RFD: uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

Chesney Christ wrote in news:vOBVRuLFieA
:

A certain MrBitsy, of uk.rec.audio "fame", writes :
Sure it can, depending on what you mean by 'better'. Is a medium with
a hundred times more distortion and a noise floor 20 times higher
than
a competing medium, 'better' in any meaningful sense?

I listened to the Trout Quintet on vinyl last night. I had goosbumps at
some points, and was smiling at others.

I will not get into the debate again. But the question of whether or
not
any one person had goosebumps while listening to music or not is hardly
of any relevance. I get goosebumps listening to great music on CD all
the time. Hell, even a grotty old tape recording will do it for me. The
important thing is whether or not it is a special, involving piece of
music.

I enjoyed both but in my opinion the vinyl ****ed all over the CD.

But they were two completely different works. That is hardly a basis
for
comparison.

I have been with my wife for 23 years. She is slim, and in my view,
attractive - she has no problem at all in 'raising' my interest
whenever
she wants ;-). If I were to take her to the Pinkerton modelling agency,
she would not get through the front door. Pinkerton would moan about
'cheekbone' this and 'curve' that, before politely (i'm sure) show us
the
door.

That is a daft argument. People see different things in different
people.


It isn't and its exactly why the vinyl group is required. I want to be
able to express my satisfaction in a perticulare piece of music without
have to read a debate on the use of the word 'better'. CD is better by
the numbers. Vinyl is better by the sound.

I listen to both and enjoy both but vinyl is better for me.

MrBitsy.

RFD: uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

Julian Fowler wrote:
On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 08:17:15 GMT, MrBitsy
wrote:

snip

It isn't and its exactly why the vinyl group is required. I want to be
able to express my satisfaction in a perticulare piece of music without
have to read a debate on the use of the word 'better'. CD is better by
the numbers. Vinyl is better by the sound.


Problem with this is that you're overloading the word "better" here.
I would have hoped that the creation of the separate vinyl group would
have been founded on the assumptions that:

* anyone can express a preference for the sound of recordings on vinyl
over those on CD (subjective "better")
* no-one need challenge the technical superiority of CD over vinyl
with respect to accurate reproduction of recorded sound (objective
"better")


It is. If you read the charter, you will see it excludes such comparisons.

I *happen* to prefer the accurate sound of CD over that of vinyl (plus
90% of the music that I listen to is not, never has been, and never
will be available in the latter format), so its unlikely that I would
subscribe to uk.rec.audio.vinyl. Hopefully, the creation of this
group will mean a reduction in the number of posts to uk.rec.audio
trying to claim *technical* superiority of vinyl over digital formats
that then lead to the inevitable ****ing-contests that the proposed
creation of uk.rec.audio.vinyl is designed to avoid.

Ok, good.

Out of interest (just asking) what type of music do you listen to, there
is more avalable on vinyl than many think. Not that I am suggesting you
should want to replace what you have.

--
Nick

RFD: uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

In article . 39,
MrBitsy wrote:
It isn't and its exactly why the vinyl group is required. I want to be
able to express my satisfaction in a perticulare piece of music without
have to read a debate on the use of the word 'better'. CD is better by
the numbers. Vinyl is better by the sound.

Think you'll soon get tired of patting one another on the back...

--
*Why can't women put on mascara with their mouth closed?

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

RFD: uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 10:52:23 +0100, Nick Gorham
wrote:

Julian Fowler wrote:
On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 08:17:15 GMT, MrBitsy
wrote:

snip

It isn't and its exactly why the vinyl group is required. I want to be
able to express my satisfaction in a perticulare piece of music without
have to read a debate on the use of the word 'better'. CD is better by
the numbers. Vinyl is better by the sound.


Problem with this is that you're overloading the word "better" here.
I would have hoped that the creation of the separate vinyl group would
have been founded on the assumptions that:

* anyone can express a preference for the sound of recordings on vinyl
over those on CD (subjective "better")
* no-one need challenge the technical superiority of CD over vinyl
with respect to accurate reproduction of recorded sound (objective
"better")


It is. If you read the charter, you will see it excludes such comparisons.

I have read the charter, and know that this is intended. Funny,
though, how its the pro-vinyl / anti-digital lobby that keeps throwing
this back into the mix.

I *happen* to prefer the accurate sound of CD over that of vinyl (plus
90% of the music that I listen to is not, never has been, and never
will be available in the latter format), so its unlikely that I would
subscribe to uk.rec.audio.vinyl. Hopefully, the creation of this
group will mean a reduction in the number of posts to uk.rec.audio
trying to claim *technical* superiority of vinyl over digital formats
that then lead to the inevitable ****ing-contests that the proposed
creation of uk.rec.audio.vinyl is designed to avoid.

Ok, good.

Out of interest (just asking) what type of music do you listen to, there
is more avalable on vinyl than many think. Not that I am suggesting you
should want to replace what you have.

This is what I'm listening to right now:

http://db.etree.org/shninfo_detail.php?shnid=11925

and earlier I was listening to:

http://db.etree.org/shninfo_detail.php?shnid=18005

I suspect that I'd have to invest in my own pressing plant to get
these on vinyl :-)

Julian




--
Julian Fowler
julian (at) bellevue-barn (dot) org (dot) uk

RFD: uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

Julian Fowler wrote:
On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 10:52:23 +0100, Nick Gorham
wrote:


Julian Fowler wrote:

On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 08:17:15 GMT, MrBitsy
wrote:

snip

It isn't and its exactly why the vinyl group is required. I want to be
able to express my satisfaction in a perticulare piece of music without
have to read a debate on the use of the word 'better'. CD is better by
the numbers. Vinyl is better by the sound.


Problem with this is that you're overloading the word "better" here.
I would have hoped that the creation of the separate vinyl group would
have been founded on the assumptions that:

* anyone can express a preference for the sound of recordings on vinyl
over those on CD (subjective "better")
* no-one need challenge the technical superiority of CD over vinyl
with respect to accurate reproduction of recorded sound (objective
"better")


It is. If you read the charter, you will see it excludes such comparisons.


I have read the charter, and know that this is intended. Funny,
though, how its the pro-vinyl / anti-digital lobby that keeps throwing
this back into the mix.


I *happen* to prefer the accurate sound of CD over that of vinyl (plus
90% of the music that I listen to is not, never has been, and never
will be available in the latter format), so its unlikely that I would
subscribe to uk.rec.audio.vinyl. Hopefully, the creation of this
group will mean a reduction in the number of posts to uk.rec.audio
trying to claim *technical* superiority of vinyl over digital formats
that then lead to the inevitable ****ing-contests that the proposed
creation of uk.rec.audio.vinyl is designed to avoid.

Ok, good.

Out of interest (just asking) what type of music do you listen to, there
is more avalable on vinyl than many think. Not that I am suggesting you
should want to replace what you have.


This is what I'm listening to right now:

http://db.etree.org/shninfo_detail.php?shnid=11925

and earlier I was listening to:

http://db.etree.org/shninfo_detail.php?shnid=18005

I suspect that I'd have to invest in my own pressing plant to get
these on vinyl :-)


I will give you that one :-)

--
Nick

RFD: uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 15:42:32 +0100, Dave J.
wrote:

In inside of
uk.net.news.config, 'Chris Croughton' wrote:

Which is a pity, since analogue equipment
is a lot "lower tech" and has tended to change format a lot slower than
digital formats (and so is more "future-proof" -- it will still be
trivial to build something to play an LP in 100 years time[1], just as
we can still read books hand-scribed a thousand years ago, but decoding
a CD containing MP3 format data may well be a lost art by then).


Vinyl recordings also degrade much less quickly than (current) CDs and
it is perfectly possible to play them without physical contact, thus
removing the 'wear and tear' element.

Maybe so, but I don't *think* that, without any specialized equipment,
I can make perfect copies of a vinyl record and store this in a
lossless, compressed form with in-built checksums :-)

It should also be noted that with non-esoteric equipment, the odds of
a vinyl recording being degraded over a 10 year period as a result of
periodic playing are *far* higher than with a CD.

How quickly do you think that CDs "degrade"? Apart from a small
number (=2 from memory) in my collection that suffered from "CD rot",
I believe that the oldest CDs that I own (purchased in 1986) will play
just as well as they did the day they were purchased.

Julian


--
Julian Fowler
julian (at) bellevue-barn (dot) org (dot) uk

RFD: uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

Julian Fowler wrote:

How quickly do you think that CDs "degrade"? Apart from a small
number (=2 from memory) in my collection that suffered from "CD rot",
I believe that the oldest CDs that I own (purchased in 1986) will play
just as well as they did the day they were purchased.


I think the point he is making, is the same one you would have trying to
read data from a 8" floppy disk now. While it would be simple to create
something that would play a LP. it would be harder to do that from
scratch with a CD.

--
Nick

RFD: uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:33:49 +0100, Nick Gorham
wrote:

Julian Fowler wrote:

How quickly do you think that CDs "degrade"? Apart from a small
number (=2 from memory) in my collection that suffered from "CD rot",
I believe that the oldest CDs that I own (purchased in 1986) will play
just as well as they did the day they were purchased.


I think the point he is making, is the same one you would have trying to
read data from a 8" floppy disk now. While it would be simple to create
something that would play a LP. it would be harder to do that from
scratch with a CD.

Curious use, then, of the word "degrade" ;-)

I think, though, that the vast installed base of CD technology (in the
computer world as well as audio) implies that this is unlikely to
suffer the same fate as the oft cited BBC "Doomsday Book" laser disc.

Julian


--
Julian Fowler
julian (at) bellevue-barn (dot) org (dot) uk

RFD: uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 08:17:15 GMT, MrBitsy
wrote:

CD is better by
the numbers. Vinyl is better by the sound.

In your humble opinion, of course....

I'm in the lucky position of having it both ways! :-)

I listen to both and enjoy both but vinyl is better for me.

One man's vice is another man's versa.............

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

RFD: uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 15:42:32 +0100, Dave J.
wrote:

In inside of
uk.net.news.config, 'Chris Croughton' wrote:

Which is a pity, since analogue equipment
is a lot "lower tech" and has tended to change format a lot slower than
digital formats (and so is more "future-proof" -- it will still be
trivial to build something to play an LP in 100 years time[1], just as
we can still read books hand-scribed a thousand years ago, but decoding
a CD containing MP3 format data may well be a lost art by then).

However, I'll bet that a conventional pressed CD will still be
playable, since there will be hundreds of millions of them still
around. Of course, conventional audio will be ten-channel 24/384 by
then, on solid-state memory downloaded from broadband connections to
wrist PCs, but some people will still prefer that good old 'legacy' CD
sound, with its quaint use of a physical spinning disk!

Vinyl recordings also degrade much less quickly than (current) CDs and
it is perfectly possible to play them without physical contact, thus
removing the 'wear and tear' element.

Firstly, there's no evidence of *any* deterioration of pressed CDs,
aside from a small batch from a couple of plants in the early years.
Difficult to say the same for any LP that's actually been played.

Secondly, the only TT that ever managed non-contact playing of LPs
suffered from some pretty severe problems, not least of which is that
vinyl is *designed* to use a high-pressure contact replay method, so
the output from the Finial didn't sound that great - even before your
speaker cones were blown out by a piece of dust that a stylus would
have swept out of the way!

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering