Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Thanks, but I don't need to read about what to do as I have already
done it. I was listening to an Lp last night that sounds "better" than its CD counterpart. I have quite a nice Lp playback system, but it is not really anything outrageous. I also have a very nice CD playback system. I have even been into audio for many years and have owned more types and models of equipment than many people have seen or knew existed. Give me some credit for experience. You may prefer digital formats and that's fine, just don't try to belittle my findings and suggest that only yours are valid. I enjoy both analog sound and uncompressed digital sound and don't feel a need to go about and attempt to influence people's preferences. My position is not to try and "prove" anything, but to enjoy music. I'll enjoy it the way that it suits me best, thank you. -Bill www.uptownaudio.com Roanoke VA (540) 343-1250 "chung" wrote in message ... Uptown Audio wrote: Yes. It's true that the higher the rate, the better the sound, but I only burn CD's uncompressed. I don't do that very often as I have enough to just carry the ones I want about without worry for copies. I actually own two copies of many. I don't know, i suppose I like the artwork as much as the disc itself, so I would rather have a complete set than a stack of discs or a hard drive full of MP3s. Many kids (young and old!) like to store music files but I just say gimme an Lp, gimme a CD, or get outta here! It is amazing to me how people can spend hours at a computer making their music sound worse for convenience, yet they can't get off the couch to plop on another disc! Get some excercise, - get up and grab a beer! -Bill www.uptownaudio.com Roanoke VA (540) 343-1250 But you were saying that mp3's sound terrible, and that vinyl is noticeably superior than mp3's to even the most novice of listeners. I would ask that you do this experiment. Take your favorite CD. Compress all the tracks into mp3's at 320Kbps using Lame or some similar high quality encoders. Then burn an audio CD by decompressing the mp3's. So now you have two CD's with the same tracks, one original, and one based on mp3's coded at 320 Kbps. Now play those CD's and see if you can reliably tell them apart. I would bet that you will not find the mp3s' sound "terrible". In fact I don't think you can reliably tell them apart, for the majority of music. I have tried, and I can tell you it is hard. You overlooked the convenience factor. To have hours or days of quality audio on a portable device is convenience. The work required to code is minimal; you can batch encode entire CD's with a few mouse clicks, and you only do it once per CD. Try Apple's iTunes to see how easy this process is. Now having to switch sides on an LP every 20 minutes or so, who wants to do that? And did you read what Mr. Lavo wrote on what you need to do to play vinyl well? "chung" wrote in message ... Uptown Audio wrote: You don't do anyone any service by attempting to compare MP3 to vinyl as equals. Vinyl is noticably superior to MP3 by even the most novice of listeners. The only difference is the requirements for quality playback systems for vinyl. MP3 sounds terrible, no matter what quality system it is played back on. -Bill www.uptownaudio.com Roanoke VA (540) 343-1250 Just out of curiosity, have you listened to mp3's or aac's encoded at 320 Kbps? |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
No doubt that many digital devices sound similar as they operate with
similar principals to a standard. Lp's are not cut to that standard and can sound better or worse depending upon a lot of variables. So if consistency is what you are after, then stick with your CD player. It may be consistently bad, but that's just fine with me as it is your decision and does not effect mine. Not all analog systems nor CD playback systems sound alike. It is still easy to find many examples of players that have differing sound, not to mention function and design. Just so that we remember, this forum has been dedicated to the discussion of high end audio. I don't mean to say that we all should should find that everything gets rosier as prices increase, but several people here are almost never coming in defense of a product that has merit, yet is expensive. It is disruptive of this forum and the persistent badgering by a few of all others who might have another viewpoint has created a situation that has been going on for at least a year and that is preventing others who have interest and questions from participating for fear of ridicule and ostracism. I am sure that you do have valuable contributions that you could make, but it is very important to the group to feel free to post their questions and beliefs without detroying the sense of community here. I support your right to listen to and express your thoughts about your system to anyone, but being intentionally disruptive by repeating the same views, regardless of the original questions is not helpful. You certainly realize that I and others also like vinyl playback and as such, you should not jump at every opportunity to talk about digital. I remember years ago when you had some helpful posts about analog set-up to help others who asked. Many people still use turntables and have extensive Lp collections which they would like to get the most enjoyment out of. Just because a form of digital compression is available, does not make it practical for everyone to use it. Perhaps assisting those who have questions about digital compression with answers about digital compression and likewise assisting those who like analog with helpful tips about Lp playback would be more productive. Reading the same posts by the same people everytime that the "CD Vs Vinyl" issue comes up has become tiresome and makes this group static. I know that you have also noticed fewer posts in the last year or so and even fewer from "new faces". "Can't we all just get along?!" ;-) -Bill www.uptownaudio.com Roanoke VA (540) 343-1250 "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On 29 Apr 2005 18:35:34 GMT, Uptown Audio wrote: You don't do anyone any service by attempting to compare MP3 to vinyl as equals. Vinyl is noticably superior to MP3 by even the most novice of listeners. The only difference is the requirements for quality playback systems for vinyl. MP3 sounds terrible, no matter what quality system it is played back on. This is arrant nonsense. Once above say 192 kbits/sec, very few people can tell an MP3 from the original - even if that original is vinyl. OTOH, *everyone* can tell vinyl apart from CD or the master tape from which the vinyl was made - even on the best vinyl rigs. To any rational being, it should be obvious that when all vinyl rigs sound diffrent from each other, none of them can be objectively accurate. OTOH, most CD players sound the same, despite massively different internal electronics, which is a pretty good indicator of transparency. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Uptown Audio wrote:
Thanks, but I don't need to read about what to do as I have already done it. I was listening to an Lp last night that sounds "better" than its CD counterpart. I have quite a nice Lp playback system, but it is not really anything outrageous. I also have a very nice CD playback system. I have even been into audio for many years and have owned more types and models of equipment than many people have seen or knew existed. Give me some credit for experience. You may prefer digital formats and that's fine, just don't try to belittle my findings and suggest that only yours are valid. I enjoy both analog sound and uncompressed digital sound and don't feel a need to go about and attempt to influence people's preferences. My position is not to try and "prove" anything, but to enjoy music. I'll enjoy it the way that it suits me best, thank you. -Bill www.uptownaudio.com Roanoke VA (540) 343-1250 "chung" wrote in message ... Uptown Audio wrote: Yes. It's true that the higher the rate, the better the sound, but I only burn CD's uncompressed. I don't do that very often as I have enough to just carry the ones I want about without worry for copies. I actually own two copies of many. I don't know, i suppose I like the artwork as much as the disc itself, so I would rather have a complete set than a stack of discs or a hard drive full of MP3s. Many kids (young and old!) like to store music files but I just say gimme an Lp, gimme a CD, or get outta here! It is amazing to me how people can spend hours at a computer making their music sound worse for convenience, yet they can't get off the couch to plop on another disc! Get some excercise, - get up and grab a beer! -Bill www.uptownaudio.com Roanoke VA (540) 343-1250 Actually I was only trying to help you determine whether your finding that "mp3s sound terrible" is true when the encoding is at high bit rates. It seems like you have your mind made up, and don't really want to change it. Fine. |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
There is no reason to change it...
-Bill www.uptownaudio.com Roanoke VA (540) 343-1250 "chung" wrote in message ... Uptown Audio wrote: Thanks, but I don't need to read about what to do as I have already done it. I was listening to an Lp last night that sounds "better" than its CD counterpart. I have quite a nice Lp playback system, but it is not really anything outrageous. I also have a very nice CD playback system. I have even been into audio for many years and have owned more types and models of equipment than many people have seen or knew existed. Give me some credit for experience. You may prefer digital formats and that's fine, just don't try to belittle my findings and suggest that only yours are valid. I enjoy both analog sound and uncompressed digital sound and don't feel a need to go about and attempt to influence people's preferences. My position is not to try and "prove" anything, but to enjoy music. I'll enjoy it the way that it suits me best, thank you. -Bill www.uptownaudio.com Roanoke VA (540) 343-1250 "chung" wrote in message ... Uptown Audio wrote: Yes. It's true that the higher the rate, the better the sound, but I only burn CD's uncompressed. I don't do that very often as I have enough to just carry the ones I want about without worry for copies. I actually own two copies of many. I don't know, i suppose I like the artwork as much as the disc itself, so I would rather have a complete set than a stack of discs or a hard drive full of MP3s. Many kids (young and old!) like to store music files but I just say gimme an Lp, gimme a CD, or get outta here! It is amazing to me how people can spend hours at a computer making their music sound worse for convenience, yet they can't get off the couch to plop on another disc! Get some excercise, - get up and grab a beer! -Bill www.uptownaudio.com Roanoke VA (540) 343-1250 Actually I was only trying to help you determine whether your finding that "mp3s sound terrible" is true when the encoding is at high bit rates. It seems like you have your mind made up, and don't really want to change it. Fine. |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Uptown Audio wrote:
Thanks, but I don't need to read about what to do as I have already done it. You've alreedy made high bitrate mp3s of a CD and found that the mp3s sounded terrible? I'd be very curious to know what the encoded CD was. |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
On 30 Apr 2005 23:19:31 GMT, Uptown Audio wrote:
There is no reason to change it... Even for one that works? :-) Interesting that you completely refuse to answer the points being made by Chung and others. Could this deperate defence of so-called 'high-end' audio electronics have some relation to the fact that you sell it for a living? Yes. It's true that the higher the rate, the better the sound, but I only burn CD's uncompressed. I don't do that very often as I have enough to just carry the ones I want about without worry for copies. I actually own two copies of many. I don't know, i suppose I like the artwork as much as the disc itself, so I would rather have a complete set than a stack of discs or a hard drive full of MP3s. Many kids (young and old!) like to store music files but I just say gimme an Lp, gimme a CD, or get outta here! It is amazing to me how people can spend hours at a computer making their music sound worse for convenience, yet they can't get off the couch to plop on another disc! Get some excercise, - get up and grab a beer! -Bill www.uptownaudio.com Roanoke VA (540) 343-1250 Actually I was only trying to help you determine whether your finding that "mp3s sound terrible" is true when the encoding is at high bit rates. It seems like you have your mind made up, and don't really want to change it. Fine. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
On 30 Apr 2005 18:43:33 GMT, Uptown Audio wrote:
No doubt that many digital devices sound similar as they operate with similar principals to a standard. That's certainly one good reason. Lp's are not cut to that standard and can sound better or worse depending upon a lot of variables. You are unfamiliar with the work done in this regard by the RIAA? Of course, you did just put your finger on the nub of the problem - if all analogue rigs sound different, then by definition only one *at most* can be genuinely 'high fidelity'. Occam would suggest that of course *none* of them are. So if consistency is what you are after, then stick with your CD player. It may be consistently bad, but that's just fine with me as it is your decision and does not effect mine. None so blind as those who will not see. I have seldom seen such a ludicrous argument against CD. Of course, if you want your CDs to sound different, that's easy enough - just record LPs from different rigs to CD-R, then you'll retain all the 'magic' of LP, will have plenty of variation, and will never have to damage your LPs again. Not all analog systems nor CD playback systems sound alike. It is still easy to find many examples of players that have differing sound, not to mention function and design. Indeed yes - especially in the so-called 'high end', where many CD players are *deliberately* broken. Heck, some of them don't even have a reconstruction filter, which is an *essential* part of the A/D-D/A process. Just so that we remember, this forum has been dedicated to the discussion of high end audio. I don't mean to say that we all should should find that everything gets rosier as prices increase, but several people here are almost never coming in defense of a product that has merit, yet is expensive. Just so that we remember, the term 'high-end' is supposed to be related to *performance*, not to price. In the world of digital audio, it's *very* difficult to find any product that is expensive and yet has merit when compared to much cheaper products. It is disruptive of this forum and the persistent badgering by a few of all others who might have another viewpoint has created a situation that has been going on for at least a year and that is preventing others who have interest and questions from participating for fear of ridicule and ostracism. Intelligent questions tend to receive intelligent answers, mere repetition of a blinkered viewpoint (such as youi have been doing in this thread), gets a different response. I am sure that you do have valuable contributions that you could make, but it is very important to the group to feel free to post their questions and beliefs without detroying the sense of community here. I'm sure the group does so feel - after all, it's a *moderated* forum. I support your right to listen to and express your thoughts about your system to anyone, but being intentionally disruptive by repeating the same views, regardless of the original questions is not helpful. Perhaps you should take your own advice. You have answered none of the points made, and have merely repeated your ill-considered attack on MP3 with no justification whatever. You certainly realize that I and others also like vinyl playback and as such, you should not jump at every opportunity to talk about digital. *You* are the one who said that "Vinyl is noticably superior to MP3 by even the most novice of listeners", so don't complain when that LAME argument is thrown back in your face. I remember years ago when you had some helpful posts about analog set-up to help others who asked. Many people still use turntables and have extensive Lp collections which they would like to get the most enjoyment out of. As noted, intelligent questions will get intelligent answers. I maintain a vinyl rig because I too like the sound of vinyl. However, I don't kid myself that it's a sonically transparent medium - unlike high bit-rate MP3, which certainly can be. Just because a form of digital compression is available, does not make it practical for everyone to use it. It is however practical for an extremely large number of users in 2005. Perhaps it's time for 'Uptown Audio' to move into the 21st Century - while it still can? Perhaps assisting those who have questions about digital compression with answers about digital compression and likewise assisting those who like analog with helpful tips about Lp playback would be more productive. Perhaps it would be a good start if *you* were to avoid making such patently ludicrous statements as "Vinyl is noticably superior to MP3 by even the most novice of listeners." and "MP3 sounds terrible, no matter what quality system it is played back on." Anyone familiar with both top-quality vinyl and high bit-rate MP3 realises how utterly wrong both those statements are. And yet people are expected to take advice on so-called 'high end' audio from *you*, when they walk into your store? Hmmmmmm. Reading the same posts by the same people everytime that the "CD Vs Vinyl" issue comes up has become tiresome and makes this group static. That may well be true, but if you keep making the same ill-considered statements, then you must expect them to be rebutted in the same way. I canna' change the Laws o' Physics, cap'n............. I know that you have also noticed fewer posts in the last year or so and even fewer from "new faces". "Can't we all just get along?!" ;-) Remember what happened after Jack Nicholson said that? :-) BTW, top-posting is sloppy, confusing, and disruptive to cogent argument, please don't do it. "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On 29 Apr 2005 18:35:34 GMT, Uptown Audio wrote: You don't do anyone any service by attempting to compare MP3 to vinyl as equals. Vinyl is noticably superior to MP3 by even the most novice of listeners. The only difference is the requirements for quality playback systems for vinyl. MP3 sounds terrible, no matter what quality system it is played back on. This is arrant nonsense. Once above say 192 kbits/sec, very few people can tell an MP3 from the original - even if that original is vinyl. OTOH, *everyone* can tell vinyl apart from CD or the master tape from which the vinyl was made - even on the best vinyl rigs. To any rational being, it should be obvious that when all vinyl rigs sound diffrent from each other, none of them can be objectively accurate. OTOH, most CD players sound the same, despite massively different internal electronics, which is a pretty good indicator of transparency. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
"chung" wrote in message
... Uptown Audio wrote: Yes. It's true that the higher the rate, the better the sound, but I only burn CD's uncompressed. I don't do that very often as I have enough to just carry the ones I want about without worry for copies. I actually own two copies of many. I don't know, i suppose I like the artwork as much as the disc itself, so I would rather have a complete set than a stack of discs or a hard drive full of MP3s. Many kids (young and old!) like to store music files but I just say gimme an Lp, gimme a CD, or get outta here! It is amazing to me how people can spend hours at a computer making their music sound worse for convenience, yet they can't get off the couch to plop on another disc! Get some excercise, - get up and grab a beer! -Bill www.uptownaudio.com Roanoke VA (540) 343-1250 But you were saying that mp3's sound terrible, and that vinyl is noticeably superior than mp3's to even the most novice of listeners. I would ask that you do this experiment. Take your favorite CD. Compress all the tracks into mp3's at 320Kbps using Lame or some similar high quality encoders. Then burn an audio CD by decompressing the mp3's. So now you have two CD's with the same tracks, one original, and one based on mp3's coded at 320 Kbps. Now play those CD's and see if you can reliably tell them apart. I would bet that you will not find the mp3s' sound "terrible". In fact I don't think you can reliably tell them apart, for the majority of music. I have tried, and I can tell you it is hard. You overlooked the convenience factor. To have hours or days of quality audio on a portable device is convenience. The work required to code is minimal; you can batch encode entire CD's with a few mouse clicks, and you only do it once per CD. Try Apple's iTunes to see how easy this process is. Now having to switch sides on an LP every 20 minutes or so, who wants to do that? And did you read what Mr. Lavo wrote on what you need to do to play vinyl well? I don't know about Uptown, but I flunked the test at only 128kb/s. Of course I'm 74, and my hearing isn't all that good--even for a 74 year old. As a result, I compress to 64kb/s WMA, and I'm entirely satisfied with the results. I chose WMA because of the rumor that it's better at low bit rates. It may or may not be true, but that's how I got started, so I might as well continue. BTW, has anyone compared WMA with mp3 Pro or AAC? Although I'm not apt to change horses in the middle of this stream, it would be nice to know the optimum solution at 64kb/s. Thanks, Norm Strong |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
"Uptown Audio" wrote in message
... No doubt that many digital devices sound similar as they operate with similar principals to a standard. Lp's are not cut to that standard and can sound better or worse depending upon a lot of variables. So if consistency is what you are after, then stick with your CD player. It may be consistently bad, but that's just fine with me as it is your decision and does not effect mine. You sound like the guy that wanted an accurate clock, but didn't have a standard to compare them to. So he set 5 different clocks to the same time. When he came back a month later, 4 of the 5 were within a minute of each other, but the 5th one was 6 minutes faster. Should he buy the 5th one? It's possible that the 5th clock was spot one, and the other 4 were all 5 minutes slow. Consistency does not guarantee accuracy--but that's the way to bet! Norm Strong |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Stewart Pinkerton wrote: You are unfamiliar with the work done in this regard by the RIAA? Of course, you did just put your finger on the nub of the problem - if all analogue rigs sound different, then by definition only one *at most* can be genuinely 'high fidelity'. small quibble: it's not "by definition". It's elementary logic. |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
No. I am not arguing anything; that's your trip. I am just explaining
my listening habits and informing Mr Chung that I have my own experiences and preferences. -Bill www.uptownaudio.com Roanoke VA (540) 343-1250 "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On 30 Apr 2005 23:19:31 GMT, Uptown Audio wrote: There is no reason to change it... Even for one that works? :-) Interesting that you completely refuse to answer the points being made by Chung and others. Could this deperate defence of so-called 'high-end' audio electronics have some relation to the fact that you sell it for a living? Yes. It's true that the higher the rate, the better the sound, but I only burn CD's uncompressed. I don't do that very often as I have enough to just carry the ones I want about without worry for copies. I actually own two copies of many. I don't know, i suppose I like the artwork as much as the disc itself, so I would rather have a complete set than a stack of discs or a hard drive full of MP3s. Many kids (young and old!) like to store music files but I just say gimme an Lp, gimme a CD, or get outta here! It is amazing to me how people can spend hours at a computer making their music sound worse for convenience, yet they can't get off the couch to plop on another disc! Get some excercise, - get up and grab a beer! -Bill www.uptownaudio.com Roanoke VA (540) 343-1250 Actually I was only trying to help you determine whether your finding that "mp3s sound terrible" is true when the encoding is at high bit rates. It seems like you have your mind made up, and don't really want to change it. Fine. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Funny analogy, yet irrelevent! I'm not a betting man, just a music
lover. Thanks for at least keeping your opinion civil. -Bill www.uptownaudio.com Roanoke VA (540) 343-1250 wrote in message ... "Uptown Audio" wrote in message ... No doubt that many digital devices sound similar as they operate with similar principals to a standard. Lp's are not cut to that standard and can sound better or worse depending upon a lot of variables. So if consistency is what you are after, then stick with your CD player. It may be consistently bad, but that's just fine with me as it is your decision and does not effect mine. You sound like the guy that wanted an accurate clock, but didn't have a standard to compare them to. So he set 5 different clocks to the same time. When he came back a month later, 4 of the 5 were within a minute of each other, but the 5th one was 6 minutes faster. Should he buy the 5th one? It's possible that the 5th clock was spot one, and the other 4 were all 5 minutes slow. Consistency does not guarantee accuracy--but that's the way to bet! Norm Strong |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
I am not arguing, Stewart. You make too many assumptions and twist
things to your liking regardless of what is generally excepted to even begin to reply without rebutting each line. It was not my intention to "challenge your position" on MP3, so you are off the hook as far as our debate goes. I don't agree with much of what you have said here, but it is not worth the time to correct as you will certainly just continue your relentless and pointless badgering. I am content with my vinyl system and my digital system. Just to refresh your memory, this whole exchange began with you badgering me for no reason. I was helping the original poster who had a question. You had done the same and it would have been well enough to have left it there without trying to drag me into your miserable world. If the rest of your post were worth commenting on, I would not top post. Rather than listen to one's full expressions, you choose to fragment them and distort them by adressing (incorrectly, but whatever) every other sentence to make an argument out of it. Some of us are not here to argue. Lighten up. Hey, I know; go listen to some music and relax! -Bill www.uptownaudio.com Roanoke VA (540) 343-1250 "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On 30 Apr 2005 18:43:33 GMT, Uptown Audio wrote: No doubt that many digital devices sound similar as they operate with similar principals to a standard. That's certainly one good reason. Lp's are not cut to that standard and can sound better or worse depending upon a lot of variables. You are unfamiliar with the work done in this regard by the RIAA? Of course, you did just put your finger on the nub of the problem - if all analogue rigs sound different, then by definition only one *at most* can be genuinely 'high fidelity'. Occam would suggest that of course *none* of them are. So if consistency is what you are after, then stick with your CD player. It may be consistently bad, but that's just fine with me as it is your decision and does not effect mine. None so blind as those who will not see. I have seldom seen such a ludicrous argument against CD. Of course, if you want your CDs to sound different, that's easy enough - just record LPs from different rigs to CD-R, then you'll retain all the 'magic' of LP, will have plenty of variation, and will never have to damage your LPs again. Not all analog systems nor CD playback systems sound alike. It is still easy to find many examples of players that have differing sound, not to mention function and design. Indeed yes - especially in the so-called 'high end', where many CD players are *deliberately* broken. Heck, some of them don't even have a reconstruction filter, which is an *essential* part of the A/D-D/A process. Just so that we remember, this forum has been dedicated to the discussion of high end audio. I don't mean to say that we all should should find that everything gets rosier as prices increase, but several people here are almost never coming in defense of a product that has merit, yet is expensive. Just so that we remember, the term 'high-end' is supposed to be related to *performance*, not to price. In the world of digital audio, it's *very* difficult to find any product that is expensive and yet has merit when compared to much cheaper products. It is disruptive of this forum and the persistent badgering by a few of all others who might have another viewpoint has created a situation that has been going on for at least a year and that is preventing others who have interest and questions from participating for fear of ridicule and ostracism. Intelligent questions tend to receive intelligent answers, mere repetition of a blinkered viewpoint (such as youi have been doing in this thread), gets a different response. I am sure that you do have valuable contributions that you could make, but it is very important to the group to feel free to post their questions and beliefs without detroying the sense of community here. I'm sure the group does so feel - after all, it's a *moderated* forum. I support your right to listen to and express your thoughts about your system to anyone, but being intentionally disruptive by repeating the same views, regardless of the original questions is not helpful. Perhaps you should take your own advice. You have answered none of the points made, and have merely repeated your ill-considered attack on MP3 with no justification whatever. You certainly realize that I and others also like vinyl playback and as such, you should not jump at every opportunity to talk about digital. *You* are the one who said that "Vinyl is noticably superior to MP3 by even the most novice of listeners", so don't complain when that LAME argument is thrown back in your face. I remember years ago when you had some helpful posts about analog set-up to help others who asked. Many people still use turntables and have extensive Lp collections which they would like to get the most enjoyment out of. As noted, intelligent questions will get intelligent answers. I maintain a vinyl rig because I too like the sound of vinyl. However, I don't kid myself that it's a sonically transparent medium - unlike high bit-rate MP3, which certainly can be. Just because a form of digital compression is available, does not make it practical for everyone to use it. It is however practical for an extremely large number of users in 2005. Perhaps it's time for 'Uptown Audio' to move into the 21st Century - while it still can? Perhaps assisting those who have questions about digital compression with answers about digital compression and likewise assisting those who like analog with helpful tips about Lp playback would be more productive. Perhaps it would be a good start if *you* were to avoid making such patently ludicrous statements as "Vinyl is noticably superior to MP3 by even the most novice of listeners." and "MP3 sounds terrible, no matter what quality system it is played back on." Anyone familiar with both top-quality vinyl and high bit-rate MP3 realises how utterly wrong both those statements are. And yet people are expected to take advice on so-called 'high end' audio from *you*, when they walk into your store? Hmmmmmm. Reading the same posts by the same people everytime that the "CD Vs Vinyl" issue comes up has become tiresome and makes this group static. That may well be true, but if you keep making the same ill-considered statements, then you must expect them to be rebutted in the same way. I canna' change the Laws o' Physics, cap'n............. I know that you have also noticed fewer posts in the last year or so and even fewer from "new faces". "Can't we all just get along?!" ;-) Remember what happened after Jack Nicholson said that? :-) BTW, top-posting is sloppy, confusing, and disruptive to cogent argument, please don't do it. "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On 29 Apr 2005 18:35:34 GMT, Uptown Audio wrote: You don't do anyone any service by attempting to compare MP3 to vinyl as equals. Vinyl is noticably superior to MP3 by even the most novice of listeners. The only difference is the requirements for quality playback systems for vinyl. MP3 sounds terrible, no matter what quality system it is played back on. This is arrant nonsense. Once above say 192 kbits/sec, very few people can tell an MP3 from the original - even if that original is vinyl. OTOH, *everyone* can tell vinyl apart from CD or the master tape from which the vinyl was made - even on the best vinyl rigs. To any rational being, it should be obvious that when all vinyl rigs sound diffrent from each other, none of them can be objectively accurate. OTOH, most CD players sound the same, despite massively different internal electronics, which is a pretty good indicator of transparency. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
|
#56
|
|||
|
|||
Chung a =E9crit :
wrote: =20 "Uptown Audio" wrote in message=20 ... No doubt that many digital devices sound similar as they operate with similar principals to a standard. Lp's are not cut to that standard and can sound better or worse depending upon a lot of variables. So i= f consistency is what you are after, then stick with your CD player. It may be consistently bad, but that's just fine with me as it is your decision and does not effect mine. You sound like the guy that wanted an accurate clock, but didn't have=20 a standard to compare them to. So he set 5 different clocks to the=20 same time. When he came back a month later, 4 of the 5 were within a=20 minute of each other, but the 5th one was 6 minutes faster. Should he= =20 buy the 5th one? It's possible that the 5th clock was spot one, and=20 the other 4 were all 5 minutes slow. Consistency does not guarantee=20 accuracy--but that's the way to bet! Norm Strong =20 =20 Yeah, but the 5th clock, the one that is off from others, feels so much= =20 more like a real clock, and its time is so much closer to our memory of= =20 what time it should be... May i put some experience I had yesterday. I just bought on Ebay a Denon=20 DP-47F turntable with a grado black cartridge. I installed it on my=20 Mcintosh MA-6100 Integrated Amp.Next thing I did was to compare the=20 denon turntable with my Naim CD5i cd player (I paid it 1800$ Canadian).=20 I was lucky to have keep all my LP. I stop using my old Pioneer PL-530=20 because I had to much work and it was broken anyway. It was more=20 convenient to use the cd player (I don't have to clean the cd everytime=20 I want to use them or flip them over like a LP). Now I have lot of time=20 (I got a back injury), It will be months before I go back to work. So=20 the first thing I did was to put a LP of Wynston Marsalis on the denon=20 and the same album on my naim cd player. And It was jaw droping. On the=20 cd I can pinpoint on the wall where are the performer but with the LP as=20 was able to pinpoint in the room where they where. Winston Marsalis was=20 about 3-4 feet in front on the wall while the orchestra was about 20=20 feet behind the wall. I tried several other lp with their cd original=20 copies and it was always at the advantage of the Turntable. I just find=20 out that the cd win for the convenience but the turntable was the big=20 winner for the realism. And that difference was with a Denon Turntable=20 that was worth around 400$ when new. If I can get that kind of realism=20 with a Denon I wonder what will it be with a Linn or an Oracle that=20 where supposed to be the best turntables available? I always think that=20 the cd where better because I could'nt hear a difference between a cd=20 and my Old Pioneer. Man I was wrong.: I could'nt hear a difference=20 because my Pioneer turntable was'nt good enoufh to show a difference, If (like myself I use to do) you think that cd are better than LP get=20 yourself a GOOD turntable and you to you will see the "LIGHT" :-) J.Major |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
Uptown Audio wrote:
I am not arguing, Stewart. You make too many assumptions and twist things to your liking regardless of what is generally excepted to even begin to reply without rebutting each line. It was not my intention to "challenge your position" on MP3, so you are off the hook as far as our debate goes. I don't agree with much of what you have said here, but it is not worth the time to correct as you will certainly just continue your relentless and pointless badgering. I am content with my vinyl system and my digital system. Just to refresh your memory, this whole exchange began with you badgering me for no reason. I was helping the original poster who had a question. You had done the same and it would have been well enough to have left it there without trying to drag me into your miserable world. If the rest of your post were worth commenting on, I would not top post. Rather than listen to one's full expressions, you choose to fragment them and distort them by adressing (incorrectly, but whatever) every other sentence to make an argument out of it. Some of us are not here to argue. Lighten up. Hey, I know; go listen to some music and relax! -Bill www.uptownaudio.com Roanoke VA (540) 343-1250 What's got everyone curious is that you expressed such a strong opinion about MP3 vs Vinyl. If MP3 is as bad as you see it, then there is most probably something really wrong with the way those MP3s are being made. It would be more beleivable if you said that vinyl was a bit better than a well made MP3. There are lots of ways to make MP3s, most of them not really that good. I've recently experienced LAME myself and it really, really makes a difference. Use a very good MP3 encoder. Take your best Vinyl, digitize it, and use LAME to make a 320, or even down to a 192 VBR MP3 of your digitized music. You'll be surprised at how well a good MP3 can sound. The fact is a good MP3 can be almost indistinguishable from a well made CD as well, which is an even better compliment since there is a much quieter noise floor and better dynamic range etc to compete with from the original source. The bad reputaion of MP3 was garnered from all those Britney fans and Kazaa file sharing etc. I've downloaded a few of them and trashed them simply because the quality was so lackluster. The encoder that made those mp3s compress and squeeezed the very life out of the music. No, the RIAA won't be coming after me, not for that crap CD |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
On 1 May 2005 19:30:55 GMT, Uptown Audio wrote:
I am not arguing, Stewart. Actually, you are! :-) You make too many assumptions and twist things to your liking regardless of what is generally excepted to even begin to reply without rebutting each line. It was not my intention to "challenge your position" on MP3, so you are off the hook as far as our debate goes. You forget that *you* are the one who made the statement about vinyl being superior to MP3, so it's not *my* position that needs defending, it's yours. Noted that you are unwilling/unable to defend it. I don't agree with much of what you have said here, but it is not worth the time to correct as you will certainly just continue your relentless and pointless badgering. IOW, you have no rebuttal argument, just a snide comment about 'correcting' me, then you cut and run. I am content with my vinyl system and my digital system. Me, too. So what? Just to refresh your memory, this whole exchange began with you badgering me for no reason. I was helping the original poster who had a question. Just to refresh *your* memory, it began with you giving bad advice, and following it up with a ludicrous statement anout MP3, upon which you were called by several people. You had done the same and it would have been well enough to have left it there without trying to drag me into your miserable world. My world is just fine, thanks, but yours seems to need some readjustment, especially if you're going to be giving advice on audio to potential customers in your store. If the rest of your post were worth commenting on, I would not top post. Rather than listen to one's full expressions, you choose to fragment them and distort them by adressing (incorrectly, but whatever) every other sentence to make an argument out of it. Since you make elementary mistakes in every other sentence, such 'fragmented' correction is a simple matter of clarifying which of your errors I am addressing at any one time. Some of us are not here to argue. Lighten up. Hey, I know; go listen to some music and relax! I *am* relaxed, and I *am* listening to music. Now see if *you* can combine listening to music with reading up on compressed digital audio - your potential customers will certainly benefit from some superior advice to that which you currently give. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
Jocelyn Major wrote:
Chung a écrit : wrote: "Uptown Audio" wrote in message ... No doubt that many digital devices sound similar as they operate with similar principals to a standard. Lp's are not cut to that standard and can sound better or worse depending upon a lot of variables. So if consistency is what you are after, then stick with your CD player. It may be consistently bad, but that's just fine with me as it is your decision and does not effect mine. You sound like the guy that wanted an accurate clock, but didn't have a standard to compare them to. So he set 5 different clocks to the same time. When he came back a month later, 4 of the 5 were within a minute of each other, but the 5th one was 6 minutes faster. Should he buy the 5th one? It's possible that the 5th clock was spot one, and the other 4 were all 5 minutes slow. Consistency does not guarantee accuracy--but that's the way to bet! Norm Strong Yeah, but the 5th clock, the one that is off from others, feels so much more like a real clock, and its time is so much closer to our memory of what time it should be... May i put some experience I had yesterday. I just bought on Ebay a Denon DP-47F turntable with a grado black cartridge. I installed it on my Mcintosh MA-6100 Integrated Amp.Next thing I did was to compare the denon turntable with my Naim CD5i cd player (I paid it 1800$ Canadian). I was lucky to have keep all my LP. I stop using my old Pioneer PL-530 because I had to much work and it was broken anyway. It was more convenient to use the cd player (I don't have to clean the cd everytime I want to use them or flip them over like a LP). Now I have lot of time (I got a back injury), It will be months before I go back to work. So the first thing I did was to put a LP of Wynston Marsalis on the denon and the same album on my naim cd player. And It was jaw droping. On the cd I can pinpoint on the wall where are the performer but with the LP as was able to pinpoint in the room where they where. Winston Marsalis was about 3-4 feet in front on the wall while the orchestra was about 20 feet behind the wall. I tried several other lp with their cd original copies and it was always at the advantage of the Turntable. I just find out that the cd win for the convenience but the turntable was the big winner for the realism. And that difference was with a Denon Turntable that was worth around 400$ when new. If I can get that kind of realism with a Denon I wonder what will it be with a Linn or an Oracle that where supposed to be the best turntables available? I always think that the cd where better because I could'nt hear a difference between a cd and my Old Pioneer. Man I was wrong.: I could'nt hear a difference because my Pioneer turntable was'nt good enoufh to show a difference, If (like myself I use to do) you think that cd are better than LP get yourself a GOOD turntable and you to you will see the "LIGHT" :-) J.Major Since you tried 2 turntables, why not 2 CD players as well? Just because the Naim unit is so expensive does not mean its the best. Personally, I still hear differences in CD players, but that's another thread Here's my experience with 2 CD players. I have the Panasonic S-35 DVD player which I accidentally fell in love with. I say that because when I bought it I wasn't even interested in sound quality from it, I just wanted a DVD player in black Over time I saw that its audio quality was very good. Anyway, after some time I decided I wanted to delve into the newer formats, like DVD-A and SACD. The Pioneer 563 was the rage at the time. I bought one used. I hated it. I listened for a week. Now, mind you, I have no DVD-As or SACDs, so I was comparing my Panasonic S-35 playing CDs to the Pioneer playing CDs. The Panasonic won, hands down. Interestingly, though, the Pioneer unit did not sound better in my system, but it had a way better sense of depth and soundstage. It was very deep. My Panasonic failed miserably in that regard, but it still sounded really good. Your mileage may vary. CD |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
"Uptown Audio" wrote in message
... Just so that we remember, this forum has been dedicated to the discussion of high end audio. I don't mean to say that we all should should find that everything gets rosier as prices increase, but several people here are almost never coming in defense of a product that has merit, yet is expensive. There is a very good reason for that. 30-40 years ago, yes, you had to pay premium money to get good sound. But in nearly every other field of electronics, the price/performance ratio has dropped by several orders of magnitude in that time. Why should audio be any different? The only exception is the transducers - i. e. speakers - and in that area it is generally agreed that you need to spend more money to get the best results. What you describe as "persistent badgering" is almost always technically correct and is a welcome antidote to high-end hokum. If knowledgable people like Stewart (or previously, Dick Pierce) are able to steer people away from wasting their money chasing audio rainbows, they are performing a great service. - Gary Rosen |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message ...
Or it may have to do with the euphonic effects of distortion inherent in vinyl. Or a combination of the two. And maybe there's a dram of nostalgia mixed in. That's why I so greatly prefer LP's by the Beatles to the reissue CDs, it reminds me of when I was a teenager listening to them on AM radio at the beach with static and everything :^). - Gary Rosen |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
On 3 May 2005 00:06:03 GMT, Jocelyn Major wrote:
May i put some experience I had yesterday. I just bought on Ebay a Denon DP-47F turntable with a grado black cartridge. I installed it on my Mcintosh MA-6100 Integrated Amp.Next thing I did was to compare the denon turntable with my Naim CD5i cd player (I paid it 1800$ Canadian). I was lucky to have keep all my LP. I stop using my old Pioneer PL-530 because I had to much work and it was broken anyway. It was more convenient to use the cd player (I don't have to clean the cd everytime I want to use them or flip them over like a LP). Now I have lot of time (I got a back injury), It will be months before I go back to work. So the first thing I did was to put a LP of Wynston Marsalis on the denon and the same album on my naim cd player. And It was jaw droping. On the cd I can pinpoint on the wall where are the performer but with the LP as was able to pinpoint in the room where they where. Winston Marsalis was about 3-4 feet in front on the wall while the orchestra was about 20 feet behind the wall. I tried several other lp with their cd original copies and it was always at the advantage of the Turntable. I just find out that the cd win for the convenience but the turntable was the big winner for the realism. And that difference was with a Denon Turntable that was worth around 400$ when new. If I can get that kind of realism with a Denon I wonder what will it be with a Linn or an Oracle that where supposed to be the best turntables available? I always think that the cd where better because I could'nt hear a difference between a cd and my Old Pioneer. Man I was wrong.: I could'nt hear a difference because my Pioneer turntable was'nt good enoufh to show a difference, If (like myself I use to do) you think that cd are better than LP get yourself a GOOD turntable and you to you will see the "LIGHT" :-) You do need to realise that your preference for vinyl is simply that - a personal preference. Contrary to urban myth, it has very little to do with the quality of your vinyl replay gear - once above the most basic level, the quality is limited by the *vinyl*, not the TT, arm or cart. I also have a good quality vinyl rig, see my page on http://www.lurcher.org/ukra/ The whole system cost around 20 grand, the vinyl rig cost around 5 times as much as the CD player, and the whole system is carefully set up in a pretty good room. Vinyl is certainly capable of portraying the (somewhat artificial) depth effects you mention, but the solidity of the sound, the low-level detail, and the general 'realism' of the recording is *much* superior on CD, even when using classic direct-cut LPs from companies such as Crystal Clear and Sheffield Labs. Furthermore, when a simply-miked recording of a 'live' performance is played on CD, the depth and ambience is much more natural than anything I've heard on vinyl. This is not merely *my* opinion, it's shared by all who've heard my system. To me, this is entirely logical, given the *vast* technical superiority of CD in every measure known to affect fidelity to the source. It also works for LPs transcribed to CD-R, where all that phasey LP 'magic' is retained by the CD. Hence, it stands to reason that all the real quality of the master tape will also be captured more accurately by CD. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
wrote:
I don't know about Uptown, but I flunked the test at only 128kb/s. Of course I'm 74, and my hearing isn't all that good--even for a 74 year old. As a result, I compress to 64kb/s WMA, and I'm entirely satisfied with the results. I chose WMA because of the rumor that it's better at low bit rates. It may or may not be true, but that's how I got started, so I might as well continue. BTW, has anyone compared WMA with mp3 Pro or AAC? Although I'm not apt to change horses in the middle of this stream, it would be nice to know the optimum solution at 64kb/s. Here's a recent article on tests of codecs for Internet radio: http://www.slate.com/id/2112548 From there, you can download an EBU report on the listening tests, which compared codecs at rates from 64kbps down to 16kbps (seriously). At 64, WMA and AAC trailed mp3pro. If a 64kbps version of AACplus had been available at the time, it probably would have won, since it trounced everybody at 48kbps. High-enders may be aghast at these low bit-rates. They aren't designed to replace CDs. They're designed to lower the cost of broadcasting Internet radio. But they're also pretty sophisticated in the way they get the bit-rate down. bob |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
That NAIM CD is excellent i believe...
Still i will not accept Vinyl (the records) being a worse media than CD but agree that the playback units all have different flaws EXCACTLY as does the CD medium. The thing with vinyl is all older really good recordings still are no less than great on a good vinyl - You NEED a really good player to enjoy this if you are the little bit sensitive. The thing with CD is that there are zillions of STINKING recordings out and LOTS of great ones too but you NEED a really good CD-player to enjoy if You are the little bit sensitive for the typical CD flaws. Lets say we have a recording that is fantastic, (mastered for vinyl and another master for CD) the Vinyl will display the flaws that are the special weak spot of vinyl and the CD will maybe, maybe, maybe display the special weak spot typical for CD. I'd be happy with a NAIM CD-player and my Linn LP12 and a ELP for some records... A REALLY happy listener of music! 2 ören J. -- Joakim Wendel Remove obvious mail JUNK block for mail reply. My homepage : http://violinist.nu |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
Joakim Wendel wrote:
That NAIM CD is excellent i believe... =20 Still i will not accept Vinyl (the records) being a worse media than CD= =20 but agree that the playback units all have different flaws EXCACTLY as = does the CD medium. Your sentence above does not make sense. How can the playback units all=20 have different flaws EXACTLY as does the CD medium? Are you comparing playback units vs CD medium? That's obviously a=20 meaningless comparison. Or are you really comparing vinyl vs CD as=20 media? How can the vinyl have different flaws EXACTLY as CD? Very=20 confusing. BTW, what are the flaws of the CD medium? =20 The thing with vinyl is all older really good recordings still are no=20 less than great on a good vinyl - You NEED a really good player to enjo= y=20 this if you are the little bit sensitive. You seem to be saying that a good vinyl recording will sound good, if=20 the recording is good and played on good vinyl equipment. Not sure if=20 that's worth pointing out... =20 The thing with CD is that there are zillions of STINKING recordings out= =20 and LOTS of great ones too but you NEED a really good CD-player to=20 enjoy if You are the little bit sensitive for the typical CD flaws. OK, are you saying that CD as a medium has flaws because of the zillions = of STINKING recordings out there? You seem to be confusing the=20 capability of a medium with bad recordings. And isn't it true that there are also zillions of STINKING vinyl=20 recordings out there? That and poorly manufactured vinyl discs? =20 Lets say we have a recording that is fantastic, (mastered for vinyl and= =20 another master for CD) the Vinyl will display the flaws that are the=20 special weak spot of vinyl and the CD will maybe, maybe, maybe display = the special weak spot typical for CD. What in your opinion is maybe "the special weak spot typical for CD"? =20 I'd be happy with a NAIM CD-player and my Linn LP12 and a ELP for some = records... A REALLY happy listener of music! 2 =E9=A1=A4en J. =20 Perhaps all you were trying to say is that there are good recordings and = there are bad recordings. |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 3 May 2005 00:06:03 GMT, Jocelyn Major wrote: May i put some experience I had yesterday. I just bought on Ebay a Denon DP-47F turntable with a grado black cartridge. I installed it on my Mcintosh MA-6100 Integrated Amp.Next thing I did was to compare the denon turntable with my Naim CD5i cd player (I paid it 1800$ Canadian). I was lucky to have keep all my LP. I stop using my old Pioneer PL-530 because I had to much work and it was broken anyway. It was more convenient to use the cd player (I don't have to clean the cd everytime I want to use them or flip them over like a LP). Now I have lot of time (I got a back injury), It will be months before I go back to work. So the first thing I did was to put a LP of Wynston Marsalis on the denon and the same album on my naim cd player. And It was jaw droping. On the cd I can pinpoint on the wall where are the performer but with the LP as was able to pinpoint in the room where they where. Winston Marsalis was about 3-4 feet in front on the wall while the orchestra was about 20 feet behind the wall. I tried several other lp with their cd original copies and it was always at the advantage of the Turntable. I just find out that the cd win for the convenience but the turntable was the big winner for the realism. And that difference was with a Denon Turntable that was worth around 400$ when new. If I can get that kind of realism with a Denon I wonder what will it be with a Linn or an Oracle that where supposed to be the best turntables available? I always think that the cd where better because I could'nt hear a difference between a cd and my Old Pioneer. Man I was wrong.: I could'nt hear a difference because my Pioneer turntable was'nt good enoufh to show a difference, If (like myself I use to do) you think that cd are better than LP get yourself a GOOD turntable and you to you will see the "LIGHT" :-) You do need to realise that your preference for vinyl is simply that - a personal preference. As are *all* preferences including your preference for CDs. Contrary to urban myth, it has very little to do with the quality of your vinyl replay gear - once above the most basic level, the quality is limited by the *vinyl*, not the TT, arm or cart. Complete nonsense. The same record played on better vinyl equipment will sound better all the way up to SOTA gear. The quality of vinyl playback has a great deal to do with the quality of the gear used. Many people when exposed to better vinyl playback are completely surprised by the vast improvements and often come to understand the preference for vinyl playback back numerous hard core audiophiles hold. I also have a good quality vinyl rig, see my page on http://www.lurcher.org/ukra/ The whole system cost around 20 grand, the vinyl rig cost around 5 times as much as the CD player, and the whole system is carefully set up in a pretty good room. Vinyl is certainly capable of portraying the (somewhat artificial) depth effects you mention, but the solidity of the sound, the low-level detail, and the general 'realism' of the recording is *much* superior on CD, even when using classic direct-cut LPs from companies such as Crystal Clear and Sheffield Labs. Furthermore, when a simply-miked recording of a 'live' performance is played on CD, the depth and ambience is much more natural than anything I've heard on vinyl. This is not merely *my* opinion, it's shared by all who've heard my system. Funny how that works. It's just the opposite on my system. Well such are the nature of anecdotes. To me, this is entirely logical, given the *vast* technical superiority of CD in every measure known to affect fidelity to the source. It also works for LPs transcribed to CD-R, where all that phasey LP 'magic' is retained by the CD. Hence, it stands to reason that all the real quality of the master tape will also be captured more accurately by CD. -- And yet many of the best mastering engineers disagree with your conclusion. Oh well, they must not know what they are talking about. Scott Wheeler |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
|
#68
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Chung
wrote: Joakim Wendel wrote: That NAIM CD is excellent i believe... Still i will not accept Vinyl (the records) being a worse media than CD but agree that the playback units all have different flaws EXCACTLY as does the CD medium. Your sentence above does not make sense. How can the playback units all have different flaws EXACTLY as does the CD medium? Are you comparing playback units vs CD medium? That's obviously a meaningless comparison. Or are you really comparing vinyl vs CD as media? How can the vinyl have different flaws EXACTLY as CD? Very confusing. BTW, what are the flaws of the CD medium? Yes, confusing i agree! The vinyl is a very good media, the typical flaws of vinyl playback are f.e pops and clicks, rumble on the player and IMHO a little muddier bass, none of which is on the media. The flaw of the CD is brickwall filter removing all information above a certain frequency, something that is not happening in real life, this to some extent is audible on timbre of instruments and soundstaging allthough as i said it's not all that bad if you have a really really good player. The thing with vinyl is all older really good recordings still are no less than great on a good vinyl - You NEED a really good player to enjoy this if you are the little bit sensitive. You seem to be saying that a good vinyl recording will sound good, if the recording is good and played on good vinyl equipment. Not sure if that's worth pointing out... Yup, its worth noting that a mediocre LP player sounds awful. The thing with CD is that there are zillions of STINKING recordings out and LOTS of great ones too but you NEED a really good CD-player to enjoy if You are the little bit sensitive for the typical CD flaws. OK, are you saying that CD as a medium has flaws because of the zillions of STINKING recordings out there? You seem to be confusing the capability of a medium with bad recordings. No, but a bad CD played on a bad CD-player will sound as awful as a bad Vinyl on a bad vinyl player maybe even worse And isn't it true that there are also zillions of STINKING vinyl recordings out there? That and poorly manufactured vinyl discs? Absolutely, this is not a flaw of the technique but lack of skill using it. Lets say we have a recording that is fantastic, (mastered for vinyl and another master for CD) the Vinyl will display the flaws that are the special weak spot of vinyl and the CD will maybe, maybe, maybe display the special weak spot typical for CD. What in your opinion is maybe "the special weak spot typical for CD"? As i said, soundstage and timbre of instruments, timbre of voices etc, not a big deal. (OTOH a weak spot is also that i find sloppier mastering nowadays on CD compared to new vinyl, maybe most, but not all, mastering for vinyl puts an extra effort in?) I'd be happy with a NAIM CD-player and my Linn LP12 and a ELP for some records... A REALLY happy listener of music! 2 顤en J. Perhaps all you were trying to say is that there are good recordings and there are bad recordings. All i wanted to say is that the information stored on a well mastered vinyl disc is excellent, the information on a CD is possibly good too but lacks the info above the filter. To be happy playing back these 2 media you'll need a player that matches the level of your sensitivity. I find it useless to complain about the vinyl, just as useless as saying there are no way to make a CD sound good, there IS. Different qualities, different problems. -- Joakim Wendel Remove obvious mail JUNK block for mail reply. My homepage : http://violinist.nu |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
On 4 May 2005 23:24:26 GMT, Joakim Wendel
wrote: That NAIM CD is excellent i believe... Others would disagree, pointing out that it not only uses decade-old DASC chips, but is also tailored to have a 'house' sound, rather than being designed to be neutral. Still i will not accept Vinyl (the records) being a worse media than CD Why not? but agree that the playback units all have different flaws EXCACTLY as does the CD medium. What flaws does CD have? And why do you think that various CD players have different *audible* flaws? The thing with vinyl is all older really good recordings still are no less than great on a good vinyl - You NEED a really good player to enjoy this if you are the little bit sensitive. Sure - but you're still stuck with the vinyl you're playing on it! The thing with CD is that there are zillions of STINKING recordings out and LOTS of great ones too Also true of vinyl, of course. but you NEED a really good CD-player to enjoy if You are the little bit sensitive for the typical CD flaws. Nowadays, almost all CD players are equally good - aside from some very expensive ones which are really bad! Bizarre, but true. BTW, what typical CD flaws? Lets say we have a recording that is fantastic, (mastered for vinyl and another master for CD) the Vinyl will display the flaws that are the special weak spot of vinyl and the CD will maybe, maybe, maybe display the special weak spot typical for CD. I repeat, what weak spots do you suppose CD has? I'd be happy with a NAIM CD-player and my Linn LP12 and a ELP for some records... A REALLY happy listener of music! Fine, but what has this to do with vinyl vs. CD? -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
On 5 May 2005 02:39:21 GMT, wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 3 May 2005 00:06:03 GMT, Jocelyn Major wrote: If (like myself I use to do) you think that cd are better than LP get yourself a GOOD turntable and you to you will see the "LIGHT" :-) You do need to realise that your preference for vinyl is simply that a personal preference. As are *all* preferences including your preference for CDs. Indeed, and I should have made that clear. Contrary to urban myth, it has very little to do with the quality of your vinyl replay gear - once above the most basic level, the quality is limited by the *vinyl*, not the TT, arm or cart. Complete nonsense. Nope, simple truth, known to anyone with experience of various vinyl rigs. The same record played on better vinyl equipment will sound better all the way up to SOTA gear. Indeed, but above say the Rega Planar/Stanton level, the differences flatten out very rapidly, due to the basic limitations of vinyl. The quality of vinyl playback has a great deal to do with the quality of the gear used. Many people when exposed to better vinyl playback are completely surprised by the vast improvements Only if they're used to basic 'DJ' rigs. and often come to understand the preference for vinyl playback back numerous hard core audiophiles hold. An old and tired argument, given the lie by the preference for CD held by the majority of hard-core audiophiles. And they do often have high quality vinyl rigs, since they still have large vinyl collections. I also have a good quality vinyl rig, see my page on http://www.lurcher.org/ukra/ The whole system cost around 20 grand, the vinyl rig cost around 5 times as much as the CD player, and the whole system is carefully set up in a pretty good room. Vinyl is certainly capable of portraying the (somewhat artificial) depth effects you mention, but the solidity of the sound, the low-level detail, and the general 'realism' of the recording is *much* superior on CD, even when using classic direct-cut LPs from companies such as Crystal Clear and Sheffield Labs. Furthermore, when a simply-miked recording of a 'live' performance is played on CD, the depth and ambience is much more natural than anything I've heard on vinyl. This is not merely *my* opinion, it's shared by all who've heard my system. Funny how that works. It's just the opposite on my system. Well such are the nature of anecdotes. Indeed - I guess that's the nature of personal preference. To me, this is entirely logical, given the *vast* technical superiority of CD in every measure known to affect fidelity to the source. It also works for LPs transcribed to CD-R, where all that phasey LP 'magic' is retained by the CD. Hence, it stands to reason that all the real quality of the master tape will also be captured more accurately by CD. And yet many of the best mastering engineers disagree with your conclusion. Oh well, they must not know what they are talking about. I think you mean *some* of the best mastering engineers. They may or may not know what they're talking about - perhaps we should ask the rest of the best mastering engineers, who agree with my conclusion. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
a =E9crit :
Stewart Pinkerton wrote: =20 On 3 May 2005 00:06:03 GMT, Jocelyn Major =20 wrote: =20 May i put some experience I had yesterday. I just bought on Ebay a =20 Denon =20 DP-47F turntable with a grado black cartridge. I installed it on my Mcintosh MA-6100 Integrated Amp.Next thing I did was to compare the denon turntable with my Naim CD5i cd player (I paid it 1800$ =20 Canadian). =20 I was lucky to have keep all my LP. I stop using my old Pioneer =20 PL-530 =20 because I had to much work and it was broken anyway. It was more convenient to use the cd player (I don't have to clean the cd =20 everytime =20 I want to use them or flip them over like a LP). Now I have lot of =20 time =20 (I got a back injury), It will be months before I go back to work. =20 So =20 the first thing I did was to put a LP of Wynston Marsalis on the =20 denon =20 and the same album on my naim cd player. And It was jaw droping. On =20 the =20 cd I can pinpoint on the wall where are the performer but with the =20 LP as =20 was able to pinpoint in the room where they where. Winston Marsalis =20 was =20 about 3-4 feet in front on the wall while the orchestra was about 20 =20 =20 feet behind the wall. I tried several other lp with their cd =20 original =20 copies and it was always at the advantage of the Turntable. I just =20 find =20 out that the cd win for the convenience but the turntable was the =20 big =20 winner for the realism. And that difference was with a Denon =20 Turntable =20 that was worth around 400$ when new. If I can get that kind of =20 realism =20 with a Denon I wonder what will it be with a Linn or an Oracle that where supposed to be the best turntables available? I always think =20 that =20 the cd where better because I could'nt hear a difference between a =20 cd =20 and my Old Pioneer. Man I was wrong.: I could'nt hear a difference because my Pioneer turntable was'nt good enoufh to show a =20 difference, =20 If (like myself I use to do) you think that cd are better than LP =20 get =20 yourself a GOOD turntable and you to you will see the "LIGHT" :-) You do need to realise that your preference for vinyl is simply that =20 - =20 a personal preference. =20 =20 =20 As are *all* preferences including your preference for CDs. =20 =20 =20 Contrary to urban myth, it has very little to =20 do with the quality of your vinyl replay gear - once above the most basic level, the quality is limited by the *vinyl*, not the TT, arm =20 or =20 cart. =20 =20 =20 Complete nonsense. The same record played on better vinyl equipment will sound better all the way up to SOTA gear. The quality of vinyl playback has a great deal to do with the quality of the gear used. Many people when exposed to better vinyl playback are completely surprised by the vast improvements and often come to understand the preference for vinyl playback back numerous hard core audiophiles hold. =20 =20 =20 =20 I also have a good quality vinyl rig, see my page on http://www.lurcher.org/ukra/ The whole system cost around 20 grand, the vinyl rig cost around 5 times as much as the CD player, and the whole system is carefully set up in a pretty good room. Vinyl is certainly capable of portraying =20 the =20 (somewhat artificial) depth effects you mention, but the solidity of the sound, the low-level detail, and the general 'realism' of the recording is *much* superior on CD, even when using classic =20 direct-cut =20 LPs from companies such as Crystal Clear and Sheffield Labs. Furthermore, when a simply-miked recording of a 'live' performance is played on CD, the depth and ambience is much more natural than anything I've heard on vinyl. This is not merely *my* opinion, it's shared by all who've heard my system. =20 =20 =20 Funny how that works. It's just the opposite on my system. Well such are the nature of anecdotes. =20 =20 =20 =20 To me, this is entirely logical, given the *vast* technical superiority of CD in every measure known to affect fidelity to the source. It also works for LPs transcribed to CD-R, where all that phasey LP 'magic' is retained by the CD. Hence, it stands to reason that all the real quality of the master tape will also be captured more accurately by CD. -- =20 =20 =20 =20 And yet many of the best mastering engineers disagree with your conclusion. Oh well, they must not know what they are talking about. =20 =20 =20 Scott Wheeler I think you did'nt understand my point at all ( Or I was not clear=20 enought in my explanation). I used to prefer the sound of cd until I get=20 myself a better turntable. I try to understand why the sound of an=20 analog device was way better than the sound of a digital one and I got=20 it when I think about the nature of frequency wave. Each wave is formed=20 with curves. The analog sound will reproduce the wave in a natural way.=20 Now try to do the same with digital it is simply not possible to have a=20 perfect curve.It is like to try to build a curved wall with bricks: You=20 can use hundred of thousand or millions of bricks you will never get a=20 perfect curve. Its is that simple. CD are way more convenient than LP that I fully agree. But as I find out=20 a well care LP will always sound better than is CD counterpart. True if=20 you do not take care of your LP then you will hear cracks, pop and all=20 kind of noise. If you make a scratch on you LP you will hear that=20 scratch but make the same kind of scratch on a CD sometime when you're=20 lucky you won't find any difference in the sound but most of the time=20 what you will get is NO SOUND. If a good quality CD player play better=20 than a good quality turntable it is simply because of a bad=20 installation. And also NO way a CD transcribed from a turntable will=20 sound as good as the turntable. I did try it and it the sound was no way=20 comparable to the sound of the LP. All the ability to pinpoint in the=20 room where are the performer was simply gone. |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
Jocelyn Major wrote:
I think you did'nt understand my point at all ( Or I was not clear enought in my explanation). I used to prefer the sound of cd until I get myself a better turntable. I try to understand why the sound of an analog device was way better than the sound of a digital one and I got it when I think about the nature of frequency wave. Each wave is formed with curves. The analog sound will reproduce the wave in a natural way. Now try to do the same with digital it is simply not possible to have a perfect curve.It is like to try to build a curved wall with bricks: You can use hundred of thousand or millions of bricks you will never get a perfect curve. Its is that simple. What is really simple is that you need to understand how digital audio works before you try to provide technical reasons for your preference. Start out by reading up on the sampling theorem. It is not intuitive at all, but if you have some calculus knowledge, you can follow the proof. I might be wrong, I guess, but it seems like such display of technical cluelessness is so much more common among those who prefer vinyl to CD. |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
chung wrote:
wrote: Contrary to urban myth, it has very little to do with the quality of your vinyl replay gear - once above the most basic level, the quality is limited by the *vinyl*, not the TT, arm or cart. Complete nonsense. The same record played on better vinyl equipment will sound better all the way up to SOTA gear. The quality of vinyl playback has a great deal to do with the quality of the gear used. Many people when exposed to better vinyl playback are completely surprised by the vast improvements and often come to understand the preference for vinyl playback back numerous hard core audiophiles hold. Does that mean that as you get closer and closer to SOTA vinyl equipment, you get more and more accurate reproduction from the same record? well tell me what you mean by "accurate reproduction of the record first" A record is a piece of plastic with a groove sut into it. The record is not reproduced in playback. Do different SOTA equipment sound the same to you No. Not the same. (and they can't be different if they are all accurate)? Again accurate to what? To the vinyl? That doesn't make sense. To the signal that fed the cuttter head? That would be a complicated question then which involves the combined sonic signature that the cutting lathe/ molding and pressing proccess, turntable/arm/ cartidge equipment and setup and preamp. One can talk about the accuracy of this comination since it begins with and ends with an analog electrical signal of the same source. You think yours and, say, Mr Lavo's vinyl systems sound the same? I doubt it. Or do they sound different, and, in that case, how do you know which one is more accurate? Again acurate to what? Do you go by the price tag? Yeah, the cat is out of the bag. I go by the price tag. Can you manage to not be so insulting, ever? How do you know a vinyl system is SOTA? How do I know? I don't "know." I have opinions. They are based on listening to live music and playback. Scott Wheeler |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 5 May 2005 02:39:21 GMT, wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 3 May 2005 00:06:03 GMT, Jocelyn Major wrote: If (like myself I use to do) you think that cd are better than LP get yourself a GOOD turntable and you to you will see the "LIGHT" :-) You do need to realise that your preference for vinyl is simply that a personal preference. As are *all* preferences including your preference for CDs. Indeed, and I should have made that clear. Contrary to urban myth, it has very little to do with the quality of your vinyl replay gear - once above the most basic level, the quality is limited by the *vinyl*, not the TT, arm or cart. Complete nonsense. Nope, simple truth, known to anyone with experience of various vinyl rigs. I suggest you just speak for yourself given your track record on speaking for those who disagree with you. You are simply wrong about this one. Many people with vast experience with different rigs completely disagree with you on this subject. I could start naming names by why bother? The same record played on better vinyl equipment will sound better all the way up to SOTA gear. Indeed, but above say the Rega Planar/Stanton level, the differences flatten out very rapidly, due to the basic limitations of vinyl. Not IME or the experience of many other people with vast experience with high end rigs. You are entitled to your opinion just remember it is just that, your opinion. The quality of vinyl playback has a great deal to do with the quality of the gear used. Many people when exposed to better vinyl playback are completely surprised by the vast improvements Only if they're used to basic 'DJ' rigs. Well I am talking about people who largely are used to crappy rack system rigs with crappy P mount cartridges. That is what the experience of most casual listerns are limited to. I suppose DJ rigs are in the same class. and often come to understand the preference for vinyl playback back numerous hard core audiophiles hold. An old and tired argument, No, just an old true fact. given the lie by the preference for CD held by the majority of hard-core audiophiles. ???? Not sure what you are teying to say here. What lie? By whom? about what? And they do often have high quality vinyl rigs, since they still have large vinyl collections. Care to supply some hard data on the preferences of "hard core" audiophiles that actually own high end vinyl playback rigs? But really, lets say we did a really good survey. Should vinyl be prefered more than CD would you change your preference? Should the opposite be true should I change my preference? I also have a good quality vinyl rig, see my page on http://www.lurcher.org/ukra/ The whole system cost around 20 grand, the vinyl rig cost around 5 times as much as the CD player, and the whole system is carefully set up in a pretty good room. Vinyl is certainly capable of portraying the (somewhat artificial) depth effects you mention, but the solidity of the sound, the low-level detail, and the general 'realism' of the recording is *much* superior on CD, even when using classic direct-cut LPs from companies such as Crystal Clear and Sheffield Labs. Furthermore, when a simply-miked recording of a 'live' performance is played on CD, the depth and ambience is much more natural than anything I've heard on vinyl. This is not merely *my* opinion, it's shared by all who've heard my system. Funny how that works. It's just the opposite on my system. Well such are the nature of anecdotes. Indeed - I guess that's the nature of personal preference. To me, this is entirely logical, given the *vast* technical superiority of CD in every measure known to affect fidelity to the source. It also works for LPs transcribed to CD-R, where all that phasey LP 'magic' is retained by the CD. Hence, it stands to reason that all the real quality of the master tape will also be captured more accurately by CD. And yet many of the best mastering engineers disagree with your conclusion. Oh well, they must not know what they are talking about. I think you mean *some* of the best mastering engineers. No I meant what I said. Many. They may or may not know what they're talking about - perhaps we should ask the rest of the best mastering engineers, who agree with my conclusion. I like this idea. Let's involve the best mastering engineers on this discussion. I will give you my list of the mastering engineers I consider to be the best and you can give us your list. If anyone else has suggestions please add them. We can then e mail them with questions on this subject. Might be intersting, no? Scott Wheeler |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
On 6 May 2005 03:17:35 GMT, Jocelyn Major wrote:
I think you did'nt understand my point at all ( Or I was not clear enought in my explanation). I used to prefer the sound of cd until I get myself a better turntable. Yes, we got that point, thanks. I try to understand why the sound of an analog device was way better than the sound of a digital one and I got it when I think about the nature of frequency wave. Each wave is formed with curves. The analog sound will reproduce the wave in a natural way. Now try to do the same with digital it is simply not possible to have a perfect curve.It is like to try to build a curved wall with bricks: You can use hundred of thousand or millions of bricks you will never get a perfect curve. Its is that simple. It *would* be that simple, except that this is a total misunderstanding of how digital audio works. Your 'understanding' is based on sheer ignorance. Up to the 22kHz cutoff point of CD (which is well above anything you'll find on 99.9% of available vinyl), you most certainly do capture a perfect curve, with about 20dB greater dynamic range than vinyl can ever achieve. Just use a 'scope to check the output of any competent CD player, and you will see no trace whatever of 'stairsteps'. This is an urban myth perpetuated by those who simply don't understand the process. CD are way more convenient than LP that I fully agree. But as I find out a well care LP will always sound better than is CD counterpart. That is only a personal opinion, the objective reality is exactly the opposite. True if you do not take care of your LP then you will hear cracks, pop and all kind of noise. If you make a scratch on you LP you will hear that scratch but make the same kind of scratch on a CD sometime when you're lucky you won't find any difference in the sound but most of the time what you will get is NO SOUND. If a good quality CD player play better than a good quality turntable it is simply because of a bad installation. That is utter nonsense, as I'll happily demonstrate to any visitor. And also NO way a CD transcribed from a turntable will sound as good as the turntable. Sure it will, in fact very few listeners can tell the difference if it's a good transcription. I did try it and it the sound was no way comparable to the sound of the LP. All the ability to pinpoint in the room where are the performer was simply gone. In that case, you did it badly. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
On 6 May 2005 00:20:18 GMT, Joakim Wendel
wrote: All i wanted to say is that the information stored on a well mastered vinyl disc is excellent, the information on a CD is possibly good too but lacks the info above the filter. Perhaps you are unaware that, while a CD contains information at full dynamic range all the way from below 20Hz to above 20kHz, 99.9% of available vinyl contains nothing of interest above about 15kHz? To be happy playing back these 2 media you'll need a player that matches the level of your sensitivity. I find it useless to complain about the vinyl, just as useless as saying there are no way to make a CD sound good, there IS. Different qualities, different problems. AFAIK, CD simply does not *have* any audible problems. Vinyl, OTOH, is awash with them, regardless of how exotic is your replay gear. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
AFAIK, CD simply does not *have* any audible problems. That's a fairly bold statement. So there's no point to the higher definition formats in your opinion? I had always understood the problem with the format to be insufficient sampling rate to account for real-world filtering - have modern digital filters effectively ended that complaint? While I wouldn't say that CD is perfect, it's sure a whole lot better than it was years ago and I have no problems listening to it rather than LP, especially when convenience is taken into account. The engineers seem to have figured out all that filtering stuff quite well now. However LPs can still sound surprisingly good, and friends who listen to a record on my system are often astounded at how good it sounds. Mind you, their recollection of LP sound usually comes from some $150 cheapie table and a record that's been ground to death. At any rate I'm not sufficiently motivated to replace any of my records with CD equivalents, unless I need them for the car or something. Neil |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
Chung: I might be wrong, I guess, but it seems like such display of
technical cluelessness is so much more common among those who prefer vinyl to CD. I might be wrong too, I guess, but it seems like those who are more into technical details and measurements don't talk much about music. I'm wondering about where this descussion leads. Isn't the goal in this hobby to enjoy music in one's home? If a person has heard good CD and good LP and enjoys either one more, what's the point of discussion? Do you think that I'll enjoy music in my home more if I listen exclusively to CDs? Just points to ponder..... |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
wrote:
chung wrote: wrote: Contrary to urban myth, it has very little to do with the quality of your vinyl replay gear - once above the most basic level, the quality is limited by the *vinyl*, not the TT, arm or cart. Complete nonsense. The same record played on better vinyl equipment will sound better all the way up to SOTA gear. The quality of vinyl playback has a great deal to do with the quality of the gear used. Many people when exposed to better vinyl playback are completely surprised by the vast improvements and often come to understand the preference for vinyl playback back numerous hard core audiophiles hold. Does that mean that as you get closer and closer to SOTA vinyl equipment, you get more and more accurate reproduction from the same record? well tell me what you mean by "accurate reproduction of the record first" A record is a piece of plastic with a groove sut into it. The record is not reproduced in playback. And a magnetic recording tape is just a piece of plastic film coated with metal oxide. Yet some playback setups are clearly extracting more information more accurately *from* it than other. Which, of course, is clearly analogous to what Chung meant...yet again you indulge in semantic quibbling for no good purpose. |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
Jenn wrote:
Chung: I might be wrong, I guess, but it seems like such display of technical cluelessness is so much more common among those who prefer vinyl to CD. I might be wrong too, I guess, but it seems like those who are more into technical details and measurements don't talk much about music. I can reduce your uncertainty: you *are* wrong. If this were a music discussion group, we'd talk about music, not audio gear and sound reproduction. Similarly, TAS and Stereophile mainly write about components, and about the *sound* of recordings, not about the music itself. I'm wondering about where this descussion leads. Isn't the goal in this hobby to enjoy music in one's home? If a person has heard good CD and good LP and enjoys either one more, what's the point of discussion? The point in this case was to correct yet widespread misinformation about audio, such as the utter nonsense written about digital in the post Chung replied to. Do you think that I'll enjoy music in my home more if I listen exclusively to CDs? Just points to ponder..... For all we know, you might enjoy listening to it over a tin can connected to a wire. Which would be fine. But if you then started making preposterous *claims* about the way technology works, or about other audio technologies, you could expect to be corrected. -- -S It's not my business to do intelligent work. -- D. Rumsfeld, testifying before the House Armed Services Committee |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
What are they Teaching | Audio Opinions | |||
newbie question - aardvark q10 + external mixer? | Pro Audio | |||
Simple science question | Audio Opinions | |||
Newbie question: What software 2 use 4 recording 2 x AES/EBU (2xstereo) | General | |||
simple crossover question | General |