"Spiderant" wrote in message
news:xQUod.317587$nl.7866@pd7tw3no...
"JustMe" wrote in message
...
I think everyone here would agree that the concept behind "Straight-line"
is
to deliver the music as the artist intended, unsullied and uncoloured -
an
accurate reflection of the artist's work.

Just reading an interview with Neil Young (HiFi Choice, January 2005),
in
which he states,

"The analogue records always sounded better than anything else to me.
But
I
compared the new vinyl versions, which are taken from a first generation
analogue master copy, and the best just got better. It's a really good
feeling."

To be fair and put this in context, he also speaks well of DVD-Audio,
but
it's clear that NY is one artist who sees vinyl as the source which is
closest to a "true replica".


I've just been listening to a CD of Neil Young's Tonight's the Night, an
album I'm very familiar with. I listened to it through my Sennheiser HD
580
headphones using a Musical Fidelity X Cans V3 headphone amp and a
Cambridge
Audio D500 CD player. Although I tried to enjoy the music, I couldn't
help
thinking how much it was grating my 46 year old ears. I heard greater
detail then I remember, including laughter in the opening track amongst
other things. But I kept wanting to turn the volume down when it grated,
and up when I felt I just wasn't hearing enough. There was a hard edge to
the music that really bothered me.

On the weekend I played an old scratchy vinyl version of Tonight's the
Night
on my 20 year old Technics turntable (with it's original needle) and, even
though it skipped (once), popped and crackled, I just ended up wanting to
turn it up and up.

I was about to concede that, regardless of its imperfections, vinyl just
sounded so much better.

But then I put on a CD of Neils' newer (and underrated) Sleeps With
Angels,
and it sounded wonderful. No hard edges. No grating.

I also have a CD of Benjamin Britten's Cello Symphony with Mstislav
Rostropovich (Decca 425 100-2), which was recorded in 1964. Although
there
is a certain amount of tape hiss, of my 1200 + CDs (mostly classical),
this
is one of my favorites sonically and emotionally.

All I can conclude from my own experiences is that it's not the medium
that's important, but the way the music is mastered. If Neil Young (as
well
as countless other artists and their works--Yes's Close to the Edge comes
immediately to mind) would have remastered his works for a
vinyl-conditioned
audience by upping the bass and darker tones a bit, I'm certain that he
wouldn't be yearning for the warmth of vinyl today. Most of his earlier
CDs
sound like crap.

BTW I wouldn't be listening to mostly classical today if not for the doors
that Neil Young's and Frank Zappa's abstract guitar jams opened up for me.

Keep it lit,

Roland Goetz.

I agree about production in that it has a massive influence on the
sound-quality of a recording. It may well be that the older production was
deliberately hard-edged, or that today he takes advantage of superior
techniques.

His voice can sound quite sharp and tracks like Southern Man seem to have
this emphasised with distortion added to his vocal., which serves to
reinforce the song's sentiment. Don't Let it Bring You Down has none of the
same edge, none of the distortion on his voice and employs an acoustic
rather than an electric guitar-lead arrangement. As a result his voice
sounds sweeter and the track sounds less "edgy".
Given that these are from the same album, it seems pretty clear that these
are deliberate production choices and that the hard edge in this case was
quite deliberate.

I don't hold with the idea that vinyl is "warm". Vinyl can sound bright,
dry, sharp etc. For me the difference is one of "projection". The sound to
my ears is more "out of the box" - it delivers greater dimension and
presence and it involves me more in the music, compared with CD which seems
flatter and lacks the same involvement.

Why that should be and what it is that causes these perceptions, I don't
know but I am not the only one and, as long as that remains the case, I
shall chose vinyl over CD.

"JustMe" wrote


I don't hold with the idea that vinyl is "warm". Vinyl can sound bright,
dry, sharp etc. For me the difference is one of "projection". The sound to
my ears is more "out of the box" - it delivers greater dimension and
presence and it involves me more in the music, compared with CD which
seems
flatter and lacks the same involvement.


Ditto in toto....



Why that should be and what it is that causes these perceptions, I don't
know but I am not the only one and, as long as that remains the case, I
shall chose vinyl over CD.



Me too - so that's two of us against the *whole world* then!!

(Or, *is* it....??? ;-)

"JustMe" wrote in message
...
"Spiderant" wrote in message
news:xQUod.317587$nl.7866@pd7tw3no...
"JustMe" wrote in message
...

I agree about production in that it has a massive influence on the
sound-quality of a recording. It may well be that the older production was
deliberately hard-edged, or that today he takes advantage of superior
techniques.

His voice can sound quite sharp and tracks like Southern Man seem to have
this emphasised with distortion added to his vocal., which serves to
reinforce the song's sentiment. Don't Let it Bring You Down has none of
the
same edge, none of the distortion on his voice and employs an acoustic
rather than an electric guitar-lead arrangement. As a result his voice
sounds sweeter and the track sounds less "edgy".
Given that these are from the same album, it seems pretty clear that these
are deliberate production choices and that the hard edge in this case was
quite deliberate.

I don't hold with the idea that vinyl is "warm". Vinyl can sound bright,
dry, sharp etc. For me the difference is one of "projection". The sound to
my ears is more "out of the box" - it delivers greater dimension and
presence and it involves me more in the music, compared with CD which
seems
flatter and lacks the same involvement.

Why that should be and what it is that causes these perceptions, I don't
know but I am not the only one and, as long as that remains the case, I
shall chose vinyl over CD.

I keep my old turntable because I have records that aren't available on CD
("Time Fades Away", Jascha Heifetz playing Beethoven's Kreutzer, etc.). I'd
like to think that once the CDs are available, I'll give my records and
turntable away to the Salvation Army. But the other day I got the urge to
listen to Kraftwerk's "Radio Activity" and got totally sucked into the
music. This seems to happen a lot more than when I listen to CDs. It feels
to me that the music coming off of vinyl has more presence, even though I'm
convinced that CDs offer greater detail with a lot less noise. Although I
hate to admit it (I've invested a lot of money in CDs), I just find that I'm
just getting off on the music coming from my records a more often than the
music from my CDs. When I'm playing records, I just want to turn up the
volume. When I'm playing CDs, it seems like I'm trying too hard to enjoy
the music.

As an example, I have two versions of Glen Gould playing Bach's Goldberg
Variations. The first few times I played the vinyl version, I kept turning
it down because I was freaked out by a strange voice I kept hearing. I
thought that there was someone else in the apartment with me. It turned out
to be Glen Gould humming along with his playing. When I listen to the CD
version of the same recording, I can hear his humming, but it doesn't seem
separate from the music in the same way. The details are there, but the
sense of presence is missing. Similarly, when playing Yes's "Close to the
Edge," there's a part when Rick Wakeman begins a terrific organ/synh solo
and, if you listen carefully, you can hear someone in the background
prompting him on: "Yeah. Oh yeah." It's on the "remastered" CD as well,
but just doesn't sound separate from the music. And I get the urge to turn
up the record, whereas I get the urge to turn down the CD.

It is actually very disheartening. I'm going to pick up Neil Young's
Greatest Hits with the bonus DVD and try and do some A/B comparisons to see
if the DVD version is, as Neil suggests, better. But will I sense his
presence as much as on my vinyl versions (of the same songs), I somehow
don't think so.

Keep it lit,

Roland Goetz.

In article qmcpd.325023$%k.291216@pd7tw2no, Spiderant wrote:

"JustMe" wrote in message
...

Why that should be and what it is that causes these perceptions, I don't
know but I am not the only one and, as long as that remains the case, I
shall chose vinyl over CD.

As an example, I have two versions of Glen Gould playing Bach's Goldberg
Variations. The first few times I played the vinyl version, I kept turning
it down because I was freaked out by a strange voice I kept hearing. I
thought that there was someone else in the apartment with me. It turned out
to be Glen Gould humming along with his playing. When I listen to the CD
version of the same recording, I can hear his humming, but it doesn't seem
separate from the music in the same way. The details are there, but the
sense of presence is missing. ...

A very interesting example. I assume this is Gould's 1981 "digital"
recording [1]. A stunning performance [2].

However, you have to be careful about just what's on the CDs and the
vinyl. There was a digital recording and an analogue recording made at
the same time as a backup in case the very early digital recording was
not good enough.

The first CDs (and *I assume* the vinyl release - can you verify this)
were made from the digital master. I have a fully digital CD.

Recently Sony have released CDs ("A State of Wonder") where the 1981
performance is re-mastered from the analogue back-up recording. I have
one of these as well.

The sound of Gould's humming is very different between the two CDs.

On my "digital" CD I find Gould's humming very disturbing. To me it
sounds so real but so disconnected from the music that I keep thinking
there's someone else in the house - precisely like your experience of
the vinyl.

On my "analogue" CD the humming is just as obvious but it "integrates"
much better with the music and is clearly coming from the performance
soundstage. It doesn't disturb me like the "digital" CD.

Which is better? The hi-fi enthusiasts at "Stereophile" (on the web)
seem to like the "analogue" CD and claim it has better resolution.
I don't hear this in the same way.

However, from my experience with the two CDs, maybe the CD you have is
the "analogue" version and the vinyl is the "digital" version - you may
possibly be comparing apples with oranges in this case.

[1] The 1981 is the recording where Gould's humming is most pronounced.

[2] The Gramophone's reviewers agree but the Penguin Guide's reviewers
unaccountably mark it down for Gould's inconsistent observance of
the repeats. They perfer recordings like Hewitt's which is burnished
perfection as a performance but not musically as satisfying (to me,
anyway).

--
John Phillips

"John Phillips" wrote in message
...
In article qmcpd.325023$%k.291216@pd7tw2no, Spiderant wrote:

A very interesting example. I assume this is Gould's 1981 "digital"
recording [1]. A stunning performance [2].

However, you have to be careful about just what's on the CDs and the
vinyl. There was a digital recording and an analogue recording made at
the same time as a backup in case the very early digital recording was
not good enough.

The first CDs (and *I assume* the vinyl release - can you verify this)
were made from the digital master. I have a fully digital CD.

Recently Sony have released CDs ("A State of Wonder") where the 1981
performance is re-mastered from the analogue back-up recording. I have
one of these as well.

The sound of Gould's humming is very different between the two CDs.

On my "digital" CD I find Gould's humming very disturbing. To me it
sounds so real but so disconnected from the music that I keep thinking
there's someone else in the house - precisely like your experience of
the vinyl.

On my "analogue" CD the humming is just as obvious but it "integrates"
much better with the music and is clearly coming from the performance
soundstage. It doesn't disturb me like the "digital" CD.

Which is better? The hi-fi enthusiasts at "Stereophile" (on the web)
seem to like the "analogue" CD and claim it has better resolution.
I don't hear this in the same way.

However, from my experience with the two CDs, maybe the CD you have is
the "analogue" version and the vinyl is the "digital" version - you may
possibly be comparing apples with oranges in this case.

[1] The 1981 is the recording where Gould's humming is most pronounced.

[2] The Gramophone's reviewers agree but the Penguin Guide's reviewers
unaccountably mark it down for Gould's inconsistent observance of
the repeats. They perfer recordings like Hewitt's which is burnished
perfection as a performance but not musically as satisfying (to me,
anyway).

--
John Phillips

Thank you for your excellent and lucid posting. It prompted me into some
serious comparisons between some of my records and their CD counterparts. I
must say that what I discovered has distressed me immensly. It turns out
that both the CD of Gould's Goldburg Variaions and the vinyl recording are
the 1982 digital recordings. Both list the same engineers (Stan Tonkel,
etc.) and the statement "Mastered from the original digital recording in the
CBS Recording Studios, New York on the CBS DisComputer system."

What disturbs me is that, after playing around (non-scientifically)
switching between my old Technics turntable and my various CD players
(Cambridge Audio D500, Yamaha CD-586 and a Panasonic DVD-RV32--which, to
tell you the truth, I would not be able to distinguish in an A/B test
situation), I still preferred the vinyl version, even with all of it's
obvious noises and other flaws. No matter how I played with the volume
controls (I had to adjust because the CD is recorded at a higher volume than
the record), the record just seemed more open and spacious. And, contrary
to what I would have expected, it was the CD that sounded darker and
murkier. The piano sound on the record sounded more natural, with the notes
more distinct. How is this possible? Digital is digital, right? Maybe my
hearing is shot. It certainly can't be my ancient budget Technics SL-Qd3
turntable with a 20 year old needle.

Please understand that I am not a digitalphobe. As I said before, I have
about 1200 CDs versus about 50 records (I gave away most of my vinyl years
ago). I woudn't even ponder buying a Robert Simpson symphony on vinyl over
CD. Even if I had a prediliction against digital, this would not account
for my sense that the digital record sounded clearer than the digital CD,
even though the CD was recorded at a higher volume and didn't have the noise
floor. This does not make sense to me.

I am very distraught at this point. After spending an hour or so yesterday
going between the Bach on record and Bach on CD, I a/b'd my recently
acquired remasterd copy of Neil Young's "On The Beach" with the original
vinyl (yes, I still have one). Again, the vinyl just sounded more open and
natural. Not only that, but the balance between the speakers was obviously
better, with Neil closer to the centre on Vinyl compared to blurred between
the two speakers on CD. Again, contrary to what I would have expected, it
was the CD that sounded a bit warmer but more smeared. Again, this is not
what I wanted to discover. What do I do now, spend a huge chunk of my
income looking for a better CD player?

Sad and disillusioned.

Roland Goetz

"Spiderant" wrote in message
news:sj4qd.369029$%k.133110@pd7tw2no...

"John Phillips" wrote in message
...
In article qmcpd.325023$%k.291216@pd7tw2no, Spiderant wrote:

A very interesting example. I assume this is Gould's 1981 "digital"
recording [1]. A stunning performance [2].

However, you have to be careful about just what's on the CDs and the
vinyl. There was a digital recording and an analogue recording made at
the same time as a backup in case the very early digital recording was
not good enough.

The first CDs (and *I assume* the vinyl release - can you verify this)
were made from the digital master. I have a fully digital CD.

Recently Sony have released CDs ("A State of Wonder") where the 1981
performance is re-mastered from the analogue back-up recording. I have
one of these as well.

The sound of Gould's humming is very different between the two CDs.

On my "digital" CD I find Gould's humming very disturbing. To me it
sounds so real but so disconnected from the music that I keep thinking
there's someone else in the house - precisely like your experience of
the vinyl.

On my "analogue" CD the humming is just as obvious but it "integrates"
much better with the music and is clearly coming from the performance
soundstage. It doesn't disturb me like the "digital" CD.

Which is better? The hi-fi enthusiasts at "Stereophile" (on the web)
seem to like the "analogue" CD and claim it has better resolution.
I don't hear this in the same way.

However, from my experience with the two CDs, maybe the CD you have is
the "analogue" version and the vinyl is the "digital" version - you may
possibly be comparing apples with oranges in this case.

[1] The 1981 is the recording where Gould's humming is most pronounced.

[2] The Gramophone's reviewers agree but the Penguin Guide's reviewers
unaccountably mark it down for Gould's inconsistent observance of
the repeats. They perfer recordings like Hewitt's which is burnished
perfection as a performance but not musically as satisfying (to me,
anyway).

--
John Phillips

Thank you for your excellent and lucid posting. It prompted me into some
serious comparisons between some of my records and their CD counterparts.
I
must say that what I discovered has distressed me immensly. It turns out
that both the CD of Gould's Goldburg Variaions and the vinyl recording are
the 1982 digital recordings. Both list the same engineers (Stan Tonkel,
etc.) and the statement "Mastered from the original digital recording in
the
CBS Recording Studios, New York on the CBS DisComputer system."

What disturbs me is that, after playing around (non-scientifically)
switching between my old Technics turntable and my various CD players
(Cambridge Audio D500, Yamaha CD-586 and a Panasonic DVD-RV32--which, to
tell you the truth, I would not be able to distinguish in an A/B test
situation), I still preferred the vinyl version, even with all of it's
obvious noises and other flaws. No matter how I played with the volume
controls (I had to adjust because the CD is recorded at a higher volume
than
the record), the record just seemed more open and spacious. And, contrary
to what I would have expected, it was the CD that sounded darker and
murkier. The piano sound on the record sounded more natural, with the
notes
more distinct. How is this possible? Digital is digital, right? Maybe
my
hearing is shot. It certainly can't be my ancient budget Technics SL-Qd3
turntable with a 20 year old needle.

Please understand that I am not a digitalphobe. As I said before, I have
about 1200 CDs versus about 50 records (I gave away most of my vinyl years
ago). I woudn't even ponder buying a Robert Simpson symphony on vinyl
over
CD. Even if I had a prediliction against digital, this would not account
for my sense that the digital record sounded clearer than the digital CD,
even though the CD was recorded at a higher volume and didn't have the
noise
floor. This does not make sense to me.

I am very distraught at this point. After spending an hour or so
yesterday
going between the Bach on record and Bach on CD, I a/b'd my recently
acquired remasterd copy of Neil Young's "On The Beach" with the original
vinyl (yes, I still have one). Again, the vinyl just sounded more open
and
natural. Not only that, but the balance between the speakers was
obviously
better, with Neil closer to the centre on Vinyl compared to blurred
between
the two speakers on CD. Again, contrary to what I would have expected, it
was the CD that sounded a bit warmer but more smeared. Again, this is not
what I wanted to discover. What do I do now, spend a huge chunk of my
income looking for a better CD player?

Sad and disillusioned.

Roland Goetz

Could you consolidate your three CD players into one superior model and do
the same for the two amps?

I prefer the sound of a £200 turntable over an £800 CD player - I'm no
"digiphobe" either, and I'd still find it worthwhile investing in a better
CD player to get the best I could afford from that medium - but I find vinyl
has the life, energy and projection which CD does not match.

A second-hand Marantz CD63SE or CD63KI Sig might suit your wish for more
openness and should cost between £100-£200 tops, although I'm certain others
have other suggestions.

I'd also recommend you replace that worn stylus immediately, so that you can
enjoy many more years from the records you have left - and from any future
vinyl purchases that you make.

"JustMe" wrote in message
...

Could you consolidate your three CD players into one superior model and do
the same for the two amps?

I prefer the sound of a £200 turntable over an £800 CD player - I'm no
"digiphobe" either, and I'd still find it worthwhile investing in a better
CD player to get the best I could afford from that medium - but I find
vinyl
has the life, energy and projection which CD does not match.

A second-hand Marantz CD63SE or CD63KI Sig might suit your wish for more
openness and should cost between £100-£200 tops, although I'm certain
others
have other suggestions.

I'd also recommend you replace that worn stylus immediately, so that you
can
enjoy many more years from the records you have left - and from any future
vinyl purchases that you make.

I'm not convinced that the problem is the amplifiers. I've tried many
different configurations of amps, including the great project kit "Foreplay"
pre-amp avaliable at http://bottlehead.com/. I've also used my Musical
Fidelity X Cans V3 as a pre-amp with my Yammy and the NAD with very good
results. Also, under headphones, I believe my current setup should be
getting me about 90% there. Also, I'm not convinced that I'll hear much of
a difference between the Marantz and the Cambrige Audio. Although I
certainly haven't compared many higher-end CD players, when I went to the
Sound Room, a local (Vancouver, Canada) audio shop and tried listening to
various players (I confess that I don't remember what they were anymore), I
don't think I would have been able to distinguish them. That being said,
I'll keep my ears open.

I'll take that suggestion to replace the stylus right away. In fact, I'm
going to start checking out the second-hand stores for a good belt driven
turntable as, from what other posters have said, direct drive turntables
don't sound nearly as good.

I really just wish that CDs did give me that sense of spatial detail that
vinyl does, however. The music just isn't moving me the way it used to.

Thanks for you response,

Roland Goetz.

In article sj4qd.369029$%k.133110@pd7tw2no, Spiderant
wrote:

[big snip]

What disturbs me is that, after playing around (non-scientifically)
switching between my old Technics turntable and my various CD players
(Cambridge Audio D500, Yamaha CD-586 and a Panasonic DVD-RV32--which, to
tell you the truth, I would not be able to distinguish in an A/B test
situation), I still preferred the vinyl version, even with all of it's
obvious noises and other flaws. No matter how I played with the volume
controls (I had to adjust because the CD is recorded at a higher volume
than the record), the record just seemed more open and spacious. And,
contrary to what I would have expected, it was the CD that sounded
darker and murkier. The piano sound on the record sounded more
natural, with the notes more distinct. How is this possible? Digital
is digital, right?

Yes, "digital is digital", but this is a bit of a catch-phrase as it does
not tell you how the "digital" is being employed. There are a number of
points that may be relevant:

e.g.s include:

1) Your LP replay system may have a very different frequency response to
your CD system. The cartridge may not have a flat response, there may be a
noticable arm-cartidge LF resonance, etc. The RIAA curve/loading may not be
giving a flat response, etc.

2) Despite coming from the same 'original' digital recording, the signals
may have been processed in different ways before being recorded onto LP or
CD-A.


Maybe my hearing is shot. It certainly can't be my ancient budget
Technics SL-Qd3 turntable with a 20 year old needle.

Why not? Please see (1) above. For all I know, the departures from flat
response with LP replay are compensating for other departures elsewhere in
your system and giving a result you prefer.

Please understand that I am not a digitalphobe. As I said before, I
have about 1200 CDs versus about 50 records (I gave away most of my
vinyl years ago). I woudn't even ponder buying a Robert Simpson
symphony on vinyl over CD. Even if I had a prediliction against
digital, this would not account for my sense that the digital record
sounded clearer than the digital CD, even though the CD was recorded at
a higher volume and didn't have the noise floor. This does not make
sense to me.

I am very distraught at this point. After spending an hour or so
yesterday going between the Bach on record and Bach on CD, I a/b'd my
recently acquired remasterd copy of Neil Young's "On The Beach" with
the original vinyl (yes, I still have one). Again, the vinyl just
sounded more open and natural. Not only that, but the balance between
the speakers was obviously better, with Neil closer to the centre on
Vinyl compared to blurred between the two speakers on CD. Again,
contrary to what I would have expected, it was the CD that sounded a
bit warmer but more smeared. Again, this is not what I wanted to
discover.

In part see (2) above w.r.t. your comments on "Neil closer to the center".
Also note that the level of crosstalk on LP replay systems is often of the
order of 20-30dB (This corresponds to a relative sound pressure level of
only about 10:1 or 15:1 emerging from the speakers.) This crosstalk may
also contain a higher proportion of distortion than on the 'speaking'
channel.


What do I do now, spend a huge chunk of my income looking
for a better CD player?

Sad and disillusioned.

Well, what you *could* do is get hold of a CD recorder, record a couple of
LPs onto CD-RW, then load the results into a computer along with the 'same
recordings' from CD-A and do various statistical comparisons. I suspect you
would find various differences. Having done this, you could consider if you
wished to modify your system in the light of what you find.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article sj4qd.369029$%k.133110@pd7tw2no, Spiderant
wrote:

Snip

Yes, "digital is digital", but this is a bit of a catch-phrase as it does
not tell you how the "digital" is being employed. There are a number of
points that may be relevant:

e.g.s include:

1) Your LP replay system may have a very different frequency response to
your CD system. The cartridge may not have a flat response, there may be a
noticable arm-cartidge LF resonance, etc. The RIAA curve/loading may not
be
giving a flat response, etc.

2) Despite coming from the same 'original' digital recording, the signals
may have been processed in different ways before being recorded onto LP or
CD-A.

Maybe my hearing is shot. It certainly can't be my ancient budget
Technics SL-Qd3 turntable with a 20 year old needle.

Why not? Please see (1) above. For all I know, the departures from flat
response with LP replay are compensating for other departures elsewhere in
your system and giving a result you prefer.

snip

In part see (2) above w.r.t. your comments on "Neil closer to the center".
Also note that the level of crosstalk on LP replay systems is often of the
order of 20-30dB (This corresponds to a relative sound pressure level of
only about 10:1 or 15:1 emerging from the speakers.) This crosstalk may
also contain a higher proportion of distortion than on the 'speaking'
channel.

snip

Well, what you *could* do is get hold of a CD recorder, record a couple of
LPs onto CD-RW, then load the results into a computer along with the 'same
recordings' from CD-A and do various statistical comparisons. I suspect
you
would find various differences. Having done this, you could consider if
you
wished to modify your system in the light of what you find.

Slainte,

Jim


Hi Jim,

Thanks for your patient explanation. As I mentioned to Dave Plowman and
John Philips, I now know that whereas I was assuming that all things are
equal, in fact most things are very far from equal. I had a temporary
relapse and purchased five used LPs. Those LPs that didn't skip, crackled
so loudly that it was hard to concentrate on the music. While listening to
Richter playing a Beethoven sonata, at one point I found myself nodding in
rhythm to this persistent tick probably originating from a scratch in the
record. After a couple of hours of this experimenting, I tossed the records
into the trash, threw on some beautifully recorded CDs (listed in the
replies to Mr. Plowman and Mr. Philips) and remembered why I had given up on
vinyl years ago.

Thanks again for your informative and clearly presented replies.

Keep it lit,

Roland Goetz.

In article b_Sqd.385025$%k.294610@pd7tw2no, Spiderant
wrote:

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...

[big snip]

Hi Jim,

Thanks for your patient explanation. As I mentioned to Dave Plowman and
John Philips, I now know that whereas I was assuming that all things
are equal, in fact most things are very far from equal. I had a
temporary relapse and purchased five used LPs. Those LPs that didn't
skip, crackled so loudly that it was hard to concentrate on the music.
While listening to Richter playing a Beethoven sonata, at one point I
found myself nodding in rhythm to this persistent tick probably
originating from a scratch in the record. After a couple of hours of
this experimenting, I tossed the records into the trash, threw on some
beautifully recorded CDs (listed in the replies to Mr. Plowman and Mr.
Philips) and remembered why I had given up on vinyl years ago.

What you write above is pretty to similar to my own experience which has
lead me over the years to virtually cease bothering with LPs. Yes, some of
the LPs I have sound excellent. Others do not, and my experience is that
the medium is cursed with problems like those you mention. This, in turn
drove me to 'cleaning rituals' before playing an LP, and often listening
with a sense that at any moment a new 'rifle shot' would turn up and upset
my ability to relax and enjoy the music.

During the 1970's well over half the new LPs I bought I promptly returned
top the shop for a replacement due to faults. This deterred me from buying
LPs as I often could not face having to listen to copies and return them
until I got one I was prepared to accept.

With CD-A I am not sure what my return rate is, but I'd estimate it is the
order or a percent or less. So I just buy the disc and enjoy the music.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html