Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
a CD and an LP
I have owned a Harmonia Mundi record for a while now, KHF 21955-B.
Leonhardt/Kuijken playing the Bach sonatas for harpshichord and violin. I just picked up a CD, deutsche harmonia mundi GD77170, which is apparently the same performance. So a comparison of the sound: (First, I understand they weren't necessarily mastered the same.) The LP is superior in every way. The tonal balance on the CD is very odd.. the upper strings of the harpsichord are "right in your face" and sound like a scraping noise rather than a plucking noise. The bass notes sound distant and can barely be heard. The violin tone is thin. A dark veil covers the sound; tone colors are gray. The LP is far more detailed, with an effortless kind of detail. One hears all the individual modulations of the violin line. The violin tone is full-bodied and effortlessly, immediately present. The harpsichord actually sounds plucked rather than scraped, and the bass is audible and actually natural sounding. Harmonic intervals have character as they should, and that character serves the composition. Okay, so maybe all the distortions along the way gave the LP its sound. So somebody should write some code that processes the CD and adds these distortions. Or I'll do it if you tell me what they are. I have a bit of signal processing background.. I just don't know what distortions to add. It is very odd that I've never encountered a CD processed in this way. You would think there would be a market for it.. for example, with this particular comparison, I can't imagine ANYONE liking the CD better than the LP (never mind tube/analog freaks). I don't understand why they couldn't master the CD the same way and at least give it a sense of neutral tonal balance and make the harpsichord sound plucked (as it should) I once used a program that simulated tape distortion and tube distortion, and put a recording with serious digititus through it. No improvement. Mike |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
a CD and an LP
I'll bet that if you record that LP onto a CD that the "magic" would
still be there when you play back the CD. ---MIKE--- In the White Mountains of New Hampshire (44=B0 15' N - Elevation 1580') |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
a CD and an LP
---MIKE--- wrote:
I'll bet that if you record that LP onto a CD that the "magic" would still be there when you play back the CD. What "magic" are you talking about? Who are you quoting? Scott |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
a CD and an LP
Scott wrote-
What "magic" are you talking about? Who are you quoting? Not you! ---MIKE--- In the White Mountains of New Hampshire (44=B0 15' N - Elevation 1580') |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
a CD and an LP
---MIKE--- wrote:
Scott wrote- What "magic" are you talking about? Who are you quoting? Not you! Obviously since I have never made any claims of the paranormal. But the question was who *were* you quoting not who *weren't* you quoting. Such a simple question and such a poor answer. Could it be because the right answer would expose a burning straw man? Scott |
#7
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
a CD and an LP
Joakim Wendel wrote:
In article , wrote: I have owned a Harmonia Mundi record for a while now, KHF 21955-B. Leonhardt/Kuijken playing the Bach sonatas for harpshichord and violin. I just picked up a CD, deutsche harmonia mundi GD77170, which is apparently the same performance. So a comparison of the sound: (First, I understand they weren't necessarily mastered the same.) The LP is superior in every way. Mike How can You make this evaluation when You use different playback machines? Do you know a way to compare a CD to an LP using the same player? Scott |
#8
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
a CD and an LP
wrote in message
... Joakim Wendel wrote: In article , wrote: I have owned a Harmonia Mundi record for a while now, KHF 21955-B. Leonhardt/Kuijken playing the Bach sonatas for harpshichord and violin. I just picked up a CD, deutsche harmonia mundi GD77170, which is apparently the same performance. So a comparison of the sound: (First, I understand they weren't necessarily mastered the same.) The LP is superior in every way. Mike How can You make this evaluation when You use different playback machines? Do you know a way to compare a CD to an LP using the same player? 1. Copy the LP to a CDR. 2. Play both the LP, on its player, and the CDR on your CD player. 3. Can you tell whether you're listening to the LP or the CDR (without jumping up and down to make the LP mistrack?) N.B. You have to make sure that the volume level of both players is the same. Norm Strong |
#9
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
a CD and an LP
Scott wrote:
Obviously since I have never made any claims of the paranormal. But the question was who *were* you quoting not who *weren't* you quoting. Such a simple question and such a poor answer. Could it be because the right answer would expose a burning strawman? Since your post appears to be confrontational, I will not answer your question. ---MIKE--- In the White Mountains of New Hampshire (44=B0 15' N - Elevation 1580') |
#10
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
a CD and an LP
Hello All
I have a Rega Jupiter and a Rega P5 fitted with a Shure V15VxMR I tried this same thing with a pressing of the soundtrack from "O Brother Where Art Thou" Certain cuts from the LP sound superior, while others from the CD sound superior. The Soundtrack seems to be mastered in Stereo, imitating mono. Noticeable differences in sound stage depth and width show up between the 2 recordings. Voices and instruments sound different between the two. I have two LP's and one CD of Duke Ellingtons 3 Suites recording. This is the Nutcracker Suites jazzed up. In this instance, all 3 recording offer the same width, depth and height to the sound stage. When you close your eyes, you can actually see the different tiers of the big band. I can spend hours writing in response to this post, but I feel the bottom line to the whole argument is, enjoy your music how ever you wish. CD or Vinyl. They both are good. Thank you Mike Mueller |
#11
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
a CD and an LP
---MIKE--- wrote:
Scott wrote: Obviously since I have never made any claims of the paranormal. But the question was who *were* you quoting not who *weren't* you quoting. Such a simple question and such a poor answer. Could it be because the right answer would expose a burning strawman? Since your post appears to be confrontational, I will not answer your question. I figured you wouldn't from the get go. I have yet to find any subjectivist claim that their preference for Lps was the result of "magic." The only ones I see talking about "magic" are the objectivists. I think it is a rather weak attempt to discredit subjectivists. guilt by associasion.But if I am wrong feel free to jump in and explain why you and others keep bringing up "magic?" Scott |
#12
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
a CD and an LP
wrote:
---MIKE--- wrote: Scott wrote: Obviously since I have never made any claims of the paranormal. But the question was who *were* you quoting not who *weren't* you quoting. Such a simple question and such a poor answer. Could it be because the right answer would expose a burning strawman? Since your post appears to be confrontational, I will not answer your question. I figured you wouldn't from the get go. I have yet to find any subjectivist claim that their preference for Lps was the result of "magic." The only ones I see talking about "magic" are the objectivists. I think it is a rather weak attempt to discredit subjectivists. guilt by associasion.But if I am wrong feel free to jump in and explain why you and others keep bringing up "magic?" Scott You can't steriously be saying that no vinyl-lover has ever expressed the idea that there's 'something magic about vinyl' that CD doesn't capture'. Hell, I could find one using that *exact phrase* in a post by googling for it http://groups.google.com/group/alt.g...e=source&hl=en Imagine if I started looking for variations on the phrase. No, Scott, it doesn't mean that anyone believes there is literally 'magic' -- something defying natural laws -- going on. Or maybe it does -- I wouldn't put that past someone with the wooly New Age mindset of a Jason Serinus, for example. You know, Stereophile's featured columnist this month. -- -S "If men were angels, no government would be necessary." - James Madison (1788) |
#13
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
a CD and an LP
wrote in message
... ---MIKE--- wrote: Scott wrote: Obviously since I have never made any claims of the paranormal. But the question was who *were* you quoting not who *weren't* you quoting. Such a simple question and such a poor answer. Could it be because the right answer would expose a burning strawman? Since your post appears to be confrontational, I will not answer your question. I figured you wouldn't from the get go. I have yet to find any subjectivist claim that their preference for Lps was the result of "magic." The only ones I see talking about "magic" are the objectivists. I think it is a rather weak attempt to discredit subjectivists. guilt by associasion.But if I am wrong feel free to jump in and explain why you and others keep bringing up "magic?" They certainly seem to be describing magic properties. Thinks like "musicality," or better sense of realism, and on and on. Thing that if they are present on an LP would most certainly be present on a CD, since it is the exact duplicate of whatever recording it is a copy of. If subjectivists are discredited in any way, it is by their own hand when they run in circles trying to find reasons for their preference. It's a preference, that's all. It doesn't have to based on sound reasoning and obviously isn't given what is known about their prefernces. Sound reasoning would dictate that one tries to get the same sound as was on the master, anything that deviates from that is distortion. That many subjectivists prefer gear that introduces more distortion, it seems fair to think that they like distortion, as long as it is of a kind that for them, makes the music sound better to them. I don't get it and never will. I fell instantly in love with the first CD I ever heard, a recording of Rimsky Korsakov's Sheherazade that I had previously ownd the LP of. While the LP was pretty good since it was from a digital source, it was still bettered by the CD. Next up was Sade's first album that I also owned the LP of. No amount of talk will ever get me to go back to LP, it is strictly second rate and useful only for music where no CD exists or the rare bad CD transfer. I don't care what others like. I would like to know why they go to such extremes to try and prove there is something better about their choices, when on all technical grounds the things that they claim make no sense or are plainly false. |
#14
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
a CD and an LP
Steven Sullivan wrote:
wrote: ---MIKE--- wrote: Scott wrote: Obviously since I have never made any claims of the paranormal. But the question was who *were* you quoting not who *weren't* you quoting. Such a simple question and such a poor answer. Could it be because the right answer would expose a burning strawman? Since your post appears to be confrontational, I will not answer your question. I figured you wouldn't from the get go. I have yet to find any subjectivist claim that their preference for Lps was the result of "magic." The only ones I see talking about "magic" are the objectivists. I think it is a rather weak attempt to discredit subjectivists. guilt by associasion.But if I am wrong feel free to jump in and explain why you and others keep bringing up "magic?" Scott You can't steriously be saying that no vinyl-lover has ever expressed the idea that there's 'something magic about vinyl' that CD doesn't capture'. 1. I have made no claims that i know what *any* vinyl lover has *ever* said. What did you not understand about "I have yet to find?" 2. It's a word game and a rather silly one at that. i have heard any number of people call things magical with nointent to claim a paranormal event. so, like I said, *I* have never heard any subjectivist claim that LPs sound better because of some paranormal phenomenon. Hell, I could find one using that *exact phrase* in a post by googling for it http://groups.google.com/group/alt.g...e=source&hl=en Imagine if I started looking for variations on the phrase. It isn't hard to imagine you doing so. No, Scott, it doesn't mean that anyone believes there is literally 'magic' -- something defying natural laws -- going on. Of course not. all the allusions to religious beliefs about audio and talk of vinyl magic is just coincidental to the common challenges the rationality of subjectivists. Call me paranoid. I don' think the choice of language is accidental. Or maybe it does -- I wouldn't put that past someone with the wooly New Age mindset of a Jason Serinus, for example. You know, Stereophile's featured columnist this month. Well there you go. Scott |
#16
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
a CD and an LP
"---MIKE---" wrote in message
... The claim that there is no "doctoring" in cutting an LP has been disproved now. 1. RIAA curve must be inserted 2. Low bass must be mono. 3. Recording level must be gradually increased by about 6db towards the center of the record. And when done properly, none of the above necessarily makes any great change to the "sound" of the original master tapes. |
#17
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
a CD and an LP
wrote in message
... Steven Sullivan wrote: wrote: ---MIKE--- wrote: Scott wrote: Obviously since I have never made any claims of the paranormal. But the question was who *were* you quoting not who *weren't* you quoting. Such a simple question and such a poor answer. Could it be because the right answer would expose a burning strawman? Since your post appears to be confrontational, I will not answer your question. I figured you wouldn't from the get go. I have yet to find any subjectivist claim that their preference for Lps was the result of "magic." The only ones I see talking about "magic" are the objectivists. I think it is a rather weak attempt to discredit subjectivists. guilt by associasion.But if I am wrong feel free to jump in and explain why you and others keep bringing up "magic?" Scott You can't steriously be saying that no vinyl-lover has ever expressed the idea that there's 'something magic about vinyl' that CD doesn't capture'. 1. I have made no claims that i know what *any* vinyl lover has *ever* said. What did you not understand about "I have yet to find?" 2. It's a word game and a rather silly one at that. i have heard any number of people call things magical with nointent to claim a paranormal event. so, like I said, *I* have never heard any subjectivist claim that LPs sound better because of some paranormal phenomenon. I'm a subjectivist myself, but I would never suggest that there was anything paranormal about my choices. If I find that I prefer something that makes no sense from an objective viewpoint, I want to find out why. No, it isn't sufficient to simply act on my subjective preference without bothering to explain them. I'm a somewhat rational human being, and I would not be comfortable ignoring the facts. Norm Strong |
#18
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
a CD and an LP
wrote in message
... wrote: I don't get it and never will. I fell instantly in love with the first CD I ever heard, a recording of Rimsky Korsakov's Sheherazade that I had previously ownd the LP of. While the LP was pretty good since it was from a digital source, it was still bettered by the CD. Next up was Sade's first album that I also owned the LP of. No amount of talk will ever get me to go back to LP, it is strictly second rate and useful only for music where no CD exists or the rare bad CD transfer. I don't care what others like. I would like to know why they go to such extremes to try and prove there is something better about their choices, when on all technical grounds the things that they claim make no sense or are plainly false. I can only agree with this. I remember witnessing a listening session in a salon a few years ago, in which several devoted classical-music lovers were listening to an LP on a very nice system. As the record neared the cresecendo, I could plainly hear the inner-groove distortion and some break-up. As the record ended, they cheered. I was appalled. were these people deaf? I will never go back to vinyl for listening purposes, though it's not necessarily a bad thing to keep some nice records around that have interesting jackets. That is the only thing I miss about LP's, those great jackets with sometimes great art work. If you were really luck you sometimes got one that opened as if it were a double album. My friends and I thought at the time, how great they were for helping to remove stems and see.... ummm, never mind, did I actually say that? To sum up,one trades the ease of the bigger print and nice artwork, for improved fidelity, better dynamics, lower noise, wider frequency response, lower maintenance, less expensive playback gear, the ability to make exact duplicates of the album via a computer, for roughly the same or lower cost for the software (albums). On top of that you get albums like Famous Blue Raincoat, and Lyle Lovett's Joshua Judges Ruth, that were recorded digitally, not to mentionall the Telarc and GRP titles which are the most lifelike, clean recordings one could wish for, IMO. I feel sorry for the folks that have problems with CD sound, and wish there were some explanation or treatment that would fix their problem. :-) Gotta go now, I'm listening to some Sibelius recordings that I downloaded, with Jascha Heifetz on violin, that don't have any other sound aside from the music. I may not be an expert, but the sound of the violin sounds very correct to me. Once that's done I'll be listening to Beethoven's last 3 sonatas, again from download, and no other sound but the music. Life is good. |
#19
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
a CD and an LP
wrote:
wrote in message ... wrote: I don't get it and never will. I fell instantly in love with the first CD I ever heard, a recording of Rimsky Korsakov's Sheherazade that I had previously ownd the LP of. While the LP was pretty good since it was from a digital source, it was still bettered by the CD. Next up was Sade's first album that I also owned the LP of. No amount of talk will ever get me to go back to LP, it is strictly second rate and useful only for music where no CD exists or the rare bad CD transfer. I don't care what others like. I would like to know why they go to such extremes to try and prove there is something better about their choices, when on all technical grounds the things that they claim make no sense or are plainly false. I can only agree with this. I remember witnessing a listening session in a salon a few years ago, in which several devoted classical-music lovers were listening to an LP on a very nice system. As the record neared the cresecendo, I could plainly hear the inner-groove distortion and some break-up. As the record ended, they cheered. I was appalled. were these people deaf? I will never go back to vinyl for listening purposes, though it's not necessarily a bad thing to keep some nice records around that have interesting jackets. That is the only thing I miss about LP's, those great jackets with sometimes great art work. If you were really luck you sometimes got one that opened as if it were a double album. My friends and I thought at the time, how great they were for helping to remove stems and see.... ummm, never mind, did I actually say that? To sum up,one trades the ease of the bigger print and nice artwork, for improved fidelity, better dynamics, lower noise, wider frequency response, Well sometimes yes but far too often no. But then there are no such trade offs for those of use with both. lower maintenance, less expensive playback gear, That is true. But excellence often has it's price. the ability to make exact duplicates of the album via a computer, you know a way of doing this with out LPs and a TT? for roughly the same or lower cost for the software (albums). On top of that you get albums like Famous Blue Raincoat, and Lyle Lovett's Joshua Judges Ruth, that were recorded digitally, I have Famous Blue Raincoat on LP. not to mentionall the Telarc and GRP titles which are the most lifelike, IYO. I think a few Telarcs are up there but I have othes that beat even the best Telarcs. clean recordings one could wish for, IMO. You can always wish for more. I feel sorry for the folks that have problems with CD sound, Don't mistake someone who has problems with the sound of so many CDs with someone who has a problem with "CD sound." The persuit of excellence is tough but don't feel sorry for us the rewards are worth the effort were some explanation or treatment that would fix their problem. :-) The explinations have been provided for you the treatment is obvious. Better Cds or better LPs. Either way just better. Gotta go now, I'm listening to some Sibelius recordings that I downloaded, with Jascha Heifetz on violin, that don't have any other sound aside from the music. I suppose you didn't know those are analog recordings. I may not be an expert, but the sound of the violin sounds very correct to me. Correct? You couldn't tell what you are hearing from a live violin? Once that's done I'll be listening to Beethoven's last 3 sonatas, again from download, and no other sound but the music. Wishful thinking. Or are you now claiming complete transparency of the recording, digitization and playback from your system? Life is good. Finally we agree on something. Scott |
#20
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
a CD and an LP
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
... "---MIKE---" wrote in message ... The claim that there is no "doctoring" in cutting an LP has been disproved now. 1. RIAA curve must be inserted 2. Low bass must be mono. 3. Recording level must be gradually increased by about 6db towards the center of the record. And when done properly, none of the above necessarily makes any great change to the "sound" of the original master tapes. I suppose phono cross-talk also doesn't make any great change to the sound of the master tapes even though the spec figure is horrendous. |
#21
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
a CD and an LP
On 9 Mar 2006 01:31:14 GMT, wrote in
: Sound reasoning would dictate that one tries to get the same sound as was on the master, anything that deviates from that is distortion. No, this isn't "sound" reasoning... this is *objectivist* reasoning. And it's weird IMO, because hardly anybody has actually heard the master. The subjectivist viewpoint is that one should try to get the sound that's *closest to live, to one's ears*. That's what you hear, right? So that's what you want! BTW, I'm not a hardcore objectivist or subjectivist (if it matters)... in fact I can see the POV of both camps, as each simply has different goals in sound reproduction. -- NewsGuy.Com 30Gb $9.95 Carry Forward and On Demand Bandwidth |
#22
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
a CD and an LP
Zee wrote:
On 9 Mar 2006 01:31:14 GMT, wrote in : Sound reasoning would dictate that one tries to get the same sound as was on the master, anything that deviates from that is distortion. No, this isn't "sound" reasoning... this is *objectivist* reasoning. Both, actually. And it's weird IMO, because hardly anybody has actually heard the master. Warning: Obvious contradiction ahead. The subjectivist viewpoint is that one should try to get the sound that's *closest to live, to one's ears*. That's what you hear, right? So that's what you want! "And it's weird IMO, because hardly anybody has actually heard the" live performance. BTW, I'm not a hardcore objectivist or subjectivist (if it matters)... in fact I can see the POV of both camps, as each simply has different goals in sound reproduction. Not necessarily. It's most likely that everyone, objectivist and subjectivist alike, just wants something that sounds good to them. The disagreements are over *why* something sounds better than something else. bob -- |
#23
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
a CD and an LP
Zee wrote:
On 9 Mar 2006 01:31:14 GMT, wrote in : Sound reasoning would dictate that one tries to get the same sound as was on the master, anything that deviates from that is distortion. No, this isn't "sound" reasoning... this is *objectivist* reasoning. And it's weird IMO, because hardly anybody has actually heard the master. The subjectivist viewpoint is that one should try to get the sound that's *closest to live, to one's ears*. That's what you hear, right? So that's what you want! Well, no, it's not what many rock and pop recording artists and producers want. And too, for those who *do*, don't you think they'd strive for it on the *master*? -- |
#24
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
a CD and an LP
bob wrote:
Zee wrote: On 9 Mar 2006 01:31:14 GMT, wrote in : Sound reasoning would dictate that one tries to get the same sound as was on the master, anything that deviates from that is distortion. No, this isn't "sound" reasoning... this is *objectivist* reasoning. Both, actually. Please explain how it is "sound reasoning" to use a reference that is inaccessable and indeterminable without the use of playback thus setting up playback as a reference for playback? And it's weird IMO, because hardly anybody has actually heard the master. Warning: Obvious contradiction ahead. Where was it? The subjectivist viewpoint is that one should try to get the sound that's *closest to live, to one's ears*. That's what you hear, right? So that's what you want! "And it's weird IMO, because hardly anybody has actually heard the" live performance. Straw man. The poster said nothing about "the live performance." BTW, I'm not a hardcore objectivist or subjectivist (if it matters)... in fact I can see the POV of both camps, as each simply has different goals in sound reproduction. Not necessarily. It's most likely that everyone, objectivist and subjectivist alike, just wants something that sounds good to them. The disagreements are over *why* something sounds better than something else. I think it is fair to say that there is substantial disagreement as to *what* sounds better. there clearly is a substantial difference in what the two camps believe is a better reference as well. Scott -- |