Independent View Of LP versus CD
 

In article ,
Keith G wrote:
I perhaps do not agree with everything I've read, but (as ukra's leading
'vinyl bigot') I would just like to say how refreshing it is to see an
intelligent rationale like this one - the digital bigots in ukra can't
do anything like it without getting all twisted out of shape!!

Really? Calling people c**nts like you do?

--
*Many hamsters only blink one eye at a time *

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

Independent View Of LP versus CD
 

"Nick Gorham" wrote ...
Richard Crowley wrote:
Vinyl *adds* realism to anything. Magic it
may be but how and why they don't care.


Nominated for r.a.t ridiculous statement of the year.

"Adds realism"? Do they read this stuff before posting it?
Or are they using a different definintion of "real" than the
rest of us?

No, but you do seem to be using a different method of clipping a post to
make the point you want, and attempting to acredit the author of a
statement to the wrong group in this case.

Huh? If you look closely, you will see that I "accredited" it
to NO specific author. I neither know nor care who said it.

I'm questioning the concept of "adding realism" quite apart from
whether this applies to vinyl or digital, or even to audio as such.

Independent View Of LP versus CD
 

"Dave Platt" wrote in message

In article ,
Richard Crowley wrote:

Vinyl *adds* realism to anything. Magic it
may be but how and why they don't care.

Nominated for r.a.t ridiculous statement of the year.

"Adds realism"? Do they read this stuff before posting
it? Or are they using a different definintion of "real"
than the rest of us?

I think that a valid distinction can be made between
"accuracy" (a term I use here to denote an objective
relationship between source and playback) and "realism"
(which term I use to indicate a _subjective_ perception).

It's well known, for example, that adding some amount of
delayed, out-of-phase signal components to a piece of
music can create a sense of "air" or "ambience" that
makes the playback seem more like listening to the music
as it might be when played in a live venue.

Yes, the well-known phasiness, which is actually not usually characteristic
of a high quality live venue such as a symphony hall.

Multi-channel
playback systems such as the venerable Dynaquad, or the
various digital-delay ambience-synthesis systems such as
Yamaha and a/d/s have made, have been used to good
advantage for this for decades.

Again, many listeners observe that many recordings give strong directional
cues that actually don't exist in a quality live venue.

In particular, multi-miked studio recordings are often
largely or completely free of realistic performance-room
ambience, and the injection of some (artificial) delayed
and phase-incoherent components into the music can "open
up" such recordings and make them sound more pleasant to
many listeners.

Counterpoint - multi-miced recordings can sound "phasey" due to leakage
between the mics, while coincident-mic minimla-miced recordings tend to
create sound fields that implement "intensity stereo" that have vastly
reduced phase differences between the channels.




Such modification of the signal is artifical. The
resulting signal is less accurate (in the objective
sense). It may, on the other hand, be more "realistic",
in the sense that the music sounds more like it might if
the musicians were actually present in the listening
room, performing the music in a real live venue.

I believe that a very similar phenomenon can and does
occur with LP playback. There are a couple of physical
mechanisms which can cause an LP playback to include
delayed, non-phase-coherent copies of the music signal
which were not present in the original recording (master
tape, direct-to-disk signal, or whatever). Acoustic
feedback to the LP, from the music playing from the
speakers, is one such... this will create delayed sound
on the order of tens of milliseconds. Direct "ringing"
of sound impulses in the vinyl LP itself is another...
sound waves radiate outwards in the platter from the
point of contact of the stylus (action/reaction) and ring
around the platter in various ways.

It's probably not a coincidence that those turntables
which had/have a reputation for "extracting" the most
"air" and "ambience" from an LP recording, are those
which tended to use hard mats, or discrete multi-point
support systems for the LP itself (and thus have a
minimal amount of physical damping of the platter). The
Linn turntable was perhaps the exemplar of this class.
Turntables which use soft, sticky, well-damped platter
mats (e.g. the original Oracle) had a reputation for
sounding more "dry".

These delayed-signal artifacts of the LP playback process
(created through purely mechanical mechanisms rather than
through digital delay) are, once again, inaccuracies
almost by definition. However, I believe that they can
make many recordings sound more subjectively pleasant and
"realistic" than otherwise.

Independent View Of LP versus CD
 

Dave Platt wrote:

I think that a valid distinction can be made between "accuracy" (a
term I use here to denote an objective relationship between source and
playback) and "realism" (which term I use to indicate a _subjective_
perception).

It's well known, for example, that adding some amount of delayed,
out-of-phase signal components to a piece of music can create a sense
of "air" or "ambience" that makes the playback seem more like
listening to the music as it might be when played in a live venue.
Multi-channel playback systems such as the venerable Dynaquad, or the
various digital-delay ambience-synthesis systems such as Yamaha and
a/d/s have made, have been used to good advantage for this for decades.
Although such systems tend to work best with additional loudspeakers,
they can have a subjective benefit even when used with a stereo
playback system.

In particular, multi-miked studio recordings are often largely or
completely free of realistic performance-room ambience, and the
injection of some (artificial) delayed and phase-incoherent components
into the music can "open up" such recordings and make them sound more
pleasant to many listeners.

Such modification of the signal is artifical. The resulting signal is
less accurate (in the objective sense). It may, on the other hand, be
more "realistic", in the sense that the music sounds more like it
might if the musicians were actually present in the listening room,
performing the music in a real live venue.

I believe that a very similar phenomenon can and does occur with LP
playback. There are a couple of physical mechanisms which can cause
an LP playback to include delayed, non-phase-coherent copies of the
music signal which were not present in the original recording (master
tape, direct-to-disk signal, or whatever). Acoustic feedback to the
LP, from the music playing from the speakers, is one such... this will
create delayed sound on the order of tens of milliseconds. Direct
"ringing" of sound impulses in the vinyl LP itself is another...
sound waves radiate outwards in the platter from the point of contact
of the stylus (action/reaction) and ring around the platter in various
ways.

It's probably not a coincidence that those turntables which had/have a
reputation for "extracting" the most "air" and "ambience" from an LP
recording, are those which tended to use hard mats, or discrete
multi-point support systems for the LP itself (and thus have a minimal
amount of physical damping of the platter). The Linn turntable was
perhaps the exemplar of this class. Turntables which use soft,
sticky, well-damped platter mats (e.g. the original Oracle) had a
reputation for sounding more "dry".

These delayed-signal artifacts of the LP playback process (created
through purely mechanical mechanisms rather than through digital
delay) are, once again, inaccuracies almost by definition. However, I
believe that they can make many recordings sound more subjectively
pleasant and "realistic" than otherwise.

To the extent that this is correct, the technically preferable way to
induce this effect is to start with the cleanest, most accurate
recording possible and then use digital signal processing to introduce
phase distortion at the user's discretion. This allows you to adjust
the effect to the recording, rather than accepting the fixed distortion
of a particular vinyl rig.

bob

Independent View Of LP versus CD
 

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...
A guy I work with used to work at a CD plant and from what he understands
from working there, the type of media used to deliver the master to the CD
plant could make some difference. If the media was digital, then the CD's
pressed would be exact digital copies, but if the media was analog, that
meant that what the plant got was going to be an "AAD" CD with the
additional possibility that the CD plant's analog to digital conversion
might not be as good as what could be done by a recording/mixing studio.

In fact many CD plants would not touch an analog tape these days. Any who do
would probably perform as good a job as the tape allows for. The only
difference being the quality of the tape machine.


Once the CD's were cut, they'd sample a few and play them in both a "low
end" and a "high end" CD player. The high end CD player would actually
report error detection/correction information and a certain amount of
errors
were allowed in the final product, but I think they only allowed errors
which were able to be corrected by the CD player.

Unfortunately they even ADD C1 errors these days and call it copy
protection!

MrT.

Independent View Of LP versus CD
 

"Richard Crowley" wrote in message
...
Vinyl *adds* realism to anything. Magic it
may be but how and why they don't care.

Nominated for r.a.t ridiculous statement of the year.

"Adds realism"? Do they read this stuff before posting it?
Or are they using a different definintion of "real" than the
rest of us?

That was established long ago. They simply make up the definitions to suit
their argument.

But he did give a good explanation of their thinking, the stylus is a
"magic" crystal :-)

MrT.

Independent View Of LP versus CD
 

Richard Crowley wrote:
"Nick Gorham" wrote ...

Richard Crowley wrote:

Vinyl *adds* realism to anything. Magic it
may be but how and why they don't care.


Nominated for r.a.t ridiculous statement of the year.

"Adds realism"? Do they read this stuff before posting it?
Or are they using a different definintion of "real" than the
rest of us?

No, but you do seem to be using a different method of clipping a post to
make the point you want, and attempting to acredit the author of a
statement to the wrong group in this case.


Huh? If you look closely, you will see that I "accredited" it
to NO specific author. I neither know nor care who said it.

I'm questioning the concept of "adding realism" quite apart from
whether this applies to vinyl or digital, or even to audio as such.



I did look closely, I see two "they"'s and a "us". To me that involves
at least two groups, and you are placing yourself in the not "them" one.

--
Nick

Independent View Of LP versus CD
 

In article , Keith G
wrote:

"Dave Platt" wrote in message
[snip]


It's probably not a coincidence that those turntables which had/have a
reputation for "extracting" the most "air" and "ambience" from an LP
recording, are those which tended to use hard mats, or discrete
multi-point support systems for the LP itself (and thus have a minimal
amount of physical damping of the platter). The Linn turntable was
perhaps the exemplar of this class. Turntables which use soft,
sticky, well-damped platter mats (e.g. the original Oracle) had a
reputation for sounding more "dry".

These delayed-signal artifacts of the LP playback process (created
through purely mechanical mechanisms rather than through digital
delay) are, once again, inaccuracies almost by definition. However, I
believe that they can make many recordings sound more subjectively
pleasant and "realistic" than otherwise.



This has leaked into ukra from the tech group, I presume?

I perhaps do not agree with everything I've read, but (as ukra's leading
'vinyl bigot') I would just like to say how refreshing it is to see an
intelligent rationale like this one - the digital bigots in ukra can't
do anything like it without getting all twisted out of shape!!

If you think the above is 'new', then you may find

http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioM.../feedback.html

interesting. :-)

The above page was put onto the web in Jan 2003 and summarises work by
Noel Keywood and others back in the late 1970's and early 1980's.

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

Independent View Of LP versus CD
 

Arny Krueger wrote:
Author's profile:

David Satz. B. Mus. degree, 1973, New England Conservatory (Boston);
teaching assistant to Rudolf Kolisch. Played in orchestras and chamber music
groups; recorded zillions of concerts and recitals. Moved to New York in
1981. Recording engineer, mainly remastering Red Seal LP recordings for CD,
at RCA Studios; Grammy award for "Best Historical Album", 1995. Programmer
and instructor of Windows programming (C, C++, C#). Translator (German to
English) and editorial nit-picker of technical and sales literature for
Schoeps GmbH.


I'm not sure if this is an independent view - seems to me the author has
a number of vested interests.

Comment:

David Satz" wrote in message
ups.com
"

"
Chris Hornbeck wrote:
"

"
Within the last few years [ ... ] I've found that I can
make a transfer from vinyl to CDR that I can't really
tell from the original, other than the cleaning rituals
[ ... ]


I'd go along with that to a point - LP-CD provides a mighty fine
rendition. LP-CD sounds particularly marked in compilations, and really
makes the case for LP IMO. I do find that the CD copy gives a flatter
sound stage.
"

"
Chris, I just would like to say that you've come up with
the most (perhaps only) meaningful, realistic, practical
comparison method between LP and CD that I've ever heard
of.


Um - listening to the results is a good idea?! Well, obviously :-)
"

"
Back in the 1980s when people used to buy the LP and the
CD of the same album, play them both and compare the
results, they weren't really comparing the two media.
Instead, they were comparing the (generally quite
separate) mastering decisions--EQ, limiting, etc.--behind
the two products, plus the particular characteristics of
their LP and CD playback equipment.


OK, yes.
"

"
Of course LP playback equipment varies far more in its
audible sound quality than CD playback equipment does.
But your method eliminates that variable completely, and
the mastering decisions of a commercial CD aren't a
factor, either.
"

Leaping assumptions there - the independent observer has managed two
maxims from anecdote. This is a problem because it still doesn't explain
*why* some people prefer a similar/same recording on vinyl. It's just
another attampt at closure of the point: 'They can not, they must not'.

Onwards and sideways ;-)

Independent View Of LP versus CD
 

"Nick Gorham" wrote in message

Richard Crowley wrote:
"Nick Gorham" wrote ...

Richard Crowley wrote:

Vinyl *adds* realism to anything. Magic it
may be but how and why they don't care.


Nominated for r.a.t ridiculous statement of the year.

"Adds realism"? Do they read this stuff before
posting it? Or are they using a different definintion
of "real" than the rest of us?

No, but you do seem to be using a different method of
clipping a post to make the point you want, and
attempting to acredit the author of a statement to the
wrong group in this case.


Huh? If you look closely, you will see that I
"accredited" it to NO specific author. I neither know nor care who said
it.

I'm questioning the concept of "adding realism" quite
apart from whether this applies to vinyl or digital, or
even to audio as such.

I did look closely, I see two "they"'s and a "us". To me
that involves at least two groups, and you are placing
yourself in the not "them" one.

Note that Nick is picking at words to avoid dealing with the important
issues that were raised.

Nick has effectively conceeded the points raised to Richard, but lacks the
candor to come out and say it.