On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 09:56:12 +0100, "Rob"
wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...

There's an easy test for this. Transfer - using the best possible
equipment - an LP to CD. Ask the golden eared boys to tell which is which
in a blind test. They won't be able to. And I'll put serious money up for
a bet if someone wants to try. But they'll have to equal it.

I think a lot of people will tell the difference. IME acoustic instruments
and voice sound noticeably different. As to whether one is better than the
other, I don't think there's any answer to that. I'm not that concerned
about proving this to you, so hold on to your money Dave :-).

Do the same in reverse. Much more difficult, of course. But it can be
done. Anyone with quarter decent hearing will tell the difference.

Rob, I'm not sure if you caught what Dave was actually saying here. He
was talking about transcribing an LP to CD-R, and then comparing the
CD-R to the original LP. IME, most people can't tell the difference,
and even those who can, admit that

a) The difference is very small

b) The result sounds much more like vinyl than it does like CD.

Basically, CD is an almost-transparent medium, while vinyl definitely
isn't. Which you *prefer* is an entirely different matter, but this
idiot o'Connell on the Yahoo reel to reel grooup is simply spouting
the usual vinylphile bull****. Because *he* prefers his high-end vinyl
rig (assuming it actually exists, which is dubious), then he claims
that means that vinyl is de facto superior to CD.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
snip

Basically, CD is an almost-transparent medium, while vinyl definitely
isn't. Which you *prefer* is an entirely different matter, but this
idiot o'Connell on the Yahoo reel to reel grooup is simply spouting
the usual vinylphile bull****. Because *he* prefers his high-end vinyl
rig (assuming it actually exists, which is dubious), then he claims
that means that vinyl is de facto superior to CD.

I see you took the trouble to look at the group. JCO is a royal pain
in the neck isn't he?

Ian

In article ,
Rob wrote:
There's an easy test for this. Transfer - using the best possible
equipment - an LP to CD. Ask the golden eared boys to tell which is
which in a blind test. They won't be able to. And I'll put serious
money up for a bet if someone wants to try. But they'll have to equal
it.

I think a lot of people will tell the difference.

Please read *carefully* my original above.

IME acoustic
instruments and voice sound noticeably different.

No, the CD of the LP will sound exactly like the LP, regardless of what
the material is.

If you reverse the process, as I suggested, then you're right that certain
instruments aren't degraded by LPs to the same extent as others. However,
none are degraded by decent digital.

As to whether one is
better than the other, I don't think there's any answer to that. I'm
not that concerned about proving this to you, so hold on to your money
Dave :-).

Do the same in reverse. Much more difficult, of course. But it can be
done. Anyone with quarter decent hearing will tell the difference.

As above

Please read again carefully. ;-)

--
*Stable Relationships Are For Horses.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 13:16:44 +0100, ruffrecords
wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
snip

Basically, CD is an almost-transparent medium, while vinyl definitely
isn't. Which you *prefer* is an entirely different matter, but this
idiot o'Connell on the Yahoo reel to reel grooup is simply spouting
the usual vinylphile bull****. Because *he* prefers his high-end vinyl
rig (assuming it actually exists, which is dubious), then he claims
that means that vinyl is de facto superior to CD.

I see you took the trouble to look at the group. JCO is a royal pain
in the neck isn't he?

Not any more - he's been thrown off the group.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"Mike Gilmour" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"ruffrecords" wrote in message


Clip...

That's why 99% sales of new recordings are CDs, not LPs. They
sound less like music than LPs.

Freudian slip perhaps :-)

Sarcasm.

"Rob" wrote in message


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...

No vinyl system can ever sound as good as CD - as a principle.

Nonsense - there is no *universal* principle of 'sounds as good'

As soon as you use the phrase "high fidelity" and actually mean it, you
have referenced a universal principle of 'sounds as good".

There's an easy test for this. Transfer - using the best possible
equipment - an LP to CD. Ask the golden eared boys to tell which is
which in a blind test. They won't be able to. And I'll put serious
money up for a bet if someone wants to try. But they'll have to
equal it.

I think a lot of people will tell the difference.

Not in a blind, level-matched, time-synched listening test.

IME acoustic
instruments and voice sound noticeably different.

I seriously doubt that you've done a blind, level-matched, time-synched
listening test.

They are hard to do, particularly in this case.

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 13:16:44 +0100, ruffrecords
wrote:


Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
snip

Basically, CD is an almost-transparent medium, while vinyl definitely
isn't. Which you *prefer* is an entirely different matter, but this
idiot o'Connell on the Yahoo reel to reel grooup is simply spouting
the usual vinylphile bull****. Because *he* prefers his high-end vinyl
rig (assuming it actually exists, which is dubious), then he claims
that means that vinyl is de facto superior to CD.

I see you took the trouble to look at the group. JCO is a royal pain
in the neck isn't he?


Not any more - he's been thrown off the group.

That's funny because I have not been getting any group messages for a
while. Maybe they threw me off too - but surely someone would have
told me?

Ian

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Rob wrote:
No vinyl system can ever sound as good as CD - as a principle.

Nonsense - there is no *universal* principle of 'sounds as good'

There is to some - and that includes me.

Well that's not a universal principle, it's a personal principle, and that's
an opinion. And I have one too - not right or wrong, an opinion. And let's
face it, in the scheme of things, preferring a particular type of sound is
not usually a problem ...

That is that the recording should
sound as close to the original as possible. And neither LP or analogue
tape comes near good digital in this respect.

My only experience of the original is clubs, concerts and festivals. I've
never heard any domestic stereo come close to that sound - which in many
ways is a good thing, although reproducing the sound levels would be, for
me, amusing if not exactly necessary. Still, I take your point, it's a valid
measure of 'good music reproduction'.

You may well like the degradation that LP or tape introduces. That's your
choice. Many prefer their widescreen TV to distort 4:3 pictures to fill
the screen too. And consider that 'better' ;-)

Well, here we have it! I don't consider LP reproduction necessarily
'degradation'. Some LPs sound terrible - they were just recorded that way.
As do some CDs - a few remastered CDs I have sound compressed.

I was listening to a Nina Simone CD last night, and it generally sounded
superb, except her voice (pretty important!) - quite harsh and sibilant. On
LP, same track, her voice sounded as I imagine it should - hard, driving,
but not harsh and unpleasant. 'I imagine' is indeed my particular
preference, and I have to concede to a lot of people that'd be distortion -
her voice has been distorted and degraded. Perhaps you're right - I like
that distortion and remain defensive about calling it that.

There's just something very 'New Labour' about this argument - apparent
consensus and cod science equals fact. Any challenge to that 'fact' takes me
full circle - concensus is fine to a point (there's a lot more to digital
music's advanatages than sound quality) and I don't understand the science.
So I can't prove anything, and you within a universal frame of reference
(the science) can. All I can say (!), and going back to the OP, is give LP a
try.

Rob


--
*Marriage changes passion - suddenly you're in bed with a relative*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 09:56:12 +0100, "Rob"
wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...

There's an easy test for this. Transfer - using the best possible
equipment - an LP to CD. Ask the golden eared boys to tell which is
which
in a blind test. They won't be able to. And I'll put serious money up
for
a bet if someone wants to try. But they'll have to equal it.

I think a lot of people will tell the difference. IME acoustic instruments
and voice sound noticeably different. As to whether one is better than the
other, I don't think there's any answer to that. I'm not that concerned
about proving this to you, so hold on to your money Dave :-).

Do the same in reverse. Much more difficult, of course. But it can be
done. Anyone with quarter decent hearing will tell the difference.

Rob, I'm not sure if you caught what Dave was actually saying here. He
was talking about transcribing an LP to CD-R, and then comparing the
CD-R to the original LP. IME, most people can't tell the difference,
and even those who can, admit that

a) The difference is very small

b) The result sounds much more like vinyl than it does like CD.

I agree - done it many times. There is a difference that I would describe as
'layering' - the perspective of the instruments changes, their 'depth' -
what I understand soundstage to mean in the reviews. But it's not huge and I
couldn't always pick it out - very small, as you say.

Basically, CD is an almost-transparent medium, while vinyl definitely
isn't. Which you *prefer* is an entirely different matter, but this
idiot o'Connell on the Yahoo reel to reel grooup is simply spouting
the usual vinylphile bull****. Because *he* prefers his high-end vinyl
rig (assuming it actually exists, which is dubious), then he claims
that means that vinyl is de facto superior to CD.

Which, as you say, it is not.

Rob
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Rob wrote:
There's an easy test for this. Transfer - using the best possible
equipment - an LP to CD. Ask the golden eared boys to tell which is
which in a blind test. They won't be able to. And I'll put serious
money up for a bet if someone wants to try. But they'll have to equal
it.

I think a lot of people will tell the difference.

Please read *carefully* my original above.

Well, I'll backtrack a little - sufficed to say I have been very impressed
with vinyl-cd transfers. I'd still rather listen to the record, which has
something, but not everything, to do with the sound coming through the
speakers. Some people should tell the difference?

IME acoustic
instruments and voice sound noticeably different.

No, the CD of the LP will sound exactly like the LP, regardless of what
the material is.

OK - I'll have to take your point because I haven't critically listened and
compared - my comments above are based on quite rough and ready comparisons,
more to check the recording process. From memory the CD 'introduced' a
certain punch and dynamism, but 'lost' some of the air and space - quite
small differences though, most noticeable with acoustic music. I'll have a
relisten in my far from scientific environs just to reconfirm my prejudice
;-)

If you reverse the process, as I suggested, then you're right that certain
instruments aren't degraded by LPs to the same extent as others. However,
none are degraded by decent digital.

As to whether one is
better than the other, I don't think there's any answer to that. I'm
not that concerned about proving this to you, so hold on to your money
Dave :-).

Do the same in reverse. Much more difficult, of course. But it can be
done. Anyone with quarter decent hearing will tell the difference.

As above

Please read again carefully. ;-)

Indeed, I did miss part of your point, sorry. I suspect that many new LPs
are, effectively, mastered from CDs. Or is the studio digital process
superior in some way to CD? Don't know, but on your point I have a recent
pop record on LP and CD - I'd assume digital processing was used (Flaming
Lips, Yoshimi Battles). Largely indistinguishable - flipping AB at a
moderate volume. Although I can't put my finger on it - I actually listed to
the LP all the way through - never did that with the CD. I just preferred
the sound, inherent distortion notwithstanding etc etc!

Rob
--
*Stable Relationships Are For Horses.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.