" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
Most of your post here expresses the basic objectivist's error of
conflating measured (objective) performance with the *experience* of
listening to something. More specific points below:


wrote:
wrote in message
...
Jenn wrote:
So, after a week of living with the Clearaudio TT/arm/cartridge, I
love
it more and more. The sound that I am getting from my records is
just
so effortless and easy... like a good concert hall. I just put on
several CDs, and I just don't get that with them. The timbres are
thinner and less life-like. I wish that it were the other way
around,
but it's not. If this is due to "euphonic distortion", bring on more
of
it!

We know the objectivists think it is euphonic distortion.

The funny thing is, I have NEVER, not ONCE met an objectivist who
could
accurately repeat the description of vinyl provided by those who think
vinyl is truer to life.


It's like arguing with someone who is convinced that God exists and that
miracles happen. There is no way that an inferior medium can be better
than
an inferior one.
Vinyl playback is limited by the medium which is inherently flawed. It
is
rife with distortions of speed accuracy, wow and flutter and the media
that
it is transcibed on, not to mention the differences in equipment.

For example, we get all this stuff about "midrange phasiness",
"enhanced ambience", "pleasant timbre," etc.

It's not stuff, it's the way it is.


Of course, none of that describes the reason I like vinyl---and your
word "effortless" above conveys this: the way the sound comes to my
attention, how it feels to pay attention to it, particularly to pay
attention to multiple voices, more accurately reflects live listening.


The differences are due to the way LP's are mixed and the things you are
used to.


Just to put the record straight, LPs are not mixed:-) There is a master
which may be a stereo mix from an analogue or digital multitrack, or
it may be a straight stereo recording. The CD is made from the same
master from which the disc is cut.

In disc cutting, the object of the exercise was to transfer as faithfully
as possible the signal from the master tape to the acetate disc. No
more, no less. This in itself is a considerable challenge - any fool can
make it different.

In CD production, the mastering stage is often regarded as an extension
of the recording process, at which changes are made. Oddly enough
the increased dynamic of CD would lead one to believe that compression
would not be necessary. There is in fact much more compression used
in CD production of pop music than was normally used in disc cutting.

Iain

Iain M Churches wrote:
" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
Most of your post here expresses the basic objectivist's error of
conflating measured (objective) performance with the *experience* of
listening to something. More specific points below:


wrote:
wrote in message
...
Jenn wrote:
So, after a week of living with the Clearaudio TT/arm/cartridge, I
love
it more and more. The sound that I am getting from my records is
just
so effortless and easy... like a good concert hall. I just put on
several CDs, and I just don't get that with them. The timbres are
thinner and less life-like. I wish that it were the other way
around,
but it's not. If this is due to "euphonic distortion", bring on more
of
it!

We know the objectivists think it is euphonic distortion.

The funny thing is, I have NEVER, not ONCE met an objectivist who
could
accurately repeat the description of vinyl provided by those who think
vinyl is truer to life.


It's like arguing with someone who is convinced that God exists and that
miracles happen. There is no way that an inferior medium can be better
than
an inferior one.
Vinyl playback is limited by the medium which is inherently flawed. It
is
rife with distortions of speed accuracy, wow and flutter and the media
that
it is transcibed on, not to mention the differences in equipment.

For example, we get all this stuff about "midrange phasiness",
"enhanced ambience", "pleasant timbre," etc.

It's not stuff, it's the way it is.


Of course, none of that describes the reason I like vinyl---and your
word "effortless" above conveys this: the way the sound comes to my
attention, how it feels to pay attention to it, particularly to pay
attention to multiple voices, more accurately reflects live listening.


The differences are due to the way LP's are mixed and the things you are
used to.


Just to put the record straight, LPs are not mixed:-) There is a master
which may be a stereo mix from an analogue or digital multitrack, or
it may be a straight stereo recording. The CD is made from the same
master from which the disc is cut.

Well, not necessarily. A production tape can be mastered with vinyl in mind
as the delivery format. Such 'LP' master tapes reportedly were often
used for the early CD releases, since they were the closest to hand.
Some people blame this practice for the supposedly not-impressive
sound of early CDs. (Paradoxically in the case of vinylphiles claiming this,
because one would think that if vinyl
is inherently the'best' sounding medium, then a tape made for vinyl should be
the best source too -- unless you believe that the cutting process, the disc itself,
and the vinyl playback are what impart the 'magic' to the medium.)

The preferred practice today as you no doubt know, is to seek out the original
analog mixdown master tapes, and remaster them appropriately to digital (or just leave
them be and do a 'flat' transfer).

In disc cutting, the object of the exercise was to transfer as faithfully
as possible the signal from the master tape to the acetate disc. No
more, no less. This in itself is a considerable challenge - any fool can
make it different.

What *objective* measure of 'faithfulness' do cutting engineers use these
days, I wonder?

In CD production, the mastering stage is often regarded as an extension
of the recording process, at which changes are made. Oddly enough
the increased dynamic of CD would lead one to believe that compression
would not be necessary. There is in fact much more compression used
in CD production of pop music than was normally used in disc cutting.

This is a practice that developed in the early 90s and is now
widespread. It was driven by producers/record company people more
than mastering engineers. It is of course not a necessary adjunct
of the CD format, merely an unfortunate *option*. One of the few
inherent 'plusses' of the SACDS spec is that it does not allow the sort
of 'clipression' (clipping + compression) that redbook allows. To
achieve that in an SACD release you have to do it in the PCM realm first,
then transcode.



--
-S
"The most appealing intuitive argument for atheism is the mindblowing stupidity of religious
fundamentalists." -- Ginger Yellow