I don't mean to start what could turn into a nasty argument, but I was
wodnering something. Last night I was listening to one of my favorite
records- Tom Jobim and Elis Regina "Elis and Tom". I have the lp and
also the cd. I was listening to the lp and even though my copy
crackles like a bowl of rice krispies, I couldn't believe how good it
sounded. I'm trying to think of words to describe it- the best I can
come up with would be transparent, detailed and alive. It just sounded
very natural to me. Now I own this recording on cd and so i grabbed it
and compared the two. The cd definitely sounds good, but it didn't
sound near as lifelike as the vinyl. Am I dreaming? what is it I'm
hearing?

Nate

Nate Najar wrote:
I don't mean to start what could turn into a nasty argument, but I was
wodnering something. Last night I was listening to one of my favorite
records- Tom Jobim and Elis Regina "Elis and Tom". I have the lp and
also the cd. I was listening to the lp and even though my copy
crackles like a bowl of rice krispies, I couldn't believe how good it
sounded. I'm trying to think of words to describe it- the best I can
come up with would be transparent, detailed and alive. It just sounded
very natural to me. Now I own this recording on cd and so i grabbed it
and compared the two. The cd definitely sounds good, but it didn't
sound near as lifelike as the vinyl. Am I dreaming? what is it I'm
hearing?

I don't know, but I'd be willing to bet that 90% of what you hear is
an absence of screwy crap going on in the mastering room. Just sit
back and enjoy it.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Nate Najar wrote:

I don't mean to start what could turn into a nasty argument, but I was
wodnering something. Last night I was listening to one of my favorite
records- Tom Jobim and Elis Regina "Elis and Tom". I have the lp and
also the cd. I was listening to the lp and even though my copy
crackles like a bowl of rice krispies, I couldn't believe how good it
sounded. I'm trying to think of words to describe it- the best I can
come up with would be transparent, detailed and alive. It just sounded
very natural to me. Now I own this recording on cd and so i grabbed it
and compared the two. The cd definitely sounds good, but it didn't
sound near as lifelike as the vinyl. Am I dreaming? what is it I'm
hearing?

Well.... actually everything you hear is analogue. Until the human brain
can decode SPDIF or AES3 that'll continue to be the way. ;-)

Graham

What Scott said PLUS the fact that you shouldn't treat it as a
medium-ears chain. You might have used the same speakers and
amplifier but who knows how the D/A converter on your CD-player
'compares' to the signal coming out of your turntable? Think about
it... weren't you looking for better converters a couple of days ago?
By the way, congratulations about your music man, musicianship like
this is a rarity nowadays!

Regards,

Evangelos

%
Evangelos Himonides
IoE, University of London
tel: +44 2076126599
fax: +44 2076126741
"Allas to those who never sing but die with all their music in them..."

Oliver Wendell Holmes
%

IMHO digital world sounds much more detailed and transparent.
....and, most of times, it is not a good thing....
I imagine digital vs. analog like close micing vs. room micing... You hear
too much details!!
Nobody ever should listen to a violin 1 foot far!! It is awful as digital
often is...

Anyway it is very difficult to talk about these things in a newsgroup.... I
think many people have written books on the subject...
F.



"Nate Najar" ha scritto nel messaggio
oups.com...
I don't mean to start what could turn into a nasty argument, but I was
wodnering something. Last night I was listening to one of my favorite
records- Tom Jobim and Elis Regina "Elis and Tom". I have the lp and
also the cd. I was listening to the lp and even though my copy
crackles like a bowl of rice krispies, I couldn't believe how good it
sounded. I'm trying to think of words to describe it- the best I can
come up with would be transparent, detailed and alive. It just sounded
very natural to me. Now I own this recording on cd and so i grabbed it
and compared the two. The cd definitely sounds good, but it didn't
sound near as lifelike as the vinyl. Am I dreaming? what is it I'm
hearing?

Nate

"Evangelos Himonides" wrote in
message
oups.com

What Scott said PLUS the fact that you shouldn't treat it
as a medium-ears chain. You might have used the same
speakers and amplifier but who knows how the D/A
converter on your CD-player 'compares' to the signal
coming out of your turntable?

What's coming out of the turntable is pretty gross, compared
to even mediocre modern turntable/cartridge output.

No, Scott was right - its no doubt about differences in
mastering.

Just listen to the new remix/remaster of Hotel California. Even though the
original tracks had to be analog, they managed to *192kHz * it at some point
it and then *clean it up*. It is somewhat painful to hear.

"Federico" wrote in message
...
IMHO digital world sounds much more detailed and transparent.
...and, most of times, it is not a good thing....
I imagine digital vs. analog like close micing vs. room micing... You hear
too much details!!
Nobody ever should listen to a violin 1 foot far!! It is awful as digital
often is...

Anyway it is very difficult to talk about these things in a newsgroup....
I
think many people have written books on the subject...
F.



"Nate Najar" ha scritto nel messaggio
oups.com...
I don't mean to start what could turn into a nasty argument, but I was
wodnering something. Last night I was listening to one of my favorite
records- Tom Jobim and Elis Regina "Elis and Tom". I have the lp and
also the cd. I was listening to the lp and even though my copy
crackles like a bowl of rice krispies, I couldn't believe how good it
sounded. I'm trying to think of words to describe it- the best I can
come up with would be transparent, detailed and alive. It just sounded
very natural to me. Now I own this recording on cd and so i grabbed it
and compared the two. The cd definitely sounds good, but it didn't
sound near as lifelike as the vinyl. Am I dreaming? what is it I'm
hearing?

Nate

Nate Najar wrote:
I don't mean to start what could turn into a nasty argument, but I was
wodnering something. Last night I was listening to one of my favorite
records- Tom Jobim and Elis Regina "Elis and Tom". I have the lp and
also the cd. I was listening to the lp and even though my copy
crackles like a bowl of rice krispies, I couldn't believe how good it
sounded. I'm trying to think of words to describe it- the best I can
come up with would be transparent, detailed and alive. It just sounded
very natural to me. Now I own this recording on cd and so i grabbed it
and compared the two. The cd definitely sounds good, but it didn't
sound near as lifelike as the vinyl. Am I dreaming? what is it I'm
hearing?

Nate

MAYBE...

An analog waveform is continuous. A digital representation is chopped
up into a zillion samples. The ears/brain SHOULDN'T hear a difference,
but maybe they do.

Also, the analog was processed in several ways: NR in the mult process
and the 2-track master process, then a few tweaks in mastering for
vinyl, then the RIAA curve, then your system theoretically decoding the
RIAA curve.

I'm a digiphile, but I sometimes prefer analog. Years ago, I
transferred my old 8 track mults to digital and did new mixes, and I
love them. On a whim while I was cleaning the studio, I broke out the
old machine and listened to the original analog mult tapes. WOW! I
can't describe it!

Animix wrote:
Just listen to the new remix/remaster of Hotel California. Even though the
original tracks had to be analog, they managed to *192kHz * it at some point
it and then *clean it up*. It is somewhat painful to hear.

The original CD reissue was pretty nasty too, with a really screechy top
end.

So far the LP is the only release I know of that was not horribly abused.
As long as this sort of thing keeps up, people will keep buying turntables.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

wrote:

MAYBE...

An analog waveform is continuous. A digital representation is chopped
up into a zillion samples.

And maybe not. Please, let's end this branch right here. (wishful
thinking)

I bet that's it- I didn't think about the mastering process for one
versus the other, but that could have a lot to do with it being dull or
lifelike. And the converters, that's also a good point! I have a $200
sony consumer cd player so i guess that's making a difference. haha
maybe I should buy a 2 channel benchmark or apogee dac for my stereo!

I'm on the lookout for a used tango if anyone knows of one available.
none on ebay as of late.

thanks again to everyone for the great advice on this ng.

Nate

On 8/29/05 10:23 AM, in article
, "Nate Najar"
wrote:

I don't mean to start what could turn into a nasty argument, but I was
wodnering something. Last night I was listening to one of my favorite
records- Tom Jobim and Elis Regina "Elis and Tom". I have the lp and
also the cd. I was listening to the lp and even though my copy
crackles like a bowl of rice krispies, I couldn't believe how good it
sounded. I'm trying to think of words to describe it- the best I can
come up with would be transparent, detailed and alive. It just sounded
very natural to me. Now I own this recording on cd and so i grabbed it
and compared the two. The cd definitely sounds good, but it didn't
sound near as lifelike as the vinyl. Am I dreaming? what is it I'm
hearing?

Until and unless you find out ALL of the following:

-----------------
What was done in the mastering of the LP

What the differences are between
the ACTUAL MASTER for the LP and
what actually appeared ON the PRESSED COPY YOU HAVE.

What odd things happen attributable to your Stylus, Cartridge and preamp

What was done in the mastering of the CD
----------------------

There is NO way to figure out WHICH of those distortions and changes are
what you LIKE in the modified sound from the original recording.

On 8/29/05 11:25 AM, in article
, "Evangelos Himonides"
wrote:

...who knows how the D/A converter on your CD-player
'compares' to the signal coming out of your turntable?

I'd lay odds that, even with older convertors, WAYYYY less change happens in
the digital version...

On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 19:30:32 GMT, SSJVCmag
wrote:

On 8/29/05 10:23 AM, in article
.com, "Nate Najar"
wrote:

I don't mean to start what could turn into a nasty argument, but I was
wodnering something. Last night I was listening to one of my favorite
records- Tom Jobim and Elis Regina "Elis and Tom". I have the lp and
also the cd. I was listening to the lp and even though my copy
crackles like a bowl of rice krispies, I couldn't believe how good it
sounded. I'm trying to think of words to describe it- the best I can
come up with would be transparent, detailed and alive. It just sounded
very natural to me. Now I own this recording on cd and so i grabbed it
and compared the two. The cd definitely sounds good, but it didn't
sound near as lifelike as the vinyl. Am I dreaming? what is it I'm
hearing?

Until and unless you find out ALL of the following:

-----------------
What was done in the mastering of the LP

What the differences are between
the ACTUAL MASTER for the LP and
what actually appeared ON the PRESSED COPY YOU HAVE.

What odd things happen attributable to your Stylus, Cartridge and preamp

What was done in the mastering of the CD
----------------------

{quote}------------------------There is NO way to figure out WHICH of
those distortions and changes are what you LIKE in the modified sound
from the original recording.

To master a LP, you would have some limitations not present in a CD
mastering. I have a feeling that you can handle, at record mastering,
[almost] to your heart's desire with mid to mid-high frequencies and
these are of an utmost importance. At low frequencies and at very high
frequencies, you have to watch your steps. So you can't blow things
much up like you can on CD. And a Pultec equalizer is so gentle. Yes,
unlike a perfectly-copied CD, there are sooo much variables involved
in a LP from mastering to reproduction of it and yes, that's life)

-- I transfer a record to PC by bypassing RIAA, im fact bypassing all
electronics -- a cartridge to input directly. My, what amount of
distorsion sometimes, more revealed by such a linear playback,
especially at microgroove 45 RPM singles and at inner diameters. But
this can be controlled to an extent by careful reequalization. And if
you can -- please -- stay away from those 17, 18, 19, 20 plus kHz
areas in your transfer work, a CD can sound soft yet precise enough. A
PC-drawn RIAA or whatever correction curve seems to be good enough for
me.

And yes, these old recording are often distant microphone recorded (or
very sensibly mixed) and _no way_ would a violin sound extremely
precisely at hard left while the player breathes at hard right.

As to distorsion --it is ridiculous to see that a 1906 recording
yields frequency tops to 22 kHz but this means, 80 % of all the plot
is distorsion only. This, under circumstances ("good" harmonics, doh)
can give a seemingly pleasant impression too. But these are just
artifacts in such cases.

Edi Zubovic, Crikvenica, Croatia

I think my previous attempt to post worked, so I'll try again. Forgive
me if this is redundant.

First off, I agree with the posters about the differences in mastering
being a likely reason people prefer analog versions of songs. But I
have a more general hypothesis for why people may prefer analog sound.
(Likely this is not an original idea, but since no one has mentioned it
here, I will.)

It's my idea that perhaps people prefer analog sound because of the
noise that's present in the music in the analog domain. Analog mediums
have tape hiss, turntable rumble, all of that. Phrases used to describe
analog sound typically are "warmer" and "less sterile". I'm thinking
that the noise in the analog domain feels more natural, or comfortable,
from a psychoacoustical point of view, than music playing with no noise
floor.

Has anyone ever tested this? For example, take a digital recording.
Make a second copy, but add tape hiss or low level pink noise. Will
listeners prefer the version with noise, and describe it as "warmer" or
"less sterile"? I'm curious. Does anyone know if similar tests have
been performed?

Dean

"Nate Najar" wrote in message
oups.com...
I don't mean to start what could turn into a nasty argument, but I was
wodnering something. Last night I was listening to one of my favorite
records- Tom Jobim and Elis Regina "Elis and Tom". I have the lp and
also the cd. I was listening to the lp and even though my copy
crackles like a bowl of rice krispies, I couldn't believe how good it
sounded. I'm trying to think of words to describe it- the best I can
come up with would be transparent, detailed and alive. It just sounded
very natural to me. Now I own this recording on cd and so i grabbed it
and compared the two. The cd definitely sounds good, but it didn't
sound near as lifelike as the vinyl. Am I dreaming? what is it I'm
hearing?


A few possibilities, any or all:
1 - The CD is reproducing the master faithfully, where-as the LP chain is
filtering out a whole lot of stuff.
2 - The mastering is totally different on each issue.
3 - The processing on the CD release has been flawed at some stage -
inferior AD, mastering processing, or subsequent digital manipulation on the
way to glass master.
4 - Bad glass master or stamper.
5 - Your CD playback chain, which may be being stressed by the CD release in
ways the LP cannot.
6- Probably quite a few other possibilities, but I'd say most likely "1".

geoff

On 29 Aug 2005 14:14:25 -0700, "drichard" wrote:

It's my idea that perhaps people prefer analog sound because of the
noise that's present in the music in the analog domain. Analog mediums
have tape hiss, turntable rumble, all of that. Phrases used to describe
analog sound typically are "warmer" and "less sterile". I'm thinking
that the noise in the analog domain feels more natural, or comfortable,
from a psychoacoustical point of view, than music playing with no noise
floor.

FWIW, I'm somewhat of the same mind. Maybe more importantly
to folks like me of a certain age. But, fersure, there certainly
is some there there.

Has anyone ever tested this? For example, take a digital recording.
Make a second copy, but add tape hiss or low level pink noise. Will
listeners prefer the version with noise, and describe it as "warmer" or
"less sterile"? I'm curious. Does anyone know if similar tests have
been performed?

Dunno, but the converse is inverse (IMO, others disagree). For
me a good A/D/A conversion sounds as good as the original A.
Just lends credence to your theory, if you believe my
observation.

Belief, said Peter Pan,

Chris Hornbeck
"What I love about Jean-Luc Godard is that he is honest, smart,
and has no humility." -butterfinger, reviewing _Pierrot le fou_, 1965

On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 10:31:02 +1200, "Geoff@work"
wrote:

sound near as lifelike as the vinyl. Am I dreaming? what is it I'm
hearing?


A few possibilities, any or all:
1 - The CD is reproducing the master faithfully, where-as the LP chain is
filtering out a whole lot of stuff.
2 - The mastering is totally different on each issue.
3 - The processing on the CD release has been flawed at some stage -
inferior AD, mastering processing, or subsequent digital manipulation on the
way to glass master.
4 - Bad glass master or stamper.
5 - Your CD playback chain, which may be being stressed by the CD release in
ways the LP cannot.
6- Probably quite a few other possibilities, but I'd say most likely "1".

Excellent analysis, but your #6 conclusion implies that we
should be doctoring CD releases to sound like vinyl....

You can't really mean that, of course, so maybe there's
something interesting in the artifacts? (Personally, I
doubt it, but who knows? It's a wacky biz.)

Thanks, as always,

Chris Hornbeck

I still feel analog with SR is still better than 24 bit/96k.
I run the analog at a low flux density and it remains very quiet.
The 12k-16k region sounds silkier with the analog.
If I'm not mistaken, the best mastering places still conclude that
analog 1/2 is still the primary mixing medium.
kevin

"Chris Hornbeck" wrote in message

Excellent analysis, but your #6 conclusion implies that we
should be doctoring CD releases to sound like vinyl....


No - that would imply that compromised reproduction should be the criteria
to be aimed for. That some individual prefers things to sound that way
should not be a factor.

Peter Walker's "Closest approach to the original sound" - that being the
master or the original performance (depending on the nature of the music) -
should be the criteria.

geoff

Chris Hornbeck wrote:

Excellent analysis, but your #6 conclusion implies that we
should be doctoring CD releases to sound like vinyl....

If the vinyl sounds good and the CD issue sounds bad, then by all means
we should be doing SOMETHING to make the CD sound more like the vinyl.

You can't really mean that, of course, so maybe there's
something interesting in the artifacts? (Personally, I
doubt it, but who knows? It's a wacky biz.)

I find disc recording artifacts annoying for the most part, but I find
mangled and overcompressed crap much worse. It is very hard to find
any CDs that have not been horribly overprocessed today.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On 29 Aug 2005 21:08:22 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

I find disc recording artifacts annoying for the most part, but I find
mangled and overcompressed crap much worse. It is very hard to find
any CDs that have not been horribly overprocessed today.

I'm getting so geezery that I have to be convinced by a trusted
friend to buy *any* new music, and there's no reference point
for anything technically.

Mostly, for pop music, it doesn't matter any more. ? Is that
really true?


My personal taste in recordings, and what I strive for in my
own minor efforts, is a verbatim, as possible, reproduction.
'Course, this isn't the only possibility.


And the unpopular and never-expressed-because-one-would-
be-publicly-"struggled" preference for analog commercial
recordings must remain in the closet.

Arf, as always,

Chris Hornbeck

Maybe you should try the latest brazilian reissue (2004). It's a double
pack that comes with the re-mastered album on CD plus a DVD-A with a
sorround mix.
It was mastered at Sterling Sound, by Tom Coyne.
You can find it at www.trama.com.br

Regards
J.P. Ambrogi
BRAZIL


Nate Najar escreveu:

Last night I was listening to one of my favorite
records- Tom Jobim and Elis Regina "Elis and Tom". I have the lp and
also the cd. I was listening to the lp and even though my copy
crackles like a bowl of rice krispies, I couldn't believe how good it
sounded.

Chris Hornbeck wrote:
On 29 Aug 2005 21:08:22 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

I find disc recording artifacts annoying for the most part, but I find
mangled and overcompressed crap much worse. It is very hard to find
any CDs that have not been horribly overprocessed today.

I'm getting so geezery that I have to be convinced by a trusted
friend to buy *any* new music, and there's no reference point
for anything technically.

Right, but I assure you that old reissues are being horribly mangled
as well.

Mostly, for pop music, it doesn't matter any more. ? Is that
really true?

No, loudness matters. Nothing else matters. The Latin folks are even
worse than the pop guys too.

My personal taste in recordings, and what I strive for in my
own minor efforts, is a verbatim, as possible, reproduction.
'Course, this isn't the only possibility.

I tend to agree, but I'm not the average record buyer.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Mike Rivers wrote:

wrote:

An analog waveform is continuous.

But it isn't. There are these little particles of rust...

A digital representation is chopped
up into a zillion samples.

And maybe not. Please, let's end this branch right here. (wishful
thinking)

I dunno, you could run with it, too...

If you chop the branch into molecule-size chunks and then glue 'em back
together just so, you wind up out on a limb that is obviously just like
much of the rest of the tree, and is exactly like its former self. The
"gluing just so" is the important part.

--
ha

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message news:df0bi6$kp6

I find disc recording artifacts annoying for the most part, but I find
mangled and overcompressed crap much worse. It is very hard to find
any CDs that have not been horribly overprocessed today.

But that's a production 'value'. Nothing to do with the medium.

geoff

Nate Najar wrote:
I don't mean to start what could turn into a nasty argument, but I was
wodnering something. Last night I was listening to one of my favorite
records- Tom Jobim and Elis Regina "Elis and Tom". I have the lp and
also the cd. I was listening to the lp and even though my copy
crackles like a bowl of rice krispies, I couldn't believe how good it
sounded. I'm trying to think of words to describe it- the best I can
come up with would be transparent, detailed and alive. It just sounded
very natural to me. Now I own this recording on cd and so i grabbed it
and compared the two. The cd definitely sounds good, but it didn't
sound near as lifelike as the vinyl. Am I dreaming? what is it I'm
hearing?

Nate

If you have clean records and you can live with the noise floor, Vinyl
is a much better listening experience than CDs in my opinion. So box up
your CDs and go vinyl if you like older jazz and rock. It's really
futile to try and find parity with the CD replacements.

Your ears are not lying to you and by taking a minute to actually
listen and compare vinyl to CD you have a 'bing' moment and the obvious
becomes obvious. So as Scott Dorsey said .... "enjoy".

But your "why does analog sound so good question' could be as easily
phrased as "why do CDs sound so bad".

While it's very true that modern mastering is to blame for a lot of bad
recordings today, the truth is that the resoution of 16/44 CD is not
sufficient for good hi-fi sound and it's not hard to hear. Transfer
vinyl to CD and you'll easily be able to hear the problems even with
good converters. I do it every day have have stated my observations
here many times.

16/44 CD sound, compared to the source, loses depth & dimension and
produces empty sounding mids and highs that are not as smooth and
natural as vinyl or analog in general....... 24/96 is a great
improvement but I agree with the poster who said that 1/2 Analog Dolby
SR is superior. That's a wonderful sound if properly done.


Used Vinyl and decent turntables are not expensive. I use a Throrens in
the studio for transfers, have a pioneer in the living room and my son
has a cheap SONY in his bedroom......And sadly his cheap Sony sounds
Much better than his decent CD player comparing old records to their
'good' CD masters. That tells you something.

VB

Let's face it shall we? There's now a whole new generation of people out
there, 90% of whom have never heard a vinyl record on a
turntable.Furthermore, they are more accustomed to hearing MP3's than CD's.

The sound of Pro Tools, further downsampled to MP3 is as comfortable to the
ears of these people as the sound of vinyl is to those of us who grew up
listening to it.

For the most part, with the majority of the buying public these days tt's
much less about audio quality and much more about having convenient loud
noise .......the louder the better.......and lots of it.....in a little tiny
box that can spit this out into earbuds while your attention is directed
elsewhere.



"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
Chris Hornbeck wrote:
On 29 Aug 2005 21:08:22 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

I find disc recording artifacts annoying for the most part, but I find
mangled and overcompressed crap much worse. It is very hard to find
any CDs that have not been horribly overprocessed today.

I'm getting so geezery that I have to be convinced by a trusted
friend to buy *any* new music, and there's no reference point
for anything technically.

Right, but I assure you that old reissues are being horribly mangled
as well.

Mostly, for pop music, it doesn't matter any more. ? Is that
really true?

No, loudness matters. Nothing else matters. The Latin folks are even
worse than the pop guys too.

My personal taste in recordings, and what I strive for in my
own minor efforts, is a verbatim, as possible, reproduction.
'Course, this isn't the only possibility.

I tend to agree, but I'm not the average record buyer.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

I agree that digital is more transeparent than analog and that's what I
don't like. It's too transparent. I always fell like I hear the analogs
sound ins the space/spaces between instruments. It's like listentig
with a different back drop.

It's like the difference between a photo aof a model and a photo of a
model with make up. The more accurate one is not alwasy the most
pleasing.

And then there's airbrushing which removes obvious flaws, but can look
artificial which also has it's digital audio correlation.

"Animix" wrote in message
...
Let's face it shall we? There's now a whole new generation of people out
there, 90% of whom have never heard a vinyl record on a
turntable.Furthermore, they are more accustomed to hearing MP3's than
CD's.

The sound of Pro Tools, further downsampled to MP3 is as comfortable to
the
ears of these people as the sound of vinyl is to those of us who grew up
listening to it.

For the most part, with the majority of the buying public these days tt's
much less about audio quality and much more about having convenient loud
noise .......the louder the better.......and lots of it.....in a little
tiny
box that can spit this out into earbuds while your attention is directed
elsewhere.


A pretty accurate picture, I'm sad to say.

Predrag

"Vinyl_Believer" wrote in message

While it's very true that modern mastering is to blame for a lot of bad
recordings today, the truth is that the resoution of 16/44 CD is not
sufficient for good hi-fi sound and it's not hard to hear. Transfer
vinyl to CD and you'll easily be able to hear the problems even with
good converters. I do it every day have have stated my observations
here many times.

That's odd. I find that transcibing to CD shows up very clearly the
defficiencies of vinyl. I mean, you cando the same LP on any number of
cartridge/arm/phono-pre combinations, and get extremely different results.
Only one can be right. Conversely, you can play one CD)ex-LP) on a number
of CD players, and *except in a few extreme, and old) cases, get a very much
smalle spread of sonic differences.


16/44 CD sound, compared to the source, loses depth & dimension and
produces empty sounding mids and highs that are not as smooth and
natural as vinyl or analog in general....... 24/96 is a great
improvement but I agree with the poster who said that 1/2 Analog Dolby
SR is superior. That's a wonderful sound if properly done.

So this can be verified with dBD&D measurements of course. And that new
parameter not yet discovered or explaained by physics.

Used Vinyl and decent turntables are not expensive. I use a Throrens in
the studio for transfers, have a pioneer in the living room and my son
has a cheap SONY in his bedroom......And sadly his cheap Sony sounds
Much better than his decent CD player comparing old records to their
'good' CD masters. That tells you something.

But what 'something' ?

geoff

"Animix" wrote in message
...
Let's face it shall we? There's now a whole new generation of people out
there, 90% of whom have never heard a vinyl record on a
turntable.Furthermore, they are more accustomed to hearing MP3's than
CD's.

Sad but true.


The sound of Pro Tools, further downsampled to MP3 is as comfortable to
the
ears of these people as the sound of vinyl is to those of us who grew up
listening to it.

The 'sound of ProTools' sounding like ???

with the majority of the buying public these days tt's
much less about audio quality and much more about having convenient loud
noise .......the louder the better.......and lots of it.....in a little
tiny
box that can spit this out into earbuds while your attention is directed
elsewhere.

But that's nothing to do with either medium.

geoff

Vinyl_Believer wrote:

16/44 CD sound, compared to the source . . . .

Please, tell us of your vast experience recording live music?
Otherwise, how would you know what the source sounds like? I think
you're comparing modern CDs with what you would like them to sound like
(which may be what older vinyl records sound like).

Have you listened to some of the new vinyl that's being produced for
dance DJs? does that sound any better to you than the CDs of the same
or similar music?

I like to listen to my old recordings more than I like to listen to my
new recordings, but that's not because of the audio quality. Some new
recordings that I have are very well recorded, mastered, and pressed.
But I find the music to be too 'pure' and just not something that calls
me back again for another listen. But then I'm more of a casual
listener and don't want my listening experience to be a challange,
either to understand the music, get deeper into the music or songs, or
study the recording techniques or production process.

"Geoff Wood" wrote in message
...

"Animix" wrote in message
...
Let's face it shall we? There's now a whole new generation of people out
there, 90% of whom have never heard a vinyl record on a
turntable.Furthermore, they are more accustomed to hearing MP3's than
CD's.

Sad but true.


The sound of Pro Tools, further downsampled to MP3 is as comfortable to
the
ears of these people as the sound of vinyl is to those of us who grew up
listening to it.

The 'sound of ProTools' sounding like ???

A generalization perhaps, since PT is the *digital standard*. Wouldn't you
agree that digital tracking, as opposed to analog tape, is now, and has been
pervasive for the last 4 or 5 years? There is a difference in the sound of
tape and digital, even after digitizing to 16/44.1. Much less difference
after the final insult of removiing all dynamic range with an L2 and then
the MP3 process. Anything sounds degraded at that point.

with the majority of the buying public these days tt's
much less about audio quality and much more about having convenient loud
noise .......the louder the better.......and lots of it.....in a little
tiny
box that can spit this out into earbuds while your attention is directed
elsewhere.

But that's nothing to do with either medium.

It has to do with both mediums. Anything can be ruined by digital mangling
once it's digitized so the commonality being the final destruction of either
medium when being compressed to MP3 codec.


geoff

Mike,

Your comments seem to agree with my hypothesis that much of what makes
analog so appealing is the inherent noise of the medium. It might be
that the s/n ratio of digital is so high that it sounds unnatural. It's
pretty rare in the real world to have a 96 db s/n ratio. In the real
world we're surrounded by ambient sound.

I'd really like to see that test performed if it hasn't already: A
listener can choose between two recordings that are identical, except
that noise has been added to one. Will they prefer the noisier version?
Will the reasons given be similar to those that analog lovers typically
use to describe why they prefer analog over digital?

Dean

Mike Rivers wrote:
wrote:

MAYBE...

An analog waveform is continuous. A digital representation is chopped
up into a zillion samples.

And maybe not. Please, let's end this branch right here. (wishful
thinking)

You da man, as far as I'm concerned, in audio matters, and I'll accede
to your judgment, but...

Can you explain to me how I'm wrong, if I am?

Is not an analog waveform continuous?

Is not a digital waveform a stream of samples? Thus, "sample rates"?
An audio pioneer who died a few years back opined that, as good as
digital samles were, they had "blank spaces" or "dark spaces" between
them, and that this may account for the subtle hearing differences
between analog and digital. Just his theory.

Geoff Wood wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message news:df0bi6$kp6

I find disc recording artifacts annoying for the most part, but I find
mangled and overcompressed crap much worse. It is very hard to find
any CDs that have not been horribly overprocessed today.

But that's a production 'value'. Nothing to do with the medium.

Right, but unfortunately that "value" has driven people to use another
medium.

There's no reason you can't make wonderfully clean recordings on CD, and
there are folks who have done it. But until someone issues Hair on CD
properly without any aural exciters, I'll keep listening to my LP.

And when the CD sounds worse than Dynagroove, it's really bad.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

wrote in message
oups.com
Mike Rivers wrote:
wrote:

MAYBE...

An analog waveform is continuous. A digital
representation is chopped up into a zillion samples.

And maybe not. Please, let's end this branch right here.
(wishful thinking)

You da man, as far as I'm concerned, in audio matters,
and I'll accede to your judgment, but...

Can you explain to me how I'm wrong, if I am?

Is not an analog waveform continuous?

Depends which analog.

For example, the output of analog tape is based on a fair
number of discrete magnetic domains that have only two
states. Virtually all analog tape playback is more
discontinuous than good 16 bit digital. Virtually all analog
audio signal recording and playbakc is far moer
discontinuous than a 16 bit digital signal, properly
converted back to analog.

Is not a digital waveform a stream of samples?

A properly reconstructed digital signal is a continuous
signal in both the amplitude and time domain.

Thus, "sample rates"?

Think of digital as a black box with a continuous signal
going in, and a continuous signal coming out. If we are
concerned with sound quality, we really don't care what
happens in the entrails of the box. We're just intersted in
results.


An audio pioneer who died a few years
back opined that, as good as digital samles were, they
had "blank spaces" or "dark spaces" between them, and
that this may account for the subtle hearing differences
between analog and digital.

This theory provokes a lot of laughter among knowlegable
people. There were a fair number of old-time technical
greats who just didn't get digital, or even SS.

Just his theory.

Its a theory that can be easily proven or disproven. Too bad
for him.

Animix wrote:
Let's face it shall we? There's now a whole new generation of people out
there, 90% of whom have never heard a vinyl record on a
turntable.Furthermore, they are more accustomed to hearing MP3's than CD's.

Yes, and what is worse, even FEWER of them have ever heard live acoustic
music.

The sound of Pro Tools, further downsampled to MP3 is as comfortable to the
ears of these people as the sound of vinyl is to those of us who grew up
listening to it.

Digital recording is full of artifacts. It's no good. Analogue recording
is also full of artifacts. It's no good either. Only live music is any
good at all.

For the most part, with the majority of the buying public these days tt's
much less about audio quality and much more about having convenient loud
noise .......the louder the better.......and lots of it.....in a little tiny
box that can spit this out into earbuds while your attention is directed
elsewhere.

I don't understand this at all. If music is playing, I will listen to
it. I find it really weird that people want music that is designed not
to be listened to. Not that Erik Satie didn't predict it a century
ago....
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

"drichard" wrote in message
oups.com
Mike,

Your comments seem to agree with my hypothesis that much
of what makes analog so appealing is the inherent noise
of the medium. It might be that the s/n ratio of digital
is so high that it sounds unnatural. It's pretty rare in
the real world to have a 96 db s/n ratio. In the real
world we're surrounded by ambient sound.

The fallacy here is that digital recordings of a given event
don't have any better dynamic range than the event.

The difference is that the digtial recording has a shot at
having the same dynamic range as the event, while a LP
probably doesn't.

I'd really like to see that test performed if it hasn't
already: A listener can choose between two recordings
that are identical, except that noise has been added to
one. Will they prefer the noisier version?

How much noise, what spectra and PDF?

Will the
reasons given be similar to those that analog lovers
typically use to describe why they prefer analog over
digital?

IME love for analog media is a lot about nostalgia and
recordings that were never properly updated to take
advantage of new technology.