Digitising Vinyls (OT for uk.tech.digital-tv)
 

On 07/11/2011 12:38, Arny Krueger wrote:
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...



Or reify their prejudices :-)

Experiencing music is not an objective, measurable experience. So to say
CD is better than LP makes no sense. It's simply preference.

Rob

Digitising Vinyls (OT for uk.tech.digital-tv)
 

In article m, Rob
wrote:
On 06/11/2011 19:56, David Looser wrote:
wrote


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


I find the difference to be profound.

Depends. I've just been enjoying some of the CDs in the recent box set of
recordings of Steinberg conducting the Pittsburg SO that were made for
EMI/Capitol in the 1950s. The box arrived here this morning.

Some of the CDs could be said to be 'profoundly' better than my MFP/CFP
mono LPs of some of the works that I bought mumble decades ago. Stereo, and
not worn by ye olde Dansette! :-)

Excellent set BTW. Recommended if you like music more than hifi. That said,
the recordings do show how clear some old stereo recordings are. Even if
the layout is a bit odd for some of them.

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

Digitising Vinyls (OT for uk.tech.digital-tv)
 

Jim Lesurf wrote:

Excellent set BTW. Recommended if you like music more than hifi. That said,
the recordings do show how clear some old stereo recordings are. Even if
the layout is a bit odd for some of them.

I listen to Radio Dismuke and Bryan Wright on Boston Pete, and the
technical quality of some of the earlier recordings leaves a great deal
to be desired. It doesn't matter though. The brilliance of the
performers shines through.

Bill

Digitising Vinyls (OT for uk.tech.digital-tv)
 

In article ,
Rob wrote:
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.

Not technically expedient, technically correct.

It's just different. Analogue and digital, if you
like.

Not so. Analalogue can go through many stages of amplifiers etc without
audible degradion. But cannon survive being cut to vinyl unharmed.

Digitizing an analogue signal correctly is totally transparent.

--
*Stable Relationships Are For Horses.

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

Digitising Vinyls (OT for uk.tech.digital-tv)
 

"Rob" wrote in message
b.com...
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.

In which case why did you say that you have found there to be "little
discernible difference between vinyl and CD"?

David.

Digitising Vinyls (OT for uk.tech.digital-tv)
 

"Rob" wrote

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.

It obviously bothers you when we call a spade a spade, or in this case call
distortion distortion. Sorry, thats what it is, there's no other word for
it.

David.

Digitising Vinyls (OT for uk.tech.digital-tv)
 

On 07/11/2011 21:04, David Looser wrote:
wrote in message
b.com...
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.

In which case why did you say that you have found there to be "little
discernible difference between vinyl and CD"?


As I said, poorly worded - while I *have* found the odd example where
the difference is slight - it's rare. Yoshimi Battles is one of the rare
examples.

It's as if the Flaming Lips took the vinyl, digitised it, and copied it
to CD.

Rob

Digitising Vinyls (OT for uk.tech.digital-tv)
 

On 07/11/2011 21:08, David Looser wrote:
wrote

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.

It obviously bothers you when we call a spade a spade, or in this case call
distortion distortion. Sorry, thats what it is, there's no other word for
it.


Well, you do need the context. We were talking about accounting for the
difference in sound. 'Distortion' isn't the only, or possibly
significant, variable.

Of course if you say it is the only variable, there it rests.

Rob

Digitising Vinyls (OT for uk.tech.digital-tv)
 

On 07/11/2011 19:10, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In web.com,
wrote:
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.

Not technically expedient, technically correct.


Following that line doesn't get you any closer to understanding what
you're trying to explain - the difference in experience, including
preference.

It's just different. Analogue and digital, if you
like.

Not so. Analalogue can go through many stages of amplifiers etc without
audible degradion. But cannon survive being cut to vinyl unharmed.


Er, OK.

Digitizing an analogue signal correctly is totally transparent.


Total? In all cases? Assuming, of course the method used can capture
every nuance of the original sound. Which as we all know, it can't.

Rob

Digitising Vinyls (OT for uk.tech.digital-tv)
 

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


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.

You mean when I made recordings of my parents decades ago they were
'professional'? Not sure if I should be flattered or upset by that! :-)

However the distinction was wrt (2) below.

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

Where a private individual makes a CD copy for reasons of convenience, etc.


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.

It depends entirely on the circumstances. The "can" meant "depending on the
circumstances of how well the LP - CD copy was made". e.g if the process
avoided serious clipping, adding hum, and so on.

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