In article ,
Paul wrote:
Ok. Then I guess I will have to talk about it.
To me, the 'vinyl' issue is simple.
We could perform a little experiment.
Here we go...
Take a sound source that can be replicated. Let's use a digital synth
together with a sequencer.

[snip]

There's an easier way.

Take your 'favourite' CD. Copy it to CD. If you do this properly there
will be no difference.
Now copy it to LP. Expensive yes, but I've done it. *Anyone* will hear the
difference between the original CD and LP copy.

This proves that LP isn't a clone of any master - and that's before the
mastering boys have got at it. And can't possibly enhance the original -
regardless of what the disciples say. It is adding distortion - in the
main.

--
*I wonder how much deeper the ocean would be without sponges*

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

"Paul" wrote in message
...
Ok. Then I guess I will have to talk about it.


Well, there's a surprise...!! ;-)


To me, the 'vinyl' issue is simple.


Oh Gawd....


We could perform a little experiment.
Here we go...
Take a sound source that can be replicated. Let's use a digital synth
together with a sequencer.
The use of a digital synth rather than an analogue one is simply because
an analogue synth may well not sound the same twice due to temperature and
other variations.
Hopefully, while off topic, most will understand what a sequencer does.
Now play some chords or what ever and record the performance (not the
audio) in the sequencer.
Plug the synth directly into the best cutter available and produce a
master.
Use the best virgin vinyl and create a disc.
Now plug the synth directly into a PC or whatever and blah blah create an
audio CD.
Pick a turntable/arm/cart combination of your choice and compare the
result with the synth sequence.
Do the same with the CD and synth sequence.
Game over, job done, end of story.
Elementary(?) physics will enlighten as to why this should be.
When the master was cut, information was lost due to the fact that it is
impossible to move mass (however small) from rest instantly. Inertia -
bang goes transient response. Try and get moving mass to change direction
instantly - bugger, more information lost.
It gets worse (well you knew that). Now we will try and get another body
to 'read' the information from the groove. Buzzzzz, repartition! I'm not
even considering the 'damage' caused to the signal by the unstable,
pliable disc. Need I say more? Yes, even more data lost. Mind you, you do
get some addition data - hiss, clicks and pops!
Do the same test with the CD.
Yes, I am well aware that light has mass but please.... Just don't go
there!
Which, in all honesty, will sound closest to the original?
I rest my case.



Streuth.....

(??!!??)



Paul.

PS. I've just realised that I am guilty of hijacking the op - face goes
red.



Don't worry about it - it was only Tony and he only really lights up for
radio broadcast stuff.....

Anyway, welcome to UKRA - you're posting ******** and bashing vinyl, you'll
fit in nicely!!

(And I see you've picked up a little friend already..... :-)

On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 00:49:58 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:


In article ,
Paul wrote:
Ok. Then I guess I will have to talk about it.
To me, the 'vinyl' issue is simple.
We could perform a little experiment.
Here we go...
Take a sound source that can be replicated. Let's use a digital synth
together with a sequencer.

[snip]

There's an easier way.

Take your 'favourite' CD. Copy it to CD. If you do this properly there
will be no difference.
Now copy it to LP. Expensive yes, but I've done it. *Anyone* will hear the
difference between the original CD and LP copy.

This proves that LP isn't a clone of any master - and that's before the
mastering boys have got at it. And can't possibly enhance the original -
regardless of what the disciples say. It is adding distortion - in the
main.

A better test would be to use a higher quality recording and master it
to both LP and CD and compare.

In article , Paul
wrote:

[snip]

Elementary(?) physics will enlighten as to why this should be. When the
master was cut, information was lost due to the fact that it is
impossible to move mass (however small) from rest instantly. Inertia -
bang goes transient response. Try and get moving mass to change
direction instantly - bugger, more information lost. It gets worse (well
you knew that). Now we will try and get another body to 'read' the
information from the groove. Buzzzzz, repartition! I'm not even
considering the 'damage' caused to the signal by the unstable, pliable
disc. Need I say more?

FWIW The record companies (and cartridge replay companines) themselves did
a series of experiments, measurements, etc, on these things many years ago.
I used them as sources for an article on the topic. If you visit my 'Audio
Misc' site and look at the pages called "Good Resolutions" the second page
gives the references and explains the consequences.

The record companies were in an excellent position to do this as they could
compare the various stages though the process, so could establish how much
deterioration occured when a stamper was made, etc.

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

In article ,
AZ Nomad wrote:
Take your 'favourite' CD. Copy it to CD. If you do this properly there
will be no difference. Now copy it to LP. Expensive yes, but I've done
it. *Anyone* will hear the difference between the original CD and LP
copy.

This proves that LP isn't a clone of any master - and that's before the
mastering boys have got at it. And can't possibly enhance the original -
regardless of what the disciples say. It is adding distortion - in the
main.

A better test would be to use a higher quality recording and master it
to both LP and CD and compare.

Absolutely not. *Mastering* to both CD and LP invariably involves changing
the master. Copy would be ok, but then a straight copy to CD will to all
intents and purposes sound the same as the master.

Of course for my test you'd need to choose the material carefully, as not
everything can be directly copied to LP. Another of its disadvantages. ;-)

--
*The problem with the gene pool is that there is no lifeguard *

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

"AZ Nomad" wrote in message
...

snip (am I getting the hang of this )


A better test would be to use a higher quality recording and master it
to both LP and CD and compare.


I believe my little experiment describes the ultimate test!! There is no
higher quality source than that which I have described.
What I have is effectively a live performance that can be replicated time
and time again. Your suggestion will certainly highlight the inadequacies of
vinyl but it cannot test for High Fidelity.

Perhaps I should not have brought vinyl into the test in the first place. My
quest is the pursuit of High Fidelity.
I have clearly inadvertently fuelled the vinyl bashers/CD lovers pointless
debate. Vinyl is more than capable of clubbing itself to death and has been
doing so since its creation.

If people enjoy what they listen to then they've cracked it! That's
marvellous. No really, I'm not taking the mick. Perhaps, if I had part of my
brain removed I could join the club and be content. However, while I get
immense pleasure from listening to music (as opposed to my system), I know
that the job can be done better.

Those who's enjoyment is derived from listening to their systems are on a
different quest. Good luck to them. We simply have different agendas. My
goal is not for those who revel in sound which is 'smooth', 'warm', 'laid
back', 'up front' or 'beguiling etc. To me, they are simply describing a
coloured, inaccurate sound which has no place in my living room. What they
are not doing is describing High Fidelity. They have no interest in High
Fidelity and I have no problem with that.

Paul

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Paul wrote:
Ok. Then I guess I will have to talk about it.
To me, the 'vinyl' issue is simple.
We could perform a little experiment.
Here we go...
Take a sound source that can be replicated. Let's use a digital synth
together with a sequencer.

[snip]

There's an easier way.

Take your 'favourite' CD. Copy it to CD. If you do this properly there
will be no difference.

Well, not strictly true. As there is no Cyclic Redundancy Check incorporated
in audio CDs, there is always the possibility of rare, infrequent errors.
Another experiment to prove the point - take a CD (preferably not your
favourite) and drill a *small* hole in it. Now play it. It should work just
fine, you would not hear any problem despite obvious errors. I suspect the
designers reasoning behind this is that, if CRC was employed, a great many
CDs would be unusable with the slightest scratch. CDs need to be treated
with a great deal of respect. Keep them clean and scratch/mark free and you
will have very few, if any, errors.

Now copy it to LP. Expensive yes, but I've done it. *Anyone* will hear the
difference between the original CD and LP copy.

This proves that LP isn't a clone of any master - and that's before the
mastering boys have got at it. And can't possibly enhance the original -
regardless of what the disciples say. It is adding distortion - in the
main.


No need to do this. We know it is not a clone or anywhere close. It has been
butchered by the RIAA filter in an attempt to make up for the inability of a
mechanical system.

Paul

Paul wrote:

Well, not strictly true. As there is no Cyclic Redundancy Check incorporated
in audio CDs, there is always the possibility of rare, infrequent errors.
Another experiment to prove the point - take a CD (preferably not your
favourite) and drill a *small* hole in it. Now play it. It should work just
fine, you would not hear any problem despite obvious errors. I suspect the
designers reasoning behind this is that, if CRC was employed, a great many
CDs would be unusable with the slightest scratch. CDs need to be treated
with a great deal of respect. Keep them clean and scratch/mark free and you
will have very few, if any, errors.

So you don't understand CIRC.

No need to do this. We know it is not a clone or anywhere close. It has been
butchered by the RIAA filter in an attempt to make up for the inability of a
mechanical system.

The RIAA filter is reversible, as is done in any phono preamp,
and is therefore not butchery. What is your point?

--
Eiron

No good deed ever goes unpunished.

"Eiron" wrote in message
...
Paul wrote:

Well, not strictly true. As there is no Cyclic Redundancy Check
incorporated in audio CDs, there is always the possibility of rare,
infrequent errors. Another experiment to prove the point - take a CD
(preferably not your favourite) and drill a *small* hole in it. Now play
it. It should work just fine, you would not hear any problem despite
obvious errors. I suspect the designers reasoning behind this is that, if
CRC was employed, a great many CDs would be unusable with the slightest
scratch. CDs need to be treated with a great deal of respect. Keep them
clean and scratch/mark free and you will have very few, if any, errors.

So you don't understand CIRC.

Correct. That may be why I have not mentioned it!!!
I am talking about CRC - Cyclic Redundancy Check.
CRC is employed on data files. It is a check sum if you like. It ensures
that data retrieved from CDs or harddisks is 100% accurate. If a sector read
produces an incorrect CRC then it is read again. Multiple attempts will be
made before the source is considered unreadable. This is *not* employed on
audio CDs - the data is simply streamed - good or bad.
Try the 'hole' experiment and it should become clear to you. You may also
like to try it on a data CD to illustrate the point - ruined disc.


No need to do this. We know it is not a clone or anywhere close. It has
been butchered by the RIAA filter in an attempt to make up for the
inability of a mechanical system.

The RIAA filter is reversible, as is done in any phono preamp,
and is therefore not butchery. What is your point?

If it isn't broken, why fix it? My point, hopefully, is crystal.

Look, if you enjoy the product that vinyl delivers then fine. How many times
do I have to say it? My 'problem' is that I will only be satisfied when I
get the highest fidelity that technology will allow. It would be great and I
would be 100% in your camp if vinyl and a mechanical retrieval system
achieved that. It doesn't, it can't and it never could. That should be
obvious to all. However, if vinyl gives you what you are looking for then
brilliant. Honestly, fill your boots! I would not try and turn you from it.
However, please don't tell me that it will give me what I am looking for. I
want High Fidelity which cannot be attained through mechanical means.

Paul

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

[snip]

Elementary(?) physics will enlighten as to why this should be. When the
master was cut, information was lost due to the fact that it is
impossible to move mass (however small) from rest instantly. Inertia -
bang goes transient response. Try and get moving mass to change
direction instantly - bugger, more information lost. It gets worse (well
you knew that). Now we will try and get another body to 'read' the
information from the groove. Buzzzzz, repartition! I'm not even
considering the 'damage' caused to the signal by the unstable, pliable
disc. Need I say more?

FWIW The record companies (and cartridge replay companines) themselves did
a series of experiments, measurements, etc, on these things many years
ago.
I used them as sources for an article on the topic. If you visit my 'Audio
Misc' site and look at the pages called "Good Resolutions" the second page
gives the references and explains the consequences.

I haven't read your article but, if I read your post correctly, there are
consequences.


The record companies were in an excellent position to do this as they
could
compare the various stages though the process, so could establish how much
deterioration occured when a stamper was made, etc.

Exactly - 'how much deterioration', not whether there is *any*
deterioration.
The process is flawed. Why is it that it appears to 'hurt' people to admit
it?
Why is there a problem accepting a less flawed alternative to vynil?
I must conclude that High Fidelity is not the goal of many.
If people said 'I know vinyl is not High Fidelity but I prefer it' then I
could understand.

Paul


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