Too neat to waste...
 

In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:
You must have a very powerful crystal ball if you know what I have
and haven't done.

Do you have access to a cutting lathe, to carry out the experiment to
which you refer?

Anyone has access to a cutting lathe. Unless you somehow think they
don't exist anymore?

Indeed they do. I was at a 12inch 45rpm cutting session just before I
started my summer holiday.

Do you have the expertise to cut a disc?

No. But that doesn't stop me getting someone else to do it.

OK. That's clear, and tells me what I wanted to know.
You sound like a would-be brain surgeon, who has never
actually performed an operation:;-)

You seem to infer I'd claimed to have cut a disc myself. Personally.
Perhaps you'd refer me to the post where this was said?


Somehow I think I need no crystal ball to tell me the answer:-)

Oh, you do. You obviously haven't a clue what facilities were
available in a large broadcasting organization.

Quite the reverse. The former head of BBC Transcription Services was a
close family friend. I visited BH often, when I was resident in the UK.

I also know that Thames had no disc cutting facilities

Then you'll have a clue where the disc was cut. Many years ago, for just
the purposes of this type of discussion.

I did not set out to "prove" anything, but merely to illustrate
why some people prefer to listen to a vinyl version of
a recording if one is available.

And there is the flaw in your argument. You take the example of a
poorly re-mastered CD and compare it to a better mastered LP and
conclude the LP system is better than the CD one.

There is no flaw. I have never stated that "the LP system" (your words)
is better than CD. Simply that recordings issued on LP are often
superior to the re-issues on CD.

You've given but one example. 'Often' suggests otherwise. It's not my
experience at all - like many I bought CD issues of my favourite LPs when
CD first came out.

Now remind me of what industry you work
in...;-)

Classical and jazz recording. Thankfully, we are not affected by
outside pressures from the public to produce head-banging,
sounds-loud-in the-car-and-in-the-toilet, recordings. I have always
attended the mastering sessions of projects in which I have been
involved, and have always been happy with the end result.

So you're in a tiny niche market so hardly qualified to make
generalizations?

Classical recording is hardly a niche market, especially when the
projects are funded by cultural foundations throughout the EU:-)

Ah - you're some sort of civil servant now? Not working in the commercial
side? Sort of figures. ;-)

So you're saying all vinyl is perfect and never ruined by bad
mastering, because that's what you're on about - not CD verses
vinyl?

No. I did not say that. I am fully conversant with the strengths and
weaknesses of both, and understand the circumstances under which
many people prefer to listen to a vinyl version of their music if one
is available.

I asked before in another post what the strengths of vinyl were, but
you don't appear to have answered.

That post has not yet appeared on my server.

Well, you could answer it now. Because the only one I can think of is
better artwork.

And you've not noticed how vinyl degrades the master tape? I find that
very hard to believe. Apart from some cutting engineers whose jobs
were on the line, pretty well everyone else was glad to see the back
of it.

The record companies were eager for new technology as they
could produce a CD for the fraction of the cost of producing a vinly
pressing and sell it for far greater profit.

The sort of people I was referring to were not bean counters, but those
involved in the actual production.

It's a business, pure and simple. The bean counters are ubiquitous, but
fortunately they do not have the same sway as in broadcasting:-)

That'll be why so many record companies have disappeared or been taken
over then?

I certainly know that wide band horn loading is never used for serious
monitoring. Nor are full range drive units. Of course in your niche
world of analogue recording and valve amps they may well be, but
that's why it's a niche market.

Again you misquote me. 90% of the projects on which I work are
are 24bit digital. However, if a client wants 24 track analogue Dobly SR
on 2 inch then we are happy to oblige. We use neither horns nor full
range units. I have mentioned before the preference for B+W Nautilus
monitors for classical recording. Please get your facts straight, Dave.

You really have to make up your mind what you're discussing. One moment
you wish to make it pro audio, or at least with references to it, and when
replied to in that vein say it's got nothing to do with things.

If you like full range speakers and horn loading for your own domestic use
please make it clear this is what you're referring to.

Think I've sent you pictures of some of the gear I've built for
broadcasting related subjects.
As well as giving you advice on microphone
choice and placement.

I do not recall any pics of gear you have built.

E-mail dated 17/9/05 which you received as you replied on the 19th. ;-)

But I do of course remember the useful advice you were able to give for
the selection of radio mics for the seven saxophone rock'n'roll concert.
It was a great success, and I have thanked you publicly on more than
one occasion for your suggestions.

Sometimes being 'a jack of all trades' has its uses...

But I'd hope no current lecturer in broadcasting is extoling the vitues
of vinyl over CD. Or digital over analogue.

That should have course have been 'analogue over digital'

Once again, you are performing your party trick of putting words into
others' mouths.

I'm not quite clear what you mean. Isn't this a discussion about LP versus
CD? And I assumed you'd mentioned your ex BBC pal in the discussion as a
supporter of your views? If not, what purpose did it have?

The last time I attended BBC ETD was long before the birth of CD, but the
NICAM distribution system was just being introduced - and all the
lecturers to a man were very enthusiastic about it.

I think this discussion with you has reached an end.

It certainly seems to be going round in circles. But then it would.

--
*Remember, no-one is listening until you fart.*

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

Too neat to waste...
 

In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:
You've got it in one, Jim. I'm in several moderated e-mail groups (not
audio related, but mainly motoring) and it's important to many they
stay on topic, and as such the wishes of the majority are paramount.
If not it's an easy matter to start a moderated group with your own
rules.

Dave. Moderated and a closed groups are two totally different things.
On a moderated group, the admin team have the power to censor
any posts on what is essentially an open group.

Not so. All the moderated groups I belong to are not open. You have to
apply for membership and be approved. I'm a co-moderator of one. I have
heard of moderated news groups with open access, but have no experience of
them.

In a closed group, the subscribers are there by invitation,
just as one might belong to an association, guild or institute.
There is no moderation or censorship.

Not quite. With many professional bodies you still apply to join - rather
than having to be invited. You may or may not need a sponsor or sponsors.
Once a member it's usual to have access to their closed web hosted group
if they have one). Associate members are usually also allowed such group
access. However, they still tend to have a degree of moderation in the
form of an admin supervisor who could step in if things got out of hand -
and as a last resort remove posting facilities from persistent offenders.

Of course any permutations are possible.

BTW, it's extremely easy to host a closed web based group. Many companies
like Yahoo provide the facilities, and you can choose whether to have
direct e-mail communication between members or not.

--
*Never miss a good chance to shut up *

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

Too neat to waste...
 

In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:
You have been on this NG a lot longer than I. In the 2+ years I
have followed this group I cannot recall anyone stating that vinyl
was technically superior to CD.

What I do recall reading, on this any several other groups is that
people often prefer the sound of a musical performance from vinyl.

Perhaps you'd explain the difference? I really can't see how added
distortion, noise, wow, etc can make a musical performance sound better.


but simply that in so many cases the potential of the CD is not
realised, with the result that often people prefer to listen to
a vinyl version of certain recordings.

I have no problem with that. However there are many on here who would
disagree with you and think vinyl as such is simply superior.


I can't speak for anyone except myself. I am certainly not one of those.
However, I am frequently disappointed at the production quality of
popular music CDs.

That is an entirely different matter. One which I'd agree with you about
in many many cases. But since few popular CDs have an LP release - and
what's even less likely one where the mastering was less savage in
compression etc terms, it is rather academic. If you can give an example
of a currently available CD and LP where the LP gives a more satisfactory
musical experience please do as I'd love to buy them and hear this for
myself.

--
*On the other hand, you have different fingers*

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

Too neat to waste...
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
If you can give an example
of a currently available CD and LP where the LP gives a more satisfactory
musical experience please do as I'd love to buy them and hear this for
myself.

--
*On the other hand, you have different fingers*

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

Hi Dave, I take a very open view regarding the merits of CD and LP's. I have
the Edgar Winter Group album "They Only Come Out At Night" on LP (early
70's) and also have a CD that proports to have been made from the original
master tapes. There is a significant difference in the lower frequency
volume level from each source, chalk and cheese comes to mind. There has
been a reduction in the volume of the lower frequency spectrum applied to
the CD for some reason as it is SIGNIFICANTLY different to the original
record. Which is better is irrelevant really, in this instance I prefer the
sound reproduction from the LP by far. I also have the situation with other
music where I prefer the CD. I have a reasonable collectionof both LP's and
CD's.

Too neat to waste...
 

In article ,
APR wrote:
If you can give an example of a currently available CD and LP where
the LP gives a more satisfactory musical experience please do as I'd
love to buy them and hear this for myself.


Hi Dave, I take a very open view regarding the merits of CD and LP's. I
have the Edgar Winter Group album "They Only Come Out At Night" on LP
(early 70's) and also have a CD that proports to have been made from
the original master tapes. There is a significant difference in the
lower frequency volume level from each source, chalk and cheese comes
to mind. There has been a reduction in the volume of the lower
frequency spectrum applied to the CD for some reason as it is
SIGNIFICANTLY different to the original record. Which is better is
irrelevant really, in this instance I prefer the sound reproduction
from the LP by far. I also have the situation with other music where I
prefer the CD. I have a reasonable collectionof both LP's and CD's.

I'm sure there are plenty of examples of poorly mastered CDs from the
early days which sounded worse than the LPs. However, that's not the fault
of the CD medium. The mastering person may have thought he was improving
the original, or more likely marketing wanted it to sound 'louder' etc.
What did annoy me was the steep fades between tracks to try and mask tape
hiss. After all, CD has no background noise...

What I'd like to know is if there are any simultaneous releases on both CD
and vinyl these days as the mastering is likely to be to the same sort of
ethic on both. And preferably one where a vinyl fan says the vinyl is
better.

--
*If you remember the '60s, you weren't really there

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

Too neat to waste...
 

In article , APR
wrote:


Hi Dave, I take a very open view regarding the merits of CD and LP's. I
have the Edgar Winter Group album "They Only Come Out At Night" on LP
(early 70's) and also have a CD that proports to have been made from
the original master tapes. There is a significant difference in the
lower frequency volume level from each source, chalk and cheese comes
to mind. There has been a reduction in the volume of the lower
frequency spectrum applied to the CD for some reason as it is
SIGNIFICANTLY different to the original record. Which is better is
irrelevant really, in this instance I prefer the sound reproduction
from the LP by far. I also have the situation with other music where I
prefer the CD. I have a reasonable collectionof both LP's and CD's.

Can you say how you have established that this difference isn't due to your
LP replay system having a frequency response which boosts the relevant LF
part of the spectrum?

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

Too neat to waste...
 

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , Keith G
wrote:

"Jim Lesurf" wrote


I agree than 'many' people like vinyl. However I don't see any signs
that 'many' means significantly more than, say, 1 percent of the
people of the UK.



Whenever I see this remark I find myself wondering what the significance
of it might be....??

None - beyond trying to put some sort of context on any comments that
'many' (or other similarly vague terms) people prefer or are using Vinyl,
valves, etc. The point being that unless there is some context, or some
actual figures, the terms may mislead readers. Might cause them to think
the actual number was wildly different to what it is in reality.


OK. It would be useful to know the original context of the 'many' you refer
to....?? (I'm sure I haven't used it as I really don't care who does or
doesn't use vinyl...??) But the point is 'does it matter' - no-one here is
*recruiting* or selling anything.

My only concern for the subject of vinyl was that a small few here shouldn't
succeed in effectively banning as a topic in this group. The didn't, it
still gets mentioned from time to time - as do MP3s, SACDs, DAB, FV &c.
&c......

As to who (or how many) uses or don't use vinyl, who cares? Numbers and
percentages don't affect my own choices...



(Smacks to me of the sort of thinking that would rule out (say)
discussion on the relative merits/demerits of certain polo
ponies....??)

No idea. The above isn't relevant one way or another to any opinion
regarding perferring such things as 'good' or 'bad'. Observing that the
reality may be that only a small percentage of people actually have an
actual interest in vinyl tells us zero about if anyone should like it or
not.


What *should*? - There isn't any 'should' about it - people either
like/use/prefer vinyl or they don't....???



As a fraction of the population, only a small number of people use Quad
Electrostatics. Yet there were enough of them for sales of the speakers to
be sigificant enough to generate turnover for the company. The fact that
some people regard them as superb speakers has no direct connection to the
reality that most people in the country have never heard of them.


Yes, an interesting example of another case where figures and percentages
bear no relation to the concept of quality by a number of people, isn't it?



For the sake of example, lets assume that 0.5 percent of people in the UK
are keen on Vinyl/Valves and actively choose to buy/use these in
preference
to CD/Transistors. I have made up this figure. In reality I think that far
less people than this even buy audio mags more than a few times in their
life.


Your use of the word 'think' is really not much different to the word 'many'
in these casual comments. As to *percentages* - I'm not concerned, I tend to
disregard them entirely. (Everybody knows 48.2% of all 'statistics' are made
up on the spot..... ;-)

But see below....



This would mean about 300,000 people. That would be a 'lot of people' if
you are in the biz of making expensive turntables, so could be a healthy
market, keeping you in the biz. Ditto for someone interested in selling
appropriate numbers of LPs, or running any sort of 'national show' which
those interested could visit.


See below...



However in the context of the actual size of the UK population, it would
be
a 'tiny number'. It would be consistent with almost no-one you met at
random having any awareness of, or interest in, such things. (Ignoring the
'selection effect' where the people you tend to know may have similar
interests or backgrounds.)


Not true in my case, even one of the 'post ladies', seeing some of my LPs
once, said she was a vinyl fan and had 3/400 records (IIRC)....

(Ditto with other visitors here from time to time..)



Hence when people make comments along the lines of "many people prefer
Vinyl" or such interests are "growing" these statements would have a
meaning that depends on the context in which it was judged. Not knowing
this, someone might misunderstand what it meant and might, for example,
assume that it meant that a far higher number than, say, 0.5 percent of
people had these preferences.


See above re. percentages and whether or not it really indicates anything
useful I don't know, but let's run a 'quasi Drake's Equation type' exercise:

If you Google the single word 'vinyl' you will get 118 million answers and
if you click along the results to page 88 (the last one my browser allow)
you will find 2 results (and a link) - one to do with records and one to do
with clothing. So lets say (for the purposes of a theoretical argument) that
half the 'vinyl results' are to do with records = 59 million. (I think
that's probably quite generous.)

If you Google 'CD' you will get 2,070 million answers - so, unless I have
buggered up the sums, I make that vinyl is about 2.8% of CD....

I just asked Swim how many people (in a world population of 6 billion) buy
or use CDs and she said 1 in 7 - about 857 million (I would have guessed 1
billion myself) 2.8% of the CD figure then is 24 million.

That's a lot of people still buying and/or using vinyl and a damn sight
bigger than Ken Kessler's claim that there are only 1 million *audiophiles*
in the world!

Incidentally, Swim (into it now and Googling away) informs me that according
to 'sources', in 2004 35% (1.1 billion = 4.5 billion USD's worth) of the CDs
sold worldwide are pirate copies.....???

:-)

E&OE and apologies for any points missed....

Too neat to waste...
 

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , APR
wrote:


Hi Dave, I take a very open view regarding the merits of CD and LP's. I
have the Edgar Winter Group album "They Only Come Out At Night" on LP
(early 70's) and also have a CD that proports to have been made from
the original master tapes. There is a significant difference in the
lower frequency volume level from each source, chalk and cheese comes
to mind. There has been a reduction in the volume of the lower
frequency spectrum applied to the CD for some reason as it is
SIGNIFICANTLY different to the original record. Which is better is
irrelevant really, in this instance I prefer the sound reproduction
from the LP by far. I also have the situation with other music where I
prefer the CD. I have a reasonable collectionof both LP's and CD's.

Can you say how you have established that this difference isn't due to
your
LP replay system having a frequency response which boosts the relevant LF
part of the spectrum?

Slainte,

Jim

Hi Jim,
I don't dispute what you are getting at with respect to my LP reproduction
system, I myself don't believe the cartridge I am using delivers the
flattest frequency response. However, I have a few LP's and CD's that share
tracks and have done the comparison between them. I have found more
variation then I thought would exist. While I have identified the Edgar
Winter LP above as having more LF volume then the CD, this is not
necessarily the case at all with other albums. I assume for the Edgar Winter
album that equalisation adjustments have been different for each medium.

I have identified the Edgar Winter album in response to Dave's post where he
states "If you can give an example of a currently available CD and LP where
the LP gives a more satisfactory musical experience please do as I'd love to
buy them and hear this for myself.". While the LP I have identified is not
current, for me it gives a better musical experience then the CD. I have to
note that I don't believe vinyl is better then CD's, however, I have a few
LP's from my younger days that I still want to be able to play and hear. I
bought the Edgar Winter CD expecting more enjoyment over the LP but in this
instance I think the LP is better music.

Too neat to waste...
 

In article ,
Keith G wrote:
My only concern for the subject of vinyl was that a small few here
shouldn't succeed in effectively banning as a topic in this group.

[Sigh] Just who is trying to ban discussion of it? Or do you think
disagreement of a view amounts to banning?

--
*Re-elect nobody

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

Too neat to waste...
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Keith G wrote:
My only concern for the subject of vinyl was that a small few here
shouldn't succeed in effectively banning as a topic in this group.

[Sigh] Just who is trying to ban discussion of it? Or do you think
disagreement of a view amounts to banning?


You've either got a short, highly selective memory or a very poor one...

But you're dead right - the 'should you be here?' and 'polluting the group
with vinyl' comments will never ban the topic here, not while I still bother
to post....

Try this for size:

IMO, vinyl is better - it sounds far more lifelike and *realistic* than CD
(or any other 'digital') ever could.....

OK?

:-)