Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Heaven!
So, after a week of living with the Clearaudio TT/arm/cartridge, I love
it more and more. The sound that I am getting from my records is just so effortless and easy... like a good concert hall. I just put on several CDs, and I just don't get that with them. The timbres are thinner and less life-like. I wish that it were the other way around, but it's not. If this is due to "euphonic distortion", bring on more of it! |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"Jenn" wrote in message
... So, after a week of living with the Clearaudio TT/arm/cartridge, I love it more and more. The sound that I am getting from my records is just so effortless and easy... like a good concert hall. I just put on several CDs, and I just don't get that with them. The timbres are thinner and less life-like. I wish that it were the other way around, but it's not. If this is due to "euphonic distortion", bring on more of it! One man's euphonic distortion is another man's compression. I would find it interesting to know what, if any differences in the mix might be. My suspcion is that the LP mix you like is simply different than that of the same recordings on CD. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"Jenn" wrote in message
... So, after a week of living with the Clearaudio TT/arm/cartridge, I love it more and more. The sound that I am getting from my records is just so effortless and easy... like a good concert hall. I just put on several CDs, and I just don't get that with them. The timbres are thinner and less life-like. I wish that it were the other way around, but it's not. If this is due to "euphonic distortion", bring on more of it! I just copied a few CD's for my daughter...Joan Jett's first two albums...her favs and very danceable. Copied them first through my main system analog to a Marantz 530 pro recorder circa 1999..using a 4x Samsung CD-R (top quality)..this was in real time. This was recorded near-maximum signal but at no time did the overload light come on. Then copied that via my DAW at 16x to another CD-R (current Memorex 52X variety) using a full disk copy. On these two records there are several tracks that have much ambience surrounding back up vocals. Also, several tracks with featured drum segments with extremely natural sounding drum recording. On my LP rig (Dual 701, Accuphase AC-2, modified Marcof PPA-2 headamp), these tracks sounded very fine...the backups floated in natural ambience, and the drums sounded taut and with extremely natural sounding transients. On the direct-recorded 4X CD, the ambience comes through okay. But transients in general and especially on the drum sound "sharp" and unnatural. Moreover, the drums loose their "tautness" and sound "hollow". On the second recording (52X CD recorded at 16X) the recording has deteriorated...with "grunge" creeping into the sound, ambience greatly reduced, and both the transient info and "hollowness" of the drum sound deteriorated further, almost to the point of pain in listening. I don't know how to record to CD any cleaner than the Marantz transfer...and the effects here were remarkably defined. I've also recorded other disks this way (Dylan, other folk-rockers) and felt they didn't sound quite as good as the vinyl, but didn't pay as much attention to why. This is the first time I tried a second generation copy on my DAW, and I was taken aback by how bad it sounded. It is possible that the "read" CD-RW/R player was having trouble picking up a clean transfer from the original CD-R, but I think it goes beyond that. For I have also noticed that CD transfers done one-to-one on the DAW don't sound nearly as clean as CD transfers from my main system to the Marantz through my DTI Pro - Proceed Converter chain. .I have some hunches about why this may be so, but need to do more investigation. My conclusion: take what you hear about the transparency of CD's with two, maybe three grains of salt. Some of it may be equipment- or blank-induced, but the deterioration is noticeable in a side-by-side -- ranging from subtle to apparent. And if this is true in home recording under controlled conditions, it is also likely true (as has been asserted) in production runs of commercial CD's. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Jenn wrote:
So, after a week of living with the Clearaudio TT/arm/cartridge, I love it more and more. The sound that I am getting from my records is just so effortless and easy... like a good concert hall. I just put on several CDs, and I just don't get that with them. The timbres are thinner and less life-like. I wish that it were the other way around, but it's not. If this is due to "euphonic distortion", bring on more of it! We know the objectivists think it is euphonic distortion. The funny thing is, I have NEVER, not ONCE met an objectivist who could accurately repeat the description of vinyl provided by those who think vinyl is truer to life. For example, we get all this stuff about "midrange phasiness", "enhanced ambience", "pleasant timbre," etc. Of course, none of that describes the reason I like vinyl---and your word "effortless" above conveys this: the way the sound comes to my attention, how it feels to pay attention to it, particularly to pay attention to multiple voices, more accurately reflects live listening. And of course I get the same effect from analog tape, so this matter goes beyond vinyl-specific distortions. I also think it is amusing that the objectivists suggest that people who, as their full-time job, discern small differences in timbre, and have a mature "taste" (not simply wowed over by "more midrange" or "more ambience") would somehow drop all mature discernment and be unable to judge the "lifelike" quality of different means of reproduction. For example, I doubt that you think "more ambience" is always better--you think the RIGHT AMOUNT of ambience is best. I doubt you think that a "warmer tone" is always better--you think that the right tone for the job is best. I challenge any objectivist here to simply repeat the arguments I've made above in their own words without distorting my meaning. It has never been done before. Mike |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message ... So, after a week of living with the Clearaudio TT/arm/cartridge, I love it more and more. The sound that I am getting from my records is just so effortless and easy... like a good concert hall. I just put on several CDs, and I just don't get that with them. The timbres are thinner and less life-like. I wish that it were the other way around, but it's not. If this is due to "euphonic distortion", bring on more of it! One man's euphonic distortion is another man's compression. I would find it interesting to know what, if any differences in the mix might be. My suspcion is that the LP mix you like is simply different than that of the same recordings on CD. Hmmm... generally, I don't know. But, the classical and solo folk guitar recordings I tend to listen to the minimum miking, so minimum mixing differences, I would imagine. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Heaven!
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Heaven!
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
... "Jenn" wrote in message ... So, after a week of living with the Clearaudio TT/arm/cartridge, I love it more and more. The sound that I am getting from my records is just so effortless and easy... like a good concert hall. I just put on several CDs, and I just don't get that with them. The timbres are thinner and less life-like. I wish that it were the other way around, but it's not. If this is due to "euphonic distortion", bring on more of it! I just copied a few CD's for my daughter...Joan Jett's first two albums...her favs and very danceable. Copied them first through my main system analog to a Marantz 530 pro recorder circa 1999..using a 4x Samsung CD-R (top quality)..this was in real time. This was recorded near-maximum signal but at no time did the overload light come on. Then copied that via my DAW at 16x to another CD-R (current Memorex 52X variety) using a full disk copy. On these two records there are several tracks that have much ambience surrounding back up vocals. Also, several tracks with featured drum segments with extremely natural sounding drum recording. On my LP rig (Dual 701, Accuphase AC-2, modified Marcof PPA-2 headamp), these tracks sounded very fine...the backups floated in natural ambience, and the drums sounded taut and with extremely natural sounding transients. On the direct-recorded 4X CD, the ambience comes through okay. But transients in general and especially on the drum sound "sharp" and unnatural. Moreover, the drums loose their "tautness" and sound "hollow". On the second recording (52X CD recorded at 16X) the recording has deteriorated...with "grunge" creeping into the sound, ambience greatly reduced, and both the transient info and "hollowness" of the drum sound deteriorated further, almost to the point of pain in listening. I don't know how to record to CD any cleaner than the Marantz transfer...and the effects here were remarkably defined. I've also recorded other disks this way (Dylan, other folk-rockers) and felt they didn't sound quite as good as the vinyl, but didn't pay as much attention to why. That just helps prove what has been said many times, that feelings and bias don't have much to do with reality, since a CD copy is an exact copy of whatever thesource material was. It is possible to loose some of the quality of the source if you copy at to fast a rate. IIRC 4X is the max. This is the first time I tried a second generation copy on my DAW, and I was taken aback by how bad it sounded. It is possible that the "read" CD-RW/R player was having trouble picking up a clean transfer from the original CD-R, but I think it goes beyond that. Then to discuss it properly, one would need to know whar were the circumstnaces. For I have also noticed that CD transfers done one-to-one on the DAW don't sound nearly as clean as CD transfers from my main system to the Marantz through my DTI Pro - Proceed Converter chain. .I have some hunches about why this may be so, but need to do more investigation. Whatever, it is not a fault with the fact that it is a digital recording. My conclusion: take what you hear about the transparency of CD's with two, maybe three grains of salt. Only in the sense thatif somebody tells you there some problem with making a digital copy they are incorrect. Done properly, you get an exact copy. Some of it may be equipment- or blank-induced, but the deterioration is noticeable in a side-by-side -- ranging from subtle to apparent. Check the instructions for making a music CD, as data CD copies have different rules. And if this is true in home recording under controlled conditions, it is also likely true (as has been asserted) in production runs of commercial CD's. Nope, that's bias. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Heaven!
wrote in message
... Jenn wrote: So, after a week of living with the Clearaudio TT/arm/cartridge, I love it more and more. The sound that I am getting from my records is just so effortless and easy... like a good concert hall. I just put on several CDs, and I just don't get that with them. The timbres are thinner and less life-like. I wish that it were the other way around, but it's not. If this is due to "euphonic distortion", bring on more of it! We know the objectivists think it is euphonic distortion. The funny thing is, I have NEVER, not ONCE met an objectivist who could accurately repeat the description of vinyl provided by those who think vinyl is truer to life. It's like arguing with someone who is convinced that God exists and that miracles happen. There is no way that an inferior medium can be better than an inferior one. Vinyl playback is limited by the medium which is inherently flawed. It is rife with distortions of speed accuracy, wow and flutter and the media that it is transcibed on, not to mention the differences in equipment. For example, we get all this stuff about "midrange phasiness", "enhanced ambience", "pleasant timbre," etc. It's not stuff, it's the way it is. Of course, none of that describes the reason I like vinyl---and your word "effortless" above conveys this: the way the sound comes to my attention, how it feels to pay attention to it, particularly to pay attention to multiple voices, more accurately reflects live listening. The differences are due to the way LP's are mixed and the things you are used to. And of course I get the same effect from analog tape, so this matter goes beyond vinyl-specific distortions. Again, you'd have to see how they were mixed. I also think it is amusing that the objectivists suggest that people who, as their full-time job, discern small differences in timbre, and have a mature "taste" (not simply wowed over by "more midrange" or "more ambience") would somehow drop all mature discernment and be unable to judge the "lifelike" quality of different means of reproduction. It's not possible for a medium limited in dynamic range the way LP is to be as lifelike as a CD recording, assuming it used the full capability for dynamic range available for a CD recording. For example, I doubt that you think "more ambience" is always better--you think the RIGHT AMOUNT of ambience is best. I think the right amount is the amount that the recoring engineer applied, no more and no less. I doubt you think that a "warmer tone" is always better--you think that the right tone for the job is best. I think the right amount is the amount that the engineer applied, no more,no less. I challenge any objectivist here to simply repeat the arguments I've made above in their own words without distorting my meaning. It has never been done before. Oooh, you've set up a self fulfilling prophecy. You like what you like for anynumber of reasons, none of which have to do with LP playback or analog tape being any way superior to digital recording. The best way to hear what teh artist and engineer intended you to hear is from a digital recording. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Heaven!
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Heaven!
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Heaven!
wrote in message
... This simple fact has never been acknowledged by the objectivists--not *one* has ever been able to repeat back the way I describe vinyl without substituting their own words. My challenge stands: to any objectivist, repeat how I've described vinyl in your own words without distorting my meaning. My challenge: It depends upon the azimuth, tracking angle, overhang, tracking weight, degree of anti-skate applied, turntable and geometry and material of attached tone arm, the condition of elastomer suspension ( how dried up it is), degree of smoke and pollution in the environment, relative humidity, and last but not least; how large of a dust ball has adhered to the stylus? (There must be many other factors I've overlooked.) |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Heaven!
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Heaven!
Jenn wrote:
In article , wrote: Jenn wrote: So, after a week of living with the Clearaudio TT/arm/cartridge, I love it more and more. The sound that I am getting from my records is just so effortless and easy... like a good concert hall. I just put on several CDs, and I just don't get that with them. The timbres are thinner and less life-like. I wish that it were the other way around, but it's not. If this is due to "euphonic distortion", bring on more of it! We know the objectivists think it is euphonic distortion. The funny thing is, I have NEVER, not ONCE met an objectivist who could accurately repeat the description of vinyl provided by those who think vinyl is truer to life. For example, we get all this stuff about "midrange phasiness", "enhanced ambience", "pleasant timbre," etc. Of course, none of that describes the reason I like vinyl---and your word "effortless" above conveys this: the way the sound comes to my attention, how it feels to pay attention to it, particularly to pay attention to multiple voices, more accurately reflects live listening. And of course I get the same effect from analog tape, so this matter goes beyond vinyl-specific distortions. Just a moment ago, I listened to the Speaker's Corner reissue of the Fennell/Eastman Wind Ensemble Mercury recording of Grainger: Linclonshire Posy (for the first time with my new TT rig.) Now, I know this recording REALLY well; the conductor was my mentor, I've heard music in the Eastman Theater several times, and there are, frankly, only maybe 20 or 30 people in the world who know this work as well as I do. I've heard a first generation copy of the master tape. For the past 7 years or so, I've only heard the Mercury CD reissue of this recording. My CD player (Rotel) is highly rated by the "guru" magazines, but is not of the very high priced variety. I last conducted this work 5 months ago, for the 9th time. I swear to you that I was in tears listening to this LP tonight. There is so much more MUSIC there. There is also more objective information; lines that one doesn't hear on the CD, timbres that are more "true" on the LP, etc. But mostly I'm struck by the message of Percy and Fred that comes though so much more clearly on this recording. The difference, in this case at least, between the media has never been more clear to me. I also think it is amusing that the objectivists suggest that people who, as their full-time job, discern small differences in timbre, and have a mature "taste" (not simply wowed over by "more midrange" or "more ambience") would somehow drop all mature discernment and be unable to judge the "lifelike" quality of different means of reproduction. For example, I doubt that you think "more ambience" is always better--you think the RIGHT AMOUNT of ambience is best. I doubt you think that a "warmer tone" is always better--you think that the right tone for the job is best. I don't understand this either, but....whatever. I don't claim that either media is more "accurate" than another, or that one displays "less distortion" than another. All is know is that based on my very real daily exposure to live acoustic music, analogue gets it right (especially instrumental and vocal timbres) more often ON AVERAGE than does digital. I agree. If this occurs due to a distortion in vinyl, no one has EVER proposed such a distortion that would accurately convey the musician's intentions---and you have hit the nail on the head, it is the musician's intentions that come through clearly. I feel free to use the word "accurate" since there is an original event which is being reproduced--namely the intentions of the musicians. Every single proposed distortion mechanism of analog, *without exception* would change some aspect of the sound in a way that brings it further from the musician's intentions. Not only have the objectivists never proposed a distortion mechanism that would more accurately convey musical intentions, they have never even been able to repeat back this simple description of analog. Mike |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Heaven!
wrote in message
... Most of your post here expresses the basic objectivist's error of conflating measured (objective) performance with the *experience* of listening to something. More specific points below: wrote: wrote in message ... Jenn wrote: So, after a week of living with the Clearaudio TT/arm/cartridge, I love it more and more. The sound that I am getting from my records is just so effortless and easy... like a good concert hall. I just put on several CDs, and I just don't get that with them. The timbres are thinner and less life-like. I wish that it were the other way around, but it's not. If this is due to "euphonic distortion", bring on more of it! We know the objectivists think it is euphonic distortion. The funny thing is, I have NEVER, not ONCE met an objectivist who could accurately repeat the description of vinyl provided by those who think vinyl is truer to life. It's like arguing with someone who is convinced that God exists and that miracles happen. There is no way that an inferior medium can be better than an inferior one. Vinyl playback is limited by the medium which is inherently flawed. It is rife with distortions of speed accuracy, wow and flutter and the media that it is transcibed on, not to mention the differences in equipment. For example, we get all this stuff about "midrange phasiness", "enhanced ambience", "pleasant timbre," etc. It's not stuff, it's the way it is. Of course, none of that describes the reason I like vinyl---and your word "effortless" above conveys this: the way the sound comes to my attention, how it feels to pay attention to it, particularly to pay attention to multiple voices, more accurately reflects live listening. The differences are due to the way LP's are mixed and the things you are used to. Funny--what I'm "used to" is live music. This is also true for the numerous musicians and engineers who share my view that analog has higher fidelity to life. And you've never been made aware of the fact that audio memory is incredibly bad, it is completeley worthless after a few seconds, which is what quickly switching between 2 sources is preferred? I listen mostly to perspective-miked classical, so I don't know what "mixing" has to do with it. That would seem to be obvious. The mix for LP's tends to be different than that for CD. or some other digital medium. Depending on the music and the engineer things like compression may be used, that wouldn't be necessary (although sometimes still are) for a digital recording. And of course I get the same effect from analog tape, so this matter goes beyond vinyl-specific distortions. Again, you'd have to see how they were mixed. "Mixed" seems to be your magic word for explaining any "preference" or particular subjective experience. Not alt all, only when tlaking about different media. A surround mix is different than a 2 channel one and CD mix is often different from an LP one, I also think it is amusing that the objectivists suggest that people who, as their full-time job, discern small differences in timbre, and have a mature "taste" (not simply wowed over by "more midrange" or "more ambience") would somehow drop all mature discernment and be unable to judge the "lifelike" quality of different means of reproduction. You haven't read Mr. sullivan's post below yet then about how badly such people tend to do. It's not possible for a medium limited in dynamic range the way LP is to be as lifelike as a CD recording, assuming it used the full capability for dynamic range available for a CD recording. For example, I doubt that you think "more ambience" is always better--you think the RIGHT AMOUNT of ambience is best. I think the right amount is the amount that the recoring engineer applied, no more and no less. The recording engineer *applied*??? I guess you are in a different world, but in perspective-miked classical recording, the right amount is the amount that was actually present in the hall. Many listeners, musicians, and engineers experience analog as doing the better job of getting that right. They are entitled to their opinion, but since abience tends to live in teh low frequency area, and since LP can't go as low as CD, then..........well you get the picture. I doubt you think that a "warmer tone" is always better--you think that the right tone for the job is best. I think the right amount is the amount that the engineer applied, no more,no less. The right amount is the amount the musician used in performing. It's funny how the objectivists think that musicians who modulate their tone carefully so that it has the right balance for the job, would think that arbitrarily changing the tonal balance would be an improvement! And yet it happens. If the engineer and the artists agree not to play with the amibeince, I applaud them for that. The more lifelike the recording the better IMO. I challenge any objectivist here to simply repeat the arguments I've made above in their own words without distorting my meaning. It has never been done before. Oooh, you've set up a self fulfilling prophecy. Check your dictionary.. a prophecy requires future tense. I would be happy to have an objectivist accurately repeat my arguments, but it has never been done before.. certainly not by you. Since yo are issuing a challenge for something tohappen which hasn't yet, I just assumed it would take place in the future. You like what you like for any number of reasons, none of which have to do with LP playback or analog tape being any way superior to digital recording. What you seem to mean by this is that *you* are more comfortable with any number of reasons other than "analog is more lifelike," because you wouldn't know how to explain that. Actually it's because with a digital recording and someone with a modicum of expertise, recording any kind of music, digital recording is capable of more of what you want in a recirding, accuracy, FR, dynamic range, and so on. In short it's capable of more realism. If that's not your experience then either you have had exremely bad luck finding decent digital recordings or you just have a bias of some sort, probably based on what you grew used to. That's all well and good, it doesn't change the fact that digital recording is superior and more real sounding when you look at all the things that pertain to live music. The best way to hear what the artist and engineer intended you to hear is from a digital recording. Funny that many artists and engineers disagree. We should poll them then. :-) |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Heaven!
wrote in message
... wrote: wrote: wrote in message ... Hi Scott, Your response hear makes me think of something. Objectivists *expect* to hear vinyl as less true to life since that is the way it measures. It's not an expectation, it's simply the way it is and has always been from the very first digital recording I ever heard, classical by the way. At 56 years old I grew up listening to LP's, so it's not like I never hear them or only had brief exposure to them. But the very fist time I ever heard a CD I knew ho badly LP sucked. And, yes, they agree vinyl has a specific *sound* to it--and the words they choose to describe this sound *always* imply something unlife-like or lower fidelity to the master tape. Meanwhile, other people use words to describe the "sound of vinyl" which imply *greater* fidelity to life. This simple fact has never been acknowledged by the objectivists--not *one* has ever been able to repeat back the way I describe vinyl without substituting their own words. My challenge stands: to any objectivist, repeat how I've described vinyl in your own words without distorting my meaning. It would be unreasonable to call LP more lifelike when it is so vastly inferior in cpaturing dynamic range and so full of noise, and speed variations. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Heaven!
wrote:
wrote in message ... Most of your post here expresses the basic objectivist's error of conflating measured (objective) performance with the *experience* of listening to something. More specific points below: wrote: wrote in message ... Jenn wrote: So, after a week of living with the Clearaudio TT/arm/cartridge, I love it more and more. The sound that I am getting from my records is just so effortless and easy... like a good concert hall. I just put on several CDs, and I just don't get that with them. The timbres are thinner and less life-like. I wish that it were the other way around, but it's not. If this is due to "euphonic distortion", bring on more of it! We know the objectivists think it is euphonic distortion. The funny thing is, I have NEVER, not ONCE met an objectivist who could accurately repeat the description of vinyl provided by those who think vinyl is truer to life. It's like arguing with someone who is convinced that God exists and that miracles happen. There is no way that an inferior medium can be better than an inferior one. Vinyl playback is limited by the medium which is inherently flawed. It is rife with distortions of speed accuracy, wow and flutter and the media that it is transcibed on, not to mention the differences in equipment. For example, we get all this stuff about "midrange phasiness", "enhanced ambience", "pleasant timbre," etc. It's not stuff, it's the way it is. Of course, none of that describes the reason I like vinyl---and your word "effortless" above conveys this: the way the sound comes to my attention, how it feels to pay attention to it, particularly to pay attention to multiple voices, more accurately reflects live listening. The differences are due to the way LP's are mixed and the things you are used to. Funny--what I'm "used to" is live music. This is also true for the numerous musicians and engineers who share my view that analog has higher fidelity to life. And you've never been made aware of the fact that audio memory is incredibly bad, it is completeley worthless after a few seconds, which is what quickly switching between 2 sources is preferred? Oh, I get it.. audio memory is bad. I thought that when musicians rehearsed, they were perceiving the quality of their sound, and evolving that quality toward the desired goal... each day. But since audio memory doesn't last more than a few seconds, I see now that they are just making random changes and shooting in the dark. Thanks for clearing that up! I THINK I like the LA Philharmonic, but of course I've never heard a quick-switching test between them and the Pasadena Symphony so I have to admit in the end I just don't know. I also thought that when Stradavari made a violin, he got better at it over time because he got better at fine-tuning the wood by ear. But obviously no such thing is possible, now that you've informed me audio memory lasts just a few seconds! You've made everything so much clearer! Mike |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Heaven!
|
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Heaven!
wrote:
wrote in message ... wrote: wrote: wrote in message ... Hi Scott, Your response hear makes me think of something. Objectivists *expect* to hear vinyl as less true to life since that is the way it measures. It's not an expectation, it's simply the way it is and has always been from the very first digital recording I ever heard, classical by the way. At 56 years old I grew up listening to LP's, so it's not like I never hear them or only had brief exposure to them. But the very fist time I ever heard a CD I knew ho badly LP sucked. And, yes, they agree vinyl has a specific *sound* to it--and the words they choose to describe this sound *always* imply something unlife-like or lower fidelity to the master tape. Meanwhile, other people use words to describe the "sound of vinyl" which imply *greater* fidelity to life. This simple fact has never been acknowledged by the objectivists--not *one* has ever been able to repeat back the way I describe vinyl without substituting their own words. My challenge stands: to any objectivist, repeat how I've described vinyl in your own words without distorting my meaning. It would be unreasonable to call LP more lifelike when it is so vastly inferior in cpaturing dynamic range and so full of noise, and speed variations. Statements like this lead me to believe that you did not have the priviledge of even a modest performing vinyl rig. I haven't experienced audible speed variations since my BSR changer days of high school. Even my ultimate in simplicity AR-XA was capable of accurate speed. Many records are noisy but I do have a few well made and maintained that won't obviously tip people off to the vinyl source clearly demonstrating the technology is capable. What is left to debate but dynamic range? Yes, some CDs are superior in that regard while many more are compressed and clipped. IMO, CD might enable a skilled recording engineer to produce a superior product, but it doesn't guarantee it. I have a simple theory why I think vinyl can sound more realistic. It has to do with the supposedly inferior channel separation of vinyl. Seems to me that the vinyl soundstage is often more realistic as it loses pinpoint focus (as most live venues do) due to less than perfect channel separation. I suspect, based on my system, that this also enhances an illusion of depth to the soundstage that a CD doesn't always create. ScottW |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Heaven!
wrote:
wrote in message ... wrote: wrote: wrote in message ... Hi Scott, Your response hear makes me think of something. Objectivists *expect* to hear vinyl as less true to life since that is the way it measures. It's not an expectation, it's simply the way it is and has always been from the very first digital recording I ever heard, classical by the way. At 56 years old I grew up listening to LP's, so it's not like I never hear them or only had brief exposure to them. But the very fist time I ever heard a CD I knew ho badly LP sucked. Actually, you have no basis for saying that, since you obviously had no way of remembering WHAT an LP sounds like when you were listening to the CD -- remember, audio memory is only a few seconds? Mike |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Heaven!
wrote:
wrote in message ... wrote: wrote: wrote in message ... Hi Scott, Your response hear makes me think of something. Objectivists *expect* to hear vinyl as less true to life since that is the way it measures. It's not an expectation, it's simply the way it is and has always been from the very first digital recording I ever heard, classical by the way. At 56 years old I grew up listening to LP's, so it's not like I never hear them or only had brief exposure to them. But the very fist time I ever heard a CD I knew ho badly LP sucked. And, yes, they agree vinyl has a specific *sound* to it--and the words they choose to describe this sound *always* imply something unlife-like or lower fidelity to the master tape. Meanwhile, other people use words to describe the "sound of vinyl" which imply *greater* fidelity to life. This simple fact has never been acknowledged by the objectivists--not *one* has ever been able to repeat back the way I describe vinyl without substituting their own words. My challenge stands: to any objectivist, repeat how I've described vinyl in your own words without distorting my meaning. It would be unreasonable to call LP more lifelike when it is so vastly inferior in cpaturing dynamic range and so full of noise, and speed variations. It would be unreasonable to call CD more lifelike when it is so vastly inferior at conveying the musician's intentions. I challenge you to show even a glimmer of understanding of what I mean by that. Mike |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Heaven!
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 19 Oct 2005 02:29:12 GMT, wrote: Not only have the objectivists never proposed a distortion mechanism that would more accurately convey musical intentions, they have never even been able to repeat back this simple description of analog. More to the point, they have never agreed with your insistence that vinyl sounds more natural. Actually you have demonstrated precisely, once again, that you miss the point. I have never insisted that *everyone* finds it "more natural." I have stated that some people find analog to have a number of qualities that are truer to the experience of listening live. No objectivist has ever been able to repeat back this list of qualities without substituting their own language. Here, for example, you could have simply repeated my statement that analog more accurately conveys musical intentions--not that that would have demonstrated you understood it--but you chose not to. More natural than what? The original tape? The original mic feed? The original performance? I think you know perfectly well what the answer to this question is. Mike |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Heaven!
In article ,
Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 19 Oct 2005 02:29:12 GMT, wrote: Not only have the objectivists never proposed a distortion mechanism that would more accurately convey musical intentions, they have never even been able to repeat back this simple description of analog. More to the point, they have never agreed with your insistence that vinyl sounds more natural. More natural than what? The original tape? The original mic feed? The original performance? What remains true is that you can make a digital recording of an LP which is audibly indistinguishable from the original LP. I hope to hear this comparison soon. This is pretty much definite proof that digital audio can be totally transparent, and that your preference is based on artifacts *added* by vinyl. That you *think* they sound more natural, in a 'whiter than white' kind of way, doesn't make it so. Same applies to Jenn. Again, I don't care why LPs overall sound more like music to me. For all I care, maybe it's because Lenny Bernstein wore polkadotted panties when he made them. I only know that they do. I know what music sounds like, and to my ears (the only ones that I listen with) LPs sound more like that than do CDs. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Heaven!
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
your preference is based on artifacts *added* by vinyl. That you *think* they sound more natural, in a 'whiter than white' kind of way, doesn't make it so. Same applies to Jenn. Once again, an objectivist shows he cannot repeat my description of analog. First of all, drop "vinyl" from your statement--it is all analog. Second, no recording matches the qualities of live music, including the initimate connection to the musician's intentions that is possible--but analog, for my ears (and apparently for Jenn's) gets closer. Choosing analogies such as "whiter than white" demonstrates that you don't understand this basic experience. Amateur musicians such as myself and even more so professional musicians such as Jenn are aware that music exists as a balance of qualties. The only distortion mechanisms you've ever proposed, if they were the cause of this vinyl preference, would *upset*, not *preserve* these balances. You have never proposed a distortion mechanism that would preserve the musician's intentions, and yet that is how I (and apparently Jenn) experience analog. Mike |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Heaven!
wrote in message
... wrote: wrote in message ... wrote: wrote: wrote in message ... Hi Scott, Your response hear makes me think of something. Objectivists *expect* to hear vinyl as less true to life since that is the way it measures. It's not an expectation, it's simply the way it is and has always been from the very first digital recording I ever heard, classical by the way. At 56 years old I grew up listening to LP's, so it's not like I never hear them or only had brief exposure to them. But the very fist time I ever heard a CD I knew ho badly LP sucked. Actually, you have no basis for saying that, since you obviously had no way of remembering WHAT an LP sounds like when you were listening to the CD -- remember, audio memory is only a few seconds? But I have had the ooportunity to do A/B comparisons of recordings of the same works on both vinyl and CD. Some of which were digitally mastered. For me there simply is no comaprison, CD always wins, except in the rare instance where the recording was tranferred badly. There have been recordings that were originally done before the time of CD and then reissued on CD that were not done well and there's no doubt that they don't sound very nice. When I total it all up, dynamic range, lower noise, extended FR, it all comes out with CD as the winner for me. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Heaven!
wrote in message
... wrote: wrote in message ... wrote: wrote: wrote in message ... Hi Scott, Your response hear makes me think of something. Objectivists *expect* to hear vinyl as less true to life since that is the way it measures. It's not an expectation, it's simply the way it is and has always been from the very first digital recording I ever heard, classical by the way. At 56 years old I grew up listening to LP's, so it's not like I never hear them or only had brief exposure to them. But the very fist time I ever heard a CD I knew ho badly LP sucked. And, yes, they agree vinyl has a specific *sound* to it--and the words they choose to describe this sound *always* imply something unlife-like or lower fidelity to the master tape. Meanwhile, other people use words to describe the "sound of vinyl" which imply *greater* fidelity to life. This simple fact has never been acknowledged by the objectivists--not *one* has ever been able to repeat back the way I describe vinyl without substituting their own words. My challenge stands: to any objectivist, repeat how I've described vinyl in your own words without distorting my meaning. It would be unreasonable to call LP more lifelike when it is so vastly inferior in cpaturing dynamic range and so full of noise, and speed variations. It would be unreasonable to call CD more lifelike when it is so vastly inferior at conveying the musician's intentions. Which musicians are not involved in the mixing process of their work? I challenge you to show even a glimmer of understanding of what I mean by that. You can't mean anything by that, since it would mean that the musicans are not involved in the mixdown process. One hopes that the musicians intent is to present as lifelike a presentation of his/her work as possible. CD conveys that you are there feeling much better, IMO. I know there are some musicans who prefer analog recordings to digital, but for music with any sort of dynamics it makes no sense to me. Then there's the issue of generation loss that would come from analog recordings, unless transferred to a digital medium, they will deteriorate. Tranfering to a digital medium means you have an exact copy that can be copied endless times. Enjoy what you like, I do. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Heaven!
wrote:
wrote: wrote in message ... wrote: wrote: wrote in message ... Hi Scott, Your response hear makes me think of something. Objectivists *expect* to hear vinyl as less true to life since that is the way it measures. It's not an expectation, it's simply the way it is and has always been from the very first digital recording I ever heard, classical by the way. At 56 years old I grew up listening to LP's, so it's not like I never hear them or only had brief exposure to them. But the very fist time I ever heard a CD I knew ho badly LP sucked. And, yes, they agree vinyl has a specific *sound* to it--and the words they choose to describe this sound *always* imply something unlife-like or lower fidelity to the master tape. Meanwhile, other people use words to describe the "sound of vinyl" which imply *greater* fidelity to life. This simple fact has never been acknowledged by the objectivists--not *one* has ever been able to repeat back the way I describe vinyl without substituting their own words. My challenge stands: to any objectivist, repeat how I've described vinyl in your own words without distorting my meaning. It would be unreasonable to call LP more lifelike when it is so vastly inferior in cpaturing dynamic range and so full of noise, and speed variations. It would be unreasonable to call CD more lifelike when it is so vastly inferior at conveying the musician's intentions. But have you considered all possible ear-brain contexts? You know the whole-person response is very complex, so how can you say that with any certainty? What did you listen to prior to coming up with that conclusion, and have you controlled it? Was that statement based on "directed" or "free-floating" attention? And how many musicians have you surveyed? How do you know what the musicians' intentions were? See, if you only consider one extremely narrow context, out of many, many, possible contexts, of course you may not realize that vinyl is actually much inferior than CD's when it comes to conveying musicians' intentions, let alone the intentions of the recording engineers. Without considering all those contexts, you might as well say elephants fly! It would have been equally silly. I challenge you to show even a glimmer of understanding of what I mean by that. We're not really interested in understanding what you meant by that, because obviously that was based on one single context only, and an extremely narrow one at that. Now, can you show a glimmer of understanding what I mean by the above paragraph? Mike |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Heaven!
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 19 Oct 2005 02:29:12 GMT, wrote: Not only have the objectivists never proposed a distortion mechanism that would more accurately convey musical intentions, they have never even been able to repeat back this simple description of analog. More to the point, they have never agreed with your insistence that vinyl sounds more natural. Which is kind of silly given that it is to some degree a subjective matter. More natural than what? Than their CD counterparts. The original tape? In xome cases according to some of the best mastering engineers in the world. Neither of us would know though since we haven't had the privilidge of making those comparisons. The original mic feed? Same answer as above. The original performance? Never. that is the ultimate reference. What remains true is that you can make a digital recording of an LP which is audibly indistinguishable from the original LP. You can also make one that is not. This is pretty much definite proof that digital audio can be totally transparent, and that your preference is based on artifacts *added* by vinyl. While that may be true to a degree it is not a fact that all or even many commercial CDs sound exactly like the master tapes from which they were made nor is it alay o even often desirable for that to happen. And that is supported by testimony of many of the best recording and mastering engineers in the business. That you *think* they sound more natural, in a 'whiter than white' kind of way, doesn't make it so. Actually it does. It is a matter of opinion and opinions other than yours count as well. Same applies to Jenn. Heaven forbid anyone should listen to the opinions of what sounds more natural in playback from someone who lives and works wit live music. Scott |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Heaven!
I had some superb LP equipment. If I never hear another LP in my life,
that will be too soon.. I hate LPs! Compression. Inner-groove distortion. Pops. Ticks. Rumble. Wow. Flutter. Good riddance! Jenn wrote: So, after a week of living with the Clearaudio TT/arm/cartridge, I love it more and more. The sound that I am getting from my records is just so effortless and easy... like a good concert hall. I just put on several CDs, and I just don't get that with them. The timbres are thinner and less life-like. I wish that it were the other way around, but it's not. If this is due to "euphonic distortion", bring on more of it! |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Heaven!
On 21 Oct 2005 05:33:12 GMT, Jenn wrote:
In article , Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 19 Oct 2005 02:29:12 GMT, wrote: Not only have the objectivists never proposed a distortion mechanism that would more accurately convey musical intentions, they have never even been able to repeat back this simple description of analog. More to the point, they have never agreed with your insistence that vinyl sounds more natural. More natural than what? The original tape? The original mic feed? The original performance? What remains true is that you can make a digital recording of an LP which is audibly indistinguishable from the original LP. I hope to hear this comparison soon. This is pretty much definite proof that digital audio can be totally transparent, and that your preference is based on artifacts *added* by vinyl. That you *think* they sound more natural, in a 'whiter than white' kind of way, doesn't make it so. Same applies to Jenn. Again, I don't care why LPs overall sound more like music to me. That's a perfectly fair point, and completely unarguable. For all I care, maybe it's because Lenny Bernstein wore polkadotted panties when he made them. I only know that they do. I know what music sounds like, and to my ears (the only ones that I listen with) LPs sound more like that than do CDs. That's absolutely fine. However, it remains *your* opinion, and is not shared by others with just as much musical experience as you have. There are no absolutes here, and I find well-made CD to be closer to the sound of a live performance, and certainly lacking all the irritating non-musical artifacts of typical vinyl replay which can intrude, and suspend the suspension of disbelief, so to speak. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Heaven!
On 21 Oct 2005 05:14:44 GMT, wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 19 Oct 2005 02:29:12 GMT, wrote: Not only have the objectivists never proposed a distortion mechanism that would more accurately convey musical intentions, they have never even been able to repeat back this simple description of analog. More to the point, they have never agreed with your insistence that vinyl sounds more natural. Actually you have demonstrated precisely, once again, that you miss the point. I have never insisted that *everyone* finds it "more natural." I have stated that some people find analog to have a number of qualities that are truer to the experience of listening live. And other people do not. What you have never answered is the basic conundrum that it's p[ossible to make a digital recording ov vinyl which is sonically indistinguishable from the original. This is compelling evidence that what *you* happen to prefer about analogue is the *added* artifacts, not anything that digital mysteriously loses. No objectivist has ever been able to repeat back this list of qualities without substituting their own language. Perhaps you fail to understand that no one actually cares about your foot-stamping on this point. Here, for example, you could have simply repeated my statement that analog more accurately conveys musical intentions--not that that would have demonstrated you understood it--but you chose not to. That would be because I do not agree with it. More natural than what? The original tape? The original mic feed? The original performance? I think you know perfectly well what the answer to this question is. With you, one *never* knows what you actually mean, since you continually evade any specific points that are made. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Heaven!
|
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Heaven!
On 21 Oct 2005 05:54:57 GMT, wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 19 Oct 2005 02:29:12 GMT, wrote: Not only have the objectivists never proposed a distortion mechanism that would more accurately convey musical intentions, they have never even been able to repeat back this simple description of analog. More to the point, they have never agreed with your insistence that vinyl sounds more natural. Which is kind of silly given that it is to some degree a subjective matter. 'Objectivist' is merely a convenient nametag, not an actual description. Personally, I prefer 'reliabel and repeatable subjectivist'. ABX is a *listening* test, remember? More natural than what? Than their CD counterparts. The original tape? In xome cases according to some of the best mastering engineers in the world. Neither of us would know though since we haven't had the privilidge of making those comparisons. The original mic feed? Same answer as above. The original performance? Never. that is the ultimate reference. Ah well, now that's where my alarm bell rings. It's my impression that those well-known euphonic artifacts of both vinyl and analogue tape (remember that Iain has confirmed that many musos ask for an 'analogue pass-through' of a *digital* recording) provide an *enhanced* version of reality that does, as I previously mentioned. look 'whiter than white' to people like Michael, Jenn and yourself. What remains true is that you can make a digital recording of an LP which is audibly indistinguishable from the original LP. You can also make one that is not. There is no tachnology which cannot be badly implemented - this is hardly a decent rebuttal. This is pretty much definite proof that digital audio can be totally transparent, and that your preference is based on artifacts *added* by vinyl. While that may be true to a degree it is not a fact that all or even many commercial CDs sound exactly like the master tapes from which they were made nor is it alay o even often desirable for that to happen. And that is supported by testimony of many of the best recording and mastering engineers in the business. I think you'll find that many musicians would be pretty upset to think that a mastering engineer would *deliberately* change the sound of the final mixdown master! That you *think* they sound more natural, in a 'whiter than white' kind of way, doesn't make it so. Actually it does. It is a matter of opinion and opinions other than yours count as well. No, it's not a matter of opinion. Which version you *prefer* is a matter of opinion, but which is really closer to the original sound is not. Same applies to Jenn. Heaven forbid anyone should listen to the opinions of what sounds more natural in playback from someone who lives and works wit live music. Heaven forbid that anyone should think that gives her opinion more weight than that of someone who has spent decades trying to improve the sound of reproduced music in their home - when not concert-going. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Heaven!
|
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Heaven!
wrote:
wrote: Amateur musicians such as myself and even more so professional musicians such as Jenn are aware that music exists as a balance of qualties. The only distortion mechanisms you've ever proposed, if they were the cause of this vinyl preference, would *upset*, not *preserve* these balances. You have never proposed a distortion mechanism that would preserve the musician's intentions, and yet that is how I (and apparently Jenn) experience analog. Yet more evidence that your perceptions are not necessarily a good measure of objective reality. Rather, your measurements are not necessarily a good description of the reality of experience. Those distortions are there, easily measurable, and--by the standards of modern audio reproduction--quite large in magnitude. Given that, we have a limited number of possible explanations for the common perception that vinyl is closer to the live event (however you may wish to express that): 1) These distortions are euphonic--they may be distortions, but they sound good to you, and may in some ways evoke things that please you when listening to live music. If you wish to undermine the ability of a musician to judge whether a recording accurately captures their intentions, then you wish to undermine the whole basis by which musicians get better at their craft over time. Or recording engineers. So once again an objectivist must substitute his own langauge. Now we have vague statements like "sounds good" or "evoke things" (whatever these 'things' are). How a distortion could more accurately convey musical intentions remains unexplained. Mike |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Heaven!
" wrote in message
extended FR, it all Could you explain why you think LP cannot exceed CD in this category? ScottW |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Heaven!
wrote:
wrote: Amateur musicians such as myself and even more so professional musicians such as Jenn are aware that music exists as a balance of qualties. The only distortion mechanisms you've ever proposed, if they were the cause of this vinyl preference, would *upset*, not *preserve* these balances. You have never proposed a distortion mechanism that would preserve the musician's intentions, and yet that is how I (and apparently Jenn) experience analog. Yet more evidence that your perceptions are not necessarily a good measure of objective reality. I think ths statement says a lot about your misunderstandings of the relationship or lack there of between human perceptions and this so called "objective rality." Those distortions are there, easily measurable, and--by the standards of modern audio reproduction--quite large in magnitude. By any standards? I'd like to see the evidence that the inherent distortions of the medium are quite large in magnitude in relationhip to the human experience of listening to stereo playback of commercial recordings. that is after all the only relevant measure of distortion in audiophilia other than the same for the recording end of things. Given that, we have a limited number of possible explanations for the common perception that vinyl is closer to the live event (however you may wish to express that): While i agree that the number of exlinations are limited I don't agree that you found all the posible explinations. kind of reminds me of your previous lists of all poible explinations for things. I think it is more a reflection of your biases than of rality. Just my opinion. 1) These distortions are euphonic--they may be distortions, but they sound good to you, and may in some ways evoke things that please you when listening to live music. 2) Your perceptions are affected by non-sonic considerations--nostalgia, exclusivity, price, etc. 3) There is some distortion mechanism in digital which we can neither define nor measure, but is substantially worse than any known, measurable distortion in vinyl. 1. There are some, many distortions that can be found in the practical implimentation of digital recording, mastering, transfer and production of CDs that can be measured but are ignored or simply accepted by many proucers of commercial CDs. 2. There are considerations in the mastering proccess needed to get the most life like sound from an original recording in a commercial release that simply isn't being taken care of in the mastering step of many CDs. 3. some distortions inherent in LP playback are analogous with the sound of live music and do make for more life like sound on many commercial recordings. Not exactly the same as a so called euphonic distortion but more specific and less identifiable by ear other than the greater life like quality. 4. people who cannot accept the reality of others finding LPs more life like in many instances are affected by their own biases based on limited ideas of what is possible. Jenn, to her great credit, has been honest enough to say that she doesn't care why vinyl sounds better to her, it just does. Would that all vinylphiles could just live with that. They would still be attacked by some objectivists for simply having an opinion just as Jenn and I have. Oh well. Scott |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Heaven!
In article ,
Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 21 Oct 2005 05:33:12 GMT, Jenn wrote: In article , Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 19 Oct 2005 02:29:12 GMT, wrote: Not only have the objectivists never proposed a distortion mechanism that would more accurately convey musical intentions, they have never even been able to repeat back this simple description of analog. More to the point, they have never agreed with your insistence that vinyl sounds more natural. More natural than what? The original tape? The original mic feed? The original performance? What remains true is that you can make a digital recording of an LP which is audibly indistinguishable from the original LP. I hope to hear this comparison soon. This is pretty much definite proof that digital audio can be totally transparent, and that your preference is based on artifacts *added* by vinyl. That you *think* they sound more natural, in a 'whiter than white' kind of way, doesn't make it so. Same applies to Jenn. Again, I don't care why LPs overall sound more like music to me. That's a perfectly fair point, and completely unarguable. For all I care, maybe it's because Lenny Bernstein wore polkadotted panties when he made them. I only know that they do. I know what music sounds like, and to my ears (the only ones that I listen with) LPs sound more like that than do CDs. That's absolutely fine. However, it remains *your* opinion, Of course, and I've never stated otherwise. and is not shared by others with just as much musical experience as you have. I'm sure that that's true, though frankly I've never spoken to anyone like that. There are no absolutes here, and I find well-made CD to be closer to the sound of a live performance, and certainly lacking all the irritating non-musical artifacts of typical vinyl replay which can intrude, and suspend the suspension of disbelief, so to speak. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
HDTV in heaven | Car Audio | |||
*Thank Heaven For Arnie Kroo* | Audio Opinions |