[Andrew Haley]

Audio Empire wrote:

Surely, [passion for vinyl] has some root. We can't put it all down
to luddite-ism. Interest in LP is growing - even among the young who
weren't even around in LP's heyday. I recently got a newly released
integrated amplifier from a respected hi-end source which sports
both MM and MC cartridge inputs as well as a built-in 24-bit/192 KHz
dual differential DAC and an ADC (for record out)! So why is LP
still seen as a viable alternative to CD?

I don't think that we have to come up with any magical explanations
for some people liking or preferring vinyl, just as some people prefer
film to digital photography. Vinyl is a pleasing little bit of
retro-technology, with attendant cleaning rituals and nice-looking
turntables; people like to use their beautiful old Pentaxes and Leicas
and Hasselblads too. And, just as vinyl has a certain sound, film has
a certain look, if you like that kind of thing.

When it gets serious, though, people are not so keen on the retro: if
you have a life-threatening infection you're not so likely to reject
antibiotics and insist on sulfonamides.

Well, I know my reasons for continuing to enjoy LP along with CD,
SACD, DVD-A and high-resolution downloads as well as internet radio
(more about this latter source another time), but the reason why
many don't find CD to be all that superior to LPs is based on a very
simple conclusion. While CD SHOULD be superior to LP, and certainly
CAN be superior to LP, it is usually far worse. The fact is that
most commercial CDs sound wretched. They are overproduced (or
indifferently produced) , compressed, limited and generally aimed at
the lowest common denominator. ?This problem isn't just limited to
pop music either. I find that it crosses all musical genres and
barriers.

But almost everyone on this list knows that already: the loudness war
is well-documented, and people have been complaining about bad
recordings and bad pressings for decades. Sure, look-ahead
compressors make dynamic range reduction possible on a scale that
wasn't possible in the past, and some companies abuse them. Having
said that, I'm not so sure that old recordings were so great: some of
them certainly were, but many weren't. Even 30 years ago there were
companies making "audiophile recordings" that had the distinction of
sounding good. (What were all the other companies doing, then?)

http://turnmeup.org/

Andrew.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Jan 25, 4:09=A0am, Andrew Haley
wrote:
Audio Empire wrote:
Surely, [passion for vinyl] has some root. We can't put it all down
to luddite-ism. Interest in LP is growing - even among the young who
weren't even around in LP's heyday. I recently got a newly released
integrated amplifier from a respected hi-end source which sports
both MM and MC cartridge inputs as well as a built-in 24-bit/192 KHz
dual differential DAC and an ADC (for record out)! So why is LP
still seen as a viable alternative to CD?

I don't think that we have to come up with any magical explanations
for some people liking or preferring vinyl, just as some people prefer
film to digital photography. =A0Vinyl is a pleasing little bit of
retro-technology, with attendant cleaning rituals and nice-looking
turntables;


This looks like a case of cherry picking a few reasons held by a few
people out of the many reasons held by many people to put a slant on
other peoples' preferneces. Indeed we do not need to look for
"magical" explanations. We can find many explanations that are
strictly due to sound quality and have nothing to do with nostolgia or
rituals. The large body of better mastered LPs is a very good and
common reason for such a preference along with the now well documented
euphonic distortions that can lead to a more convincing sense of
spaciousness, richness and realism.


people like to use their beautiful old Pentaxes and Leicas
and Hasselblads too.

Of course they do. They still are the best tools and allow us to take
the best pictures in their respective areas of use.


=A0And, just as vinyl has a certain sound, film has
a certain look, if you like that kind of thing.

This is a hasty generalization at best. The implication here seems to
be that digital imaging has surpassed film. This certainly is not the
case with motion picture film which still has greater resolution and a
superior dynamic range by two stops. In fact in tests between the new
Leica M9 digital rangefinder and the "retro-technology based" M3 and
M6 (it is after all a camera that is approaching sixty years since
it's introduction to the market) one still gets better images from the
"retro-technology." It *is* a close contest now but still....You do
get a certain look, a look you get with better resolution and superior
performance in other objectively measurable performance
perameters...if you like that kind of thing.
http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2010/0...ica-m6-part-1/
http://www.imx.nl/photo/leica/camera...4/page164.html




When it gets serious, though, people are not so keen on the retro: if
you have a life-threatening infection you're not so likely to reject
antibiotics and insist on sulfonamides.

But it never gets "serious" in audio because we are talking aesthetic
preferences not life threatening illness. And with aesthetic
preferences subjective impressions are the rule. So your point has no
merit.

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott" wrote in message

..
We can find many explanations that are strictly due to
sound quality and have nothing to do with nostolgia or
rituals. The large body of better mastered LPs is a very
good and common reason for such a preference along with
the now well documented euphonic distortions that can
lead to a more convincing sense of spaciousness, richness
and realism.

There is no such thing as a "large body of better-mastered LPs", compared to
the huge number of well-mastered CDs that continue to be produced.

*Nothing* relating to current LP production is *large* compared to the tens
of thousands of new digital titles that are produced every year. It is all a
tiny niche.

Please study up the number of new digital titles produced say last year or
the year before, and compare that to the number of new LP titles produced
the same year. Provide us with actual numbers from independent sources so
that we can see this purported "large number" for ourselves.

Since you have said that your main system has no digital player attached to
it, how can you claim to speak authoritatively about how digital releases
sound?

[Scott[_6_]]

On Jan 25, 11:18=A0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message


.

We can find many explanations that are strictly due to
sound quality and have nothing to do with nostolgia or
rituals. The large body of better mastered LPs is a very
good and common reason for such a preference along with
the now well documented euphonic distortions that can
lead to a more convincing sense of spaciousness, richness
and realism.

There is no such thing as a "large body of better-mastered LPs", compared=
to
the huge number of well-mastered CDs that continue to be produced.

Actually there is. You may not be aware of it but it does exist.
I have a pretty substantial sampling of that body in my record
collection. It does exist.




*Nothing* relating to current LP production is *large* compared to the te=
ns
of thousands of new digital titles that are produced every year.

Sorry but that is a nonsequitor. I was talking about a body of product
that has been made over the past sixty plus years.

It is all a
tiny niche.


No, the body of LPs that have been produced over the past sixty years
is not a niche. But certainly one can say the current production of
audiophile LPs that have been produced over the past 15 years have
served a niche market. but High end audio is a niche market and this
forum isabout that niche market so i fail to see any point to your
comment about niches.



Please study up the number of new digital titles produced say last year o=
r
the year before, and compare that to the number of new LP titles produced
the same year.


Why would I do that? It has no bearing on my point. I have doen plenty
of comparisons between masterings on various LPs v. CDs. I am sure I
am way ahead of most in doing such comparisons. My homework on the
subject is quite extensive. So I speak from a lot of experience on
that matter.

Provide us with actual numbers from independent sources so
that we can see this purported "large number" for ourselves.

That is an absurd request. How can one "show" superior masterings? You
have to hear it Arny and that is something you have to do for yourself
if you are really interested and it is something you would have to do
under blind conditions if you want to get past your biases on the
subject. I can't help you there.



Since you have said that your main system has no digital player attached =
to
it,


I haven't said that. I have a CD player that does a fine job of
playing CDs.


how can you claim to speak authoritatively about how digital releases
sound?

I don't claim any authority. My opinion is my opinion. But my opinion
is based on extensive comparisons. I base my opinion on how digital
releases sound by playing them on my system.

[Audio Empire]

On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 16:02:30 -0800, Scott wrote
(in article ):

how can you claim to speak authoritatively about how digital releases
sound?

I don't claim any authority. My opinion is my opinion. But my opinion
is based on extensive comparisons. I base my opinion on how digital
releases sound by playing them on my system.

And on the result of those comparisons, I concur. CD rarely sounds as good
as it could or should sound and in instances where a CD and a vinyl release
of the same title exist, the LP usually sounds better, as I said before. It
shouldn't. CD is a vastly superior medium for music and if a technically
inferior and obsolete format is producing results that are superior to the
newer, technically better format, then the reasons for the former's
superiority over the latter must lie elsewhere.

The facts seem to be that in spite of the CD's superior dynamic range over
vinyl, most CD releases still have, for the most part, no more dynamic range
than a good vinyl pressing (and from what I'm hearing, often a good deal
less). Hard limiting and strong compression has a lot to do with this, but my
question is that if CD doesn't need the compression and limiting like vinyl
does, then why do CD mastering facilities employ it at all (much less as
heavily as they seem to)? And in light of the advances in modern electronics
and signal processing, why is it that so many CDs sound as shrill and as
distorted as they do? If CD has a frequency response that is flat to below 20
Hz, why do most CDs not have as good bass as did the LP of the same title,
even when said LP was cut perhaps as much as 30, 40, or 50 years ago (and I
guarantee you that recently remastered LPs have more/better bass than usually
do the CDs of the same title)?

[Steven Sullivan]

Audio Empire wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 16:02:30 -0800, Scott wrote
(in article ):

how can you claim to speak authoritatively about how digital releases
sound?

I don't claim any authority. My opinion is my opinion. But my opinion
is based on extensive comparisons. I base my opinion on how digital
releases sound by playing them on my system.

And on the result of those comparisons, I concur. CD rarely sounds as good
as it could or should sound and in instances where a CD and a vinyl release
of the same title exist, the LP usually sounds better, as I said before.


Let's remember some history. The fanbase most excited about the coming
of CD circa 1982 wasn't rock or pop or country or jazz. It was 'classical'
fans. These were the listeners championing 'high fidelity' the most
consistently over the previous decades. They were excited about a medium
that promised perfect pitch consistentcy, lack of tracking distortion and
wear, 96dB of dynamic range, flat frequency response from 20Hz to 20kHz,
and immunity from 'pops and tics'.

And it has been classical recording which has continued to hold out
longest against the 'loudness wars' (though some recordings have succumbed).

Do classical releases typically get an LP version these days? And if so,
does it usually 'sound better'?





--
-S
We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine

[Audio Empire]

On Tue, 8 Feb 2011 06:57:03 -0800, Steven Sullivan wrote
(in article ):

Audio Empire wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 16:02:30 -0800, Scott wrote
(in article ):

how can you claim to speak authoritatively about how digital releases
sound?

I don't claim any authority. My opinion is my opinion. But my opinion
is based on extensive comparisons. I base my opinion on how digital
releases sound by playing them on my system.

And on the result of those comparisons, I concur. CD rarely sounds as good
as it could or should sound and in instances where a CD and a vinyl release
of the same title exist, the LP usually sounds better, as I said before.


Let's remember some history. The fanbase most excited about the coming
of CD circa 1982 wasn't rock or pop or country or jazz. It was 'classical'
fans. These were the listeners championing 'high fidelity' the most
consistently over the previous decades. They were excited about a medium
that promised perfect pitch consistentcy, lack of tracking distortion and
wear, 96dB of dynamic range, flat frequency response from 20Hz to 20kHz,
and immunity from 'pops and tics'.

Yes, I was one of them. What of it? Most of these same people were highly
disillusioned by the reality of CD. And even if CD, as a medium, does live up
to it's hype, that's not to say that record producers can't or don't suborn
the medium to their own marketing purposes, many of which have nothing to do
with "fi".

And it has been classical recording which has continued to hold out
longest against the 'loudness wars' (though some recordings have succumbed).

Do classical releases typically get an LP version these days? And if so,
does it usually 'sound better'?

Yes. The titles and labels that have stood the test of time do anyway and
they OFTEN sound better than the CD of the same performance, but not always.
And I'm surprised that you have taken it upon yourself to pontificate on this
subject when you don't even pretend to know what's available on vinyl and
what isn't.

[Harry Lavo]

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
Audio Empire wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 16:02:30 -0800, Scott wrote
(in article ):

how can you claim to speak authoritatively about how digital releases
sound?

I don't claim any authority. My opinion is my opinion. But my opinion
is based on extensive comparisons. I base my opinion on how digital
releases sound by playing them on my system.

And on the result of those comparisons, I concur. CD rarely sounds as
good
as it could or should sound and in instances where a CD and a vinyl
release
of the same title exist, the LP usually sounds better, as I said before.


Let's remember some history. The fanbase most excited about the coming
of CD circa 1982 wasn't rock or pop or country or jazz. It was
'classical'
fans. These were the listeners championing 'high fidelity' the most
consistently over the previous decades. They were excited about a medium
that promised perfect pitch consistentcy, lack of tracking distortion and
wear, 96dB of dynamic range, flat frequency response from 20Hz to 20kHz,
and immunity from 'pops and tics'.


And then they heard the early CD's, and that started the anti-CD sentiment.

And it has been classical recording which has continued to hold out
longest against the 'loudness wars' (though some recordings have
succumbed).

Yep, so?

Do classical releases typically get an LP version these days? And if so,
does it usually 'sound better'?


No, because the convenience of not having to change sides overwhelms
everything else....and the state-of-the-art has progressed substantially.
But there has been a strong movement towards SACD among classical musical
lovers. Why do you suppose that is?

[Audio Empire]

On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 11:18:28 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Scott" wrote in message

.
We can find many explanations that are strictly due to
sound quality and have nothing to do with nostolgia or
rituals. The large body of better mastered LPs is a very
good and common reason for such a preference along with
the now well documented euphonic distortions that can
lead to a more convincing sense of spaciousness, richness
and realism.

There is no such thing as a "large body of better-mastered LPs", compared to
the huge number of well-mastered CDs that continue to be produced.

Volume-wise, you're probably correct, but today's newly remastered and newly
pressed vinyl from people like Classic Records et al, are generally of older
titles that had a reputation for sounding great back in the day. These
include jazz titles from Verve, Blue Note, and Riverside, (the last two
largely recorded by Rudy Van Gelder), and classic titles from RCA Victor,
Mercury, British Decca, Vox Turnabout, and Everest among others. Just about
every vinyl title that ended up on somebody's "to die for" list is available
again on really high quality pressings. Often these are DMM mastered and
pressed on 180 or 200 gram virgin vinyl, some are cut at 45 RPM, and some are
even single-sided. All are much better than the original pressings from the
original label's manufacturing facilities. And where the same title is also
available on CD, the vinyl USUALLY sounds better. There are exceptions, of
course. JVC's XRCDs are marvelous and give us a peek at how CDs OUGHT to
sound, but rarely do. Unfortunately, XRCDs are expensive (more than
$30/title) and limited in US distribution. They sound good because they are
carefully made. I'm not sure that I buy the importance of all the steps that
JVC says they use in producing these discs (things like a rubidium master
word clock sync'd to all the digital mastering steps), but the very fact that
they take the time to do it right at all stages of mastering and production
is evident in the final product. and it's a very rare thing these days. I've
noticed (as have others) that the JVC XRCD Red Book releases of the old RCA
Living Stereo titles actually sound MUCH superior to BMGs own SACD
remasterings of these same titles!

*Nothing* relating to current LP production is *large* compared to the tens
of thousands of new digital titles that are produced every year. It is all a
tiny niche.

That's pretty irrelevant to the point here, isn't it Arny? Looks to me that
you have pulled up that old argument confusing quantity with quality. The
purpose of this exercise is to discuss the shortcomings of commercially
available CDs which make them APPEAR to be a medium that is inferior to LP,
SACD, DVD-A and high-resolution downloads, when in fact, it's purely the
execution of those CDs, and not the medium itself which is responsible for
these phenomenon.

Please study up the number of new digital titles produced say last year or
the year before, and compare that to the number of new LP titles produced
the same year. Provide us with actual numbers from independent sources so
that we can see this purported "large number" for ourselves.

I don't think that's relevant at all to the point. I'm sure nobody here is
trying to say that LP in any way competes in the marketplace with CD
production. No one with any sense of the market at all would make such an
irresponsible assertion. I suspect that you misunderstood Scott's intended
meaning.

Since you have said that your main system has no digital player attached to
it, how can you claim to speak authoritatively about how digital releases
sound?

Has Scott, in fact, said that? I must have missed it somewhere.

[Steven Sullivan]

Audio Empire wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 11:18:28 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Scott" wrote in message

.
We can find many explanations that are strictly due to
sound quality and have nothing to do with nostolgia or
rituals. The large body of better mastered LPs is a very
good and common reason for such a preference along with
the now well documented euphonic distortions that can
lead to a more convincing sense of spaciousness, richness
and realism.

There is no such thing as a "large body of better-mastered LPs", compared to
the huge number of well-mastered CDs that continue to be produced.

Volume-wise, you're probably correct, but today's newly remastered and newly
pressed vinyl from people like Classic Records et al, are generally of older
titles that had a reputation for sounding great back in the day. These
include jazz titles from Verve, Blue Note, and Riverside, (the last two
largely recorded by Rudy Van Gelder), and classic titles from RCA Victor,
Mercury, British Decca, Vox Turnabout, and Everest among others. Just about
every vinyl title that ended up on somebody's "to die for" list is available
again on really high quality pressings. Often these are DMM mastered and
pressed on 180 or 200 gram virgin vinyl, some are cut at 45 RPM, and some are
even single-sided. All are much better than the original pressings from the
original label's manufacturing facilities. And where the same title is also
available on CD, the vinyl USUALLY sounds better.


Says who? The majority of impartial listeners in a double-blind, level matched
comparison of media struck from exactly the same mastering chain?

If not, or if such a subject pool doesn't exist in substantial numbers, then
to say it USUALLY sounds anything, is overstepping...unless you mean,
usually *to you*. In which case the caveats about DBT, level matched etc
still apply.



is evident in the final product. and it's a very rare thing these days. I've
noticed (as have others) that the JVC XRCD Red Book releases of the old RCA
Living Stereo titles actually sound MUCH superior to BMGs own SACD
remasterings of these same titles!

So, why would that be? Do you think the SACD releases, whose background has
was covered well in the audio press, actually was significantly less careful
than JVC's XRCDs?

(Personally, I have the XRCD of the Reiner Bartok, and since getting the
3-channel SACD, haven't looked back. They both sound great to me.)


That's pretty irrelevant to the point here, isn't it Arny? Looks to me that
you have pulled up that old argument confusing quantity with quality. The
purpose of this exercise is to discuss the shortcomings of commercially
available CDs which make them APPEAR to be a medium that is inferior to LP,
SACD, DVD-A and high-resolution downloads, when in fact, it's purely the
execution of those CDs, and not the medium itself which is responsible for
these phenomenon.

Then you're confusing quality and quantity too. You're discussing pop CDs,
mostly. "Commercially available" CDs also include a subset of CDs
that aren't loudness war victims.


Also, I can't help noting that you're not saying anything that hasn't been
said dozens of times before, on this newsgroup....all in the service of
reviving a 'dead' group?

Yes, CD is technically superior to LP on all practical fronts. We know.

Yes, modern recording and mastering practice, particularly of 'popular'
music, often does not exploit the fidelity potential of CD, but does exploit
the loudness potential of digital. Therefore LPs mastered to 'audiophile' standards
could well sound better than their CD counterparts that have been mastered to
a different standard. We know.



--
-S
We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine

[Scott[_6_]]

On Feb 8, 7:02=A0am, Steven Sullivan wrote:
Audio Empire wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 11:18:28 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):
"Scott" wrote in message

.
We can find many explanations that are strictly due to
sound quality and have nothing to do with nostolgia or
rituals. The large body of better mastered LPs is a very
good and common reason for such a preference along with
the now well documented euphonic distortions that can
lead to a more convincing sense of spaciousness, richness
and realism.

There is no such thing as a "large body of better-mastered LPs", comp=
ared to
the huge number of well-mastered CDs that continue to be produced.
Volume-wise, you're probably correct, but today's newly remastered and =
newly
pressed vinyl from people like Classic Records et al, are generally of =
older
titles that had a reputation for sounding great back in the day. These
include jazz titles from Verve, Blue Note, and Riverside, (the last two
largely recorded by Rudy Van Gelder), and classic titles from RCA Victo=
r,
Mercury, British Decca, Vox Turnabout, and Everest among others. Just a=
bout
every vinyl title that ended up on somebody's "to die for" list is avai=
lable
again on really high quality pressings. Often these are DMM mastered an=
d
pressed on 180 or 200 gram virgin vinyl, some are cut at 45 RPM, and so=
me are
even single-sided. All are much better than the original pressings from=
the
original label's manufacturing facilities. =A0And where the same title =
is also
available on CD, the vinyl USUALLY sounds better.

Says who? The majority of impartial listeners in a double-blind, level ma=
tched
comparison of media struck from exactly the same mastering chain?

Well actually yes. But since you won't like that answer no use in
explaining it. It will inevitably lead to the usual personal attacks
aginst those involved in the tests. But do you have any "level matched
double blind tests of LPs and CDs struck from exactly the same
mastering chain where the majority of impartial listeners prefered the
CD?



If not, or if such a subject pool doesn't exist in substantial numbers, t=
hen
to say it USUALLY sounds anything, is overstepping...unless you mean,
usually *to you*. =A0In which case the caveats about DBT, level matched e=
tc
still apply.

Well that is not true and you added a ridiculous condition, that the
LPs and CDs had to be struck from exactly the same mastering which is
almost never the case in the real world. The assertion was " where the
same title is also available on CD, the vinyl USUALLY sounds better."
I would add that in these cases the LPs and CDs were almost always
mastered differently by virtue of the fact that they are so rarely not
mastered differently.

[Audio Empire]

On Tue, 8 Feb 2011 07:02:37 -0800, Steven Sullivan wrote
(in article ):

Audio Empire wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 11:18:28 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Scott" wrote in message

.
We can find many explanations that are strictly due to
sound quality and have nothing to do with nostolgia or
rituals. The large body of better mastered LPs is a very
good and common reason for such a preference along with
the now well documented euphonic distortions that can
lead to a more convincing sense of spaciousness, richness
and realism.

There is no such thing as a "large body of better-mastered LPs", compared
to
the huge number of well-mastered CDs that continue to be produced.

Volume-wise, you're probably correct, but today's newly remastered and
newly
pressed vinyl from people like Classic Records et al, are generally of
older
titles that had a reputation for sounding great back in the day. These
include jazz titles from Verve, Blue Note, and Riverside, (the last two
largely recorded by Rudy Van Gelder), and classic titles from RCA Victor,
Mercury, British Decca, Vox Turnabout, and Everest among others. Just about
every vinyl title that ended up on somebody's "to die for" list is
available
again on really high quality pressings. Often these are DMM mastered and
pressed on 180 or 200 gram virgin vinyl, some are cut at 45 RPM, and some
are
even single-sided. All are much better than the original pressings from the
original label's manufacturing facilities. And where the same title is
also
available on CD, the vinyl USUALLY sounds better.


Says who?

Says ME! This is MY OPINION.

The majority of impartial listeners in a double-blind, level
matched comparison of media struck from exactly the same mastering chain?

Couldn't car less. This is not some subtle differences that amount to
counting angels dancing on the head of a pin. These are substantial
differences in content. These are cases where the CD doesn't ever turn-on my
self-powered subwoofers, but the LP does - and at exactly the same volume via
my HP 400E audio VTVM. This indicates that the low frequency content of the
CD is not sufficient to trigger the auto-on circuitry in the subs.

If not, or if such a subject pool doesn't exist in substantial numbers, then
to say it USUALLY sounds anything, is overstepping...unless you mean,
usually *to you*. In which case the caveats about DBT, level matched etc
still apply.

Of course they do,



is evident in the final product. and it's a very rare thing these days.
I've
noticed (as have others) that the JVC XRCD Red Book releases of the old RCA
Living Stereo titles actually sound MUCH superior to BMGs own SACD
remasterings of these same titles!

So, why would that be? Do you think the SACD releases, whose background has
was covered well in the audio press, actually was significantly less careful
than JVC's XRCDs?

Yes.

(Personally, I have the XRCD of the Reiner Bartok, and since getting the
3-channel SACD, haven't looked back. They both sound great to me.)


That's pretty irrelevant to the point here, isn't it Arny? Looks to me that
you have pulled up that old argument confusing quantity with quality. The
purpose of this exercise is to discuss the shortcomings of commercially
available CDs which make them APPEAR to be a medium that is inferior to LP,
SACD, DVD-A and high-resolution downloads, when in fact, it's purely the
execution of those CDs, and not the medium itself which is responsible for
these phenomenon.

Then you're confusing quality and quantity too. You're discussing pop CDs,
mostly. "Commercially available" CDs also include a subset of CDs
that aren't loudness war victims.

No I'm not. I don't listen to "pop" CDs - ever! I despise popular music and
think that a solid-body electric guitar makes among the ugliest sounds on
earth.

[Ed Seedhouse[_2_]]

On Feb 8, 4:32=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:

Couldn't car less. This is not some subtle differences that amount to
counting angels dancing on the head of a pin. These are substantial
differences in content. These are cases where the CD doesn't ever turn-on=
my
self-powered subwoofers, but the LP does - and at exactly the same volume=
via
my HP 400E audio VTVM. This indicates that the low frequency content of t=
he
CD is not sufficient to trigger the auto-on circuitry in the subs.

Most likely it means that the CD has no resonant hump right around
those frequencies, as records and LP playing equipment are well known
to have. And the person mastering hasn't put that hump in there but
recorded flat from the masters.

I have noticed the same thing with my own vinyl records in comparison
with a CD of the same record.

You are right, it is not subtle and I have heard it myself and in my
opinion it is there. But it's not an indication that the vinyl is
"better" than the CD version. No one is disputing here, that I have
seen, that vinyl sounds different then CD. These are, as far as I
know, merely facts, and well known ones. It's when you claim that
therefore the vinyl is objectively better that you leave, in my
opinion, the land of reason, at least on that matter.

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" wrote in message


This is not some subtle differences
that amount to counting angels dancing on the head of a
pin. These are substantial differences in content. These
are cases where the CD doesn't ever turn-on my
self-powered subwoofers, but the LP does - and at exactly
the same volume via my HP 400E audio VTVM. This indicates
that the low frequency content of the CD is not
sufficient to trigger the auto-on circuitry in the subs.

It is highly probable that the source of LF material that you observe while
playing the LPs is the playback system as opposed to the original
performance. LPs are generally recorded with the LF rolled off and/or
summed to mono because of the well-known dynamic range issues that are
inherent in the LP format and absent from digital recordings.

This kind of extraneous LF noise being added during the playback process
almost always happens, and often becomes an easy way to distinguish
transcriptions of LPs from CDs. It is inherent in the tonearm/cartridge
system. One way to hear it more clearly is to listen with certain IEMs and
benefit from their ability reproduce awesome bass.

[Robert Peirce]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Scott" wrote in message

.
We can find many explanations that are strictly due to
sound quality and have nothing to do with nostolgia or
rituals. The large body of better mastered LPs is a very
good and common reason for such a preference along with
the now well documented euphonic distortions that can
lead to a more convincing sense of spaciousness, richness
and realism.

There is no such thing as a "large body of better-mastered LPs", compared to
the huge number of well-mastered CDs that continue to be produced.

*Nothing* relating to current LP production is *large* compared to the tens
of thousands of new digital titles that are produced every year. It is all a
tiny niche.

I don't think he is referring to last year. I don't think there is a
lot of current production in LPs. Most of what I see are re-issues,
although there is some new production. Nor would I use the volume of
new CDs as a measure of quality. I like small group jazz CDs, but most
of the other CDs I hear do not seem to be that well mastered. However,
not being a reviewer, I only get to hear a minuscule percentage of what
is produced.

[Andrew Haley]

Scott wrote:
On Jan 25, 4:09=A0am, Andrew Haley
wrote:
Audio Empire wrote:
Surely, [passion for vinyl] has some root. We can't put it all down
to luddite-ism. Interest in LP is growing - even among the young who
weren't even around in LP's heyday. I recently got a newly released
integrated amplifier from a respected hi-end source which sports
both MM and MC cartridge inputs as well as a built-in 24-bit/192 KHz
dual differential DAC and an ADC (for record out)! So why is LP
still seen as a viable alternative to CD?

I don't think that we have to come up with any magical explanations
for some people liking or preferring vinyl, just as some people prefer
film to digital photography. =A0Vinyl is a pleasing little bit of
retro-technology, with attendant cleaning rituals and nice-looking
turntables;

This looks like a case of cherry picking a few reasons held by a few
people out of the many reasons held by many people to put a slant on
other peoples' preferneces. Indeed we do not need to look for
"magical" explanations. We can find many explanations that are
strictly due to sound quality and have nothing to do with nostolgia or
rituals. The large body of better mastered LPs is a very good and
common reason for such a preference along with the now well documented
euphonic distortions that can lead to a more convincing sense of
spaciousness, richness and realism.

I did allow for that preference when I wrote "And, just as vinyl has a
certain sound, film has a certain look, if you like that kind of
thing." I'm not really sure we even disagree. Vinyl has a certain
sound, and some people like it.

people like to use their beautiful old Pentaxes and Leicas
and Hasselblads too.

Of course they do. They still are the best tools and allow us to take
the best pictures in their respective areas of use.


And, just as vinyl has a certain sound, film has a certain look, if
you like that kind of thing.

This is a hasty generalization at best. The implication here seems to
be that digital imaging has surpassed film. This certainly is not the
case with motion picture film which still has greater resolution and a
superior dynamic range by two stops.

I disagree, but that's getting us way off-topic, so I'm going to leave
it at that. I don't want to try the moderator's patience with a
digression into the film-vs-digital flame war. We've had quite enough
of those in the photo groups. Suffice it to say that some people like
file cameras because they like the cameras and they like the look of
film, regardless of technical issues, and there's nothing wrong with
that.

When it gets serious, though, people are not so keen on the retro: if
you have a life-threatening infection you're not so likely to reject
antibiotics and insist on sulfonamides.

But it never gets "serious" in audio because we are talking aesthetic
preferences not life threatening illness. And with aesthetic
preferences subjective impressions are the rule. So your point has no
merit.

Well, perhaps. You're assuming that what really matters in audio is
aesthetic preferences, and technical issues such as measurable
accuracy are of no great consequence. But not everyone agrees with
that.

Andrew.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Jan 25, 12:48=A0pm, Andrew Haley
wrote:
Scott wrote:
On Jan 25, 4:09=3DA0am, Andrew Haley
wrote:
Audio Empire wrote:
Surely, [passion for vinyl] has some root. We can't put it all down
to luddite-ism. Interest in LP is growing - even among the young who
weren't even around in LP's heyday. I recently got a newly released
integrated amplifier from a respected hi-end source which sports
both MM and MC cartridge inputs as well as a built-in 24-bit/192 KHz
dual differential DAC and an ADC (for record out)! So why is LP
still seen as a viable alternative to CD?

I don't think that we have to come up with any magical explanations
for some people liking or preferring vinyl, just as some people prefer
film to digital photography. =3DA0Vinyl is a pleasing little bit of
retro-technology, with attendant cleaning rituals and nice-looking
turntables;

This looks like a case of cherry picking a few reasons held by a few
people out of the many reasons held by many people to put a slant on
other peoples' preferneces. Indeed we do not need to look for
"magical" explanations. We can find many explanations that are
strictly due to sound quality and have nothing to do with nostolgia or
rituals. The large body of better mastered LPs is a very good and
common reason for such a preference along with the now well documented
euphonic distortions that can lead to a more convincing sense of
spaciousness, richness and realism.

I did allow for that preference when I wrote "And, just as vinyl has a
certain sound, film has a certain look, if you like that kind of
thing." =A0I'm not really sure we even disagree. =A0Vinyl has a certain
sound, and some people like it.

Yes you allowed for it but you did so with a mistaken broad stroke
about vinyl having a certain sound. It does not. Nor does film have a
certain look.


people like to use their beautiful old Pentaxes and Leicas
and Hasselblads too.

Of course they do. They still are the best tools and allow us to take
the best pictures in their respective areas of use.

And, just as vinyl has a certain sound, film has a certain look, if
you like that kind of thing.

No, it does not. It has many looks depending on the film stock,
lenses,camera body, format and choices made by the photographer.


When it gets serious, though, people are not so keen on the retro: if
you have a life-threatening infection you're not so likely to reject
antibiotics and insist on sulfonamides.

But it never gets "serious" in audio because we are talking aesthetic
preferences not life threatening illness. And with aesthetic
preferences subjective impressions are the rule. So your point has no
merit.

Well, perhaps. =A0You're assuming that what really matters in audio is
aesthetic preferences, and technical issues such as measurable
accuracy are of no great consequence.

They are only of consequence in so far as they can help us corolate to
our aesthetic experience. Beyond that they are purely academic.


=A0But not everyone agrees with
that.


You will be hard pressed to find a consensus on anything in this world.

[Rockinghorse Winner[_6_]]

* It may have been the liquor talking, but
Andrew Haley wrote:

Scott wrote:
On Jan 25, 4:09=A0am, Andrew Haley
wrote:
Audio Empire wrote:
Surely, [passion for vinyl] has some root. We can't put it all down
to luddite-ism. Interest in LP is growing - even among the young who
weren't even around in LP's heyday. I recently got a newly released
integrated amplifier from a respected hi-end source which sports
both MM and MC cartridge inputs as well as a built-in 24-bit/192 KHz
dual differential DAC and an ADC (for record out)! So why is LP
still seen as a viable alternative to CD?

I don't think that we have to come up with any magical explanations
for some people liking or preferring vinyl, just as some people prefer
film to digital photography. =A0Vinyl is a pleasing little bit of
retro-technology, with attendant cleaning rituals and nice-looking
turntables;

This looks like a case of cherry picking a few reasons held by a few
people out of the many reasons held by many people to put a slant on
other peoples' preferneces. Indeed we do not need to look for
"magical" explanations. We can find many explanations that are
strictly due to sound quality and have nothing to do with nostolgia or
rituals. The large body of better mastered LPs is a very good and
common reason for such a preference along with the now well documented
euphonic distortions that can lead to a more convincing sense of
spaciousness, richness and realism.

I did allow for that preference when I wrote "And, just as vinyl has a
certain sound, film has a certain look, if you like that kind of
thing." I'm not really sure we even disagree. Vinyl has a certain
sound, and some people like it.

people like to use their beautiful old Pentaxes and Leicas
and Hasselblads too.

Of course they do. They still are the best tools and allow us to take
the best pictures in their respective areas of use.


And, just as vinyl has a certain sound, film has a certain look, if
you like that kind of thing.

This is a hasty generalization at best. The implication here seems to
be that digital imaging has surpassed film. This certainly is not the
case with motion picture film which still has greater resolution and a
superior dynamic range by two stops.

I disagree, but that's getting us way off-topic, so I'm going to leave
it at that. I don't want to try the moderator's patience with a
digression into the film-vs-digital flame war. We've had quite enough
of those in the photo groups. Suffice it to say that some people like
file cameras because they like the cameras and they like the look of
film, regardless of technical issues, and there's nothing wrong with
that.

Absolutely. It depends on the producers. I worked on a popular action TV
show. It was shot on film, because the producers preferred the look. Of
course, it was digitized in post-production, and digital effects added.
I think digital video has a certain look that may or may not appeal to
different folks. There is a definite 'graininess' to film that varies
depending on the film and developing lab.


When it gets serious, though, people are not so keen on the retro: if
you have a life-threatening infection you're not so likely to reject
antibiotics and insist on sulfonamides.

But it never gets "serious" in audio because we are talking aesthetic
preferences not life threatening illness. And with aesthetic
preferences subjective impressions are the rule. So your point has no
merit.

Well, perhaps. You're assuming that what really matters in audio is
aesthetic preferences, and technical issues such as measurable
accuracy are of no great consequence. But not everyone agrees with
that.

Andrew.


*R* *H*
--
Powered by Linux |/ 2.6.32.26-175 Fedora 12
"No spyware. No viruses. No nags." |/ 2.6.31.12-0.2 OpenSUSE 11.2
http://www.jamendo.com |/
"Preach the gospel always; when necessary use words." St. Francis

[Robert Peirce]

In article ,
Andrew Haley wrote:

I don't think that we have to come up with any magical explanations
for some people liking or preferring vinyl, just as some people prefer
film to digital photography. Vinyl is a pleasing little bit of
retro-technology, with attendant cleaning rituals and nice-looking
turntables; people like to use their beautiful old Pentaxes and Leicas
and Hasselblads too. And, just as vinyl has a certain sound, film has
a certain look, if you like that kind of thing.

When it gets serious, though, people are not so keen on the retro: if
you have a life-threatening infection you're not so likely to reject
antibiotics and insist on sulfonamides.

In addition to my love of audio, I have an equal love of photography.
While LPs are not uniformly better than CDs, or vice versa, large format
film remains superior to digital, by a long shot. OTOH, 35mm (or DX)
digital, to my eye, blows film away.

I think digital is getting closer. Phase One just released an 80
megapixel 645 back that, from what I have heard, is almost as good as
film, but not quite. It also costs about $22,000. You can buy a
complete 4x5 setup for not much more than a tenth of that.

[Audio Empire]

On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 15:14:51 -0800, Robert Peirce wrote
(in article ):

In article ,
Andrew Haley wrote:

I don't think that we have to come up with any magical explanations
for some people liking or preferring vinyl, just as some people prefer
film to digital photography. Vinyl is a pleasing little bit of
retro-technology, with attendant cleaning rituals and nice-looking
turntables; people like to use their beautiful old Pentaxes and Leicas
and Hasselblads too. And, just as vinyl has a certain sound, film has
a certain look, if you like that kind of thing.

When it gets serious, though, people are not so keen on the retro: if
you have a life-threatening infection you're not so likely to reject
antibiotics and insist on sulfonamides.

In addition to my love of audio, I have an equal love of photography.
While LPs are not uniformly better than CDs, or vice versa, large format
film remains superior to digital, by a long shot. OTOH, 35mm (or DX)
digital, to my eye, blows film away.

I think digital is getting closer. Phase One just released an 80
megapixel 645 back that, from what I have heard, is almost as good as
film, but not quite. It also costs about $22,000. You can buy a
complete 4x5 setup for not much more than a tenth of that.

I know a local photographer who uses a 4 X 5 sheet-film camera that is
fitted with a scanning digital back (from Leaf, I believe) connected directly
to a laptop to capture the gigapixels of raw data that the camera produces.
While his finished landscape photos are spectacular, they look "different"
from the same shot on sheet Ektachrome or Fujichrome (he always makes a film
exposure of the same shot - it's easy, just swap the digital back for a film
holder). The film has more contrast and richer, more saturated colors. Of
course, he can achieve the same effect with Photoshop and the digital
picture, but still, I like both renditions - sort of like the same scene
pained by two different, equally competent painters.

[Andrew Haley]

Audio Empire wrote:

I know a local photographer who uses a 4 X 5 sheet-film camera that
is fitted with a scanning digital back (from Leaf, I believe)
connected directly to a laptop to capture the gigapixels of raw data
that the camera produces. While his finished landscape photos are
spectacular, they look "different" from the same shot on sheet
Ektachrome or Fujichrome (he always makes a film exposure of the
same shot - it's easy, just swap the digital back for a film
holder). The film has more contrast and richer, more saturated
colors.

Indeed it does, and there's a parallel with audio here. That
contrasty highly-saturated look is a bit like the "smiley EQ" and
compression loved by record producers -- pretty it may be, but
accurate it ain't. I remember one wag who on seeing Michael Fatali's
photographs said "That's not God's own light, that's Fujichrome's own
Velvia!" Digital, on the other hand, is linear, or can be once you
find all the curves and filters in the workflow and turn them off.
Once you've done that it's regular, stable, and repeatable, and
*accurate*, just like digital audio can be. (I am rather sensitive to
this issue, because one of my jobs is copying paintings for
reproduction. If you want to be able to compare an original and a
print side-by-side on a wall under bright lights, the last thing you
want is a contrast and saturation boost.)

Andrew.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Jan 28, 7:13=A0am, Andrew Haley
wrote:
Audio Empire wrote:
I know a local photographer who uses a 4 X 5 sheet-film camera that
is fitted with a scanning digital back (from Leaf, I believe)
connected directly to a laptop to capture the gigapixels of raw data
that the camera produces. =A0While his finished landscape photos are
spectacular, they look "different" from the same shot on sheet
Ektachrome or Fujichrome (he always makes a film exposure of the
same shot - it's easy, just swap the digital back for a film
holder). =A0The film has more contrast and richer, more saturated
colors.

Indeed it does, and there's a parallel with audio here. =A0That
contrasty highly-saturated look is a bit like the "smiley EQ" and
compression loved by record producers -- pretty it may be, but
accurate it ain't. =A0I remember one wag who on seeing Michael Fatali's
photographs said "That's not God's own light, that's Fujichrome's own
Velvia!" =A0Digital, on the other hand, is linear, or can be once you
find all the curves and filters in the workflow and turn them off.
Once you've done that it's regular, stable, and repeatable, and
*accurate*, just like digital audio can be. =A0(I am rather sensitive to
this issue, because one of my jobs is copying paintings for
reproduction. =A0If you want to be able to compare an original and a
print side-by-side on a wall under bright lights, the last thing you
want is a contrast and saturation boost.)


I know this is off topic but this is simply a load of misinformation
about color and contrast accuracy. Velvia is hardly the only film
stock in the world of film. And digital is anything but color
accurate. There is yet to be adigital color profile that begins to
represent the color palette of the real world. Neither film nor
digital imaging can match the contrast or color range of real life but
film still covers more of it.

[Andrew Haley]

Scott wrote:
On Jan 28, 7:13am, Andrew Haley
wrote:
Audio Empire wrote:
I know a local photographer who uses a 4 X 5 sheet-film camera that
is fitted with a scanning digital back (from Leaf, I believe)
connected directly to a laptop to capture the gigapixels of raw data
that the camera produces. While his finished landscape photos are
spectacular, they look "different" from the same shot on sheet
Ektachrome or Fujichrome (he always makes a film exposure of the
same shot - it's easy, just swap the digital back for a film
holder). The film has more contrast and richer, more saturated
colors.

Indeed it does, and there's a parallel with audio here. That
contrasty highly-saturated look is a bit like the "smiley EQ" and
compression loved by record producers -- pretty it may be, but
accurate it ain't. I remember one wag who on seeing Michael Fatali's
photographs said "That's not God's own light, that's Fujichrome's own
Velvia!" Digital, on the other hand, is linear, or can be once you
find all the curves and filters in the workflow and turn them off.
Once you've done that it's regular, stable, and repeatable, and
*accurate*, just like digital audio can be. (I am rather sensitive to
this issue, because one of my jobs is copying paintings for
reproduction. If you want to be able to compare an original and a
print side-by-side on a wall under bright lights, the last thing you
want is a contrast and saturation boost.)

I know this is off topic but this is simply a load of misinformation
about color and contrast accuracy. Velvia is hardly the only film
stock in the world of film. And digital is anything but color
accurate. There is yet to be a digital color profile that begins to
represent the color palette of the real world. Neither film nor
digital imaging can match the contrast or color range of real life
but film still covers more of it.

Hold on one moment: I didn't suggest that any imaging device could
represent the entire visible gamut. I didn't suggest that any digital
imaging device had a larger gamut or contrast range than any film. I
disagree that "digital is anything but color accurate": it's not
perfect, of course, but from the point of view of repro work it's
linear and repeatable, and can be accurate if done right. Also,
digital (is there any other kind?) colour profiles certainly can
represent all visible colours, even though no physical device can.

My point was that the films popular for landscape photography are not
accurate *because they are not designed to be*. Very much like CD
mastering, in other words.

Andrew.

[Robert Peirce]

In article ,
Andrew Haley wrote:

Velvia!" Digital, on the other hand, is linear, or can be once you
find all the curves and filters in the workflow and turn them off.
Once you've done that it's regular, stable, and repeatable, and
*accurate*,

I don't know what digital sensors you are using but the ones I have seen
are no more accurate than film when it comes to being able to match
color, and they have a much smaller dynamic range. I suspect highly
specialized equipment might improve on this but I don't know that. The
advantage digital has over film is it is easily manipulated on a
computer.

The problem with digital vs. film is the same as CD vs. LP. In order to
match the smoothness of analog, you need a very high sample rate. In
theory, 44.1/16 is enough for audio, but the trend now seems to be to
96/24 or higher. Frankly, with my old ears, 44.1 is enough if done
right.

I'm not sure if anybody has concluded on large format photography. 80
Mp seems to be getting pretty close for 645. I have a 6 Mp DX camera
that satisfies me in comparison to 35 mm negative film, but slide film
seems to need more. I suspect the current 20 Mp range cameras are
enough, although I don't know about sharpness issues. People might
argue over color but not over the ability to resolve detail. School is
still out on that in the larger formats.