Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41   Report Post  
Uptown Audio
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Uptown Audio
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
chung
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Uptown Audio
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Steven Sullivan
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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   Report Post  
Billy Shears
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Uptown Audio
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Uptown Audio
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Uptown Audio
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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


  #55   Report Post  
Steven Sullivan
 
Posts: n/a
Default

wrote:
"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.



I don't see any particular tests comparing those codecs at that bitrate there, but
a great place to ask this would be one of hte forums at www.hydrogenaudio.org
Perhaps try the 'Listening Tests' or 'Other Codecs' forums.







--

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


  #56   Report Post  
Jocelyn Major
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Codifus
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Codifus
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Gary Rosen
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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   Report Post  
Gary Rosen
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Joakim Wendel
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Chung
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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
  #68   Report Post  
Joakim Wendel
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Jocelyn Major
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
chung
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Neil Gendzwill
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Jenn
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.....
  #80   Report Post  
Steven Sullivan
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What are they Teaching Michael McKelvy Audio Opinions 199 October 15th 04 07:56 PM
newbie question - aardvark q10 + external mixer? alex Pro Audio 1 August 14th 04 07:29 PM
Simple science question Schizoid Man Audio Opinions 0 February 5th 04 11:45 PM
Newbie question: What software 2 use 4 recording 2 x AES/EBU (2xstereo) bERt General 0 January 26th 04 04:27 PM
simple crossover question Jive Dadson General 1 July 25th 03 07:23 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:55 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"