[Jenn]

On Aug 20, 3:49 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
That can't be true because by 1983, most music that was listened to was did
not origionate as live music. By then, there was even a tremendous
proportion of music being sold that could only be constructed in the
recording studio.

Only? What brings you to that conclusion?

There has never been any reliable evidence that the CD format is necessarily
adverse to live recordings sounding lifelike.

I've never argued that there is. I've simply reported on what I
hear. Just to be clear yet again: I think that most CDs sound better
than most LPs. I listen to CDs more than I listen to LPs. I've never
said that LPs are more "accurate" or transparent than digital. What
I've said that is the best LPs sound better on certain aspects of
acoustic music than any CD I've heard.

Jenn

[Arny Krueger]

"ScottW" wrote in message
...
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

I've never heard totally quiety vinyl.

Dido, Life For Rent from Classic Records is the lowest noise
floor piece of vinyl I have the pleasure of owning.

I notice that you stop well short of saying that it is totally quiet.

All
extant technical analysis indicate that the problems with vinyl are
inherent
in the basic materials and basic mechanical process, which hasn't
changed
appreciably.

Such new SOTA 180 gram vinyl as I've purchased has the usual problems.

What record? What label?

HFN test record, two samples.

Who pressed it? I doubt HFN presses their own vinyl.
I suggest you need to acquire something from Classic Records,
http://www.classicrecords.com/

Speakers Corner
http://www.speakerscorner.de/Speaker...e/E/index1.htm

and Analogue Productions
http://www.analogueproductions.com/
(You need a new test record anyway)

Actually, I have a new test record. It is the second HFN test record that I
bought at the same time that I've never used.

to experience SOTA Vinyl, IMO.

Every vinyl lover seems to have their opinons. All sorts of people raved
about the new 180 g vinyl HFN test record. I'm beginning to get the idea
that there are no vinyl advocates who are realistic about what their
favorite media actually does.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" wrote in message
...

What
I've said that is the best LPs sound better on certain aspects of
acoustic music than any CD I've heard.

That would be a presumptious statement because of its global implications.

What you could say that is indisputable is that the LPs you like best, you
like more than any CD.

[Jenn]

On Aug 21, 3:36 pm, "
wrote:
Jenn wrote:
60s and later vintage Columbia and DGG LPs were generally terrible.

You must be more specific or no one can understand what you mean. Many 70s
DGG Lps were not very good in the click and pops department, but that was
an industry problem, and not specific to the label. CBS were, if anything,
worse (from my experience). Again, to single DGG or CBS out is
disingenuous.

DGG tended to use large consoles and multi-miking--a technique many found to
create a less than realistic soundstage within their listening rooms. They
were not alone in this, but perhaps the most well-known.

As far as catalog and A&R goes, DGG had all the other labels beat hands
down, in my opinion. So it was a mixed bag, all and all.

mp

I'm speaking of the quality of the recordings as oppsed to the quality
of the surfaces. Most DGG LPs have good surfaces, IMO, but both DGG
and 60s vintage Columbia LPs sound terrible IRT frequency, etc.
Virtually all of Bernstein's recordings are awful sounding, IMO.
Compare to most releases from Decca, Mercury, RCA (pre Dynagroove), et
al.

Jenn

[Jenn]

On Aug 22, 4:51 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Jenn" wrote in message

...

What
I've said that is the best LPs sound better on certain aspects of
acoustic music than any CD I've heard.

That would be a presumptious statement because of its global implications.

I believed that it was understood that in matters of how things sound,
we are speaking of opinions. Please correct me if I'm mistaken.

Jenn

[c. leeds]

Chung wrote:

Yes, digital audio did not take over immediately. One reason is that the
cost of the CD player was very high in the first year, or maybe two
years. Back then you had to really care about sound to invest in a CD
player and the CD's.

You must be joking, right?

Those who were classical music lovers tended to
care about sound more, and maybe they also had higher disposable incomes
as a group, and therefore a much higher percentage of them switched over
than those from, say, rock music lovers.

And you know this be true... exactly how?

I made the switch in 1983, and my first CD player, a Technics model,
cost about $1K. Good vinyl gear cost significantly less.

No, a good turntable cost more than that, even then. And it needed a
pickup arm, phono cartridge and phono preamp to be complete... far more
expensive than a CD player.

The first CD's
I bought cost $18-$20, and they were hard to get, whereas vinyl LP's
could be had anywhere from $3.99 to maybe $9.99.

Really good LPs of the time, including MoFi and high quality imports,
often cost $18 - $22.

[Randy Yates]

"c. leeds" writes:

Chung wrote:

Yes, digital audio did not take over immediately. One reason is that the
cost of the CD player was very high in the first year, or maybe two
years. Back then you had to really care about sound to invest in a CD
player and the CD's.

You must be joking, right?

I agree with him, and I am not joking. I made the decision to invest
in the then-expensive CD player and CD replacements precisely because
I cared about the sound.

And I think he has a valid point: the "early adopters" have to see
something signficantly better in a technology in order to shell out
the extra cash to get in on the ground floor.

At the time I was an electrical engineer developing part of a $40M
satellite tracking system for one of those government agencies you
don't talk about in the clear, the point being I was seeped in
technology (and still am) and knew my way around the digital world.
--
% Randy Yates % "With time with what you've learned,
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % they'll kiss the ground you walk
%%% 919-577-9882 % upon."
%%%% % '21st Century Man', *Time*, ELO
http://home.earthlink.net/~yatescr

[Chung]

c. leeds wrote:
Chung wrote:

Yes, digital audio did not take over immediately. One reason is that
the cost of the CD player was very high in the first year, or maybe
two years. Back then you had to really care about sound to invest in a
CD player and the CD's.

You must be joking, right?

Not really. On the other hand, I find it funny that you even ask the
question.


Those who were classical music lovers tended to care about sound more,
and maybe they also had higher disposable incomes as a group, and
therefore a much higher percentage of them switched over than those
from, say, rock music lovers.

And you know this be true... exactly how?

I used "maybe" in the first sentence, since I do not have proof. It is a
educated guess, based on those classical music lovers I know. Also,
every one of my friends who were classical music lovers purchased the CD
players in the early years, like 1983-84.

If you look at the number of classical CD titles available in that time
frame, it constituted a much higher proportion of the total number of CD
titles of all genres available than that for LPs and cassettes.


I made the switch in 1983, and my first CD player, a Technics model,
cost about $1K. Good vinyl gear cost significantly less.

No, a good turntable cost more than that, even then. And it needed a
pickup arm, phono cartridge and phono preamp to be complete... far more
expensive than a CD player.

You could easily get a good turntable with arm and cartridge for less
than $1K back then. I guess your definition of "good" may be different
than mine.

Also bear in mind that almost everyone already had a vinyl system and
therefore had a phono preamp. It was hard to find pre-amps/receivers
back then that did not have a phono section.


The first CD's I bought cost $18-$20, and they were hard to get,
whereas vinyl LP's could be had anywhere from $3.99 to maybe $9.99.

Really good LPs of the time, including MoFi and high quality imports,
often cost $18 - $22.

Of course there were exceptions, just like there were CD's that cost
more than $20. But the vast majority of vinyl titles available were much
less expensive than CD's.

Also, boutique labels like MoFi were not known for their classical
productions. They don't even carry classical vinyl LP's now.

[Chung]

Randy Yates wrote:
"c. leeds" writes:

Chung wrote:

Yes, digital audio did not take over immediately. One reason is that the
cost of the CD player was very high in the first year, or maybe two
years. Back then you had to really care about sound to invest in a CD
player and the CD's.
You must be joking, right?

I agree with him, and I am not joking. I made the decision to invest
in the then-expensive CD player and CD replacements precisely because
I cared about the sound.

And I think he has a valid point: the "early adopters" have to see
something signficantly better in a technology in order to shell out
the extra cash to get in on the ground floor.

At the time I was an electrical engineer developing part of a $40M
satellite tracking system for one of those government agencies you
don't talk about in the clear, the point being I was seeped in
technology (and still am) and knew my way around the digital world.

I worked at HP during the early 1980's. The lab engineers I worked with
were unanimously impressed with the sound quality of CD's. In fact,
everyone in our lab who had any interest in sound had switched over to
CD very early, so I guess engineers tend to be early adopters when they
are convinced of the technical superiority of the new technologies. The
couple of engineers who were also expert audio designers I knew at the
time (who would become famous later in high-end audio) were already
exclusively using digital technology (PCM to beta) to record live concerts.