I have owned a Harmonia Mundi record for a while now, KHF 21955-B.
Leonhardt/Kuijken playing the Bach sonatas for harpshichord and violin.
I just picked up a CD, deutsche harmonia mundi GD77170, which is
apparently the same performance.

So a comparison of the sound:

(First, I understand they weren't necessarily mastered the same.)

The LP is superior in every way.

The tonal balance on the CD is very odd.. the upper strings of the
harpsichord are "right in your face" and sound like a scraping noise
rather than a plucking noise. The bass notes sound distant and can
barely be heard. The violin tone is thin. A dark veil covers the sound;
tone colors are gray.

The LP is far more detailed, with an effortless kind of detail. One
hears all the individual modulations of the violin line. The violin
tone is full-bodied and effortlessly, immediately present. The
harpsichord actually sounds plucked rather than scraped, and the bass
is audible and actually natural sounding. Harmonic intervals have
character as they should, and that character serves the composition.

Okay, so maybe all the distortions along the way gave the LP its sound.
So somebody should write some code that processes the CD and adds these
distortions. Or I'll do it if you tell me what they are. I have a bit
of signal processing background.. I just don't know what distortions to
add.

It is very odd that I've never encountered a CD processed in this way.
You would think there would be a market for it.. for example, with this
particular comparison, I can't imagine ANYONE liking the CD better than
the LP (never mind tube/analog freaks). I don't understand why they
couldn't master the CD the same way and at least give it a sense of
neutral tonal balance and make the harpsichord sound plucked (as it
should)

I once used a program that simulated tape distortion and tube
distortion, and put a recording with serious digititus through it. No
improvement.

Mike

In article ,
wrote:

I have owned a Harmonia Mundi record for a while now, KHF 21955-B.
Leonhardt/Kuijken playing the Bach sonatas for harpshichord and violin.
I just picked up a CD, deutsche harmonia mundi GD77170, which is
apparently the same performance.

So a comparison of the sound:

(First, I understand they weren't necessarily mastered the same.)

The LP is superior in every way.

Mike

How can You make this evaluation when You use different
playback machines?
Maybe it's time to look for a better CD-player?

(Most albums i have on both LP and CD sounds better on my
LP12 but not all, the most common difference is placement of
performers in the room)

--
Joakim Wendel
Remove obvious mail JUNK block for mail reply.

My homepage : http://violinist.nu

I'll bet that if you record that LP onto a CD that the "magic" would
still be there when you play back the CD.


---MIKE---
In the White Mountains of New Hampshire
(44=B0 15' N - Elevation 1580')

---MIKE--- wrote:
I'll bet that if you record that LP onto a CD that the "magic" would
still be there when you play back the CD.


What "magic" are you talking about? Who are you quoting?


Scott

Scott wrote-

What "magic" are you talking about?
Who are you quoting?

Not you!


---MIKE---
In the White Mountains of New Hampshire
(44=B0 15' N - Elevation 1580')

---MIKE--- wrote:
Scott wrote-

What "magic" are you talking about?
Who are you quoting?

Not you!


Obviously since I have never made any claims of the paranormal. But the
question was who *were* you quoting not who *weren't* you quoting. Such
a simple question and such a poor answer. Could it be because the right
answer would expose a burning straw man?



Scott

Joakim Wendel wrote:
In article ,
wrote:

I have owned a Harmonia Mundi record for a while now, KHF 21955-B.
Leonhardt/Kuijken playing the Bach sonatas for harpshichord and violin.
I just picked up a CD, deutsche harmonia mundi GD77170, which is
apparently the same performance.

So a comparison of the sound:

(First, I understand they weren't necessarily mastered the same.)

The LP is superior in every way.

Mike

How can You make this evaluation when You use different
playback machines?


Do you know a way to compare a CD to an LP using the same player?


Scott

wrote in message
...
Joakim Wendel wrote:
In article ,
wrote:

I have owned a Harmonia Mundi record for a while now, KHF 21955-B.
Leonhardt/Kuijken playing the Bach sonatas for harpshichord and violin.
I just picked up a CD, deutsche harmonia mundi GD77170, which is
apparently the same performance.

So a comparison of the sound:

(First, I understand they weren't necessarily mastered the same.)

The LP is superior in every way.

Mike

How can You make this evaluation when You use different
playback machines?


Do you know a way to compare a CD to an LP using the same player?

1. Copy the LP to a CDR.

2. Play both the LP, on its player, and the CDR on your CD player.

3. Can you tell whether you're listening to the LP or the CDR (without
jumping up and down to make the LP mistrack?)

N.B. You have to make sure that the volume level of both players is the
same.

Norm Strong

Scott wrote:

Obviously since I have never made any
claims of the paranormal. But the
question was who *were* you quoting
not who *weren't* you quoting. Such a
simple question and such a poor
answer. Could it be because the right
answer would expose a burning strawman?

Since your post appears to be confrontational, I will not answer your
question.


---MIKE---
In the White Mountains of New Hampshire
(44=B0 15' N - Elevation 1580')

Hello All
I have a Rega Jupiter and a Rega P5 fitted with a Shure V15VxMR
I tried this same thing with a pressing of the soundtrack from "O
Brother Where Art Thou"
Certain cuts from the LP sound superior, while others from the CD sound
superior. The Soundtrack seems to be mastered in Stereo, imitating mono.
Noticeable differences in sound stage depth and width show up between
the 2 recordings. Voices and instruments sound different between the two.

I have two LP's and one CD of Duke Ellingtons 3 Suites recording. This
is the Nutcracker Suites jazzed up. In this instance, all 3 recording
offer the same width, depth and height to the sound stage. When you
close your eyes, you can actually see the different tiers of the big band.
I can spend hours writing in response to this post, but I feel the
bottom line to the whole argument is, enjoy your music how ever you
wish. CD or Vinyl. They both are good.
Thank you
Mike Mueller

---MIKE--- wrote:
Scott wrote:

Obviously since I have never made any
claims of the paranormal. But the
question was who *were* you quoting
not who *weren't* you quoting. Such a
simple question and such a poor
answer. Could it be because the right
answer would expose a burning strawman?

Since your post appears to be confrontational, I will not answer your
question.

I figured you wouldn't from the get go. I have yet to find any
subjectivist claim that their preference for Lps was the result of
"magic." The only ones I see talking about "magic" are the
objectivists. I think it is a rather weak attempt to discredit
subjectivists. guilt by associasion.But if I am wrong feel free to jump
in and explain why you and others keep bringing up "magic?"

Scott

wrote:
---MIKE--- wrote:
Scott wrote:

Obviously since I have never made any
claims of the paranormal. But the
question was who *were* you quoting
not who *weren't* you quoting. Such a
simple question and such a poor
answer. Could it be because the right
answer would expose a burning strawman?

Since your post appears to be confrontational, I will not answer your
question.

I figured you wouldn't from the get go. I have yet to find any
subjectivist claim that their preference for Lps was the result of
"magic." The only ones I see talking about "magic" are the
objectivists. I think it is a rather weak attempt to discredit
subjectivists. guilt by associasion.But if I am wrong feel free to jump
in and explain why you and others keep bringing up "magic?"

Scott


You can't steriously be saying that no vinyl-lover has ever
expressed the idea that there's 'something magic about vinyl'
that CD doesn't capture'.


Hell, I could find one using that *exact phrase* in a post by googling for it

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.g...e=source&hl=en

Imagine if I started looking for variations on the phrase.


No, Scott, it doesn't mean that anyone believes there is literally
'magic' -- something defying natural laws -- going on.

Or maybe it does -- I wouldn't put that past someone with the
wooly New Age mindset of a Jason Serinus, for example.
You know, Stereophile's featured columnist this month.


--
-S
"If men were angels, no government would be necessary." - James Madison (1788)

wrote in message
...
---MIKE--- wrote:
Scott wrote:

Obviously since I have never made any
claims of the paranormal. But the
question was who *were* you quoting
not who *weren't* you quoting. Such a
simple question and such a poor
answer. Could it be because the right
answer would expose a burning strawman?

Since your post appears to be confrontational, I will not answer your
question.

I figured you wouldn't from the get go. I have yet to find any
subjectivist claim that their preference for Lps was the result of
"magic." The only ones I see talking about "magic" are the
objectivists. I think it is a rather weak attempt to discredit
subjectivists. guilt by associasion.But if I am wrong feel free to jump
in and explain why you and others keep bringing up "magic?"

They certainly seem to be describing magic properties. Thinks like
"musicality," or better sense of realism, and on and on. Thing that if they
are present on an LP would most certainly be present on a CD, since it is
the exact duplicate of whatever recording it is a copy of.

If subjectivists are discredited in any way, it is by their own hand when
they run in circles trying to find reasons for their preference. It's a
preference, that's all. It doesn't have to based on sound reasoning and
obviously isn't given what is known about their prefernces.

Sound reasoning would dictate that one tries to get the same sound as was on
the master, anything that deviates from that is distortion. That many
subjectivists prefer gear that introduces more distortion, it seems fair to
think that they like distortion, as long as it is of a kind that for them,
makes the music sound better to them.

I don't get it and never will. I fell instantly in love with the first CD I
ever heard, a recording of Rimsky Korsakov's Sheherazade that I had
previously ownd the LP of. While the LP was pretty good since it was from a
digital source, it was still bettered by the CD.

Next up was Sade's first album that I also owned the LP of. No amount of
talk will ever get me to go back to LP, it is strictly second rate and
useful only for music where no CD exists or the rare bad CD transfer.

I don't care what others like. I would like to know why they go to such
extremes to try and prove there is something better about their choices,
when on all technical grounds the things that they claim make no sense or
are plainly false.

Steven Sullivan wrote:
wrote:
---MIKE--- wrote:
Scott wrote:

Obviously since I have never made any
claims of the paranormal. But the
question was who *were* you quoting
not who *weren't* you quoting. Such a
simple question and such a poor
answer. Could it be because the right
answer would expose a burning strawman?

Since your post appears to be confrontational, I will not answer your
question.

I figured you wouldn't from the get go. I have yet to find any
subjectivist claim that their preference for Lps was the result of
"magic." The only ones I see talking about "magic" are the
objectivists. I think it is a rather weak attempt to discredit
subjectivists. guilt by associasion.But if I am wrong feel free to jump
in and explain why you and others keep bringing up "magic?"

Scott


You can't steriously be saying that no vinyl-lover has ever
expressed the idea that there's 'something magic about vinyl'
that CD doesn't capture'.


1. I have made no claims that i know what *any* vinyl lover has *ever*
said. What did you not understand about "I have yet to find?"
2. It's a word game and a rather silly one at that. i have heard any
number of people call things magical with nointent to claim a
paranormal event. so, like I said, *I* have never heard any
subjectivist claim that LPs sound better because of some paranormal
phenomenon.





Hell, I could find one using that *exact phrase* in a post by googling for it

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.g...e=source&hl=en

Imagine if I started looking for variations on the phrase.



It isn't hard to imagine you doing so.





No, Scott, it doesn't mean that anyone believes there is literally
'magic' -- something defying natural laws -- going on.


Of course not. all the allusions to religious beliefs about audio and
talk of vinyl magic is just coincidental to the common challenges the
rationality of subjectivists. Call me paranoid. I don' think the choice
of language is accidental.




Or maybe it does -- I wouldn't put that past someone with the
wooly New Age mindset of a Jason Serinus, for example.
You know, Stereophile's featured columnist this month.



Well there you go.



Scott

wrote:

I can only agree with this. I remember witnessing a listening session
in a salon a few years ago, in which several devoted classical-music
lovers were listening to an LP on a very nice system. As the record
neared the cresecendo, I could plainly hear the inner-groove distortion
and some break-up. As the record ended, they cheered. I was appalled.
were these people deaf? I will never go back to vinyl for listening
purposes, though it's not necessarily a bad thing to keep some nice
records around that have interesting jackets.

While I don't disagree with you about the sonic flaws of vinyl, I can
think of several good reasons why even a hardcore objectivist digiphile
would want to keep a turntable handy:

1) Software availability: Lots of stuff on vinyl will never be released
on CD.

2) Cost of conversion: Even a really good vinyl rig can be a lot
cheaper than replacing a large record collection.

3) Techy nostalgia: Old technology is a worthy subset of a number of
hobbies (automobiles, photography, tennis--some folks still play on
grass with wood rackets). Good-sounding vinyl is harder to do than
good-sounding CDs. If you like your audio hands-on, vinyl beats CD any
day of the week.

4) Serendipity: Last weekend, in a dozen bins full of undistinguished
used rock, I found a 40-year-old Paul Desmond LP for $6. Is it
available on CD? Yep, though only as a somewhat pricy import. Would the
CD sound better? Certainly. But I never would have happened upon this
recording any other way, and I'm not sure I'd have sprung for it even
if I had seen it at Tower, say. (I also found a near-pristine copy of
"Horses"--a 12x12 Mapplethorpe portrait for $5, with a free punk record
thrown in!)

And then there's that sweet, sweet distortion.

bob

"---MIKE---" wrote in message
...
The claim that there is no "doctoring" in cutting an LP has been
disproved now.
1. RIAA curve must be inserted
2. Low bass must be mono.
3. Recording level must be gradually increased by about 6db towards
the center of the record.


And when done properly, none of the above necessarily makes any great change
to the "sound" of the original master tapes.

wrote in message
...
Steven Sullivan wrote:
wrote:
---MIKE--- wrote:
Scott wrote:

Obviously since I have never made any
claims of the paranormal. But the
question was who *were* you quoting
not who *weren't* you quoting. Such a
simple question and such a poor
answer. Could it be because the right
answer would expose a burning strawman?

Since your post appears to be confrontational, I will not answer your
question.

I figured you wouldn't from the get go. I have yet to find any
subjectivist claim that their preference for Lps was the result of
"magic." The only ones I see talking about "magic" are the
objectivists. I think it is a rather weak attempt to discredit
subjectivists. guilt by associasion.But if I am wrong feel free to jump
in and explain why you and others keep bringing up "magic?"

Scott


You can't steriously be saying that no vinyl-lover has ever
expressed the idea that there's 'something magic about vinyl'
that CD doesn't capture'.


1. I have made no claims that i know what *any* vinyl lover has *ever*
said. What did you not understand about "I have yet to find?"
2. It's a word game and a rather silly one at that. i have heard any
number of people call things magical with nointent to claim a
paranormal event. so, like I said, *I* have never heard any
subjectivist claim that LPs sound better because of some paranormal
phenomenon.

I'm a subjectivist myself, but I would never suggest that there was anything
paranormal about my choices. If I find that I prefer something that makes
no sense from an objective viewpoint, I want to find out why. No, it isn't
sufficient to simply act on my subjective preference without bothering to
explain them. I'm a somewhat rational human being, and I would not be
comfortable ignoring the facts.

Norm Strong

wrote in message
...
wrote:


I don't get it and never will. I fell instantly in love with the first
CD I
ever heard, a recording of Rimsky Korsakov's Sheherazade that I had
previously ownd the LP of. While the LP was pretty good since it was
from a
digital source, it was still bettered by the CD.

Next up was Sade's first album that I also owned the LP of. No amount of
talk will ever get me to go back to LP, it is strictly second rate and
useful only for music where no CD exists or the rare bad CD transfer.

I don't care what others like. I would like to know why they go to such
extremes to try and prove there is something better about their choices,
when on all technical grounds the things that they claim make no sense or
are plainly false.

I can only agree with this. I remember witnessing a listening session
in a salon a few years ago, in which several devoted classical-music
lovers were listening to an LP on a very nice system. As the record
neared the cresecendo, I could plainly hear the inner-groove distortion
and some break-up. As the record ended, they cheered. I was appalled.
were these people deaf? I will never go back to vinyl for listening
purposes, though it's not necessarily a bad thing to keep some nice
records around that have interesting jackets.

That is the only thing I miss about LP's, those great jackets with sometimes
great art work.
If you were really luck you sometimes got one that opened as if it were a
double album.
My friends and I thought at the time, how great they were for helping to
remove stems and see....
ummm, never mind, did I actually say that?

To sum up,one trades the ease of the bigger print and nice artwork, for
improved fidelity, better dynamics, lower noise, wider frequency response,
lower maintenance, less expensive playback gear, the ability to make exact
duplicates of the album via a computer, for roughly the same or lower cost
for the software (albums). On top of that you get albums like Famous Blue
Raincoat, and Lyle Lovett's Joshua Judges Ruth, that were recorded
digitally, not to mentionall the Telarc and GRP titles which are the most
lifelike, clean recordings one could wish for, IMO.

I feel sorry for the folks that have problems with CD sound, and wish there
were some explanation or treatment that would fix their problem. :-)

Gotta go now, I'm listening to some Sibelius recordings that I downloaded,
with Jascha Heifetz on violin, that don't have any other sound aside from
the music. I may not be an expert, but the sound of the violin sounds very
correct to me. Once that's done I'll be listening to Beethoven's last 3
sonatas, again from download, and no other sound but the music. Life is
good.

wrote:
wrote in message
...
wrote:


I don't get it and never will. I fell instantly in love with the first
CD I
ever heard, a recording of Rimsky Korsakov's Sheherazade that I had
previously ownd the LP of. While the LP was pretty good since it was
from a
digital source, it was still bettered by the CD.

Next up was Sade's first album that I also owned the LP of. No amount of
talk will ever get me to go back to LP, it is strictly second rate and
useful only for music where no CD exists or the rare bad CD transfer.

I don't care what others like. I would like to know why they go to such
extremes to try and prove there is something better about their choices,
when on all technical grounds the things that they claim make no sense or
are plainly false.

I can only agree with this. I remember witnessing a listening session
in a salon a few years ago, in which several devoted classical-music
lovers were listening to an LP on a very nice system. As the record
neared the cresecendo, I could plainly hear the inner-groove distortion
and some break-up. As the record ended, they cheered. I was appalled.
were these people deaf? I will never go back to vinyl for listening
purposes, though it's not necessarily a bad thing to keep some nice
records around that have interesting jackets.

That is the only thing I miss about LP's, those great jackets with sometimes
great art work.
If you were really luck you sometimes got one that opened as if it were a
double album.
My friends and I thought at the time, how great they were for helping to
remove stems and see....
ummm, never mind, did I actually say that?

To sum up,one trades the ease of the bigger print and nice artwork, for
improved fidelity, better dynamics, lower noise, wider frequency response,


Well sometimes yes but far too often no. But then there are no such
trade offs for those of use with both.



lower maintenance, less expensive playback gear,


That is true. But excellence often has it's price.


the ability to make exact
duplicates of the album via a computer,


you know a way of doing this with out LPs and a TT?

for roughly the same or lower cost
for the software (albums). On top of that you get albums like Famous Blue
Raincoat, and Lyle Lovett's Joshua Judges Ruth, that were recorded
digitally,


I have Famous Blue Raincoat on LP.


not to mentionall the Telarc and GRP titles which are the most
lifelike,

IYO. I think a few Telarcs are up there but I have othes that beat even
the best Telarcs.


clean recordings one could wish for, IMO.

You can always wish for more.




I feel sorry for the folks that have problems with CD sound,

Don't mistake someone who has problems with the sound of so many CDs
with someone who has a problem with "CD sound." The persuit of
excellence is tough but don't feel sorry for us the rewards are worth
the effort




were some explanation or treatment that would fix their problem. :-)


The explinations have been provided for you the treatment is obvious.
Better Cds or better LPs. Either way just better.




Gotta go now, I'm listening to some Sibelius recordings that I downloaded,
with Jascha Heifetz on violin, that don't have any other sound aside from
the music.


I suppose you didn't know those are analog recordings.


I may not be an expert, but the sound of the violin sounds very
correct to me.

Correct? You couldn't tell what you are hearing from a live violin?


Once that's done I'll be listening to Beethoven's last 3
sonatas, again from download, and no other sound but the music.



Wishful thinking. Or are you now claiming complete transparency of the
recording, digitization and playback from your system?


Life is
good.


Finally we agree on something.



Scott

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
...
"---MIKE---" wrote in message
...
The claim that there is no "doctoring" in cutting an LP has been
disproved now.
1. RIAA curve must be inserted
2. Low bass must be mono.
3. Recording level must be gradually increased by about 6db towards
the center of the record.


And when done properly, none of the above necessarily makes any great
change
to the "sound" of the original master tapes.

I suppose phono cross-talk also doesn't make any great change to the sound
of the master tapes even though the spec figure is horrendous.

On 9 Mar 2006 01:31:14 GMT, wrote in
:

Sound reasoning would dictate that one tries to get the same sound as was on
the master, anything that deviates from that is distortion.

No, this isn't "sound" reasoning... this is *objectivist* reasoning.

And it's weird IMO, because hardly anybody has actually heard the
master. The subjectivist viewpoint is that one should try to get the
sound that's *closest to live, to one's ears*. That's what you hear,
right? So that's what you want!

BTW, I'm not a hardcore objectivist or subjectivist (if it matters)...
in fact I can see the POV of both camps, as each simply has different
goals in sound reproduction.
--
NewsGuy.Com 30Gb $9.95 Carry Forward and On Demand Bandwidth

Zee wrote:
On 9 Mar 2006 01:31:14 GMT, wrote in
:

Sound reasoning would dictate that one tries to get the same sound as was on
the master, anything that deviates from that is distortion.

No, this isn't "sound" reasoning... this is *objectivist* reasoning.

Both, actually.

And it's weird IMO, because hardly anybody has actually heard the
master.

Warning: Obvious contradiction ahead.

The subjectivist viewpoint is that one should try to get the
sound that's *closest to live, to one's ears*. That's what you hear,
right? So that's what you want!

"And it's weird IMO, because hardly anybody has actually heard the"
live performance.

BTW, I'm not a hardcore objectivist or subjectivist (if it matters)...
in fact I can see the POV of both camps, as each simply has different
goals in sound reproduction.

Not necessarily. It's most likely that everyone, objectivist and
subjectivist alike, just wants something that sounds good to them. The
disagreements are over *why* something sounds better than something
else.

bob


--

Zee wrote:
On 9 Mar 2006 01:31:14 GMT, wrote in
:

Sound reasoning would dictate that one tries to get the same sound as was on
the master, anything that deviates from that is distortion.

No, this isn't "sound" reasoning... this is *objectivist* reasoning.

And it's weird IMO, because hardly anybody has actually heard the
master. The subjectivist viewpoint is that one should try to get the
sound that's *closest to live, to one's ears*. That's what you hear,
right? So that's what you want!


Well, no, it's not what many rock and pop recording artists and
producers want.

And too, for those who *do*, don't you think they'd strive for it
on the *master*?


--

bob wrote:
Zee wrote:
On 9 Mar 2006 01:31:14 GMT, wrote in
:

Sound reasoning would dictate that one tries to get the same sound as was on
the master, anything that deviates from that is distortion.

No, this isn't "sound" reasoning... this is *objectivist* reasoning.

Both, actually.


Please explain how it is "sound reasoning" to use a reference that is
inaccessable and indeterminable without the use of playback thus
setting up playback as a reference for playback?



And it's weird IMO, because hardly anybody has actually heard the
master.

Warning: Obvious contradiction ahead.


Where was it?




The subjectivist viewpoint is that one should try to get the
sound that's *closest to live, to one's ears*. That's what you hear,
right? So that's what you want!

"And it's weird IMO, because hardly anybody has actually heard the"
live performance.


Straw man. The poster said nothing about "the live performance."




BTW, I'm not a hardcore objectivist or subjectivist (if it matters)...
in fact I can see the POV of both camps, as each simply has different
goals in sound reproduction.

Not necessarily. It's most likely that everyone, objectivist and
subjectivist alike, just wants something that sounds good to them. The
disagreements are over *why* something sounds better than something
else.


I think it is fair to say that there is substantial disagreement as to
*what* sounds better. there clearly is a substantial difference in what
the two camps believe is a better reference as well.


Scott


--