[Audio Empire]

Thought I's stir up some activity here. This place is as dead as a sail-cat.
Most of those who contribute here seem to be of two minds with regard to the
question of which is more "musical", LP or CD. There is also a third point of
view (mine) which says that both have their place and both are viable music
sources and can be enjoyable. The recent surge in activity (and I don't mean
disc jockeys at dance clubs) with regard to LP tells me that I'm not alone in
this view.

In spite of what those dedicated to the LP might say, the bare facts are that
theoretically, technologically speaking, CD is better. It just is. Setting
aside, for the moment, such obvious advantages as lack of noise, durability
(CDs, generally speaking do not deteriorate with each play, given reasonable
care. LPs OTOH, do deteriorate irrespective of the level of care given them.)
and a total absence of such vinyl bugaboos like wow, flutter, running at the
wrong speed (unless the analog tape source for the CD had these problems - a
not unheard of phenomenon), not to mention inner-groove distortion, and
general mistracking, CD is just capable of flatter, wider frequency response,
lower distortion, wider dynamic range and better stereo separation. This
being the case, why is there any debate on this issue at ALL? And make no
mistake, one runs upon people all the time who will tell you that even after
\almost thrity years of development, that LP is better. Just recently, I was
reading the letters-to-the-editor section of a well known and respected
audiophile magazine and found a letter from someone who finished his pean to
LP playback (a Garrard 301 turntable, specifically) with the words "I
wouldn't have a CD player if you gave me one." Surely, such passion 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?

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. The average
CD is just junk in my humble opinion. And I know that it doesn't have to be.
Those of you who have been reading my ramblings here, know that I do a lot of
recording. The recording I do is for fun, and not for commercial gain, but
often I do get paid for my efforts making me a "semi-pro" these day. This
wasn't always the case. A number of years ago, I was the archive recordist or
a couple of major symphony orchestras and did a lot of location music
recording for National Public Radio and the Musical Heritage Society - and
actually have a number of records to my credit.

When I make CDs from my masters (which are in the DSD format) they sound
gorgeous and NOTHING like 99% of all the commercial recordings one buys. If
all CDs sounded like the ones that I burn on my PC from music files off of my
DSD recorder, there would be no debate about CD vs LP. CD is simply better.
Unfortunately, as long as the commercial record labels continue to make such
unmitigated garbage and sell it as state-of-the-art CD recordings, many
people are going to prefer LPs because it looks as if the signal processing
needed to make an LP is, in the final analysis, less damaging to the music
than is the signal processing routinely applied to commercial CD production
these days.

[Bill Noble[_2_]]

On 1/24/2011 4:22 PM, Audio Empire wrote:
snip

When I make CDs from my masters (which are in the DSD format) they sound
gorgeous and NOTHING like 99% of all the commercial recordings one buys. If
all CDs sounded like the ones that I burn on my PC from music files off of my
DSD recorder, there would be no debate about CD vs LP. CD is simply better.
Unfortunately, as long as the commercial record labels continue to make such
unmitigated garbage and sell it as state-of-the-art CD recordings, many
people are going to prefer LPs because it looks as if the signal processing
needed to make an LP is, in the final analysis, less damaging to the music
than is the signal processing routinely applied to commercial CD production
these days.


refer to an article in spectrum magazine within the last 5 years on
exactly this subject - it talks about how dynamic range has been
decreasing and overmodulation increasing and that is why listening to a
modern CD is so tireing.

[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.

[Audio Empire]

On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 04:09:27 -0800, Bill Noble wrote
(in article ):

On 1/24/2011 4:22 PM, Audio Empire wrote:
snip

When I make CDs from my masters (which are in the DSD format) they sound
gorgeous and NOTHING like 99% of all the commercial recordings one buys. If
all CDs sounded like the ones that I burn on my PC from music files off of
my
DSD recorder, there would be no debate about CD vs LP. CD is simply better.
Unfortunately, as long as the commercial record labels continue to make such
unmitigated garbage and sell it as state-of-the-art CD recordings, many
people are going to prefer LPs because it looks as if the signal processing
needed to make an LP is, in the final analysis, less damaging to the music
than is the signal processing routinely applied to commercial CD production
these days.


refer to an article in spectrum magazine within the last 5 years on
exactly this subject - it talks about how dynamic range has been
decreasing and overmodulation increasing and that is why listening to a
modern CD is so tireing.


I believe it. Even many so-called "audiophile" quality CDs from sources like
Telarc and Reference Recordings, et al, simply do not sound as good as they
should and could sound given the capabilities of the format. I'm suspecting
that a lot of this audiophile interest in high-resolution downloads may be
the result of dissatisfaction with the quality of commercial CDs. If so, then
that interest may be misplaced. IOW, these dissatisfied listeners (including
me) may be blaming CD for something of which it is NOT guilty; I.E. being a
low-resolution medium when in reality, it's the production practices of the
record companies that are causing folks to long for higher resolution
recordings, not the inherent CAPABILITIES of the medium.

Since it is so easy to make great-sounding CDs, and I would think that it
would take more time and effort to screw one up, my only conclusion would
have to be that for some reason, this (seemingly) industry-wide practice of
giving us less than they can and calling it more must be on purpose. OTOH, I
can't think of a single reason why this should be so, can you?

[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.

[bob]

On Jan 25, 10:15=A0am, Audio Empire wrote:

Since it is so easy to make great-sounding CDs, and I would think that it
would take more time and effort to screw one up, my only conclusion would
have to be that for some reason, this (seemingly) industry-wide practice =
of
giving us less than they can and calling it more must be on purpose. OTOH=
, I
can't think of a single reason why this should be so, can you?

One reason that's been suggested is that they are optimizing for the
earbud listener, not the owner of a good in-room audio system.

Of course, it could also just be simple incompetence.

bob

[Arny Krueger]

"bob" wrote in message

On Jan 25, 10:15=A0am, Audio Empire
wrote:

Since it is so easy to make great-sounding CDs, and I
would think that it would take more time and effort to
screw one up, my only conclusion would have to be that
for some reason, this (seemingly) industry-wide practice
= of giving us less than they can and calling it more
must be on purpose. OTOH= , I can't think of a single
reason why this should be so, can you?

One reason that's been suggested is that they are
optimizing for the earbud listener, not the owner of a
good in-room audio system.

I wonder if people are talking about what they don't understand. In general,
good quality IEMs perform not that much unlike good speakers.

I don't know how one would optimize SQ for good quality IEMs without also
doing a good job for loudspeaker listeners.

[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?

[bob]

On Jan 25, 2:18=A0pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"bob" wrote in message

One reason that's been suggested is that they are
optimizing for the earbud listener, not the owner of a
good in-room audio system.

I wonder if people are talking about what they don't understand. In gener=
al,
good quality IEMs perform not that much unlike good speakers.

I don't know how one would optimize SQ for good quality IEMs without also
doing a good job for loudspeaker listeners.

Who said anything about "good quality IEMs"? I said "earbuds." Think
also boomboxes, cheesy "computer speakers" and factory-installed car
stereos.

If that's what you think the bulk of your intended audience is using,
then at the very least it seems to me you can be a lot less careful
about the sound quality of the final product. Certainly realistic
spacial imaging becomes a whole lot less important. You can either
live without the subtle details or crank them up till they're not so
subtle anymore.

Now I can't say whether that's really a factor or not. Maybe they just
want those 30-second streamed samples to sound as loud as possible so
people will hit the "Buy Me Now" button.

bob

[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.

[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.

[bob]

On Jan 25, 10:15=A0am, Audio Empire wrote:

I'm suspecting
that a lot of this audiophile interest =A0in high-resolution downloads ma=
y be
the result of dissatisfaction with the quality of commercial CDs. If so, =
then
that interest may be misplaced. IOW, these dissatisfied listeners (includ=
ing
me) may be blaming CD for something of which it is NOT guilty; I.E. being=
a
low-resolution medium when in reality, it's the production practices of t=
he
record companies that are causing folks to long for higher resolution
recordings, not the inherent CAPABILITIES of the medium.

And what a shame it is that the high-end community has spent the
better part of three decades wailing about the inadequacies of CD as a
medium, rather than about the quality of the recordings.

bob

[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)?

[Audio Empire]

On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 11:18:14 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"bob" wrote in message

On Jan 25, 10:15=A0am, Audio Empire
wrote:

Since it is so easy to make great-sounding CDs, and I
would think that it would take more time and effort to
screw one up, my only conclusion would have to be that
for some reason, this (seemingly) industry-wide practice
= of giving us less than they can and calling it more
must be on purpose. OTOH= , I can't think of a single
reason why this should be so, can you?

One reason that's been suggested is that they are
optimizing for the earbud listener, not the owner of a
good in-room audio system.

I wonder if people are talking about what they don't understand. In general,
good quality IEMs perform not that much unlike good speakers.

I don't know how one would optimize SQ for good quality IEMs without also
doing a good job for loudspeaker listeners.



Perhaps this poster didn't literally mean the actual IEMs themselves, but
rather the whole portable music gestalt.. You know, the fact that people
listen to CDs in their cars, rip them to MP3 and then listen to those in
areas with high background noise (like on airplanes, or in the workplace).

But still, I kind of doubt that all CDs would be purposely tailored for that
kind of use and only that kind of use. OTOH, they are doing it for some
reason.

[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.

[Kele]

I agree with you; the rips (WAVs) I make from vinyl album to CD-R
sound better than store bought CDs to me. I don't have new music on
album so I can't say that the base on albums can go as low as store
bought late model CDs. I'm curious about that with recent music on a
good vynal playback system. I can hear that my CD-R rips are a little
compressed sounding compared to the album itself, but most store
boughts still fall short of as punchy live sounding. My guess is that
too much compression is applied to current CD music, or the media/
playback is doing it - not sure.

[Dave Cook]

On Jan 24, 4:22=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:
reading the letters-to-the-editor section of a well known and respected
audiophile magazine and found a letter from someone who finished his pean=
to
LP playback (a Garrard 301 turntable, specifically) with the words "I
wouldn't have a CD player if you gave me one." Surely, such passion has s=
ome
root.

Is that root musical? The idea of doing without my favorite
recordings from the last quarter century, much of it music never
available on LP, is unthinkable to me. And then there are all the
reissues of music now nearly impossible to find or prohibitively
expensive on Lp or 78s.

There were people like this who, even late into the Lp era, insisted
on the superiority of 78s!

I have pretty decent analog equipment (Gyro SE + SME 309), but I still
find large-scale classical music better served on CD, and that
includes many originally analog recordings. I like pop on Lp, and
Jazz when I can afford it.

Dave Cook

[Audio Empire]

On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 19:03:53 -0800, bob wrote
(in article ):

On Jan 25, 10:15=A0am, Audio Empire wrote:

I'm suspecting
that a lot of this audiophile interest =A0in high-resolution downloads ma=
y be
the result of dissatisfaction with the quality of commercial CDs. If so, =
then
that interest may be misplaced. IOW, these dissatisfied listeners (includ=
ing
me) may be blaming CD for something of which it is NOT guilty; I.E. being=
a
low-resolution medium when in reality, it's the production practices of t=
he
record companies that are causing folks to long for higher resolution
recordings, not the inherent CAPABILITIES of the medium.

And what a shame it is that the high-end community has spent the
better part of three decades wailing about the inadequacies of CD as a
medium, rather than about the quality of the recordings.

bob


Well, most of us aren't technical, and even those of us who are, if we don't
have any direct experience in making CDs from master. live, recordings and in
seeing just how good CDs can be, we simply have no way of knowing where the
problem with the sound we're hearing actually lies. All we know is that CDs
simply are not "perfect sound, forever" as advertised. It never occurred to
me, for instance, that the mediocre sound was a result of the front-end of
the process where the CDs are mastered and manufactured due to decisions made
by record company executives and producers that have nothing whatsoever to do
with the medium's ultimate capability. It is only after making my own and
comparing them with the masters that I saw that it was possible for me to
easily make spectacular sounding CDs. Discs, that for all intents and
purposes sound exactly like the digital masters (oh, there's a bit of
difference, but it's only noticeable via direct A/B with the high-resolution
master), and in all practicality, sounds simply stupendous when compared with
most of get to play on our systems every day.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Jan 25, 7:03=A0pm, bob wrote:

And what a shame it is that the high-end community has spent the
better part of three decades wailing about the inadequacies of CD as a
medium, rather than about the quality of the recordings.


News to me. I have heard a lot of complaints about recording and
mastering of new material since the introduction of CDs to audio. I
certainly have done my fair share of complaining. I try not to wail
about it though.

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" wrote in message


Perhaps this poster didn't literally mean the actual IEMs
themselves, but rather the whole portable music gestalt..

There is some romance to that idea.

You know, the fact that people listen to CDs in their
cars, rip them to MP3 and then listen to those in areas
with high background noise (like on airplanes, or in the
workplace).

The third issue you raised, the part about listening in noisy situations is
real. Wide dynamic range doesn't work in noisy environments. However, it
only takes nominal amounts of compression to address that issue. The
hypercompression that is all too common today goes well beyond what it takes
to make music sound good in noisy environments.

But still, I kind of doubt that all CDs would be
purposely tailored for that kind of use and only that
kind of use.

I think that applying nominal amounts of compression, particularly to
reissues and compendiums, could benefit listeners who no longer want to pay
full attention to the music.

OTOH, they are doing it for some reason.

Modest amounts of compression and manual gain riding does make wide dynamic
range music more suitable as background music and in noisy environments.
While it is a step back from realism and accuracy, it doesn't necessarily
have to sound bad. Hypercompression is something else, and generally sounds
bad to me.

I would like to presume that music company executives aren't total idiots
and use customer surveys, focus groups and blind preference testing to guide
their audio production efforts. If that is the case, then rioting against
current music production norms is futile, as they are simply being good
business men and giving the custormers what they want.

[Audio Empire]

On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 04:18:34 -0800, Dave Cook wrote
(in article ):

On Jan 24, 4:22 pm, Audio Empire wrote:
reading the letters-to-the-editor section of a well known and respected
audiophile magazine and found a letter from someone who finished his pean to
LP playback (a Garrard 301 turntable, specifically) with the words "I
wouldn't have a CD player if you gave me one." Surely, such passion has some
root.

Is that root musical? The idea of doing without my favorite
recordings from the last quarter century, much of it music never
available on LP, is unthinkable to me. And then there are all the
reissues of music now nearly impossible to find or prohibitively
expensive on Lp or 78s.

Well, *I* certainly see that kind of stance as a bit extreme, and don't
personally subscribe to the notion. But OTOH, it is not an unknown or unheard
of stance on this issue. I have seen more than a few people voice a similar
sentiment.

There were people like this who, even late into the Lp era, insisted
on the superiority of 78s!

As one who owns a number of 78's, I can tell you that this opinion makes no
sense at all. The only 78s that sounded decent at all were the British Decca
(London Records in the USA) FFRR discs from the mid-to-late-1940's, and they
touted a frequency response of from only 50 to 14 KHz - and they were,
technically, the BEST 78s ever made. Still, they had the standard 78 surface
noise (a high pitched rushing hiss) that even more mundane 78s always had,
even though beneath that -45 dB S/N ratio, they sounded pretty good. But most
78's simply were not in that league and had little high-frequency response
above 7 Khz.

I have pretty decent analog equipment (Gyro SE + SME 309), but I still
find large-scale classical music better served on CD, and that
includes many originally analog recordings. I like pop on Lp, and
Jazz when I can afford it.

I too have a Gyro SE (which I have had for 11 years and just re-belted and
re-lubed the bearing) and find it an excellent deck. My arm, though, is a new
Jelco SA-750D. I like the 309 and if I could have found one used, in good
condition, at a good price, certainly would have gone for it.

I have some classical LPs that I think sound better than the CD versions, but
these are all re-issues and newly pressed. I too mostly listen to classical
music via CD (like most anybody else) and most often, the sound disappoints
me.

[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.

[bob]

On Jan 26, 9:20=A0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

I would like to presume that music company executives aren't total idiots
and use customer surveys, focus groups and blind preference testing to gu=
ide
their audio production efforts. If that is the case, then rioting against
current music production norms is futile, as they are simply being good
business men and giving the custormers what they want.

Very true. The sad thing is that, by and large, audiophiles don't want
good-sounding CDs either. I visited the Acoustic Sounds Web site
earlier today, and here's a count of how many offerings they have in
various categories:

CD: 1,610
*SACD: 3,100
Vinyl Record: 22,049

It would appear that audiophiles see alternative formats as the route
to better sound. But, as some of us have been saying for years and
others (good for them!) have discovered recently, it just ain't so--or
at least it doesn't have to be so. And I think audiophiles would be
better served by a niche market in well-made CDs--or FLAC downloads--
than by what they've got.

*I threw the SACD number in there because I suspect that many of them
are being played on 2-channel systems. But as multi-channel disks,
which most of them are, they really do represent a superior format.

bob

[Edward Morris]

I find this thread really interesting. I have CD's that sound great, that
seem to be really well miked and engineered and some that really lack
musicality. If some CD's can sound fantastic, why can't all of them sound
that way?

Eddie Morris

"Dave Cook" wrote in message
...
On Jan 24, 4:22=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:
reading the letters-to-the-editor section of a well known and respected
audiophile magazine and found a letter from someone who finished his pean=
to
LP playback (a Garrard 301 turntable, specifically) with the words "I
wouldn't have a CD player if you gave me one." Surely, such passion has s=
ome
root.

Is that root musical? The idea of doing without my favorite
recordings from the last quarter century, much of it music never
available on LP, is unthinkable to me. And then there are all the
reissues of music now nearly impossible to find or prohibitively
expensive on Lp or 78s.

There were people like this who, even late into the Lp era, insisted
on the superiority of 78s!

I have pretty decent analog equipment (Gyro SE + SME 309), but I still
find large-scale classical music better served on CD, and that
includes many originally analog recordings. I like pop on Lp, and
Jazz when I can afford it.

Dave Cook

[Robert Peirce]

In article ,
Audio Empire wrote:

Thought I's stir up some activity here. This place is as dead as a sail-cat.
Most of those who contribute here seem to be of two minds with regard to the
question of which is more "musical", LP or CD. There is also a third point of
view (mine) which says that both have their place and both are viable music
sources and can be enjoyable.

You should have stopped here. Getting into which is actually better
just provokes arguments. The fact is I enjoy both, I suspect most
people would enjoy well setup vinyl playback using quiet sides just as
they enjoy well setup CD systems.

Recently, I have been loading my CDs into iTunes to use as a music
server. While doing that I felt the need to include some LPs. I used a
product called Pure Vinyl to do the transfers. I take very good care of
my LPs, some of which I bought in the late 50s. They are extremely
quiet.

Playback is via an Apple TV optically connected to a Peripheral
Technologies DAC which is connected to the balance of my stereo system.
That system, uses Classe electronics driving Apogee Diva speakers. It
is a pretty old setup but still sounds better than anything else I have
heard that I might reasonably afford.

Here's the interesting thing. I normally use iTunes DJ to play a random
selection of tunes from my library. Unless I happen to recognize the
piece as coming from a specific source, I am hard-pressed to tell if the
original source was a CD or LP.

You might say, well the iTunes system is inferior and masks the source.
Not true. When I play a CD or LP directly, it doesn't sound any better
(or worse) than playing it from iTunes. It is just less convenient.

[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.

[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.

[Audio Empire]

On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 15:15:54 -0800, bob wrote
(in article ):

On Jan 26, 9:20=A0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

I would like to presume that music company executives aren't total idiots
and use customer surveys, focus groups and blind preference testing to gu=
ide
their audio production efforts. If that is the case, then rioting against
current music production norms is futile, as they are simply being good
business men and giving the custormers what they want.

Very true. The sad thing is that, by and large, audiophiles don't want
good-sounding CDs either. I visited the Acoustic Sounds Web site
earlier today, and here's a count of how many offerings they have in
various categories:

CD: 1,610
*SACD: 3,100
Vinyl Record: 22,049

It would appear that audiophiles see alternative formats as the route
to better sound. But, as some of us have been saying for years and
others (good for them!) have discovered recently, it just ain't so--or
at least it doesn't have to be so. And I think audiophiles would be
better served by a niche market in well-made CDs--or FLAC downloads--
than by what they've got.

*I threw the SACD number in there because I suspect that many of them
are being played on 2-channel systems. But as multi-channel disks,
which most of them are, they really do represent a superior format.

bob

Well, this is what I've been saying. The audiophile interest in
high-resolution downloads just MIGHT be misplaced. They hear the mediocrity
that is generally commercial CD releases, and they assume that it's the CD
format itself that's responsible for their dissatisfaction when it's really
not. It's the way the CDs are produced. CD itself is capable of amazing
sound. And here's the irony, high-resolution versions of poorly mastered
source material has every likelyhood of sounding just as poor as the Red Book
CD of the same material.

[Audio Empire]

On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 16:08:15 -0800, Robert Peirce wrote
(in article ):

In article ,
Audio Empire wrote:

Thought I's stir up some activity here. This place is as dead as a
sail-cat.
Most of those who contribute here seem to be of two minds with regard to
the
question of which is more "musical", LP or CD. There is also a third point
of
view (mine) which says that both have their place and both are viable music
sources and can be enjoyable.

You should have stopped here.

Not really. My point is how commercial CDs don't, generally speaking, provide
the performance that they are capable of. The LP was merely mentioned as a
reason perhaps why many people don't see the superiority of CD over vinyl,
and was really just used as an analogy.

Getting into which is actually better
just provokes arguments. The fact is I enjoy both, I suspect most
people would enjoy well setup vinyl playback using quiet sides just as
they enjoy well setup CD systems.

Again, which is better is not really the point. And I too enjoy both.

Recently, I have been loading my CDs into iTunes to use as a music
server. While doing that I felt the need to include some LPs. I used a
product called Pure Vinyl to do the transfers. I take very good care of
my LPs, some of which I bought in the late 50s. They are extremely
quiet.

I use iTunes and an Apple TV as well, but recently I got a Logitech
Squeezebox Touch and I think it is a better streaming appliance (especially
for Internet radio) than is the Apple TV. I up-sample the Toslink digital
from the Apple TV/Squeezebox Touch to 24/96 before feeding my
dual-differential 24/192 DAC.

Playback is via an Apple TV optically connected to a Peripheral
Technologies DAC which is connected to the balance of my stereo system.
That system, uses Classe electronics driving Apogee Diva speakers. It
is a pretty old setup but still sounds better than anything else I have
heard that I might reasonably afford.

Here's the interesting thing. I normally use iTunes DJ to play a random
selection of tunes from my library. Unless I happen to recognize the
piece as coming from a specific source, I am hard-pressed to tell if the
original source was a CD or LP.

You might say, well the iTunes system is inferior and masks the source.
Not true. When I play a CD or LP directly, it doesn't sound any better
(or worse) than playing it from iTunes. It is just less convenient.

Agreed.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Jan 26, 6:20=A0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:


I would like to presume that music company executives aren't total idiots
and use customer surveys, focus groups and blind preference testing to gu=
ide
their audio production efforts. If that is the case, then rioting against
current music production norms is futile, as they are simply being good
business men and giving the custormers what they want.


I wouldn't presume that at all.
It really boils down to this "That's still a motivation for some
producers. If their record jumps out of your iPod compared with the
song that preceded it, then they've accomplished their goal."
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...Id=3D122114058
From a business POV that is not totally idiotic but from a QC
standpoint it is.

OTOH even from a business POV some would argue that it is shortsighted
and somewhat less than smart.

"Bob Ludwig thinks that's an unfortunate development.

'People talk about downloads hurting record sales," Ludwig says. "I
and some other people would submit that another thing that is hurting
record sales these days is the fact that they are so compressed that
the ear just gets tired of it. When you're through listening to a
whole album of this highly compressed music, your ear is fatigued. You
may have enjoyed the music but you don't really feel like going back
and listening to it again.'"

I think you would be hard pressed to find many folks who think music
company execs are anything but idiots these days. Clearly they are not
motivated by a passion for the art. There was a time when they were.
Sad.

[Arny Krueger]

"Edward Morris" wrote in message


I find this thread really interesting. I have CD's that
sound great, that seem to be really well miked and
engineered and some that really lack musicality. If some
CD's can sound fantastic, why can't all of them sound
that way?

Producing a distributable recording is a journey of several steps.

The delivery media (CD versus LP) is just one of them.

The reelvant steps a

1. Recording of individual tracks, some of which may be synthesized. This
includes choices relating to micing and choice of recording venue
2. Mixing tracks into a master recording, including adding EFX and adjusting
the levels, spectral and dynamic content of the tracks
3. Mastering - final editing and adjustments to the spectral and dynamic
range content of the songs
4. Authoring - laying out the track order on the album, adding fade ins,
fade outs if not already in place, adjust relative audio levels of tracks

At this point how the album plays is fully determined, other than the
mechanics of media duplication. The whole LP versus CD discussion is really
about the mechanics of media duplication as all the other steps can be the
same for either medium.

Steps 1-3 in particual can make or break a recording.

[C. Leeds]

On 1/26/2011 6:15 PM, nabob wrote:

... The sad thing is that, by and large, audiophiles don't want
good-sounding CDs either. I visited the Acoustic Sounds Web site
earlier today, and here's a count of how many offerings they have in
various categories:

CD: 1,610
*SACD: 3,100
Vinyl Record: 22,049

It would appear that audiophiles see alternative formats as the route
to better sound.

This just doesn't make sense from the information given. The only thing
you can conclude is that when you checked, the store had many more vinyl
titles than CD titles. You could just as easily dubiously conclude
that's because most of their CDs have sold out and the LPs are rotting
in the warehouse. We just don't know.

Nor do we know that Acoustic Sounds is representative of audiophiles in
any way at all.

[C. Leeds]

On 1/26/2011 7:08 PM, Robert Peirce wrote:

Getting into which is actually better
just provokes arguments. The fact is I enjoy both, I suspect most
people would enjoy well setup vinyl playback using quiet sides just as
they enjoy well setup CD systems.

Bingo! I think this is true of many audiophiles. I also occasionally
listen to reel-to-reel, and I have no problem acknowledging that I think
the iPod is one of the best audio values of all time. Mine gets lots of use.

[bob]

On Jan 27, 10:01=A0am, "C. Leeds" wrote:
On 1/26/2011 6:15 PM, nabob wrote:

... The sad thing is that, by and large, audiophiles don't want
good-sounding CDs either. I visited the Acoustic Sounds Web site
earlier today, and here's a count of how many offerings they have in
various categories:

CD: 1,610
*SACD: 3,100
Vinyl Record: 22,049

It would appear that audiophiles see alternative formats as the route
to better sound.

This just doesn't make sense from the information given. The only thing
you can conclude is that when you checked, the store had many more vinyl
titles than CD titles. You could just as easily dubiously conclude
that's because most of their CDs have sold out and the LPs are rotting
in the warehouse. We just don't know.

Nor do we know that Acoustic Sounds is representative of audiophiles in
any way at all.

Acoustic Sounds clearly targets the audiophile market. Either their
inventory reflects a sound judgment about what that market wants, or
the company is managed by incompetents. Backorders happen, but they
don't happen to entire categories.

And just for further confirmation, same data from Music Direct:

Vinyl: 6418
SACD: 503
CD: 355

Clearly two equally mismanaged companies with no idea what their
market wants.

And these numbers merely confirm what anyone who's been following this
market, and its coverage in the audiophile press, already knows:
Attention to and demand for high-quality CD issues pales in comparison
to the attention/demand focused on alternative formats. And that's a
big reason why the availability of high-quality CD issues is so poor
today.

bob

[Arny Krueger]

"bob" wrote in message


On 1/26/2011 6:15 PM, nabob wrote:

... The sad thing is that, by and large, audiophiles
don't want good-sounding CDs either. I visited the
Acoustic Sounds Web site earlier today, and here's a
count of how many offerings they have in various
categories:

CD: 1,610
*SACD: 3,100
Vinyl Record: 22,049

I believe that the usual estimate for number of SACD titles ever released
is at bit more than 3000.

And just for further confirmation, same data from Music
Direct:

Vinyl: 6418
SACD: 503
CD: 355

Clearly two equally mismanaged companies with no idea
what their market wants.

These are niche providers, and that is very clear.

Serving niches can be very profitable, if well-managed.

If you can easily get it someplace else for a competitive price, they don't
want to carry it. The CDs they carry are probably from labels with only very
narrow distribution.

[Rockinghorse Winner[_6_]]

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

On Jan 25, 10:15=A0am, Audio Empire wrote:

Since it is so easy to make great-sounding CDs, and I would think that it
would take more time and effort to screw one up, my only conclusion would
have to be that for some reason, this (seemingly) industry-wide practice =
of
giving us less than they can and calling it more must be on purpose. OTOH=
, I
can't think of a single reason why this should be so, can you?

One reason that's been suggested is that they are optimizing for the
earbud listener, not the owner of a good in-room audio system.

Of course, it could also just be simple incompetence.

bob

Unless you are in the possession of evidence to the contrary, never
attribute to maliciousness what is most likely incompetence.

You can also add the low quality of popular music itself. Remember when
the ability to play instruments was a cause for pride among fans?

Unfortunately, care put into playing and recording is the province of
eccentrics and old farts these days. I am limited to listening to a very
small sample of modern commercial pop and unsigned acts. I don't expect the
situation to change until 'quality' becomes a musical value again.



*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

[Audio Empire]

On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 15:09:45 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"bob" wrote in message


On 1/26/2011 6:15 PM, nabob wrote:

... The sad thing is that, by and large, audiophiles
don't want good-sounding CDs either. I visited the
Acoustic Sounds Web site earlier today, and here's a
count of how many offerings they have in various
categories:

CD: 1,610
*SACD: 3,100
Vinyl Record: 22,049

I believe that the usual estimate for number of SACD titles ever released
is at bit more than 3000.

And just for further confirmation, same data from Music
Direct:

Vinyl: 6418
SACD: 503
CD: 355

Clearly two equally mismanaged companies with no idea
what their market wants.

These are niche providers, and that is very clear.

Serving niches can be very profitable, if well-managed.

If you can easily get it someplace else for a competitive price, they don't
want to carry it. The CDs they carry are probably from labels with only very
narrow distribution.


I don't really understand your seeming fascination with the relevance of
market size. The average "Joe" doesn't care about quality at all (in much of
anything) beyond the concept of "adequate". Therefore any product which
caters to a market where quality (real or imagined) is important, is going to
be, by definition, a niche market. Ferrari and Porsche occupy a niche market
in the automobile world. Laphroiag and Aberlore, as well as Woodford Reserve
and VanWinkle's occupy a niche market in the whisky world. More people drink
Budwieser than drink Pilsn Urquell, and more people own Panasonic receivers
than own Audio Research equipment. These are all catering to niche markets.
It really doesn't matter what the hoi polloi are doing or buying, or
otherwise consuming. High-end audio is supposed to be about getting the best
sound from recorded music that's possible. And if vinyl, SACD, DVD-A or
hi-res downloads provide that and the commercial CD, aimed at the mass market
doesn't because their marketing priorities are different, then that in no way
diminishes the importance of these "niche" products that you seem to so
offhandedly dismiss.

[Ed Seedhouse[_2_]]

On Jan 26, 3:13=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:

On Jan 24, 4:22 pm, Audio Empire wrote:
reading the letters-to-the-editor section of a well known and respecte=
d
audiophile magazine and found a letter from someone who finished his p=
ean to
LP playback (a Garrard 301 turntable, specifically) with the words "I
wouldn't have a CD player if you gave me one." Surely, such passion ha=
s some
root.

Is that root musical? =A0The idea of doing without my favorite
recordings from the last quarter century, much of it music never
available on LP, is unthinkable to me. =A0And then there are all the
reissues of music now nearly impossible to find or prohibitively
expensive on Lp or 78s.

Well, *I* certainly see that kind of stance as =A0a bit extreme, and don'=
t
personally subscribe to the notion. But OTOH, it is not an unknown or unh=
eard
of stance on this issue. I have seen more than a few people voice a simil=
ar
sentiment. =A0

There were people like this who, even late into the Lp era, insisted
on the superiority of 78s!

As one who owns a number of 78's, I can tell you that this opinion makes =
no
sense at all. The only 78s that sounded decent at all were the British De=
cca
(London Records in the USA) FFRR discs from the mid-to-late-1940's, and t=
hey
touted a frequency response of from only 50 to 14 KHz - and they were,
technically, the BEST 78s ever made. Still, they had the standard 78 surf=
ace
noise (a high pitched rushing hiss) that even more mundane 78s always had=
,
even though beneath that -45 dB S/N ratio, they sounded pretty good. But =
most
78's simply were not in that league and had little high-frequency respons=
e
above 7 Khz.

I was alive at the time with access to magazines that discussed the
differences between 78's and 33's. And it is just a fact that there
were plenty of letters in magazines extolling the virtues of the
former and the deficiencies of the latter. The debate went on issue
after issue in, if I recall rightly, the pages of "Wireless world",
the premier British electronics magazine and every time I come across
today's "CD's suck and tubes sound ever so much better" tirades in
today's fashionable rags, I am reminded afresh of the 78 vs 33 debates
from all those years ago. In fact, allowing for changes in english
usage over the years many of these early letters could be published
today by just substituting "digital" and "analogue" as appropriate.
Although you don't see too many letters in today's magazines extolling
the virtues of thorn needles over steel ones, or the "real sound" of
the completely sound driven horn gramophones vs the "fake" sound
produced with electronics. And these were tube electronics, mind you.

Ah, the debates of yesteryear.

[bob]

On Jan 27, 8:45=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:

I don't really understand your seeming fascination with the relevance of
market size. The average "Joe" doesn't care about quality at all (in much=
of
anything) beyond the concept of "adequate". Therefore any product which
caters to a market where quality (real or imagined) is important, is goin=
g to
be, by definition, a niche market. Ferrari and Porsche occupy a niche mar=
ket
in the automobile world. Laphroiag and Aberlore, as well as Woodford Rese=
rve
and VanWinkle's occupy a niche market in the whisky world. More people dr=
ink
Budwieser than drink Pilsn Urquell, and more people own Panasonic receive=
rs
than own Audio Research equipment. These are all catering to niche market=
s.
It really doesn't matter what the hoi polloi are doing or buying, or
otherwise consuming. High-end audio is supposed to be about getting the b=
est
sound from recorded music that's possible. And if vinyl, SACD, DVD-A or
hi-res downloads provide that and the commercial CD, aimed at the mass ma=
rket
doesn't because their marketing priorities are different, then that in no=
way
diminishes the importance of these "niche" products that you seem to so
offhandedly dismiss. =A0

I think you're responding to both Arny and me here. I would say that
yes, indeed, this is a niche market we are talking about, and there's
nothing wrong with that. It's only a small subset of consumers who
will care about recording quality. My point--and I think it's
consistent with your initial post here--is that this small market has
been asking for the wrong thing.

In my alternative universe, the high-end rags would have embraced the
potential of CD, and then demanded that it live up to that potential,
rather than insisting that the answer lay in either higher resolution
or retro technology. Also, Michael Fremer would have wound up in a
dead-end job at Best Buy, where he could have made a greater
contribution to the social good than he has in reality.

bob