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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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