"Here in Ohio" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 7 Nov 2006 10:38:17 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:



Me too, but what puzzles me is that instead of *demanding* that people
concede 'CD is better' for any particular reason (??) none of the digital
bigots ever seem to want to know why anyone might *prefer* to play vinyl?
(Outside this ng, in the real world, plenty of people do it seems....??)

No, in the real world very few people prefer playing vinyl.



Here we go again....




The number
of people around the world that are into hifi is a small percentage of
the music-buying public,


So what? One percent of a million quid/bucks is still a tidy sum....



and vinyl mavens are a tiny fraction of that.
So you're part of the fringe of a fringe. :-)



No-one's talking percentages/fractions (or both) - the word I used is
'plenty'. If you want percentages, every single local 'audio' person I know
uses vinyl, so that's 100% and most of my 'audio' visitors do - let's say
80% (four fifths)....OK?

If you do not think there are *plenty* of people using vinyl, go bid on some
of the vinyl goodies on eBay and see how hard you can get smashed on, say, a
nice MC cart or tonearm in perfect condition.....



What I keep pointing out is that there are well-known and readily
measurable problems with vinyl, problems that do not exist with CD. If
you prefer vinyl, it's because you actually prefer added distortion.


Nope, that won't wash either - for me the LP is a longer-established music
carrier than the CD and it is my 'norm'. If you say (I don't necessarily
agree) that audible distortion has been removed with a CD then I would ask
what else has been removed with it? I would suggest a palpable sense of
'realism' for starters - for me, CD is sterile or even *fake* by
comparison...



That's perfectly fine. Prefer whatever you want. However, don't then
try to claim that vinyl is superior.


Yes, we've heard that a few times before in ukra (where I'm posting) - first
off, I don't need your permission for my preferences and I certainly don't
need your instructions as to what or what not to claim. IMO, vinyl *is*
superior, or I wouldn't use it - I don't care who disagrees with that or
what they prefer and might claim themselves...

stands back and awaits the usual torrent of irrelevant technobabble...

"Stephen Worth" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 7 Nov 2006 10:38:17 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:

Me too, but what puzzles me is that instead of *demanding* that people
concede 'CD is better' for any particular reason (??) none of the
digital
bigots ever seem to want to know why anyone might *prefer* to play
vinyl?

There's a very good reason why people collect LP records. They are
very inexpensive, usually about two bucks apiece, and there's a wide
variety of music on LP that isn't available on CD. Those are valid
reasons to prefer vinyl over CD.


Certainly some of the valid reasons - other valid reasons are actually
preferring to listen to them and handling them....



When it comes to sound quality, both CD and LP are capable of
reproducing high fidelity sound. Whether or not they actually do
that depends on the mastering and manufacturing.


Yep, I suppose....



The CD format is definitely more convenient for storage and handling
than LPs.


Nope, try carrying a dozen of each (in turn) for any distance (assuming
jewel cases)....

Stephen Worth writes:

There's a very good reason why people collect LP records. They are
very inexpensive, usually about two bucks apiece, and there's a wide
variety of music on LP that isn't available on CD.

Quite -- that's why I'm into vinyl. It's hard to find interesting
second-hand CDs for much less than four pounds here in the UK, which
puts me off buying music "on spec"; on the other hand, I can go into a
charity shop and pick up four to eight LPs for the same amount, and
I've discovered a lot of interesting music that way. I don't expect
the quality to be anywhere near that available on CD, although I'm
occasionally pleasantly surprised by a well-pressed record in really
good condition...

There's also the historical interest angle: until 1984 or so, LP was
*the* mainstream high-fidelity medium. I can understand how CD can
produce good-quality audio -- that's just the application of
sufficient electronic magic -- but being able to get reasonable sound
quality by dragging a diamond across a sheet of plastic still strikes
me as a pretty cool trick.

(Speaking as a vinyl enthusiast on a student budget, though, I do
really wish someone made an affordable record-cleaning machine!)

--
Adam Sampson http://offog.org/

"Adam Sampson" wrote in message
...
Stephen Worth writes:

There's a very good reason why people collect LP records. They are
very inexpensive, usually about two bucks apiece, and there's a wide
variety of music on LP that isn't available on CD.

Quite -- that's why I'm into vinyl. It's hard to find interesting
second-hand CDs for much less than four pounds here in the UK, which
puts me off buying music "on spec"; on the other hand, I can go into a
charity shop and pick up four to eight LPs for the same amount, and
I've discovered a lot of interesting music that way. I don't expect
the quality to be anywhere near that available on CD, although I'm
occasionally pleasantly surprised by a well-pressed record in really
good condition...

There's also the historical interest angle: until 1984 or so, LP was
*the* mainstream high-fidelity medium. I can understand how CD can
produce good-quality audio -- that's just the application of
sufficient electronic magic -- but being able to get reasonable sound
quality by dragging a diamond across a sheet of plastic still strikes
me as a pretty cool trick.

(Speaking as a vinyl enthusiast on a student budget, though, I do
really wish someone made an affordable record-cleaning machine!)




Cool trick? Is it *ever*....!!!

Adam, the record (fabulous *mint* 1972 Supraphon pressing) this track came
from cost me 50p, IIRC...

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/Der%20Engel.mp3

It was playing when I read your post - I transferred it to my 'computer
setup' to grab a couple of tracks for you. (Doesn't do them any favours from
a *static* POV, believe me, so there's enough **** to keep the digital
bigots happy....!! ;-)

If you like it and want it on CD, you can get it for anything from 7.99 to
17.99 from Amazon.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=sr_nr_...assical&page=1


Words here (Der Engel):

http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/fss/je...ras/wesen2.htm

Not your sort of thing?

Play it over until it is.....

"Serge Auckland" wrote in message
...
Here in Ohio wrote:
On Tue, 7 Nov 2006 08:38:21 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


is less than that of wide dynamic range music. Thing is that even the LP
format didn't need hypercompression.

Unless you are Todd Rundgren. He seemed to be doing everything he
could to make a lousy medium even worse. :-)

The reason that so much music is hypercompressed today is because people
no longer predominately listen to music as their sole activity. Music is
more likely than ever to be listened to while the listener is doing
something else that is more important to them. Therefore, dynamic range
is a detriment to many listener's use of music.


I don't think the record companies have thought it out that well. We can
also look at radio as an example of something that people often
listen to in the background. Radio is compressed (for transmitter
efficiency if nothing else), but it isn't always hypercompressed.

No, not always, but here in the UK and in France, stations compress to
eliminate any dynamic range. As I mentioned before, there was a well known
station Chief Engineer who bragged his processor was so wound up he got
less than 1dB dynamic range. His station of course sounded as you would
expect, but he was happy.

What I have read is that this is an extension of the "I want it to be
loud and stand out" thing that some of the record companies execs
push. They think that boosting the average volume level will sell more
records than actually allowing for fidelity would. (Or something like
that. Some of the record company people I met in the past were just
nuts. There was one guy that looked for new talent in my area that
liked being paid in one dollar bills. He said he just liked to spread
them out and lay on them.)

The articles on this do mention that the average level is almost at
the max level for CD. If they were simply compressing it for
background use, they wouldn't have to push the level so high.

That's what makes it so incomprehensible. With the 20dB or less dynamic
range of many pop CDs, and a theoretical 96dB dynamic range of the CD
medium, you would think they could find 20 dB's space in that without
having to exceed 0dBFS. What's a volume control for......



You'll be interested to know that this month's copy of Computer Music
magazine has a 5 page article on compression (and limiting) techniques where
you will find the phrases 'All record companies want their records to sound
louder than everyone else's...' and 'It might look cool but, sadly, the VU
meter has no place on modern studios...''

(What I object to is the use of the word 'record' to mean a CD or, worse, a
'virtual track'....)

"Here in Ohio" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 7 Nov 2006 21:03:01 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:



If you do not think there are *plenty* of people using vinyl, go bid on
some
of the vinyl goodies on eBay and see how hard you can get smashed on, say,
a
nice MC cart or tonearm in perfect condition.....

So? That doesn't prove there are "plenty" of people using vinyl.

And again I will point out that vinyl is the darling of a teeny, tiny
percentage of music buyers.




What I keep pointing out is that there are well-known and readily
measurable problems with vinyl, problems that do not exist with CD. If
you prefer vinyl, it's because you actually prefer added distortion.


Nope, that won't wash either - for me the LP is a longer-established music
carrier than the CD and it is my 'norm'. If you say (I don't necessarily
agree) that audible distortion has been removed with a CD then I would ask
what else has been removed with it? I would suggest a palpable sense of
'realism' for starters - for me, CD is sterile or even *fake* by
comparison...

The distortion isn't "removed" with CD, it is never there in the first
place.

Your "norm" is distorted. That "palpable sense of realism" is just
added distortion.


??

Do you ever eat that cheese - you know, the blue mouldy one you pay extra
for....

Here in Ohio wrote:
On Tue, 07 Nov 2006 19:29:45 +0000, Serge Auckland
wrote:


We can also look at radio as an example of something that people often
listen to in the background. Radio is compressed (for transmitter
efficiency if nothing else), but it isn't always hypercompressed.
No, not always, but here in the UK and in France, stations compress to
eliminate any dynamic range. As I mentioned before, there was a well
known station Chief Engineer who bragged his processor was so wound up
he got less than 1dB dynamic range. His station of course sounded as you
would expect, but he was happy.

I'm sure I could find some examples of the same thing in my area in
the US too. :-)


Yes, if you're anywhere near Cleveland, you have the Omnia factory
there. They make the fiercest processor currently on the market.In my
previous life, I was the Orban Distributor in the UK, so maybe I'm
biased, but of the processed sounds, I always thought the Optimod did a
pretty decent job, but the Omnia drilled through my head.....

S.

"Adam Sampson" wrote in message
...
Stephen Worth writes:

There's a very good reason why people collect LP records. They are
very inexpensive, usually about two bucks apiece, and there's a wide
variety of music on LP that isn't available on CD.

Quite -- that's why I'm into vinyl. It's hard to find interesting
second-hand CDs for much less than four pounds here in the UK, which
puts me off buying music "on spec"; on the other hand, I can go into a
charity shop and pick up four to eight LPs for the same amount, and
I've discovered a lot of interesting music that way. I don't expect
the quality to be anywhere near that available on CD, although I'm
occasionally pleasantly surprised by a well-pressed record in really
good condition...

The lack of really cheap used CD's shows how sought after they are compared
to LP's.

Here in the US, for a used CD I typically pay 1/4 to 1/2 the cost of new
CD's (which seem to run about $15 to $20 US). If I get lucky, I'll find a
used CD I like in the "bargain bin" for maybe $1 to $3 US, which is a great
deal. In the same shops, LP's run about $0.50 to $3 US, and I do pick up
one from time to time.

There's also the historical interest angle: until 1984 or so, LP was
*the* mainstream high-fidelity medium. I can understand how CD can
produce good-quality audio -- that's just the application of
sufficient electronic magic -- but being able to get reasonable sound
quality by dragging a diamond across a sheet of plastic still strikes
me as a pretty cool trick.

I started collecting CD's back in about 1985, years before I bought my first
CD player. I'd borrow a friend's stereo and copy the CD to cassette tape
for listening since this was the Walkman era. Finally in about 1991/1992 I
won a CD player at a Christmas/New Year party thrown by my wife's boss. By
that time I had a collection of maybe 12 to 20 CD's and two to three dozen
LP's and 45's.

(Speaking as a vinyl enthusiast on a student budget, though, I do
really wish someone made an affordable record-cleaning machine!)

Clean the LP really good, record it on a PC as a WAV, then burn to a CD-R
and play the CD instead of the LP. You'll save wear and tear on the LP's
and eliminate the constant cleaning. Plus you can then easily transfer the
audio to an MP3 player or a NetMD via USB. I've done this for several dozen
LP's, mostly ones I got from my grandparents after their turntable finally
stopped working and they didn't want to repair it anymore. I gave them back
copies of the LP's on CD-R along with a little bookshelf CD player with a
remote control.

Just about any PC will do, as long as you've got a decent sound card in it.
All the software I use for this is freeware/shareware (Audacity, CD Wave,
and DePopper). Here in the US, I typically pay about $0.10 US for a blank
CD-R, which is still far cheaper than even a bargain LP. If you don't do
any noise reduction, you even preserve the "authentic LP sound". ;-)

Jeff
--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a
little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor
safety"
- B. Franklin, Bartlett's Familiar Quotations (1919)

In rec.audio.tech Glenn Richards wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:

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.

So what that posting is basically saying is that CD is capable of far
better quality sound than vinyl, but due to sloppy mastering (loudness
wars anyone?) vinyl generally sounds better? Because it hasn't been
compressed to within an inch of its life?


Yes, for popular music since about 1993 or so, that *could* be the case,
*if* you find the dynamic range compression used in modern pop CD
mastering (which some find to be 'euphonic', ie good-sounding) more
objectionable than that the 'euphonic' distortions of LP. Of course even
today, not all pop CDs are so compressed, nor are all of them compressed
to the same degree. But all LP systems will display 'euphonic' distortion.

Compared to pop music, digital compression is more rarely applied to jazz
CDs, and more rarely still to classical CDs. It is unlikely you will find
classical LPs that match the dynamic range of the corresponding CD.


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

In rec.audio.tech Serge Auckland wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Glenn Richards wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:

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.

So what that posting is basically saying is that CD is capable of far
better quality sound than vinyl, but due to sloppy mastering (loudness
wars anyone?) vinyl generally sounds better? Because it hasn't been
compressed to within an inch of its life?

You can't generalise. Indeed in my experience this isn't the case - but
then I stopped buying LPs when I got my first CD player. This 'loudness
wars' thingie with CD mastering is relatively recent and mainly applies to
some pop releases.

(Bit of a vinyl fan myself actually...)

But then there are the inherent problems with vinyl which no mastering can
get round. So you're not starting from an even playing field.


Sadly, the loudness stupidity isn't just limited to pop releases. Over
the weekend, I was making some measurements, and decided to leave my
bitstream analyser connected whilst listening to music. I was astounded
at how many of my CDs regularly clip. Amy Winehouse "Frank" lights the
0dBFS light on almost every beat, Diana Krall Love Scenes clips often
per song, as does Norah Jones.

'Jazz' releases aimed at the mass market will tend to have mass market
mastering. So will the 'pop' classical CDs.

But note too that reaching 0 dB does not necessarily mean clipping.
'Classic' digital Clipping would appear as consecutive runs of 0dB samples
-- some say we can hear as little as three, others say more like 10-13.
Modern mastering engineers also sometimes 'cheat' by creating clipped
files then lowering the overall level, so you'd never see the same-sample
runs at '0 dB' -- this is probably because some CD players don't behave
well when offered full-scale samples.


I just don't understand why these sorts of CDs need to be mastered into
clipping. I can understand a CD being normalised to 0dBFS, but that
would mean one hit at 0dBFS once per CD, or at worse once per track, if
tracks are mastered individually. There's just no excuse for it.

It's a fad -- one that I hope goes away eventually.

However, try as I might, I can't hear the clipping in the Diana Krall
and Norah Jones, even sighted, knowing when it takes place. The Amy
Winehouse is , however, very obvious.

Psychoacoustically, it takes a lot of samples relatively close
together, or a run of consecutive 0 db samples, to 'sound' like clipping.



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