It still makes for an interesting discussion, however, as many appeared to
have forgotten just how 'vinyl' actually works.
----------------------------------------------------

The problem is nobody here will discuss it! I do not believe they are (all)
stupid so I can only assume that they are in denial else why would they
attempt to defend the indefensible? However, I must admit that there was no
defence offered to the Physics issue. I wonder why! Would it lessen the
shock if CDs were made from clear vinyl do you think?

----------------------------------------------------

To e-mail, change noise into sound.

----------------------------------------------------

I guess you don't get many e-mails from this group.

Paul

In article ,
Paul wrote:
It still makes for an interesting discussion, however, as many
appeared to have forgotten just how 'vinyl' actually works.
----------------------------------------------------

The problem is nobody here will discuss it! I do not believe they are
(all) stupid so I can only assume that they are in denial else why
would they attempt to defend the indefensible? However, I must admit
that there was no defence offered to the Physics issue. I wonder why!
Would it lessen the shock if CDs were made from clear vinyl do you
think?

I really don't know why apparently intelligent people give all sorts of
non sequitur answers to my questions about why they actually think vinyl
is ever better. To say the odd example sounds better than a badly mastered
CD from the same source is simply neither here nor there.

Iain, of course, has an axe to grind since he makes a living out of
supplying/using old technology for those who want it, and good luck to
him, but why the others like a recorded medium that alters and degrades
the original master when better alternatives exist I'll never know.

Just as a matter of opinion, I've always preferred the distortions that
analogue tape adds to a signal than that of records. Perhaps I'm unduly
sensitive to second harmonic distortion.

A good test for vinyl is male speech. I've never heard any even remotely
natural from one. Yet equipment to record and reproduce convincing speech
from say behind a acoustically transparent screen existed some 50 years
ago...

--
*I don't have a license to kill, but I do have a learner's permit.

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

In article , Paul

wrote:
It still makes for an interesting discussion, however, as many
appeared to have forgotten just how 'vinyl' actually works.
----------------------------------------------------

The problem is nobody here will discuss it! I do not believe they are
(all) stupid so I can only assume that they are in denial else why
would they attempt to defend the indefensible? However, I must admit
that there was no defence offered to the Physics issue. I wonder why!

I can't speak for others, but if you are referring to your statements
regarding RIAA correction and 'physics' I didn't comment in detail as it
seemed unnecessary. However I can make the following comments if they will
help you... :-)

The basic 'physics' that led to the RIAA equalisation (and various other
equalisation curves for analog discs that became obsolete once RIAA became
established) was:

1) That by definition, the signal level from a disc is proportional to the
transverse *velocity* of the stylus.

2) That (1) then means that surface roughness produces a background noise
level which rises with frequency.

3) That the accellerations (and hence forces) required also rise with
frequency for a given stylus velocity.

4) That the amplitude of modulation increases when we *reduce* the signal
frequency for a given stylus velocity.

The RIAA curve pre-whitens the recorded signal so as to get the typical
signal spectrum to be a closer match to the mechanical noise spectrum. This
is common engineering practice when the noise in the channel does not have
a uniform power spectral density. Reason being that it tends to optimise
the available dynamic range.

The curve also has the effect of reducing the required velocities and hence
amplitudes at low frequencies. This avoids the problem of the groove
transverse modulation becoming too large and either leading to mistracking,
or having a record which can only play for a short period. It also helps to
keep down the geometric distortions at LF.

The drawback is that the result is also to enhance any LF noise from
'rumble', and lowers the peak HF levels which can be used before
mistracking.

Personally I would not have said any of the above means the system is
'broken'. Just that as with any real engineered system, it has
imperfections and limitations that stem from its design. Any analog system
has equivalent limitations. But digital systems also have limitations.
Simply the price of any real system being able to exist in our universe.
:-)

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

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Paul wrote:
It still makes for an interesting discussion, however, as many
appeared to have forgotten just how 'vinyl' actually works.
----------------------------------------------------

The problem is nobody here will discuss it! I do not believe they are
(all) stupid so I can only assume that they are in denial else why
would they attempt to defend the indefensible? However, I must admit
that there was no defence offered to the Physics issue. I wonder why!
Would it lessen the shock if CDs were made from clear vinyl do you
think?

I really don't know why apparently intelligent people give all sorts of
non sequitur answers to my questions about why they actually think vinyl
is ever better. To say the odd example sounds better than a badly mastered
CD from the same source is simply neither here nor there.


I suspect it could be to do with five things: 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 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.

'Why' is important to some, but for many the notion that it just sounds
preferable is sufficient.

Iain, of course, has an axe to grind since he makes a living out of
supplying/using old technology for those who want it, and good luck to
him, but why the others like a recorded medium that alters and degrades
the original master when better alternatives exist I'll never know.

Just as a matter of opinion, I've always preferred the distortions that
analogue tape adds to a signal than that of records. Perhaps I'm unduly
sensitive to second harmonic distortion.

A good test for vinyl is male speech. I've never heard any even remotely
natural from one. Yet equipment to record and reproduce convincing speech
from say behind a acoustically transparent screen existed some 50 years
ago...


Can't say I've noticed any particular vinyl limitation in this regard.

Rob

On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 09:04:36 +0100, Rob
wrote:

The problem is nobody here will discuss it! I do not believe they are
(all) stupid so I can only assume that they are in denial else why
would they attempt to defend the indefensible? However, I must admit
that there was no defence offered to the Physics issue. I wonder why!
Would it lessen the shock if CDs were made from clear vinyl do you
think?

I really don't know why apparently intelligent people give all sorts of
non sequitur answers to my questions about why they actually think vinyl
is ever better. To say the odd example sounds better than a badly mastered
CD from the same source is simply neither here nor there.


I suspect it could be to do with five things: 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 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.

Interesting list, but could you expand and explain?

1. The distortion. What distortion are you referring to here?

2. A/D and D/A processing. What aspects of this processing do you have
in mind?

3. CD unable to capture all the sound. What do you believe it doesn't
capture?

4. Sub-LP standard transfer to CD. What would be the reason for the
transfer to be sub-LP standard?

5. Aural experience. Do you mean the psychological effect of CD vs.
vinyl perception, irrespective of the actual sound?

d

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

I really don't know why apparently intelligent people give all sorts of
non sequitur answers to my questions about why they actually think vinyl
is ever better. To say the odd example sounds better than a badly mastered
CD from the same source is simply neither here nor there.


-------------------------------------------------------------------
Even the non sequitur answers have dried up! I suspect that is because, when
confronted with irrefutable evidence, they can at least see the futility of
such responses.
I suspect that their preference is based on how their ears and brain
*perceives* the sonic information. Nothing wrong with that as I hope I've
made clear elsewhere. What I find amazing is the total unwillingness to
acknowledge fact and admit that their preference is not, and has nothing to
do with, High Fidelity. In itself, who cares whether they admit it or not.
What I do object to however, is their eagerness to tell less well informed
enquirers that it is Hi-Fi, or at least that it is the better of the bunch,
when they (at least the more intelligent) know that it is demonstrably not
the case. Why would anyone want to do that? Once confronted with fact they
retreat, brush it under the carpet, and wait for the dust to settle. As soon
as the coast is clear, they lay in ambush awaiting the arrival of the next
gullible novice and the cycle is repeated.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Iain, of course, has an axe to grind since he makes a living out of
supplying/using old technology for those who want it, and good luck to
him, but why the others like a recorded medium that alters and degrades
the original master when better alternatives exist I'll never know.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
(If you are reading this Iain, apologies for misspelling your name earlier.)
Well I guess from a business point of view it makes perfect sense and, like
you, I would say good luck to him.
I can only imagine that this too comes down to perception taking preference
over accuracy and purity - High Fidelity!
If that is what is asked for then give it to them by the shed load. That is
only right and proper. It would also be right and proper to resist the
temptation to make unfounded claims for it. That would be deception plain
and simple.
-------------------------------------------------------------------


Just as a matter of opinion, I've always preferred the distortions that
analogue tape adds to a signal than that of records. Perhaps I'm unduly
sensitive to second harmonic distortion.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
That is how it should be. No outrageous claims. You know what you prefer and
you go for it regardless of the failings and, refreshingly, with a
willingness to acknowledge them.

Paul.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

In article ,
Rob wrote:
I suspect it could be to do with five things: the 'distortion', the
processing involved in converting analogue to digital and then back to
analogue, the CD standard cannot capture all the sound,

In what way? The algorithm used is designed to cover the audio band to a
higher standard than any previous analogue playback system, and to be
transparent to the ear.

sub-LP standard transfer 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.

I think it dates back to when manufacturers with an axe to grind - like
say making turntables - decided to rubbish the principle. Which was taken
up with great gusto by the Hi-Fi press - after all it fills the pages. And
of course many believe what they read. (look at the sales of fancy cables
where no one has ever been able to hear the difference in scientifically
conducted tests) Then passed into folklore.

--
*Why do we say something is out of whack? What is a whack?

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

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,

Paul wrote:
I did??? I've read the op and my reply and cannot find 'vinyl' anywhere.
Perhaps my night was later than I thought! I don't hate that word (I
have some) but it is simply not Hi-Fi. I know it and I believe you know
it too.

There is a dedicated vinyl group uk.rec.audio.vinyl set up by some of
those here. But it's virtually moribund apart from a few spams and ads.
There's no point in trying to take the Gospel to the converted. And it
seems the converted don't want to talk about it.

Speaks to the intellectual powers of the faithful vinyl bigots.

"AZ Nomad" wrote in message
...
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.

Agreed.

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.

That's been done - same results.

IOW take a technically higher quality master recording, say a 24/96 or
24/192 made under the best possible conditions.

Then re-record that master recording as a CD.

Here, listen to the comparison for yourself if you have a 24/96 capable
audio interface:

http://www.pcabx.com/technical/sample_rates/

Then compare the CD to the origional master.

The results are that you can't hear the difference between the two.

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
...

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...

Absolutely not. *Mastering* to both CD and LP invariably involves
changing
the master.

Absolutely true.

Sorry Dave, but that is incorrect. Do you have practical experience in
either disc cutting or CD mastering?

Sure and as usual Iaan, you're just plain wrong.

This is pretty amazing Iain, because you no doubt have seen a lot of both CD
mastering and LP mastering done, live and up front and personal. You've had
the opportunity to discuss the matter with skilled practitioners of both
arts. And, you reached the wrong conclusion.