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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Cobain4evr wrote:

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

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

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

michael

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

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

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

Scott Wheeler

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

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

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

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

Norm Strong

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-Mike

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

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

-- Richard

In article ,
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

I owned a very good vinyl set-up (Thorens TD125/II, Magnepan ar, Stax
electrec cartridge) and had 1200 LPs. Sold it all, and have no regrets
whatsoever.

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

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

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

There is nothing wrong with what you are hearing

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

- this is indeed just
the way vinyl sounds.

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

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

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

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

As if that were a minor issue.


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

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

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

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

Scott Wheeler

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

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

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

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

Oh c'mon guys! Don't you recognize a troll when you see one?

This guy wrote this thing just to see y'all get arguing about
this old bone. Then next thing you know he'll be asking you
whether tube amps sound better than transistor amps, and when
he's done with that, he'll ask you about using green felt
markers around the edge of his CDs.

Russ

Good vinyl LPs were cut by disc-mastering engineers who sometimes took
liberties with equalisation, according to the known playing time of the
side.
More minures = less level, whether stereo or mono
Eq was, and still is, a personal touch. If longer duration for
compilations or some classicals or other reasons was the important factor,
bass slope was
reduced to make the grooves narrower, nut if the 12" side was about 21mins,
excellent fidelity to the master tape was usually adhered to.
These well-paid techies were "kings" in their day.

The cutter worm which scrolled gradually toward the centre of the lathe
every rev,
received pre-groove freq- and dynamics-aware info from a "read ahead" tape
head (about 4 secs) via a servo to widen the average wall pitch in time for
a loud bass excursion, or a series of
them, but which came from the real-time transfer head, and to relax pitch
when normal
levels were experienced. Even the dynamics of highs were attenuated because
of sizzle and splash excursions.
Or if no read-ahead aid, techie just ducked the bass end relative to mid and
highs when cutting.
This is why there is a bit more *mid range* heard on vinyl discs compared
with CD of same taped takes.

Then banding was another technique which involved
supervised special scrolling, also for the run-out closing circle.

Bass solos on one side of the stereo platform were a bit of a headache,
because often something less dynamic was on the other half especially in
early "ping-pong" stereo efforts.
I have bought bad stereo LPs which were transcribed from tape off-azimuth
and even a couple with L/R phase cancellation errors (both are mono
useless).
Microgroove test discs had freq tones (spot and gliding) that were deemed
flat with
the RIAA curve, but these were 10dB or 18dB below peak, never ever cut at
peak level other than a 1kHz ref.

With some labels, cutting 45s meant lots of tweaks to get maximum energy
from
the groove (think competitors' loudness in juke-boxes).
Most CDs are supposed to be direct descendants of their DAT masters, usually
with no
human-caused alteration of the sound parameters.

"Michael Mossey" wrote in message
...

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

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

- Gary Rosen

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

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

No, I'm not threatened, just amused,

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

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

-Mike

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

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

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

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

Please define 'musically superior'.

No, I'm not threatened, just amused,

Are you also amused by people who like classical music?

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

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

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

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

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

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

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

Nothing at all. I am only amused by specific tiny bands, such as
those who claim that vinyl is in some objective way superior to CD.
People only claim that vinyl is *subjectively* superior to CD. It isn't
clear to me what 'some objective way superior to CD' would mean in the
context of understanding how human hearing perception works. People listen
to SOTA vinyl systems, find they sound great and buy them. Ditto with valve
amplication. In the context of the High End audio market, vinyl and valve
amplication are a large percentage; they are not a tiny band at all. Audio
Research produce both solid state and valve amplification, and yet the
majority of their sales as far as I know are for valve/tube stuff.

These problems are amusing in the same way that Einstein or Newton found
their scientific research problems 'amusing'. It doesn't mean they are
trivial problems, or that we currently understand very well at all.

Robert Peirce wrote:
In article ,
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:


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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

CD

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

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

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

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

Please define 'musically superior'.

The reason I listen to music is to experience the emotions and feelings
of it, and to experience the beauty of it. My reference is how
classical music sounds live in a good acoustic. When listening to
vinyl, I feel the emotions and experience the beauty in a way much
closer to live music. This is of course a generalization; there is bad
vinyl and particularly good digital. I hypothesize that this general
trend happens because digital has distortion, although small in
measure, that interferes with the music more than analog's distortion.
Before you start ridiculing this hypothesis, let me mention that I
think it needs to be backed by objective evidence, as any hypothesis
does. It's not my career so I'm not in a position to do the
necessarily experiments.

Also, of course this hypothesis about digital distortion is relative to
*my* ears. It makes sense that some people aren't bothered by
digital's distortion; that's just not what their ears hear.

I know there's a lot of evidence that competant digital has no audible
distortion. My hypothesis is that this evidence applies to the average
person under the test conditions. It doesn't apply to my ears under
the conditions of enjoying music.

Best,
Mike

Codifus wrote:
Robert Peirce wrote:

In article ,
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:


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



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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

CD

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

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

Yours truly,

Michael

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


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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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




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

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

Best,
Mike

On 29 Mar 2005 02:25:52 GMT, Richard Dale
wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

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

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

People only claim that vinyl is *subjectively* superior to CD.

Incorrect. We see many claims that vinyl has 'infinite resolution',
that it has more low-level detail, and that CD has 'stairsteps' and is
only a series of snapshots, whereas vinyl somehow retains the 'gestalt
of the performance' due to its continuous nature. These are all
objective claims, and they are all wrong.

It isn't
clear to me what 'some objective way superior to CD' would mean in the
context of understanding how human hearing perception works.

The above mentioned have mostly been dismissed, but we still hear
claims of extended frequency response for vinyl - also untrue in 99%
of cases.

People listen
to SOTA vinyl systems, find they sound great and buy them. Ditto with valve
amplication. In the context of the High End audio market, vinyl and valve
amplication are a large percentage; they are not a tiny band at all. Audio
Research produce both solid state and valve amplification, and yet the
majority of their sales as far as I know are for valve/tube stuff.

The so-called 'High End' market is in itself tiny, and is
ever-shrinking, as ARC can confirm.

These problems are amusing in the same way that Einstein or Newton found
their scientific research problems 'amusing'. It doesn't mean they are
trivial problems, or that we currently understand very well at all.

Oh, I think we understand the *added* euphonic artifacts of tubes and
vinyl pretty well. The problem is getting 'high enders' to admit their
existence, even though it's easy to prove.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On 29 Mar 2005 02:27:23 GMT, "Michael Mossey"
wrote:

I know there's a lot of evidence that competant digital has no audible
distortion. My hypothesis is that this evidence applies to the average
person under the test conditions. It doesn't apply to my ears under
the conditions of enjoying music.

I suggest that it certainly does apply to your ears, and that you
simply prefer the *added* euphonic artifacts of vinyl. This may
readily be proven by examining your reaction to a CD-R transcribed
from vinyl. Most listeners report no difference, i.e. all the 'magic'
of vinyl is retained. Hence, nothing is lost in a digital recording,
but something is added by vinyl.

We hear many claims of 'Golden Ear' status on this newsgroup, but they
have never yet survived blind testing.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

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



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

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


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


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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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




--

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

Michael wrote:
Codifus wrote:
Robert Peirce wrote:

In article ,
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:


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



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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

CD

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

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

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




--

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

In article ,
Codifus wrote:

Robert Peirce wrote:
In article ,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 29 Mar 2005 02:27:23 GMT, "Michael Mossey"
wrote:

I know there's a lot of evidence that competant digital has no
audible
distortion. My hypothesis is that this evidence applies to the
average
person under the test conditions. It doesn't apply to my ears under
the conditions of enjoying music.

I suggest that it certainly does apply to your ears, and that you
simply prefer the *added* euphonic artifacts of vinyl. This may
readily be proven by examining your reaction to a CD-R transcribed
from vinyl. Most listeners report no difference, i.e. all the 'magic'
of vinyl is retained. Hence, nothing is lost in a digital recording,
but something is added by vinyl.

Your theory is a bit pat as you are trying to make one conclusion that
applies to everyone.

I'm sure what you say is true for *some* people. Some people can't
hear the difference between a digital copy of a record and the
original. Some people like vinyl specifically for its added
distortion.

That can be true, and it can also be true that other people are
irritated by digital artifacts and in that way find analog to be
superior (subjectively more accurate).

I, like you, think that evidence is necessary to suppport this
conclusion. For now, it is my hypothesis, which I'm not really in a
position to test thoroughly. I'm trying, though (see the other thread
I started). I know that you can cite reams of evidence for your
position--but that evidence is limited, I suspect, by its
"single-conclusion" nature as well as its basis on listening tests that
emphasize conscious contrast.

I'm embarking on a project of recording some LPs so I will have an
occasion to see for myself what I think of digital copies of them.


-Mike

Michael Mossey wrote:

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

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

It SOUNDS more accurate;

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

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

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

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

bob

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

Codifus wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Michael Mossey wrote:

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

Check out this article:

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

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

On 30 Mar 2005 01:50:31 GMT, "Michael Mossey"
wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 29 Mar 2005 02:27:23 GMT, "Michael Mossey"
wrote:

I know there's a lot of evidence that competant digital has no audible
distortion. My hypothesis is that this evidence applies to the average
person under the test conditions. It doesn't apply to my ears under
the conditions of enjoying music.

I suggest that it certainly does apply to your ears, and that you
simply prefer the *added* euphonic artifacts of vinyl. This may
readily be proven by examining your reaction to a CD-R transcribed
from vinyl. Most listeners report no difference, i.e. all the 'magic'
of vinyl is retained. Hence, nothing is lost in a digital recording,
but something is added by vinyl.

Your theory is a bit pat as you are trying to make one conclusion that
applies to everyone.

No, I'm suggesting that *no one* has been able to demonstrate the
possession of 'Golden Ears'. We've seen these claims many, many times
on this newsgroup, and they never survive controlled listening tests.

I'm sure what you say is true for *some* people. Some people can't
hear the difference between a digital copy of a record and the
original. Some people like vinyl specifically for its added
distortion.

Actually, the vast majority can't hear any difference. In fact, there
is no reliable and repeatable evidence that *anyone* can hear the
difference, despite many anecdotal claims.

That can be true, and it can also be true that other people are
irritated by digital artifacts and in that way find analog to be
superior (subjectively more accurate).

What 'digital artifacts'? Demonstrate their existence.

I, like you, think that evidence is necessary to suppport this
conclusion. For now, it is my hypothesis, which I'm not really in a
position to test thoroughly. I'm trying, though (see the other thread
I started). I know that you can cite reams of evidence for your
position--but that evidence is limited, I suspect, by its
"single-conclusion" nature as well as its basis on listening tests that
emphasize conscious contrast.

The conclusion is based on the evidence. If it is a single conclusion,
that is because all the evidence points to that same conclusion.

I'm embarking on a project of recording some LPs so I will have an
occasion to see for myself what I think of digital copies of them.

Excellent! Be sure to level-match any comparisons.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

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

Codifus wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What artifacts are these?
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"Michael Mossey" wrote in message
...

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

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

- Gary Rosen

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




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

Hello.

I prefer solid state amplifiers as well.

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

Yours truly,

Michael

Michael Mossey wrote:


I'm sure what you say is true for *some* people. Some people can't
hear the difference between a digital copy of a record and the
original.

I'm embarking on a project of recording some LPs so I will have an
occasion to see for myself what I think of digital copies of them.

The copies I make sound exceedingly like the records. I can readily
distinguish the two different cartridges I use: Denon 103 and Shure V15x.
But that is the beauty of digital-the copies are very exact. I think a
limitation may be the quality of your sound card, but I haven't been able
to hear any differences that would make me want to upgrade this part of my
computer. I simply use the integrated chipset on my Intel motherboard.
They key is keeping levels within the range of the ADC. When copying CDs
this is not an issue, or course, since most people accomplish this within
the digital domain.

Using a the Audacity tool (a Linux program, but there may be a port to
Windows or Mac, I don't know) one can even expand the waveform and edit out
some of the vinyl crud without making too much of a sonic intrusion. Of
course, anything other than a minor transient tick or pop subsequently
edited out is, then, audible as a brief timing change in the music.

We discussed this sometime back, but what one finds interesting is that one
can visualize the inherent vinyl background noise using the peak or average
meter functions before the recording begins-that is, when recording the
lead in grooves, and passages between cuts. For those not accustomed to
this, the fact that much of this noise is no less than 30dB below 0 is
something to ponder.

michael

Steven Sullivan wrote:
Michael wrote:

Codifus wrote:

Robert Peirce wrote:


In article ,
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:



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



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

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

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



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


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

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

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

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

CD


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


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


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




I've seen some threads on these newsgroups presenting technical
arguments that support the notion that SACD does indeed sound as good as
or better than vinyl, CD, and even DVD-A. Basically, and forgive me for
my limited technical understanding, SACD D/A converters seem to be able
handle highly dynamic transients better than CD and even DVD-A. There
was also mention that DVD-A players in Europe have had their D/A
converters adjusted to have that same capability as SACD D/A converters.
DVD-A players in the US can't have the adjustment done b/c of some
potential lawsuit.

I hope DVD-A wins the battle for the next generation optical digital
audio disc simply because it is better than CD at everything, something
that SACD cannot claim.

CD

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

On 29 Mar 2005 02:25:52 GMT, Richard Dale
wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

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

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

People only claim that vinyl is *subjectively* superior to CD.

Incorrect. We see many claims that vinyl has 'infinite resolution',
that it has more low-level detail, and that CD has 'stairsteps' and is
only a series of snapshots, whereas vinyl somehow retains the 'gestalt
of the performance' due to its continuous nature. These are all
objective claims, and they are all wrong.
They are only trying to account for the obvious subjective superiority of a
SOTA vinyl or tube component. If an oscilloscope differs with my perception
of the quality of musical reproduction, then I don't care - I just want to
hear Duke Ellington or whoever in my living room in a way which involves me
most in the music.

It isn't
clear to me what 'some objective way superior to CD' would mean in the
context of understanding how human hearing perception works.

The above mentioned have mostly been dismissed, but we still hear
claims of extended frequency response for vinyl - also untrue in 99%
of cases.

People listen
to SOTA vinyl systems, find they sound great and buy them. Ditto with
valve amplication. In the context of the High End audio market, vinyl and
valve amplication are a large percentage; they are not a tiny band at all.
Audio Research produce both solid state and valve amplification, and yet
the majority of their sales as far as I know are for valve/tube stuff.

The so-called 'High End' market is in itself tiny, and is
ever-shrinking, as ARC can confirm.
So what?

These problems are amusing in the same way that Einstein or Newton found
their scientific research problems 'amusing'. It doesn't mean they are
trivial problems, or that we currently understand very well at all.

Oh, I think we understand the *added* euphonic artifacts of tubes and
vinyl pretty well. The problem is getting 'high enders' to admit their
existence, even though it's easy to prove.
No we don't. In what way is it easy to prove? You have a scientific theory?

-- Richard

Gary Rosen wrote:
"Michael Mossey" wrote in message
...

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

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

- Gary Rosen

Let me say that it wasn't a study, it was a report of subjective
experience. I'm not sure how you would establish in an objective way
that "component A creates a brain response similar to the live feed";
maybe a PET scan. However, it is still an extremely important report
to counter the constant assertions here that people who like analog are
not concerned with accuracy. *Some* people who like analog don't have
any reference, to be sure. They can report they like the sound of it
better than digital. But others do have a reference.

I was a student at Caltech 1987 to 1991. James Boyk introduced me to
an engineer at Sheffield Lab. A group of engineers at the Sheffield
Lab had, a few years prior, compared a live feed to its recording, in
digital, analog tape, and direct-to-disk master. The direct-to-disk
was the best reproduction of the live feed, followed by the analog tape
and digital.

If you want to know more, contact the folks at Sheffield Lab. Which,
by the way, has the best recordings I've ever heard.

-Mike

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

Codifus wrote:

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

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

An interesting anecdote, but others will tell the opposite tale.

Precisely. Others will tell the opposite tale, because everyone has
their own way of processing information, of making conscious experience
out of the raw input of senses. In your way, digital artifacts are
negligible. In mine, they are not.

-Mike