Arny Krueger wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:
"WideGlide" wrote in message
t

Another related question... if you record music from a vinyl record
album directly to a CDR through a good stereo AD converter, will
the imaging be retained?

Nobody knowledgeable who wants the best results does things this
way. Vinyl transcription done right involves doing things that can't
be done on most if not all CD recorders. It takes a PC or a DAW to
do a SOTA or even credible job of transcribing vinyl.

Why?

No CDR seems to have the necessary processing power - editing,
equalization, speed adjustment, declicking, denoising - that are
commonly done while transcribing a LP. Every CDR I've ever seen has a
volume control and that's about it. As I read the statement "record
music from a vinyl record album directly to a CDR through a good
stereo AD converter", it does not allow for the use of any signal
processors other than a preamp.

And who mentioned a CD recorder anyway?

Isn't the use of a CDR implied by the phrase "record music from a
vinyl record album directly to a CDR through a good stereo AD
converter"?

Arny Krueger wrote:

And who mentioned a CD recorder anyway?

Isn't the use of a CDR implied by the phrase "record music from a
vinyl record album directly to a CDR through a good stereo AD
converter"?

I think CDR meant CD-R - the medium - rather than a CD Recorder.

geoff

Scott Dorsey wrote:
. This is unfortunate, but you have to
realize that most of the stuff currently released on vinyl came into
the mastering room on DAT or CD-R anyway.

Yes , but the vinyl adds the stuff that affecionados love - the distortion,
frequency limitations (low and high) , dynamic range limitations, noise,
euphonic microphonics, etc.

geoff

Bob Cain wrote:

analog waveform between the two +1 samples results in an
infinite value.

But this scenario implies that something else was broken in the recording
chain. Hardly the fault of normalisation.

geoff

Geoff Wood wrote:


Yes , but the vinyl adds the stuff that affecionados love - the distortion,
frequency limitations (low and high) , dynamic range limitations, noise,
euphonic microphonics, etc.

I don't love any of that. Yet I am a big vinyl fan.

Geoff Wood wrote:

Bob Cain wrote:


analog waveform between the two +1 samples results in an
infinite value.


But this scenario implies that something else was broken in the recording
chain. Hardly the fault of normalisation.

That example was just to illustrate the effect with the most
pathological possible case (which I found as far as I know
although it took someone else, RBJ I think, to show that the
peak was infinite.)

The effect of reconstruction overs is nonetheless a
legitimate consideration in normalization. The usual
normalization function will normalize to the largest sample
rather than to the real peak and to have the real peak
correspond to the max sample would in fact be a rarity.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

anthony.gosnell wrote:

"David Perrault" wrote

,,,,, He feels that the vinyl has a greater frequency response
than CD due to its "infinite resolution". I disagree and feel that the

CD

has greater frequency response than vinyl.,,,,

I think frequency response is less relevant than over-all fidelity.
Whatever that is!!!

I've never kept notes but the following seems to be pretty consistent.

When I've played a CD loud, at some point someone asks to turn it
down.

When I play vinyl in a similar setting someone invariably asks to turn
it up.


This is because of dynamic range. The CD's have probably had all the
dynamic range squashed out of them.

Well, compression was not unknown with vinyl since it is one
of the best ways to beat its fairly poor SNR.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

Scott Dorsey wrote:

Fill X wrote:

5) I wish the digital camp would drop the idea that in theory digital is
perfect, because they do have to implement it. This is as annoying to me as
vinyl people who say vinyl goes up to 30K (though i have been told you can get
22K half-speed).


The systems used to cut CD-4 quad LPs had a response flat up to around 40 KHz,
which was required in order to get the ultrasonic subcarrier on the disc.

The what? I dunno nuthin about this, care to fill me in?


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

"WideGlide" wrote in message
t...
A friend of mine insists that the reason vinyl seems to have more width
etc
than a CD is because information is LOST in the "poor" 16-bit, 44.1k
digital
domain of the CD.

Here we go again.

He feels that the vinyl has a greater frequency response
than CD due to its "infinite resolution".

No such thing as infinite resolution, but CD does have far more than vinyl.

My friend feels he can hear "more"
information on the vinyl,

Of course he can, vinyl has *FAR* more noise and distortion than CD.

and that the vinyl is more accurate than the cd.

He has compared the original musicians playing in the studio to the vinyl
and CD playback to be able to make this comparison?
What he *PREFERS* has nothing to do with accuracy.

snip more proof of ill-informed opinion

TonyP.

Fill X wrote:

A lot of people don't read Auden or Kant either but does
that mean they are less valuable than people who are more widely read?


Yes. :-)


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

Vinyl does not compete with CD. Vinyl is dead, period. Even though there
are
some new formats out there, CD is king.

so much for your hyperbole, now...

I'm not sure why you said this. Vinyl is dead, CD is king. Am I stretching
the truth?


It's only done by engineer or audiophile types, the vast majority of the
music-buying public has never owned a turntable.

well, a lot of older people buy cd's, it's whole demographic. But is there
a
use to your assertion? A lot of people don't read Auden or Kant either but
does
that mean they are less valuable than people who are more widely read?

Let's not get emotional about it. This is business. CD's outsell everything
else by huge margins. BTW, yes these people are less valueable. They sell
less books, therefore they are less valueable.

Romeo Rondeau wrote:

Let's not get emotional about it. This is business. CD's outsell
everything else by huge margins. BTW, yes these people are less
valueable. They sell less books, therefore they are less valueable.

Red-heads are by far the minority of hair-colour people. But this does not
mean that gingers are all dead.


geoff

Scott Dorsey wrote in message
...

No CDR seems to have the necessary processing power - editing,
equalization,
speed adjustment, declicking, denoising - that are commonly done while
transcribing a LP. Every CDR I've ever seen has a volume control and
that's
about it. As I read the statement "record music from a vinyl record
album
directly to a CDR through a good stereo AD converter", it does not allow
for
the use of any signal processors other than a preamp.

Why would I want to do ANY of that stuff?

I play back vinyl, and it sounds good all by itself. If I do a
transcription,
I want it to sound the same way.

Why I want to do some of that stuff is that I play back vinyl that *doesn't*
sound good all by itself. It's scratchy, mostly, and I want to get the
scratches out. Or it has rumble in it, not from the playback turntable, but
present in the record. Or it was mastered by some idiot who made it
screechy. I spend time on these imperfect records because they have music on
them I want to listen to, and play over the radio. So I declick and
sometimes filter and EQ, in the DAW.

Peace,
Paul

El Evans MMDeuce wrote in message

Elvis is dead, Marilyn is dead, John's- Lennon, Cash, Kennedy-are
dead, because they were people, and people are animals, and animals
are living things, and living things die. Vinyl is an inert material
made from a substance all too common-oil-and therefore cannot die.

Actually it can, or at least can become geriatric. The plasticizers in vinyl
eventually outgas, and the vinyl becomes brittle. Audiophiles hear this,
sometimes, as better detail in those old Mercury Living Presence records. I
usually hear it as brittleness, and the sound of the stylus smashing the
no-longer-plastic plastic.

Peace,
Paul

WideGlide wrote:

searching for the manuals. Scott, is there a specific cartridge
you'd recommend for this unit?

Other people will have different local brands to recommend, the Ortofon
X5MC high output MC is quite tolerant with tone arms and it is the local
brand ovcer here and I very much want them to stay alive to have them
around when I need a new one.


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

--
*******************************************
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
*******************************************

"Geoff Wood" -nospam wrote in message
...
Romeo Rondeau wrote:

Let's not get emotional about it. This is business. CD's outsell
everything else by huge margins. BTW, yes these people are less
valueable. They sell less books, therefore they are less valueable.

Red-heads are by far the minority of hair-colour people. But this does
not
mean that gingers are all dead.

Are you disputing the fact that vinyl is dead? This conversation is stupid.

"Rob Adelman" wrote in message

Geoff Wood wrote:


Yes , but the vinyl adds the stuff that affecionados love - the
distortion, frequency limitations (low and high) , dynamic range
limitations, noise, euphonic microphonics, etc.

I don't love any of that. Yet I am a big vinyl fan.

That's like saying that you like to eat Sno Cones, but don't like things
that are cold or sweet.

"Bob Cain" wrote in message


Well, compression was not unknown with vinyl since it is one
of the best ways to beat its fairly poor SNR.

Agreed, but the compression on most legacy LPs was moderate and often it was
nil or took the form of manual gain riding which is generally more tolerable
to listen to. I've seen numerous cases where the LP version of a given
musical work had more dynamic range than a modern CD version. Obviously, the
compression on the CD version was not demanded by CD digital technology.
But, it was there nevertheless, and it was audible.

"Bob Cain" wrote in message

Scott Dorsey wrote:

Fill X wrote:

5) I wish the digital camp would drop the idea that in theory
digital is perfect, because they do have to implement it. This is
as annoying to me as vinyl people who say vinyl goes up to 30K
(though i have been told you can get 22K half-speed).


The systems used to cut CD-4 quad LPs had a response flat up to
around 40 KHz, which was required in order to get the ultrasonic
subcarrier on the disc.

The what? I dunno nuthin about this, care to fill me in?

Oh, it is true as far as it goes.

However, the response wasn't flat in the same sense as it is up to 20 KHz
with CDs. It wandered around by quite a few dBs. And the dynamic range was
about nil. Cutting enough carrier to be recovered was one of the challenges.

Here's a relevant paper:

Further Improvements in Discrete Four-Channel Disc System CD-4
Author(s): Owaki, Isao; Muraoka, Teruo; Inoue, Toshiya
Publication: JAES Volume 20 Number 5 pp. 361·369; June 1972

Figure 4 on PDF page 3 shows Shibata stylus FR +/- 3 dB to 50 KHz, but the
elliptical stylus response was down about 15 dB from peak response at 50
KHz.. The noise floor of the system was as little as 45 dB down at 10 KHz,
and remember that SNR is the integral sum of the noise floor. Noise
reduction (compression-expansion) was part of the system.

Everybody who plays with these things will tell you that a few dozen plays
with even the best cartridges will attenuate the carrier enough to make the
disc non-useable for 4-channel.

Geoff Wood -nospam wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:
. This is unfortunate, but you have to
realize that most of the stuff currently released on vinyl came into
the mastering room on DAT or CD-R anyway.

Yes , but the vinyl adds the stuff that affecionados love - the distortion,
frequency limitations (low and high) , dynamic range limitations, noise,
euphonic microphonics, etc.

No. Most of this stuff is dance stuff, where the folks playing it back
mostly want it on vinyl so they can manipulate it, not because of the
sound.

There _are_ folks who buy vinyl because of the sound, but that's a
totally different market.

It's interesting to see how the rise of the CD basically took the mainstream
out of the LP market, and left two fringes with no intersection between them
at all.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Bob Cain wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:

Fill X wrote:

5) I wish the digital camp would drop the idea that in theory digital is
perfect, because they do have to implement it. This is as annoying to me as
vinyl people who say vinyl goes up to 30K (though i have been told you can get
22K half-speed).

The systems used to cut CD-4 quad LPs had a response flat up to around 40 KHz,
which was required in order to get the ultrasonic subcarrier on the disc.

The what? I dunno nuthin about this, care to fill me in?

Okay, there were three basic standards for quadrophonic sound on LPs back
in the seventies. There were two competing matrix formats, QS and SQ,
which were basically the predicessors to the current Dolby Stereo matrix
format. These could not offer four completely discrete channels any more
than Dolby Stereo can.

The only way to get discrete channels on an LP was using the CD-4 format,
which put an ultrasonic subcarrier on the disc that carried the surround
channel information. You could play the disc back on a normal stereo system
and you'd hear the front channels only (and also probably wipe whatever
ultrasonic stuff was on the disc off in the process too). You could play
it back on a turntable with a special CD-4 cartridge into a special CD-4
decoder, and have four discrete channels come out of the decoder.

Most of the discrete quad recordings were available originally on 4-track
1/4" open reel tapes for home use, but there were a limited number available
on CD-4 discs. Then the whole quad thing collapsed.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Peter Larsen wrote:
WideGlide wrote:

searching for the manuals. Scott, is there a specific cartridge
you'd recommend for this unit?

Other people will have different local brands to recommend, the Ortofon
X5MC high output MC is quite tolerant with tone arms and it is the local
brand ovcer here and I very much want them to stay alive to have them
around when I need a new one.

It is, and it's very dry sounding if you like that. But it still has
a very low output and a lot of MM preamps won't like it. Also, it does
not track worn records as well as the van den Hul styli do. But I have one
and I use it a lot.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Bob Cain" wrote in message


Well, compression was not unknown with vinyl since it is one
of the best ways to beat its fairly poor SNR.

Agreed, but the compression on most legacy LPs was moderate and often it was
nil or took the form of manual gain riding which is generally more tolerable
to listen to. I've seen numerous cases where the LP version of a given
musical work had more dynamic range than a modern CD version. Obviously, the
compression on the CD version was not demanded by CD digital technology.
But, it was there nevertheless, and it was audible.

Depends a lot on the disc. I'd love to hear what some of the A&M releases
might sound like with less compression.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

In article writes:

I spend time on these imperfect records because they have music on
them I want to listen to, and play over the radio. So I declick and
sometimes filter and EQ, in the DAW.

Too bad you work for a cheap radio station and can't bill them for
your time. g




--
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

Romeo Rondeau wrote:


Are you disputing the fact that vinyl is dead?


Vinyl is not dead. If so, why are they still making vinyl records and
selling them?

This conversation is stupid.

?

Rob Adelman wrote:

Romeo Rondeau wrote:


Are you disputing the fact that vinyl is dead?

Vinyl is not dead. If so, why are they still making vinyl records and
selling them?

This conversation is stupid.

?

It's retro.
--
Les Cargill

David Perrault wrote in message . ..

IMHO vinyl playback has a smootheness that is hard to find in a CD
player, unless you are getting into high end players.

Not very scientific, but I'll bet you could test this out and find it
to be true.


I think that a large portion of this is due to the high frequency
limiting that is all but required when mastering for vinyl. The louder
things get the less high frequencies there will be. This is
pleasurable and easy to listen to, but not accurate.

Paul Gold
www.vinylmastering.net
brooklynphono

(THERMIONIC) wrote in message ...

Out of interest, is anyone around here able to cut vinyl with an all-analogue chain? What is the name of the Neumann tape delay attachment you need? Are they rare nowadays, or have modern facilities just mothballed them due to reduced demand?


I have a Studer A80 preview deck. I just put a Neumann SP66 transfer
console into service. I can do analog transfers with variable pitch
and depth. The console has EQ and HPF/LPF for processing. I don't have
an A/B path set up so I can't have different settings set up for each
band. An A/B setup is the grand plan.

In article ,
Paul Gold wrote:
David Perrault wrote in message . ..

IMHO vinyl playback has a smootheness that is hard to find in a CD
player, unless you are getting into high end players.

Not very scientific, but I'll bet you could test this out and find it
to be true.

I think that a large portion of this is due to the high frequency
limiting that is all but required when mastering for vinyl. The louder
things get the less high frequencies there will be. This is
pleasurable and easy to listen to, but not accurate.

That shouldn't be the case. The safety limiter is just there to keep you
from running the head out past maximum excursion. You shouldn't be hitting
it all the time. It might clip a peak or two now and then if you're cutting
something reasonbly hot, but it shouldn't be doing anything on a regular
basis.

If you can hear the limiting cutting in throughout, you're cutting too hot.
And if you pull the levels back, you'll find that it actually sounds louder
when the top end returns.

The cutting head has certain physical limitations, and if you're using
something ancient like I am, you don't get the kind of wide excursions that
the newer Neumann stuff will give you. But you can work around that.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

(El Evans MMDeuce) wrote in message . com...

You can't average batting averages. Vinyl is still a viable
technology in certain markets, provided you are not going after
14-year-olds or their soccer moms.


Umm. The vast majority of the vinyl buying public are DJ's on the
short end of 25. Most of the music released on vinyl is electronic,
hip hop, and indie rock.

Paul Gold
www.vinylmastering.net
brooklynphono

Mike Rivers wrote in message
news:znr1078750260k@trad...

In article
writes:

I spend time on these imperfect records because they have music on
them I want to listen to, and play over the radio. So I declick and
sometimes filter and EQ, in the DAW.

Too bad you work for a cheap radio station and can't bill them for
your time. g

No ****.

Peace,
Paul

Scott Dorsey wrote in message
...

Agreed, but the compression on most legacy LPs was moderate and often it
was
nil or took the form of manual gain riding which is generally more
tolerable
to listen to. I've seen numerous cases where the LP version of a given
musical work had more dynamic range than a modern CD version. Obviously,
the
compression on the CD version was not demanded by CD digital technology.
But, it was there nevertheless, and it was audible.

Depends a lot on the disc. I'd love to hear what some of the A&M releases
might sound like with less compression.

Back in the 70s, when Fairport Convention records were released on A&M in
the US and Island in the UK, we all were floored to hear how much dynamic
range the British pressings had, and how squashed the American ones were.

Peace,
Paul

When you build the Federation Starship with cloaking, transporter
room, and the ability to go back in time, we'll just BEAM DOWN and
listen to the original mixdowns-it's only there the sound as intended
comes into existence-and set up our stuff when they're out and A/B/X
them. Until and unless-you're jacking off in public. It's impossible
enough unless you're really well connected to do this with modern
recordings-let alone, ones of crappic rock groups and FDS-era
ringer-dingers, the stuff of audiophile obsession today.

Trying to reproduce the true and real sonic experience, in toto,
makes a nice mantra but a lousy reality. Art is the selective
representation of reality and recording is, ultimately, an art.

Get a good room to set up in (elsewise, you as well may wear
headphones) FIRST, wire it properly, interface the speakers to the
room, and get the best electronics you can keeping in mind the
speaker/amp compatibility-big McIntosh amps and big Klipsch speakers
DO NOT go well together. For the type of listening I do, EQ is a must,
the full-time purist doesn't need it. Et al.

Let me start this off by stating I'm no pro, just a lurker interested in
this topic. I have done extensive comparisons between the two formats and I
thought it might be of some interest. I would also like to get some
insight, as to why I get the results I've gotten, because (technically) it
shouldn't be so!

Some history. Luckily, I never unloaded my LP's and inherited many from
friends and family. For years, I stored them, replacing the recordings with
CD's (remasters when available). So, I have many of the same recordings to
compare the two formats. All of these recordings were not exclusive to
older recordings. Some I have are post 1992 and were/are availble on both
cd and vinyl. The equipment may not be the greatest, but it is what I used
in the comparisons: Speakers-Klipsch Chorus II. Amp-QSC USA 900 (which beat
out a Audio Research D-70 re-tubed and biased). Pre-Amp-Yamaha DSP-A1.
Phono Pre-Amp-Rega Phono. Turntable-Rega P3 fitted with a Shure V15xMR.
Nitty Gritty RCM. CD Recorder/Player-Fostex CR 300. CD Player-Carver
S/DA-390. Reel-to-Reel-Pioneer RT-707. Cassette Deck-Aiwa
XK-S9000.SACD/DVD-Audio-Pioneer 563.

To try to match levels the best I could and for quick access, I would record
the vinyl onto cd then compare the manufactured cd (using the carver) to the
"vinyl" cd (in the fostex). I have them both hooked up digitally and use the
dac in the DSP-A1 then switch between the two sources. My brother was
included in these comparisons, eventhough I knew, he never knew which cd was
playing. In every instance, with the exception of two recordings, the vinyl
sounded better. The vinyl gave the impression of listening to the actual
band, while the cd sounded like a recording. The "vinyl" cd sounded more
natural and the instruments would decay better, especially percussion and
vocals.

I know some will think, as I did, that it is because I like the distortions
of the vinyl and that the cd can faithfully reproduce the lp. I chalked it
up to poor mastering, since most of the music I compared is rock. The real
revelation came when I recorded vinyl at 7.5 ips to the Pioneer (which has
not been aligned and also needs one of the pinch rollers replaced). The
reel tape (Sony) I used came with the Pioneer when I bought it from ebay. I
have no idea of the history of this tape, but it seemed to have lived it's
lifespan. Well, what I found. I recorded The Beatles-Hard Day's Night
(parlophone stereo pressing) onto cd and reel tape. On playback and
comparing, the reel trounced on the cd. The cd copy sounded unnatural,
compressed and void of life. This indicated, to me, that cd cannot
faithfully reproduce vinyl. Now, if I was to hear the "vinyl" cd without
the reel for comparison, it would sound very nice indeed. But once you hear
the difference there is no going back.

Another comparison I made was with a "vinyl" cd, sacd and cassette. The
cassette was better to the "vinyl" cd. Although, hard to match the levels,
the cassette sounded more open while the "vinyl" cd sounded compressed,
coming from a local center area. Comparing the "vinyl" cd to the sacd, the
sacd was close but still no cigar. The "vinyl" cd sounded better.


I do not claim this as a scientific study with lab coats and absolutes, just
simple comparisons with recordings and equipment I have access to. I should
also note, I started these comparisons wanting the cd to be better. It
would be so nice to walk into a store and get the recording I want, as
opposed to hunting for an acceptable vinyl copy. I'm sure many will shoot
holes in my process, equipment, etc., which is fine, this is one of the
reasons I posted. Can someone explain (technical or otherwise) why the
"vinyl" cd did not sound as good as the reel or even cassette? Why would
some of the recordings, post-1992 (which surely have digital in the chain
somwhere) sound better on vinyl? I'm sure most here have access to orginal
masters of some sort, what format best represents the master?


As a side note, thanks to all that post here regularly, I have learned alot.


"Kalman Rubinson" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 18:19:06 -0600, Rob Adelman
wrote:



Rob Adelman wrote:

This is just one store. 840 pages of brand new vinyl releases.


Oops, my mistake. 42 pages. 840 selections.

Brand new? The vast majority seemed to be reissues. Or did you mean
that the vinyl itself was brand new?

Kal

Paul Gold wrote:


Umm. The vast majority of the vinyl buying public are DJ's on the
short end of 25. Most of the music released on vinyl is electronic,
hip hop, and indie rock.

Paul, why does acoustic sounds have such a large selection of other
styles? Somebody must be buying them.

http://tinyurl.com/2rhfl

"Bob Cain" wrote in message
...
This has been true of my experience too and I know damn well
it isn't because of more accurate reproduction. In the end,
if an artifact or set of them results in a more interesting
or more pleasurable experience then that is just fine with me.


Perhaps it's still a loss of dynamics with digital because people CAN put it
all up at the top, whereas with vinyl, you simply cannot have everything at
the top because a good bass line will pop the stylus right out of the
groove. Playback volume may well be relative and even exacting in
measurement, but since the source material isn't the same, it's not an even
playing field. Now my guess is that if one has as much dynamic range on a
CD as is used to maintain stylus contact with vinyl, you'd have more people
asking for the CD to be turned up too. Obviously the easy way to find out
is to create a CD and vinyl from the same mix with the same overall dynamic
range and put 'em both up for playback. Other than inherent playback noise
from vinyl, I doubt that one being a digital source at that point will
present a problem.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio


What if the thing some people are finding "better" about
SACD is in fact such an artifact? I hear that the
possibility is under consideration. When they nail it I'm
planning on a pseudoSACD DX plugin that will make your CD's
sound exactly like SACD's. :-)


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

Careful Scott. They be calling you crazy. g

Scott Duncan wrote:

In every instance, with the exception of two recordings, the vinyl
sounded better. The vinyl gave the impression of listening to the actual
band, while the cd sounded like a recording. The "vinyl" cd sounded more
natural and the instruments would decay better, especially percussion and
vocals.

In article ,
Rob Adelman wrote:

Romeo Rondeau wrote:


Are you disputing the fact that vinyl is dead?


Vinyl is not dead. If so, why are they still making vinyl records and
selling them?

This conversation is stupid.

?


Check this thing out - ordered the demo CD (!) and NO vinyl is NOT dead.

http://www.smartdev.com/LT/laserturntable.html

And, no I'm not involved in their company in any way but stunned at the
effort they have made to get maximum out of the old vinyl

I do not think many ppl know how much 'music' actually gets engraved
on an LP, and i'm not sure how many ppl understand exactly how lousy
a bad CD player sounds in comparison to a really good one ...
J.

--
Joakim Wendel
Remove obvious mail JUNK block for mail reply.

My homepage : http://violinist.nu

Well, I am an Ozzy fan.


"Rob Adelman" wrote in message
...
Careful Scott. They be calling you crazy. g

Scott Duncan wrote:

In every instance, with the exception of two recordings, the vinyl
sounded better. The vinyl gave the impression of listening to the
actual
band, while the cd sounded like a recording. The "vinyl" cd sounded
more
natural and the instruments would decay better, especially percussion
and
vocals.

"Rob Adelman" wrote in message

Paul Gold wrote:


Umm. The vast majority of the vinyl buying public are DJ's on the
short end of 25. Most of the music released on vinyl is electronic,
hip hop, and indie rock.

Paul, why does acoustic sounds have such a large selection of other
styles? Somebody must be buying them.

http://tinyurl.com/2rhfl

It apparently takes a lot of titles to build up enough volume to have a
business.