Since there is and probably always will be a division on the subject of LP
playback vs. CD playback, let's see if we can describe how we each hear a
given recording that we have in common.

First decide on a recording that all who participate, have in common.
Next listen to it and focus on how you hear it, IOW where do each of us hear
the placement of the instruments and what sort of soundstage is presented.

Lastly, it would probably be best if all who participate post their comments
as close to the same time as all the others. This way nobody is being
influenced by the comments of others.

An equal number of persons from each side would probably be best, say 4-6 LP
listeners and an equal number of CD listeners.

The big question is what recordings would people have in common that might
be used?

James Taylor: Live?
Flim and the BB's: This is a recording?
Van Morrison: Astral Weeks?
Lyle Lovett: Joshua Judges Ruth?
The Crusaders: Healing the Wounds?
Copland: Appalachian Spring, Rodeo, Fanfare for the Common Man
Louis Lane, Atlanta Symphony Orchestra, Telarc?
Beatles: Abbey Road?

Michael McKelvy wrote:
Since there is and probably always will be a division on the subject
of LP
playback vs. CD playback, let's see if we can describe how we each
hear a
given recording that we have in common.

First decide on a recording that all who participate, have in common.
Next listen to it and focus on how you hear it, IOW where do each of
us hear
the placement of the instruments and what sort of soundstage is
presented.

I see at least one serious problem with this approach. Basically it
sets up a tournement of dueling speculations.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
ups.com...

Michael McKelvy wrote:
Since there is and probably always will be a division on the subject
of LP
playback vs. CD playback, let's see if we can describe how we each
hear a
given recording that we have in common.

First decide on a recording that all who participate, have in common.
Next listen to it and focus on how you hear it, IOW where do each of
us hear
the placement of the instruments and what sort of soundstage is
presented.

I see at least one serious problem with this approach. Basically it
sets up a tournement of dueling speculations.

I just thought it would interesting to find out WHAT people are hearing from
their preferred playback devices.

Michael McKelvy wrote:

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
ups.com...

Michael McKelvy wrote:

Since there is and probably always will be a division on the subject

of LP

playback vs. CD playback, let's see if we can describe how we each

hear a

given recording that we have in common.

First decide on a recording that all who participate, have in common.
Next listen to it and focus on how you hear it, IOW where do each of

us hear

the placement of the instruments and what sort of soundstage is

presented.

I see at least one serious problem with this approach. Basically it
sets up a tournement of dueling speculations.


I just thought it would interesting to find out WHAT people are hearing from
their preferred playback devices.



Now don't get arni the ****borg upset with that "find out WHAT people
are hearing" garbage. You must be deluded. It is a declared,
unequivocal, absolute, decided, incontestable, incontrovertible,
indisputable, indubitable, manifest, no catch, no ifs ands or buts, no
kicker, obvious, straightforward, unambiguous, uncontestable,
undeniable, undisputable, univocal, unmistakable, unquestionable
KOWNLEDGE that everyone will hear the SAME thing! So there.

"Fella" wrote in message
...
Michael McKelvy wrote:

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
ups.com...

Michael McKelvy wrote:

Since there is and probably always will be a division on the subject

of LP

playback vs. CD playback, let's see if we can describe how we each

hear a

given recording that we have in common.

First decide on a recording that all who participate, have in common.
Next listen to it and focus on how you hear it, IOW where do each of

us hear

the placement of the instruments and what sort of soundstage is

presented.

I see at least one serious problem with this approach. Basically it
sets up a tournement of dueling speculations.


I just thought it would interesting to find out WHAT people are hearing
from their preferred playback devices.



Now don't get arni the ****borg upset with that "find out WHAT people are
hearing" garbage. You must be deluded. It is a declared, unequivocal,
absolute, decided, incontestable, incontrovertible, indisputable,
indubitable, manifest, no catch, no ifs ands or buts, no kicker, obvious,
straightforward, unambiguous, uncontestable, undeniable, undisputable,
univocal, unmistakable, unquestionable KOWNLEDGE that everyone will hear
the SAME thing! So there.

How many other things do you believe that have never been said?

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
ups.com...


I see at least one serious problem with this approach. Basically it
sets up a tournement of dueling speculations.


A tournement has no competitors.

???

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
ups.com...


I see at least one serious problem with this approach. Basically it
sets up a tournement of dueling speculations.


A tournement has no competitors.

Michael McKelvy wrote:

Since there is and probably always will be a division on the subject of LP
playback vs. CD playback, let's see if we can describe how we each hear a
given recording that we have in common.

This qualifies as yet another "duh-Mikey" moment.

Q: what will he out-duh minself with next time? Stay tuned
to this channel...

"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message
k.net...


Michael McKelvy wrote:

Since there is and probably always will be a division on the subject of
LP playback vs. CD playback, let's see if we can describe how we each
hear a given recording that we have in common.

This qualifies as yet another "duh-Mikey" moment.

Q: what will he out-duh minself with next time? Stay tuned
to this channel...

Trying to describe what you hear is to tough for you?

I should have known that an audio discussion was impossible here.

Michael McKelvy wrote:

Next listen to it and focus on how you hear it,

Since you have the duh!monopoly on the duh!knowledge concerning what's
"audible" for humans, it should be a given that everyone would hear the
recordings as SAME!


IOW where do each of us hear
the placement of the instruments and what sort of soundstage is presented.

"the placement of the instruments" you say, and .. and "what sort of
soundstage" !! My, you must be deluded.

"Fella" wrote in message
...
Michael McKelvy wrote:

Next listen to it and focus on how you hear it,

Since you have the duh!monopoly on the duh!knowledge concerning what's
"audible" for humans, it should be a given that everyone would hear the
recordings as SAME!

If I thought that were true I wouldn't have suggested critical listening in
the first place. I am interested in finding out what differences people
hear, and what differences might be heard in LP vs. CD recordings of the
same material.

IOW where do each of us hear the placement of the instruments and what
sort of soundstage is presented.

"the placement of the instruments" you say, and .. and "what sort of
soundstage" !! My, you must be deluded.

Suggesting that several RAO regulars try and accomplish something like this,
probably. I thought it would be better to talk about audio for a change
rather than just sit around bashing each other.

Michael McKelvy wrote:
"Fella" wrote in message
...

Michael McKelvy wrote:


Next listen to it and focus on how you hear it,

Since you have the duh!monopoly on the duh!knowledge concerning what's
"audible" for humans, it should be a given that everyone would hear the
recordings as SAME!


If I thought that were true I wouldn't have suggested critical listening in
the first place. I am interested in finding out what differences people
hear, and what differences might be heard in LP vs. CD recordings of the
same material.

Dude - is this 2005 or 1985? Seriously. This has been done and re-done
to the point of ubsurdity. CD is better in all aspects, just like it
is compared to tape, so get over it.

"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message
news


Michael McKelvy wrote:
"Fella" wrote in message
...

Michael McKelvy wrote:


Next listen to it and focus on how you hear it,

Since you have the duh!monopoly on the duh!knowledge concerning what's
"audible" for humans, it should be a given that everyone would hear the
recordings as SAME!


If I thought that were true I wouldn't have suggested critical listening
in the first place. I am interested in finding out what differences
people hear, and what differences might be heard in LP vs. CD recordings
of the same material.

Dude - is this 2005 or 1985? Seriously. This has been done and re-done
to the point of ubsurdity. CD is better in all aspects, just like it
is compared to tape, so get over it.

You're preaching to the choir. I just wanted to see what, if any
differences the LP listeners might be hearing. Since they seem to wax
poetic about such a technically inferior format, I wondered what the deal
was.

"Michael McKelvy" said:

Since there is and probably always will be a division on the subject of LP
playback vs. CD playback, let's see if we can describe how we each hear a
given recording that we have in common.

I listen to *music*, not a format.
I want to have both formats to sound as good as they can, however.

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message
...
"Michael McKelvy" said:

Since there is and probably always will be a division on the subject of LP
playback vs. CD playback, let's see if we can describe how we each hear a
given recording that we have in common.

I listen to *music*, not a format.
I want to have both formats to sound as good as they can, however.

--
I was thinking of the people who seem to think that LP is the superior
format. Trying to figure out what they get from that that the believe is
missing from CD.

"Michael McKelvy" said:

Since there is and probably always will be a division on the subject of LP
playback vs. CD playback, let's see if we can describe how we each hear a
given recording that we have in common.

I listen to *music*, not a format.
I want to have both formats to sound as good as they can, however.

I was thinking of the people who seem to think that LP is the superior
format. Trying to figure out what they get from that that the believe is
missing from CD.

I think Jim Johnston gave us a possible answer years ago:
Some people actually like the "euphonic distortion" that occurs with
LP playback, and, in a different way, in most tube amps.

I can live with that.

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message
...
"Michael McKelvy" said:

Since there is and probably always will be a division on the subject of
LP
playback vs. CD playback, let's see if we can describe how we each hear
a
given recording that we have in common.

I listen to *music*, not a format.
I want to have both formats to sound as good as they can, however.

I was thinking of the people who seem to think that LP is the superior
format. Trying to figure out what they get from that that the believe is
missing from CD.

I think Jim Johnston gave us a possible answer years ago:
Some people actually like the "euphonic distortion" that occurs with
LP playback, and, in a different way, in most tube amps.

I can live with that.

--
So can I, never had a problem with preference. I was just trying to get an
idea of what they HEAR that makes some prefer LP over CD.

I know why I like CD better, it always sounds better due to increased
definition. I hear the Cymbals better, and percussion always sounds tighter
and, for lack of a better word, faster. I can tell a difference in quality
in the recordings I have that still use the codes AAD, ADD, and DDD. To me
DDD sounds better. I like the fact that when I play a CD, I hear the music
and only the music, no surface noise lead in.

I understand some people don't mind the surface noise before the music
starts and then is masked by the music if it's loud enough. I understand
that very often there is a different mix for LP with loud sounds made softer
and soft sounds made louder and that is another matter of preference. What
I don't understand is people who insist that LP is more revealing, or has
more "microdynamics." These are claims that just don't hold up on scrutiny.

Preference is preference and there's no argument that different people
prefer different things. My call for some critical listening was to try and
get descriptions that helped me understand what, if anything, is different
in what they hear.

It's sad that even a request for information results in yet another flame
fest.

"Michael McKelvy" said:

Preference is preference and there's no argument that different people
prefer different things. My call for some critical listening was to try and
get descriptions that helped me understand what, if anything, is different
in what they hear.

Bruce's reply as well as the quotes by Paul Dormer and me from JJ are
probably the best answer. I wouldn't know of anything else that comes
into play.

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message
...
: "Michael McKelvy" said:
:
: Since there is and probably always will be a division on the subject
of LP
: playback vs. CD playback, let's see if we can describe how we each
hear a
: given recording that we have in common.
:
: I listen to *music*, not a format.
: I want to have both formats to sound as good as they can, however.
:
: I was thinking of the people who seem to think that LP is the superior
: format. Trying to figure out what they get from that that the believe
is
: missing from CD.
:
: I think Jim Johnston gave us a possible answer years ago:
: Some people actually like the "euphonic distortion" that occurs with
: LP playback, and, in a different way, in most tube amps.
:
: I can live with that.
:
: --
: Sander de Waal
: " SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

Well, there is also to consider the fact that a lot of material
has, up to now, only been published in LP format
Rusy

Ruud Broen wrote:


"Sander deWaal" wrote in message
.. .
: "Michael McKelvy" said:
:
: Since there is and probably always will be a division on the subject
of LP
: playback vs. CD playback, let's see if we can describe how we each
hear a
: given recording that we have in common.
:
: I listen to *music*, not a format.
: I want to have both formats to sound as good as they can, however.
:
: I was thinking of the people who seem to think that LP is the superior
: format. Trying to figure out what they get from that that the believe
is
: missing from CD.
:
: I think Jim Johnston gave us a possible answer years ago:
: Some people actually like the "euphonic distortion" that occurs with
: LP playback, and, in a different way, in most tube amps.
:
: I can live with that.
:
: --
: Sander de Waal
: " SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

Well, there is also to consider the fact that a lot of material
has, up to now, only been published in LP format
Rusy




While it is admittedly hard to define nad rather vague, I think that you'll
find that a lot of vinyl enthusiasts will tell you that compared to the sound
of live performances, vinyl comes closer. IOW, it sounds more "real". I
suspect this has to do with a mixture of both depth perception re. the
soundstage in many cases, and also a sense of more "body", whether it be in the
sound of the vocalist or of instruments. While these things are difficult to
operationally define in terms of specific measurements, these observations
appear to be quite common among vinyl enthusiasts. It also appears that this
experience occurs among some younger listeners, who, after hearing some vinyl
comparisons vs. digital playback of the same material, decide to invest in
vinyl playback equipment.

Another variable that sometimes is raised, although less so in newer digital
recordings, is the well-known "digititis" or overly bright sound of some
digital recordings compared to the same recordings on vinyl. This, of course,
is a matter of taste, as well.

Personally, I have many enjoyable examples in my own collection of both
formats, as well as some real lousy recordings in both.






Bruce J. Richman

"Ruud Broens" wrote in message


Well, there is also to consider the fact that a lot of material
has, up to now, only been published in LP format

Given that LPs were about all we had from about 1950 to 1983, why would this
be significant?

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message

"Michael McKelvy" said:

Since there is and probably always will be a division on the
subject of LP playback vs. CD playback, let's see if we can
describe how we each hear a given recording that we have in common.

I listen to *music*, not a format.
I want to have both formats to sound as good as they can, however.

I was thinking of the people who seem to think that LP is the
superior format. Trying to figure out what they get from that that
the believe is missing from CD.

I think Jim Johnston gave us a possible answer years ago:
Some people actually like the "euphonic distortion" that occurs with
LP playback, and, in a different way, in most tube amps.

One of Jim's failings was that he gave way too much quarter to idiots. In
the end it got him, he let himself be bought.

On Usenet, vinylphilia and tubophilia are just a ways that some poor lost
people have of expressing their desire to be special.

In real life, they are probably mostly about sentimentality but again the
"I'm special because I have tubes and/or vinyl" theme is there.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Sander deWaal" wrote in message

"Michael McKelvy" said:

Since there is and probably always will be a division on the
subject of LP playback vs. CD playback, let's see if we can
describe how we each hear a given recording that we have in common.

I listen to *music*, not a format.
I want to have both formats to sound as good as they can, however.

I was thinking of the people who seem to think that LP is the
superior format. Trying to figure out what they get from that that
the believe is missing from CD.

I think Jim Johnston gave us a possible answer years ago:
Some people actually like the "euphonic distortion" that occurs with
LP playback, and, in a different way, in most tube amps.

One of Jim's failings was that he gave way too much quarter to idiots. In
the end it got him, he let himself be bought.

On Usenet, vinylphilia and tubophilia are just a ways that some poor lost
people have of expressing their desire to be special.

In real life, they are probably mostly about sentimentality but again the
"I'm special because I have tubes and/or vinyl" theme is there.


Everybody has something about them that makes them special.
In your case, its having ****-for-brains.

"Arny Krueger" said:

Since there is and probably always will be a division on the
subject of LP playback vs. CD playback, let's see if we can
describe how we each hear a given recording that we have in common.

I listen to *music*, not a format.
I want to have both formats to sound as good as they can, however.

I was thinking of the people who seem to think that LP is the
superior format. Trying to figure out what they get from that that
the believe is missing from CD.

I think Jim Johnston gave us a possible answer years ago:
Some people actually like the "euphonic distortion" that occurs with
LP playback, and, in a different way, in most tube amps.

One of Jim's failings was that he gave way too much quarter to idiots. In
the end it got him, he let himself be bought.

On Usenet, vinylphilia and tubophilia are just a ways that some poor lost
people have of expressing their desire to be special.

In real life, they are probably mostly about sentimentality but again the
"I'm special because I have tubes and/or vinyl" theme is there.

Another helpful and friendly response from Arny.

Now do you understand what gets him into trouble?

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Sander deWaal" wrote in message

"Michael McKelvy" said:

Since there is and probably always will be a division on the
subject of LP playback vs. CD playback, let's see if we can
describe how we each hear a given recording that we have in common.

I listen to *music*, not a format.
I want to have both formats to sound as good as they can, however.

I was thinking of the people who seem to think that LP is the
superior format. Trying to figure out what they get from that that
the believe is missing from CD.

I think Jim Johnston gave us a possible answer years ago:
Some people actually like the "euphonic distortion" that occurs with
LP playback, and, in a different way, in most tube amps.

One of Jim's failings was that he gave way too much quarter to idiots. In
the end it got him, he let himself be bought.


Bought by whom? Where did he go?

On Usenet, vinylphilia and tubophilia are just a ways that some poor lost
people have of expressing their desire to be special.

In real life, they are probably mostly about sentimentality but again the
"I'm special because I have tubes and/or vinyl" theme is there.


Possibly but some folks are just as snobby about their SS amps.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
"Sander deWaal" wrote in message



I think Jim Johnston gave us a possible answer years ago:
Some people actually like the "euphonic distortion" that occurs with
LP playback, and, in a different way, in most tube amps.

One of Jim's failings was that he gave way too much quarter to idiots. In
the end it got him, he let himself be bought.

On Usenet, vinylphilia and tubophilia are just a ways that some poor lost
people have of expressing their desire to be special.

You are so vain and very bitter again. Why do you castigate other people's
love of audio gears that are not similar to yours?


In real life, they are probably mostly about sentimentality but again the
"I'm special because I have tubes and/or vinyl" theme is there.

Do you still go to church on Sunday? Are you no longer Catholic?

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
ink.net...


. Trying to figure out what they get from that that the believe is missing
from CD.

Do you teach Krooglish courses over the internet? How
much do you charge?

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
ink.net...


. Trying to figure out what they get from that that the believe is missing
from CD.

Do you teach Krooglish courses over the internet? How
much do you charge?
Getting desperate again?

Trying to figure out what they get from LP's that they think is missing from
CD's.

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
ink.net...


. Trying to figure out what they get from that that the believe is
missing from CD.

Do you teach Krooglish courses over the internet? How
much do you charge?
Getting desperate again?

Trying to figure out what they get from LP's that they think is missing
from CD's.

Goodie!
I got a free lesson.

George M. Middius wrote:


John Atkinson said:

Other than Philips' associated labels, the record industry was very
resistant to the CD, feeling that the market success of cassette
made CD unnecessary. I wrote about this in the following article:
http://www.stereophile.com/features/375 . As late as 1985, some
record company executives I knew were still concerned that CD was
not going to succeed.

That's almost tragic. Looking back in hindsight, it's perfectly clear the
dominance of CDs was a certainty. Why didn't those executives just consult
with Arnii Krooger, Audio Oracle? ;-)




Had they done so, they definitely would have gotten cutting-edge fortune
telling based on an unequaled record of unbiased, highly reasoned, logical, and
rational predictions. In addition, they could have taken advantage of his
rather unique interpersonal relationship skills. What better way to sell a
product then to use somebody known for tolerance, respect for diversity, and
diplomacy.

OTOH, they wuold probably be even better served by deaaling with Freddy krueger
!!!!



Bruce J. Richman