In article , RJH
wrote:
On 14/02/2015 09:42, Jim Lesurf wrote:

FWIW In my case I also have CD versions of many examples. But from
comparison there are differences. e.g. Old EMI LPs tend to have a
different frequency balance to the CD 're-issues'. And may have less
level compression or other 'improvements' sic that afflict some CDs.
Annoyingly, EMI apparently also started out using ADCs with *less*
than 16bit resolution. Which may explain why some of their CDs don't
sound as good as they should. But then they had to be dragged kicking
and screaming into CD production because it was "not invented here".


. . . and maybe they sound better?

Matter of the specific case and the listener's preferences I assume.

For EMI LP/CD issues of older (i.e. LP era) classical items the main
factors in my experience a

LP: Clicks and pops and other noises that are due to production problems.
Poor quality control, dirt, careless handling, pressing too quickly, poor
vinyl, and so on. i.e. The new LP had them before it was ever played. Also
warps and being absurdly offcenter. Sometimes careless flaws like cutter
'chatter' that generates a flutter effect, or similar problems.

CD: Levels too high or compressed. Poor analogue-to-digital conversions.
e.g. using a poor ADC, or a failure to dither correctly, or similar.

Differences in frequency balance also crop up. Partly I assume for the
reason Dave pointed out. But sometimes perhaps because the cutter setup
wasn't optimum or those in charge decided on a given balance.

In both case a lot of this is the difference between what *can* be done,
and what *was* done. So you're not comparing they *systems* but the foibles
of thise making the example LP or CD.

So I do often find a old EMI LP makes a more pleasing sound than a 1980s CD
resissue if I can get rid of the added rifle-shots and the rumble, wow,
etc, aren't bad.

OTOH I have many CDs I like very much. Although in terms of sound quality
they're more likely to be Decca or DGG or Philips than EMI.

FWIW in the last year or so I have started buying 2nd hand LPs. These tend
to confirm differences I recall from the past. e.g.s...

Many jazz LPs have fewer faults than pop/rock ones. How much that's down to
manufacture, how much the behaviour of previous owners, I'm not sure.

Classical LPs show up clicks much more than jazz / rock / pop because the
average levels of cutting tend to be lower, exposing clicks that would be
drowned by louder pop music.

One of the nicest LPs I've obtained 2nd hand is an early teldec Play Bach
No 1. This is form circa 1960. Stereo. Very good sound and peaks up near
+18dB RIAA. I prefer it to the CD reissue. It only had a few clicks which I
fixed easily.

Another good result is an EMI LP of Barbirolli conducting tone poems by
Sibelius. This had *hundreds* of ticks and clicks. But it was worth
removing them as the result sounds better than the EMI CD reissues I have.
The frequency balance is warmer encourages me to wind up the volume.

But other examples don't seem worth spending time on, so I don't bother
with any/much declicking and move on.

If all CDs were made with sufficient care I suspect I'd be quite happy with
them. Alas in the real world, many don't seem to have been made that way.
Alas, the same can be said for LPs.


1) The LP has lots of clicks but otherwise sounds very nice. So I then
have to spend ages with Audacity 'repairing' clicks to get a result
that sounds better than the LP. Takes time and attention.


Agreed, but for some reason, on the whole, it doesn't bother me.

Matter of how you listen and what you listen to.



2) Scanning LP sleeves, and any notes (libretto, etc). This is a real
PITA because A4 flatbed scanners can't cover a 12" LP in one go. So
required more than one scan per item, and then realignment, cropping
and stitching mutliple scans with GIMP (other programs are available
:-) )


I'm sure I'm going to regret writing this because I think I know the
answer, but use the camera on your phone.

I can give the answer you expected. I don't have a phone with a camera. :-)

However I *do* have some reasonable digital cameras. I have tried using
them for this. The results weren't good. Partly lighting problems. Partly
geometric problems with perspective. Partly not having the detail of a
300dpi scan on a flatbed.


That said, both processes also give you more time to listen to the
item as well.


Well quite. The only slight faff for me was splitting and naming tracks
so the tags played with servers.

In general I don't split the tracks unless there is a specific reason. And
I don't add metadata tags to the flac files. I use scans of the cover,
back, and any notes, etc. Quite happy in most cases to play the results as
'LP sides'. One file per side.

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

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , RJH
wrote:
On 14/02/2015 09:42, Jim Lesurf wrote:

FWIW In my case I also have CD versions of many examples. But
from
comparison there are differences. e.g. Old EMI LPs tend to have a
different frequency balance to the CD 're-issues'. And may have
less
level compression or other 'improvements' sic that afflict some
CDs.
Annoyingly, EMI apparently also started out using ADCs with
*less*
than 16bit resolution. Which may explain why some of their CDs
don't
sound as good as they should. But then they had to be dragged
kicking
and screaming into CD production because it was "not invented
here".


. . . and maybe they sound better?

Matter of the specific case and the listener's preferences I assume.

For EMI LP/CD issues of older (i.e. LP era) classical items the main
factors in my experience a

LP: Clicks and pops and other noises that are due to production
problems.
Poor quality control, dirt, careless handling, pressing too quickly,
poor
vinyl, and so on. i.e. The new LP had them before it was ever
played. Also
warps and being absurdly offcenter. Sometimes careless flaws like
cutter
'chatter' that generates a flutter effect, or similar problems.

CD: Levels too high or compressed. Poor analogue-to-digital
conversions.
e.g. using a poor ADC, or a failure to dither correctly, or similar.

Differences in frequency balance also crop up. Partly I assume for
the
reason Dave pointed out. But sometimes perhaps because the cutter
setup
wasn't optimum or those in charge decided on a given balance.

In both case a lot of this is the difference between what *can* be
done,
and what *was* done. So you're not comparing they *systems* but the
foibles
of thise making the example LP or CD.

So I do often find a old EMI LP makes a more pleasing sound than a
1980s CD
resissue if I can get rid of the added rifle-shots and the rumble,
wow,
etc, aren't bad.

OTOH I have many CDs I like very much. Although in terms of sound
quality
they're more likely to be Decca or DGG or Philips than EMI.

FWIW in the last year or so I have started buying 2nd hand LPs.
These tend
to confirm differences I recall from the past. e.g.s...

Many jazz LPs have fewer faults than pop/rock ones. How much that's
down to
manufacture, how much the behaviour of previous owners, I'm not
sure.

Classical LPs show up clicks much more than jazz / rock / pop
because the
average levels of cutting tend to be lower, exposing clicks that
would be
drowned by louder pop music.

One of the nicest LPs I've obtained 2nd hand is an early teldec Play
Bach
No 1. This is form circa 1960. Stereo. Very good sound and peaks up
near
+18dB RIAA. I prefer it to the CD reissue. It only had a few clicks
which I
fixed easily.

Another good result is an EMI LP of Barbirolli conducting tone poems
by
Sibelius. This had *hundreds* of ticks and clicks. But it was worth
removing them as the result sounds better than the EMI CD reissues I
have.
The frequency balance is warmer encourages me to wind up the volume.

But other examples don't seem worth spending time on, so I don't
bother
with any/much declicking and move on.

If all CDs were made with sufficient care I suspect I'd be quite
happy with
them. Alas in the real world, many don't seem to have been made that
way.
Alas, the same can be said for LPs.


1) The LP has lots of clicks but otherwise sounds very nice. So I
then
have to spend ages with Audacity 'repairing' clicks to get a
result
that sounds better than the LP. Takes time and attention.


Agreed, but for some reason, on the whole, it doesn't bother me.

Matter of how you listen and what you listen to.



2) Scanning LP sleeves, and any notes (libretto, etc). This is a
real
PITA because A4 flatbed scanners can't cover a 12" LP in one go.
So
required more than one scan per item, and then realignment,
cropping
and stitching mutliple scans with GIMP (other programs are
available
:-) )


I'm sure I'm going to regret writing this because I think I know
the
answer, but use the camera on your phone.

I can give the answer you expected. I don't have a phone with a
camera. :-)

However I *do* have some reasonable digital cameras. I have tried
using
them for this. The results weren't good. Partly lighting problems.
Partly
geometric problems with perspective. Partly not having the detail of
a
300dpi scan on a flatbed.


That said, both processes also give you more time to listen to
the
item as well.


Well quite. The only slight faff for me was splitting and naming
tracks
so the tags played with servers.

In general I don't split the tracks unless there is a specific
reason. And
I don't add metadata tags to the flac files. I use scans of the
cover,
back, and any notes, etc. Quite happy in most cases to play the
results as
'LP sides'. One file per side.


It doesn't just follow that jazz (ah, how I remember Mr Loussier) or
classical transfers that have problems. One of the best albums for
demo (and the title track is probably the best) is Love Over Gold by
Dire Straits, but the LP sounds just so much 'nicer' and more
melodious than the CD.


--
Woody

harrogate3 at ntlworld dot com

In article ,
Woody wrote:

It doesn't just follow that jazz (ah, how I remember Mr Loussier) or
classical transfers that have problems. One of the best albums for
demo (and the title track is probably the best) is Love Over Gold by
Dire Straits, but the LP sounds just so much 'nicer' and more
melodious than the CD.

I agree. Its largely a question of the care and judgement employed when
each example was made. I have many CDs that sound superb, and give clearer
results than the LP. I also have many CDs which sound crushed or have a
poorer balance, etc, than the LP. Its not so much a matter of how well LP
or CD *can* deliver good results. Its a question of when the makers can be
bothered and apply the required skill and care.

In the last few years I've bought both:

A) boxed sets of CDs and found that, for example the 'Philips 50' and
Decca Analogue Years' boxes of classical music are very enjoyable with
generally superb sound.

B) new sets of LPs, and found that The Shadows Singles Collection (2LP) and
The Beatles Mono LPs box sound great.

What I do wish, though, was that EMI had bothered to take that much care
when pressing the Beatles/Shadows LPs back in the day!

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:
It doesn't just follow that jazz (ah, how I remember Mr Loussier) or
classical transfers that have problems. One of the best albums for
demo (and the title track is probably the best) is Love Over Gold by
Dire Straits, but the LP sounds just so much 'nicer' and more
melodious than the CD.

I agree. Its largely a question of the care and judgement employed when
each example was made. I have many CDs that sound superb, and give
clearer results than the LP. I also have many CDs which sound crushed or
have a poorer balance, etc, than the LP. Its not so much a matter of how
well LP or CD *can* deliver good results. Its a question of when the
makers can be bothered and apply the required skill and care.

I've never quite understood why CDs have any 're-mastering' at all. Surely
the producer and artist are happy with the final mix in the studio? So all
that would be needed when producing the final CD *might* be some subtle
level alterations between tracks - if that sort of CD?

--
*I yell because I care

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

And therein lies the crux of the matter.
After decades producing poor quality media the industry wishes us to exonerate their blatant lack of professionalism.
They hope to avoid responsibility for poor equalisation decisions in the past by claiming the current betterment in fidelity is due to increased bitdepths and sampling rates in new replay files.
A promise of professional mastering this time around would have been more than satisfactory, rather than deceiving the public even further.

In article , John R Leddy
wrote:

'Jim Lesurf[_2_ Wrote:
;93638']If all CDs were made with sufficient care I suspect I'd be
quite happy with them. Alas in the real world, many don't seem to have
been made that way. Alas, the same can be said for LPs.
And therein lies the crux of the matter. After decades producing poor
quality media the industry wishes us to exonerate their blatant lack of
professionalism. They hope to avoid responsibility for poor equalisation
decisions in the past by claiming the current betterment in fidelity is
due to increased bitdepths and sampling rates in new replay files. A
promise of professional mastering this time around would have been more
than satisfactory, rather than deceiving the public even further.


Agreed. Hence the way HiFiNews keep catching out 'high rez' files on sale
being simply upampled older versions. i.e. more bits, but no improvement in
results or content.

FWIW Although KK tended to refer to PRT as Purveyors of ReTreads I found
their CDs a few decades ago were blessed by employing Mike Dutton to do the
digital transfers, etc, from their old master tapes. As a result their CD
re-issues of the old Pye Barbirolli recordings generally sound much better
than some later 'EMI' re-issues. Fortunately in some cases their 'Pheonixa'
re-re-issues used Mike's work as well. Alas, their Vaughan Williams 60CD
shovel-in-in box was a real guddle of good and poor transfers.

Company run by accountants. Must have been a real frustration for the
engineers, etc, who cared.

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

On 14/02/2015 16:48, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , RJH
wrote:
On 14/02/2015 09:42, Jim Lesurf wrote:

snip

If all CDs were made with sufficient care I suspect I'd be quite happy with
them. Alas in the real world, many don't seem to have been made that way.
Alas, the same can be said for LPs.


1) The LP has lots of clicks but otherwise sounds very nice. So I then
have to spend ages with Audacity 'repairing' clicks to get a result
that sounds better than the LP. Takes time and attention.


Agreed, but for some reason, on the whole, it doesn't bother me.

Matter of how you listen and what you listen to.



'Preference' is a complex concoction - as discussed here and elsewhere,
to death ;-)


2) Scanning LP sleeves, and any notes (libretto, etc). This is a real
PITA because A4 flatbed scanners can't cover a 12" LP in one go. So
required more than one scan per item, and then realignment, cropping
and stitching mutliple scans with GIMP (other programs are available
:-) )


I'm sure I'm going to regret writing this because I think I know the
answer, but use the camera on your phone.

I can give the answer you expected. I don't have a phone with a camera. :-)


Yep :-)

However I *do* have some reasonable digital cameras. I have tried using
them for this. The results weren't good. Partly lighting problems. Partly
geometric problems with perspective. Partly not having the detail of a
300dpi scan on a flatbed.


OK, I can see that. What do you want the photo for, though?

Is it just album art for playback through a music server? If so, I'd be
inclined to download from Amazon (etc), allow a (otherwise rubbish)
programme like iTunes or WMP find it for you, or live with the
compromise - surely not that severe, given the size of the image.


That said, both processes also give you more time to listen to the
item as well.


Well quite. The only slight faff for me was splitting and naming tracks
so the tags played with servers.

In general I don't split the tracks unless there is a specific reason. And
I don't add metadata tags to the flac files. I use scans of the cover,
back, and any notes, etc. Quite happy in most cases to play the results as
'LP sides'. One file per side.


As they were intended to be heard.

Keith G left me a load of 'vinyl rips', all unsplit. Those aside, I
don't quite have the attention span nowadays, alas.

--
Cheers, Rob

In article , RJH
wrote:
On 14/02/2015 16:48, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , RJH
wrote:



However I *do* have some reasonable digital cameras. I have tried
using them for this. The results weren't good. Partly lighting
problems. Partly geometric problems with perspective. Partly not
having the detail of a 300dpi scan on a flatbed.


OK, I can see that. What do you want the photo for, though?

The font cover is mainly to have something I can put on screen when my wife
asks "What are we listening to?"

I also scan the back and LP labels as they often contain details like track
durations, pressing and copyright dates, etc. I also scan leaflets, etc, as
these give things like libretto and translations, etc. These details
sometimes allow me to tell which release/version the LP is. Some have
appeared in different forms, and were cut differently. And for obvious
reasons the text for the back/notes needs to be detailed enough for me to
read easily.

FWIW I should soon finally have a new 'AV' machine to connect to my new
HDTV. I'm hoping I can then see the above details from the armchair when
required. :-) That's when listening to such files as distinct from
video+audio recordings, etc.


Is it just album art for playback through a music server?

No. I don't use a 'music server'. I just play the files from wherever they
are with Audacious. And use a suitable image displayer to show the various
images when I (or Chris) want to see them.


If so, I'd be inclined to download from Amazon (etc), allow a (otherwise
rubbish) programme like iTunes or WMP find it for you, or live with the
compromise - surely not that severe, given the size of the image.

My answer wrt Amazon, iToons, and WMP is similar to the one for a phone.
:-)


In general I don't split the tracks unless there is a specific reason.
And I don't add metadata tags to the flac files. I use scans of the
cover, back, and any notes, etc. Quite happy in most cases to play the
results as 'LP sides'. One file per side.


As they were intended to be heard.

Yes. And knowing the durations its a lot easier and safer to find a
specific track or movement if I *do* want that when playing a file than
when playing the actual LP.

Keith G left me a load of 'vinyl rips', all unsplit. Those aside, I
don't quite have the attention span nowadays, alas.

It varies, but I tend to do about one or two LPs per week. This gets done
in between other things. e.g. at present setting up HDMI cable
measurements. Or, of course, simply sitting and enjoying music. 8-]

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