Independent View Of LP versus CD
 

"Keith G" wrote in message



No-one has ever claimed any of that - it's only in the
heads of the twisty people who are *terrified* by
vinyl....

Hmm, Keith's post is 100% name-calling and a claim that others are paranoid.
Interesting how quickly he brings a reasoned discussion down that his level.

Independent View Of LP versus CD
 

In article ,
Nick Gorham wrote:
Actually I don't give a toss if you think I am one one side or the other
in this, it just seemed to be rather sad, that Dave created a comment
that he tried to put in the mouths of the pro-vinyl group,

My intention was to summarise what was said recently on the 'Vinyl to CD
on a PC' thread on ukra by the, as ever, extremely vocal vinyl lobby.
Above all, they emphasise the 'realism' of anything on vinyl.
Rumble, hiss, clicks, pops, varying bandwidth and distortion throughout
the record matters not one jot - it's 'realism'.

--
*Why is the man who invests all your money called a broker?

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

Independent View Of LP versus CD
 

"bob" wrote in message
oups.com

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.

Agreed

Independent View Of LP versus CD
 

In article ,
Nick Gorham wrote:

Actually I don't give a toss if you think I am one one side or the other
in this, it just seemed to be rather sad, that Dave created a comment
that he tried to put in the mouths of the pro-vinyl group,

Assuming that I'm the "Dave" you're referring to - I was not trying to
put words into mouth of anyone at all other than myself. What I wrote
was my own personal opinion and understanding, based on my own
experiences and on research I've read over the years.

The first writeup and research I remember reading on the whole issue
of microphonic pickup by LP platters, and acoustic ringing in
poorly-damped LPs, was in a fairly early issue of "International Audio
Review" back in the late 1970s. It was in part due to the tests
published in this magazine that I chose to purchase an Oracle
turntable, which I still possess and occasionally use today.

I do not claim (or even expect) that the more strongly-opined LP
enthusiasts will agree with my suggestions as to the reasons why they
might prefer the sound of LPs to the sound of CDs.

Please do not attribute to me, motives that I do not actually possess.

--
Dave Platt AE6EO
Hosting the Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!

Independent View Of LP versus CD
 

Dave Platt wrote:
In article ,
Nick Gorham wrote:


Actually I don't give a toss if you think I am one one side or the other
in this, it just seemed to be rather sad, that Dave created a comment
that he tried to put in the mouths of the pro-vinyl group,


Assuming that I'm the "Dave" you're referring to - I was not trying to
put words into mouth of anyone at all other than myself. What I wrote
was my own personal opinion and understanding, based on my own
experiences and on research I've read over the years.

I didn't for one moment suggest you were, its wasnt your post I was
refering to.

Dave Plownam (news) posted

In article ,
Serge Auckland wrote:

The converse is not true:- An LP cut from a CD will not sound identical,
whatever mastering it has gone through. There are those who think the LP
will sound better, that's fine as their opinion, but the fact that it
*is* different means that CD is a transparent medium (what you put in
you get out) whilst LP is not.


You can say this 'till you're blue in the face but it won't make a scrap
of difference to vinyl freaks. Vinyl *adds* realism to anything. Magic it
may be but how and why they don't care.


And then Richard Crowley took what I assume was just Dave making a off
the cuff comment, and made it look like someone had said part of the
above while meaning it

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?



So, nothing related you any of your postings.


Please do not attribute to me, motives that I do not actually possess.


Didn't, haven't and won't :-).

--
Nick

Independent View Of LP versus CD
 

"Here in Ohio" wrote in message

On Thu, 2 Nov 2006 20:47:58 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


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.

Yes, I always felt that this was due to phase distortions
between the stereo channels added by the vinyl
recording/playback process.

Sometimes true of recordings that are 100% digital.

Phase differences between the sound event as received by
our two ears is one of the cues we use for localization.

Though secondary to amplitude differences.

Normal "stereo" tends to screw up parts of the
localization process. Perhaps gobs of added phase
distortion from vinyl makes some people think the
"imaging" is better.

Classic example would be the old ADC XLM cartridge. Ragazines like TAS
ranted and raved about how the soundstage of this cartridge blew away
competitive cartridges like the V15. It turned out that records that were
even slightly warped or slightly eccentric would combine with the
nonlinearity of the XLM to produce all kinds of phase and amplitude changes.
Sure, the XLM produced an exciting soundstage, but big gobs of the
excitement were generated right in the cartrdige.

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.

Spaced-mic recording doubles the signal when played back
through normal speakers.

That's one way to look at it.

Coincident-mic recording leaves some of the localization
up to the spacing of the speakers in relation to your
ears.

Though not uniquely so.

I don't think either method is optimal, but coincident
miking seems to produce a more accurate result overall.

I do a lot of work with coincident mics, including multiple coincident mics.

Independent View Of LP versus CD
 

In rec.audio.tech Jeff Findley wrote:

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.

SPARS Code
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPARS_Code


When was the last time anyone delivered analog media to a CD pressing
plant? Was this something done in the early 80s?

I always took 'AAD' to mean that the CD was mastered digitally --
redundant, really, since by definition all CDs involve digital
mastering.


___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

Independent View Of LP versus CD
 

In rec.audio.tech 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?

er...he was being sarcastic, you know. Repeating
the 'vinyl freak' (that should have been a tipoff, btw) mantra.





___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

Independent View Of LP versus CD
 

In rec.audio.tech Dave Platt wrote:
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.
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.

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.

These are good points worth repeating occasionally.

Me, I'd hate to have to go back to listening to two-channel without
Dolby Pro Logic II (muisc mode) and 5.1 system.

I don't claims it's accurate -- it certainly modifies the signal!
-- but I like it. It's intentional euphonic distortion. I can even
adjust and tweak the DPLII parameters to suit.

But of course it's not intrinsic to digital playback. If I someday decide
I don't like it, I can turn it OFF...or substitute some processing
I like more.

Try THAT with a turntable/LP system.


___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

Independent View Of LP versus CD
 

In rec.audio.tech Rob wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Rob" wrote in
message

"
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.

No assumptions there at all. Just the facts.

Assumption 1 - CD-standard recording captures the entire LP music recording.

It's a reasonable assumption that the *audible part* of any LP is fully
captured by a decent CD transcription of it.

Assumption 2 - CD-standard recording captures in entirety any variance
in sources.

What variances in *this* souce -- would you suggest fail to be
captured?


These assumptions aren't facts.

What data would demonstrate that they are or are not, to you?
How would you falsify Mr. Satz' claims?


___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason