Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article . com,
wrote:

Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Iain Churches
wrote:

You can equally argue that manipulations are not necessary to record
onto CD - but in practice they may be applied for reasons which have
nothing to do with CD as a format per se. So there are two distinct
questions here. One relating to what is possible, or necessary. The
other relating to what people making such things actually do in
practice. You have already indicated that what you might do, or wish
to do, may not be what everyone who produces an LP or CD actually does.



Absolutely they are different issues. unfortunately for we the
audiophile public they are not seperate issues in practice. If an LP
sounds better than it's CD counterpart it doesn't matter to us why.

It should. The point being that if you know *why* the two may "sound
different" then you may be able to shine a light onto those who make them
"different" as a result of ignorance or idiocy.

Should?! This point has been debated at length here and elsewhere.
Nobody knows why the inherent sound of LPs can sound better than CD.
Unless you've been keeping something to yourself...

This, for me, is one of the key problems with the situation we have had in
(UK at least) audio for decades. The magazines tend to publish subjective
views which show no sign of the writers having even the desire to test or
understand what the real reasons might be for what they talk about. This
then is communicated to readers as being, "all magic and a matter of
opinion". As if it were like the weather, something to observe and comment
upon, but not expect to be able to control or do anything about.


I'd agree - but they do throw in technostuff to support claims. They do
often state a control element - whether it's right or wrong I couldn't
say. And the best we get from the technically inclined on this NG is
that technical specification as a guide to sound quality is simply a
dependent variable. Advice, quite rightly, tends towards 'have a listen'.

The reality is that LPs, CDs, etc, are all engineered and created. They are
as they are because that is how their makers made them. If there are
'differences' then they are in a position to examine them, deterimine why,
and deal with any problems.

But they won't bother if they can sell what they can make, and the reviews
and feedback show no signs to them that what they are doing should be
changed in some way.

Consider the possibility: If we and the magazine reviews set out to
identify why a CD "sounds different" to the nominally equivalent LP, then
we could use that knowledge to get them to improve what they offer -
perhaps for *both* formats.


There's no end of products that vinylise and valvify sound. Explanations
for their existence exist: the 'distortion'; the processing involved in
converting analogue to digital and then back to analogue; the CD
standard cannot capture all the sound, sub-LP standard transfer of
master recordings to CD, and a fifth - I'd bundle perception, the aural
experience (lack of understanding/appreciation), marketing, association
and a number of other intangibles that don't spring to mind.

Of course, this presumes we can establish that they *do* sound different,
and identify plausible reasons which can be tested. And to consider that
this may be case-by-case, not a sweeping praise of one format and damnation
of the other. Simply expressing subjective opinions in 'wine tasting' terms
may not help. Indeed, my feeling is that it has impeded both CD/LP
production and equipment for some years now.


It simply does.

Not so. If they differ, there will be a reason. You just have to be
prepared to try and find it, not leave it as a mystery. :-)

You can't fix a poorly mastered CD no matter how much you love the
medium.

Well, that would depend on what way it was "poorly mastered". However if it
is poor, and people can be specific, you can then use this understanding to
apply pressure on the company involved to do better in future.


IMO we the consumes need to support companies that make an
effort to master their releases with due care be it on CD SACD DVD-A
and/or LP.

I would agree. But that process isn't help by blanket and unspecific
praise/complaints on the level of general assertions about the "inherent"
properties of the formats. It can be done by more specific understanding,
based on understanding the engineering of them, and how specific instances
fall short of what is possible.


OK, but I'd prefer to work back from the experience of listening, rather
than forward from the electronic and mechanical components.

Rob

In article , Rob
wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article . com,


Absolutely they are different issues. unfortunately for we the
audiophile public they are not seperate issues in practice. If an LP
sounds better than it's CD counterpart it doesn't matter to us why.

It should. The point being that if you know *why* the two may "sound
different" then you may be able to shine a light onto those who make
them "different" as a result of ignorance or idiocy.

Should?!

If they wish to participate in trying to improve the recordings that are
being made/sold.


This point has been debated at length here and elsewhere.
Nobody knows why the inherent sound of LPs can sound better than CD.
Unless you've been keeping something to yourself...

Alas, the above statement is confused by including both "inherent" and
"can". If something is inherent then it would be inescapable for that
format. Thus it would not be "can" which indicates variability depending on
the details.

Nor need it be true that "Nobody know" if you are talking about "can" since
in specific cases the reasons may be known.


This, for me, is one of the key problems with the situation we have
had in (UK at least) audio for decades. The magazines tend to publish
subjective views which show no sign of the writers having even the
desire to test or understand what the real reasons might be for what
they talk about. This then is communicated to readers as being, "all
magic and a matter of opinion". As if it were like the weather,
something to observe and comment upon, but not expect to be able to
control or do anything about.


I'd agree - but they do throw in technostuff to support claims.

Sometimes. Alas, this can be technobabble at times, or simply nonsense.
Varies.

They do often state a control element - whether it's right or wrong I
couldn't say.

Yes, they do often comment that they compared with something else, or had
previously used something else, and had that in mind as a reference. But I
can't recall them routinely giving details of their test protocol and
results so anyone else can assess if what they are doing is sensible and
their conclusions reliable.

The few exceptions being examples like the attempts many years ago to do
systematic and controlled comparisons to resolve the arguments about "do
amps sound different" - which produced results that showed little sign that
the reviewers could actually discriminate as they claim.

And the best we get from the technically inclined on this
NG is that technical specification as a guide to sound quality is simply
a dependent variable. Advice, quite rightly, tends towards 'have a
listen'.

Have you missed my trying to explain that there are comparison methods
which can produce results which others can assess for themselves for
reliability, etc? :-)



There's no end of products that vinylise and valvify sound. Explanations
for their existence exist: the 'distortion'; the processing involved in
converting analogue to digital and then back to analogue; the CD
standard cannot capture all the sound, sub-LP standard transfer of
master recordings to CD, and a fifth - I'd bundle perception, the aural
experience (lack of understanding/appreciation), marketing, association
and a number of other intangibles that don't spring to mind.

it is true that many people make many claims. :-)

Some of them will be correct. Others may not. Alas, we often have claims,
but no basis of evidence we can assess. Just take-it-or-leave-it claims by
reviewers who claim to have the ability to discriminate.

I am afraid that I am biassed by my own time in the biz, and by many later
occasions. Too often I found by personal experience that what people
claimed didn't stand up when I tried listening or testing for myself, or
when I was involved in comparisions or tests with others. Thus I have
become rather doubtful of what is published in the UK magazines with no
basis in evidence being given.



IMO we the consumes need to support companies that make an effort to
master their releases with due care be it on CD SACD DVD-A and/or LP.

I would agree. But that process isn't help by blanket and unspecific
praise/complaints on the level of general assertions about the
"inherent" properties of the formats. It can be done by more specific
understanding, based on understanding the engineering of them, and how
specific instances fall short of what is possible.


OK, but I'd prefer to work back from the experience of listening, rather
than forward from the electronic and mechanical components.

I am quite happy to do both in a suitable combination. Indeed, that is the
way I have personally approach this area over the years. The point being
that when these are combined the results may be more reliable and helpful
than when they are not. Certainly that is my experience.

Slainte,

Jim

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

Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Rob
wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article . com,

Absolutely they are different issues. unfortunately for we the
audiophile public they are not seperate issues in practice. If an LP
sounds better than it's CD counterpart it doesn't matter to us why.
It should. The point being that if you know *why* the two may "sound
different" then you may be able to shine a light onto those who make
them "different" as a result of ignorance or idiocy.


This thread is becoming a pain :-)

Should?!

If they wish to participate in trying to improve the recordings that are
being made/sold.


This point has been debated at length here and elsewhere.
Nobody knows why the inherent sound of LPs can sound better than CD.
Unless you've been keeping something to yourself...

Alas, the above statement is confused by including both "inherent" and
"can". If something is inherent then it would be inescapable for that
format. Thus it would not be "can" which indicates variability depending on
the details.


I'm getting quite used to being told how to use English :-)

Something that's inherent is *an* essential attribute. It's not the
*only* attribute. Other attributes in this context include the turntable
and cartridge. I was pointing to something inherent to LP playback (I
don't pretend to know what) that can result in CD-superior sound.

Doubtless Don will correct my English. I'll just ask you to consider my
point.

Nor need it be true that "Nobody know" if you are talking about "can" since
in specific cases the reasons may be known.


Indeed - I don't know that 'nobody knows', I just think they can't prove
it. The specific case being - an LP and CD from the same master. The LP
sounds better to some people. Why?

This, for me, is one of the key problems with the situation we have
had in (UK at least) audio for decades. The magazines tend to publish
subjective views which show no sign of the writers having even the
desire to test or understand what the real reasons might be for what
they talk about. This then is communicated to readers as being, "all
magic and a matter of opinion". As if it were like the weather,
something to observe and comment upon, but not expect to be able to
control or do anything about.


I'd agree - but they do throw in technostuff to support claims.

Sometimes. Alas, this can be technobabble at times, or simply nonsense.
Varies.


I find it difficult to make *any* sense of it. I used to read Noel
Keywood's reviews/technical notes on reviews with some interest, but
they often appeared to contradict the subjective report. Just plain
confusing.

They do often state a control element - whether it's right or wrong I
couldn't say.

Yes, they do often comment that they compared with something else, or had
previously used something else, and had that in mind as a reference. But I
can't recall them routinely giving details of their test protocol and
results so anyone else can assess if what they are doing is sensible and
their conclusions reliable.

The few exceptions being examples like the attempts many years ago to do
systematic and controlled comparisons to resolve the arguments about "do
amps sound different" - which produced results that showed little sign that
the reviewers could actually discriminate as they claim.

And the best we get from the technically inclined on this
NG is that technical specification as a guide to sound quality is simply
a dependent variable. Advice, quite rightly, tends towards 'have a
listen'.

Have you missed my trying to explain that there are comparison methods
which can produce results which others can assess for themselves for
reliability, etc? :-)



No I haven't missed them, and yes you have tried :-)

There's no end of products that vinylise and valvify sound. Explanations
for their existence exist: the 'distortion'; the processing involved in
converting analogue to digital and then back to analogue; the CD
standard cannot capture all the sound, sub-LP standard transfer of
master recordings to CD, and a fifth - I'd bundle perception, the aural
experience (lack of understanding/appreciation), marketing, association
and a number of other intangibles that don't spring to mind.

it is true that many people make many claims. :-)

Some of them will be correct. Others may not. Alas, we often have claims,
but no basis of evidence we can assess. Just take-it-or-leave-it claims by
reviewers who claim to have the ability to discriminate.

I am afraid that I am biassed by my own time in the biz, and by many later
occasions. Too often I found by personal experience that what people
claimed didn't stand up when I tried listening or testing for myself, or
when I was involved in comparisions or tests with others. Thus I have
become rather doubtful of what is published in the UK magazines with no
basis in evidence being given.


We're all biased, and you're right I think to try and carve out a
reliable and replicable method that removes bias. But this is also a
methodological point, and relates to beliefs (biases) that all that
exists can be expressed in a 'scientifically rigorous' way.


IMO we the consumes need to support companies that make an effort to
master their releases with due care be it on CD SACD DVD-A and/or LP.
I would agree. But that process isn't help by blanket and unspecific
praise/complaints on the level of general assertions about the
"inherent" properties of the formats. It can be done by more specific
understanding, based on understanding the engineering of them, and how
specific instances fall short of what is possible.


OK, but I'd prefer to work back from the experience of listening, rather
than forward from the electronic and mechanical components.

I am quite happy to do both in a suitable combination. Indeed, that is the
way I have personally approach this area over the years. The point being
that when these are combined the results may be more reliable and helpful
than when they are not. Certainly that is my experience.


Absolutely, agreed. I do mean the social context (structural,
categorical and personal) of listening though.

Rob

On Sun, 03 Sep 2006 15:10:36 +0100, Rob
wrote:

Alas, the above statement is confused by including both "inherent" and
"can". If something is inherent then it would be inescapable for that
format. Thus it would not be "can" which indicates variability depending on
the details.


I'm getting quite used to being told how to use English :-)

Something that's inherent is *an* essential attribute. It's not the
*only* attribute. Other attributes in this context include the turntable
and cartridge. I was pointing to something inherent to LP playback (I
don't pretend to know what) that can result in CD-superior sound.

Doubtless Don will correct my English. I'll just ask you to consider my
point.


No, I would just suggest you say "I like the sound of vinyl". That way
brooks no argument, and doesn't result in nonsensical terms like
"superior" being bandied around.

Nor need it be true that "Nobody know" if you are talking about "can" since
in specific cases the reasons may be known.


Indeed - I don't know that 'nobody knows', I just think they can't prove
it. The specific case being - an LP and CD from the same master. The LP
sounds better to some people. Why?

Because it sounds different - it has no choice, that is what LPs do.
If it sounds different then of course some people will prefer it. That
is the nature of people.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

"Don Pearce" wrote


No, I would just suggest you say "I like the sound of vinyl". That way
brooks no argument, and doesn't result in nonsensical terms like
"superior" being bandied around.


See below....


Nor need it be true that "Nobody know" if you are talking about "can"
since
in specific cases the reasons may be known.


Indeed - I don't know that 'nobody knows', I just think they can't prove
it. The specific case being - an LP and CD from the same master. The LP
sounds better to some people. Why?

Because it sounds different - it has no choice, that is what LPs do.
If it sounds different then of course some people will prefer it. That
is the nature of people.



People who prefer vinyl (to digital) are hardly likely to do so if they
think it sounds *inferior* - the main cause of CD vs. LP here is that a
small few here want to dictate how vinyilists express themselves and their
preferences. Other than for the specific purposes of *argument* here, I
don't think any vinylist could really be arsed to express a strong view on
CD or its use - many (if not most) have CDs also and will play them from
time to time!

(No, really...!! :-)

On Sun, 3 Sep 2006 16:19:10 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote


No, I would just suggest you say "I like the sound of vinyl". That way
brooks no argument, and doesn't result in nonsensical terms like
"superior" being bandied around.


See below....


Nor need it be true that "Nobody know" if you are talking about "can"
since
in specific cases the reasons may be known.


Indeed - I don't know that 'nobody knows', I just think they can't prove
it. The specific case being - an LP and CD from the same master. The LP
sounds better to some people. Why?

Because it sounds different - it has no choice, that is what LPs do.
If it sounds different then of course some people will prefer it. That
is the nature of people.



People who prefer vinyl (to digital) are hardly likely to do so if they
think it sounds *inferior* - the main cause of CD vs. LP here is that a
small few here want to dictate how vinyilists express themselves and their
preferences. Other than for the specific purposes of *argument* here, I
don't think any vinylist could really be arsed to express a strong view on
CD or its use - many (if not most) have CDs also and will play them from
time to time!

(No, really...!! :-)



And exactly the same applies the other way for we who prefer CD. In
fact I was listening to some vinyl myself earlier - an absolutely
appalling record by some friends of mine from the sixties, a group
called Justine. I'm 100% certain it never made the journey to CD.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

On Sun, 03 Sep 2006 15:26:22 GMT, (Don Pearce)
wrote:

On Sun, 3 Sep 2006 16:19:10 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote


No, I would just suggest you say "I like the sound of vinyl". That way
brooks no argument, and doesn't result in nonsensical terms like
"superior" being bandied around.


See below....


Nor need it be true that "Nobody know" if you are talking about "can"
since
in specific cases the reasons may be known.


Indeed - I don't know that 'nobody knows', I just think they can't prove
it. The specific case being - an LP and CD from the same master. The LP
sounds better to some people. Why?

Because it sounds different - it has no choice, that is what LPs do.
If it sounds different then of course some people will prefer it. That
is the nature of people.



People who prefer vinyl (to digital) are hardly likely to do so if they
think it sounds *inferior* - the main cause of CD vs. LP here is that a
small few here want to dictate how vinyilists express themselves and their
preferences. Other than for the specific purposes of *argument* here, I
don't think any vinylist could really be arsed to express a strong view on
CD or its use - many (if not most) have CDs also and will play them from
time to time!

(No, really...!! :-)



And exactly the same applies the other way for we who prefer CD. In
fact I was listening to some vinyl myself earlier - an absolutely
appalling record by some friends of mine from the sixties, a group
called Justine. I'm 100% certain it never made the journey to CD.

d

Which goes to show what bollix I talk. Just did a rapid search and
found this

http://www.musicstack.com/item/58591064/justine/justine

God that takes me back

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

Don Pearce wrote:
On Sun, 03 Sep 2006 15:10:36 +0100, Rob
wrote:

No, I would just suggest you say "I like the sound of vinyl". That way
brooks no argument, and doesn't result in nonsensical terms like
"superior" being bandied around.

Superior is not a nonsensical term. here is the definition.
Main Entry: 1su·pe·ri·or
Function: adjective
Pronunciation: su-'pir-e-&r
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French superieur, from Latin
superior, comparative of superus upper, from super over, above -- more
at OVER
1 : situated higher up : UPPER
2 : of higher rank, quality, or importance
3 : courageously or serenely indifferent (as to something painful or
disheartening)
4 a : greater in quantity or numbers escaped by superior speed b :
excellent of its kind : BETTER her superior memory
5 : being a superscript
6 a of an animal structure : situated above or anterior or dorsal to
another and especially a corresponding part a superior artery b of a
plant structure : situated above or near the top of another part: as
(1) of a calyx : attached to and apparently arising from the ovary (2)
of an ovary : free from the calyx or other floral envelope
7 : more comprehensive a genus is superior to a species
8 : affecting or assuming an air of superiority :

So, in cases where all else is equal, if vinyl is prefered to CD
playback vinyl is superior to CD for that person. in any case where a
recording artist compares his or her work on both formats and claims
that the vinyl does a better job of expressing their intentions as
artists it is fair to say the vinyl is the supeior version.




Indeed - I don't know that 'nobody knows', I just think they can't prove
it. The specific case being - an LP and CD from the same master. The LP
sounds better to some people. Why?

Because it sounds different - it has no choice, that is what LPs do.
If it sounds different then of course some people will prefer it. That
is the nature of people.


And yet many a recording and mastering engineer have claimed to prefer
the vinyl versions of their work because they sounded more like the
original master tape or in some cases more like the original live
performance. So to claim that some people like vinyl because it sounds
"different" is a pretty wild asertion. Care to support it with some
proof?


Scott

On 3 Sep 2006 09:06:59 -0700, wrote:


Don Pearce wrote:
On Sun, 03 Sep 2006 15:10:36 +0100, Rob
wrote:

No, I would just suggest you say "I like the sound of vinyl". That way
brooks no argument, and doesn't result in nonsensical terms like
"superior" being bandied around.

Superior is not a nonsensical term. here is the definition.
Main Entry: 1su·pe·ri·or
Function: adjective
Pronunciation: su-'pir-e-&r
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French superieur, from Latin
superior, comparative of superus upper, from super over, above -- more
at OVER
1 : situated higher up : UPPER
2 : of higher rank, quality, or importance
3 : courageously or serenely indifferent (as to something painful or
disheartening)
4 a : greater in quantity or numbers escaped by superior speed b :
excellent of its kind : BETTER her superior memory
5 : being a superscript
6 a of an animal structure : situated above or anterior or dorsal to
another and especially a corresponding part a superior artery b of a
plant structure : situated above or near the top of another part: as
(1) of a calyx : attached to and apparently arising from the ovary (2)
of an ovary : free from the calyx or other floral envelope
7 : more comprehensive a genus is superior to a species
8 : affecting or assuming an air of superiority :

So, in cases where all else is equal, if vinyl is prefered to CD
playback vinyl is superior to CD for that person. in any case where a
recording artist compares his or her work on both formats and claims
that the vinyl does a better job of expressing their intentions as
artists it is fair to say the vinyl is the supeior version.


Stop talking, Scott. Please, just stop now. It really, really hurts.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

Don Pearce wrote:
On 3 Sep 2006 09:06:59 -0700, wrote:


Don Pearce wrote:
On Sun, 03 Sep 2006 15:10:36 +0100, Rob
wrote:

No, I would just suggest you say "I like the sound of vinyl". That way
brooks no argument, and doesn't result in nonsensical terms like
"superior" being bandied around.

Superior is not a nonsensical term. here is the definition.
Main Entry: 1su·pe·ri·or
Function: adjective
Pronunciation: su-'pir-e-&r
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French superieur, from Latin
superior, comparative of superus upper, from super over, above -- more
at OVER
1 : situated higher up : UPPER
2 : of higher rank, quality, or importance
3 : courageously or serenely indifferent (as to something painful or
disheartening)
4 a : greater in quantity or numbers escaped by superior speed b :
excellent of its kind : BETTER her superior memory
5 : being a superscript
6 a of an animal structure : situated above or anterior or dorsal to
another and especially a corresponding part a superior artery b of a
plant structure : situated above or near the top of another part: as
(1) of a calyx : attached to and apparently arising from the ovary (2)
of an ovary : free from the calyx or other floral envelope
7 : more comprehensive a genus is superior to a species
8 : affecting or assuming an air of superiority :

So, in cases where all else is equal, if vinyl is prefered to CD
playback vinyl is superior to CD for that person. in any case where a
recording artist compares his or her work on both formats and claims
that the vinyl does a better job of expressing their intentions as
artists it is fair to say the vinyl is the supeior version.


Stop talking, Scott. Please, just stop now. It really, really hurts.


Yes, the truth often does hurt.


Scott