[Keith G]

"Rob" wrote


OK. I'm *fairly* sure I can hear a difference between LP-CD recordings and
LP-original. Not absolutely sure mind, no rigorous test, just mild and
recreational observation. Then I'm told there can't be any difference. The
reasoning, I gather, is based on something called "Virtual Reality"
methodology, which involves double-blind testing amongst other things. And
I asked what that was all about in an admittedly precise way. Nothing to
do with solipsism - at least from my end.



No idea what that's all about, but I would say the one good use of a CDR is
to make a pretty close (depending on the equipment used) copy of an LP for
various purposes, but it's no use comparing the two - they fulfil a similar
purpose in vastly different ways, in my book....

Same with MP3s - why bother with CDs when it's pretty much impossible to
tell the difference between a CD and, say, a 256K MP3...???

[Laurence Payne]

On Tue, 7 Nov 2006 10:38:17 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:

Me too, but what puzzles me is that instead of *demanding* that people
concede 'CD is better' for any particular reason (??) none of the digital
bigots ever seem to want to know why anyone might *prefer* to play vinyl?
(Outside this ng, in the real world, plenty of people do it seems....??)

In my experience, very few. Except kids who want to scratch.

[Serge Auckland]

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Glenn Richards wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:

Back in the 1980s when people used to buy the LP and the CD of the
same album, play them both and compare the results, they weren't
really comparing the two media. Instead, they were comparing the
(generally quite separate) mastering decisions--EQ, limiting,
etc.--behind the two products, plus the particular characteristics of
their LP and CD playback equipment.

So what that posting is basically saying is that CD is capable of far
better quality sound than vinyl, but due to sloppy mastering (loudness
wars anyone?) vinyl generally sounds better? Because it hasn't been
compressed to within an inch of its life?

You can't generalise. Indeed in my experience this isn't the case - but
then I stopped buying LPs when I got my first CD player. This 'loudness
wars' thingie with CD mastering is relatively recent and mainly applies to
some pop releases.

(Bit of a vinyl fan myself actually...)

But then there are the inherent problems with vinyl which no mastering can
get round. So you're not starting from an even playing field.


Sadly, the loudness stupidity isn't just limited to pop releases. Over
the weekend, I was making some measurements, and decided to leave my
bitstream analyser connected whilst listening to music. I was astounded
at how many of my CDs regularly clip. Amy Winehouse "Frank" lights the
0dBFS light on almost every beat, Diana Krall Love Scenes clips often
per song, as does Norah Jones. My early CDs like Dire Straits keep a
good 3dB headroom, whilst Chesky's Valerie Joyce had 6dB headroom. I
finally disconnected the analyser before even more of my CDs upset me.

I just don't understand why these sorts of CDs need to be mastered into
clipping. I can understand a CD being normalised to 0dBFS, but that
would mean one hit at 0dBFS once per CD, or at worse once per track, if
tracks are mastered individually. There's just no excuse for it.

However, try as I might, I can't hear the clipping in the Diana Krall
and Norah Jones, even sighted, knowing when it takes place. The Amy
Winehouse is , however, very obvious.

S.

[Don Pearce]

On Tue, 07 Nov 2006 12:12:27 +0000, Serge Auckland
wrote:

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Glenn Richards wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:

Back in the 1980s when people used to buy the LP and the CD of the
same album, play them both and compare the results, they weren't
really comparing the two media. Instead, they were comparing the
(generally quite separate) mastering decisions--EQ, limiting,
etc.--behind the two products, plus the particular characteristics of
their LP and CD playback equipment.

So what that posting is basically saying is that CD is capable of far
better quality sound than vinyl, but due to sloppy mastering (loudness
wars anyone?) vinyl generally sounds better? Because it hasn't been
compressed to within an inch of its life?

You can't generalise. Indeed in my experience this isn't the case - but
then I stopped buying LPs when I got my first CD player. This 'loudness
wars' thingie with CD mastering is relatively recent and mainly applies to
some pop releases.

(Bit of a vinyl fan myself actually...)

But then there are the inherent problems with vinyl which no mastering can
get round. So you're not starting from an even playing field.


Sadly, the loudness stupidity isn't just limited to pop releases. Over
the weekend, I was making some measurements, and decided to leave my
bitstream analyser connected whilst listening to music. I was astounded
at how many of my CDs regularly clip. Amy Winehouse "Frank" lights the
0dBFS light on almost every beat, Diana Krall Love Scenes clips often
per song, as does Norah Jones. My early CDs like Dire Straits keep a
good 3dB headroom, whilst Chesky's Valerie Joyce had 6dB headroom. I
finally disconnected the analyser before even more of my CDs upset me.

I just don't understand why these sorts of CDs need to be mastered into
clipping. I can understand a CD being normalised to 0dBFS, but that
would mean one hit at 0dBFS once per CD, or at worse once per track, if
tracks are mastered individually. There's just no excuse for it.

However, try as I might, I can't hear the clipping in the Diana Krall
and Norah Jones, even sighted, knowing when it takes place. The Amy
Winehouse is , however, very obvious.

S.



Do remember that lighting the top bit light does not necessarily imply
clipping - it is just another value, and if the signal isn't trying to
go beyond that, it hasn't clipped.

Pop recordings use heavy compression, and when this is done in the
digital domain it is quite possible to have sufficient control to peak
to the same value every time. There is no reason not to normalize the
result up to max level.

Still sounds like ****, of course.

d

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

[Laurence Payne]

On Tue, 07 Nov 2006 12:12:27 +0000, Serge Auckland
wrote:

Sadly, the loudness stupidity isn't just limited to pop releases. Over
the weekend, I was making some measurements, and decided to leave my
bitstream analyser connected whilst listening to music. I was astounded
at how many of my CDs regularly clip. Amy Winehouse "Frank" lights the
0dBFS light on almost every beat, Diana Krall Love Scenes clips often
per song, as does Norah Jones. My early CDs like Dire Straits keep a
good 3dB headroom, whilst Chesky's Valerie Joyce had 6dB headroom. I
finally disconnected the analyser before even more of my CDs upset me.

Using the top bit doesn't imply clipping.

[Keith G]

"Serge Auckland" wrote


I just don't understand why these sorts of CDs need to be mastered into
clipping. I can understand a CD being normalised to 0dBFS, but that would
mean one hit at 0dBFS once per CD, or at worse once per track, if tracks
are mastered individually. There's just no excuse for it.



It's called *tough ***** Serge, most CDs and DAB have become Chavmedia and
are pitched at the bulk of the music-buying *youth* market - there's no
need (or place) for 'dynamic range' when the replay system has got to
compete with the severe ambient noise of car, masses of moving/chattering
people and 'outdoor' listening - it just needs to be loud!

To give you a clue, there were a couple of double glazing fitters here a
week or so ago talking about 3 x 2kW (did I hear 4 x 2kW?) amps in cars
being not uncommon among the 'devotees' and some of their cars having spring
clips or somesuch fitted to prevent the windows being blown out, I
gather...??

[Arny Krueger]

"Glenn Richards" wrote in
message
. uk
Arny Krueger wrote:

Back in the 1980s when people used to buy the LP and the
CD of the same album, play them both and compare the
results, they weren't really comparing the two media.
Instead, they were comparing the (generally quite
separate) mastering decisions--EQ, limiting,
etc.--behind the two products, plus the particular
characteristics of their LP and CD playback equipment.

So what that posting is basically saying is that CD is
capable of far better quality sound than vinyl, but due
to sloppy mastering (loudness wars anyone?) vinyl
generally sounds better?

Huh?

My position is that CD is easily capable of far better sound quality than
vinyl, even when people work their butts off trying to make vinyl sound
good. Furthermore, since the CD has been the predominant mainstream method
of distributing music, music has in general sounded far better because it
was no longer cursed with the audible artifacts that are inherent in LPs.

Because it hasn't been compressed to within an inch of its life?

Hypercompression is a production technique, not an inherent property of a
distribution medium. However. the LP format has historically been more
likely to use compression, because the basic dynamic range of the LP medium
is less than that of wide dynamic range music. Thing is that even the LP
format didn't need hypercompression.

The reason that so much music is hypercompressed today is because people no
longer predominately listen to music as their sole activity. Music is more
likely than ever to be listened to while the listener is doing something
else that is more important to them. Therefore, dynamic range is a detriment
to many listener's use of music.

[Arny Krueger]

"Keith G" wrote in message
news
Almost within touching distance of where I'm sitting,
there are two CD racks full of the sort stuff I like to
(and do) play. It is though they do not exist - I *never*
think to play them! I just looked, there is even a 'boxed
set' called 'Smooth Classics FM, do not disturb' and it
hasn't been - it's still sealed in a cellophane wrapper!!

If somehow a set of CD's like 'Smooth Classics FM' was in my house, it would
probably stay in the wrapper - on the grounds that I don't have time to
listen to boring music. Wouldn't matter what format - boring music is boring
music no matter what the format.

[Serge Auckland]

Don Pearce wrote:
On Tue, 07 Nov 2006 12:12:27 +0000, Serge Auckland
wrote:

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Glenn Richards wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:
Back in the 1980s when people used to buy the LP and the CD of the
same album, play them both and compare the results, they weren't
really comparing the two media. Instead, they were comparing the
(generally quite separate) mastering decisions--EQ, limiting,
etc.--behind the two products, plus the particular characteristics of
their LP and CD playback equipment.
So what that posting is basically saying is that CD is capable of far
better quality sound than vinyl, but due to sloppy mastering (loudness
wars anyone?) vinyl generally sounds better? Because it hasn't been
compressed to within an inch of its life?
You can't generalise. Indeed in my experience this isn't the case - but
then I stopped buying LPs when I got my first CD player. This 'loudness
wars' thingie with CD mastering is relatively recent and mainly applies to
some pop releases.

(Bit of a vinyl fan myself actually...)
But then there are the inherent problems with vinyl which no mastering can
get round. So you're not starting from an even playing field.

Sadly, the loudness stupidity isn't just limited to pop releases. Over
the weekend, I was making some measurements, and decided to leave my
bitstream analyser connected whilst listening to music. I was astounded
at how many of my CDs regularly clip. Amy Winehouse "Frank" lights the
0dBFS light on almost every beat, Diana Krall Love Scenes clips often
per song, as does Norah Jones. My early CDs like Dire Straits keep a
good 3dB headroom, whilst Chesky's Valerie Joyce had 6dB headroom. I
finally disconnected the analyser before even more of my CDs upset me.

I just don't understand why these sorts of CDs need to be mastered into
clipping. I can understand a CD being normalised to 0dBFS, but that
would mean one hit at 0dBFS once per CD, or at worse once per track, if
tracks are mastered individually. There's just no excuse for it.

However, try as I might, I can't hear the clipping in the Diana Krall
and Norah Jones, even sighted, knowing when it takes place. The Amy
Winehouse is , however, very obvious.

S.



Do remember that lighting the top bit light does not necessarily imply
clipping - it is just another value, and if the signal isn't trying to
go beyond that, it hasn't clipped.

Pop recordings use heavy compression, and when this is done in the
digital domain it is quite possible to have sufficient control to peak
to the same value every time. There is no reason not to normalize the
result up to max level.

Still sounds like ****, of course.

d


Don, I agree that hitting 0dBFS doesn't necessarily mean clipping, but
displaying the waveform on a 'scope looks awfully like clipping to me,
on more than one CD. I estimate from extending the slopes of the
waveform before and after clipping that it can go some 2-3dB into
clipping.

My main complaint is not that's it's done on pop recordings, but that
it's done on jazz or other less loudness-concious material where I feel
it's completely unnecessary to compress, digitally or otherwise. It
didn't seem to be done in the eighties before digital signal processors
became available, (analogue compression was obviously used, but the
converted digital signal still had some headroom left) it just seems to
me that as they have the tools, they feel the need to use them even
where it is not needed.

Grumpy old man mode off.

S.

[Jim Lesurf]

In article , Don Pearce
wrote:
[snip]

I just don't understand why these sorts of CDs need to be mastered into
clipping. I can understand a CD being normalised to 0dBFS, but that
would mean one hit at 0dBFS once per CD, or at worse once per track, if
tracks are mastered individually. There's just no excuse for it.

ahem Anyone in the UK who is interested in this may find the December
issue of 'Hi Fi News' worth a read. Should be out in a couple of weeks.
:-)

Note also that even just one sample of a sequence at or near the 0dBFS
level may mean a reconstructed waveform with an excusion *above* this.


However, try as I might, I can't hear the clipping in the Diana Krall
and Norah Jones, even sighted, knowing when it takes place. The Amy
Winehouse is , however, very obvious.

As an experiment, I made up a 'test CD' a while ago to try on some friends
and colleagues. This consists of a set of tracks of various types of music
where the original peaks well below 0dB, and versions I deliberately
clipped. Apart from the clipped sections the two versions of each example
are sample-by-sample the same.

It has been interesting to see how hard/easy people have found identifying
the clipped version to be. :-)

This seems to agree with something I discovered 20+ years ago. When I
designed the Armstrong 730/732 amps I fitted a clipping indicator. It
turned out to be quite difficult to hear the clipping in many cases -
although admitted this is at levels well over 200Wpc so I am not sure what
the speakers (or ears!) were doing in some cases at these levels in a
normal UK domestic situation. 8-]

Do remember that lighting the top bit light does not necessarily imply
clipping - it is just another value, and if the signal isn't trying to
go beyond that, it hasn't clipped.

Pop recordings use heavy compression, and when this is done in the
digital domain it is quite possible to have sufficient control to peak
to the same value every time. There is no reason not to normalize the
result up to max level.

Alas, my recent experience confirms that a number of CDs have successions
of samples well within 0.05dB or so of the peak values allowed on CD-A.
Level compression seems much more common, but flat-top clipping seems far
from rare. As you say, this seems utterly insane when many rock/pop CDs
squash the sound into a range of about 10dB - on a medium that should be
able to offer a range over a million times greater!

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

[Keith G]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Keith G" wrote in message
news
Almost within touching distance of where I'm sitting,
there are two CD racks full of the sort stuff I like to
(and do) play. It is though they do not exist - I *never*
think to play them! I just looked, there is even a 'boxed
set' called 'Smooth Classics FM, do not disturb' and it
hasn't been - it's still sealed in a cellophane wrapper!!

If somehow a set of CD's like 'Smooth Classics FM' was in my house, it
would probably stay in the wrapper - on the grounds that I don't have time
to listen to boring music. Wouldn't matter what format - boring music is
boring music no matter what the format.



Boring?

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/smoothclassics.JPG

??

You're a recordist, aren't you?

What's the matter with you? - There's nothing here a little *unison
clapping* and tambourine overdub wouldn't fix.....

:-)


(Well worth letting him out of the ****ter for that one!!)

Tee hee.... :-)

[Arny Krueger]

"Keith G" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Keith G" wrote in message
news
Almost within touching distance of where I'm sitting,
there are two CD racks full of the sort stuff I like to
(and do) play. It is though they do not exist - I
*never* think to play them! I just looked, there is
even a 'boxed set' called 'Smooth Classics FM, do not
disturb' and it hasn't been - it's still sealed in a
cellophane wrapper!!

If somehow a set of CD's like 'Smooth Classics FM' was
in my house, it would probably stay in the wrapper - on
the grounds that I don't have time to listen to boring
music. Wouldn't matter what format - boring music is
boring music no matter what the format.



Boring?

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/smoothclassics.JPG

??

Yeah, a collection of overplayed warhorses is boring.

You're a recordist, aren't you?

Yeah,

What's the matter with you? - There's nothing here a
little *unison clapping* and tambourine overdub wouldn't
fix.....

What are you talking about? It's clear you don't know.

[Keith G]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Keith G" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Keith G" wrote in message
news
Almost within touching distance of where I'm sitting,
there are two CD racks full of the sort stuff I like to
(and do) play. It is though they do not exist - I
*never* think to play them! I just looked, there is
even a 'boxed set' called 'Smooth Classics FM, do not
disturb' and it hasn't been - it's still sealed in a
cellophane wrapper!!

If somehow a set of CD's like 'Smooth Classics FM' was
in my house, it would probably stay in the wrapper - on
the grounds that I don't have time to listen to boring
music. Wouldn't matter what format - boring music is
boring music no matter what the format.



Boring?

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/smoothclassics.JPG

??

Yeah, a collection of overplayed warhorses is boring.



I believe the US version had a few tracks by The Osmonds on it....

[Arny Krueger]

"Keith G" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Keith G" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Keith G" wrote in message
news
Almost within touching distance of where I'm sitting,
there are two CD racks full of the sort stuff I like
to (and do) play. It is though they do not exist - I
*never* think to play them! I just looked, there is
even a 'boxed set' called 'Smooth Classics FM, do not
disturb' and it hasn't been - it's still sealed in a
cellophane wrapper!!

If somehow a set of CD's like 'Smooth Classics FM' was
in my house, it would probably stay in the wrapper - on
the grounds that I don't have time to listen to boring
music. Wouldn't matter what format - boring music is
boring music no matter what the format.



Boring?

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/smoothclassics.JPG

??

Yeah, a collection of overplayed warhorses is boring.

I believe the US version had a few tracks by The Osmonds
on it....

Say no more.

There really is such a thing as too much information, you know! ;-)

[Jeff Findley]

"Keith G" wrote in message
news

Me too, but what puzzles me is that instead of *demanding* that people
concede 'CD is better' for any particular reason (??) none of the digital
bigots ever seem to want to know why anyone might *prefer* to play vinyl?
(Outside this ng, in the real world, plenty of people do it seems....??)

Almost within touching distance of where I'm sitting, there are two CD
racks full of the sort stuff I like to (and do) play. It is though they do
not exist - I *never* think to play them! I just looked, there is even a
'boxed set' called 'Smooth Classics FM, do not disturb' and it hasn't
been - it's still sealed in a cellophane wrapper!!

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/cellophane.jpg

It must have been there some years now and one of the *few* things I like
on Carsick FM is the 'Smooth Classics at Seven' prog..!!??

In fact, I suspect over half of them have never been played even once
since they were bought - why is that...??

(I think it's a 'natural selection' based on a genuine preference that has
bugger-all to do with technical differences!)

I grew up in the 80's, so I'm of the Walkman generation. The first thing I
did to any album (record or CD) was to transfer it to cassette tape so I
could take it with me in my Walkman clone and in my car. It's awfully hard
to play an LP in a car. So portability became an issue early on with me
even if it did result in some loss of quality. Besides, there is so much
outside noise in a car or when "walking" that it didn't matter anyway.

Today, it's a hell of a lot easier to buy a CD, rip it and send it to my
NetMD or convert it into an MP3 for portability than it is to record an LP
on the PC and then send that to my NetMD or MP3 player.

Beyond that, while snap, crackle, and pop might be o.k. as a cereal, I
really don't want to hear it in my music. It's also *far* more annoying to
me than analog audio tape hiss, which I don't really like in my music
either. Getting away from tape hiss is why I use MD and MP3 for portable
music.

Jeff
--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a
little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor
safety"
- B. Franklin, Bartlett's Familiar Quotations (1919)

[Arny Krueger]

"Jeff Findley" wrote in
message

I grew up in the 80's, so I'm of the Walkman generation. The first thing I
did to any album (record or CD) was to
transfer it to cassette tape so I could take it with me
in my Walkman clone and in my car. It's awfully hard to
play an LP in a car. So portability became an issue
early on with me even if it did result in some loss of
quality. Besides, there is so much outside noise in a
car or when "walking" that it didn't matter anyway.

Today, it's a hell of a lot easier to buy a CD, rip it
and send it to my NetMD or convert it into an MP3 for
portability than it is to record an LP on the PC and then
send that to my NetMD or MP3 player.

Beyond that, while snap, crackle, and pop might be o.k.
as a cereal, I really don't want to hear it in my music.

If snap crackel and pop were all that the LP format did to music it would be
bad enough, but it isn't.

I don't know how people can mention High Fidelity and LP in the same breath,
given how good our mainstream media formats can be.

It's also *far* more annoying to me than analog audio
tape hiss, which I don't really like in my music either.

Well Dolby and metal tape did a lot for the hiss thing with cassette tape,
but there are a host of other audible artifacts. In the days of cassette
walkmen, I used a Sony WM3 and metal tape.

Getting away from tape hiss is why I use MD and MP3 for
portable music.

Either done right can sonically outperform cassette tape and LP, quite
easily.

Jeff

[Arny Krueger]

"Rob" wrote in
message


OK. I'm *fairly* sure I can hear a difference between
LP-CD recordings and LP-original. Not absolutely sure mind, no rigorous
test, just mild and recreational observation. Then I'm told there can't
be any difference.

No, you've been told that there shouldn't be a difference, and that others
have achieved that result.

The reasoning, I gather, is based on
something called "Virtual Reality" methodology, which
involves double-blind testing amongst other things.

You'ev got that wrong, as well. This time you're so far out in left field
that maybe you should just start over, or forget it all.

[Don Pearce]

On Tue, 07 Nov 2006 14:00:06 +0000, Serge Auckland
wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:
On Tue, 07 Nov 2006 12:12:27 +0000, Serge Auckland
wrote:

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Glenn Richards wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:
Back in the 1980s when people used to buy the LP and the CD of the
same album, play them both and compare the results, they weren't
really comparing the two media. Instead, they were comparing the
(generally quite separate) mastering decisions--EQ, limiting,
etc.--behind the two products, plus the particular characteristics of
their LP and CD playback equipment.
So what that posting is basically saying is that CD is capable of far
better quality sound than vinyl, but due to sloppy mastering (loudness
wars anyone?) vinyl generally sounds better? Because it hasn't been
compressed to within an inch of its life?
You can't generalise. Indeed in my experience this isn't the case - but
then I stopped buying LPs when I got my first CD player. This 'loudness
wars' thingie with CD mastering is relatively recent and mainly applies to
some pop releases.

(Bit of a vinyl fan myself actually...)
But then there are the inherent problems with vinyl which no mastering can
get round. So you're not starting from an even playing field.

Sadly, the loudness stupidity isn't just limited to pop releases. Over
the weekend, I was making some measurements, and decided to leave my
bitstream analyser connected whilst listening to music. I was astounded
at how many of my CDs regularly clip. Amy Winehouse "Frank" lights the
0dBFS light on almost every beat, Diana Krall Love Scenes clips often
per song, as does Norah Jones. My early CDs like Dire Straits keep a
good 3dB headroom, whilst Chesky's Valerie Joyce had 6dB headroom. I
finally disconnected the analyser before even more of my CDs upset me.

I just don't understand why these sorts of CDs need to be mastered into
clipping. I can understand a CD being normalised to 0dBFS, but that
would mean one hit at 0dBFS once per CD, or at worse once per track, if
tracks are mastered individually. There's just no excuse for it.

However, try as I might, I can't hear the clipping in the Diana Krall
and Norah Jones, even sighted, knowing when it takes place. The Amy
Winehouse is , however, very obvious.

S.



Do remember that lighting the top bit light does not necessarily imply
clipping - it is just another value, and if the signal isn't trying to
go beyond that, it hasn't clipped.

Pop recordings use heavy compression, and when this is done in the
digital domain it is quite possible to have sufficient control to peak
to the same value every time. There is no reason not to normalize the
result up to max level.

Still sounds like ****, of course.

d


Don, I agree that hitting 0dBFS doesn't necessarily mean clipping, but
displaying the waveform on a 'scope looks awfully like clipping to me,
on more than one CD. I estimate from extending the slopes of the
waveform before and after clipping that it can go some 2-3dB into
clipping.

My main complaint is not that's it's done on pop recordings, but that
it's done on jazz or other less loudness-concious material where I feel
it's completely unnecessary to compress, digitally or otherwise. It
didn't seem to be done in the eighties before digital signal processors
became available, (analogue compression was obviously used, but the
converted digital signal still had some headroom left) it just seems to
me that as they have the tools, they feel the need to use them even
where it is not needed.

Grumpy old man mode off.

S.

If you have a whole succession of 0dBFS in a row, then yes, you can be
sure you are in digital clipping. If it is happening in a transient,
it won't do much to the sound, but if it is during a note, with each
successive peak clipped, you are deep in alias artifact territory, and
that is a horror.

d

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

[Arny Krueger]

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message


As an experiment, I made up a 'test CD' a while ago to
try on some friends and colleagues. This consists of a
set of tracks of various types of music where the
original peaks well below 0dB, and versions I
deliberately clipped. Apart from the clipped sections the
two versions of each example are sample-by-sample the
same.

It has been interesting to see how hard/easy people have
found identifying the clipped version to be. :-)

Depending on the music, it can be hard or easy.

This seems to agree with something I discovered 20+ years
ago. When I designed the Armstrong 730/732 amps I fitted
a clipping indicator. It turned out to be quite difficult
to hear the clipping in many cases - although admitted
this is at levels well over 200Wpc so I am not sure what
the speakers (or ears!) were doing in some cases at these
levels in a normal UK domestic situation. 8-]

Case in point is the clipping indicator on QSC power amps. It starts
visibly illuminating at clipping that amounts to something like 0.02% THD.
Again depending it can be found to be flashing quite a bit, and yet the
sound may not be all that bad-sounding.

Do remember that lighting the top bit light does not
necessarily imply clipping - it is just another value,
and if the signal isn't trying to go beyond that, it
hasn't clipped.

Pop recordings use heavy compression, and when this is
done in the digital domain it is quite possible to have
sufficient control to peak to the same value every time.
There is no reason not to normalize the result up to max
level.

Many converters, espcially the cheap ones, won't convert cleanly right up to
FS. Keeping peaks 0.5-1 dB below FS will help ensure clean performance with
cheaper equipment.

Alas, my recent experience confirms that a number of CDs
have successions of samples well within 0.05dB or so of
the peak values allowed on CD-A. Level compression seems
much more common, but flat-top clipping seems far from
rare.

Agreed.

As you say, this seems utterly insane when many
rock/pop CDs squash the sound into a range of about 10dB
- on a medium that should be able to offer a range over a
million times greater!

There are two sorts of logical reasons to clip music. One is that it
constitutes an EFX. It's pretty well known that distorted music often sounds
louder than music that is cleanly reproduced. The other is the fact that
music with limited dynamic range can be more suitable when listening to
music is not the most important thing that the listener is doing.

[Serge Auckland]

Here in Ohio wrote:
On Tue, 7 Nov 2006 08:38:21 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


is less than that of wide dynamic range music. Thing is that even the LP
format didn't need hypercompression.

Unless you are Todd Rundgren. He seemed to be doing everything he
could to make a lousy medium even worse. :-)

The reason that so much music is hypercompressed today is because people no
longer predominately listen to music as their sole activity. Music is more
likely than ever to be listened to while the listener is doing something
else that is more important to them. Therefore, dynamic range is a detriment
to many listener's use of music.


I don't think the record companies have thought it out that well.

We can also look at radio as an example of something that people often
listen to in the background. Radio is compressed (for transmitter
efficiency if nothing else), but it isn't always hypercompressed.

No, not always, but here in the UK and in France, stations compress to
eliminate any dynamic range. As I mentioned before, there was a well
known station Chief Engineer who bragged his processor was so wound up
he got less than 1dB dynamic range. His station of course sounded as you
would expect, but he was happy.

What I have read is that this is an extension of the "I want it to be
loud and stand out" thing that some of the record companies execs
push. They think that boosting the average volume level will sell more
records than actually allowing for fidelity would. (Or something like
that. Some of the record company people I met in the past were just
nuts. There was one guy that looked for new talent in my area that
liked being paid in one dollar bills. He said he just liked to spread
them out and lay on them.)

The articles on this do mention that the average level is almost at
the max level for CD. If they were simply compressing it for
background use, they wouldn't have to push the level so high.

That's what makes it so incomprehensible. With the 20dB or less dynamic
range of many pop CDs, and a theoretical 96dB dynamic range of the CD
medium, you would think they could find 20 dB's space in that without
having to exceed 0dBFS. What's a volume control for......

S.

[Stephen Worth]

On Tue, 7 Nov 2006 10:38:17 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:

Me too, but what puzzles me is that instead of *demanding* that people
concede 'CD is better' for any particular reason (??) none of the digital
bigots ever seem to want to know why anyone might *prefer* to play vinyl?

There's a very good reason why people collect LP records. They are
very inexpensive, usually about two bucks apiece, and there's a wide
variety of music on LP that isn't available on CD. Those are valid
reasons to prefer vinyl over CD.

When it comes to sound quality, both CD and LP are capable of
reproducing high fidelity sound. Whether or not they actually do
that depends on the mastering and manufacturing.

The CD format is definitely more convenient for storage and handling
than LPs.

See ya
Steve

--
Rare 78 rpm recordings on CD! http://www.vintageip.com/records/
Building a museum and archive of animation! http://www.animationarchive.org/
The Quest for the BEST HOTDOG in Los Angeles! http://www.hotdogspot.com/
Rediscovering great stuff from the past! http://www.vintagetips.com/

[Arny Krueger]

"Stephen Worth" wrote in message

On Tue, 7 Nov 2006 10:38:17 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:

Me too, but what puzzles me is that instead of
*demanding* that people concede 'CD is better' for any
particular reason (??) none of the digital bigots ever
seem to want to know why anyone might *prefer* to play
vinyl?

There's a very good reason why people collect LP records.
They are very inexpensive, usually about two bucks
apiece, and there's a wide variety of music on LP that
isn't available on CD. Those are valid reasons to prefer
vinyl over CD.

When it comes to sound quality, both CD and LP are
capable of reproducing high fidelity sound.

I seriously question whether the low level of performance of the LP format
can be called "High Fidelity" in 2006.

Whether or
not they actually do that depends on the mastering and
manufacturing.

No, the LP format has serious basic flaws that have never been resolved.

The CD format is definitely more convenient for storage
and handling than LPs.

The CD format has more than an order of magnitude less noise and distortion
the LP format. The LP format has audible noise and distortion. The CD
format does not.

[Keith G]

"Here in Ohio" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 7 Nov 2006 10:38:17 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:



Me too, but what puzzles me is that instead of *demanding* that people
concede 'CD is better' for any particular reason (??) none of the digital
bigots ever seem to want to know why anyone might *prefer* to play vinyl?
(Outside this ng, in the real world, plenty of people do it seems....??)

No, in the real world very few people prefer playing vinyl.



Here we go again....




The number
of people around the world that are into hifi is a small percentage of
the music-buying public,


So what? One percent of a million quid/bucks is still a tidy sum....



and vinyl mavens are a tiny fraction of that.
So you're part of the fringe of a fringe. :-)



No-one's talking percentages/fractions (or both) - the word I used is
'plenty'. If you want percentages, every single local 'audio' person I know
uses vinyl, so that's 100% and most of my 'audio' visitors do - let's say
80% (four fifths)....OK?

If you do not think there are *plenty* of people using vinyl, go bid on some
of the vinyl goodies on eBay and see how hard you can get smashed on, say, a
nice MC cart or tonearm in perfect condition.....



What I keep pointing out is that there are well-known and readily
measurable problems with vinyl, problems that do not exist with CD. If
you prefer vinyl, it's because you actually prefer added distortion.


Nope, that won't wash either - for me the LP is a longer-established music
carrier than the CD and it is my 'norm'. If you say (I don't necessarily
agree) that audible distortion has been removed with a CD then I would ask
what else has been removed with it? I would suggest a palpable sense of
'realism' for starters - for me, CD is sterile or even *fake* by
comparison...



That's perfectly fine. Prefer whatever you want. However, don't then
try to claim that vinyl is superior.


Yes, we've heard that a few times before in ukra (where I'm posting) - first
off, I don't need your permission for my preferences and I certainly don't
need your instructions as to what or what not to claim. IMO, vinyl *is*
superior, or I wouldn't use it - I don't care who disagrees with that or
what they prefer and might claim themselves...

stands back and awaits the usual torrent of irrelevant technobabble...

[Keith G]

"Stephen Worth" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 7 Nov 2006 10:38:17 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:

Me too, but what puzzles me is that instead of *demanding* that people
concede 'CD is better' for any particular reason (??) none of the
digital
bigots ever seem to want to know why anyone might *prefer* to play
vinyl?

There's a very good reason why people collect LP records. They are
very inexpensive, usually about two bucks apiece, and there's a wide
variety of music on LP that isn't available on CD. Those are valid
reasons to prefer vinyl over CD.


Certainly some of the valid reasons - other valid reasons are actually
preferring to listen to them and handling them....



When it comes to sound quality, both CD and LP are capable of
reproducing high fidelity sound. Whether or not they actually do
that depends on the mastering and manufacturing.


Yep, I suppose....



The CD format is definitely more convenient for storage and handling
than LPs.


Nope, try carrying a dozen of each (in turn) for any distance (assuming
jewel cases)....

[Adam Sampson]

Stephen Worth writes:

There's a very good reason why people collect LP records. They are
very inexpensive, usually about two bucks apiece, and there's a wide
variety of music on LP that isn't available on CD.

Quite -- that's why I'm into vinyl. It's hard to find interesting
second-hand CDs for much less than four pounds here in the UK, which
puts me off buying music "on spec"; on the other hand, I can go into a
charity shop and pick up four to eight LPs for the same amount, and
I've discovered a lot of interesting music that way. I don't expect
the quality to be anywhere near that available on CD, although I'm
occasionally pleasantly surprised by a well-pressed record in really
good condition...

There's also the historical interest angle: until 1984 or so, LP was
*the* mainstream high-fidelity medium. I can understand how CD can
produce good-quality audio -- that's just the application of
sufficient electronic magic -- but being able to get reasonable sound
quality by dragging a diamond across a sheet of plastic still strikes
me as a pretty cool trick.

(Speaking as a vinyl enthusiast on a student budget, though, I do
really wish someone made an affordable record-cleaning machine!)

--
Adam Sampson http://offog.org/

[Keith G]

"Adam Sampson" wrote in message
...
Stephen Worth writes:

There's a very good reason why people collect LP records. They are
very inexpensive, usually about two bucks apiece, and there's a wide
variety of music on LP that isn't available on CD.

Quite -- that's why I'm into vinyl. It's hard to find interesting
second-hand CDs for much less than four pounds here in the UK, which
puts me off buying music "on spec"; on the other hand, I can go into a
charity shop and pick up four to eight LPs for the same amount, and
I've discovered a lot of interesting music that way. I don't expect
the quality to be anywhere near that available on CD, although I'm
occasionally pleasantly surprised by a well-pressed record in really
good condition...

There's also the historical interest angle: until 1984 or so, LP was
*the* mainstream high-fidelity medium. I can understand how CD can
produce good-quality audio -- that's just the application of
sufficient electronic magic -- but being able to get reasonable sound
quality by dragging a diamond across a sheet of plastic still strikes
me as a pretty cool trick.

(Speaking as a vinyl enthusiast on a student budget, though, I do
really wish someone made an affordable record-cleaning machine!)




Cool trick? Is it *ever*....!!!

Adam, the record (fabulous *mint* 1972 Supraphon pressing) this track came
from cost me 50p, IIRC...

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/Der%20Engel.mp3

It was playing when I read your post - I transferred it to my 'computer
setup' to grab a couple of tracks for you. (Doesn't do them any favours from
a *static* POV, believe me, so there's enough **** to keep the digital
bigots happy....!! ;-)

If you like it and want it on CD, you can get it for anything from 7.99 to
17.99 from Amazon.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=sr_nr_...assical&page=1


Words here (Der Engel):

http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/fss/je...ras/wesen2.htm

Not your sort of thing?

Play it over until it is.....

[Keith G]

"Serge Auckland" wrote in message
...
Here in Ohio wrote:
On Tue, 7 Nov 2006 08:38:21 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


is less than that of wide dynamic range music. Thing is that even the LP
format didn't need hypercompression.

Unless you are Todd Rundgren. He seemed to be doing everything he
could to make a lousy medium even worse. :-)

The reason that so much music is hypercompressed today is because people
no longer predominately listen to music as their sole activity. Music is
more likely than ever to be listened to while the listener is doing
something else that is more important to them. Therefore, dynamic range
is a detriment to many listener's use of music.


I don't think the record companies have thought it out that well. We can
also look at radio as an example of something that people often
listen to in the background. Radio is compressed (for transmitter
efficiency if nothing else), but it isn't always hypercompressed.

No, not always, but here in the UK and in France, stations compress to
eliminate any dynamic range. As I mentioned before, there was a well known
station Chief Engineer who bragged his processor was so wound up he got
less than 1dB dynamic range. His station of course sounded as you would
expect, but he was happy.

What I have read is that this is an extension of the "I want it to be
loud and stand out" thing that some of the record companies execs
push. They think that boosting the average volume level will sell more
records than actually allowing for fidelity would. (Or something like
that. Some of the record company people I met in the past were just
nuts. There was one guy that looked for new talent in my area that
liked being paid in one dollar bills. He said he just liked to spread
them out and lay on them.)

The articles on this do mention that the average level is almost at
the max level for CD. If they were simply compressing it for
background use, they wouldn't have to push the level so high.

That's what makes it so incomprehensible. With the 20dB or less dynamic
range of many pop CDs, and a theoretical 96dB dynamic range of the CD
medium, you would think they could find 20 dB's space in that without
having to exceed 0dBFS. What's a volume control for......



You'll be interested to know that this month's copy of Computer Music
magazine has a 5 page article on compression (and limiting) techniques where
you will find the phrases 'All record companies want their records to sound
louder than everyone else's...' and 'It might look cool but, sadly, the VU
meter has no place on modern studios...''

(What I object to is the use of the word 'record' to mean a CD or, worse, a
'virtual track'....)

[Keith G]

"Here in Ohio" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 7 Nov 2006 21:03:01 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:



If you do not think there are *plenty* of people using vinyl, go bid on
some
of the vinyl goodies on eBay and see how hard you can get smashed on, say,
a
nice MC cart or tonearm in perfect condition.....

So? That doesn't prove there are "plenty" of people using vinyl.

And again I will point out that vinyl is the darling of a teeny, tiny
percentage of music buyers.




What I keep pointing out is that there are well-known and readily
measurable problems with vinyl, problems that do not exist with CD. If
you prefer vinyl, it's because you actually prefer added distortion.


Nope, that won't wash either - for me the LP is a longer-established music
carrier than the CD and it is my 'norm'. If you say (I don't necessarily
agree) that audible distortion has been removed with a CD then I would ask
what else has been removed with it? I would suggest a palpable sense of
'realism' for starters - for me, CD is sterile or even *fake* by
comparison...

The distortion isn't "removed" with CD, it is never there in the first
place.

Your "norm" is distorted. That "palpable sense of realism" is just
added distortion.


??

Do you ever eat that cheese - you know, the blue mouldy one you pay extra
for....

[Serge Auckland]

Here in Ohio wrote:
On Tue, 07 Nov 2006 19:29:45 +0000, Serge Auckland
wrote:


We can also look at radio as an example of something that people often
listen to in the background. Radio is compressed (for transmitter
efficiency if nothing else), but it isn't always hypercompressed.
No, not always, but here in the UK and in France, stations compress to
eliminate any dynamic range. As I mentioned before, there was a well
known station Chief Engineer who bragged his processor was so wound up
he got less than 1dB dynamic range. His station of course sounded as you
would expect, but he was happy.

I'm sure I could find some examples of the same thing in my area in
the US too. :-)


Yes, if you're anywhere near Cleveland, you have the Omnia factory
there. They make the fiercest processor currently on the market.In my
previous life, I was the Orban Distributor in the UK, so maybe I'm
biased, but of the processed sounds, I always thought the Optimod did a
pretty decent job, but the Omnia drilled through my head.....

S.

[Jeff Findley]

"Adam Sampson" wrote in message
...
Stephen Worth writes:

There's a very good reason why people collect LP records. They are
very inexpensive, usually about two bucks apiece, and there's a wide
variety of music on LP that isn't available on CD.

Quite -- that's why I'm into vinyl. It's hard to find interesting
second-hand CDs for much less than four pounds here in the UK, which
puts me off buying music "on spec"; on the other hand, I can go into a
charity shop and pick up four to eight LPs for the same amount, and
I've discovered a lot of interesting music that way. I don't expect
the quality to be anywhere near that available on CD, although I'm
occasionally pleasantly surprised by a well-pressed record in really
good condition...

The lack of really cheap used CD's shows how sought after they are compared
to LP's.

Here in the US, for a used CD I typically pay 1/4 to 1/2 the cost of new
CD's (which seem to run about $15 to $20 US). If I get lucky, I'll find a
used CD I like in the "bargain bin" for maybe $1 to $3 US, which is a great
deal. In the same shops, LP's run about $0.50 to $3 US, and I do pick up
one from time to time.

There's also the historical interest angle: until 1984 or so, LP was
*the* mainstream high-fidelity medium. I can understand how CD can
produce good-quality audio -- that's just the application of
sufficient electronic magic -- but being able to get reasonable sound
quality by dragging a diamond across a sheet of plastic still strikes
me as a pretty cool trick.

I started collecting CD's back in about 1985, years before I bought my first
CD player. I'd borrow a friend's stereo and copy the CD to cassette tape
for listening since this was the Walkman era. Finally in about 1991/1992 I
won a CD player at a Christmas/New Year party thrown by my wife's boss. By
that time I had a collection of maybe 12 to 20 CD's and two to three dozen
LP's and 45's.

(Speaking as a vinyl enthusiast on a student budget, though, I do
really wish someone made an affordable record-cleaning machine!)

Clean the LP really good, record it on a PC as a WAV, then burn to a CD-R
and play the CD instead of the LP. You'll save wear and tear on the LP's
and eliminate the constant cleaning. Plus you can then easily transfer the
audio to an MP3 player or a NetMD via USB. I've done this for several dozen
LP's, mostly ones I got from my grandparents after their turntable finally
stopped working and they didn't want to repair it anymore. I gave them back
copies of the LP's on CD-R along with a little bookshelf CD player with a
remote control.

Just about any PC will do, as long as you've got a decent sound card in it.
All the software I use for this is freeware/shareware (Audacity, CD Wave,
and DePopper). Here in the US, I typically pay about $0.10 US for a blank
CD-R, which is still far cheaper than even a bargain LP. If you don't do
any noise reduction, you even preserve the "authentic LP sound". ;-)

Jeff
--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a
little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor
safety"
- B. Franklin, Bartlett's Familiar Quotations (1919)

[Steven Sullivan]

In rec.audio.tech Glenn Richards wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:

Back in the 1980s when people used to buy the LP and the CD of the
same album, play them both and compare the results, they weren't
really comparing the two media. Instead, they were comparing the
(generally quite separate) mastering decisions--EQ, limiting,
etc.--behind the two products, plus the particular characteristics of
their LP and CD playback equipment.

So what that posting is basically saying is that CD is capable of far
better quality sound than vinyl, but due to sloppy mastering (loudness
wars anyone?) vinyl generally sounds better? Because it hasn't been
compressed to within an inch of its life?


Yes, for popular music since about 1993 or so, that *could* be the case,
*if* you find the dynamic range compression used in modern pop CD
mastering (which some find to be 'euphonic', ie good-sounding) more
objectionable than that the 'euphonic' distortions of LP. Of course even
today, not all pop CDs are so compressed, nor are all of them compressed
to the same degree. But all LP systems will display 'euphonic' distortion.

Compared to pop music, digital compression is more rarely applied to jazz
CDs, and more rarely still to classical CDs. It is unlikely you will find
classical LPs that match the dynamic range of the corresponding CD.


___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

[Steven Sullivan]

In rec.audio.tech Serge Auckland wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Glenn Richards wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:

Back in the 1980s when people used to buy the LP and the CD of the
same album, play them both and compare the results, they weren't
really comparing the two media. Instead, they were comparing the
(generally quite separate) mastering decisions--EQ, limiting,
etc.--behind the two products, plus the particular characteristics of
their LP and CD playback equipment.

So what that posting is basically saying is that CD is capable of far
better quality sound than vinyl, but due to sloppy mastering (loudness
wars anyone?) vinyl generally sounds better? Because it hasn't been
compressed to within an inch of its life?

You can't generalise. Indeed in my experience this isn't the case - but
then I stopped buying LPs when I got my first CD player. This 'loudness
wars' thingie with CD mastering is relatively recent and mainly applies to
some pop releases.

(Bit of a vinyl fan myself actually...)

But then there are the inherent problems with vinyl which no mastering can
get round. So you're not starting from an even playing field.


Sadly, the loudness stupidity isn't just limited to pop releases. Over
the weekend, I was making some measurements, and decided to leave my
bitstream analyser connected whilst listening to music. I was astounded
at how many of my CDs regularly clip. Amy Winehouse "Frank" lights the
0dBFS light on almost every beat, Diana Krall Love Scenes clips often
per song, as does Norah Jones.

'Jazz' releases aimed at the mass market will tend to have mass market
mastering. So will the 'pop' classical CDs.

But note too that reaching 0 dB does not necessarily mean clipping.
'Classic' digital Clipping would appear as consecutive runs of 0dB samples
-- some say we can hear as little as three, others say more like 10-13.
Modern mastering engineers also sometimes 'cheat' by creating clipped
files then lowering the overall level, so you'd never see the same-sample
runs at '0 dB' -- this is probably because some CD players don't behave
well when offered full-scale samples.


I just don't understand why these sorts of CDs need to be mastered into
clipping. I can understand a CD being normalised to 0dBFS, but that
would mean one hit at 0dBFS once per CD, or at worse once per track, if
tracks are mastered individually. There's just no excuse for it.

It's a fad -- one that I hope goes away eventually.

However, try as I might, I can't hear the clipping in the Diana Krall
and Norah Jones, even sighted, knowing when it takes place. The Amy
Winehouse is , however, very obvious.

Psychoacoustically, it takes a lot of samples relatively close
together, or a run of consecutive 0 db samples, to 'sound' like clipping.



___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

[Steven Sullivan]

In rec.audio.tech Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Don Pearce
wrote:
[snip]

I just don't understand why these sorts of CDs need to be mastered into
clipping. I can understand a CD being normalised to 0dBFS, but that
would mean one hit at 0dBFS once per CD, or at worse once per track, if
tracks are mastered individually. There's just no excuse for it.

ahem Anyone in the UK who is interested in this may find the December
issue of 'Hi Fi News' worth a read. Should be out in a couple of weeks.
:-)

Note also that even just one sample of a sequence at or near the 0dBFS
level may mean a reconstructed waveform with an excusion *above* this.


True dat. This article may be old news to some readers here, but it
explains intersample overs (0dB+ levels)

http://www.tcelectronic.com/media/ni...0_0dbfs_le.pdf


Alas, my recent experience confirms that a number of CDs have successions
of samples well within 0.05dB or so of the peak values allowed on CD-A.
Level compression seems much more common, but flat-top clipping seems far
from rare. As you say, this seems utterly insane when many rock/pop CDs
squash the sound into a range of about 10dB - on a medium that should be
able to offer a range over a million times greater!


It's even more discouraging to find it on supposedly 'hi rez' media like
DVD-A

This page shows various digital remasters of 'Roundabout' by Yes over the
years. The DVD-A version doesn't clip, and doesn't have 'flat top' peaks,
but it *has* been compressed to all heck all the same.

http://www.m-ideas.com/sullivan/audition/roundabout.htm

(The last one is just crazy -- and that's from the currently-available
"Fragile" CD from Rhino.)


___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Stephen Worth" wrote in message


No, the LP format has serious basic flaws that have never been resolved.

The CD format is definitely more convenient for storage
and handling than LPs.

The CD format has more than an order of magnitude less noise and
distortion the LP format. The LP format has audible noise and distortion.
The CD format does not.

The LP has 2 significant advantages over the CD:

1. The cover art is much more persuasive

2. You can play a neat game where you cover over the label and try to guess
what piece is recorded by looking at the velocity pattern under a bare
lightbulb. It only works with the classical canon, but with a little
practice you can get quite good at it. As I recall, the easiest one to
guess was the Pines of Rome by Respighi.

Norm Strong

[Richard Crowley]

"Here in Ohio" wrote ...
Pretty soon all the record companies will be selling us CDs with
nothing but 60 minutes of white noise on it. It's the next logical
extension of this trend. :-)

(Maybe they'll just provide a DC signal and we can drive a little fan
aimed at our ears with it. At least we'll keep cool, even if it
doesn't sound very good.)

There you go. Radium's "1-bit audio file".
I've taken the advice of "Morbius" and plonked him as hopelessly
clueless and incapable/unwilling of doing his own research.

[Adam Sampson]

"Jeff Findley" writes:

(Speaking as a vinyl enthusiast on a student budget, though, I do
really wish someone made an affordable record-cleaning machine!)
Clean the LP really good, record it on a PC as a WAV, then burn to a
CD-R and play the CD instead of the LP.

Yep, that's what I do for anything I'm likely to play regularly --
albeit without the "burn to a CD" stage unless I'm doing it for
someone else, since all my digital audio comes straight off the PC
these days.

The problem is with the first step; I often get second-hand records
that are extremely dusty, dirty or otherwise grotty, and there's only
so much that can be done with a dry brush. I'd like some non-messy way
of wet-cleaning and vacuuming records like the Moth or Nitty-Gritty
machines do. I'm currently keeping an eye on Freecycle for a suitable
vacuum cleaner to convert into a DIY RCM along the same lines:
http://www.teresaudio.com/haven/cleaner/cleaner.html

--
Adam Sampson http://offog.org/

[Harry Lavo]

"Here in Ohio" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 15:39:26 +0000, Serge Auckland
wrote:

Here in Ohio wrote:
On Tue, 07 Nov 2006 19:29:45 +0000, Serge Auckland
wrote:


We can also look at radio as an example of something that people often
listen to in the background. Radio is compressed (for transmitter
efficiency if nothing else), but it isn't always hypercompressed.
No, not always, but here in the UK and in France, stations compress to
eliminate any dynamic range. As I mentioned before, there was a well
known station Chief Engineer who bragged his processor was so wound up
he got less than 1dB dynamic range. His station of course sounded as
you
would expect, but he was happy.

I'm sure I could find some examples of the same thing in my area in
the US too. :-)


Yes, if you're anywhere near Cleveland, you have the Omnia factory
there. They make the fiercest processor currently on the market.In my

I live in one of Cleveland's suburbs.

I was just looking at some of their white papers and it all looks like
really bad news for anyone who loves music. :-(

Hey, Ohio....ever get down to Oberlin for any of their concerts? They have
a new Arts Guide out listing their series for the entire year. Just call or
write the Conservatory and asked to get on the mailing list.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
Here in Ohio wrote:
Nope, that won't wash either - for me the LP is a longer-established
music carrier than the CD and it is my 'norm'. If you say (I don't
necessarily agree) that audible distortion has been removed with a CD
then I would ask what else has been removed with it? I would suggest a
palpable sense of 'realism' for starters - for me, CD is sterile or
even *fake* by comparison...

The distortion isn't "removed" with CD, it is never there in the first
place.

Your "norm" is distorted. That "palpable sense of realism" is just
added distortion.

You're wasting your time arguing with Mr G. He considers vinyl through
home made single driver horns with (at least) the top and bottom octaves
missing - driven by an SET amp with goodness knows how much distortion -
gives perfect results in his tiny but excessively lively listening room.
Of course at his age, his hearing is probably the true limiting factor.
Those who disagree - ie most - have no place on this, his own personal
newsgroup. ;-)

--
*When the chips are down, the buffalo is empty*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Mr.T]

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
Don, I agree that hitting 0dBFS doesn't necessarily mean clipping,

Yes, and conversely, just because it doen't go to 0dBFS, doesn't mean it's
not clipped.

displaying the waveform on a 'scope looks awfully like clipping to me,
on more than one CD. I estimate from extending the slopes of the
waveform before and after clipping that it can go some 2-3dB into
clipping.

If you have a whole succession of 0dBFS in a row, then yes, you can be
sure you are in digital clipping.

Or almost any flat topped signal, even if it is "normalised" to less than
0dBFS.

If it is happening in a transient, it won't do much to the sound,

Well that will obviously depend on many factors.

but if it is during a note, with each
successive peak clipped, you are deep in alias artifact territory, and
that is a horror.

And all too common.

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Stephen Worth" wrote in message
...
There's a very good reason why people collect LP records. They are
very inexpensive, usually about two bucks apiece,

S/H, ... as are many S/H CD's. Except a S/H CD has some chance of still
being playable!
The funny thing is that new vinyl is actually more expensive than CD!

Now add in the cost of a decent turntable/cartridge and replacement
sylii!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(not to mention a record cleaning machine and the requisite fluids)

Where exactly is the saving?????


and there's a wide
variety of music on LP that isn't available on CD.

And vice versa.

Those are valid
reasons to prefer vinyl over CD.

No, those are valid reasons to play whatever you want to listen to at the
time.

When it comes to sound quality, both CD and LP are capable of
reproducing high fidelity sound.

The CD format is definitely more convenient for storage and handling
than LPs.

No doubt about that.
The only benefit of vinyl IMO is the cover art :-)

MrT.