In article , David Looser
wrote:
"charles" wrote in message
...
In article , David Looser
wrote:
"charles" wrote

do you remember the term "musicality"? it seems to be relevant here.


Perhaps you'd like to explain exactly how it is relevant?

Rob apparently prefers digitised vinyl to the digitised master. In
other words he considers an additional process (that of recording to,
and subsequently playing back from, vinyl) to improve the sound of the
original. Does that create "musicality"?

Yes. Musicality referred to the "improvements" heard by some people
playing recordings on imperfect reproduction equipment


I'd have thought that the musicality of a recording was something that
is created by the musicians in the recording studio, not by
technicians in a post-recording process.

You'd be wrong.


Well I'm only "wrong" if you use the meaning of "musicality" that you
have quoted above. Its not a definition of the word I accept.

Someone else posted this definition:

Noun:

1. Tastefulness and accomplishment in music. 2. The quality of being
melodious and tuneful.

and if you accept that definition I am clearly not "wrong"

It was the abuse of the term some 30 years ago, to which I was refering.
CDs apparently had no "musicality"; ie the distortions of vinyl were
missing.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.16

In message , writes
On 6 Nov,
Bill Wright wrote:

I know from my own experience of many years ago that when I first heard
a live solo violin I found the sound, with its exquisite harmonics, quite
difficult to take.

Most of my recollections of live solo violins did not register "exquisite
harmonics", The worst ones were my 3 sons practicing the second fiddle part
of tne national anthem, a most discordant piece if ever there was one!

Why on earth do fiddle teachers give that as homework? Is it to get their own
back on parents?

I have recollections of being very young, and being at what was probably
my very first visit to a pantomime at a Newcastle city theatre. There
was a full orchestra, and I vividly remember how different the music
sounded from what I had heard on the radio. I'm sure it was the
'exquisite harmonics' of the violins that impressed me most.
--
Ian

In article om, Rob
wrote:



While I have found there to be little discernible difference between
vinyl and CD - it's rare in my experience. I much prefer the sound of
vinyl (digitised or not) to CDs, on the whole. And well worth the effort.

I think it would be wise to distinguish between two situations here.

1) Where you compare a 'professional' LP release with a 'professional' CD
release of (nominally) the same recording or album. ('Professional' here
means what you'd buy from a company in a shop.)

2) Where you have carefully made a CD copy of an LP.

In case (1) it isn't surprising that the two can audibly differ, They are
often equalised or compressed in different ways, for example. And may also
be clipped on CD.

In my experience in case (2) they can easily be audibly indistinguishable
or have a level of audible difference that is too small to really notice or
care about.

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

In article , Bill Wright
wrote:

I think what Charles is saying is that the word was coined by the
specialist press and/or the cognoscenti as a means of glossing over the
fact that many people expected the sound to meet their preconceptions,
rather than be perfectly accurate.

TBH I often felt that different writers were using it in undefined and
different ways. So just meant "what I prefer has more 'musicality'" without
having any clue what they really meant. I'm not now sure, but I think Paul
Messenger may have been the first to use the term in the UK..

Similar for other terms beloved by audio journalists. Who remembers the old
'points' that Martin C used to hand out, only to change his scale whenever
it suited him. All pretty meaningless beyond "I preferred this to that".
Just gave a spurious sense of meaning or authority to one person's
impression in one set of circumstances during one period of time, filtered
by their taste at that time.

I know from my own experience of many years ago that when I first heard
a live solo violin I found the sound, with its exquisite harmonics,
quite difficult to take.

When FM radio became popular I remember people (especially my grandad)
complaining bitterly that the sound was 'uncanny'! He used many other
words and phrases, all of which meant 'realistic' but with a negative
bias. "It doesn't sound like a bloody wireless, that's the trouble with
it!"

When I first heard DAB (when it had higher bitrates than now) I also felt
it didn't sound as 'good' as FM. However instead of abandoning it
immediately I spent a few weeks going back and forth between FM and DAB to
try and resolve the differences. Mainly using R3.

I ended up after a few weeks perferring DAB for R3. The main difference
being the absence of level compression (optimod) and background noise and
HF distortions. But before that, the optimod compressions had given the FM
a 'warm' sound that seemed to sustain piano notes, etc, in a way I'd become
accustomed to. So it is very easy to become habituated to the alterations
applied by a given system.

That said, I don't now listen much to either DAB or FM. Mainly use the
iPlayer. :-)

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

In article ,
Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article om, Rob
wrote:



While I have found there to be little discernible difference between
vinyl and CD - it's rare in my experience. I much prefer the sound of
vinyl (digitised or not) to CDs, on the whole. And well worth the effort.

I think it would be wise to distinguish between two situations here.

1) Where you compare a 'professional' LP release with a 'professional' CD
release of (nominally) the same recording or album. ('Professional' here
means what you'd buy from a company in a shop.)

2) Where you have carefully made a CD copy of an LP.

In case (1) it isn't surprising that the two can audibly differ, They are
often equalised or compressed in different ways, for example. And may also
be clipped on CD.

In my experience in case (2) they can easily be audibly indistinguishable
or have a level of audible difference that is too small to really notice or
care about.

All the vinyl enthusiasts I know are happy with a well made CD copy of
vinyl. But are in denial that vinyl adds distortions to the original
master that CD doesn't, and prefer to think of it as magic. Which is why
they don't like a well made CD of the original master - if such a thing
exists. It doesn't have the distortions vinyl adds.

Of course some individual instruments may sort of sound 'better' with
vinyl distortion. But not all.

Other thing is the processes that a studio master tape goes through before
being cut to vinyl or CD. Which are different for each. Another reason why
seemingly identical vinyl and CDs sound different. No magic about it at
all.

--
*I'm out of my mind, but feel free to leave a message.

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

"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...
charles wrote:
In article ,
Java Jive wrote:
On Sun, 06 Nov 2011 21:39:25 +0000 (GMT), charles
wrote:
Musicality referred to the "improvements" heard by some people
playing recordings on imperfect reproduction equipment

As a former amateur musician and singer of many years' standing, I
find your own coined meaning of the word deeply insulting.

Not "my coined meaning" - but a meaning used in the 1980s when CDs
(digital
stuff) first turned up.

I, too, am "an amateur musician of many years' standing"; I don't see the
relevance. Some people actually preferred distortion in recordings since
they'd become accustomed to it. They'd obviously never been to a concert
hall and heard real music.

I think what Charles is saying is that the word was coined by the
specialist press and/or the cognoscenti as a means of glossing over the
fact that many people expected the sound to meet their preconceptions,
rather than be perfectly accurate.

I know from my own experience of many years ago that when I first heard a
live solo violin I found the sound, with its exquisite harmonics, quite
difficult to take.

When FM radio became popular I remember people (especially my grandad)
complaining bitterly that the sound was 'uncanny'! He used many other
words and phrases, all of which meant 'realistic' but with a negative
bias. "It doesn't sound like a bloody wireless, that's the trouble with
it!" He didn't have a telly, I should add. He always listened to AM after
the first few weeks. Oddly, he was a bander and attended many concerts.

Digital reproduction often shows up deficiencies in the original recording
that are masked by analogue technology.

For example "Bright Eyes" by Art Garfunkel sounds distinctly distorted in
places: http://www.countrydecor.altervista.org/brighteyes.mp3

For example the vocal from 1:20. The vinyl sounds OK unless sensitised by
listening to the digital version first.

--
Max Demian

"charles" wrote in message
...

do you remember the term "musicality"? it seems to be relevant here.

Since there are no objective means for characterizing "musicality", and
given that the word seems to be the last resort of people who seem to want
to deify their preferences...

On Mon, 7 Nov 2011 10:53:33 -0000, "Max Demian"
wrote:

"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...

When FM radio became popular I remember people (especially my grandad)
complaining bitterly that the sound was 'uncanny'! He used many other
words and phrases, all of which meant 'realistic' but with a negative
bias. "It doesn't sound like a bloody wireless, that's the trouble with
it!" He didn't have a telly, I should add. He always listened to AM after
the first few weeks. Oddly, he was a bander and attended many concerts.

Digital reproduction often shows up deficiencies in the original recording
that are masked by analogue technology.

Yes. Because I've been, for the obvious reasons described in my OP,
on the look out for distortion, particularly over the extremes of the
arm's swing during the first and last two tracks, needless to say I've
been hearing it everywhere. However, comparing the before and after
recordings, and sometimes when unsure putting the vinyl on the
Project, has nearly always shown that the distortion was there on the
vinyl all along.

Both the live recordings of The Dubliners had quite a lot of it (a
difficult band to mix live, I would guess), which in the case of the
conical one misled me for a while. Many other vinyls had it as well,
particularly those done on cheap folk labels, regardless of whether
they were UK or US labels.

However, I single out Topic for the superior quality of their folk
recordings. The House Band and the Sea Shanties LPs sound marvellous
now they've been cleaned. On both, particularly dramatically on the
latter where the needle was formerly jumping out of the groove,
several 'scratches' turned out to have been grit or the like and have
been completely washed away.

For example "Bright Eyes" by Art Garfunkel sounds distinctly distorted in
places: http://www.countrydecor.altervista.org/brighteyes.mp3

For example the vocal from 1:20. The vinyl sounds OK unless sensitised by
listening to the digital version first.

Actually the most obvious deficiency in that is the 'glass birdies'
sound introduced by the low bitrate. I think I can hear what you are
describing, but what I hear is in the background, rather than the
foreground, so not obvious at all.
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

On 06/11/2011 19:56, David Looser wrote:
wrote

While I have found there to be little discernible difference between vinyl
and CD - it's rare in my experience. I much prefer the sound of vinyl
(digitised or not) to CDs, on the whole.

Are you not contradicting yourself there?


Don't think so - just not very well written and no context! CD and LP
often sound different.

Or do you "much prefer" something that has "little discernible difference"
from the alternative?


I find the difference to be profound.

It is interesting, I note, that you say "vinyl (digitised or not)". So its
not digital audio as such that you have a problem with, its the lack of the
distortion that vinyl introduces. If record producers cut a vinyl copy from
their masters and then digitised that vinyl to make the CD release you'd be
happy, fair enough.


Happier, yes. There's still the handling/appreciation/association of the
media.

Rob

On 07/11/2011 10:02, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In ,
Jim wrote:
In raweb.com, Rob
wrote:



While I have found there to be little discernible difference between
vinyl and CD - it's rare in my experience. I much prefer the sound of
vinyl (digitised or not) to CDs, on the whole. And well worth the effort.

I think it would be wise to distinguish between two situations here.

1) Where you compare a 'professional' LP release with a 'professional' CD
release of (nominally) the same recording or album. ('Professional' here
means what you'd buy from a company in a shop.)


Not sure what you mean. I'd have thought all recording are supposed to
be professional. What'd be the point of anything else? CD and LP of
Flaming Lips' Yoshimi Battles are similar, for example.

2) Where you have carefully made a CD copy of an LP.

In case (1) it isn't surprising that the two can audibly differ, They are
often equalised or compressed in different ways, for example. And may also
be clipped on CD.


Yep, could well be the reason for my preference.

In my experience in case (2) they can easily be audibly indistinguishable
or have a level of audible difference that is too small to really notice or
care about.


I'm not sure I can tell the difference. Or if I could, which was which.

All the vinyl enthusiasts I know are happy with a well made CD copy of
vinyl. But are in denial that vinyl adds distortions to the original
master that CD doesn't, and prefer to think of it as magic. Which is why
they don't like a well made CD of the original master - if such a thing
exists. It doesn't have the distortions vinyl adds.


You've been here before :-)

You don't have to say 'distortion', however technically expedient you
find the phrase to be. It's just different. Analogue and digital, if you
like.

Of course some individual instruments may sort of sound 'better' with
vinyl distortion. But not all.

Other thing is the processes that a studio master tape goes through before
being cut to vinyl or CD. Which are different for each. Another reason why
seemingly identical vinyl and CDs sound different. No magic about it at
all.


Of course.

Rob