Ref the RFD for uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

In article ,
Nick Gorham wrote:
Being a bit of a "numbers" type myself (much to Keiths annoyance :-), I
can only agree that without doubt, information is lost in the creation
of a LP. BUT, information is lost at every point in the reproduction
path, you may decide that some of that information can be lost without
affecting the sound, that a different argument, but it is lost.

I'm sure if you're talking absolutes you're correct, but with well
designed electronics these losses should be tiny. Consider the average
broadcast chain and how good things can sound between their playing
equipment and your loudspeakers. And then also consider the chain before
*their* play in equipment.

By far and away the main losses were in the recording in analogue days -
if you remove your loudspeakers from the equation.

However, if you go to digital, it's conceivable that the signal that
arrives at your speakers is *exactly* the same as that that left the first
A-D convertor in the chain. No losses whatsoever.

snip

Over and over again the analog/digital argument goes, but no-one from
either side (as it seems to me) is interested in actually trying to find
why so many people do prefer vinyl.

Since many later LPs had digital mastering, it can't be digital itself
that's at fault - unless someone wants to tell us they dislike those too.
So the *only* explanation is that they enjoy the added distortion, and
the artifacts introduced by necessity at mastering time. This isn't
unknown, as some also prefer the processing applied to pop music radio
stations. And many recordings are also processed from studio master to
final product to make them sound 'louder' etc on a casual audition before
purchase.

--
*There are two kinds of pedestrians... the quick and the dead.

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

Ref the RFD for uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

"Nick Gorham" wrote in message
...
Chesney Christ wrote:

A certain Ray Keattch, of uk.rec.audio "fame", writes :

Its like the digital guys are saying, 'damm, technically CD is better
so
everything DOES sound better on it'.


As one of the digital guys, I have never once said "CD is better" for
*any* reason. I am in no position to tell anyone what is better or
worse. I would criticize someone who would claim that.

What I *can* do subjectively is point out that a vinyl album is a
significantly altered shadow of the original recorded work, and that the
claims about CD having "something missing" is usually not a matter of
opinion, but simply factually incorrect - the CD will possess more of
the original recording than the vinyl will. It is up to the viewer at
home to decide whether or not this is "better". My problem is that I
simply don't like people misleading other people by making claims which
are demonstrably untrue.

I have tried to keep out of this, but...


Yes, as I do normally, but the new vinyl group seems a long time coming
(have we got a 'fast track' bid in yet?) and I'm getting very bored with the
drip, drip drip, of the vinyl bashers trying to establish their own wacky
little digital hang-ups as some sort of 'industry norm' in this group.


Being a bit of a "numbers" type myself (much to Keiths annoyance :-)


Doesn't bother me Nick. My only concern is that listening to any music with
a meter on the go is a bit like sitting in a restaurant with the chef
sitting opposite you asking things like ' is that chicken alright? - I could
have given it a few more minutes' or 'is the sauce OK - not too lumpy?

I've no disregard for 'numbers' - they have their place, but when people
start letting them make the final choices (over their ears) I reckon it's
time to take the dog for a walk......

Ref the RFD for uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

"Nick Gorham" wrote in message
...
I have tried to keep out of this, but...

Being a bit of a "numbers" type myself (much to Keiths annoyance :-), I
can only agree that without doubt, information is lost in the creation
of a LP. BUT, information is lost at every point in the reproduction
path, you may decide that some of that information can be lost without
affecting the sound, that a different argument, but it is lost.

This is like saying that since there is always a little contamination in our
drinking water, lets run a pipe from the crapper & ****er to the kitchen
sink and drink up!

Now, the interesting point, and I am sorry, its not just one or two half
deaf nutters, but over and over again, when people listen to vinyl, they
seem to find something that appears to have been lost from CD.

(1) Audible noises of various kinds.

(2) Audible distortion of various kinds

Now while
I have said "lost", that doesn't mean I know what has been lost, or
even if it is a loss, it could as just be something that has been added,
that in conjunction with mechanics of hearing, produces the illusion
(and thats all any recorded sound is) of reality, better than CD.

I think you need to talk to Kurt who admits that since he never hears live
music (AKA reality) the audible noise and distortion added by vinyl doesn't
bother him.

Over and over again the analog/digital argument goes, but no-one from
either side (as it seems to me) is interested in actually trying to find
why so many people do prefer vinyl.

I think Kurt answered that question too. He's addicted to the noise and
distortion that is inherent in Lp playback.

I'm in a position where I hear live music at minimum every week. I hear what
comes out of the microphones (with suitable amplification of course) in real
time. I record it digitally and play it back at the recording site and at
home. I hear no differences whatsoever between the digital recording and the
real time amplified version if I match levels.

Ref the RFD for uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

A certain Nick Gorham, of uk.rec.audio "fame", writes :

Being a bit of a "numbers" type myself (much to Keiths annoyance :-), I
can only agree that without doubt, information is lost in the creation
of a LP. BUT, information is lost at every point in the reproduction
path, you may decide that some of that information can be lost without
affecting the sound, that a different argument, but it is lost.

True. Information is lost as soon as the sound hits the microphone to
begin with.

Now, the interesting point, and I am sorry, its not just one or two
half deaf nutters, but over and over again, when people listen to
vinyl, they seem to find something that appears to have been lost from
CD.
Now while I have said "lost", that doesn't mean I know what has been
lost, or even if it is a loss, it could as just be something that has
been added, that in conjunction with mechanics of hearing, produces the
illusion (and thats all any recorded sound is) of reality, better than CD.

I have no argument with that. I agree that the problem here is really
the word "lost".

Over and over again the analog/digital argument goes, but no-one from
either side (as it seems to me) is interested in actually trying to
find why so many people do prefer vinyl.

I think it's quite obvious why they prefer vinyl - they prefer the
effect that it has on the sound that they are listening to. As Dave
Plowman has already said, a lot of the later albums were mastered on
digital recorders - I have vinyl albums from as far back as 1984 which
were not only mastered on digital recorders, but were recorded on
digital multitracks (ie they were all-digital to begin with).

As I've always said, I've never tried to argue with someone who simply
states that vinyl is their preference. The other factor of course is the
"audiophile" magazines claiming that it *is* better and that *everyone*
who has good hearing should be able to hear this - the "emperor's new
clothes" effect. For a lot of people, simply telling them that something
is better means they will perceive a difference, an extreme of that
being the "scribble on your CD with a green pen to improve the sound"
thing.

--

"Jokes mentioning ducks were considered particularly funny." - cnn.com

Ref the RFD for uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

A certain Keith G, of uk.rec.audio "fame", writes :

Surround sound music is a fine idea, although it's going to be kind of
tricky to unseat the installed based of CD listeners. SS sound is kind
of hard to listen to on the move, and it's hard to have in every room of
your house.

SS = 'Solid State' on this group....

D'oh, stupid. Sorry.

In that case, I am puzzled. Digital sound is absolutely identical
regardless of what it is recorded on, whether it is solid state or not.
The benefits of SS are primarily convenience. I hope there isn't
somebody out there claiming that solid state digital sounds better than
optical or magnetic media ?

--

"Jokes mentioning ducks were considered particularly funny." - cnn.com

Ref the RFD for uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

"Chesney Christ" wrote in message
...
A certain Keith G, of uk.rec.audio "fame", writes :

I've no disregard for 'numbers' - they have their place, but when people
start letting them make the final choices (over their ears) I reckon it's
time to take the dog for a walk......

That would be 99% of the music-buying public ?


What are you saying? - 99% of the music buying public use 'meters' to decide
on their choice of music medium?

Ref the RFD for uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

"Chesney Christ" wrote in message
...
A certain Keith G, of uk.rec.audio "fame", writes :

Surround sound music is a fine idea, although it's going to be kind of
tricky to unseat the installed based of CD listeners. SS sound is kind
of hard to listen to on the move, and it's hard to have in every room
of
your house.

SS = 'Solid State' on this group....

D'oh, stupid. Sorry.

In that case, I am puzzled. Digital sound is absolutely identical
regardless of what it is recorded on, whether it is solid state or not.


You think so?

In any case the 'recorded' state of digital music is of no real interest to
anyone - it's how it *sounds* when it is replayed that really counts. Now, I
hope you are not going to suggest that it all sounds 'absolutely identical'
are you?



The benefits of SS are primarily convenience. I hope there isn't
somebody out there claiming that solid state digital sounds better than
optical or magnetic media ?


I'm sure there is, but my take is that it's 'digital' so it doesn't really
matter to me. YMMV, of course.....

Ref the RFD for uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

A certain Keith G, of uk.rec.audio "fame", writes :
In that case, I am puzzled. Digital sound is absolutely identical
regardless of what it is recorded on, whether it is solid state or not.

You think so?

I know so.

In any case the 'recorded' state of digital music is of no real interest to
anyone

It is clearly of interest to you, as you are making a distinction
between solid state and optical disc storage.

- it's how it *sounds* when it is replayed that really counts. Now, I
hope you are not going to suggest that it all sounds 'absolutely identical'
are you?

An error-free digital medium will always play back exactly what was
recorded. It is possible to get errors both on optical discs and on
solid state devices.

The usual reason why CD players can sound a lot different is due to the
internal D/A convertors being of different quality. But any two
properly-aligned and operated CD *transports* will produce identical
data. If this fact were untrue, modern digital technology including
telecommunications and computers would be utterly impossible.

--

"Jokes mentioning ducks were considered particularly funny." - cnn.com

Ref the RFD for uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

Dave Plowman wrote:

In article ,
Nick Gorham wrote:

Being a bit of a "numbers" type myself (much to Keiths annoyance :-), I
can only agree that without doubt, information is lost in the creation
of a LP. BUT, information is lost at every point in the reproduction
path, you may decide that some of that information can be lost without
affecting the sound, that a different argument, but it is lost.


I'm sure if you're talking absolutes you're correct, but with well
designed electronics these losses should be tiny. Consider the average
broadcast chain and how good things can sound between their playing
equipment and your loudspeakers. And then also consider the chain before
*their* play in equipment.

By far and away the main losses were in the recording in analogue days -
if you remove your loudspeakers from the equation.

However, if you go to digital, it's conceivable that the signal that
arrives at your speakers is *exactly* the same as that that left the first
A-D convertor in the chain. No losses whatsoever.

Sure, as I said, this is a diferent argument, but I would say that there
is a big difference between standing in front of a stage, and the signal
that a mic would send to the a-d, maybe not as big a loss as in a
loudspeaker, but still information is lost.

snip

Over and over again the analog/digital argument goes, but no-one from
either side (as it seems to me) is interested in actually trying to find
why so many people do prefer vinyl.


Since many later LPs had digital mastering, it can't be digital itself
that's at fault - unless someone wants to tell us they dislike those too.
So the *only* explanation is that they enjoy the added distortion, and
the artifacts introduced by necessity at mastering time. This isn't
unknown, as some also prefer the processing applied to pop music radio
stations. And many recordings are also processed from studio master to
final product to make them sound 'louder' etc on a casual audition before
purchase.


Well I do have a few early digital remasters on vinyl that are
dreadfull, but I put that down to lack of understanding at the time and
not inherent in the form. And yes your observation is almost certainly
true, but doesn't answer the question, why those changes do seem to help
the creation of the appearance of reality.

--
Nick

Ref the RFD for uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

In article ,
Nick Gorham wrote:
However, if you go to digital, it's conceivable that the signal that
arrives at your speakers is *exactly* the same as that that left the
first A-D convertor in the chain. No losses whatsoever.

Sure, as I said, this is a diferent argument, but I would say that there
is a big difference between standing in front of a stage, and the signal
that a mic would send to the a-d, maybe not as big a loss as in a
loudspeaker, but still information is lost.

Well, almost no commercial recordings will be made with a mic in front of
the stage where you'd be standing.

Some classical pieces may be recorded with a pure slung pair - but even
that's not in the same place as you're standing, and position makes a
great deal of difference as I'm sure you're aware.

Now if you *really* want a natural feel of 'being there' you'd use some
form of soundfield mic like the ubiquitous Calrec. And this played through
a suitable system is *very* convincing. But too expensive and won't work
on vinyl anyway. ;-)

A carefully recorded slung pair using good mics can also sound most
convincing in a near anechoic room with electrostatic speakers.

After this, it's all down hill for the domestic listener.

snip

Since many later LPs had digital mastering, it can't be digital
itself that's at fault - unless someone wants to tell us they dislike
those too. So the *only* explanation is that they enjoy the added
distortion, and the artifacts introduced by necessity at mastering
time. This isn't unknown, as some also prefer the processing applied
to pop music radio stations. And many recordings are also processed
from studio master to final product to make them sound 'louder' etc on
a casual audition before purchase.


Well I do have a few early digital remasters on vinyl that are
dreadfull, but I put that down to lack of understanding at the time and
not inherent in the form. And yes your observation is almost certainly
true, but doesn't answer the question, why those changes do seem to help
the creation of the appearance of reality.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by a digital re-master on vinyl? Digital
tape recording appeared some time before CD, and first was used for
mastering LPs. In general, it was pretty good, and fast replaced direct
cut recording as a way of getting round analogue tape problems.

Digital remastering tends to be taking a perfectly good (for its time)
analogue tape, stuffing it through pro-tools and ruining it in the name of
progress. ;-)

--
*With her marriage she got a new name and a dress.*

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn