S/N from a lacquer and better from a DMM although that wasn't the point. Which alternative universe is this? |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
In article znr1113826156k@trad, Mike Rivers wrote:
In article writes: What you are hearing and evidently preferring is distortion and bandwidth limitation. Naw, I think it's just a matter that we produced music in a more musical way 25 years ago. Take an LP and "remaster" it like a current CD and you'd dislike it as much as a CD that was made last week. Well, that's another advantage for the LP... you just cannot be as abusive with LP mastering as you can with CD. Limit the crap out of everything on an LP, and you don't get any more loudness, you just get more tracking distortion. The medium makes it harder to get away with stupid things. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
A $30 CD player sounds so much better than any $30 record player ever did.
That's the comparison that matters to the rest of the world, fortunately or unfortunately. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Joe Sensor wrote:
david morley wrote: The problem with CD's is also that you need a serious CD player to hear it properly...I find relatively inexpensive turntables sound ok (except for the numark PT01 I just picked up and put on ebay straight away. YUCK). Wow is that backwards. I have never heard much difference in CD players. But a crappie turntable can sound atrocious. Where is a very good one (set up properly) can sound amazing. I didn't say crappie turntable, I said relatively inexpensive... Go to ebay and see what I mean... I got an Oracle Alexandria for $350 and it's incredible... If you mean a dual for $30 well sure its goping to sound crap, but take any $350 CD player and compare it to what you get in turntables these days and you are going to end up losing. I assume we aren't listening to music on $50 turntables or $100 mini systems here, because if we are, we'd better not even consider comparing vinyl to CD... |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Mike Rivers wrote:
In article writes: What you are hearing and evidently preferring is distortion and bandwidth limitation. Naw, I think it's just a matter that we produced music in a more musical way 25 years ago. Take an LP and "remaster" it like a current CD and you'd dislike it as much as a CD that was made last week. Exactamundo |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
james wrote:
A $30 CD player sounds so much better than any $30 record player ever did. That's the comparison that matters to the rest of the world, fortunately or unfortunately. damn, are we really spending the price of 1.5 CD's to listen to our music on? I got my turntable for $350 and it had a list of a couple of thousand dollars I have an audio alchemy CD player that had a list of $5000 or something absurd (i got it cheap don't worry) I still prefer the turntable despite the CD sounding as good as I have heard CD's sound.. |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Joe Sensor wrote:
Geoff Wood wrote: What you are hearing and evidently preferring is distortion and bandwidth limitation. You sure about that? OK, vinyl does sound better. You see, let's take a church organ playing a 20 Hz tone at 80 Decibels. Recorded on CD, it will deliver that tone to you (if your speaker and amp can handle it) in all its brutal reality. Recorded on vinyl, it will mix in nicely with the rumble, not to mention step down the dynamics somewhat because there's only so much bass energy you can fit in a groove. So the vinyl recording will have smoother interpretation of that organ playing that note. Now, let's take high frequency sounds, like thousands of bats suddenly flying out of a cave. Here, on the record, with its reduced top end response and gently rolled of eq, will play those sounds back to you in a much more pleasant audible experiecne. The CD will play those sounds back to you like bats out of hell, and we don't want that! So unpleasant CD |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
playon wrote:
it's funny how I hardly ever listen to my CDs except in the car. [CLICK] I always seem to gravitate towards vinyl [POP] at home. The is some subliminal [CLICK] annoyance with CDs, [POP] they almost never sounds "right" to me. [CLICK POP] The problem could also be the [SCRAAAAATCH] converters in my consumer-grade CD player though...[CLICK] |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Let's do some critical listening | Audio Opinions | |||
More on Equalizers from Ferstler | Audio Opinions | |||
Run Rabbit Run | Vacuum Tubes | |||
Anyone noticing vinyl seems to be making a minor comeback? | Pro Audio | |||
People that have or do listen to both Vinyl and Cd: Basicsurvey/poll | Audio Opinions |