wrote in message
...
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.

OK, Agreed, if you want to be pedantic:-)


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


Not always true.

It was always true when I was closer to the mastering process in the '70s.
The Mastering engineer worked closely with the cutting engineer(sometimes of
course they were the same person), so ensure that the LP was optimally cut.
If you know that has changed, I would be interested to know.


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.

But that's my point, they were both done as best they could. That does not
necessarily mean that they are identical. I am not familiar wth the James
Boyk PaaE recording. You could be right that they have deliberately cut the
LP and the CD from the same master, but was the master optimised for LP or
was it a straight unequalised, uncompressed recording? If so, I would be
interested in hearing the two versions. Do you have a label and catalogue
No?.


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?

Hopefully, they would have learnt that the two media are different and a
disc-cutting master needs to be optimised differently, but you may well be
right, that out of laziness or ignorance it still goes on.

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.

Any references for titles, URL etc? I'd like to hear some of these.



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?

Only insofar as somone may prefer the sound of vinyl, even though it can be
show by repeatable measurements that CD can be an identical clone of the
Digital Master, and if the master is analogue, that it is a very close copy,
so close tha any differences will be below the threshold for audibility.

The buying public does not have access to the original masters for
comparison, nor do I suspect, it matters if they did. People will buy the
medium that gives them the most pleasure, whether that is vinyl or CD (or
any of the newer media).

If your question is what is the most accurate representation of a
disc-cutting master tape, then I don't think there can be any arguement that
CD is more accurate, every measurement you care to make will confirm this.
However, if you are asking which does one prefer the sound of, that is a
subjective view, which of course is a matter of taste.

S.

Serge Auckland wrote:
wrote in message
...
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.

OK, Agreed, if you want to be pedantic:-)


No, just crystal clear.




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


Not always true.

It was always true when I was closer to the mastering process in the '70s.


No it wasn't. just check with Doug Sax about his D2D recordings at
Sheffield.



The Mastering engineer worked closely with the cutting engineer(sometimes of
course they were the same person), so ensure that the LP was optimally cut.
If you know that has changed, I would be interested to know.


I don't know that *that* has changed but i do know of a number of LPs
that have been made without "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,


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.

But that's my point, they were both done as best they could. That does not
necessarily mean that they are identical.


They are identical except for the diffeences in the technologies.


I am not familiar wth the James
Boyk PaaE recording. You could be right that they have deliberately cut the
LP and the CD from the same master, but was the master optimised for LP or
was it a straight unequalised, uncompressed recording?


yes it was a straight unequalized uncompressed recording. The only
difeence between the LP and CD is that the CD has two versions of the
recording on it. One from the digital master one from the analog
master. No tweaking was done to either version.


If so, I would be
interested in hearing the two versions. Do you have a label and catalogue
No?.

Peformance Recordings. PR 7
http://www.performancerecordings.com/albums.html





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?

Hopefully, they would have learnt that the two media are different and a
disc-cutting master needs to be optimised differently, but you may well be
right, that out of laziness or ignorance it still goes on.



If you want the skinny on these things Steve Hoffman's forum is very
informative. There are hundreds of threads that go into the details of
how many CDs and LPs were mastered. Much information comes from
insiders that have direct knowledge or even did the mastering
themselves.




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.

Any references for titles, URL etc? I'd like to hear some of these.


I think you can find some references to specific titles over at
SteveHoffman.tv






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?

Only insofar as somone may prefer the sound of vinyl, even though it can be
show by repeatable measurements that CD can be an identical clone of the
Digital Master, and if the master is analogue, that it is a very close copy,
so close tha any differences will be below the threshold for audibility.


Sorry but this has nothing to do with taste. We are talking about
commercial CDs and commercial LPs here.




The buying public does not have access to the original masters for
comparison, nor do I suspect, it matters if they did.


It does seem to matter to some.


People will buy the
medium that gives them the most pleasure, whether that is vinyl or CD (or
any of the newer media).

If your question is what is the most accurate representation of a
disc-cutting master tape, then I don't think there can be any arguement that
CD is more accurate, every measurement you care to make will confirm this.


No that isn't quite the question. The question is which is the more
accurate n the real world with actual commercial CDs and commercial
LPs.


However, if you are asking which does one prefer the sound of, that is a
subjective view, which of course is a matter of taste.



I thinkthat question does come into play but I haven't ben asking that
question so far.




Scott

"Serge Auckland" wrote in message
...



If your question is what is the most accurate representation of a
disc-cutting master tape, then I don't think there can be any arguement
that
CD is more accurate, every measurement you care to make will confirm this.
However, if you are asking which does one prefer the sound of, that is a
subjective view, which of course is a matter of taste.


More accurate, perhaps, but not totally accurate. And this matters. The
areas of controversy a

1) high frequency reproduction, especially notable of strings, triangles,
and cymbals
2) depth of image

Both are thought, with some experimental proof, to relate to the problems of
transient accuracy in the high frequencies.

People who like vinyl generally cite either the accuracy of the upper
registers or ease and naturalness of the overall sound as a reason for that
preference. Both are thought to relate to the above.