[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?