wrote in message
...
Or the short answer to this post:

You know how objectivists are irritated that they are told "You don't
like vinyl because you've never really listened to a good rig?"

This post is an exact parallel. I'm confused about the qualities of
analog because I've never heard good cd's, or never heard the same
music on both.

It's pretty near impossible to hear the same music on CD and vinyl due to
the mastering process. If a recording is well mastered for vinyl, the
mastering engineer will make allowances for the disc-cutting process. This
results in a completely different sound going on vinyl and CD, which doesn't
have the same limitations.

I don't know of any commercial recordings which have been mastered
deliberately identically, although I suspect that some of the early CD
releases were done using a disc-cutting master rather than a specific CD
master, either out of ignorance or economy, with the result that the CD was
less than ideal.

It would be an interesting exercise if someone were to press a vinyl record
from a CD master, I suspect that the resulting record would be pretty nasty.
This is why, in my view, questions of which is better, CD or vinyl, can
never be answered properly, as one is never comparing two identical
recordings. Also, there is no accounting for taste, and some may genuinely
prefer vinyl, in spite of all the measurable limitations.

S.

Serge Auckland wrote:
wrote in message
...
Or the short answer to this post:

You know how objectivists are irritated that they are told "You don't
like vinyl because you've never really listened to a good rig?"

This post is an exact parallel. I'm confused about the qualities of
analog because I've never heard good cd's, or never heard the same
music on both.

It's pretty near impossible to hear the same music on CD and vinyl due to
the mastering process.


mastering doesn't change the musc just the sound of the music. Thee are
thousands of titles in which one can choose betwen a CD or an LP based
on sound quality.


If a recording is well mastered for vinyl, the
mastering engineer will make allowances for the disc-cutting process.


Not always true.


This
results in a completely different sound going on vinyl and CD, which doesn't
have the same limitations.

I don't know of any commercial recordings which have been mastered
deliberately identically,


James Boyk did it for the sake of comparisons with his release of
Pictures at an Exhibition. You can compare the LP to the CD with no
alterations done in the mastering of either. It is the purest
comparison you can find of the actual media. Both were done as best as
they possibly could be done and are both from the same mic feed.



although I suspect that some of the early CD
releases were done using a disc-cutting master rather than a specific CD
master, either out of ignorance or economy, with the result that the CD was
less than ideal.

You really think that is limited to early releases?



It would be an interesting exercise if someone were to press a vinyl record
from a CD master, I suspect that the resulting record would be pretty nasty.


It has been done by Simply Vinyl.



This is why, in my view, questions of which is better, CD or vinyl, can
never be answered properly, as one is never comparing two identical
recordings.


But as audiophiles we are faced with the choice quite often when buying
commercial recordings. Whether or not it is ever a fair representation
of the two media it is a real world issue.


Also, there is no accounting for taste, and some may genuinely
prefer vinyl, in spite of all the measurable limitations.


What does this have to do with taste?



Scott

Serge Auckland wrote:
wrote in message
...
Or the short answer to this post:

You know how objectivists are irritated that they are told "You don't
like vinyl because you've never really listened to a good rig?"

This post is an exact parallel. I'm confused about the qualities of
analog because I've never heard good cd's, or never heard the same
music on both.

It's pretty near impossible to hear the same music on CD and vinyl due to
the mastering process. If a recording is well mastered for vinyl, the
mastering engineer will make allowances for the disc-cutting process. This
results in a completely different sound going on vinyl and CD, which does=
n't
have the same limitations.

I don't know of any commercial recordings which have been mastered
deliberately identically, although I suspect that some of the early CD
releases were done using a disc-cutting master rather than a specific CD
master, either out of ignorance or economy, with the result that the CD =
was
less than ideal.

It would be an interesting exercise if someone were to press a vinyl reco=
rd
from a CD master, I suspect that the resulting record would be pretty nas=
ty.
This is why, in my view, questions of which is better, CD or vinyl, can
never be answered properly, as one is never comparing two identical
recordings. Also, there is no accounting for taste, and some may genuinely
prefer vinyl, in spite of all the measurable limitations.

S


Serge,

I think situation is not so hopeless :-)

Let's say we will take LP that is made very well. By this I mean only
one thing - it is prized highly by high-enders. Then we will take
SOTA (again judged by high-enders) equipment and very good A to D box
(judged by competent engineers). We will digitize the signal from LP
the best way we can, say 192kHz/24bit. After that we will down sample
it to 44.1/16 the best way we can - dithering and all this. There are
people here who can advise how to do it. But no fiddling with the
sound, no additional mastering.

After all this we will cut CD from 44.1kHz/16bit file.

My na=EFve understanding is that we will get exact copy of LP on CD. I
wander if it will preserve all analog 'beauty' and 'magic' in a
blind test.

I would run very basic version of blind test - I would collect dozen
of golden ears high-enders in a room and offer them the sound of
equipment of their choice with only one component unknown - the
source CD/LP.

My guess is they will be unable to tell CD from LP.

Would it work?

I would be particularly interested if Jenn can recognize CD by
deterioration in violin's timbre.=20

vlad
..

Serge Auckland wrote:
wrote in message
...
Or the short answer to this post:

You know how objectivists are irritated that they are told "You don't
like vinyl because you've never really listened to a good rig?"

This post is an exact parallel. I'm confused about the qualities of
analog because I've never heard good cd's, or never heard the same
music on both.

It's pretty near impossible to hear the same music on CD and vinyl due to
the mastering process. If a recording is well mastered for vinyl, the
mastering engineer will make allowances for the disc-cutting process. This
results in a completely different sound going on vinyl and CD, which doesn't
have the same limitations.

I don't know of any commercial recordings which have been mastered
deliberately identically, although I suspect that some of the early CD
releases were done using a disc-cutting master rather than a specific CD
master, either out of ignorance or economy, with the result that the CD was
less than ideal.

It would be an interesting exercise if someone were to press a vinyl record
from a CD master, I suspect that the resulting record would be pretty nasty.
This is why, in my view, questions of which is better, CD or vinyl, can
never be answered properly, as one is never comparing two identical
recordings. Also, there is no accounting for taste, and some may genuinely
prefer vinyl, in spite of all the measurable limitations.

But you can prepare a digital copy of an LP at home and
with some effort, do a blind comparison -- to determine,
at least, if your digital recording and playback chain at home , is
'transparent' to you when using an LP source. You are comparing the
same music on CD and vinyl in this case.





--
-S
"If men were angels, no government would be necessary." - James Madison (1788)

On 26 Feb 2006 01:17:19 GMT, wrote:

Serge Auckland wrote:
wrote in message
...
Or the short answer to this post:

You know how objectivists are irritated that they are told "You don't
like vinyl because you've never really listened to a good rig?"

This post is an exact parallel. I'm confused about the qualities of
analog because I've never heard good cd's, or never heard the same
music on both.

It's pretty near impossible to hear the same music on CD and vinyl due to
the mastering process.

mastering doesn't change the musc just the sound of the music. Thee are
thousands of titles in which one can choose betwen a CD or an LP based
on sound quality.

Agreed, but all those 'digitally remastered' versions of well-known
albums do rather cloud the issue. I'd probably trust Wilma Cozart
Fine's efforts as being genuine and highly skilled attempts to extract
the very best from each medium and from the original session tapes.

If a recording is well mastered for vinyl, the
mastering engineer will make allowances for the disc-cutting process.

Not always true.

It is if it's *well* mastered, since the fundamental flaws of vinyl
should be well known to the mastering engineer. That's what he *does*
for a living!

This
results in a completely different sound going on vinyl and CD, which doesn't
have the same limitations.

I don't know of any commercial recordings which have been mastered
deliberately identically,

James Boyk did it for the sake of comparisons with his release of
Pictures at an Exhibition. You can compare the LP to the CD with no
alterations done in the mastering of either. It is the purest
comparison you can find of the actual media. Both were done as best as
they possibly could be done and are both from the same mic feed.

This is not entirely true.

From Boyk's own site:

"World's only comparison of (a) pure digital, (b) digital-from-analog,
and (c) pure analog recordings, made at the same time from the same
microphones; (a) and (b) on the CD, (c) on the LP. The analog master
tape was the first tape made on MagnesaurusTM. From the album notes:
"Interested listeners may use this double release of LP and CD to
investigate some timely questions: Given an analog master tape, which
medium preserves its virtues better, LP or CD? (Compare the LP with
the analog half of the CD.) Does a CD sound better made from digital
or analog master tape? (Compare the two versions on the CD.) And most
important, which preserves the emotional impact of the music better,
purely analog or purely digital recording? (Compare the LP with the
digital half of the CD.)"

In order to have mastered the LP as well as possible, it would
*necessarily* have been altered from the original master tape - that's
why 'cutting masters' *exist*, fer gosh sakes.

Having said that, it's certainly a very interesting comparison, which
would be even more interesting if we knew what was used to make the
all-digital version. Given Boyk's well-known preference for analogue,
and his seriously off-the-wall pronouncements on cables, one cannot
help but raise a somewhat cynical eyebrow at this 'world's only
comparison', given that there in fact *dozens* of examples of LPs and
CDs having been made from the same mixdown master, if not of course
the same cutting master.

Personally, I've found that I mostly prefer the CD, although there are
certainly exceptions to this rule.

although I suspect that some of the early CD
releases were done using a disc-cutting master rather than a specific CD
master, either out of ignorance or economy, with the result that the CD was
less than ideal.

You really think that is limited to early releases?

I certainly do. There are very few cutting masters around these
days......
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 26 Feb 2006 01:17:19 GMT, wrote:

If a recording is well mastered for vinyl, the
mastering engineer will make allowances for the disc-cutting process.

Not always true.

It is if it's *well* mastered, since the fundamental flaws of vinyl
should be well known to the mastering engineer. That's what he *does*
for a living!



OK so how did this choice adversly affect the sound on James Boyks LPs?
How did it hurt the sound of the APO Top 100 Jazz reissue series? What
issues do you have with the sound of these LPs?

This
results in a completely different sound going on vinyl and CD, which doesn't
have the same limitations.

I don't know of any commercial recordings which have been mastered
deliberately identically,

James Boyk did it for the sake of comparisons with his release of
Pictures at an Exhibition. You can compare the LP to the CD with no
alterations done in the mastering of either. It is the purest
comparison you can find of the actual media. Both were done as best as
they possibly could be done and are both from the same mic feed.

This is not entirely true.

From Boyk's own site:

"World's only comparison of (a) pure digital, (b) digital-from-analog,
and (c) pure analog recordings, made at the same time from the same
microphones; (a) and (b) on the CD, (c) on the LP. The analog master
tape was the first tape made on MagnesaurusTM. From the album notes:
"Interested listeners may use this double release of LP and CD to
investigate some timely questions: Given an analog master tape, which
medium preserves its virtues better, LP or CD? (Compare the LP with
the analog half of the CD.) Does a CD sound better made from digital
or analog master tape? (Compare the two versions on the CD.) And most
important, which preserves the emotional impact of the music better,
purely analog or purely digital recording? (Compare the LP with the
digital half of the CD.)"

In order to have mastered the LP as well as possible, it would
*necessarily* have been altered from the original master tape - that's
why 'cutting masters' *exist*, fer gosh sakes.


wrong. Once again, I suggest you get the facts before jumping into
this.




Having said that, it's certainly a very interesting comparison, which
would be even more interesting if we knew what was used to make the
all-digital version.


That information is readily available.


Given Boyk's well-known preference for analogue,
and his seriously off-the-wall pronouncements on cables, one cannot
help but raise a somewhat cynical eyebrow at this 'world's only
comparison', given that there in fact *dozens* of examples of LPs and
CDs having been made from the same mixdown master, if not of course
the same cutting master.


Ah another ad hominum attack on Boyk. Sad. All the technical
information is readliy available on these CDs and LPs. I suggest you
bring easily informed facts rather than personal attacks to the table
next time.




Personally, I've found that I mostly prefer the CD, although there are
certainly exceptions to this rule.

although I suspect that some of the early CD
releases were done using a disc-cutting master rather than a specific CD
master, either out of ignorance or economy, with the result that the CD was
less than ideal.

You really think that is limited to early releases?

I certainly do. There are very few cutting masters around these
days......


who told you this?


Scott

Serge Auckland wrote:
wrote in message
...

Or the short answer to this post:

You know how objectivists are irritated that they are told "You don't
like vinyl because you've never really listened to a good rig?"

This post is an exact parallel. I'm confused about the qualities of
analog because I've never heard good cd's, or never heard the same
music on both.


It's pretty near impossible to hear the same music on CD and vinyl due to
the mastering process. If a recording is well mastered for vinyl, the
mastering engineer will make allowances for the disc-cutting process. This
results in a completely different sound going on vinyl and CD, which doesn't
have the same limitations.

I don't know of any commercial recordings which have been mastered
deliberately identically, although I suspect that some of the early CD
releases were done using a disc-cutting master rather than a specific CD
master, either out of ignorance or economy, with the result that the CD was
less than ideal.

It would be an interesting exercise if someone were to press a vinyl record
from a CD master, I suspect that the resulting record would be pretty nasty.
This is why, in my view, questions of which is better, CD or vinyl, can
never be answered properly, as one is never comparing two identical
recordings. Also, there is no accounting for taste, and some may genuinely
prefer vinyl, in spite of all the measurable limitations.

S.

It's very easy to make a CD copy of vinyl, so why not start there?
Take a record. Play it on your system while recording it to your
computer. Burn a CD. Lisen to both. Which do you prefer and why?

CD

"Codifus" wrote in message
...

It's very easy to make a CD copy of vinyl, so why not start there?
Take a record. Play it on your system while recording it to your computer.
Burn a CD. Lisen to both. Which do you prefer and why?

Consider the possible results:

(a) Can't tell the difference: This is actually the result I expect, and it
means that CD quality is good enough for your ears; CD recording delivers
what went into it with no perceptible loss of quality; now whether you
*like* what went into it is a separate question.

(b) Prefer the vinyl: This means CD recording, under these circumstances
and as measured by your ears, is imperfect, i.e., involves perceptible loss.

(c) Prefer the CD: This also means CD recording is imperfect but the
imperfections are something you like, perhaps because they compensate for
other imperfections already present.