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

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?

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
-

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}

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

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

"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

"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

"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

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".

"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

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.

"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


%

"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.

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.

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.)

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.

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."

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."

that deep turntable rumble adds some nice warmth...

Mark

Geoff Wood wrote:

What you are hearing and evidently preferring is distortion and bandwidth
limitation.

You sure about that?

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.

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."

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?

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.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

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.

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

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

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

On 18 Apr 2005 09:09:47 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

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.

I'm with Scott on this one. I'll also admit, I've only had cheaper CD
players. Whereas I always had a top end turntable. Of course I knew
nothing about converters at first. The more expensive decks just
seemed to have more unnecessary bells and whistles.
Amazingly even with the better converters on my recording system, the
unmastered CD of a project I'm working on always sounds much better
than the computer. I'm delighted when it does have that more physical
presence in the room, but unclear as to why?

These comparisons are always fun, but they skip the only real validating
element:
Do you KNOW that you were listeneing to IDENTICAL master sources?

I'll bet dollars against doughnuts you don;t know and so shouldn;t be
automatically laying the blame/credit on vinyl Magic... the differences
(ASIDE from the mismatches and inaccuracies of stylus/cartidge/preamp
issues) are more likely differing mastering issues.
This is NOT to say that you don;t LIKE (or even that you SHOULDN:T like)
what you heard off the LP, but it IS saying you have to KNOW whether what
you heard is part of what was done in mastering to the LP version vs the
particular CD you compared it to. I have several discs containing TOTO
best-of collections and they all sound HUGELY different. Likewise compare an
older copy of the ALLMAN BROTHERS at FILLMORE with the latest special
edition set that's had at least 6dB or more loudness squeezed out of it at
the expense of transparency.

On 4/18/05 2:29 AM, in article
, "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

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...

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?

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."

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.

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...

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

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..

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

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]