[Audio Empire]

Thought I's stir up some activity here. This place is as dead as a sail-cat.
Most of those who contribute here seem to be of two minds with regard to the
question of which is more "musical", LP or CD. There is also a third point of
view (mine) which says that both have their place and both are viable music
sources and can be enjoyable. The recent surge in activity (and I don't mean
disc jockeys at dance clubs) with regard to LP tells me that I'm not alone in
this view.

In spite of what those dedicated to the LP might say, the bare facts are that
theoretically, technologically speaking, CD is better. It just is. Setting
aside, for the moment, such obvious advantages as lack of noise, durability
(CDs, generally speaking do not deteriorate with each play, given reasonable
care. LPs OTOH, do deteriorate irrespective of the level of care given them.)
and a total absence of such vinyl bugaboos like wow, flutter, running at the
wrong speed (unless the analog tape source for the CD had these problems - a
not unheard of phenomenon), not to mention inner-groove distortion, and
general mistracking, CD is just capable of flatter, wider frequency response,
lower distortion, wider dynamic range and better stereo separation. This
being the case, why is there any debate on this issue at ALL? And make no
mistake, one runs upon people all the time who will tell you that even after
\almost thrity years of development, that LP is better. Just recently, I was
reading the letters-to-the-editor section of a well known and respected
audiophile magazine and found a letter from someone who finished his pean to
LP playback (a Garrard 301 turntable, specifically) with the words "I
wouldn't have a CD player if you gave me one." Surely, such passion has some
root. We can't put it all down to luddite-ism. Interest in LP is growing -
even among the young who weren't even around in LP's heyday. I recently got a
newly released integrated amplifier from a respected hi-end source which
sports both MM and MC cartridge inputs as well as a built-in 24-bit/192 KHz
dual differential DAC and an ADC (for record out)! So why is LP still seen as
a viable alternative to CD?

Well, I know my reasons for continuing to enjoy LP along with CD, SACD, DVD-A
and high-resolution downloads as well as internet radio (more about this
latter source another time), but the reason why many don't find CD to be all
that superior to LPs is based on a very simple conclusion. While CD SHOULD be
superior to LP, and certainly CAN be superior to LP, it is usually far worse.
The fact is that most commercial CDs sound wretched. They are overproduced
(or indifferently produced) , compressed, limited and generally aimed at the
lowest common denominator. *This problem isn't just limited to pop music
either. I find that it crosses all musical genres and barriers. The average
CD is just junk in my humble opinion. And I know that it doesn't have to be.
Those of you who have been reading my ramblings here, know that I do a lot of
recording. The recording I do is for fun, and not for commercial gain, but
often I do get paid for my efforts making me a "semi-pro" these day. This
wasn't always the case. A number of years ago, I was the archive recordist or
a couple of major symphony orchestras and did a lot of location music
recording for National Public Radio and the Musical Heritage Society - and
actually have a number of records to my credit.

When I make CDs from my masters (which are in the DSD format) they sound
gorgeous and NOTHING like 99% of all the commercial recordings one buys. If
all CDs sounded like the ones that I burn on my PC from music files off of my
DSD recorder, there would be no debate about CD vs LP. CD is simply better.
Unfortunately, as long as the commercial record labels continue to make such
unmitigated garbage and sell it as state-of-the-art CD recordings, many
people are going to prefer LPs because it looks as if the signal processing
needed to make an LP is, in the final analysis, less damaging to the music
than is the signal processing routinely applied to commercial CD production
these days.

[Bill Noble[_2_]]

On 1/24/2011 4:22 PM, Audio Empire wrote:
snip

When I make CDs from my masters (which are in the DSD format) they sound
gorgeous and NOTHING like 99% of all the commercial recordings one buys. If
all CDs sounded like the ones that I burn on my PC from music files off of my
DSD recorder, there would be no debate about CD vs LP. CD is simply better.
Unfortunately, as long as the commercial record labels continue to make such
unmitigated garbage and sell it as state-of-the-art CD recordings, many
people are going to prefer LPs because it looks as if the signal processing
needed to make an LP is, in the final analysis, less damaging to the music
than is the signal processing routinely applied to commercial CD production
these days.


refer to an article in spectrum magazine within the last 5 years on
exactly this subject - it talks about how dynamic range has been
decreasing and overmodulation increasing and that is why listening to a
modern CD is so tireing.

[Audio Empire]

On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 04:09:27 -0800, Bill Noble wrote
(in article ):

On 1/24/2011 4:22 PM, Audio Empire wrote:
snip

When I make CDs from my masters (which are in the DSD format) they sound
gorgeous and NOTHING like 99% of all the commercial recordings one buys. If
all CDs sounded like the ones that I burn on my PC from music files off of
my
DSD recorder, there would be no debate about CD vs LP. CD is simply better.
Unfortunately, as long as the commercial record labels continue to make such
unmitigated garbage and sell it as state-of-the-art CD recordings, many
people are going to prefer LPs because it looks as if the signal processing
needed to make an LP is, in the final analysis, less damaging to the music
than is the signal processing routinely applied to commercial CD production
these days.


refer to an article in spectrum magazine within the last 5 years on
exactly this subject - it talks about how dynamic range has been
decreasing and overmodulation increasing and that is why listening to a
modern CD is so tireing.


I believe it. Even many so-called "audiophile" quality CDs from sources like
Telarc and Reference Recordings, et al, simply do not sound as good as they
should and could sound given the capabilities of the format. I'm suspecting
that a lot of this audiophile interest in high-resolution downloads may be
the result of dissatisfaction with the quality of commercial CDs. If so, then
that interest may be misplaced. IOW, these dissatisfied listeners (including
me) may be blaming CD for something of which it is NOT guilty; I.E. being a
low-resolution medium when in reality, it's the production practices of the
record companies that are causing folks to long for higher resolution
recordings, not the inherent CAPABILITIES of the medium.

Since it is so easy to make great-sounding CDs, and I would think that it
would take more time and effort to screw one up, my only conclusion would
have to be that for some reason, this (seemingly) industry-wide practice of
giving us less than they can and calling it more must be on purpose. OTOH, I
can't think of a single reason why this should be so, can you?

[bob]

On Jan 25, 10:15=A0am, Audio Empire wrote:

Since it is so easy to make great-sounding CDs, and I would think that it
would take more time and effort to screw one up, my only conclusion would
have to be that for some reason, this (seemingly) industry-wide practice =
of
giving us less than they can and calling it more must be on purpose. OTOH=
, I
can't think of a single reason why this should be so, can you?

One reason that's been suggested is that they are optimizing for the
earbud listener, not the owner of a good in-room audio system.

Of course, it could also just be simple incompetence.

bob

[Arny Krueger]

"bob" wrote in message

On Jan 25, 10:15=A0am, Audio Empire
wrote:

Since it is so easy to make great-sounding CDs, and I
would think that it would take more time and effort to
screw one up, my only conclusion would have to be that
for some reason, this (seemingly) industry-wide practice
= of giving us less than they can and calling it more
must be on purpose. OTOH= , I can't think of a single
reason why this should be so, can you?

One reason that's been suggested is that they are
optimizing for the earbud listener, not the owner of a
good in-room audio system.

I wonder if people are talking about what they don't understand. In general,
good quality IEMs perform not that much unlike good speakers.

I don't know how one would optimize SQ for good quality IEMs without also
doing a good job for loudspeaker listeners.

[bob]

On Jan 25, 2:18=A0pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"bob" wrote in message

One reason that's been suggested is that they are
optimizing for the earbud listener, not the owner of a
good in-room audio system.

I wonder if people are talking about what they don't understand. In gener=
al,
good quality IEMs perform not that much unlike good speakers.

I don't know how one would optimize SQ for good quality IEMs without also
doing a good job for loudspeaker listeners.

Who said anything about "good quality IEMs"? I said "earbuds." Think
also boomboxes, cheesy "computer speakers" and factory-installed car
stereos.

If that's what you think the bulk of your intended audience is using,
then at the very least it seems to me you can be a lot less careful
about the sound quality of the final product. Certainly realistic
spacial imaging becomes a whole lot less important. You can either
live without the subtle details or crank them up till they're not so
subtle anymore.

Now I can't say whether that's really a factor or not. Maybe they just
want those 30-second streamed samples to sound as loud as possible so
people will hit the "Buy Me Now" button.

bob

[Audio Empire]

On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 11:18:14 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"bob" wrote in message

On Jan 25, 10:15=A0am, Audio Empire
wrote:

Since it is so easy to make great-sounding CDs, and I
would think that it would take more time and effort to
screw one up, my only conclusion would have to be that
for some reason, this (seemingly) industry-wide practice
= of giving us less than they can and calling it more
must be on purpose. OTOH= , I can't think of a single
reason why this should be so, can you?

One reason that's been suggested is that they are
optimizing for the earbud listener, not the owner of a
good in-room audio system.

I wonder if people are talking about what they don't understand. In general,
good quality IEMs perform not that much unlike good speakers.

I don't know how one would optimize SQ for good quality IEMs without also
doing a good job for loudspeaker listeners.



Perhaps this poster didn't literally mean the actual IEMs themselves, but
rather the whole portable music gestalt.. You know, the fact that people
listen to CDs in their cars, rip them to MP3 and then listen to those in
areas with high background noise (like on airplanes, or in the workplace).

But still, I kind of doubt that all CDs would be purposely tailored for that
kind of use and only that kind of use. OTOH, they are doing it for some
reason.

[Steven Sullivan]

Arny Krueger wrote:
"bob" wrote in message

On Jan 25, 10:15=A0am, Audio Empire
wrote:

Since it is so easy to make great-sounding CDs, and I
would think that it would take more time and effort to
screw one up, my only conclusion would have to be that
for some reason, this (seemingly) industry-wide practice
= of giving us less than they can and calling it more
must be on purpose. OTOH= , I can't think of a single
reason why this should be so, can you?

One reason that's been suggested is that they are
optimizing for the earbud listener, not the owner of a
good in-room audio system.

I wonder if people are talking about what they don't understand. In general,
good quality IEMs perform not that much unlike good speakers.

IEMs are not the same as earbuds. The former involve an
airtight seal to drastically reduce ambient noise, the latter does not,
so DR compression could come in handy for earbuds.
But of course for that purpose it shouldn't be hard-coded into the music,
it should be an option in the *player*.




--
-S
We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine

[Rockinghorse Winner[_6_]]

* It may have been the liquor talking, but
bob wrote:

On Jan 25, 10:15=A0am, Audio Empire wrote:

Since it is so easy to make great-sounding CDs, and I would think that it
would take more time and effort to screw one up, my only conclusion would
have to be that for some reason, this (seemingly) industry-wide practice =
of
giving us less than they can and calling it more must be on purpose. OTOH=
, I
can't think of a single reason why this should be so, can you?

One reason that's been suggested is that they are optimizing for the
earbud listener, not the owner of a good in-room audio system.

Of course, it could also just be simple incompetence.

bob

Unless you are in the possession of evidence to the contrary, never
attribute to maliciousness what is most likely incompetence.

You can also add the low quality of popular music itself. Remember when
the ability to play instruments was a cause for pride among fans?

Unfortunately, care put into playing and recording is the province of
eccentrics and old farts these days. I am limited to listening to a very
small sample of modern commercial pop and unsigned acts. I don't expect the
situation to change until 'quality' becomes a musical value again.



*R* *H*
--
Powered by Linux |/ 2.6.32.26-175 Fedora 12
"No spyware. No viruses. No nags." |/ 2.6.31.12-0.2 OpenSUSE 11.2
http://www.jamendo.com |/
"Preach the gospel always; when necessary use words." St. Francis

[Audio Empire]

On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 16:57:18 -0800, Rockinghorse Winner wrote
(in article ):

* It may have been the liquor talking, but
bob wrote:

On Jan 25, 10:15=A0am, Audio Empire wrote:

Since it is so easy to make great-sounding CDs, and I would think that it
would take more time and effort to screw one up, my only conclusion would
have to be that for some reason, this (seemingly) industry-wide practice =
of
giving us less than they can and calling it more must be on purpose. OTOH=
, I
can't think of a single reason why this should be so, can you?

One reason that's been suggested is that they are optimizing for the
earbud listener, not the owner of a good in-room audio system.

Of course, it could also just be simple incompetence.

bob

Unless you are in the possession of evidence to the contrary, never
attribute to maliciousness what is most likely incompetence.

You can also add the low quality of popular music itself. Remember when
the ability to play instruments was a cause for pride among fans?

Unfortunately, care put into playing and recording is the province of
eccentrics and old farts these days. I am limited to listening to a very
small sample of modern commercial pop and unsigned acts. I don't expect the
situation to change until 'quality' becomes a musical value again.



*R* *H*


Well put - mostly- but keep in mind that "old farts" are likely to be the
ones who remember when quality was a virtue to covet and aspire to. Young
people today have little concept of what constitutes quality because there is
so little of it in their iPod/MacDonalds/Twilight Saga worlds. Especially
when it comes to the SOUND of music.

[bob]

On Jan 25, 10:15=A0am, Audio Empire wrote:

I'm suspecting
that a lot of this audiophile interest =A0in high-resolution downloads ma=
y be
the result of dissatisfaction with the quality of commercial CDs. If so, =
then
that interest may be misplaced. IOW, these dissatisfied listeners (includ=
ing
me) may be blaming CD for something of which it is NOT guilty; I.E. being=
a
low-resolution medium when in reality, it's the production practices of t=
he
record companies that are causing folks to long for higher resolution
recordings, not the inherent CAPABILITIES of the medium.

And what a shame it is that the high-end community has spent the
better part of three decades wailing about the inadequacies of CD as a
medium, rather than about the quality of the recordings.

bob

[Audio Empire]

On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 19:03:53 -0800, bob wrote
(in article ):

On Jan 25, 10:15=A0am, Audio Empire wrote:

I'm suspecting
that a lot of this audiophile interest =A0in high-resolution downloads ma=
y be
the result of dissatisfaction with the quality of commercial CDs. If so, =
then
that interest may be misplaced. IOW, these dissatisfied listeners (includ=
ing
me) may be blaming CD for something of which it is NOT guilty; I.E. being=
a
low-resolution medium when in reality, it's the production practices of t=
he
record companies that are causing folks to long for higher resolution
recordings, not the inherent CAPABILITIES of the medium.

And what a shame it is that the high-end community has spent the
better part of three decades wailing about the inadequacies of CD as a
medium, rather than about the quality of the recordings.

bob


Well, most of us aren't technical, and even those of us who are, if we don't
have any direct experience in making CDs from master. live, recordings and in
seeing just how good CDs can be, we simply have no way of knowing where the
problem with the sound we're hearing actually lies. All we know is that CDs
simply are not "perfect sound, forever" as advertised. It never occurred to
me, for instance, that the mediocre sound was a result of the front-end of
the process where the CDs are mastered and manufactured due to decisions made
by record company executives and producers that have nothing whatsoever to do
with the medium's ultimate capability. It is only after making my own and
comparing them with the masters that I saw that it was possible for me to
easily make spectacular sounding CDs. Discs, that for all intents and
purposes sound exactly like the digital masters (oh, there's a bit of
difference, but it's only noticeable via direct A/B with the high-resolution
master), and in all practicality, sounds simply stupendous when compared with
most of get to play on our systems every day.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Jan 25, 7:03=A0pm, bob wrote:

And what a shame it is that the high-end community has spent the
better part of three decades wailing about the inadequacies of CD as a
medium, rather than about the quality of the recordings.


News to me. I have heard a lot of complaints about recording and
mastering of new material since the introduction of CDs to audio. I
certainly have done my fair share of complaining. I try not to wail
about it though.

[Steven Sullivan]

Scott wrote:
On Jan 25, 7:03=A0pm, bob wrote:

And what a shame it is that the high-end community has spent the
better part of three decades wailing about the inadequacies of CD as a
medium, rather than about the quality of the recordings.


News to me. I have heard a lot of complaints about recording and
mastering of new material since the introduction of CDs to audio. I
certainly have done my fair share of complaining. I try not to wail
about it though.


TAS and Stereophile have never abandoned the idea that vinyl sounds better
than CD because, well....just BECAUSE.

A variation on the phrase "... though it didn't quite have the [audiophile flooby jargon] of the [LP|turntable]"
is so common in the audiophile press as to now constitute self-parody.


--
-S
We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine

[Harry Lavo]

"bob" wrote in message
...
On Jan 25, 10:15=A0am, Audio Empire wrote:

I'm suspecting
that a lot of this audiophile interest =A0in high-resolution downloads
ma=
y be
the result of dissatisfaction with the quality of commercial CDs. If so,
=
then
that interest may be misplaced. IOW, these dissatisfied listeners
(includ=
ing
me) may be blaming CD for something of which it is NOT guilty; I.E.
being=
a
low-resolution medium when in reality, it's the production practices of
t=
he
record companies that are causing folks to long for higher resolution
recordings, not the inherent CAPABILITIES of the medium.

And what a shame it is that the high-end community has spent the
better part of three decades wailing about the inadequacies of CD as a
medium, rather than about the quality of the recordings.

bob

Well, the whole interesting question to me is: why isn't the compression (or
lack thereof) part of the delivery vehicle, rather than the medium itself.
In other words, if car audio requires compression for audibility, then why
hasn't that been a standard part of car electronics for the last twenty
years.....why did the music companies take on that burden, rather than
preparing the best sounding music they could and letting it be "adjusted"
(or not) according to the listening circumstances. Certainly blanket
compression has always been relatively simple to achieve (look at the "night
mode" that has been built into almost all tvs/dvd and blueray players, etc
for the last decade.

Seems to me that with a little foresight and cooperation this mess could
have been avoided. And still could be.

[Audio Empire]

On Tue, 1 Feb 2011 05:36:20 -0800, Harry Lavo wrote
(in article ):

"bob" wrote in message
...
On Jan 25, 10:15=A0am, Audio Empire wrote:

I'm suspecting
that a lot of this audiophile interest =A0in high-resolution downloads
ma=
y be
the result of dissatisfaction with the quality of commercial CDs. If so,
=
then
that interest may be misplaced. IOW, these dissatisfied listeners
(includ=
ing
me) may be blaming CD for something of which it is NOT guilty; I.E.
being=
a
low-resolution medium when in reality, it's the production practices of
t=
he
record companies that are causing folks to long for higher resolution
recordings, not the inherent CAPABILITIES of the medium.

And what a shame it is that the high-end community has spent the
better part of three decades wailing about the inadequacies of CD as a
medium, rather than about the quality of the recordings.

bob

Well, the whole interesting question to me is: why isn't the compression (or
lack thereof) part of the delivery vehicle, rather than the medium itself.

EXACTLY! I have often said that (at least) all car stereos should have a
built-in DSP-based compressor. The listener could then dial-in the amount of
compression desired, or none at all.


In other words, if car audio requires compression for audibility, then why
hasn't that been a standard part of car electronics for the last twenty
years.....why did the music companies take on that burden, rather than
preparing the best sounding music they could and letting it be "adjusted"
(or not) according to the listening circumstances. Certainly blanket
compression has always been relatively simple to achieve (look at the "night
mode" that has been built into almost all tvs/dvd and blueray players, etc
for the last decade.

Seems to me that with a little foresight and cooperation this mess could
have been avoided. And still could be.

Agreed 100%!

[Sebastian Kaliszewski]

Harry Lavo wrote:
"bob" wrote in message
...
On Jan 25, 10:15=A0am, Audio Empire wrote:

I'm suspecting
that a lot of this audiophile interest =A0in high-resolution
downloads ma=
y be
the result of dissatisfaction with the quality of commercial CDs.
If so, =
then
that interest may be misplaced. IOW, these dissatisfied listeners
(includ=
ing
me) may be blaming CD for something of which it is NOT guilty; I.E.
being=
a
low-resolution medium when in reality, it's the production
practices of t=
he
record companies that are causing folks to long for higher resolution
recordings, not the inherent CAPABILITIES of the medium.
And what a shame it is that the high-end community has spent the
better part of three decades wailing about the inadequacies of CD as a
medium, rather than about the quality of the recordings.

bob

Well, the whole interesting question to me is: why isn't the
compression (or lack thereof) part of the delivery vehicle, rather than
the medium itself. In other words, if car audio requires compression for
audibility, then why hasn't that been a standard part of car electronics
for the last twenty years.....why did the music companies take on that
burden, rather than preparing the best sounding music they could and
letting it be "adjusted" (or not) according to the listening
circumstances. Certainly blanket compression has always been relatively
simple to achieve (look at the "night mode" that has been built into
almost all tvs/dvd and blueray players, etc for the last decade.

Well, moderate compression could be done that (automatic) way, but
heavier compression will tend to have significant artifacts. Strong
compression requires varius tricks, like making parts of music around
it's level peaks slightly softer to emphasise peaks and make compression
more acceptable (or do even more compression at the same
(un)acceptability level). Strong compression ofthen include some
equalization riding together with gain changes, as well as different
gain at different freq bands.

Night mode typically is a combination of moderate compression and
equalization (for differences of ear freq sensitivity at variuos sound
levels as well as making sound a bit harder to propagate outside the room).


Seems to me that with a little foresight and cooperation this mess
could have been avoided. And still could be.



There is/was technical possibility of other solution -- simply include
compression track/stream along music data track/stream. Compression
stream does not require much data (many times less than actual audio
stream). Then music player would have a knob to regulate amount of
compression applied (from nothing to full amount prescribed). That track
would include both gain and equalization changes.


rgds
\SK
--
"Never underestimate the power of human stupidity" -- L. Lang
--
http://www.tajga.org -- (some photos from my travels)

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message


Well, the whole interesting question to me is: why isn't
the compression (or lack thereof) part of the delivery
vehicle, rather than the medium itself. In other words,
if car audio requires compression for audibility, then
why hasn't that been a standard part of car electronics
for the last twenty years.....why did the music companies
take on that burden, rather than preparing the best
sounding music they could and letting it be "adjusted"
(or not) according to the listening circumstances.
Certainly blanket compression has always been relatively
simple to achieve (look at the "night mode" that has been
built into almost all tvs/dvd and blueray players, etc
for the last decade.

Seems to me that with a little foresight and cooperation
this mess could have been avoided. And still could be.

The problem is the very widespread perception (which may or may not be
correct) that only carefully hand-tuned compression custom-crafted by
skilled technicans AKA mastering engineers can do this as well as it needs
to be done.

[Andrew Haley]

Audio Empire wrote:

Surely, [passion for vinyl] has some root. We can't put it all down
to luddite-ism. Interest in LP is growing - even among the young who
weren't even around in LP's heyday. I recently got a newly released
integrated amplifier from a respected hi-end source which sports
both MM and MC cartridge inputs as well as a built-in 24-bit/192 KHz
dual differential DAC and an ADC (for record out)! So why is LP
still seen as a viable alternative to CD?

I don't think that we have to come up with any magical explanations
for some people liking or preferring vinyl, just as some people prefer
film to digital photography. Vinyl is a pleasing little bit of
retro-technology, with attendant cleaning rituals and nice-looking
turntables; people like to use their beautiful old Pentaxes and Leicas
and Hasselblads too. And, just as vinyl has a certain sound, film has
a certain look, if you like that kind of thing.

When it gets serious, though, people are not so keen on the retro: if
you have a life-threatening infection you're not so likely to reject
antibiotics and insist on sulfonamides.

Well, I know my reasons for continuing to enjoy LP along with CD,
SACD, DVD-A and high-resolution downloads as well as internet radio
(more about this latter source another time), but the reason why
many don't find CD to be all that superior to LPs is based on a very
simple conclusion. While CD SHOULD be superior to LP, and certainly
CAN be superior to LP, it is usually far worse. The fact is that
most commercial CDs sound wretched. They are overproduced (or
indifferently produced) , compressed, limited and generally aimed at
the lowest common denominator. ?This problem isn't just limited to
pop music either. I find that it crosses all musical genres and
barriers.

But almost everyone on this list knows that already: the loudness war
is well-documented, and people have been complaining about bad
recordings and bad pressings for decades. Sure, look-ahead
compressors make dynamic range reduction possible on a scale that
wasn't possible in the past, and some companies abuse them. Having
said that, I'm not so sure that old recordings were so great: some of
them certainly were, but many weren't. Even 30 years ago there were
companies making "audiophile recordings" that had the distinction of
sounding good. (What were all the other companies doing, then?)

http://turnmeup.org/

Andrew.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Jan 25, 4:09=A0am, Andrew Haley
wrote:
Audio Empire wrote:
Surely, [passion for vinyl] has some root. We can't put it all down
to luddite-ism. Interest in LP is growing - even among the young who
weren't even around in LP's heyday. I recently got a newly released
integrated amplifier from a respected hi-end source which sports
both MM and MC cartridge inputs as well as a built-in 24-bit/192 KHz
dual differential DAC and an ADC (for record out)! So why is LP
still seen as a viable alternative to CD?

I don't think that we have to come up with any magical explanations
for some people liking or preferring vinyl, just as some people prefer
film to digital photography. =A0Vinyl is a pleasing little bit of
retro-technology, with attendant cleaning rituals and nice-looking
turntables;


This looks like a case of cherry picking a few reasons held by a few
people out of the many reasons held by many people to put a slant on
other peoples' preferneces. Indeed we do not need to look for
"magical" explanations. We can find many explanations that are
strictly due to sound quality and have nothing to do with nostolgia or
rituals. The large body of better mastered LPs is a very good and
common reason for such a preference along with the now well documented
euphonic distortions that can lead to a more convincing sense of
spaciousness, richness and realism.


people like to use their beautiful old Pentaxes and Leicas
and Hasselblads too.

Of course they do. They still are the best tools and allow us to take
the best pictures in their respective areas of use.


=A0And, just as vinyl has a certain sound, film has
a certain look, if you like that kind of thing.

This is a hasty generalization at best. The implication here seems to
be that digital imaging has surpassed film. This certainly is not the
case with motion picture film which still has greater resolution and a
superior dynamic range by two stops. In fact in tests between the new
Leica M9 digital rangefinder and the "retro-technology based" M3 and
M6 (it is after all a camera that is approaching sixty years since
it's introduction to the market) one still gets better images from the
"retro-technology." It *is* a close contest now but still....You do
get a certain look, a look you get with better resolution and superior
performance in other objectively measurable performance
perameters...if you like that kind of thing.
http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2010/0...ica-m6-part-1/
http://www.imx.nl/photo/leica/camera...4/page164.html




When it gets serious, though, people are not so keen on the retro: if
you have a life-threatening infection you're not so likely to reject
antibiotics and insist on sulfonamides.

But it never gets "serious" in audio because we are talking aesthetic
preferences not life threatening illness. And with aesthetic
preferences subjective impressions are the rule. So your point has no
merit.

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott" wrote in message

..
We can find many explanations that are strictly due to
sound quality and have nothing to do with nostolgia or
rituals. The large body of better mastered LPs is a very
good and common reason for such a preference along with
the now well documented euphonic distortions that can
lead to a more convincing sense of spaciousness, richness
and realism.

There is no such thing as a "large body of better-mastered LPs", compared to
the huge number of well-mastered CDs that continue to be produced.

*Nothing* relating to current LP production is *large* compared to the tens
of thousands of new digital titles that are produced every year. It is all a
tiny niche.

Please study up the number of new digital titles produced say last year or
the year before, and compare that to the number of new LP titles produced
the same year. Provide us with actual numbers from independent sources so
that we can see this purported "large number" for ourselves.

Since you have said that your main system has no digital player attached to
it, how can you claim to speak authoritatively about how digital releases
sound?

[Scott[_6_]]

On Jan 25, 11:18=A0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message


.

We can find many explanations that are strictly due to
sound quality and have nothing to do with nostolgia or
rituals. The large body of better mastered LPs is a very
good and common reason for such a preference along with
the now well documented euphonic distortions that can
lead to a more convincing sense of spaciousness, richness
and realism.

There is no such thing as a "large body of better-mastered LPs", compared=
to
the huge number of well-mastered CDs that continue to be produced.

Actually there is. You may not be aware of it but it does exist.
I have a pretty substantial sampling of that body in my record
collection. It does exist.




*Nothing* relating to current LP production is *large* compared to the te=
ns
of thousands of new digital titles that are produced every year.

Sorry but that is a nonsequitor. I was talking about a body of product
that has been made over the past sixty plus years.

It is all a
tiny niche.


No, the body of LPs that have been produced over the past sixty years
is not a niche. But certainly one can say the current production of
audiophile LPs that have been produced over the past 15 years have
served a niche market. but High end audio is a niche market and this
forum isabout that niche market so i fail to see any point to your
comment about niches.



Please study up the number of new digital titles produced say last year o=
r
the year before, and compare that to the number of new LP titles produced
the same year.


Why would I do that? It has no bearing on my point. I have doen plenty
of comparisons between masterings on various LPs v. CDs. I am sure I
am way ahead of most in doing such comparisons. My homework on the
subject is quite extensive. So I speak from a lot of experience on
that matter.

Provide us with actual numbers from independent sources so
that we can see this purported "large number" for ourselves.

That is an absurd request. How can one "show" superior masterings? You
have to hear it Arny and that is something you have to do for yourself
if you are really interested and it is something you would have to do
under blind conditions if you want to get past your biases on the
subject. I can't help you there.



Since you have said that your main system has no digital player attached =
to
it,


I haven't said that. I have a CD player that does a fine job of
playing CDs.


how can you claim to speak authoritatively about how digital releases
sound?

I don't claim any authority. My opinion is my opinion. But my opinion
is based on extensive comparisons. I base my opinion on how digital
releases sound by playing them on my system.

[Audio Empire]

On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 16:02:30 -0800, Scott wrote
(in article ):

how can you claim to speak authoritatively about how digital releases
sound?

I don't claim any authority. My opinion is my opinion. But my opinion
is based on extensive comparisons. I base my opinion on how digital
releases sound by playing them on my system.

And on the result of those comparisons, I concur. CD rarely sounds as good
as it could or should sound and in instances where a CD and a vinyl release
of the same title exist, the LP usually sounds better, as I said before. It
shouldn't. CD is a vastly superior medium for music and if a technically
inferior and obsolete format is producing results that are superior to the
newer, technically better format, then the reasons for the former's
superiority over the latter must lie elsewhere.

The facts seem to be that in spite of the CD's superior dynamic range over
vinyl, most CD releases still have, for the most part, no more dynamic range
than a good vinyl pressing (and from what I'm hearing, often a good deal
less). Hard limiting and strong compression has a lot to do with this, but my
question is that if CD doesn't need the compression and limiting like vinyl
does, then why do CD mastering facilities employ it at all (much less as
heavily as they seem to)? And in light of the advances in modern electronics
and signal processing, why is it that so many CDs sound as shrill and as
distorted as they do? If CD has a frequency response that is flat to below 20
Hz, why do most CDs not have as good bass as did the LP of the same title,
even when said LP was cut perhaps as much as 30, 40, or 50 years ago (and I
guarantee you that recently remastered LPs have more/better bass than usually
do the CDs of the same title)?

[Audio Empire]

On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 11:18:28 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Scott" wrote in message

.
We can find many explanations that are strictly due to
sound quality and have nothing to do with nostolgia or
rituals. The large body of better mastered LPs is a very
good and common reason for such a preference along with
the now well documented euphonic distortions that can
lead to a more convincing sense of spaciousness, richness
and realism.

There is no such thing as a "large body of better-mastered LPs", compared to
the huge number of well-mastered CDs that continue to be produced.

Volume-wise, you're probably correct, but today's newly remastered and newly
pressed vinyl from people like Classic Records et al, are generally of older
titles that had a reputation for sounding great back in the day. These
include jazz titles from Verve, Blue Note, and Riverside, (the last two
largely recorded by Rudy Van Gelder), and classic titles from RCA Victor,
Mercury, British Decca, Vox Turnabout, and Everest among others. Just about
every vinyl title that ended up on somebody's "to die for" list is available
again on really high quality pressings. Often these are DMM mastered and
pressed on 180 or 200 gram virgin vinyl, some are cut at 45 RPM, and some are
even single-sided. All are much better than the original pressings from the
original label's manufacturing facilities. And where the same title is also
available on CD, the vinyl USUALLY sounds better. There are exceptions, of
course. JVC's XRCDs are marvelous and give us a peek at how CDs OUGHT to
sound, but rarely do. Unfortunately, XRCDs are expensive (more than
$30/title) and limited in US distribution. They sound good because they are
carefully made. I'm not sure that I buy the importance of all the steps that
JVC says they use in producing these discs (things like a rubidium master
word clock sync'd to all the digital mastering steps), but the very fact that
they take the time to do it right at all stages of mastering and production
is evident in the final product. and it's a very rare thing these days. I've
noticed (as have others) that the JVC XRCD Red Book releases of the old RCA
Living Stereo titles actually sound MUCH superior to BMGs own SACD
remasterings of these same titles!

*Nothing* relating to current LP production is *large* compared to the tens
of thousands of new digital titles that are produced every year. It is all a
tiny niche.

That's pretty irrelevant to the point here, isn't it Arny? Looks to me that
you have pulled up that old argument confusing quantity with quality. The
purpose of this exercise is to discuss the shortcomings of commercially
available CDs which make them APPEAR to be a medium that is inferior to LP,
SACD, DVD-A and high-resolution downloads, when in fact, it's purely the
execution of those CDs, and not the medium itself which is responsible for
these phenomenon.

Please study up the number of new digital titles produced say last year or
the year before, and compare that to the number of new LP titles produced
the same year. Provide us with actual numbers from independent sources so
that we can see this purported "large number" for ourselves.

I don't think that's relevant at all to the point. I'm sure nobody here is
trying to say that LP in any way competes in the marketplace with CD
production. No one with any sense of the market at all would make such an
irresponsible assertion. I suspect that you misunderstood Scott's intended
meaning.

Since you have said that your main system has no digital player attached to
it, how can you claim to speak authoritatively about how digital releases
sound?

Has Scott, in fact, said that? I must have missed it somewhere.

[Steven Sullivan]

Audio Empire wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 11:18:28 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Scott" wrote in message

.
We can find many explanations that are strictly due to
sound quality and have nothing to do with nostolgia or
rituals. The large body of better mastered LPs is a very
good and common reason for such a preference along with
the now well documented euphonic distortions that can
lead to a more convincing sense of spaciousness, richness
and realism.

There is no such thing as a "large body of better-mastered LPs", compared to
the huge number of well-mastered CDs that continue to be produced.

Volume-wise, you're probably correct, but today's newly remastered and newly
pressed vinyl from people like Classic Records et al, are generally of older
titles that had a reputation for sounding great back in the day. These
include jazz titles from Verve, Blue Note, and Riverside, (the last two
largely recorded by Rudy Van Gelder), and classic titles from RCA Victor,
Mercury, British Decca, Vox Turnabout, and Everest among others. Just about
every vinyl title that ended up on somebody's "to die for" list is available
again on really high quality pressings. Often these are DMM mastered and
pressed on 180 or 200 gram virgin vinyl, some are cut at 45 RPM, and some are
even single-sided. All are much better than the original pressings from the
original label's manufacturing facilities. And where the same title is also
available on CD, the vinyl USUALLY sounds better.


Says who? The majority of impartial listeners in a double-blind, level matched
comparison of media struck from exactly the same mastering chain?

If not, or if such a subject pool doesn't exist in substantial numbers, then
to say it USUALLY sounds anything, is overstepping...unless you mean,
usually *to you*. In which case the caveats about DBT, level matched etc
still apply.



is evident in the final product. and it's a very rare thing these days. I've
noticed (as have others) that the JVC XRCD Red Book releases of the old RCA
Living Stereo titles actually sound MUCH superior to BMGs own SACD
remasterings of these same titles!

So, why would that be? Do you think the SACD releases, whose background has
was covered well in the audio press, actually was significantly less careful
than JVC's XRCDs?

(Personally, I have the XRCD of the Reiner Bartok, and since getting the
3-channel SACD, haven't looked back. They both sound great to me.)


That's pretty irrelevant to the point here, isn't it Arny? Looks to me that
you have pulled up that old argument confusing quantity with quality. The
purpose of this exercise is to discuss the shortcomings of commercially
available CDs which make them APPEAR to be a medium that is inferior to LP,
SACD, DVD-A and high-resolution downloads, when in fact, it's purely the
execution of those CDs, and not the medium itself which is responsible for
these phenomenon.

Then you're confusing quality and quantity too. You're discussing pop CDs,
mostly. "Commercially available" CDs also include a subset of CDs
that aren't loudness war victims.


Also, I can't help noting that you're not saying anything that hasn't been
said dozens of times before, on this newsgroup....all in the service of
reviving a 'dead' group?

Yes, CD is technically superior to LP on all practical fronts. We know.

Yes, modern recording and mastering practice, particularly of 'popular'
music, often does not exploit the fidelity potential of CD, but does exploit
the loudness potential of digital. Therefore LPs mastered to 'audiophile' standards
could well sound better than their CD counterparts that have been mastered to
a different standard. We know.



--
-S
We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine

[Robert Peirce]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Scott" wrote in message

.
We can find many explanations that are strictly due to
sound quality and have nothing to do with nostolgia or
rituals. The large body of better mastered LPs is a very
good and common reason for such a preference along with
the now well documented euphonic distortions that can
lead to a more convincing sense of spaciousness, richness
and realism.

There is no such thing as a "large body of better-mastered LPs", compared to
the huge number of well-mastered CDs that continue to be produced.

*Nothing* relating to current LP production is *large* compared to the tens
of thousands of new digital titles that are produced every year. It is all a
tiny niche.

I don't think he is referring to last year. I don't think there is a
lot of current production in LPs. Most of what I see are re-issues,
although there is some new production. Nor would I use the volume of
new CDs as a measure of quality. I like small group jazz CDs, but most
of the other CDs I hear do not seem to be that well mastered. However,
not being a reviewer, I only get to hear a minuscule percentage of what
is produced.

[Andrew Haley]

Scott wrote:
On Jan 25, 4:09=A0am, Andrew Haley
wrote:
Audio Empire wrote:
Surely, [passion for vinyl] has some root. We can't put it all down
to luddite-ism. Interest in LP is growing - even among the young who
weren't even around in LP's heyday. I recently got a newly released
integrated amplifier from a respected hi-end source which sports
both MM and MC cartridge inputs as well as a built-in 24-bit/192 KHz
dual differential DAC and an ADC (for record out)! So why is LP
still seen as a viable alternative to CD?

I don't think that we have to come up with any magical explanations
for some people liking or preferring vinyl, just as some people prefer
film to digital photography. =A0Vinyl is a pleasing little bit of
retro-technology, with attendant cleaning rituals and nice-looking
turntables;

This looks like a case of cherry picking a few reasons held by a few
people out of the many reasons held by many people to put a slant on
other peoples' preferneces. Indeed we do not need to look for
"magical" explanations. We can find many explanations that are
strictly due to sound quality and have nothing to do with nostolgia or
rituals. The large body of better mastered LPs is a very good and
common reason for such a preference along with the now well documented
euphonic distortions that can lead to a more convincing sense of
spaciousness, richness and realism.

I did allow for that preference when I wrote "And, just as vinyl has a
certain sound, film has a certain look, if you like that kind of
thing." I'm not really sure we even disagree. Vinyl has a certain
sound, and some people like it.

people like to use their beautiful old Pentaxes and Leicas
and Hasselblads too.

Of course they do. They still are the best tools and allow us to take
the best pictures in their respective areas of use.


And, just as vinyl has a certain sound, film has a certain look, if
you like that kind of thing.

This is a hasty generalization at best. The implication here seems to
be that digital imaging has surpassed film. This certainly is not the
case with motion picture film which still has greater resolution and a
superior dynamic range by two stops.

I disagree, but that's getting us way off-topic, so I'm going to leave
it at that. I don't want to try the moderator's patience with a
digression into the film-vs-digital flame war. We've had quite enough
of those in the photo groups. Suffice it to say that some people like
file cameras because they like the cameras and they like the look of
film, regardless of technical issues, and there's nothing wrong with
that.

When it gets serious, though, people are not so keen on the retro: if
you have a life-threatening infection you're not so likely to reject
antibiotics and insist on sulfonamides.

But it never gets "serious" in audio because we are talking aesthetic
preferences not life threatening illness. And with aesthetic
preferences subjective impressions are the rule. So your point has no
merit.

Well, perhaps. You're assuming that what really matters in audio is
aesthetic preferences, and technical issues such as measurable
accuracy are of no great consequence. But not everyone agrees with
that.

Andrew.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Jan 25, 12:48=A0pm, Andrew Haley
wrote:
Scott wrote:
On Jan 25, 4:09=3DA0am, Andrew Haley
wrote:
Audio Empire wrote:
Surely, [passion for vinyl] has some root. We can't put it all down
to luddite-ism. Interest in LP is growing - even among the young who
weren't even around in LP's heyday. I recently got a newly released
integrated amplifier from a respected hi-end source which sports
both MM and MC cartridge inputs as well as a built-in 24-bit/192 KHz
dual differential DAC and an ADC (for record out)! So why is LP
still seen as a viable alternative to CD?

I don't think that we have to come up with any magical explanations
for some people liking or preferring vinyl, just as some people prefer
film to digital photography. =3DA0Vinyl is a pleasing little bit of
retro-technology, with attendant cleaning rituals and nice-looking
turntables;

This looks like a case of cherry picking a few reasons held by a few
people out of the many reasons held by many people to put a slant on
other peoples' preferneces. Indeed we do not need to look for
"magical" explanations. We can find many explanations that are
strictly due to sound quality and have nothing to do with nostolgia or
rituals. The large body of better mastered LPs is a very good and
common reason for such a preference along with the now well documented
euphonic distortions that can lead to a more convincing sense of
spaciousness, richness and realism.

I did allow for that preference when I wrote "And, just as vinyl has a
certain sound, film has a certain look, if you like that kind of
thing." =A0I'm not really sure we even disagree. =A0Vinyl has a certain
sound, and some people like it.

Yes you allowed for it but you did so with a mistaken broad stroke
about vinyl having a certain sound. It does not. Nor does film have a
certain look.


people like to use their beautiful old Pentaxes and Leicas
and Hasselblads too.

Of course they do. They still are the best tools and allow us to take
the best pictures in their respective areas of use.

And, just as vinyl has a certain sound, film has a certain look, if
you like that kind of thing.

No, it does not. It has many looks depending on the film stock,
lenses,camera body, format and choices made by the photographer.


When it gets serious, though, people are not so keen on the retro: if
you have a life-threatening infection you're not so likely to reject
antibiotics and insist on sulfonamides.

But it never gets "serious" in audio because we are talking aesthetic
preferences not life threatening illness. And with aesthetic
preferences subjective impressions are the rule. So your point has no
merit.

Well, perhaps. =A0You're assuming that what really matters in audio is
aesthetic preferences, and technical issues such as measurable
accuracy are of no great consequence.

They are only of consequence in so far as they can help us corolate to
our aesthetic experience. Beyond that they are purely academic.


=A0But not everyone agrees with
that.


You will be hard pressed to find a consensus on anything in this world.

[Rockinghorse Winner[_6_]]

* It may have been the liquor talking, but
Andrew Haley wrote:

Scott wrote:
On Jan 25, 4:09=A0am, Andrew Haley
wrote:
Audio Empire wrote:
Surely, [passion for vinyl] has some root. We can't put it all down
to luddite-ism. Interest in LP is growing - even among the young who
weren't even around in LP's heyday. I recently got a newly released
integrated amplifier from a respected hi-end source which sports
both MM and MC cartridge inputs as well as a built-in 24-bit/192 KHz
dual differential DAC and an ADC (for record out)! So why is LP
still seen as a viable alternative to CD?

I don't think that we have to come up with any magical explanations
for some people liking or preferring vinyl, just as some people prefer
film to digital photography. =A0Vinyl is a pleasing little bit of
retro-technology, with attendant cleaning rituals and nice-looking
turntables;

This looks like a case of cherry picking a few reasons held by a few
people out of the many reasons held by many people to put a slant on
other peoples' preferneces. Indeed we do not need to look for
"magical" explanations. We can find many explanations that are
strictly due to sound quality and have nothing to do with nostolgia or
rituals. The large body of better mastered LPs is a very good and
common reason for such a preference along with the now well documented
euphonic distortions that can lead to a more convincing sense of
spaciousness, richness and realism.

I did allow for that preference when I wrote "And, just as vinyl has a
certain sound, film has a certain look, if you like that kind of
thing." I'm not really sure we even disagree. Vinyl has a certain
sound, and some people like it.

people like to use their beautiful old Pentaxes and Leicas
and Hasselblads too.

Of course they do. They still are the best tools and allow us to take
the best pictures in their respective areas of use.


And, just as vinyl has a certain sound, film has a certain look, if
you like that kind of thing.

This is a hasty generalization at best. The implication here seems to
be that digital imaging has surpassed film. This certainly is not the
case with motion picture film which still has greater resolution and a
superior dynamic range by two stops.

I disagree, but that's getting us way off-topic, so I'm going to leave
it at that. I don't want to try the moderator's patience with a
digression into the film-vs-digital flame war. We've had quite enough
of those in the photo groups. Suffice it to say that some people like
file cameras because they like the cameras and they like the look of
film, regardless of technical issues, and there's nothing wrong with
that.

Absolutely. It depends on the producers. I worked on a popular action TV
show. It was shot on film, because the producers preferred the look. Of
course, it was digitized in post-production, and digital effects added.
I think digital video has a certain look that may or may not appeal to
different folks. There is a definite 'graininess' to film that varies
depending on the film and developing lab.


When it gets serious, though, people are not so keen on the retro: if
you have a life-threatening infection you're not so likely to reject
antibiotics and insist on sulfonamides.

But it never gets "serious" in audio because we are talking aesthetic
preferences not life threatening illness. And with aesthetic
preferences subjective impressions are the rule. So your point has no
merit.

Well, perhaps. You're assuming that what really matters in audio is
aesthetic preferences, and technical issues such as measurable
accuracy are of no great consequence. But not everyone agrees with
that.

Andrew.


*R* *H*
--
Powered by Linux |/ 2.6.32.26-175 Fedora 12
"No spyware. No viruses. No nags." |/ 2.6.31.12-0.2 OpenSUSE 11.2
http://www.jamendo.com |/
"Preach the gospel always; when necessary use words." St. Francis

[Robert Peirce]

In article ,
Andrew Haley wrote:

I don't think that we have to come up with any magical explanations
for some people liking or preferring vinyl, just as some people prefer
film to digital photography. Vinyl is a pleasing little bit of
retro-technology, with attendant cleaning rituals and nice-looking
turntables; people like to use their beautiful old Pentaxes and Leicas
and Hasselblads too. And, just as vinyl has a certain sound, film has
a certain look, if you like that kind of thing.

When it gets serious, though, people are not so keen on the retro: if
you have a life-threatening infection you're not so likely to reject
antibiotics and insist on sulfonamides.

In addition to my love of audio, I have an equal love of photography.
While LPs are not uniformly better than CDs, or vice versa, large format
film remains superior to digital, by a long shot. OTOH, 35mm (or DX)
digital, to my eye, blows film away.

I think digital is getting closer. Phase One just released an 80
megapixel 645 back that, from what I have heard, is almost as good as
film, but not quite. It also costs about $22,000. You can buy a
complete 4x5 setup for not much more than a tenth of that.

[Audio Empire]

On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 15:14:51 -0800, Robert Peirce wrote
(in article ):

In article ,
Andrew Haley wrote:

I don't think that we have to come up with any magical explanations
for some people liking or preferring vinyl, just as some people prefer
film to digital photography. Vinyl is a pleasing little bit of
retro-technology, with attendant cleaning rituals and nice-looking
turntables; people like to use their beautiful old Pentaxes and Leicas
and Hasselblads too. And, just as vinyl has a certain sound, film has
a certain look, if you like that kind of thing.

When it gets serious, though, people are not so keen on the retro: if
you have a life-threatening infection you're not so likely to reject
antibiotics and insist on sulfonamides.

In addition to my love of audio, I have an equal love of photography.
While LPs are not uniformly better than CDs, or vice versa, large format
film remains superior to digital, by a long shot. OTOH, 35mm (or DX)
digital, to my eye, blows film away.

I think digital is getting closer. Phase One just released an 80
megapixel 645 back that, from what I have heard, is almost as good as
film, but not quite. It also costs about $22,000. You can buy a
complete 4x5 setup for not much more than a tenth of that.

I know a local photographer who uses a 4 X 5 sheet-film camera that is
fitted with a scanning digital back (from Leaf, I believe) connected directly
to a laptop to capture the gigapixels of raw data that the camera produces.
While his finished landscape photos are spectacular, they look "different"
from the same shot on sheet Ektachrome or Fujichrome (he always makes a film
exposure of the same shot - it's easy, just swap the digital back for a film
holder). The film has more contrast and richer, more saturated colors. Of
course, he can achieve the same effect with Photoshop and the digital
picture, but still, I like both renditions - sort of like the same scene
pained by two different, equally competent painters.

[Andrew Haley]

Audio Empire wrote:

I know a local photographer who uses a 4 X 5 sheet-film camera that
is fitted with a scanning digital back (from Leaf, I believe)
connected directly to a laptop to capture the gigapixels of raw data
that the camera produces. While his finished landscape photos are
spectacular, they look "different" from the same shot on sheet
Ektachrome or Fujichrome (he always makes a film exposure of the
same shot - it's easy, just swap the digital back for a film
holder). The film has more contrast and richer, more saturated
colors.

Indeed it does, and there's a parallel with audio here. That
contrasty highly-saturated look is a bit like the "smiley EQ" and
compression loved by record producers -- pretty it may be, but
accurate it ain't. I remember one wag who on seeing Michael Fatali's
photographs said "That's not God's own light, that's Fujichrome's own
Velvia!" Digital, on the other hand, is linear, or can be once you
find all the curves and filters in the workflow and turn them off.
Once you've done that it's regular, stable, and repeatable, and
*accurate*, just like digital audio can be. (I am rather sensitive to
this issue, because one of my jobs is copying paintings for
reproduction. If you want to be able to compare an original and a
print side-by-side on a wall under bright lights, the last thing you
want is a contrast and saturation boost.)

Andrew.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Jan 28, 7:13=A0am, Andrew Haley
wrote:
Audio Empire wrote:
I know a local photographer who uses a 4 X 5 sheet-film camera that
is fitted with a scanning digital back (from Leaf, I believe)
connected directly to a laptop to capture the gigapixels of raw data
that the camera produces. =A0While his finished landscape photos are
spectacular, they look "different" from the same shot on sheet
Ektachrome or Fujichrome (he always makes a film exposure of the
same shot - it's easy, just swap the digital back for a film
holder). =A0The film has more contrast and richer, more saturated
colors.

Indeed it does, and there's a parallel with audio here. =A0That
contrasty highly-saturated look is a bit like the "smiley EQ" and
compression loved by record producers -- pretty it may be, but
accurate it ain't. =A0I remember one wag who on seeing Michael Fatali's
photographs said "That's not God's own light, that's Fujichrome's own
Velvia!" =A0Digital, on the other hand, is linear, or can be once you
find all the curves and filters in the workflow and turn them off.
Once you've done that it's regular, stable, and repeatable, and
*accurate*, just like digital audio can be. =A0(I am rather sensitive to
this issue, because one of my jobs is copying paintings for
reproduction. =A0If you want to be able to compare an original and a
print side-by-side on a wall under bright lights, the last thing you
want is a contrast and saturation boost.)


I know this is off topic but this is simply a load of misinformation
about color and contrast accuracy. Velvia is hardly the only film
stock in the world of film. And digital is anything but color
accurate. There is yet to be adigital color profile that begins to
represent the color palette of the real world. Neither film nor
digital imaging can match the contrast or color range of real life but
film still covers more of it.

[Robert Peirce]

In article ,
Andrew Haley wrote:

Velvia!" Digital, on the other hand, is linear, or can be once you
find all the curves and filters in the workflow and turn them off.
Once you've done that it's regular, stable, and repeatable, and
*accurate*,

I don't know what digital sensors you are using but the ones I have seen
are no more accurate than film when it comes to being able to match
color, and they have a much smaller dynamic range. I suspect highly
specialized equipment might improve on this but I don't know that. The
advantage digital has over film is it is easily manipulated on a
computer.

The problem with digital vs. film is the same as CD vs. LP. In order to
match the smoothness of analog, you need a very high sample rate. In
theory, 44.1/16 is enough for audio, but the trend now seems to be to
96/24 or higher. Frankly, with my old ears, 44.1 is enough if done
right.

I'm not sure if anybody has concluded on large format photography. 80
Mp seems to be getting pretty close for 645. I have a 6 Mp DX camera
that satisfies me in comparison to 35 mm negative film, but slide film
seems to need more. I suspect the current 20 Mp range cameras are
enough, although I don't know about sharpness issues. People might
argue over color but not over the ability to resolve detail. School is
still out on that in the larger formats.

[Kele]

I agree with you; the rips (WAVs) I make from vinyl album to CD-R
sound better than store bought CDs to me. I don't have new music on
album so I can't say that the base on albums can go as low as store
bought late model CDs. I'm curious about that with recent music on a
good vynal playback system. I can hear that my CD-R rips are a little
compressed sounding compared to the album itself, but most store
boughts still fall short of as punchy live sounding. My guess is that
too much compression is applied to current CD music, or the media/
playback is doing it - not sure.

[Rockinghorse Winner[_6_]]

* It may have been the liquor talking, but
Kele wrote:

I agree with you; the rips (WAVs) I make from vinyl album to CD-R
sound better than store bought CDs to me. I don't have new music on
album so I can't say that the base on albums can go as low as store
bought late model CDs. I'm curious about that with recent music on a
good vynal playback system. I can hear that my CD-R rips are a little
compressed sounding compared to the album itself, but most store
boughts still fall short of as punchy live sounding. My guess is that
too much compression is applied to current CD music, or the media/
playback is doing it - not sure.


I think the difference is definitely in production. Some CD's I own, like
Buena Vista Social Club, are just spectacular. It seems when the producers
want to make a great sounding CD, they can.

*R* *H*
--
Powered by Linux |/ 2.6.32.26-175 Fedora 12
"No spyware. No viruses. No nags." |/ 2.6.31.12-0.2 OpenSUSE 11.2
http://www.jamendo.com |/
"Preach the gospel always; when necessary use words." St. Francis

[Audio Empire]

On Sat, 29 Jan 2011 19:30:13 -0800, Rockinghorse Winner wrote
(in article ):

* It may have been the liquor talking, but
Kele wrote:

I agree with you; the rips (WAVs) I make from vinyl album to CD-R
sound better than store bought CDs to me. I don't have new music on
album so I can't say that the base on albums can go as low as store
bought late model CDs. I'm curious about that with recent music on a
good vynal playback system. I can hear that my CD-R rips are a little
compressed sounding compared to the album itself, but most store
boughts still fall short of as punchy live sounding. My guess is that
too much compression is applied to current CD music, or the media/
playback is doing it - not sure.


I think the difference is definitely in production. Some CD's I own, like
Buena Vista Social Club, are just spectacular. It seems when the producers
want to make a great sounding CD, they can.

*R* *H*


Indeed they can. Witness the JVC XRCDs. Expensive, but good. The problem is
that for various (perceived) economic and/or political (as in corporate
politics and copyright law, not governmental politics) reasons, the record
companies don't seem to want to give us that which the medium is capable.

[Arny Krueger]

"Rockinghorse Winner"
wrote in message

I think the difference is definitely in production. Some
CD's I own, like Buena Vista Social Club, are just
spectacular.


It seems when the producers want to make a
great sounding CD, they can.

That says it all. No LP can truely be great sounding except in the
imaginations of those very few people who look on a medium that is hobbled
by relatively massive amounts of audible noise and distoriton as being
beneficial.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Jan 30, 7:22=A0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Rockinghorse Winner"
wrote in

I think the difference is definitely in production. Some
CD's I own, like Buena Vista Social Club, are just
spectacular.
It seems when the producers want to make a
great sounding CD, they can.

That says it all. No LP can truely be great sounding except in the
imaginations of those very few people who look on a medium that is hobble=
d
by relatively massive amounts of audible noise and distoriton as being
beneficial.

You know I offered to put this claim to the test under blind
conditions and you declined to be subjected to such a test. Until such
a time that you are willing to subject yourself to such a test under
blind conditions I'm going to have to conclude this is pure bias. I'll
make the offer again. Using a high end two chanel playback system we
can play a variety of recordings sourced from various CDs, SACDs and
LPs of my chosing but the LP versions have to be sourced from my
equipment, You, under blind conditions have to identify the LP sourced
samples based on their audible distortion and their inability to
"sound great." You can bring a sample of your own that you consider a
to be great sounding so we can have some reference of you taste in
sound quality. I am willing to bet you will fail miserably in such a
test.

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott" wrote in message

On Jan 30, 7:22 am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Rockinghorse Winner"
wrote in

I think the difference is definitely in production. Some
CD's I own, like Buena Vista Social Club, are just
spectacular.
It seems when the producers want to make a
great sounding CD, they can.

That says it all. No LP can truely be great sounding
except in the imaginations of those very few people who
look on a medium that is hobbled by relatively massive
amounts of audible noise and distoriton as being
beneficial.

You know I offered to put this claim to the test under
blind conditions and you declined to be subjected to such
a test.

I don't recall any such thing, but I'm not saying that it never happens. Why
not repeat the offer and we'll see whether its a reasonable offer.