Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Misrepresentation and Malfeasance By Audiophile Label Technical Staff?
One little dirty not-so-secret dirty aspect of the production of dual-format
high resolution recordings has been the fact that the legacy (CD) and high-resolution (DVD-A or SACD) portions of virtually all of these recordings distributed until recently, have been produced in ways that are sufficiently different that it is reasonable to expect them to sound different. This audible difference would be aside from any purported benefits of high resolution formats. IOW, the high resolution layers sound different from the legacy format layers because they were produced in such a way that they would sound different, even if distributed in the same format. On the one hand they invite comparison of the two formats, but behind the scenes they stack the deck. Here a well-known mastering engineer Steve Hoffman brags about a recording he remastered for recent release: http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/sh...&postcount=174 "....those of you who have the SACD I mastered of Credence "Willie And The Poor Boys", put on "FORTUNATE SON". Play the CD layer first and listen to just the ECHO SEND on the drums on the intro of the song. When the snare hits, the echo responds, correct? Now, switch over to the DSD layer and listen to the same thing. Notice how you can now not only hear a bit more of the echo, you can more clearly hear in what stereo direction it is going in the sound picture? That is what I mean by MORE resolution on the DSD layer. There can't be anything above 15k on that song; it's mainly midrange energy." Here's how Steve Hoffman describes how he produced the SACD and CD layers of that release: http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/sh...&postcount=181 "The DSD and CD mastering was done at the same time via a split feed in the studio." This can be interpreted is a clear representation that the DVD and CD tracks differ only in terms of their format. I was recently made aware that this statement has been disputed by others. After reviewing the following technical data, I'm prone to side with the skeptics. Background: In their day, CCW had a reputation for technically clean productions. Willie and the Poor Boys was no doubt recorded using some of the better staff, techniques and equipment that were available in 1969. I presume that we're talking analog tape, and maybe 24 KHz bandpass. Therefore, there's very little bandwidth in the original tracks that can't be accurately reproduced by a traditional CD (22 KHz bandpass). This might lead you to believe that the CD layer on Steve Hoffman's production of this music is the same recording as the DVD layer, just with less resolution. Now, let's look at a technical analysis of this recording: http://www.google.com/groups?selm=TZ...ut put=gplain "thomh" wrote in message "I compared the CD and SACD layer of the song Fortunate Son off of Steve Hoffman's Willie And The Poor Boys Analog Productions SACD. This is the song from the SACD that was discussed in the link I provided. "Notice from the JPG links that the CD layer is mastered quite hot. In fact, it clips over 200 times. "I believe Hoffman is too much of a pro to let this happen unintentionally. This should NOT happen on an audiophile release IMO. http://home.online.no/~thomh/Fortunate_Son_CD.JPG http://home.online.no/~thomh/Fortunate_Son_SACD.JPG "Anyway, here are the stats from the CD layer and SACD layer of Hoffman's Fortunate Son mastering. These cannot be the same mastering, can they? Audition statistical analysis, 50 mSec windowing SACD ---- Min Sample Value: -32768 -30383 Max Sample Value: 32759 30397 Peak Amplitude: 0 dB -.65 dB Possibly Clipped: 2 0 DC Offset: -.002 -.002 Minimum RMS Power: -96.34 dB -96.34 dB Maximum RMS Power: -9.99 dB -10.24 dB Average RMS Power: -17.44 dB -17.18 dB Total RMS Power: -16.68 dB -16.52 dB Actual Bit Depth: 16 Bits 16 Bits CD -- Min Sample Value: -32768 -32768 Max Sample Value: 32767 32767 Peak Amplitude: 0 dB -.01 dB Possibly Clipped: 226 50 DC Offset: -.001 .062 Minimum RMS Power: -69.89 dB -70.51 dB Maximum RMS Power:-8.57 dB -8.75 dB Average RMS Power: -16.13 dB -15.8 dB Total RMS Power: -15.31 dB -15.09 dB Actual Bit Depth: 16 Bits 16 Bits ------------ end of Thomh's technical analysis and quotes on this topic from his post ---------- I see no way that these recordings differ only in format. The Cd audio version seems to be a clear victim of "****ing in the soup" I find the apparent representations that they should be compared to be offensive, as that would be an insult to the intelligence of any technically-minded reader. If you follow this link, you will find the details of similar apparent malfeasance perpetrated by Michael Bishop of Telarc: http://forums.audioreview.com/showthread.php?t=4780 So the bottom line is that high resolution formats are being pushed by record labels that doctor what might be comparable recordings of the same basic work in such a way that they are likely to sound different, even if they were recorded in the same format. And they compound these deceptions, by publicly claiming that it doesn't make a difference or that there is in fact no difference. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Misrepresentation and Malfeasance By Audiophile Label Technical Staff?
On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 08:35:14 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: One little dirty not-so-secret dirty aspect of the production of dual-format high resolution recordings has been the ... The not so hidden secret is that way too many releases have been identical in Red Book and "superior" formats. A large part of the industry's push has clearly been their mistaken belief that high res formats are copy-proof. Hence all the restrictions about access to the digital data in available players. Compressing to death, deliberate overs, etc. are problems across the board. I used to have hopes that people would notice and complain. I don't hold that anymore. I"m not sure anyone (at mass market quantities) listens to music anymore. Pat http://www.pfarrell.com/prc/ |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Misrepresentation and Malfeasance By Audiophile Label Technical Staff?
On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 08:35:14 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: One little dirty not-so-secret dirty aspect of the production of dual-format high resolution recordings has been the ... The not so hidden secret is that way too many releases have been identical in Red Book and "superior" formats. A large part of the industry's push has clearly been their mistaken belief that high res formats are copy-proof. Hence all the restrictions about access to the digital data in available players. Compressing to death, deliberate overs, etc. are problems across the board. I used to have hopes that people would notice and complain. I don't hold that anymore. I"m not sure anyone (at mass market quantities) listens to music anymore. Pat http://www.pfarrell.com/prc/ |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Misrepresentation and Malfeasance By Audiophile Label Technical Staff?
On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 08:35:14 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: One little dirty not-so-secret dirty aspect of the production of dual-format high resolution recordings has been the ... The not so hidden secret is that way too many releases have been identical in Red Book and "superior" formats. A large part of the industry's push has clearly been their mistaken belief that high res formats are copy-proof. Hence all the restrictions about access to the digital data in available players. Compressing to death, deliberate overs, etc. are problems across the board. I used to have hopes that people would notice and complain. I don't hold that anymore. I"m not sure anyone (at mass market quantities) listens to music anymore. Pat http://www.pfarrell.com/prc/ |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Misrepresentation and Malfeasance By Audiophile Label Technical Staff?
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... One little dirty not-so-secret dirty aspect of the production of dual-format --- snips stuff ---- presume that we're talking analog tape, and maybe 24 KHz bandpass. Therefore, there's very little bandwidth in the original tracks that can't be accurately reproduced by a traditional CD (22 KHz bandpass). ---- Snips stuff ----- So how does the SACD or the CD for that matter, compare to the original issue analog LP? Carl |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Misrepresentation and Malfeasance By Audiophile Label Technical Staff?
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... One little dirty not-so-secret dirty aspect of the production of dual-format --- snips stuff ---- presume that we're talking analog tape, and maybe 24 KHz bandpass. Therefore, there's very little bandwidth in the original tracks that can't be accurately reproduced by a traditional CD (22 KHz bandpass). ---- Snips stuff ----- So how does the SACD or the CD for that matter, compare to the original issue analog LP? Carl |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Misrepresentation and Malfeasance By Audiophile Label Technical Staff?
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... One little dirty not-so-secret dirty aspect of the production of dual-format --- snips stuff ---- presume that we're talking analog tape, and maybe 24 KHz bandpass. Therefore, there's very little bandwidth in the original tracks that can't be accurately reproduced by a traditional CD (22 KHz bandpass). ---- Snips stuff ----- So how does the SACD or the CD for that matter, compare to the original issue analog LP? Carl |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Misrepresentation and Malfeasance By Audiophile Label Technical Staff?
This one has been beaten to death. Vinyl is so flawed and inconsistent a
medium that it doesn't even belong in the same discussion as properly implemented CD technology. Not to say that some records may not sound "better" than a given CD release, but the reasons include using heavily EQ'd vinyl masters for the CD release, natural variations in cartridge / tonearm combinations AND SETUPS of same. The discussion goes on and on, and has been addressed in many threads in the past. By all means listen to your albums and enjoy them, but a CD release using the same original master, not EQ'd for vinyl, and properly produced for no clipping etc, simply isn't even in the same class. Our ears are analog however, so the frequency response problems, ringing effects, harmonic distortion etc can be quite pleasing on a given record, and some people prefer it, and the nostalgia, as well as just preferring to state a contrary opinion when the subject comes up. Mark Z. -- Please reply only to Group. I regret this is necessary. Viruses and spam have rendered my regular e-mail address useless. "Carl Valle" wrote in message . .. "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... One little dirty not-so-secret dirty aspect of the production of dual-format --- snips stuff ---- presume that we're talking analog tape, and maybe 24 KHz bandpass. Therefore, there's very little bandwidth in the original tracks that can't be accurately reproduced by a traditional CD (22 KHz bandpass). ---- Snips stuff ----- So how does the SACD or the CD for that matter, compare to the original issue analog LP? Carl |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Misrepresentation and Malfeasance By Audiophile Label Technical Staff?
This one has been beaten to death. Vinyl is so flawed and inconsistent a
medium that it doesn't even belong in the same discussion as properly implemented CD technology. Not to say that some records may not sound "better" than a given CD release, but the reasons include using heavily EQ'd vinyl masters for the CD release, natural variations in cartridge / tonearm combinations AND SETUPS of same. The discussion goes on and on, and has been addressed in many threads in the past. By all means listen to your albums and enjoy them, but a CD release using the same original master, not EQ'd for vinyl, and properly produced for no clipping etc, simply isn't even in the same class. Our ears are analog however, so the frequency response problems, ringing effects, harmonic distortion etc can be quite pleasing on a given record, and some people prefer it, and the nostalgia, as well as just preferring to state a contrary opinion when the subject comes up. Mark Z. -- Please reply only to Group. I regret this is necessary. Viruses and spam have rendered my regular e-mail address useless. "Carl Valle" wrote in message . .. "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... One little dirty not-so-secret dirty aspect of the production of dual-format --- snips stuff ---- presume that we're talking analog tape, and maybe 24 KHz bandpass. Therefore, there's very little bandwidth in the original tracks that can't be accurately reproduced by a traditional CD (22 KHz bandpass). ---- Snips stuff ----- So how does the SACD or the CD for that matter, compare to the original issue analog LP? Carl |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Misrepresentation and Malfeasance By Audiophile Label Technical Staff?
This one has been beaten to death. Vinyl is so flawed and inconsistent a
medium that it doesn't even belong in the same discussion as properly implemented CD technology. Not to say that some records may not sound "better" than a given CD release, but the reasons include using heavily EQ'd vinyl masters for the CD release, natural variations in cartridge / tonearm combinations AND SETUPS of same. The discussion goes on and on, and has been addressed in many threads in the past. By all means listen to your albums and enjoy them, but a CD release using the same original master, not EQ'd for vinyl, and properly produced for no clipping etc, simply isn't even in the same class. Our ears are analog however, so the frequency response problems, ringing effects, harmonic distortion etc can be quite pleasing on a given record, and some people prefer it, and the nostalgia, as well as just preferring to state a contrary opinion when the subject comes up. Mark Z. -- Please reply only to Group. I regret this is necessary. Viruses and spam have rendered my regular e-mail address useless. "Carl Valle" wrote in message . .. "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... One little dirty not-so-secret dirty aspect of the production of dual-format --- snips stuff ---- presume that we're talking analog tape, and maybe 24 KHz bandpass. Therefore, there's very little bandwidth in the original tracks that can't be accurately reproduced by a traditional CD (22 KHz bandpass). ---- Snips stuff ----- So how does the SACD or the CD for that matter, compare to the original issue analog LP? Carl |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Misrepresentation and Malfeasance By Audiophile Label Technical Staff?
"Carl Valle" wrote in message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... One little dirty not-so-secret dirty aspect of the production of dual-format --- snips stuff ---- presume that we're talking analog tape, and maybe 24 KHz bandpass. Therefore, there's very little bandwidth in the original tracks that can't be accurately reproduced by a traditional CD (22 KHz bandpass). ---- Snips stuff ----- So how does the SACD or the CD for that matter, compare to the original issue analog LP? Given the abundant fragility, inconsistency and egregious built-in flaws, the origional issue analog LP is a very poor choice of a standard. The original 2-track mixdown would be a better choice. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Misrepresentation and Malfeasance By Audiophile Label Technical Staff?
"Carl Valle" wrote in message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... One little dirty not-so-secret dirty aspect of the production of dual-format --- snips stuff ---- presume that we're talking analog tape, and maybe 24 KHz bandpass. Therefore, there's very little bandwidth in the original tracks that can't be accurately reproduced by a traditional CD (22 KHz bandpass). ---- Snips stuff ----- So how does the SACD or the CD for that matter, compare to the original issue analog LP? Given the abundant fragility, inconsistency and egregious built-in flaws, the origional issue analog LP is a very poor choice of a standard. The original 2-track mixdown would be a better choice. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Misrepresentation and Malfeasance By Audiophile Label Technical Staff?
"Carl Valle" wrote in message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... One little dirty not-so-secret dirty aspect of the production of dual-format --- snips stuff ---- presume that we're talking analog tape, and maybe 24 KHz bandpass. Therefore, there's very little bandwidth in the original tracks that can't be accurately reproduced by a traditional CD (22 KHz bandpass). ---- Snips stuff ----- So how does the SACD or the CD for that matter, compare to the original issue analog LP? Given the abundant fragility, inconsistency and egregious built-in flaws, the origional issue analog LP is a very poor choice of a standard. The original 2-track mixdown would be a better choice. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Misrepresentation and Malfeasance By Audiophile Label Technical Staff?
On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 08:35:14 -0400, Arny Krueger wrote:
One little dirty not-so-secret dirty aspect of the production of dual-format high resolution recordings has been the fact that the legacy (CD) and high-resolution (DVD-A or SACD) portions of virtually all of these recordings distributed until recently, have been produced in ways that are sufficiently different that it is reasonable to expect them to sound different. This audible difference would be aside from any purported benefits of high resolution formats. IOW, the high resolution layers sound different from the legacy format layers because they were produced in such a way that they would sound different, even if distributed in the same format. On the one hand they invite comparison of the two formats, but behind the scenes they stack the deck. So, what do you get when you convert the DVD-A or SACD audio to 16-bit, 44.1KHz? If you A-B it with the original CD layer, which sounds better? |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Misrepresentation and Malfeasance By Audiophile Label Technical Staff?
On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 08:35:14 -0400, Arny Krueger wrote:
One little dirty not-so-secret dirty aspect of the production of dual-format high resolution recordings has been the fact that the legacy (CD) and high-resolution (DVD-A or SACD) portions of virtually all of these recordings distributed until recently, have been produced in ways that are sufficiently different that it is reasonable to expect them to sound different. This audible difference would be aside from any purported benefits of high resolution formats. IOW, the high resolution layers sound different from the legacy format layers because they were produced in such a way that they would sound different, even if distributed in the same format. On the one hand they invite comparison of the two formats, but behind the scenes they stack the deck. So, what do you get when you convert the DVD-A or SACD audio to 16-bit, 44.1KHz? If you A-B it with the original CD layer, which sounds better? |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Misrepresentation and Malfeasance By Audiophile Label Technical Staff?
On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 08:35:14 -0400, Arny Krueger wrote:
One little dirty not-so-secret dirty aspect of the production of dual-format high resolution recordings has been the fact that the legacy (CD) and high-resolution (DVD-A or SACD) portions of virtually all of these recordings distributed until recently, have been produced in ways that are sufficiently different that it is reasonable to expect them to sound different. This audible difference would be aside from any purported benefits of high resolution formats. IOW, the high resolution layers sound different from the legacy format layers because they were produced in such a way that they would sound different, even if distributed in the same format. On the one hand they invite comparison of the two formats, but behind the scenes they stack the deck. So, what do you get when you convert the DVD-A or SACD audio to 16-bit, 44.1KHz? If you A-B it with the original CD layer, which sounds better? |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Misrepresentation and Malfeasance By Audiophile Label Technical Staff?
"RobbH" wrote in message
news On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 08:35:14 -0400, Arny Krueger wrote: One little dirty not-so-secret dirty aspect of the production of dual-format high resolution recordings has been the fact that the legacy (CD) and high-resolution (DVD-A or SACD) portions of virtually all of these recordings distributed until recently, have been produced in ways that are sufficiently different that it is reasonable to expect them to sound different. This audible difference would be aside from any purported benefits of high resolution formats. IOW, the high resolution layers sound different from the legacy format layers because they were produced in such a way that they would sound different, even if distributed in the same format. On the one hand they invite comparison of the two formats, but behind the scenes they stack the deck. So, what do you get when you convert the DVD-A or SACD audio to 16-bit, 44.1KHz? If you A-B it with the original CD layer, which sounds better? In a nutshell, the DVD-A or SACD layer has and/or the CD layer are altered in such a way that there is no simple transformation like conversion to 16 bits, that will make them sound the same. More significantly, if you take the DVD-A or SACD layer and convert it to 16/44, the 16/44 version won't sound any different from the high-bitrate DVD-A or SACD origional. You can find examples of origional recordings made in the DVD-A format of 24/96 stereo, and downconverted to various vastly lower bitrates for you to compare for yourself, at http://www.pcabx.com/technical/sample_rates/index.htm . This site also provides a number of Double Blind Test Comparators, which will enable you to perform highly-controlled bias-controlled listening tests, if you have a PC with a high-bitrate audio interface. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Misrepresentation and Malfeasance By Audiophile Label Technical Staff?
"RobbH" wrote in message
news On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 08:35:14 -0400, Arny Krueger wrote: One little dirty not-so-secret dirty aspect of the production of dual-format high resolution recordings has been the fact that the legacy (CD) and high-resolution (DVD-A or SACD) portions of virtually all of these recordings distributed until recently, have been produced in ways that are sufficiently different that it is reasonable to expect them to sound different. This audible difference would be aside from any purported benefits of high resolution formats. IOW, the high resolution layers sound different from the legacy format layers because they were produced in such a way that they would sound different, even if distributed in the same format. On the one hand they invite comparison of the two formats, but behind the scenes they stack the deck. So, what do you get when you convert the DVD-A or SACD audio to 16-bit, 44.1KHz? If you A-B it with the original CD layer, which sounds better? In a nutshell, the DVD-A or SACD layer has and/or the CD layer are altered in such a way that there is no simple transformation like conversion to 16 bits, that will make them sound the same. More significantly, if you take the DVD-A or SACD layer and convert it to 16/44, the 16/44 version won't sound any different from the high-bitrate DVD-A or SACD origional. You can find examples of origional recordings made in the DVD-A format of 24/96 stereo, and downconverted to various vastly lower bitrates for you to compare for yourself, at http://www.pcabx.com/technical/sample_rates/index.htm . This site also provides a number of Double Blind Test Comparators, which will enable you to perform highly-controlled bias-controlled listening tests, if you have a PC with a high-bitrate audio interface. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Misrepresentation and Malfeasance By Audiophile Label Technical Staff?
"RobbH" wrote in message
news On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 08:35:14 -0400, Arny Krueger wrote: One little dirty not-so-secret dirty aspect of the production of dual-format high resolution recordings has been the fact that the legacy (CD) and high-resolution (DVD-A or SACD) portions of virtually all of these recordings distributed until recently, have been produced in ways that are sufficiently different that it is reasonable to expect them to sound different. This audible difference would be aside from any purported benefits of high resolution formats. IOW, the high resolution layers sound different from the legacy format layers because they were produced in such a way that they would sound different, even if distributed in the same format. On the one hand they invite comparison of the two formats, but behind the scenes they stack the deck. So, what do you get when you convert the DVD-A or SACD audio to 16-bit, 44.1KHz? If you A-B it with the original CD layer, which sounds better? In a nutshell, the DVD-A or SACD layer has and/or the CD layer are altered in such a way that there is no simple transformation like conversion to 16 bits, that will make them sound the same. More significantly, if you take the DVD-A or SACD layer and convert it to 16/44, the 16/44 version won't sound any different from the high-bitrate DVD-A or SACD origional. You can find examples of origional recordings made in the DVD-A format of 24/96 stereo, and downconverted to various vastly lower bitrates for you to compare for yourself, at http://www.pcabx.com/technical/sample_rates/index.htm . This site also provides a number of Double Blind Test Comparators, which will enable you to perform highly-controlled bias-controlled listening tests, if you have a PC with a high-bitrate audio interface. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Misrepresentation and Malfeasance By Audiophile Label Technical Staff?
"RobbH" wrote in message news So, what do you get when you convert the DVD-A or SACD audio to 16-bit, 44.1KHz? If you A-B it with the original CD layer, which sounds better? Whichever mastering decisions you prefer obviously. More to the point, if you ABX it with the DVDA/SACD layer, can you tell the difference? TonyP. |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Misrepresentation and Malfeasance By Audiophile Label Technical Staff?
"RobbH" wrote in message news So, what do you get when you convert the DVD-A or SACD audio to 16-bit, 44.1KHz? If you A-B it with the original CD layer, which sounds better? Whichever mastering decisions you prefer obviously. More to the point, if you ABX it with the DVDA/SACD layer, can you tell the difference? TonyP. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Misrepresentation and Malfeasance By Audiophile Label Technical Staff?
"RobbH" wrote in message news So, what do you get when you convert the DVD-A or SACD audio to 16-bit, 44.1KHz? If you A-B it with the original CD layer, which sounds better? Whichever mastering decisions you prefer obviously. More to the point, if you ABX it with the DVDA/SACD layer, can you tell the difference? TonyP. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophile Label Technical Staff
"Mark D. Zacharias" wrote in message ...
This one has been beaten to death. Vinyl is so flawed and inconsistent a medium that it doesn't even belong in the same discussion as properly implemented CD technology. CDs are flawed as well in several other ways. Not to say that some records may not sound "better" than a given CD release, but the reasons include using heavily EQ'd vinyl masters for the CD release, natural variations in cartridge / tonearm combinations AND SETUPS of same. The discussion goes on and on, and has been addressed in many threads in the past. By all means listen to your albums and enjoy them, but a CD release using the same original master, not EQ'd for vinyl, and properly produced for no clipping etc, simply isn't even in the same class. Our ears are analog however, So are our voices, our musical instruments, and all our other senses. so the frequency response problems, ringing effects, harmonic distortion etc can be quite pleasing on a given record, and some people prefer it, and the nostalgia, as well as just preferring to state a contrary opinion when the subject comes up. A few things that your eval does not mention: 1. The vinyl was usually mastered from 2 track mixdown on tapes that were recently recorded and not very old. The CD may have been mastered ten, twenty, fifty years later. Some vintages of tape have not aged well-particularly from the mid-70s to the mid-80s. 2. The vinyl was mastered by people that in most cases knew what they were doing on a technology that was at or close to its zenith. The CD may have been mastered by people that did not understand the CD process very well, on bad-sounding ADCs, or people that were simply inept or unconcerned. 3.Albums recorded in the "vinyl era" were engineered, produced, mixed down and mastered by people who understood the record-making process quite well and made a lot of decisions on the basis of what they figured would work well and not well on the finished vinyl product. It's like printing Ansel Adams photos via offset litho-Adams understood his films and papers intimately and you are reproducing them in a different medium. Inherently, something is lost. 4. In some cases, the material is only available on vinyl, or the available CD is made from-believe it or not-playing the extant vinyl. 5. Finally, although vinyl is good for a finite number of plays, its shelf life is effectively infinite if properly stored. CDs are not affected by playing but they are probably good only for 50 years at the most. Many early CDs are apparently now unplayable, especially in their outer tracks. The record industry would have been better served by an analog optical format, and probably audiophiles as well. __________________________________________________ _________________ Putting MM on the dime would serve a lot of purposes. It would displace the devious FDR, send a signal to the Islamist world, make the currency more attractive, and be a thorn in the ass to the Kennedy Family, to name four good ones. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophile Label Technical Staff
"Mark D. Zacharias" wrote in message ...
This one has been beaten to death. Vinyl is so flawed and inconsistent a medium that it doesn't even belong in the same discussion as properly implemented CD technology. CDs are flawed as well in several other ways. Not to say that some records may not sound "better" than a given CD release, but the reasons include using heavily EQ'd vinyl masters for the CD release, natural variations in cartridge / tonearm combinations AND SETUPS of same. The discussion goes on and on, and has been addressed in many threads in the past. By all means listen to your albums and enjoy them, but a CD release using the same original master, not EQ'd for vinyl, and properly produced for no clipping etc, simply isn't even in the same class. Our ears are analog however, So are our voices, our musical instruments, and all our other senses. so the frequency response problems, ringing effects, harmonic distortion etc can be quite pleasing on a given record, and some people prefer it, and the nostalgia, as well as just preferring to state a contrary opinion when the subject comes up. A few things that your eval does not mention: 1. The vinyl was usually mastered from 2 track mixdown on tapes that were recently recorded and not very old. The CD may have been mastered ten, twenty, fifty years later. Some vintages of tape have not aged well-particularly from the mid-70s to the mid-80s. 2. The vinyl was mastered by people that in most cases knew what they were doing on a technology that was at or close to its zenith. The CD may have been mastered by people that did not understand the CD process very well, on bad-sounding ADCs, or people that were simply inept or unconcerned. 3.Albums recorded in the "vinyl era" were engineered, produced, mixed down and mastered by people who understood the record-making process quite well and made a lot of decisions on the basis of what they figured would work well and not well on the finished vinyl product. It's like printing Ansel Adams photos via offset litho-Adams understood his films and papers intimately and you are reproducing them in a different medium. Inherently, something is lost. 4. In some cases, the material is only available on vinyl, or the available CD is made from-believe it or not-playing the extant vinyl. 5. Finally, although vinyl is good for a finite number of plays, its shelf life is effectively infinite if properly stored. CDs are not affected by playing but they are probably good only for 50 years at the most. Many early CDs are apparently now unplayable, especially in their outer tracks. The record industry would have been better served by an analog optical format, and probably audiophiles as well. __________________________________________________ _________________ Putting MM on the dime would serve a lot of purposes. It would displace the devious FDR, send a signal to the Islamist world, make the currency more attractive, and be a thorn in the ass to the Kennedy Family, to name four good ones. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophile Label Technical Staff
"Mark D. Zacharias" wrote in message ...
This one has been beaten to death. Vinyl is so flawed and inconsistent a medium that it doesn't even belong in the same discussion as properly implemented CD technology. CDs are flawed as well in several other ways. Not to say that some records may not sound "better" than a given CD release, but the reasons include using heavily EQ'd vinyl masters for the CD release, natural variations in cartridge / tonearm combinations AND SETUPS of same. The discussion goes on and on, and has been addressed in many threads in the past. By all means listen to your albums and enjoy them, but a CD release using the same original master, not EQ'd for vinyl, and properly produced for no clipping etc, simply isn't even in the same class. Our ears are analog however, So are our voices, our musical instruments, and all our other senses. so the frequency response problems, ringing effects, harmonic distortion etc can be quite pleasing on a given record, and some people prefer it, and the nostalgia, as well as just preferring to state a contrary opinion when the subject comes up. A few things that your eval does not mention: 1. The vinyl was usually mastered from 2 track mixdown on tapes that were recently recorded and not very old. The CD may have been mastered ten, twenty, fifty years later. Some vintages of tape have not aged well-particularly from the mid-70s to the mid-80s. 2. The vinyl was mastered by people that in most cases knew what they were doing on a technology that was at or close to its zenith. The CD may have been mastered by people that did not understand the CD process very well, on bad-sounding ADCs, or people that were simply inept or unconcerned. 3.Albums recorded in the "vinyl era" were engineered, produced, mixed down and mastered by people who understood the record-making process quite well and made a lot of decisions on the basis of what they figured would work well and not well on the finished vinyl product. It's like printing Ansel Adams photos via offset litho-Adams understood his films and papers intimately and you are reproducing them in a different medium. Inherently, something is lost. 4. In some cases, the material is only available on vinyl, or the available CD is made from-believe it or not-playing the extant vinyl. 5. Finally, although vinyl is good for a finite number of plays, its shelf life is effectively infinite if properly stored. CDs are not affected by playing but they are probably good only for 50 years at the most. Many early CDs are apparently now unplayable, especially in their outer tracks. The record industry would have been better served by an analog optical format, and probably audiophiles as well. __________________________________________________ _________________ Putting MM on the dime would serve a lot of purposes. It would displace the devious FDR, send a signal to the Islamist world, make the currency more attractive, and be a thorn in the ass to the Kennedy Family, to name four good ones. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophile Label Technical Staff
"Sam Byrams" wrote in message om... "Mark D. Zacharias" wrote in message ... This one has been beaten to death. Vinyl is so flawed and inconsistent a medium that it doesn't even belong in the same discussion as properly implemented CD technology. CDs are flawed as well in several other ways. Of course, but better than really necessary, and FAR better than vinyl.. Our ears are analog however, So are our voices, our musical instruments, and all our other senses. And so is the output from any CD player DAC. Your point is? 1. The vinyl was usually mastered from 2 track mixdown on tapes that were recently recorded and not very old. The CD may have been mastered ten, twenty, fifty years later. Some vintages of tape have not aged well-particularly from the mid-70s to the mid-80s. Yes, CD has a much better chance of lasting a lot longer. And can be copied as many times as necessary WITHOUT any loss of data (unlike tape or vinyl) 2. The vinyl was mastered by people that in most cases knew what they were doing on a technology that was at or close to its zenith. The CD may have been mastered by people that did not understand the CD process very well, on bad-sounding ADCs, or people that were simply inept or unconcerned. Yes for all media types. 3.Albums recorded in the "vinyl era" were engineered, produced, mixed down and mastered by people who understood the record-making process quite well and made a lot of decisions on the basis of what they figured would work well and not well on the finished vinyl product. It's like printing Ansel Adams photos via offset litho-Adams understood his films and papers intimately and you are reproducing them in a different medium. Inherently, something is lost. Ansel used the tools he had at the time. I can well imagine a digitally scanned print copy from one of his plates being superior to an old, torn, water stained etc. print. And certainly better than a new photo taken of the old print. 4. In some cases, the material is only available on vinyl, or the available CD is made from-believe it or not-playing the extant vinyl. Yep, and have often improved such copies over the original vinyl. If the original master tapes no longer exist, how can you compare CD with them? 5. Finally, although vinyl is good for a finite number of plays, its shelf life is effectively infinite if properly stored. CDs are not affected by playing but they are probably good only for 50 years at the most. Many early CDs are apparently now unplayable, especially in their outer tracks. I have hundreds from the early eighties, NONE are unplayable in any way. (OK one had errors when bought, so did ALL of my viny records) Your proof of life span is where? Both formats can probably outlast the ability to play them, however digital can be transferred without loss to any new format as desired. Not so vinyl or analog tape. The record industry would have been better served by an analog optical format, and probably audiophiles as well. Only the morons, which is probably quite a few I admit. TonyP. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophile Label Technical Staff
"Sam Byrams" wrote in message om... "Mark D. Zacharias" wrote in message ... This one has been beaten to death. Vinyl is so flawed and inconsistent a medium that it doesn't even belong in the same discussion as properly implemented CD technology. CDs are flawed as well in several other ways. Of course, but better than really necessary, and FAR better than vinyl.. Our ears are analog however, So are our voices, our musical instruments, and all our other senses. And so is the output from any CD player DAC. Your point is? 1. The vinyl was usually mastered from 2 track mixdown on tapes that were recently recorded and not very old. The CD may have been mastered ten, twenty, fifty years later. Some vintages of tape have not aged well-particularly from the mid-70s to the mid-80s. Yes, CD has a much better chance of lasting a lot longer. And can be copied as many times as necessary WITHOUT any loss of data (unlike tape or vinyl) 2. The vinyl was mastered by people that in most cases knew what they were doing on a technology that was at or close to its zenith. The CD may have been mastered by people that did not understand the CD process very well, on bad-sounding ADCs, or people that were simply inept or unconcerned. Yes for all media types. 3.Albums recorded in the "vinyl era" were engineered, produced, mixed down and mastered by people who understood the record-making process quite well and made a lot of decisions on the basis of what they figured would work well and not well on the finished vinyl product. It's like printing Ansel Adams photos via offset litho-Adams understood his films and papers intimately and you are reproducing them in a different medium. Inherently, something is lost. Ansel used the tools he had at the time. I can well imagine a digitally scanned print copy from one of his plates being superior to an old, torn, water stained etc. print. And certainly better than a new photo taken of the old print. 4. In some cases, the material is only available on vinyl, or the available CD is made from-believe it or not-playing the extant vinyl. Yep, and have often improved such copies over the original vinyl. If the original master tapes no longer exist, how can you compare CD with them? 5. Finally, although vinyl is good for a finite number of plays, its shelf life is effectively infinite if properly stored. CDs are not affected by playing but they are probably good only for 50 years at the most. Many early CDs are apparently now unplayable, especially in their outer tracks. I have hundreds from the early eighties, NONE are unplayable in any way. (OK one had errors when bought, so did ALL of my viny records) Your proof of life span is where? Both formats can probably outlast the ability to play them, however digital can be transferred without loss to any new format as desired. Not so vinyl or analog tape. The record industry would have been better served by an analog optical format, and probably audiophiles as well. Only the morons, which is probably quite a few I admit. TonyP. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophile Label Technical Staff
"Sam Byrams" wrote in message om... "Mark D. Zacharias" wrote in message ... This one has been beaten to death. Vinyl is so flawed and inconsistent a medium that it doesn't even belong in the same discussion as properly implemented CD technology. CDs are flawed as well in several other ways. Of course, but better than really necessary, and FAR better than vinyl.. Our ears are analog however, So are our voices, our musical instruments, and all our other senses. And so is the output from any CD player DAC. Your point is? 1. The vinyl was usually mastered from 2 track mixdown on tapes that were recently recorded and not very old. The CD may have been mastered ten, twenty, fifty years later. Some vintages of tape have not aged well-particularly from the mid-70s to the mid-80s. Yes, CD has a much better chance of lasting a lot longer. And can be copied as many times as necessary WITHOUT any loss of data (unlike tape or vinyl) 2. The vinyl was mastered by people that in most cases knew what they were doing on a technology that was at or close to its zenith. The CD may have been mastered by people that did not understand the CD process very well, on bad-sounding ADCs, or people that were simply inept or unconcerned. Yes for all media types. 3.Albums recorded in the "vinyl era" were engineered, produced, mixed down and mastered by people who understood the record-making process quite well and made a lot of decisions on the basis of what they figured would work well and not well on the finished vinyl product. It's like printing Ansel Adams photos via offset litho-Adams understood his films and papers intimately and you are reproducing them in a different medium. Inherently, something is lost. Ansel used the tools he had at the time. I can well imagine a digitally scanned print copy from one of his plates being superior to an old, torn, water stained etc. print. And certainly better than a new photo taken of the old print. 4. In some cases, the material is only available on vinyl, or the available CD is made from-believe it or not-playing the extant vinyl. Yep, and have often improved such copies over the original vinyl. If the original master tapes no longer exist, how can you compare CD with them? 5. Finally, although vinyl is good for a finite number of plays, its shelf life is effectively infinite if properly stored. CDs are not affected by playing but they are probably good only for 50 years at the most. Many early CDs are apparently now unplayable, especially in their outer tracks. I have hundreds from the early eighties, NONE are unplayable in any way. (OK one had errors when bought, so did ALL of my viny records) Your proof of life span is where? Both formats can probably outlast the ability to play them, however digital can be transferred without loss to any new format as desired. Not so vinyl or analog tape. The record industry would have been better served by an analog optical format, and probably audiophiles as well. Only the morons, which is probably quite a few I admit. TonyP. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophile Label Technical Staff
Very interesting observations. Very little to really quibble with, unless I wanted to just argue vs another persons opinions, which I try not to do. I might have gone into some of this a bit more myself, except as I said, the subject has really been beaten to death. Mark Z. "Sam Byrams" wrote in message om... "Mark D. Zacharias" wrote in message ... This one has been beaten to death. Vinyl is so flawed and inconsistent a medium that it doesn't even belong in the same discussion as properly implemented CD technology. CDs are flawed as well in several other ways. Not to say that some records may not sound "better" than a given CD release, but the reasons include using heavily EQ'd vinyl masters for the CD release, natural variations in cartridge / tonearm combinations AND SETUPS of same. The discussion goes on and on, and has been addressed in many threads in the past. By all means listen to your albums and enjoy them, but a CD release using the same original master, not EQ'd for vinyl, and properly produced for no clipping etc, simply isn't even in the same class. Our ears are analog however, So are our voices, our musical instruments, and all our other senses. so the frequency response problems, ringing effects, harmonic distortion etc can be quite pleasing on a given record, and some people prefer it, and the nostalgia, as well as just preferring to state a contrary opinion when the subject comes up. A few things that your eval does not mention: 1. The vinyl was usually mastered from 2 track mixdown on tapes that were recently recorded and not very old. The CD may have been mastered ten, twenty, fifty years later. Some vintages of tape have not aged well-particularly from the mid-70s to the mid-80s. 2. The vinyl was mastered by people that in most cases knew what they were doing on a technology that was at or close to its zenith. The CD may have been mastered by people that did not understand the CD process very well, on bad-sounding ADCs, or people that were simply inept or unconcerned. 3.Albums recorded in the "vinyl era" were engineered, produced, mixed down and mastered by people who understood the record-making process quite well and made a lot of decisions on the basis of what they figured would work well and not well on the finished vinyl product. It's like printing Ansel Adams photos via offset litho-Adams understood his films and papers intimately and you are reproducing them in a different medium. Inherently, something is lost. 4. In some cases, the material is only available on vinyl, or the available CD is made from-believe it or not-playing the extant vinyl. 5. Finally, although vinyl is good for a finite number of plays, its shelf life is effectively infinite if properly stored. CDs are not affected by playing but they are probably good only for 50 years at the most. Many early CDs are apparently now unplayable, especially in their outer tracks. The record industry would have been better served by an analog optical format, and probably audiophiles as well. __________________________________________________ _________________ Putting MM on the dime would serve a lot of purposes. It would displace the devious FDR, send a signal to the Islamist world, make the currency more attractive, and be a thorn in the ass to the Kennedy Family, to name four good ones. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophile Label Technical Staff
Very interesting observations. Very little to really quibble with, unless I wanted to just argue vs another persons opinions, which I try not to do. I might have gone into some of this a bit more myself, except as I said, the subject has really been beaten to death. Mark Z. "Sam Byrams" wrote in message om... "Mark D. Zacharias" wrote in message ... This one has been beaten to death. Vinyl is so flawed and inconsistent a medium that it doesn't even belong in the same discussion as properly implemented CD technology. CDs are flawed as well in several other ways. Not to say that some records may not sound "better" than a given CD release, but the reasons include using heavily EQ'd vinyl masters for the CD release, natural variations in cartridge / tonearm combinations AND SETUPS of same. The discussion goes on and on, and has been addressed in many threads in the past. By all means listen to your albums and enjoy them, but a CD release using the same original master, not EQ'd for vinyl, and properly produced for no clipping etc, simply isn't even in the same class. Our ears are analog however, So are our voices, our musical instruments, and all our other senses. so the frequency response problems, ringing effects, harmonic distortion etc can be quite pleasing on a given record, and some people prefer it, and the nostalgia, as well as just preferring to state a contrary opinion when the subject comes up. A few things that your eval does not mention: 1. The vinyl was usually mastered from 2 track mixdown on tapes that were recently recorded and not very old. The CD may have been mastered ten, twenty, fifty years later. Some vintages of tape have not aged well-particularly from the mid-70s to the mid-80s. 2. The vinyl was mastered by people that in most cases knew what they were doing on a technology that was at or close to its zenith. The CD may have been mastered by people that did not understand the CD process very well, on bad-sounding ADCs, or people that were simply inept or unconcerned. 3.Albums recorded in the "vinyl era" were engineered, produced, mixed down and mastered by people who understood the record-making process quite well and made a lot of decisions on the basis of what they figured would work well and not well on the finished vinyl product. It's like printing Ansel Adams photos via offset litho-Adams understood his films and papers intimately and you are reproducing them in a different medium. Inherently, something is lost. 4. In some cases, the material is only available on vinyl, or the available CD is made from-believe it or not-playing the extant vinyl. 5. Finally, although vinyl is good for a finite number of plays, its shelf life is effectively infinite if properly stored. CDs are not affected by playing but they are probably good only for 50 years at the most. Many early CDs are apparently now unplayable, especially in their outer tracks. The record industry would have been better served by an analog optical format, and probably audiophiles as well. __________________________________________________ _________________ Putting MM on the dime would serve a lot of purposes. It would displace the devious FDR, send a signal to the Islamist world, make the currency more attractive, and be a thorn in the ass to the Kennedy Family, to name four good ones. |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophile Label Technical Staff
Very interesting observations. Very little to really quibble with, unless I wanted to just argue vs another persons opinions, which I try not to do. I might have gone into some of this a bit more myself, except as I said, the subject has really been beaten to death. Mark Z. "Sam Byrams" wrote in message om... "Mark D. Zacharias" wrote in message ... This one has been beaten to death. Vinyl is so flawed and inconsistent a medium that it doesn't even belong in the same discussion as properly implemented CD technology. CDs are flawed as well in several other ways. Not to say that some records may not sound "better" than a given CD release, but the reasons include using heavily EQ'd vinyl masters for the CD release, natural variations in cartridge / tonearm combinations AND SETUPS of same. The discussion goes on and on, and has been addressed in many threads in the past. By all means listen to your albums and enjoy them, but a CD release using the same original master, not EQ'd for vinyl, and properly produced for no clipping etc, simply isn't even in the same class. Our ears are analog however, So are our voices, our musical instruments, and all our other senses. so the frequency response problems, ringing effects, harmonic distortion etc can be quite pleasing on a given record, and some people prefer it, and the nostalgia, as well as just preferring to state a contrary opinion when the subject comes up. A few things that your eval does not mention: 1. The vinyl was usually mastered from 2 track mixdown on tapes that were recently recorded and not very old. The CD may have been mastered ten, twenty, fifty years later. Some vintages of tape have not aged well-particularly from the mid-70s to the mid-80s. 2. The vinyl was mastered by people that in most cases knew what they were doing on a technology that was at or close to its zenith. The CD may have been mastered by people that did not understand the CD process very well, on bad-sounding ADCs, or people that were simply inept or unconcerned. 3.Albums recorded in the "vinyl era" were engineered, produced, mixed down and mastered by people who understood the record-making process quite well and made a lot of decisions on the basis of what they figured would work well and not well on the finished vinyl product. It's like printing Ansel Adams photos via offset litho-Adams understood his films and papers intimately and you are reproducing them in a different medium. Inherently, something is lost. 4. In some cases, the material is only available on vinyl, or the available CD is made from-believe it or not-playing the extant vinyl. 5. Finally, although vinyl is good for a finite number of plays, its shelf life is effectively infinite if properly stored. CDs are not affected by playing but they are probably good only for 50 years at the most. Many early CDs are apparently now unplayable, especially in their outer tracks. The record industry would have been better served by an analog optical format, and probably audiophiles as well. __________________________________________________ _________________ Putting MM on the dime would serve a lot of purposes. It would displace the devious FDR, send a signal to the Islamist world, make the currency more attractive, and be a thorn in the ass to the Kennedy Family, to name four good ones. |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophile Label Technical Staff
|
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophile Label Technical Staff
Stewart Pinkerton (CD Ass Kisser)
1. The vinyl was usually mastered from 2 track mixdown on tapes that were recently recorded and not very old. The CD may have been mastered ten, twenty, fifty years later. Some vintages of tape have not aged well-particularly from the mid-70s to the mid-80s. And this affects CDs made from new master tapes, exactly how? You want 35 year old master tapes of Hendrix or would you prefer new masters of Hilary Duff and Britney Spears? Jimi, Jim and Janis-to say nothing of Frank, Dean, Sammy, Julie London, Marilyn Monroe, Peggy Lee-they are not recording anymore because they're dead. (MM never did record per se-it's all film dubs you hear on XM 73.) 5. Finally, although vinyl is good for a finite number of plays, its shelf life is effectively infinite if properly stored. IOW, vinyl is degraded every time it is played, whereas CD is totally unaffected. Vinyl is good for several dozen good plays with negligible wear. Several hundred are feasible with properly set up tables and cartridges. If you want to go over a riff for guitar practice, copy it to a repeatable medium. CDs are not affected by playing but they are probably good only for 50 years at the most. Your evidence for this is what, exactly? Your evidence they don't is??? In 30 years bring me that 1985 disc, we'll check it out. I have 1955 vinyl I _know_ sounds great. Many early CDs are apparently now unplayable, especially in their outer tracks. A well-known problem affecting a tiny number of CDs from one factory, but gleefully pounced upon by vinyl apologists. That was a hell of a tiny run. The record industry would have been better served by an analog optical format, and probably audiophiles as well. Bull****. Laserdiscs were crap compared to CD. We wouldn't have this downloading bull**** if the labels hadn't made it all too convenient in the first place. With albums, you need to go to some bother to digitize them. CD's are consumo-friendly to rip. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophile Label Technical Staff
|
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophile Label Technical Staff
"Sam Byrams" wrote in message om... You want 35 year old master tapes of Hendrix or would you prefer new masters of Hilary Duff and Britney Spears? Jimi, Jim and Janis-to say nothing of Frank, Dean, Sammy, Julie London, Marilyn Monroe, Peggy Lee-they are not recording anymore because they're dead. (MM never did record per se-it's all film dubs you hear on XM 73.) MM was just the Brittney Spears or Hillary Duff of her day. Plenty of crap music then too, and quite a bit of good music today, if you look. Pity Brittney still can't afford a decent mastering engineer though! Her records top the list of clipped to hell and back. Vinyl is good for several dozen good plays with negligible wear. Several hundred are feasible with properly set up tables and cartridges. If you want to go over a riff for guitar practice, copy it to a repeatable medium. Like CD? Why not just buy one in the first place. Your evidence they don't is??? In 30 years bring me that 1985 disc, we'll check it out. I have 1955 vinyl I _know_ sounds great. I have plenty of 1985 CD's in perfect condition, I bet you can't say that about your vinyl. My old records are still as good as the day I bought them though, which unfortunately isn't saying much :-( TonyP. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophile Label Technical Staff
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... But most of those you mention are artists of the '50s and '60s - so their old master tapes are better than any available vinyl. Not necessarily. Some of the old master tapes are pretty bad, conversely there are some records around that have never been played. And in general, vinyl records last much longer without degradation, when not played, than analog tapes. Digital on the other hand could be copied from one format to another for Millenia/Eons (till the next ice age anyway) without ANY loss of quality. Agreed, with good-quality replay gear. However, where do you find albums from the '70s that have been played only a couple of times on high-quality decks? I have hundreds, so do many others. I used to tape them to R2R and cassette then store them away in sealed bags. Something I don't need to do now with CD, thank god. And MANY of my CD's are replacements for those same vinyl records I still have, and never play. And yes, a few of them are so badly remastered that I did it myself from the vinyl, rather than listen to the CD. But the medium itself is SO much better, that arguing about it is just amazing, or amusing. TonyP. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophile Label Technical Staff
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 8 Jul 2004 16:06:31 -0700, (Sam Byrams) wrote: Stewart Pinkerton (CD Ass Kisser) Better than being a vinyl apologist who has to resort to name-calling in lieu of a substantive argument................ 1. The vinyl was usually mastered from 2 track mixdown on tapes that were recently recorded and not very old. The CD may have been mastered ten, twenty, fifty years later. Some vintages of tape have not aged well-particularly from the mid-70s to the mid-80s. And this affects CDs made from new master tapes, exactly how? You want 35 year old master tapes of Hendrix or would you prefer new masters of Hilary Duff and Britney Spears? Musically, or technically? :-) In any case, the choice is not either Hendrix OR Britney. That's a classic bull**** 'fallacy of the excluded middle' argument. Mr Byrams is living in the past. Just because the radio no longer plays much that would interest anyone over 18, doesn't mean it's not out there. Not only are lots of old fogeys -- and that now encompasses not only the Jethro Tulls of the world, but the XTCs and even the Flaming Lips, who've all been around for at least a decade-- still making new recordings, but interesting new acts are too. 5. Finally, although vinyl is good for a finite number of plays, its shelf life is effectively infinite if properly stored. IOW, vinyl is degraded every time it is played, whereas CD is totally unaffected. Vinyl is good for several dozen good plays with negligible wear. Agreed, with good-quality replay gear. However, where do you find albums from the '70s that have been played only a couple of times on high-quality decks? Not to mention teh 50's and 60's, which is where Mr. Byrams' tastes seem to cluster. Several hundred are feasible with properly set up tables and cartridges. Um, that's getting a lot more arguable. Depends on how you define 'good', I guess. CDs are not affected by playing but they are probably good only for 50 years at the most. Your evidence for this is what, exactly? Your evidence they don't is??? They haven't degraded yet - my 1983 'Love Over Gold' is *still* one of my best-sounding CDs, and the hundred or so pre '85 CDs I have are all in *perfect* condition. The basic materials used in CD manufacture are even less likely to deteriorate with age than vinyl - plus they have the advantage that, so long as they don't degrade so much that bits are dropped, they will sound *exactly* the same as a brand new item, even if they've been played 1,000 times on a cheap Magnavox. Try that with vinyl! I have no evidence that LPs don't degrade after 100 years. Therefore vinyl is probably only good for less than 100 years. That's the same logic Mr. Byram uses. ALL of my CDs from the first years of CD -- and I have a couple left -- play just flawlessly, still. Even with a scratch or three on them. The record industry would have been better served by an analog optical format, and probably audiophiles as well. Bull****. Laserdiscs were crap compared to CD. We wouldn't have this downloading bull**** if the labels hadn't made it all too convenient in the first place. With albums, you need to go to some bother to digitize them. CD's are consumo-friendly to rip. What the hell has that to do with sound quality? Nothing. It's pure reactionary grasping-at-straws. The record companies had similar fits about LPs being 'consumo-frendly' to record to cassette tape, btw. -- -S. "We started to see evidence of the professional groupie in the early 80's. Alarmingly, these girls bore a striking resemblance to Motley Crue." -- David Lee Roth |