In article Kxffi.2684$XH5.1402@trndny02,
Karl Uppiano wrote:
Former Beatle, George Harrison said that every generation has its own
"sound", depending on the kind of mixers they used (he probably meant
more than mixers, but I think he referred to mixers specifically). He
made some mention of the sound of Hoagy Charmichael recordings. But
engineering techniques will exploit and/or compensate for the
technology at hand. CDs made from masters originally targeting vinyl
sometimes didn't sound as good as CDs made from masters targeting CDs.

I've got pretty well every Beatles LP and CD, the CDs bought as they came
out, same as the LPs, and in every case (IMHO) the CD sounds miles better
than the LP. Many of which weren't the best of pressings anyway. EMI
weren't *that* careful with their pop stuff. Perhaps the most instant
comparison I could make if you have both is 'Michelle', the last track on
side one of Rubber Soul. On every combination of pressing and playing
equipment I've heard it is quite heavily distorted - but not so on the CD.
I've not had the opportunity to compare the single.

Engineers recording to analog tape at times deliberately overloaded the
tape for specific effects (sometimes providing the illusion of dynamic
range that wasn't actually there). Each generation had its supporters
and detractors, and each cited "solid, factual" evidence to support
their opinions. Audio recording was, and still is, more of an art than
a science.

It was fairly common to overload analogue tape with brass and similar
instruments to give some 'edge' on other than classical recordings.

--
*There are 3 kinds of people: those who can count & those who can't.

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

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote ...
I've got pretty well every Beatles LP and CD, the CDs bought as they
came
out, same as the LPs, and in every case (IMHO) the CD sounds miles
better
than the LP. Many of which weren't the best of pressings anyway. EMI
weren't *that* careful with their pop stuff. Perhaps the most instant
comparison I could make if you have both is 'Michelle', the last track
on
side one of Rubber Soul. On every combination of pressing and playing
equipment I've heard it is quite heavily distorted - but not so on the
CD.
I've not had the opportunity to compare the single.

Of course, the closer you get to the center of the LP,
the "slower" the "writing speed" and the poorer the
reproduction. LPs are "CAV" constant angular velocity,
they rotate at 33 1/3 RPM regardless of where you are
reading.

OTOH, CDs are CLV, constant linear velocity. CDs
rotate at ~500 RPM at the begining of the track (in the
center) and only ~200 RPM at the end (the outer edge).

In article ,
Richard Crowley wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote ...
I've got pretty well every Beatles LP and CD, the CDs bought as they
came out, same as the LPs, and in every case (IMHO) the CD sounds
miles better than the LP. Many of which weren't the best of pressings
anyway. EMI weren't *that* careful with their pop stuff. Perhaps the
most instant comparison I could make if you have both is 'Michelle',
the last track on side one of Rubber Soul. On every combination of
pressing and playing equipment I've heard it is quite heavily
distorted - but not so on the CD. I've not had the opportunity to
compare the single.

Of course, the closer you get to the center of the LP,
the "slower" the "writing speed" and the poorer the
reproduction. LPs are "CAV" constant angular velocity,
they rotate at 33 1/3 RPM regardless of where you are
reading.

OTOH, CDs are CLV, constant linear velocity. CDs
rotate at ~500 RPM at the begining of the track (in the
center) and only ~200 RPM at the end (the outer edge).

Absolutely. Which shows the lie that LP sounds 'better' than CD. It's not
even consistent over itself. It's also a design fault given that many
classical pieces have the most demanding audio at the finish - exactly the
point where vinyl is at its worst.

--
*I can see your point, but I still think you're full of ****.

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

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Richard Crowley wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote ...
I've got pretty well every Beatles LP and CD, the CDs bought as they
came out, same as the LPs, and in every case (IMHO) the CD sounds
miles better than the LP. Many of which weren't the best of pressings
anyway. EMI weren't *that* careful with their pop stuff. Perhaps the
most instant comparison I could make if you have both is 'Michelle',
the last track on side one of Rubber Soul. On every combination of
pressing and playing equipment I've heard it is quite heavily
distorted - but not so on the CD. I've not had the opportunity to
compare the single.

Of course, the closer you get to the center of the LP,
the "slower" the "writing speed" and the poorer the
reproduction. LPs are "CAV" constant angular velocity,
they rotate at 33 1/3 RPM regardless of where you are
reading.

OTOH, CDs are CLV, constant linear velocity. CDs
rotate at ~500 RPM at the begining of the track (in the
center) and only ~200 RPM at the end (the outer edge).

Absolutely. Which shows the lie that LP sounds 'better' than CD. It's not
even consistent over itself. It's also a design fault given that many
classical pieces have the most demanding audio at the finish - exactly the
point where vinyl is at its worst.

--
*I can see your point, but I still think you're full of ****.

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

I've always wondered why first 78s then LPs evolved with the recording from
outside in. It must have been noticed right at the beginning that the
loudest parts of classical music are often at the end, so it would have made
no difference to the operation to have the start at the inner grooves. The
possible problem of the stylus falling off the outside of the record could
easily be solved with a locked groove, or a lip on the outer edge. Even the
even earlier cylinders had a constant velocity.

Funny how some things get done.....

S.

--
http://audiopages.googlepages.com

In article ,
Serge Auckland wrote:
Absolutely. Which shows the lie that LP sounds 'better' than CD. It's
not even consistent over itself. It's also a design fault given that
many classical pieces have the most demanding audio at the finish -
exactly the point where vinyl is at its worst.

I've always wondered why first 78s then LPs evolved with the recording
from outside in. It must have been noticed right at the beginning that
the loudest parts of classical music are often at the end, so it would
have made no difference to the operation to have the start at the inner
grooves. The possible problem of the stylus falling off the outside of
the record could easily be solved with a locked groove, or a lip on the
outer edge. Even the even earlier cylinders had a constant velocity.

Funny how some things get done.....

Some in house BBC 33 rpm coarse groove records were indeed cut from the
inside out.

--
*Money isn't everything, but it sure keeps the kids in touch.

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

Serge Auckland wrote:

I've always wondered why first 78s then LPs evolved with the recording from
outside in.

My guess: because it's easier to lower the needle accurately into the
groove that way.

Of course that all went out of the window when discs started being all
dfferent sizes, especially when we had to play 7" discs on a 12"
turntable, and I shouldn't be surprised if that's when those little
hydraulic lifting/lowering levers became popular.

Anahata

Anahata wrote:
Serge Auckland wrote:

I've always wondered why first 78s then LPs evolved with the recording from
outside in.

My guess: because it's easier to lower the needle accurately into the
groove that way.

Also, remember that when you're recording direct to disc, you aren't
always sure when the piece will end precisely. Cutting outside-in means
you have some slack at the end. Cutting inside-out means if the piece
ends early you have wasted the best-sounding part of the record.

Of course that all went out of the window when discs started being all
dfferent sizes, especially when we had to play 7" discs on a 12"
turntable, and I shouldn't be surprised if that's when those little
hydraulic lifting/lowering levers became popular.

Those became popular when cartridges became more delicate in the fifties.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

In article ,
Scott Dorsey wrote:
I've always wondered why first 78s then LPs evolved with the
recording from outside in.

My guess: because it's easier to lower the needle accurately into the
groove that way.

Also, remember that when you're recording direct to disc, you aren't
always sure when the piece will end precisely. Cutting outside-in means
you have some slack at the end. Cutting inside-out means if the piece
ends early you have wasted the best-sounding part of the record.

Strange - as this is exactly what the BBC did with direct cut discs before
tape days. They used 33 rpm, but fixed pitch coarse groove.

--
*If you must choose between two evils, pick the one you've never tried before

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

"Serge Auckland" wrote in message
...

I've always wondered why first 78s then LPs evolved with the recording
from
outside in. It must have been noticed right at the beginning that the
loudest parts of classical music are often at the end, so it would have
made
no difference to the operation to have the start at the inner grooves. The
possible problem of the stylus falling off the outside of the record could
easily be solved with a locked groove, or a lip on the outer edge. Even
the
even earlier cylinders had a constant velocity.

Funny how some things get done.....

Some labels, including Pathe, did put out center-start records during the 78
era. Some radio transcriptions were done that way, too. And radio
transcriptions of long shows were sometimes done alternating center-start
and rim-start, so there would be no jarring change in sound quality as the
operator switched from disc to disc.

Peace,
Paul

In article ,
Paul Stamler wrote:
Some labels, including Pathe, did put out center-start records during
the 78 era.

Some radio transcriptions were done that way, too. And radio
transcriptions of long shows were sometimes done alternating
center-start and rim-start, so there would be no jarring change in sound
quality as the operator switched from disc to disc.

Interesting. Makes sense but never seen those. Of course it was before
even my time in broadcasting.

--
*If you think this van is dirty, you should try having sex with the driver*

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