"Iain Churches" wrote in message
...

"David Looser" wrote in message
...

Nowadays we are told that CDs must be mastered at such a high level at to
actually clip "because that is what the market demands".

Not quite.
Firstly, this applies to pop CD's only. The vast majority of classical,
jazz and light music CDs are impeccably mastered.

Indeed, and of course that "vast majority" is *only* available on CD.

The pop market demands "high impact reproduction" This is achieved
with smiley EQ and compression (sometimes to the point of clipping)

This is where I start to find the situation with LP vs CD releases so hard
to understand. If the recording is a "pop" record, and the pop market
demands "high impact reproduction", why doesn't the LP also have "high
impact reproduction" to satisfy the market?


But that LPs can be cut at a much more reasonable level.

CDs can be cut at a much more reasonable level.

Simple.
They are made for a different sector of the market.


OK, I'll put this as simply as I can. I don't understand why vinyl is still
produced more than 1/4 of a century after the vastly better CD format was
introduced. Even less do I understand why "serious listeners" are expected
to put up with it! WHO SAYS that they are different markets, with the
"serious listeners" wanting vinyl?

David.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Iain Churches" wrote in message


This is something that many people fail to understand -
the difference in the concept of disc mastering, and CD mastering.


Right. When you master a CD you might think of the original master as
being 5 pounds of very fine chocolates. The CD is like an 8 pound bag,
and the LP is like a 3 pound bag.

There's nothing that stops you from putting 2 or 3 pounds of chocolate
into either bag.

There's no way that you are going to get the full 5 pounds of chocolate
into that 3 pound bag, Nothing but common sense, personal integrity and
good judgment on the part of the consumer keeps you from claiming that you
have... ;-)



The beauty of LPs is they don't attract the *wrong type of person*....

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in
message
In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:
The vast majority of people who buy pop CDs are
very happy. The levels of returns are incredibly low.

What is the point in returning something you want except
to get it replaced by a better one? Which of course
happened frequently in the heyday of vinyl.


More bull****.

I'm sure a few *types* with wholly unrealistic expectations made themselves
a complete nuisance endlessly trawling backwards and forwards to whinge and
change records, but I don't know of a single soul who ever took one back
when I was young.

The only recent time I know a record was taken back was a copy of Bjork's
'Medullah' that Swim Bo bought from HMV in Edinburgh. Shortly after leaving
the shop she shook it out for a look and noticed some dimples, so she took
it back to swap it by which time the three other copies there had been had
sold out, so she took a refund!

I was a tad peeved when she told me - the dimples would have almost
certainly been silent and I bet the returned copy was off the shelf again
before she had got 10 yards!!

Tant pis...


Part of the problem is that the difference between SOTA vinyl and a
defective, unlistenable product is mostly a judgment call.


Yes, see above....

"Arny Krueger" wrote

[LPs]

The absence of tics and pops, background noise due to the medium, flutter
and wow, and lack of inner-groove distortion on the CD are immediately
obvious to those of us who still have useful amounts of hearing left.


If you really do hear any or all of that **** you would be better to stick
with CDs....

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Iain Churches" wrote in message

"David Looser" wrote in
message ...

There is no reason why "such a complete and utter hash
has been made of some CDs" - beyond sheer incompetence.

Well, that and little things like targeting a specific market that
basically wants hash.

Such an absurd statement makes me think that you are
trolling on a subject about which you know nothing.
That's sad:-(

Can you talk to people like they are cohorts, or is talking down all that
you are capable of, Iain?


Cohorts?

Perhaps if you used the 'we' word a little less often....??

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Iain Churches" wrote in message


The fact that the vinyl pressings were sold out on the
day of release, and the CD is still available many months
later speaks volumes:-)

Shows how ignorant you are about production and sales, Iain.


Hang on a minute - is this Iain talking down to *you* again, Amy?


Everybody with
a brain knows how to have a recording sell out on the first day - simply
don't produce enough of them.


What are you saying - the market for vinyl is even *bigger* than the MI
calculates it to be?


Selling out on the first day is a disaster
that any competent product manager wants to avoid.


Don't know much about *selling* do you? ;-)

In article ,
Keith G wrote:
What is the point in returning something you want except
to get it replaced by a better one? Which of course
happened frequently in the heyday of vinyl.


More bull****.

I'm sure a few *types* with wholly unrealistic expectations made
themselves a complete nuisance endlessly trawling backwards and
forwards to whinge and change records, but I don't know of a single
soul who ever took one back when I was young.

Of course not. You think vinyl perfect so why would you? Although I'd have
expected even you to notice wow due to the hole not being central and
excessive distortion even for vinyl due to a worn out stamper. Common in
the heyday of vinyl.

--
*Why is the word abbreviation so long?

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

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Keith G wrote:
What is the point in returning something you want except
to get it replaced by a better one? Which of course
happened frequently in the heyday of vinyl.


More bull****.

I'm sure a few *types* with wholly unrealistic expectations made
themselves a complete nuisance endlessly trawling backwards and
forwards to whinge and change records, but I don't know of a single
soul who ever took one back when I was young.

Of course not. You think vinyl perfect so why would you? Although I'd have
expected even you to notice wow due to the hole not being central and
excessive distortion even for vinyl due to a worn out stamper. Common in
the heyday of vinyl.


When I was "young" (ish) in the 1970s I took LPs back all the time, because
they were so poorly made. Commonly there were clicks already there,
presumably from dirt on the stamper. And there were "whooshes" and other
noises also present from new. Taking them back proved futile, each new
offering seemed worse than the one before, Complaining did no good, the
record companies couldn't care less. In the end I did the only sensible
thing and simply stopped buying records altogether. Later when CD came out
it was a revelation, at last records without all these noises and with far
lower distortion as well. So why, 25 years on, do people still want to
burden themselves with vinyl records?.

David.

In article ,
David Looser wrote:
Of course not. You think vinyl perfect so why would you? Although I'd
have expected even you to notice wow due to the hole not being central
and excessive distortion even for vinyl due to a worn out stamper.
Common in the heyday of vinyl.


When I was "young" (ish) in the 1970s I took LPs back all the time,
because they were so poorly made. Commonly there were clicks already
there, presumably from dirt on the stamper. And there were "whooshes"
and other noises also present from new. Taking them back proved futile,
each new offering seemed worse than the one before, Complaining did no
good, the record companies couldn't care less. In the end I did the
only sensible thing and simply stopped buying records altogether. Later
when CD came out it was a revelation, at last records without all these
noises and with far lower distortion as well. So why, 25 years on, do
people still want to burden themselves with vinyl records?.

Trouble was it varied so much between makers. Good makes were often very
acceptable - after all there was no real alternative. Pre-recorded tapes
- even reel to reel - had other issues. Of the major makers EMI seemed the
worst.

--
*It's lonely at the top, but you eat better.

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

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:
In article , David Looser
wrote:
Of course not. You think vinyl perfect so why would you? Although
I'd have expected even you to notice wow due to the hole not being
central and excessive distortion even for vinyl due to a worn out
stamper. Common in the heyday of vinyl.


When I was "young" (ish) in the 1970s I took LPs back all the time,
because they were so poorly made.

In recent years I've re-acquired back issues of HFN and other audio mags.
Looking at them now reminds me that there were a number of articles about
problems with LP manufacturing faults. Some of these from dealers also
complaining about the way the makers/wholesalers treated them and made
returns costly or inconvenient to deal with.

My own recollection is that I found that LPs made in the 1970s and early
1980s were even more likely to be poorly manufactured than in the 1960s.
The magazine articles and letters seem to agree with this. However some LPs
were superb. The challenge was getting hold of copies that were, and not
ones with audible defects.

Trouble was it varied so much between makers. Good makes were often very
acceptable - after all there was no real alternative. Pre-recorded
tapes - even reel to reel - had other issues. Of the major makers EMI
seemed the worst.

It is also the case that sensitivity to LP manufacturing problems varies
with the type of music. Loud pop/rock may simply not have to protecated
quiet passages which appear in some classical music, so some clicks may not
be audible on some LPs which would have been as audible as a rifle shot on
others. Similarly, wow or flutter can be more or less noticable depending
on the type of music, etc.

Reflecting on this, I do recall that I used to buy rock/pop LPs with less
worries than classical ones. This was because manufacturing flaws tended to
be less noticable, so the chance that I'd be returning the LP was lower.
Indeed, given the idea I wondered about a few days ago I wonder if the
obverse was true for me back in the 1960s and 1970s...

i.e. That back in the 1970s in particular the ratio of pop/classical I
bought was more in favour of pop because the typical manufacturing flaws of
the LPs were less noticable for pop/rock than classical. But the arrival of
CD freed me from that, so I moved more to classical. Then as years passed I
slowly listened to less and less 'new' pop/rock.

Until recently I'd assumed this was just because I prefer classical (and
jazz) to pop/rock since c1980. But I do now wonder if a factor in my
increasing lack of liking for 'current' pop/rock was the rising tendency
during the last decade or two for it to be more and more level compressed
and then clipped. Hard to say because I was simply finding it painful (or
boring) to listen to, and there was plenty of classical/jazz to enjoy (plus
my older pop/rock) that I didn't feel any interest in even *trying* to like
the more modern pop/rock, save for a few exceptions.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html