Ref the RFD for uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

In article ,
Kurt Hamster wrote:
Everyone I know much prefers vinyl reproduction to CD, because it
sounds more realistic and enjoyable.

You need to get out more.

Why?

To meet more people. If everyone you know thinks vinyl is more
realistic than CD, you move in very narrow circles - and very strange
ones.

The shame of it is that this says more about your narrow view on life
rather than his :(

So *everyone* you know also thinks the same about vinyl?

Then you need to get out more too.

What percentage of the market does it have? 1% or less? So on average if
you had a broad spectrum of friends you'd expect 1 out of a hundred to
prefer it.

Even if you assume that some won't care so restrict this to those who do,
it would still be a tiny minority.

--
*To be intoxicated is to feel sophisticated, but not be able to say it.

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

Ref the RFD for uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

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

I am not worried about the technical aspects of the two formats. As I
said, I listen to both formats and KNOW that something is 'missing' on
the CD.

But the truth is that something is missing on the LP, and it is that
"missingness" that you prefer. Entire chunks of the sound get removed
during mastering for the LP medium; this doesn't happen to CD.

The only thing that is missing from the CD is the distortion, the
surface noise and the little pops and ticks.

I went to a level 42 concert a few weeks back. Went home and listened to
the same album on CD and vinyl. Cd was great but it didn't give me the
same thrill as seeing them live a few hours before. The vinyl copy DID
give me that feeling, it was */insert all the hated phrases here ie soul,
musicality/*.

Again I appreciate that you prefer the sound of LP, but I am intrigued
by the way you find that there is more presence in a sound which has had
substantial chunks of the original event removed from it.

--

"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 :

Yes, because they apply a different set of criteria to the finished product.
Digiphiles usually refer to measurements, vinylphiles tend to use 'real
world' comparisons (as I do) and use non-specific (subjective, if you
prefer) phases such as 'lifelike', engaging', involving'.

Let's pick the phrase that caused this controversy : "there is something
missing from the CD version compared with the LP".

It is not a measurement or some remote statistic that is statement is
factually wrong. It is a real world observation - you can go yourself
and watch an LP being mastered, and you will *see* with your own eyes
the equipment used by the engineer as he removes chunks of the sound in
order to get the album onto LP. If you sit down and listen to his
cutting master compared with the master he was given, you will be able
to plainly hear where those parts of the sound were cut, compressed or
distorted, long before it actually goes onto the LP.

So it is misleading to describe the preference for vinyl as being based
on "real world" observations. Why can't you just say that you prefer the
sound and leave it at that ? Why do you guys have to persist in making
these claims that are factually incorrect ?

CDs didn't get where they are today because they are 'better', they occupy
the 'lions share' of the market because lazy old Joe Public put them there.

This remark is just arrogant and snobbish. CDs are handier for a
multitude of reasons, not least the fact that their playback is
acceptable to the overwhelming majority of music listeners. If CDs are
really so crap then how is it that the music business were able to make
such huge amounts of money out of selling remastered CD collections at a
premium ?

Within 5 years (tops) SS digital music will topple them from top slot, wait
and see.

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.

--

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

Ref the RFD for uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

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.

Can one of you 'cd only' people tell me why classic cars are so popular? Why
would somebody drive around in a car that is noisy, bumpy and less fuel
efficient?

This is a bad argument. At a guess, I'd say classic car people are
enthusiasts, with a love of the old machines for their character and
style. But I don't think they'd try to claim that their cars are
"better", and they certainly wouldn't try to drive to work in them -
they're kept in the shed, seldom driven except on occasions,
meticulously maintained etc. That is clearly not a description of the
vinyl enthusiast, who sees vinyl as superior in every audible respect,
and who has his vinyl deck at the centrepiece of his home hifi.

I can agree with that. I sat my sons (16 & 14) in front of my CD system for
a couple of hours and they had a great time. They both agreed the music was
'clear' and 'really good'.

The next night we sat in front of the deck for a couple of hours. First
thing was 'blimey dad - that bass is really deep'! They then started talking
about 'lifelike', 'live', 'like being there' - why?

I do not know why people who can probably clearly hear crackles, hiss,
ticks, wow and flutter and the odd "pop" feel like they are "really
there". I never hear sounds like that unless I am listening to an LP.
Even if I can't see the source of playback, I'll know straightaway it's
an LP.

They know nothing about the technicalities. Neither of them has been to a
live concert so what were they talking about with their descriptions?

You have rather amusingly answered your own question. If someone has
never eaten chocolate ice cream, how can they possibly describe it as
"better than strawberry ice cream" ? If someone has never been to a live
concert, what point of reference can they actually have which is valid ?

--

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

Ref the RFD for uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

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

Perhaps cd needs something adding to it?

This is the bit that confuses me about vinylphiles.

On one hand you're talking about how important it is that listening to a
piece of work must "sound like you're really there". On the other hand,
you're saying that maybe sound is *better* with some "qualities", to use
a subjective term, artifically instilled as they are during vinyl
mastering. Does it not strike you that there is something inherently
irreconcilable about these two points of view ?

It is a very accurate format but
it doesn't convey the 'life and soul' of the music well at all.

That's your opinion.

I think
vinyl does convey that soul very well. If that is done by 'adding' stuff
then thats fine by me.

You must be disappointed by any live performance you have ever attended.
The live sound when it leaves the instruments and arrives at your
eardrums has never received the "vinyl" treatment.

--

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

Ref the RFD for uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

A certain Dave Plowman, of uk.rec.audio "fame", writes :

I've got a very carefully level - and everything else - matched system
whereby I can record to CD (or anything else) from vinyl and replay it
within about 0.5 dB of the original. And by syncing the two up and
switching, I can't tell the difference, and neither can anyone I've tested
- including some pretty extreme vinyl enthusiasts.

Pretty much any vinyl engineer I've ever heard from on the subject
corroborates this view. Here's my oft-quoted Wendy Carlos :

http://www.wendycarlos.com/open.html

"A personal aside: one of the editors of The Absolute Sound used to
visit and taunt us with the change that 'digital was horrible, can't you
tell?!' Finally, in a pique, I set up an Absolute(!)ly honest Sound
test. I tied my LP player to a switch in the studio. One position and it
went direct to the amps and speaker. The other, and it went through a
PCM-FI digital unit (both A/D & D/As), in loop-thru mode. Identical
levels. Then we played a few of his favorite Mercury and Mobile Fidelity
Beatles records. I flipped the switch back and forth randomly-- which
was which? Wouldn't you know it, each time he'd say, 'well that sounds
nice and rich and warm, it's the analog, right?', it would be via the
digital, and also vice versa. Nothing subtle, this was about 85-90% of
the time. Whatever he was actually hearing was 180 degrees out-of-phase,
so to speak, with his philosophy.
And whenever the topic has come up ever since, I simply have to remind
him of the realworld test, and it pretty much kills the whole taunt.
When double-blind, no expectations runs like this, you're hard pressed
to ignore the implications. Still, why did he seem to prefer the digital
(to me they sounded as near identical as those famous pod peas...?) "

When I had done the same stunt with my first CD release and the master
tape, and then with the LP version, I changed my earlier opinion against
digital. Digital could be pretty remarkable, if the engineers didn't
muck up. Anyway, I was an LP mastering engineer for several years. Why
that old-fandangled method (and not, say, Dolby-SR 15 ips tape) should
be now considered as anything but a stopgap method of sound recording is
beyond my ken, in front or behind the scenes. Go figure. "


--

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

Ref the RFD for uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

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

Everyone I know much prefers vinyl reproduction to CD, because it
sounds more realistic and enjoyable.

If everyone really prefers vinyl, why does nobody buy it much ?

--

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

Ref the RFD for uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

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

You need to get out more. I notice that a major used LP shop around here
just cut its floorspace in half.

Probably because the best stuff is bought up so quickly that they are
running out of stock. I buy a lot from charity shops. One pound a disc
for great classical recordings that walk all over most current CD
versions.

Why do you think they're being sold cheap in charity shops ? Clue :
nobody wants them anymore.

Most of the people I know who listen to music avidly are
musicians, and it is those people who seem most convinced of the
superiority of analogue/vinyl over digital/CD.

Then why do they keep recording on digital equipment and releasing their
albums on digital media ?

--

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

Ref the RFD for uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

A certain Kurt Hamster, of uk.rec.audio "fame", writes :

If CDs are
really so crap then how is it that the music business were able to make
such huge amounts of money out of selling remastered CD collections at a
premium ?

Partly because they changed the sale or return policies for LPs. Stores
were no longer willing to order/stock LPs for that reason. This in turn
had the knock-on effect of increasing CD sales as that was the only
alternative (discounting MC of course).

So everyone would merrily be listening to LPs then ? If people were
clamouring for LPs then why did the price of second hand vinyl go so low
?

Do you reckon the same is happening to VHS vis. DVD ?

--

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

Ref the RFD for uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

A certain Kurt Hamster, of uk.rec.audio "fame", writes :

Why do you think they're being sold cheap in charity shops ? Clue :
nobody wants them anymore.

If that's the case then why do they get snapped up from the charity
shops pretty damn quickly?

Even in the specialist second hand vinyl shops, prices of vinyl are very
low. There is a market there, but it's not all that big. If it was,
vinyl prices would rise dramatically, particularly as the discs -
particularly pristine ones (for as we all know, vinyl's physical-contact
mechanism inherently wears out the grooves as the disc is played)
become rarer.

I have quite a lot of vinyl myself I might add, which I never play. It's
nice to have from a collectors point of view, and also the cover artwork
and the sometimes-included posters are great to have. None of that is
anything to do with the music, obviously.

Could it also be that "nobody wants them any more" because the industry
has decided they can't have them any more?

Why did it decide that ?

The simpler and more probable explanation is that (a) consumers
preferred the sound of CD and (b) in terms of the mass market, consumers
preferred CD's small size, practicality, and extra features
(skip/search, 74 minute playback time) etc.

Most of the people I know who listen to music avidly are
musicians, and it is those people who seem most convinced of the
superiority of analogue/vinyl over digital/CD.

Then why do they keep recording on digital equipment and releasing their
albums on digital media ?

Digital equipment - they all don't
Digital media - they have no choice.

There is little choice with recording, as new analogue recording devices
have pretty much vanished. I am afraid this idea that everyone hates
digital and only uses it because they are forced to do so isn't grounded
in reality. If there was a real demand for analogue recorders, then
there would be someone out there manufacturing them to fill that niche.

--

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

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

Ref the RFD for uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

"Chesney Christ" wrote in message
...
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.


You do? Are these truly 'Words from the pink hornless squid beak of the
twisted bum-arse'???



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.


Or digital tape, or any other format which introduces unnecessary
electromechanical elements (ie moving parts) into the equation.


rest snipped - contained nothing interesting or new


Chezzer, I think you and I had best agree to differ. I prefer vinyl, you
don't - that's perfectly fine with me, can you live with this?

My final point is that ukra is so skewed toward 'digital thinking' by a tiny
minority (who most certainly 'doth protest too much') that 'vinyl is crap'
is generally acceptable here whilst 'CDs are crap' is not, apparently. Fine,
that's why we 'vinyl freaks' are off to another place - to allow you
'digiphiles' to get on with your biz without all the nasty vinyl
interruptions.

Got to be good news all round - no?


holds fingers of left hand in a certain way (doesn't work with the right
for some reason)

Live long and prosper, play all the CDs you want. Don't take no **** from
'vinyl freaks'......

Ref the RFD for uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

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

99% of the music buying public use digital.

Proving what? - 99% of the public haven't 'measured' anything,

We all know that measurements are the root of all evil.

can be (and
frequently are) sold utter crap and are ruled entirely by price.

This is true of mad audiophiles, except in a different direction. They
reckon if they spend £10,000 on a CD player it *must* sound better ...

The rest of the argument is really snobbery. You're saying that you have
better or more discerning ears than everyone else, as though God gave
you some sort of unique gift.

--

"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 :

I know so.

You do? Are these truly 'Words from the pink hornless squid beak of the
twisted bum-arse'???

Yes.

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

Or digital tape, or any other format which introduces unnecessary
electromechanical elements (ie moving parts) into the equation.

Digital reproduction is utterly independent of electromechanical
elements. If you think it can be altered by the type of moving parts in
a system, then you do not understand how digital works. If what you were
saying was correct, then - as I keep saying - modern computers and
telecommunications systems would be impossible. They are built and *do*
work because of digital's independence from the underlying medium.

rest snipped - contained nothing interesting or new

This seems to be the bit where you decide you're out of your depth and
you're not going to bother arguing anymore.

Chezzer, I think you and I had best agree to differ. I prefer vinyl, you
don't - that's perfectly fine with me, can you live with this?

I am not arguing about vinyl right now, I am trying to get you to
justify your weird preconceptions about digital.

My final point is that ukra is so skewed toward 'digital thinking' by a tiny
minority (who most certainly 'doth protest too much') that 'vinyl is crap'
is generally acceptable here whilst 'CDs are crap' is not, apparently.

For 99% of people, the above is true. You're talking like the lost tribe
of Israel or something.

Fine,
that's why we 'vinyl freaks' are off to another place - to allow you
'digiphiles' to get on with your biz without all the nasty vinyl
interruptions.

What you want really is a place where you can say "digital is crap" and
not have to argue with anyone who tries to correct your incorrect
perceptions. It truly is a religion where you can't and won't listen to
reason.

--

"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 :

99% of the music buying public use digital.

Proving what? - 99% of the public haven't 'measured' anything,

We all know that measurements are the root of all evil.


Hmmm, not even I would say that. I tend to think there's a time and place
for everything, 'measurement's included, it's just that I prefer to listen
to music - not 'measure' it......



can be (and
frequently are) sold utter crap and are ruled entirely by price.

This is true of mad audiophiles, except in a different direction. They
reckon if they spend £10,000 on a CD player it *must* sound better ...

The rest of the argument is really snobbery. You're saying that you have
better or more discerning ears than everyone else, as though God gave
you some sort of unique gift.


Well, Chesley, if you been around here long enough, you would have seen me
admit (more than once) that I'm a lousy listener and can 'get into the
groove' with just about anything after a few minutes. It's a condition
called 'vinyl ears' don'tcha know?

Ref the RFD for uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

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

I know so.

You do? Are these truly 'Words from the pink hornless squid beak of the
twisted bum-arse'???

Yes.


Thought so....



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

Or digital tape, or any other format which introduces unnecessary
electromechanical elements (ie moving parts) into the equation.

Digital reproduction is utterly independent of electromechanical
elements. If you think it can be altered by the type of moving parts in
a system, then you do not understand how digital works. If what you were
saying was correct, then - as I keep saying - modern computers and
telecommunications systems would be impossible. They are built and *do*
work because of digital's independence from the underlying medium.

rest snipped - contained nothing interesting or new

This seems to be the bit where you decide you're out of your depth and
you're not going to bother arguing anymore.


Possibly the former, definitely the latter.



Chezzer, I think you and I had best agree to differ. I prefer vinyl, you
don't - that's perfectly fine with me, can you live with this?

I am not arguing about vinyl right now, I am trying to get you to
justify your weird preconceptions about digital.


Weird preconceptions? Could you be more specific (but make it quick, I've
got to put my valves on to warm up and dress for dinner....)



My final point is that ukra is so skewed toward 'digital thinking' by a
tiny
minority (who most certainly 'doth protest too much') that 'vinyl is
crap'
is generally acceptable here whilst 'CDs are crap' is not, apparently.

For 99% of people, the above is true. You're talking like the lost tribe
of Israel or something.


OK, that makes me Moses then and I'm about to lead the 'True Believers' off
to Fuchal. I guess this 'last-dtch' CD vs Vinyl troll is the Usenet
equivalent of the Red Sea.....



Fine,
that's why we 'vinyl freaks' are off to another place - to allow you
'digiphiles' to get on with your biz without all the nasty vinyl
interruptions.

What you want really is a place where you can say "digital is crap" and
not have to argue with anyone who tries to correct your incorrect
perceptions.


Do you honestly think 'vinylphiles' are going to waste an opportunity to
broaden their knowledge, scope and experience of all things vinylicious just
sitting around croaking 'digital is crap' like a bunch of frogs or summat?
(Although I suppose we could use it as some sort of shibboleth.....)

My first question for the new group is:


'OK, posh low output MC carts cost more than my house - woss it all about?
Wot am I missing here?


It truly is a religion where you can't and won't listen to
reason.

Reason?

LOL!

All this jerking and you can come out with that? WTF is 'reason' - agreeing
with you (and a couple of this groups most seriously afflicted mental cases)
that 'vinyl is crap'???

OK, Winston, I give in. You're right - vinyl *is* crap, now will you take
the wires off my balls?


PS. Got any vinyl you want to get rid of then?


****ZZZZAAAAPPPP!!!!****


F*ck. Sh*t. Ouch! OK, OK, sorry! Sorreee.........


(Time for din-dins now, gotta go in. 'Bye)

Ref the RFD for uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

"Chesney Christ" wrote in message ...

Beatles records. I flipped the switch back and forth randomly-- which
was which? Wouldn't you know it, each time he'd say, 'well that sounds
nice and rich and warm, it's the analog, right?', it would be via the
digital, and also vice versa. Nothing subtle, this was about 85-90% of
the time. Whatever he was actually hearing was 180 degrees out-of-phase,
so to speak, with his philosophy.

Evidence for both sides here. OK, the analog nut preferred the digital.
OTOH, he could hear the difference (which allegedly isn't there).

Tim

Ref the RFD for uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

"Keith G" wrote in message
...
"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?

99% of the music buying public use digital.

Proving what?

Proving that all earlier formats are legacy formats, not mainstream formats.

- 99% of the public haven't 'measured' anything, can be (and
frequently are) sold utter crap and are ruled entirely by price.

LPs were always cheaper than CDs when the two formats competed
head-to-heard. According to your logic Keith, the CD could have never
ascended over the LP. It didn't happen. The current marketplace with 99% of
all recordings on digital formats didn't happen and never will until the CD
is cheaper than the LP. As a rule, the LP is still effectively cheaper than
the CD especially given the high percentage of LPs that are sold used.

LOL!

Want an example? - DAB radio. It's crap, it offers 'a lot' (superficially)
it's got
a good signal/noise ratio etc., it's 'quick and easy' and it ain't taken
off
yet.

The comparison is illogical at this time because the CD did take off. It's
got 99+% of the market.

As soon as the prices drop to FM levels it'll go like hot cakes (like
when car manufacturers fit it as standard). Will that make it any good?

I think that DAB will compete with FM and AM based on perceived quality.
Since FM and AM as we know them now are such audibly deficient formats, it
seems like getting something that EFFECTIVELY sounds better would not be
rocket science.

In the US we're being presented with two satellite/ground based national
digital radio networks, XM and Sirius. I don't think that anybody in the US
is foolish enough to think that they will compete with existing technology
based solely on sound quality under ideal conditions.

Ref the RFD for uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

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

99% of the music buying public use digital.

Proving what? - 99% of the public haven't 'measured' anything,

We all know that measurements are the root of all evil.


Hmmm, not even I would say that. I tend to think there's a time and place
for everything, 'measurement's included, it's just that I prefer to listen
to music - not 'measure' it......

The listening argument seems to favor the CD, given that 99+ percent of all
music lovers, who as you said have never done any technical measurements,
prefer the CD.

Ref the RFD for uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

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

I am not arguing about vinyl right now, I am trying to get you to
justify your weird preconceptions about digital.

Weird preconceptions? Could you be more specific (but make it quick, I've
got to put my valves on to warm up and dress for dinner....)

I cannot be more specific as you will not explain why you think this
debate about solid state versus "spinning media" is of any relevance.
It's your argument, not mine.



It's not my argument, it's a well known fact that the 'whirling' process
introduces a host of potential errors into the equation all the way down to
'ganga haze' on yer 'seeing eye'. (See previous reference to 'jitter' and
build a case for yourself.)

If you are really interested, in the future (but perhaps still in my
lifetime) I see little 'solid state' coloured cubes being pushed into
devices that will scan them with 3 or 4 lasers and produce 3D, holographic
pictures and 'surround sound' (which will become totally combined in the
future - think Kylie's bum and give in gracefully...) and without a single
moving part in the whole shebang. The fact that there will be several
different types of cubes to choose from (all totally incompatible) goes
without saying, of course.....

(Jeez, they were doing it 25 years ago in Star Trek!)

Guess what? - 'Vinyl addicts' like me will still be shugging our zimmer
frames up and down the corridors to the sound of 'Leapin' With Lionel'
belting out of the record player, mono an' all......

:-)

(Kinda gives ya hope, don't it?)




'OK, posh low output MC carts cost more than my house - woss it all
about?
Wot am I missing here?

You can say that about any piece of hifi equipment. And after all, you
always say it's all about what you hear. How are you going to be
persuaded either way by a discussion on a newsgroup ?


The one thing I'm *never*, is 'persuaded' by anything I read on newsgroups -
this one or any other. Other peoples, thoughts, experiences and opinions,
however, are very useful in aiding my own researches.

My normal procedure, when buying kit, is to ask questions, Google a bit,
read reviews in the comix then go down to the shops and buy the first thing
I see (that 'speaks' to me) which is, of course, something totally different
to what I had decided upon....

:-)



All this jerking and you can come out with that? WTF is 'reason' -
agreeing
with you (and a couple of this groups most seriously afflicted mental
cases)
that 'vinyl is crap'???

"Reason" is where you explain & justify your thinking, on matters such
as this "solid state" business you brought up.


OK, done that.

Ref the RFD for uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

"Nick Gorham" wrote in message
...
Keith G wrote:


It's not my argument, it's a well known fact that the 'whirling' process
introduces a host of potential errors into the equation all the way down
to
'ganga haze' on yer 'seeing eye'. (See previous reference to 'jitter'
and
build a case for yourself.)

For what its worth, AFAIK, the fact that it rotates has little to do
with creating jitter.


I didn't link the two. Rotating things causes problems, 'reading' things'
causes problems etc. Jitter has more to do with pits and lands. Pits and
lands have more to do with CDRs not being an 'exact' copy of the original CD
(as SN will assert)....

(No good asking me - I neither know nor care, BTW...)


The servo current needed to track the data may
have some part. But any DAC has to get a reference clock, and there is
no such thing as a perfectly monotonic clock, so SS storage still
doesn't get around the requirements for a quality DAC,


Quite, all this whirling, reading etc. and you are still only suppling a DAC
with a datastream which will have none of those problems if it is drawn from
SS storage.


left with the quality of the analog stage to deal with.


True, but not germane.....

Ref the RFD for uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 16:45:01 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:

I didn't link the two. Rotating things causes problems, 'reading' things'
causes problems etc. Jitter has more to do with pits and lands. Pits and
lands have more to do with CDRs not being an 'exact' copy of the original CD
(as SN will assert)....

Sorry, Keith but I had better lay this myth once and for all. Data
doesn't get stored on a CD that way. To make it robust bits are
distributed in a sort of pseudo-random fashion all over the place. The
decoder gathers therm up from wherever it finds them and assembles
them into a word which then gets presented to the DAC. The only place
jitter can occur is the final reading of that word into the DAC
itself.

So the nature of pits and lands on a CDR has absolutely no effect on
jitter in a digital system. They are either read properly, or they
aren't. If they are, then great - if not then either they can be
totally recreated through FEC, or the player will interpolate as best
it can. This would be a truly horrendous condition that will happen
only very rarely (once or twice in many discs).

Spinning things around, and systems that require high degrees of
mechanical accuracy are a bit of a pain though, and it would be nice
to see a time when the storage could be solid state. But that will
only happen when the price of 700MB is comparable to that of a CD
blank (about tuppence). I'm not holding my breath. But of course all
these problems go in trumps for a vinyl system (or we would have the
vinyl Walkman by now :-).

ps - I have no intention of entering the "Great Debate", just thought
you needed setting straight on the jitter thing.

d

_____________________________

http://www.pearce.uk.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 cannot be more specific as you will not explain why you think this
debate about solid state versus "spinning media" is of any relevance.
It's your argument, not mine.

It's not my argument, it's a well known fact that the 'whirling' process
introduces a host of potential errors into the equation all the way down
to
'ganga haze' on yer 'seeing eye'. (See previous reference to 'jitter' and
build a case for yourself.)

This is where you're way wrong.


I don't believe I am, but as I have no real interest i this topic beyond
'conversational' level I will concede these points to you. All I will say is
that reading the comix (not advisable, I know) words like 'jitter' are used
all the time to describe relative (poor) performance between different CDPs.


The digital playback process includes
error correction, so that a 100% accurate data stream comes back each
time. As I will say one more time, if this was impossible then computers
which rely on the digital data read from the hardware would be
impossible.


You'll be telling me computers don't have 'off days' next....

Ref the RFD for uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 16:45:01 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:


OK, straight to the bottom (running out of time):



I didn't link the two. Rotating things causes problems, 'reading' things'
causes problems etc. Jitter has more to do with pits and lands. Pits and
lands have more to do with CDRs not being an 'exact' copy of the original
CD
(as SN will assert)....

Sorry, Keith but I had better lay this myth once and for all. Data
doesn't get stored on a CD that way. To make it robust bits are
distributed in a sort of pseudo-random fashion all over the place. The
decoder gathers therm up from wherever it finds them and assembles
them into a word which then gets presented to the DAC. The only place
jitter can occur is the final reading of that word into the DAC
itself.

So the nature of pits and lands on a CDR has absolutely no effect on
jitter in a digital system. They are either read properly, or they
aren't. If they are, then great - if not then either they can be
totally recreated through FEC, or the player will interpolate as best
it can. This would be a truly horrendous condition that will happen
only very rarely (once or twice in many discs).

Spinning things around, and systems that require high degrees of
mechanical accuracy are a bit of a pain though, and it would be nice
to see a time when the storage could be solid state. But that will
only happen when the price of 700MB is comparable to that of a CD
blank (about tuppence). I'm not holding my breath. But of course all
these problems go in trumps for a vinyl system (or we would have the
vinyl Walkman by now :-).

ps - I have no intention of entering the "Great Debate", just thought
you needed setting straight on the jitter thing.


Fair enough, Don. Coming from you I'm more inclined to say 'fine, I'm way
offbeam here' then. I have no real interest and am only quoting what odd
bits have come my way. See http://www.eyecote.com/qc/jitter.htm and
oft-reported jitter figures in the comix for example.

There really is no 'Great Debate' for me either - I love vinyl and greatly
prefer it to any other form of audio playback. I'm just killing time until
the vinyl group opens for biz....

:-)