"vinyl believer" wrote in message

So we switched to a format (16/44 CDs) that was degraged from the
start........ Time to upgrade to at least 24bit. In the meanwhile I
prefer vinyl.

Just arguing for better quality Jay. That's what this thread is about.

So what is inferior about 96dB and fractions of1% distortion, in comparison
to vinyl ?

geoff

"Joe Kesselman" wrote in message
...
Isn't the lack of dynamic range something to do with the way transmitters
work?

My understanding is that it's a deliberate attempt to deal with the fact
that, these days, radio is often being listened to in noisy environments
in which a full dynamic range would lose the quieter portions or blast the
louder ones. The fact that an artist _wants_ to have that under their
conrol is being lost in the shuffle.

But the radio stations still do their (often drastic) EQ and compression as
well !


geoff

Mike Rivers wrote:
In article writes:


My understanding is that it's a deliberate attempt to deal with the fact
that, these days, radio is often being listened to in noisy environments
in which a full dynamic range would lose the quieter portions or blast
the louder ones.

Nope, it's a matter that people have forgotten that their player has
a volume control, or they think that there's something wrong with
either the player or the media if they actualy have to USE that
control.

Initially the loudness race started with radio program directors.
They'd put a CD in the boom box on their desk and if it wasn't loud
enough, would pass on putting it on the air.

I think it's also a matter of relative loudness when comparing two
different recordings. Somewhere (perhaps an old issue of Stereo
Review), I heard the advice that if you are auditioning two sets of
speakers, you should adjust the volume somehow so that they play
at the same loudness; otherwise, you will tend to favor the more
efficient speaker. Why? Because, all other things being equal
and the volume being somewhere in the normal listening range,
louder sounds are more stimulating and people like them better!

And, I think the same thing applies to comparing the music on two CDs.
If they play at equal volumes, it's a fair comparison. If not, you
tend to be more interested in the one that's louder. So, it's possible
to stack the deck of musical comparison with a technological trick.
And that's what people do.

Also, this doesn't justify the extermination of dynamic range, but
there is actually one advantage of compressing things within an
inch of their lives: it's easier to listen to them and hear stuff
in environments where there's lots of ambient noise competing with
the music, like in the car. People used to listen to FM (already
compressed like nuts) and cassettes (compressed like nuts because
of its limited dynamic range and because of noise reduction systems)
in the car. Now, they listen to CDs, which have more dynamic range.
But unless you have a Rolls Royce or only listen while sitting in
a parking lot with the engine turned off, dynamic range is not all
that useful in the car. A few car audio systems have some kind
of volume levelling or ambient noise compensation, but many do not.

Maybe the ideal format would contain material with wide dynamic
range and also some kind of subcode that would give parameters
for compression you could turn off and on, depending on whether
you're listening in an ideal environment or you're using the music
to drown out the noise around you. In most cases, you can't make
a recording that's good for both purposes...

- Logan

Geoff Wood wrote:

So what is inferior about 96dB and fractions of1% distortion,

Nothing. IF that was the whole story. Which it isn't.

But the radio stations still do their (often drastic) EQ and compression as
well !

Well, sure. It made their station stand out from the rest of the dial...
until the rest did it too...

Remember, their goal is not to deliver the best sound; it's to make you
hold still long enough for them to hit you with a commercial.

(Though I must admit, I really am tempted to to something equally ugly
to make a set of CDs specifically for listening to in my car, which is a
noisy econobox.)

Now that a large number of people don't listen to whole CDs, but
rather selections from a variety of CDs set up as a "playlist" it's
even more annoyng when the volume changes from song to song.

As I've said elsewhere, MusicMatch (mostly) solves that by storing
normalization info separately from the audio file and making it
optional. Turn it on when shuffling, turn it off and it doesn't get in
the way.

Scott Dorsey wrote:
But what I am offended by is when re-releases of older material are
also squashed to hell and beyond.

Can't argue. "Now in Hi-Fi stereo... and colorized!"

"vinyl believer" wrote in message...

16/44 digital isn't a great medium

Some of the best records & CDs that I've ever heard were cut at
16/44 on tape. 16/44 does a pretty good job of encompassing the
entire audible frequency spectrum.


But are artists and engineers really doing anything about this
stupidity that is ruining their work?

The artist only wants to be on a level playing field. The recording
and mixing engineers really can't do anything but what the clients
want... or not.


DM

"vinyl believer" wrote in message...

So we switched to a format (16/44 CDs) that was degraged from
the start


Sheesh... How do you figure that one? The first time in history that
we could effectively use over 96dB of dynamic range with NO noise.

"Joe Kesselman" wrote in message ...
Now that a large number of people don't listen to whole CDs, but
rather selections from a variety of CDs set up as a "playlist" it's
even more annoyng when the volume changes from song to song.

As I've said elsewhere, MusicMatch (mostly) solves that by storing
normalization info separately from the audio file and making it
optional. Turn it on when shuffling, turn it off and it doesn't get in
the way.


Are you saying that there's any new music out there that can
handle being normalized *again* ?!?

;-)


DM

"Geoff Wood" wrote in message...

But the radio stations still do their (often drastic) EQ and
compression as well !


That's part of the problem with current mastering techniques, isn't it?
If the station's gear can't really do what it was designed to do, due to
the program material running through it, it can actually sound worse
after broadcast, no?

On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 07:56:51 GMT, "David Morgan \(MAMS\)"
wrote:


"vinyl believer" wrote in message...

So we switched to a format (16/44 CDs) that was degraged from
the start


Sheesh... How do you figure that one? The first time in history that
we could effectively use over 96dB of dynamic range with NO noise.



Just take a look at his name - believer. He announces himself as
credulous to the world.

Enough said?

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

Tocaor wrote:

[...]
Anyway, I wish labels would release two versions from their top artist so we
can have a choice between a CD with reasonable dynamic range/clarity and the
distorted garbage we are be plagued with now. I bet once people start
realizing how ****y the current trends sound they will want things to back
the other way.

I guy can dream can't he?


It would be much better if it were all distributed uncompressed but with
a compression option built into the players.

This would extremely cheap to include in CD players, car radios and many
other consumer devices which already handle sound in the digital domain.

--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

.... 16/44 does a pretty good job

Like I said .....16/44 digital isn't a great medium.
Great sound mediums don't do "a pretty good job" .... Vinyl sounds
nice. 24/96 digital sounds great.

The artist only wants to be on a level playing field.

At the price of sounding bad?...... I don't think serious classical and
jazz artists would put up with this kind of mastering.

The recording and mixing engineers really can't do anything but what
the clients
want...

And tell them that it sounds like **** too.

VB

"vinyl believer" wrote in message...
So we switched to a format (16/44 CDs) that was degraged from
the start


Sheesh... How do you figure that one? The first time in history
that we could effectively use over 96dB of dynamic range with NO noise.


Unatrual highs, weak mid range, lack of dimension from low sample and
bit rate. (lows are okay since we don't hear that well in that range)
........ 24/96 solves most of these problems but vinyl sounds more
natrual than 16/44 though it lacks the dynamic range and freq.
response.

I quite suprised that you guys can't hear this. Paul Stamler has stated
that he clear can hear a difference between high quality digital and
16/44.

VB

In article nvalid lid writes:

It would be much better if it were all distributed uncompressed but with
a compression option built into the players.

There are several problems with this.

- There would be a considerable difference in how it sounds depending
on the player. Of course there's some difference now, and we can't
control the listener's speakers or placement, but there's some
consistency in the sound of a modern CD when moved from system to
system.

- If the compression was adjustable or even selectable by the user
(none, low, medium, high) most wouldn't know what it does and would
just set it so that it was loudest. Remember the Dolby "it mutes
the treble when I turn it on" complaints?

- If it was not adjustable, we'd be no better off than we are now,
and probably worse since this aspect of "mastering" would be
decided upon by the manufacturer of the player rather than someone
who actually has an opportunity to listen to the music before
turning the knobs.

This would extremely cheap to include in CD players, car radios and many
other consumer devices which already handle sound in the digital domain.

These days, a switch is about the most expensive thing that a
manufacturer of consumer equipment can add. And who wants a CD player
with a menu? While the compressor chip might be cheap, controlling it
wouldn't be as cheap as you think. I do recall renting a car once with
a radio that had a compressor that could be switched in by pushing the
"audio" button enough times. But it was a nice, quiet car so the radio
sounded better with the compressor off.


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

In article .com writes:

The artist only wants to be on a level playing field.

At the price of sounding bad?...... I don't think serious classical and
jazz artists would put up with this kind of mastering.

For the most part, they don't, unless it's a "pop classical" or a "pop
jazz" recording. In which case, the "pop" takes over because it's
intended for people who aren't audiophile listeners.

If you're an audiophile, you have every right to believe in vinyl, and
your belief that better sounding vinyl records than CDs have been
produced. And if you're an audiophile you probably have good enough
equipment so that you can hear and enjoy the difference between 16-bit
and 24-bit converters and maybe even double sample rates. But you have
special qualifications that don't apply to the people who spend most
of the money on recordings. Those are the ones who don't want to touch
the volume control on their player or radio.


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

On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 07:50:00 +0000, David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:

Some of the best records & CDs that I've ever heard were cut at 16/44 on
tape.

I thought tape was 48kHz. Did I miss something?

Not that those 4k samples would have made any difference.

Depends on what tape device you're talking about.

Agent 86 wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 07:50:00 +0000, David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:

Some of the best records & CDs that I've ever heard were cut at 16/44 on
tape.

I thought tape was 48kHz. Did I miss something?

Not that those 4k samples would have made any difference.

Joe Kesselman wrote in
:

Scott Dorsey wrote:
But what I am offended by is when re-releases of older material are
also squashed to hell and beyond.

Can't argue. "Now in Hi-Fi stereo... and colorized!"

OT personal beef.

You WANT colorized movies.

The process of cleaning the images, registration and getting the exposure
consistent between frames that is necessary to get the colorizing software
to work usually exceeds the normal "restoration" work of film preservation.

If you don't like the color, tweak your set to black and white. It'll look
better than it did in the theatre 50 years ago.

Carey Carlan wrote:
OT personal beef.
You WANT colorized movies.

No. I want restored movies. I'm willing to tolerate colorization, _very_
reluctantly, as a way of getting folks motivated to make the effort to
restore them.

If you don't like the color, tweak your set to black and white.

It's very unclear that colorization retains the proper brightness values
for that to have the intended result.

And there are still a few of us who believe in film and decent-sized
screens.

vinyl believer wrote:

.... 16/44 does a pretty good job

Like I said .....16/44 digital isn't a great medium.
Great sound mediums don't do "a pretty good job" .... Vinyl sounds
nice. 24/96 digital sounds great.

The artist only wants to be on a level playing field.

At the price of sounding bad?...... I don't think serious classical and
jazz artists would put up with this kind of mastering.

The recording and mixing engineers really can't do anything but what
the clients
want...

And tell them that it sounds like **** too.

VB, you are quite the troll.

--
ha

vinyl believer wrote:

"vinyl believer" wrote in message...
So we switched to a format (16/44 CDs) that was degraged from
the start


Sheesh... How do you figure that one? The first time in history
that we could effectively use over 96dB of dynamic range with NO noise.


Unatrual highs, weak mid range, lack of dimension from low sample and
bit rate. (lows are okay since we don't hear that well in that range)
....... 24/96 solves most of these problems but vinyl sounds more
natrual than 16/44 though it lacks the dynamic range and freq.
response.

I quite suprised that you guys can't hear this. Paul Stamler has stated
that he clear can hear a difference between high quality digital and
16/44.

VB

I am even more surprised it took me until today to pin you as a pro
troll.

--
ha

Are you saying that there's any new music out there that can
handle being normalized *again* ?!?

Yes, if the normalization is absolutely minimal: "Oh. This one wasn't
recorded at peak=0xffff. Turn up the volume a touch." Which, for most
pop recordings (not that I listen to any pop), is a no-op. smile/

lid (Adrian Tuddenham) writes:

It would be much better if it were all distributed uncompressed but with
a compression option built into the players.

This would extremely cheap to include in CD players, car radios and many
other consumer devices which already handle sound in the digital domain.

I'd buy it. I listen to a lot of classical music in the car,
and it's a pain to ride gain while driving just to hear the
little tinkly parts.

--
J. Porter Clark

Joe Kesselman wrote:

Well, sure. It made their station stand out from the rest of the dial...
until the rest did it too...

I just don't get this. When searching the dial, do you stop at songs you
like or do you listen for the loudist song and choose that one?

Who ever came up with this logic?

David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:


Sheesh... How do you figure that one? The first time in history that
we could effectively use over 96dB of dynamic range with NO noise.

Effectively? In the meantime modern recordings use about 3.

I don't think the dynamic range of the media is really an issue.

Don Pearce wrote:


Just take a look at his name - believer. He announces himself as
credulous to the world.

Enough said?

Plenty of people agree. An even larger percentage of those that actually
care about sound quality.

hank alrich wrote:

vinyl believer wrote:


.... 16/44 does a pretty good job


Like I said .....16/44 digital isn't a great medium.
Great sound mediums don't do "a pretty good job" .... Vinyl sounds
nice. 24/96 digital sounds great.


The artist only wants to be on a level playing field.


At the price of sounding bad?...... I don't think serious classical and
jazz artists would put up with this kind of mastering.


The recording and mixing engineers really can't do anything but what
the clients
want...


And tell them that it sounds like **** too.


VB, you are quite the troll.


What? What was trollish about that? A person can't have an opinion
different than YOURS?

Geeeez, some people's kids.

On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 14:36:16 -0500, Joe Sensor
wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:


Just take a look at his name - believer. He announces himself as
credulous to the world.

Enough said?

Plenty of people agree. An even larger percentage of those that actually
care about sound quality.

Ever seen a Trekkies convention? They all believe.

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

Don Pearce wrote:


Plenty of people agree. An even larger percentage of those that actually
care about sound quality.


Ever seen a Trekkies convention? They all believe.

And that has what to do with this conversation?

On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 14:51:23 -0500, Joe Sensor
wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:


Plenty of people agree. An even larger percentage of those that actually
care about sound quality.


Ever seen a Trekkies convention? They all believe.

And that has what to do with this conversation?

Everything. It is all about gullibility.

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

Mike Rivers wrote:

In article nvalid
lid writes:

It would be much better if it were all distributed uncompressed but with
a compression option built into the players.

There are several problems with this.

- There would be a considerable difference in how it sounds depending
on the player.

Well, yes. - It would sound good on a player without the compression
and bad (which many people seem to like) on a player with the
compression.

At the moment we don't have a choice, it just sounds bad.


- If the compression was adjustable or even selectable by the user
(none, low, medium, high) most wouldn't know what it does and would
just set it so that it was loudest.

Yes again. They would get the nasty noise they deserve (just as they do
now) and wouldn't know any better.


- If it was not adjustable, we'd be no better off than we are now,
and probably worse since this aspect of "mastering" would be
decided upon by the manufacturer of the player rather than someone
who actually has an opportunity to listen to the music before
turning the knobs.

But if the CD producer is ruining it by compressing it to hell, we would
be better off by stopping him and having the opportunity to buy a decent
player so as to hear it properly. (Unless you are saying that we really
ought not to hear what the artiste actually sounds like, in case we
suddenly realise the true worth of some modern performers).


This would extremely cheap to include in CD players, car radios and many
other consumer devices which already handle sound in the digital domain.

These days, a switch is about the most expensive thing that a
manufacturer of consumer equipment can add.

So there would be three types of player:

1) No switch - permanent compression

2) No switch - no compression

3) Switchable (but more expensive).

Sounds like a good marketing opportunity for someone there ...and still
the discerning user would have a no-compression option which he/she
doesn't have at the moment.



--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

And that has what to do with this conversation?



Everything. It is all about gullibility.

d Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

You're a consultant, you should know! ...... swish, boom...... Just
kidding (sort of)

I like vinly, don't care for 16/44 digital and I've made my case why as
to why...... Jump in anytime, if you have something relevant to say.

VB

David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:
Sheesh... How do you figure that one? The first time in history that
we could effectively use over 96dB of dynamic range with NO noise.

Effectively? In the meantime modern recordings use about 3.

I don't think the dynamic range of the media is really an issue.

Wow, ain't that the truth...... Talk about the unused brain.

In 100 years and people's heads will be the size of their balls.

VB

On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 14:17:17 -0700, vinyl believer wrote:

I like vinly, don't care for 16/44 digital and I've made my case why as to
why......

Well, you've "stated" your case, anyway.

That's not quite the same thing as "making" it.

True...... I've stated my case, and that's good enough for my ears.

But I have "made" the case many times in small informal group listening
sessions. The vast majority have preferred vinyl over CD in side by
side comparisons under fair conditions. (probably even more fair to the
CDs).

VB

In article writes:

I'd buy it. [compressor] I listen to a lot of classical music in the car,
and it's a pain to ride gain while driving just to hear the
little tinkly parts.

You're just not getting the full effect of the big loud parts. Turn it
up! Support the fight against RAP-spewing SUVs.



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

I am even more surprised it took me until today to pin you as a
pro troll.

Ha ..... Well I wish I was getting paid to troll here! ....... Just
voicing my humble opinions and listening experiences.

Hank, do you think that a lot of this mastering BS is just because
people don't really know how to properly use the sofware? It's still a
pretty new technology.

I've seen guys get on the Waves L1 and don't really have a clue to what
they're doing and crank it up to neverland. They can get away with it
because of the brick wall limiting. And they think it sounds better as
it gets louder.

Maybe it will settle down when engineers get a grip on the 'toyz'.

VB

On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 14:37:29 -0700, vinyl believer wrote:

The vast majority have preferred vinyl over CD in side by side
comparisons under fair conditions.

No argument that most listeners would prefer certain vinyl releases over
the CD release of the same material. I've got lots of LPs in my personal
collection that I prefer over the same album on CD.

But you're STILL ignoring the fact that there's a hell of a lot more
involved in creating an LP or (to a lesser extent) a CD than just a flat
transfer from the master tape. And you still don't have the original
master as a reference. Until you come to grips with that, you're about a
credible as RJR & Phillip Morris insisting there is "no scientific
evidence that smoking cases cancer".

Like I said, I've got lots of LPs that I prefer over the same album on CD.
But I've got just as many CDs that I prefer over the original LP. That
tells me the delivery medium is not the whole story.