I've heard about Vinyl having more midrange and what not but whenever
I hear a vinyl being played on TV or whatever, it sounds muddy,
unclear and it sounds like there's no seperation along with too much
hiss

Now is it possible that maybe the equipment used was inferior or is
this just the way Vinyl sounds?

On 26 Mar 2005 05:53:46 GMT, (Cobain4evr)
wrote:

I've heard about Vinyl having more midrange and what not but whenever
I hear a vinyl being played on TV or whatever, it sounds muddy,
unclear and it sounds like there's no seperation along with too much
hiss

Now is it possible that maybe the equipment used was inferior or is
this just the way Vinyl sounds?

There is nothing wrong with what you are hearing - this is indeed just
the way vinyl sounds. CD has been around so long that most people are
unaware what a revelation it was - particularly for listeners to
classical music - when it first came out. At that time, vinyl was the
standard, and I heard not ione single 'serious audiophile' suggest
that CD was not greatly superior in most respects. It's true that some
early players (and some early CDs) had some treble harshness, but that
had vanished by the early '90s.

As with tube amplifiers, there is a tiny band of anachrophiles who
will always believe that 'older is better'. This may be true of some
aspects of society, but is rarely true of technology, and is certainly
*not* true of vinyl.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

At that time, vinyl was the
standard, and I heard not ione single 'serious audiophile' suggest
that CD was not greatly superior in most respects.
The definition of a 'serious audiophile' being someone who agrees with you.

-- Richard

On 27 Mar 2005 05:43:58 GMT, Richard Dale
wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

At that time, vinyl was the
standard, and I heard not one single 'serious audiophile' suggest
that CD was not greatly superior in most respects.

The definition of a 'serious audiophile' being someone who agrees with you.

Nope, as previously noted, they were hi-fi enthusiasts I had known
from the '70s, before CD existed. This has always struck me as a
pretty unintelligent argiment, since we're all well aware that
non-serious audiophiles *all* think that CD is vastly superior, which
is why vinyl is effectively dead.

This is to distinguish them from vinylphiles, who seem to take
themselves all too seriously! :-)
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 26 Mar 2005 05:53:46 GMT, (Cobain4evr)
wrote:

I've heard about Vinyl having more midrange and what not but
whenever
I hear a vinyl being played on TV or whatever, it sounds muddy,
unclear and it sounds like there's no seperation along with too much
hiss

Now is it possible that maybe the equipment used was inferior or is
this just the way Vinyl sounds?

There is nothing wrong with what you are hearing - this is indeed
just
the way vinyl sounds. CD has been around so long that most people are
unaware what a revelation it was - particularly for listeners to
classical music - when it first came out. At that time, vinyl was the
standard, and I heard not ione single 'serious audiophile' suggest
that CD was not greatly superior in most respects.

Methinks your statement here is a tautology as an audiophile who
believes vinyl is superior in the most important aspects is
automatically "not serious." I've encountered audio engineers both at
school and in some of my early jobs, and if I remember right it was
about evenly split between those who thought that CD was superior and
those who thought that analog was generally superior and vinyl was one
of the best ways to brings those strengths into the home (although they
might rather listen to reel-to-reel tape).

It's true that some
early players (and some early CDs) had some treble harshness, but
that
had vanished by the early '90s.

As with tube amplifiers, there is a tiny band of anachrophiles who
will always believe that 'older is better'.

Are you threatened by this "tiny band"? You have to put them down
three times he calling them a "tiny band," calling them
"anachrophiles", and as a strawman asserting they believe "older is
better." I think that good vinyl is musically superior to CD (although
the inner groove distortion is still a major problem in classical
music, I would agree with that), and I have no such general belief that
"older is better."

Hmm, I do think that land lines sound better than highly compressed
bit-rate digital cell phones. I think that when they changed the
design of my favorite underwear, it didn't fit as well. I think that
my city was nicer back when it wasn't so crowded. Damn, I guess I'm an
anachrophile after all.

-Mike

On 27 Mar 2005 05:43:41 GMT, "Michael Mossey"
wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

CD has been around so long that most people are
unaware what a revelation it was - particularly for listeners to
classical music - when it first came out. At that time, vinyl was the
standard, and I heard not ione single 'serious audiophile' suggest
that CD was not greatly superior in most respects.

Methinks your statement here is a tautology as an audiophile who
believes vinyl is superior in the most important aspects is
automatically "not serious." I've encountered audio engineers both at
school and in some of my early jobs, and if I remember right it was
about evenly split between those who thought that CD was superior and
those who thought that analog was generally superior and vinyl was one
of the best ways to brings those strengths into the home (although they
might rather listen to reel-to-reel tape).

OK, I phrased that badly. I knew a coiuple of dozen 'serious
audiophiles' in 1982, none of whom of coutrse had any experience of
CD. Two years later, every single one of them agreed that CD was
greatly superior to LP.

It's not realy until you get into the '90s (by which time any residual
weakness in CD players had been sorted out), that it became
fashionable to knock CD. Interestingly, that would be about the same
time that it became fashionable to claim magical properties for
single-ended triode amps, a technology which had previously been
abandoned in the '20s..................

As with tube amplifiers, there is a tiny band of anachrophiles who
will always believe that 'older is better'.

Are you threatened by this "tiny band"? You have to put them down
three times he calling them a "tiny band," calling them
"anachrophiles", and as a strawman asserting they believe "older is
better." I think that good vinyl is musically superior to CD (although
the inner groove distortion is still a major problem in classical
music, I would agree with that), and I have no such general belief that
"older is better."

No, I'm not threatened, just amused, and you are of course free to
prefer anything you like. My only real quarrel is with those who make
false claims about analogue, such as 'infinite resolution', 'more
low-level detail' and the like.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 27 Mar 2005 05:43:41 GMT, "Michael Mossey"
wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

CD has been around so long that most people are
unaware what a revelation it was - particularly for listeners to
classical music - when it first came out. At that time, vinyl was
the
standard, and I heard not ione single 'serious audiophile' suggest
that CD was not greatly superior in most respects.

Methinks your statement here is a tautology as an audiophile who
believes vinyl is superior in the most important aspects is
automatically "not serious." I've encountered audio engineers both
at
school and in some of my early jobs, and if I remember right it was
about evenly split between those who thought that CD was superior
and
those who thought that analog was generally superior and vinyl was
one
of the best ways to brings those strengths into the home (although
they
might rather listen to reel-to-reel tape).

OK, I phrased that badly. I knew a coiuple of dozen 'serious
audiophiles' in 1982, none of whom of coutrse had any experience of
CD. Two years later, every single one of them agreed that CD was
greatly superior to LP.

It's not realy until you get into the '90s (by which time any
residual
weakness in CD players had been sorted out), that it became
fashionable to knock CD. Interestingly, that would be about the same
time that it became fashionable to claim magical properties for
single-ended triode amps, a technology which had previously been
abandoned in the '20s..................

As with tube amplifiers, there is a tiny band of anachrophiles who
will always believe that 'older is better'.

Are you threatened by this "tiny band"? You have to put them down
three times he calling them a "tiny band," calling them
"anachrophiles", and as a strawman asserting they believe "older is
better." I think that good vinyl is musically superior to CD
(although
the inner groove distortion is still a major problem in classical
music, I would agree with that), and I have no such general belief
that
"older is better."

No, I'm not threatened, just amused,

Are you also amused by people who like classical music? They are a
"tiny band" out of all music consumers. What does that prove about
these folks?

Amusement is a patronizing reaction. I'm not amused by your preference
of digital; I figure, that's the way your ears work. I don't feel
superior to you because mine work differently.

-Mike

On 28 Mar 2005 05:42:01 GMT, "Michael Mossey"
wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 27 Mar 2005 05:43:41 GMT, "Michael Mossey"
wrote:

As with tube amplifiers, there is a tiny band of anachrophiles who
will always believe that 'older is better'.

Are you threatened by this "tiny band"? You have to put them down
three times he calling them a "tiny band," calling them
"anachrophiles", and as a strawman asserting they believe "older is
better." I think that good vinyl is musically superior to CD (although
the inner groove distortion is still a major problem in classical
music, I would agree with that), and I have no such general belief that
"older is better."

Please define 'musically superior'.

No, I'm not threatened, just amused,

Are you also amused by people who like classical music?

Frequently - and I'm one of them! :-)

They are a
"tiny band" out of all music consumers. What does that prove about
these folks?

Nothing at all. I am only amused by *specific* tiny bands, such as
those who claim that vinyl is in some objective way superior to CD.

Amusement is a patronizing reaction. I'm not amused by your preference
of digital; I figure, that's the way your ears work. I don't feel
superior to you because mine work differently.

They do? Get help, NOW! :-)
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"Michael Mossey" wrote in message
...

Hmm, I do think that land lines sound better than highly compressed
bit-rate digital cell phones.

"Land lines" are almost entirely digital, but normally do not use
compression. This is a separate issue from digital vs. analog,
let alone vinyl vs. CD.

- Gary Rosen

In article ,
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

There is nothing wrong with what you are hearing - this is indeed just
the way vinyl sounds. CD has been around so long that most people are
unaware what a revelation it was - particularly for listeners to
classical music - when it first came out. At that time, vinyl was the
standard, and I heard not ione single 'serious audiophile' suggest
that CD was not greatly superior in most respects. It's true that some
early players (and some early CDs) had some treble harshness, but that
had vanished by the early '90s.

Generally, but not always, I have preferred works originally done in
analog on LP rather than CD. There seems to be something about the
transfer to digital that messes them up. However, this is much less
true today than it was a number of years ago. In fact, I did not buy my
first CD until several years after they first came out because they did
not sound right.

As the technology advanced and works were recorded directly to digital,
CD became superior to LP. Nevertheless, if the original was analog and
there is any noticeable difference between the LP and the CD, I tend to
prefer the LP. However, more and more there is no noticeable difference.

Rather than arbitrarily say to favor CD over LP or vice versa, I would
say to listen to see if they sound different and if they do go with what
sounds most like a live performance.

Robert Peirce wrote:
In article ,
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:


There is nothing wrong with what you are hearing - this is indeed just
the way vinyl sounds. CD has been around so long that most people are
unaware what a revelation it was - particularly for listeners to
classical music - when it first came out. At that time, vinyl was the
standard, and I heard not ione single 'serious audiophile' suggest
that CD was not greatly superior in most respects. It's true that some
early players (and some early CDs) had some treble harshness, but that
had vanished by the early '90s.


Generally, but not always, I have preferred works originally done in
analog on LP rather than CD. There seems to be something about the
transfer to digital that messes them up. However, this is much less
true today than it was a number of years ago. In fact, I did not buy my
first CD until several years after they first came out because they did
not sound right.

As the technology advanced and works were recorded directly to digital,
CD became superior to LP. Nevertheless, if the original was analog and
there is any noticeable difference between the LP and the CD, I tend to
prefer the LP. However, more and more there is no noticeable difference.
If there's no difference, then something's wrong with the CD Just from
a technical standpoint, CD will be more true to the original recording
than vinyl ever could.


Rather than arbitrarily say to favor CD over LP or vice versa, I would
say to listen to see if they sound different and if they do go with what
sounds most like a live performance.

Or why not just admitt that you love vinyl because it sounds more
pleasant, and that does not necessarily, well, not at all really, sound
more accurate.

We can only judge the better format by really being able to compare the
CD or vinyl to the original master recordings. If we as consumers had
access to those, we would easily see that CD blows away vinyl.

C'mon, now, less than 30 db of separation, 80 db dynamic range if you're
lucky, etc. Vinyl is inferior, but it's analoge artifiacts make it sound
"nice"

Occaiasionally, I prefer my audio CD made from recording vinyl to my PC
rather than the mass prodcued CD of the same recording. So which format
do I prefer?

CD

Codifus wrote:
Robert Peirce wrote:

In article ,
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:


There is nothing wrong with what you are hearing - this is indeed just
the way vinyl sounds. CD has been around so long that most people are
unaware what a revelation it was - particularly for listeners to
classical music - when it first came out. At that time, vinyl was the
standard, and I heard not ione single 'serious audiophile' suggest
that CD was not greatly superior in most respects. It's true that some
early players (and some early CDs) had some treble harshness, but that
had vanished by the early '90s.



Generally, but not always, I have preferred works originally done in
analog on LP rather than CD. There seems to be something about the
transfer to digital that messes them up. However, this is much less
true today than it was a number of years ago. In fact, I did not buy
my first CD until several years after they first came out because they
did not sound right.

As the technology advanced and works were recorded directly to
digital, CD became superior to LP. Nevertheless, if the original was
analog and there is any noticeable difference between the LP and the
CD, I tend to prefer the LP. However, more and more there is no
noticeable difference.

If there's no difference, then something's wrong with the CD Just from
a technical standpoint, CD will be more true to the original recording
than vinyl ever could.


Rather than arbitrarily say to favor CD over LP or vice versa, I would
say to listen to see if they sound different and if they do go with
what sounds most like a live performance.


Or why not just admitt that you love vinyl because it sounds more
pleasant, and that does not necessarily, well, not at all really, sound
more accurate.

We can only judge the better format by really being able to compare the
CD or vinyl to the original master recordings. If we as consumers had
access to those, we would easily see that CD blows away vinyl.

C'mon, now, less than 30 db of separation, 80 db dynamic range if you're
lucky, etc. Vinyl is inferior, but it's analoge artifiacts make it sound
"nice"

Occaiasionally, I prefer my audio CD made from recording vinyl to my PC
rather than the mass prodcued CD of the same recording. So which format
do I prefer?

CD

Indeed, it’s those analog imperfections that vinyl produces that people
enjoy, and not the reality of the replication of the venue in question.

I admit that before SACD, I used to take out my old tapes and records
for certain pieces. With the absolutism that SACD has solidified in my
mind, that is fortunately no longer the case.

Yours truly,

Michael

Michael wrote:
Codifus wrote:
Robert Peirce wrote:

In article ,
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:


There is nothing wrong with what you are hearing - this is indeed just
the way vinyl sounds. CD has been around so long that most people are
unaware what a revelation it was - particularly for listeners to
classical music - when it first came out. At that time, vinyl was the
standard, and I heard not ione single 'serious audiophile' suggest
that CD was not greatly superior in most respects. It's true that some
early players (and some early CDs) had some treble harshness, but that
had vanished by the early '90s.



Generally, but not always, I have preferred works originally done in
analog on LP rather than CD. There seems to be something about the
transfer to digital that messes them up. However, this is much less
true today than it was a number of years ago. In fact, I did not buy
my first CD until several years after they first came out because they
did not sound right.

As the technology advanced and works were recorded directly to
digital, CD became superior to LP. Nevertheless, if the original was
analog and there is any noticeable difference between the LP and the
CD, I tend to prefer the LP. However, more and more there is no
noticeable difference.

If there's no difference, then something's wrong with the CD Just from
a technical standpoint, CD will be more true to the original recording
than vinyl ever could.


Rather than arbitrarily say to favor CD over LP or vice versa, I would
say to listen to see if they sound different and if they do go with
what sounds most like a live performance.


Or why not just admitt that you love vinyl because it sounds more
pleasant, and that does not necessarily, well, not at all really, sound
more accurate.

We can only judge the better format by really being able to compare the
CD or vinyl to the original master recordings. If we as consumers had
access to those, we would easily see that CD blows away vinyl.

C'mon, now, less than 30 db of separation, 80 db dynamic range if you're
lucky, etc. Vinyl is inferior, but it's analoge artifiacts make it sound
"nice"

Occaiasionally, I prefer my audio CD made from recording vinyl to my PC
rather than the mass prodcued CD of the same recording. So which format
do I prefer?

CD

Indeed, it?s those analog imperfections that vinyl produces that people
enjoy, and not the reality of the replication of the venue in question.

I admit that before SACD, I used to take out my old tapes and records
for certain pieces. With the absolutism that SACD has solidified in my
mind, that is fortunately no longer the case.

Which is itself another interesting psychological phenomenon -- because
despite the marketing and the anecdotal testimonials, there's no real data
indicating that SACD should sound different from CD, assuming equal care
is taken in their preparation. Yet vinylphiles tend to embrace the idea
that SACD sounds intrinsically 'better' or 'more like analog' than CD. I
wonder if it's simply that vinylphiles, having staked an emotional claim
for analog and *against* digital for so long, are now happy to have an
excuse to like digital.




--

-S
It's not my business to do intelligent work. -- D. Rumsfeld, testifying
before the House Armed Services Committee

Codifus wrote:
Robert Peirce wrote:
In article ,
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:


There is nothing wrong with what you are hearing - this is indeed
just
the way vinyl sounds. CD has been around so long that most people
are
unaware what a revelation it was - particularly for listeners to
classical music - when it first came out. At that time, vinyl was
the
standard, and I heard not ione single 'serious audiophile' suggest
that CD was not greatly superior in most respects. It's true that
some
early players (and some early CDs) had some treble harshness, but
that
had vanished by the early '90s.


Generally, but not always, I have preferred works originally done
in
analog on LP rather than CD. There seems to be something about the

transfer to digital that messes them up. However, this is much
less
true today than it was a number of years ago. In fact, I did not
buy my
first CD until several years after they first came out because they
did
not sound right.

As the technology advanced and works were recorded directly to
digital,
CD became superior to LP. Nevertheless, if the original was analog
and
there is any noticeable difference between the LP and the CD, I
tend to
prefer the LP. However, more and more there is no noticeable
difference.
If there's no difference, then something's wrong with the CD Just
from
a technical standpoint, CD will be more true to the original
recording
than vinyl ever could.


Rather than arbitrarily say to favor CD over LP or vice versa, I
would
say to listen to see if they sound different and if they do go with
what
sounds most like a live performance.

Or why not just admitt that you love vinyl because it sounds more
pleasant, and that does not necessarily, well, not at all really,
sound
more accurate.

We can only judge the better format by really being able to compare
the
CD or vinyl to the original master recordings. If we as consumers had

access to those, we would easily see that CD blows away vinyl.

An even better test is to listen to a live feed, then listen to its
reproduction in analog and digital. Some engineers I know in the Los
Angeles area did that and said that the analog "blew away" the digital.
I've done it informally by hearing James Boyk perform live in Dabney
Concert Hall, then hearing the same piece recorded on LP and recorded
on CD. The LP "blew away" the CD. And it does sound more accurate.
Don't get confused between subjective accuracy and objective accuracy.
It SOUNDS more accurate; that's a statement about subjective
experience. If you try to tell me it sounds more "pleasant," then you
are trying to impose your own words on my subjective experience.

But please realize that analogphiles are more sophisticated then you
imply here. We are interested in accuracy, and we are interested in
direct comparison of source and recording. It's been done many times,
and analog was found to be more accurate by the listeners.

The usual caveats: speaking generally (no dogma here that digital must
be inferior, always) -- and what is more accurate applies to an
individual's ears. So you free to experience digital as more accurate.




C'mon, now, less than 30 db of separation, 80 db dynamic range if
you're
lucky, etc. Vinyl is inferior, but it's analoge artifiacts make it
sound
"nice"

I think that digital's artifacts make it sound "crummy."

Best,
Mike

Michael Mossey wrote:

Don't get confused between subjective accuracy and objective
accuracy.

You're the one who's confused, or trying to confuse. There is no such
thing as "subjective accuracy," as you define it. There may be a
"subjective sense of similarity," but to appropriate a technical term
like accuracy to elevate this concept is to muddy the waters, not
clarify them.

It SOUNDS more accurate;

But it IS less accurate. Therefore, this seeming "accuracy" is likely
some form of illusion.

that's a statement about subjective
experience. If you try to tell me it sounds more "pleasant," then
you
are trying to impose your own words on my subjective experience.

But please realize that analogphiles are more sophisticated then you
imply here. We are interested in accuracy, and we are interested in
direct comparison of source and recording. It's been done many
times,
and analog was found to be more accurate by the listeners.

Who knew what they were listening to, and who entered with a
preconceived notion that analog is superior. (You've just called them
"analogphiles," after all.)

bob

On 30 Mar 2005 00:39:09 GMT, "Michael Mossey"
wrote:

Codifus wrote:

We can only judge the better format by really being able to compare the
CD or vinyl to the original master recordings. If we as consumers had
access to those, we would easily see that CD blows away vinyl.

An even better test is to listen to a live feed, then listen to its
reproduction in analog and digital. Some engineers I know in the Los
Angeles area did that and said that the analog "blew away" the digital.
I've done it informally by hearing James Boyk perform live in Dabney
Concert Hall, then hearing the same piece recorded on LP and recorded
on CD. The LP "blew away" the CD. And it does sound more accurate.

An interesting anecdote, but others will tell the opposite tale. In
particular, your tale is extremely doubtful because, while I've heard
suggestions that vinyl can be more like the original live
*performance*, I have *never* heard anyone suggest that vinyl is more
like the live mic feed.

Don't get confused between subjective accuracy and objective accuracy.
It SOUNDS more accurate; that's a statement about subjective
experience. If you try to tell me it sounds more "pleasant," then you
are trying to impose your own words on my subjective experience.

No, we're trying to explain that accuracy is an objective thing. What
you are talking about is your impression that LP sounds somehow more
'lifelike'. That is *not* the same as *being* an accurate
reproduction.

But please realize that analogphiles are more sophisticated then you
imply here.

Actually, 'analogphiles' seem mostly to hanker after obsolete
technologies, hardly an indication of sophistication. The most
hilarious claims tend to be in regard to modern 'hi-res' digital
formats, which 'analogphiles' seem to welcome as being 'more like
analogue'. Here's a clue - they're even *further* from vinyl than is
16/44 CD. Althiough closer to the mic feed, of course........

We are interested in accuracy, and we are interested in
direct comparison of source and recording. It's been done many times,
and analog was found to be more accurate by the listeners.

No, it hasn't. Give *specific* examples of your claims.

The usual caveats: speaking generally (no dogma here that digital must
be inferior, always) -- and what is more accurate applies to an
individual's ears. So you free to experience digital as more accurate.

You are free to provide *any* evidence to back up your claims.

C'mon, now, less than 30 db of separation, 80 db dynamic range if you're
lucky, etc. Vinyl is inferior, but it's analoge artifiacts make it sound
"nice"

I think that digital's artifacts make it sound "crummy."

What artifacts are these?
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Michael Mossey wrote:

An even better test is to listen to a live feed, then listen to its
reproduction in analog and digital. Some engineers I know in the Los
Angeles area did that and said that the analog "blew away" the digital.
I've done it informally by hearing James Boyk perform live in Dabney
Concert Hall, then hearing the same piece recorded on LP and recorded
on CD. The LP "blew away" the CD. And it does sound more accurate.

Check out this article:

http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/ba...x_testing2.htm

This is one of the early ABX tests establishing the transparency of
digital audio. Also check out posts by the late Gabe Wiener, a
well-known recording engineer, on this subject, right here on rahe.

"Michael Mossey" wrote in message
...

But please realize that analogphiles are more sophisticated then you
imply here. We are interested in accuracy, and we are interested in
direct comparison of source and recording. It's been done many times,
and analog was found to be more accurate by the listeners.

I'm interested in knowing what study or studies confirmed as positively
as you state that "analog was found to be more accurate by the listeners".
Also, how many diffeent recordings and listeners do these findings
apply to?

- Gary Rosen

On 30 Mar 2005 00:39:09 GMT, "Michael Mossey"
wrote:

Codifus wrote:
Robert Peirce wrote:
In article ,
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:


There is nothing wrong with what you are hearing - this is indeed
just
the way vinyl sounds. CD has been around so long that most people
are
unaware what a revelation it was - particularly for listeners to
classical music - when it first came out. At that time, vinyl was
the
standard, and I heard not ione single 'serious audiophile' suggest
that CD was not greatly superior in most respects. It's true that
some
early players (and some early CDs) had some treble harshness, but
that
had vanished by the early '90s.


Generally, but not always, I have preferred works originally done
in
analog on LP rather than CD. There seems to be something about the

transfer to digital that messes them up. However, this is much
less
true today than it was a number of years ago. In fact, I did not
buy my
first CD until several years after they first came out because they
did
not sound right.

As the technology advanced and works were recorded directly to
digital,
CD became superior to LP. Nevertheless, if the original was analog
and
there is any noticeable difference between the LP and the CD, I
tend to
prefer the LP. However, more and more there is no noticeable
difference.
If there's no difference, then something's wrong with the CD Just
from
a technical standpoint, CD will be more true to the original
recording
than vinyl ever could.


Rather than arbitrarily say to favor CD over LP or vice versa, I
would
say to listen to see if they sound different and if they do go with
what
sounds most like a live performance.

Or why not just admitt that you love vinyl because it sounds more
pleasant, and that does not necessarily, well, not at all really,
sound
more accurate.

We can only judge the better format by really being able to compare
the
CD or vinyl to the original master recordings. If we as consumers had

access to those, we would easily see that CD blows away vinyl.

An even better test is to listen to a live feed, then listen to its
reproduction in analog and digital. Some engineers I know in the Los
Angeles area did that and said that the analog "blew away" the digital.
I've done it informally by hearing James Boyk perform live in Dabney
Concert Hall, then hearing the same piece recorded on LP and recorded
on CD. The LP "blew away" the CD. And it does sound more accurate.
Don't get confused between subjective accuracy and objective accuracy.
It SOUNDS more accurate; that's a statement about subjective
experience. If you try to tell me it sounds more "pleasant," then you
are trying to impose your own words on my subjective experience.

But please realize that analogphiles are more sophisticated then you
imply here. We are interested in accuracy, and we are interested in
direct comparison of source and recording. It's been done many times,
and analog was found to be more accurate by the listeners.

The usual caveats: speaking generally (no dogma here that digital must
be inferior, always) -- and what is more accurate applies to an
individual's ears. So you free to experience digital as more accurate.




C'mon, now, less than 30 db of separation, 80 db dynamic range if
you're
lucky, etc. Vinyl is inferior, but it's analoge artifiacts make it
sound
"nice"

I think that digital's artifacts make it sound "crummy."

Best,
Mike

Guess he's never heard of DBX discs. 110dbs of dynamic range, 96 dbs
S/N and the fact that being encoded in a compressed form results in
less excursions in the disc grooves so bass accuracy is greatly
improved.
I still get alot of vinyl(mostly from France) that is far superior in
listening quality that it's CD counterpart.
About all CD's are good for is their portability for sound on the go.

Codifus wrote:
Robert Peirce wrote:
In article ,
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:


There is nothing wrong with what you are hearing - this is indeed just
the way vinyl sounds. CD has been around so long that most people are
unaware what a revelation it was - particularly for listeners to
classical music - when it first came out. At that time, vinyl was the
standard, and I heard not ione single 'serious audiophile' suggest
that CD was not greatly superior in most respects. It's true that some
early players (and some early CDs) had some treble harshness, but that
had vanished by the early '90s.


Generally, but not always, I have preferred works originally done in
analog on LP rather than CD. There seems to be something about the
transfer to digital that messes them up. However, this is much less
true today than it was a number of years ago. In fact, I did not buy my
first CD until several years after they first came out because they did
not sound right.

As the technology advanced and works were recorded directly to digital,
CD became superior to LP. Nevertheless, if the original was analog and
there is any noticeable difference between the LP and the CD, I tend to
prefer the LP. However, more and more there is no noticeable difference.
If there's no difference, then something's wrong with the CD Just from
a technical standpoint, CD will be more true to the original recording
than vinyl ever could.


Rather than arbitrarily say to favor CD over LP or vice versa, I would
say to listen to see if they sound different and if they do go with what
sounds most like a live performance.

Or why not just admitt that you love vinyl because it sounds more
pleasant, and that does not necessarily, well, not at all really, sound
more accurate.

We can only judge the better format by really being able to compare the
CD or vinyl to the original master recordings. If we as consumers had
access to those, we would easily see that CD blows away vinyl.

C'mon, now, less than 30 db of separation, 80 db dynamic range if you're
lucky, etc. Vinyl is inferior, but it's analoge artifiacts make it sound
"nice"


http://www.airwindows.com/analysis/VinylNoise.html

" It would be reasonable to concede that in practice, with usual program
content, maybe 80 or 90 db of dynamic range could be expected from a vinyl
record, considered as background noise relative to peak modulation (and
overlooking rumble, which in many cases will be far worse than my high end
vinyl playback system's performance)."




--

-S
It's not my business to do intelligent work. -- D. Rumsfeld, testifying
before the House Armed Services Committee

On 30 Mar 2005 00:43:15 GMT, Steven Sullivan wrote:

Codifus wrote:

C'mon, now, less than 30 db of separation, 80 db dynamic range if you're
lucky, etc. Vinyl is inferior, but it's analoge artifiacts make it sound
"nice"

http://www.airwindows.com/analysis/VinylNoise.html

" It would be reasonable to concede that in practice, with usual program
content, maybe 80 or 90 db of dynamic range could be expected from a vinyl
record, considered as background noise relative to peak modulation (and
overlooking rumble, which in many cases will be far worse than my high end
vinyl playback system's performance)."

This is a classic scam, clearly done by a vinyl apologist. Note that
that this is a *narrow band* analysis, and bears no relation whatever
to the correct measure, which is full bandwidth dynamic range.

For comparison, note the results obtained from the 16-bit TPF dither
graph, which is conventionally acknowledged as sitting 93dB below peak
level. He claims more than 130dB! Now, take that 37dB difference from
his claim of 105 dB or so for vinyl (only above 1kHz, you'll notice),
and we get back to a more realistic 68dB for vinyl, much less if you
use the full 20-20k bandwidth.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

In article ,
Codifus wrote:

Robert Peirce wrote:
In article ,

Rather than arbitrarily say to favor CD over LP or vice versa, I would
say to listen to see if they sound different and if they do go with what
sounds most like a live performance.

Or why not just admitt that you love vinyl because it sounds more
pleasant, and that does not necessarily, well, not at all really, sound
more accurate.

We can only judge the better format by really being able to compare the
CD or vinyl to the original master recordings. If we as consumers had
access to those, we would easily see that CD blows away vinyl.

Not so. The original master recording is like a photographic negative.
It must be interpreted. The object is not to make the recording sound
exactly like the master recording but like a live performance.
Sometimes the CD does this and sometimes the LP

C'mon, now, less than 30 db of separation, 80 db dynamic range if you're
lucky, etc. Vinyl is inferior, but it's analoge artifiacts make it sound
"nice"

Not always. As I said originally, sometimes I prefer LP and sometimes
CD and sometimes I can't see any difference between them. However, when
I listen to them I always ask myself which sounds more like music as I
am used to hearing it. I recognize that music recorded in a dead studio
is not going to sound like music played in a hall or bar or whatever.
The key to me is whether the person making the recording can make it
sound like that. In other words, is he also an artist as well as a
technician or is he just a technician.

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 26 Mar 2005 05:53:46 GMT, (Cobain4evr)
wrote:

I've heard about Vinyl having more midrange and what not but
whenever
I hear a vinyl being played on TV or whatever, it sounds muddy,
unclear and it sounds like there's no seperation along with too much
hiss

Now is it possible that maybe the equipment used was inferior or is
this just the way Vinyl sounds?

There is nothing wrong with what you are hearing

Other than the fact that it has nothing to do with the actual sound of
SOTA vinyl playback.

- this is indeed just
the way vinyl sounds.

No. It is the way sound editors represent the sound of vinyl. It hardly
represents any universal truth.

CD has been around so long that most people are
unaware what a revelation it was - particularly for listeners to
classical music - when it first came out. At that time, vinyl was the
standard, and I heard not ione single 'serious audiophile' suggest
that CD was not greatly superior in most respects.

Well of course. I did not hear one single "serious" audiophile who did
not think CD was greatly inferior. Since we are free to decide who we
think is and is not a "serious" audiophile your statement, as is mine
for the sake of example, is a reflection of your own biases on audio
and not any kind of a reflection on the opinions of the actual
individuals across this wide world that consider themselves to be
"serious" audiophiles.

It's true that some
early players (and some early CDs) had some treble harshness, but
that
had vanished by the early '90s.

As if that were a minor issue.


As with tube amplifiers, there is a tiny band of anachrophiles who
will always believe that 'older is better'.

The preference for tubes is hardly based on the idea that "older is
better." There may indeed be a tiny band of people that believe this
but that hardly acounts for the majority of people that prefer tube
amplification.

This may be true of some
aspects of society, but is rarely true of technology, and is
certainly
*not* true of vinyl.

Except in the majority of practical applications. You know, like when
someone goes out and buys some commercial title that they like and it
sounds better on vinyl. It happens. With SOTA play back equipment it
happens far more often than not IME.

Scott Wheeler

The preference for tubes is hardly based on the idea that "older is
better." There may indeed be a tiny band of people that believe this
but that hardly acounts for the majority of people that prefer tube
amplification.



What evidence do you have that the majority prefer tube amplification?
I certainly don't, and I have good ears. Tubes distort in rather
unpleasant ways.

wrote:
The preference for tubes is hardly based on the idea that "older is
better." There may indeed be a tiny band of people that believe this
but that hardly acounts for the majority of people that prefer tube
amplification.




What evidence do you have that the majority prefer tube amplification?
I certainly don't, and I have good ears. Tubes distort in rather
unpleasant ways.

Hello.

I prefer solid state amplifiers as well.

I'd like to point out that in regards to the original comment, the
audiophiles I know will tell one that tubes only sound better in certain
conditions and they are not indeed for all types of music. Most of my
friends that have tube amps also run solid state amps for pop and rock
music. So obviously, tube amplification is not some universal,
audiophile truth.

Yours truly,

Michael

On 31 Mar 2005 01:03:18 GMT, Michael
wrote:

wrote:
The preference for tubes is hardly based on the idea that "older is
better." There may indeed be a tiny band of people that believe this
but that hardly acounts for the majority of people that prefer tube
amplification.

What evidence do you have that the majority prefer tube amplification?
I certainly don't, and I have good ears. Tubes distort in rather
unpleasant ways.

I prefer solid state amplifiers as well.

I'd like to point out that in regards to the original comment, the
audiophiles I know will tell one that tubes only sound better in certain
conditions and they are not indeed for all types of music. Most of my
friends that have tube amps also run solid state amps for pop and rock
music. So obviously, tube amplification is not some universal,
audiophile truth.

Interesting, and somewhat weird. One might have hoped that they'd use
the less distorting solid state amps for classical music. Is this
perhaps just some simple snobbery we are discussing, whereby these
people feel that the more expensive and crankier tube amps *must*
somehow be superior for upper-class music? :-)
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On 30 Mar 2005 00:42:38 GMT, wrote:

The preference for tubes is hardly based on the idea that "older is
better." There may indeed be a tiny band of people that believe this
but that hardly acounts for the majority of people that prefer tube
amplification.



What evidence do you have that the majority prefer tube amplification?

He didn't say that. He said of those who prefer tube amps, the majority do
not prefer them simply because they're old technology.

I certainly don't, and I have good ears. Tubes distort in rather
unpleasant ways.

Unpleasant for you, perhaps not so for others?

Paul Chefurka

wrote:
The preference for tubes is hardly based on the idea that "older is
better." There may indeed be a tiny band of people that believe
this
but that hardly acounts for the majority of people that prefer tube
amplification.



What evidence do you have that the majority prefer tube
amplification?


Where did I ever say that the majority of people prefer tube
amplification?


I certainly don't, and I have good ears.


I certainly do in my system and I have very good hearing.


Tubes distort in rather
unpleasant ways.


I bit broad but if you find it unpleasant then fine. I find tubes to
sound more like real music for the most part.


Scott Wheeler

wrote:
wrote:
The preference for tubes is hardly based on the idea that "older
is
better." There may indeed be a tiny band of people that believe
this
but that hardly acounts for the majority of people that prefer
tube
amplification.



What evidence do you have that the majority prefer tube
amplification?


Where did I ever say that the majority of people prefer tube
amplification?

He

"There may indeed be a tiny band of people that believe
this but that hardly acounts for the majority of people that prefer
tube
amplification."


I certainly don't, and I have good ears.


I certainly do in my system and I have very good hearing.


Tubes distort in rather
unpleasant ways.


I bit broad but if you find it unpleasant then fine. I find tubes to
sound more like real music for the most part.

Nope. Added colorations throughout the mid-range especially.


Scott Wheeler

Cobain4evr wrote:
I've heard about Vinyl having more midrange and what not but whenever
I hear a vinyl being played on TV or whatever, it sounds muddy,
unclear and it sounds like there's no seperation along with too much
hiss

Now is it possible that maybe the equipment used was inferior or is
this just the way Vinyl sounds?

Don't believe everything you hear on TV. Everytime you hear Elvis
singing in one of his movies he is acompanied by musicians that aren't
there.

Scott Wheeler

Cobain4evr wrote:

I've heard about Vinyl having more midrange and what not but whenever
I hear a vinyl being played on TV or whatever, it sounds muddy,
unclear and it sounds like there's no seperation along with too much
hiss

What does that mean? Records played on TV, or whatever? Look, under the
best of circumstances records can sound very good. But the best
circumstances are hardly ever encountered. In the heyday of records, at
the time CD was becoming increasingly popular, certain technologies, I'm
talking about half speed mastering, direct to disc, JVC super-vinyl, Teldec
DMM recordings, and so on, pushed the state of the art. As CD sound
(recording technique, really) became more improved there was no reason to
put up with the imperfections inherent in even the best records.

The best thing that can be said for records, today, in light of the SOA of
current CD production, is that record album liner notes were easier to read
than little CD brochures, and with a record album you might sometimes have
gotten a poster to hang on your wall.

michael

On 26 Mar 2005 16:29:25 GMT, michael wrote:

Cobain4evr wrote:

I've heard about Vinyl having more midrange and what not but whenever
I hear a vinyl being played on TV or whatever, it sounds muddy,
unclear and it sounds like there's no seperation along with too much
hiss

What does that mean? Records played on TV, or whatever? Look, under the
best of circumstances records can sound very good. But the best
circumstances are hardly ever encountered. In the heyday of records, at
the time CD was becoming increasingly popular, certain technologies, I'm
talking about half speed mastering, direct to disc, JVC super-vinyl, Teldec
DMM recordings, and so on, pushed the state of the art. As CD sound
(recording technique, really) became more improved there was no reason to
put up with the imperfections inherent in even the best records.

The best thing that can be said for records, today, in light of the SOA of
current CD production, is that record album liner notes were easier to read
than little CD brochures, and with a record album you might sometimes have
gotten a poster to hang on your wall.

michael

Is everyone forgetting that DBX produced vinyl recordings that
actually were better than CD?
I have several classical recordings from the DBX line that have
superior dynamic range (110dbs) vs. the rather paltry 80-90dbs that
CD's are limited to.
Also digital has one major inherent flaw, quantitization error.
CD's are limited to 16bit encoding, something that the recording
industry has never deemed to correct.(24bit is a must for complex
musical arrangements.)
Vinyl is as strong as ever, at least with those really want natural
sounding hifi.

I had some DBX discs and a decoder. You couldn't listen to them without
the decoder but with it they were very good - much better than regular
vinyl. I find CDs to be very good - at least some of them. Poor CDs
are the fault of the recording engineer or the mastering.


---MIKE---

No, no one has forgotten DBX-encoded discs. The problem being that
while such discs may have exhibited wide static dynamic range,
they still never achieved any resolution better than the equivalent
of 12 bits, because, among other things, the noise floor was
modulated along with the signal. Further, any such dynamic
compressions/expansion scheme MUST make an imperfect tradeoff
between speed of compression and introduction of distortion
artifacts. If you make the time constants slow enough such that
you're not pumping on low-frequency waveforms, you start getting
into the realm of audible pumping. Make it too fast, and you start
modulating waveforms. It's a compromise, at best.

Further, precisely how many DBX discs are available these days.

Next, your comment about CD's suffering from quantization artifacts:

"Also digital has one major inherent flaw, quantitization error.
CD's are limited to 16 bit encoding"

is simple wrong. You seem to have missed the fact that through
the use of either dither or noise shaping, all signal-correlated
artifacts are simply eliminated. That's eliminated. Further, both
techniques provide signals whose resolution exceeds the single-
sample data width. For example, a properly dithered or noise-
shaped 16-bit CD retains resolution well in excess of 16 bits.
This is hardly news, and I respectfully refer you to tutorial
articles on the topic, for example:

Blesser, B., "Digitization of Audio: A comprehensive
Examination of Thoery, Implementaiton and Current
Practice," J. Audio Eng. Soc., vol 26, no 10, 1978
Oct.

Vanderkooy, J. and Lip****z, S., "Resolution Below the
Least SIgnificant Bit in DIgital Audio Systems with
Dither," J. Audio Eng Soc., vol 32, no. 3, 1984 March.

Go back significantly further, and you find the understanding of
quantization noise and artifacts well understood and SOLVED LONG
before the introduction of the CD and the general and unfortunately
typical MIS-understanding of these principles in the high-end audio
world, for example:

Schuchman, L., "Dither Signals and Their Effect on Quan-
ization Noise," IEE Trans. Communications Tech., vol
COM-12, 1964 Dec.

The point being is that your statement that CD's suffer from
quantization issues is not supported by the technical facts,
as the above references in addition to a vast realm of technical
references on the topic will demonstrate.

Your statement:

"24bit is a must for complex musical arrangements."

is simply an assertion, one which is testable and can be shown to
be unsupportable. Without getting into the details, Nyquist and
Shannon both provided a rigorous mathematical support that this
assertion, given the known properties of musical waveforms, is
simply not true. The complexity of the waveform is limited, ultimately
by the noise floor, the dynamic range and bandwidth of the signal,
and those limits are definable in terms of sample rate and sample
resolution.

Despite the handwaving of any number of high-end wonks or the
advertising hyperbole of some manufacturers, no one has yet
deomstrated that these claims have any technically supportable
basis.

Again, I would respectfully invite you to research the literature
as a means of understanding these claims.

On 15 Apr 2005 20:36:17 GMT, none wrote:

Is everyone forgetting that DBX produced vinyl recordings that
actually were better than CD?

We're doing our very best to forget those horrors, and if you think
they were better than CD, then your CD player must be broken! Of
course, if you're the kind who *likes* to hear heavy breathing while
listening to music, then I recommend Ravel's Bolero.......... :-)

I have several classical recordings from the DBX line that have
superior dynamic range (110dbs) vs. the rather paltry 80-90dbs that
CD's are limited to.

You are clearly reading the numbers on the box, not actually listening
or measuring. DBX vinyl had no more than 80dB dynamic range at the
very outside, despite manufacturer claims. Properly made CD has a
dynamic range of 93dB. More importantly, there have never been
*master* tapes with a dynamic range greater than 80-85dB, so to refer
to an 80-90 dB dynamic range as 'paltery' shows a pretty severe
gnorance of the subject.

Also digital has one major inherent flaw, quantitization error.

Why is that a 'flaw'?

CD's are limited to 16bit encoding, something that the recording
industry has never deemed to correct.

Given that this gives 93dB dynamic range, comfortably more than any
*master tape*, what's the problem?

(24bit is a must for complex musical arrangements.)

This is one of the most ludicrous assertions I've ever seen. Not one
single industry professional has *ever* suggested that more than 20
bits would have any audible effect on music. Of course, with DVD, we
get 24/96 by default, but absolutely no one claims that this is
*necessary* in the replay medium, although it's useful when recording.

Vinyl is as strong as ever, at least with those really want natural
sounding hifi.

Vinyl is dead, the only movement you see is rigor mortis........

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On 16 Apr 2005 15:47:37 GMT, Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:

Vinyl is dead, the only movement you see is rigor mortis........

Stewart Pinkerton, I wish you would stop beating around the bush and
speak your mind. LOL :-)

I disagree! Young kids (16-25yo) are buying vinyl now. Rap Masters are
the reason they became interested. Once they heard LPs then they, the
kids, started listening to other styles of music.

Disclaimer: I did not mean to equate Rap & music.


Sam

On 16 Apr 2005 17:48:28 GMT, Sam Odom wrote:

On 16 Apr 2005 15:47:37 GMT, Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:

Vinyl is dead, the only movement you see is rigor mortis........

Stewart Pinkerton, I wish you would stop beating around the bush and
speak your mind. LOL :-)

Sorry, but the moderators, y'know............... :-)

I disagree! Young kids (16-25yo) are buying vinyl now.

Yes, but because it's 'kool', not for any reasons to do with 'natural
sound' or other such vinyl mythology.

Rap Masters are
the reason they became interested. Once they heard LPs then they, the
kids, started listening to other styles of music.

I'd like to see some evidence that they moved to other styles of music
on LP because they thought LPs had 'superior reality' etc etc.

No one denies that vinyl can sound *nice*, but that's hardly a good
argument in *this* forum!

Disclaimer: I did not mean to equate Rap & music.

Noted and concurred. Word.........
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 15 Apr 2005 20:36:17 GMT, none wrote:

Is everyone forgetting that DBX produced vinyl recordings that
actually were better than CD?

We're doing our very best to forget those horrors, and if you think
they were better than CD, then your CD player must be broken! Of
course, if you're the kind who *likes* to hear heavy breathing while
listening to music, then I recommend Ravel's Bolero.......... :-)

I have several classical recordings from the DBX line that have
superior dynamic range (110dbs) vs. the rather paltry 80-90dbs that
CD's are limited to.

You are clearly reading the numbers on the box, not actually
listening
or measuring. DBX vinyl had no more than 80dB dynamic range at the
very outside, despite manufacturer claims. Properly made CD has a
dynamic range of 93dB. More importantly, there have never been
*master* tapes with a dynamic range greater than 80-85dB, so to refer
to an 80-90 dB dynamic range as 'paltery' shows a pretty severe
gnorance of the subject.

Also digital has one major inherent flaw, quantitization error.

Why is that a 'flaw'?

CD's are limited to 16bit encoding, something that the recording
industry has never deemed to correct.

Given that this gives 93dB dynamic range, comfortably more than any
*master tape*, what's the problem?

(24bit is a must for complex musical arrangements.)

This is one of the most ludicrous assertions I've ever seen. Not one
single industry professional has *ever* suggested that more than 20
bits would have any audible effect on music.


Simply not true. Many of the best recording and mastering engineers
have more than suggested as much.



Of course, with DVD, we
get 24/96 by default, but absolutely no one claims that this is
*necessary* in the replay medium, although it's useful when
recording.

Vinyl is as strong as ever, at least with those really want natural
sounding hifi.

Vinyl is dead, the only movement you see is rigor mortis........


You are simply out of touch with reality here. Vinyl is alive and well.
There are numerous producers of new vinyl and audiophile reissues.
There are also many manufacturers of high end playback equipment. The
market is far more vital than it was 10 years ago. Hardly the sign of
rigor mortis.



Scott Wheeler

On 16 Apr 2005 18:36:29 GMT, wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 15 Apr 2005 20:36:17 GMT, none wrote:

CD's are limited to 16bit encoding, something that the recording
industry has never deemed to correct.

Given that this gives 93dB dynamic range, comfortably more than any
*master tape*, what's the problem?

(24bit is a must for complex musical arrangements.)

This is one of the most ludicrous assertions I've ever seen. Not one
single industry professional has *ever* suggested that more than 20
bits would have any audible effect on music.

Simply not true. Many of the best recording and mastering engineers
have more than suggested as much.

In the *replay* medium? Name one. I'm not saying that everyone
considers 16/44 to be adequate (although many do), simply that 24/96
is recognised as overkill - but now commercially viable.

Of course, with DVD, we
get 24/96 by default, but absolutely no one claims that this is
*necessary* in the replay medium, although it's useful when
recording.

Vinyl is as strong as ever, at least with those really want natural
sounding hifi.

Vinyl is dead, the only movement you see is rigor mortis........

You are simply out of touch with reality here. Vinyl is alive and well.
There are numerous producers of new vinyl and audiophile reissues.
There are also many manufacturers of high end playback equipment. The
market is far more vital than it was 10 years ago. Hardly the sign of
rigor mortis.

I'm not the one who's out of touch with reality here. There are *zero*
new albums which are *only* available on vinyl, and a product which
used to command more than 50% of the market, and is now rattling along
at less than 1% on the back of rap and club music, plus a tiny dribble
of 'audiophile' releases, cannot reasonably be described as 'alive and
well'. I can still buy a buggy whip, but that doesn't make the buggy
whip industry 'alive and well'..............

The fact that people are still buying high-end playback equipment is
simply an indication of the large amount of legacy vinyl still out
there, plus the traditional 'gear-churning' caused by audiophilia
nervosa. If you're gullible enough to think that vinyl is 'superior',
then naturally you have to have this year's wonder replay gear as
approved by the ragazine gurus like Fremer, to maintain your 'high
end' credentials!
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"Cobain4evr" wrote in message
...
I've heard about Vinyl having more midrange and what not but whenever
I hear a vinyl being played on TV or whatever, it sounds muddy,
unclear and it sounds like there's no seperation along with too much
hiss

Now is it possible that maybe the equipment used was inferior or is
this just the way Vinyl sounds?

When you hear vinyl being played on a TV or radio program it's usually
because they don't have anything better. Thus, it's a good probability that
the vinyl is ancient and not very high fidelity.

But yes, that's just the way vinyl sounds.

Norm Strong