Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Vinyl is Still the Best Listening Medium?

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
Anonymous
April 18, 2005 3:29:23 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

I've done a lot of pro audio recording in the last 20 years but haven't
listened to LPs much at all during that time. But in the last year I've
been collecting some vinyl and bought a turntable. I was pretty amazed
at how much more presence Albums have compared to CDs. Sure CDs may
have more highs and lows but they really seem to be missing a lot of
information in comparison.

And my wife really noticed the difference (the old reliable "Girlfriend
Test"). I put on an old Stones record (her favorite) and she really
loved the sound. We then put on some cuts from the Stones' "40 Licks"
CD and there was no comparison for listening pleasure...... "Can you
really hear the difference?" I asked. After some thought she replied
"Well I can Feel the difference".

And you know she's right. We don't just hear sound. We always feel
sound to. And records are the only playback medium that actually
physically create a sound (a needle on vinyl that is then amplified.)
All other mediums are reproductions of sound and are not actually
physically re-creating a sound. (And of course speakers create sound in
all mediums.)

Anyway, we now play records most of the time and our listening pleasure
has increased greatly. (Of course it helps that we happen to be OLD and
like classic stuff.).... But records are a great bargin and more people
should consider it as a listening medium. You can go to the used record
store and get a nice collection for under $100 bucks!

In defense of digital let me state that the problem seems in most part
the resolution of CDs, 16bit/44khz. I record a lot at 24/96 and it's
worlds better than CD. But vinyl still has a presence that's hard to
beat.

VB

More about : vinyl listening medium

Anonymous
April 18, 2005 3:39:31 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

vinyl believer wrote:
> I've done a lot of pro audio recording in the last 20 years but
haven't
> listened to LPs much at all during that time. But in the last year
I've
> been collecting some vinyl and bought a turntable. I was pretty
amazed
> at how much more presence Albums have compared to CDs. Sure CDs may
> have more highs and lows but they really seem to be missing a lot of
> information in comparison.
>
> And my wife really noticed the difference (the old reliable
"Girlfriend
> Test"). I put on an old Stones record (her favorite) and she really
> loved the sound. We then put on some cuts from the Stones' "40 Licks"
> CD and there was no comparison for listening pleasure...... "Can you
> really hear the difference?" I asked. After some thought she replied
> "Well I can Feel the difference".
>
> And you know she's right. We don't just hear sound. We always feel
> sound to. And records are the only playback medium that actually
> physically create a sound (a needle on vinyl that is then amplified.)
> All other mediums are reproductions of sound and are not actually
> physically re-creating a sound. (And of course speakers create sound
in
> all mediums.)
>
> Anyway, we now play records most of the time and our listening
pleasure
> has increased greatly. (Of course it helps that we happen to be OLD
and
> like classic stuff.).... But records are a great bargin and more
people
> should consider it as a listening medium. You can go to the used
record
> store and get a nice collection for under $100 bucks!
>
> In defense of digital let me state that the problem seems in most
part
> the resolution of CDs, 16bit/44khz. I record a lot at 24/96 and it's
> worlds better than CD. But vinyl still has a presence that's hard to
> beat.
>
> VB

hhhmmmmm.....some good points. I've always liked the sound of records.

I've always wanted to cut an album too. Where can you have that done?
Anonymous
April 18, 2005 5:44:46 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

vinyl believer wrote:

> In defense of digital let me state that the problem seems in most part
> the resolution of CDs, 16bit/44khz. I record a lot at 24/96 and it's
> worlds better than CD. But vinyl still has a presence that's hard to
> beat.
>
> VB
>

Wait for DVD-Audio to bridge that gap....24/192k and the ability to do
5.1. I can't wait to start listening to my own mixes in 24-bit 5.1!!

Jonny Durango
Related resources
Anonymous
April 18, 2005 6:13:52 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

I have a lot of records and a lot of CDs... it's funny how I hardly
ever listen to my CDs except in the car. I always seem to gravitate
towards vinyl at home. The is some subliminal annoyance with CDs,
they almost never sounds "right" to me. The problem could also be the
converters in my consumer-grade CD player though...

Al

On 17 Apr 2005 23:29:23 -0700, "vinyl believer"
<vinylbeliever@hotmail.com> wrote:

>I've done a lot of pro audio recording in the last 20 years but haven't
>listened to LPs much at all during that time. But in the last year I've
>been collecting some vinyl and bought a turntable. I was pretty amazed
>at how much more presence Albums have compared to CDs. Sure CDs may
>have more highs and lows but they really seem to be missing a lot of
>information in comparison.
>
>And my wife really noticed the difference (the old reliable "Girlfriend
>Test"). I put on an old Stones record (her favorite) and she really
>loved the sound. We then put on some cuts from the Stones' "40 Licks"
>CD and there was no comparison for listening pleasure...... "Can you
>really hear the difference?" I asked. After some thought she replied
>"Well I can Feel the difference".
>
>And you know she's right. We don't just hear sound. We always feel
>sound to. And records are the only playback medium that actually
>physically create a sound (a needle on vinyl that is then amplified.)
>All other mediums are reproductions of sound and are not actually
>physically re-creating a sound. (And of course speakers create sound in
>all mediums.)
>
>Anyway, we now play records most of the time and our listening pleasure
>has increased greatly. (Of course it helps that we happen to be OLD and
>like classic stuff.).... But records are a great bargin and more people
>should consider it as a listening medium. You can go to the used record
>store and get a nice collection for under $100 bucks!
>
>In defense of digital let me state that the problem seems in most part
>the resolution of CDs, 16bit/44khz. I record a lot at 24/96 and it's
>worlds better than CD. But vinyl still has a presence that's hard to
>beat.
>
>VB
Anonymous
April 18, 2005 7:50:54 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"The problem with CD's is also that you need a serious CD player to
hear
it properly..."

hallelujah brother! at last...
I almost never take part to discussions about digital vs analogue, pcs
vs macs, mackie vs behringer, fender vs gibson, 16/44.1 vs 24/96 and
haagen daazs vs ben and jerry's but AT LAST... you've spoken words of
steel.

I was invited to a friend's place the other day so that the audio
purists would prove to the frivolous music technologist the superioriry
of vinyl compared to cd and the A/B testing was between a 20grand
analogue system with monoblock tube amps, Thorens deck, 300pounds per
meter speaker cables and a KEF play-it-all dvd/cd/jpeg/dvix/mp3/wma
player (that costs about 30 bucks) through a marantz baseline amplifier
and no-name Richer-sounds speakers...

I suppose it's the same with digital photography... some people just
care about the mega-pixel specs...

Best wishes,

Evangelos

%
Evangelos Himonides
IoE, University of London
tel: +44 2076126599
fax: +44 2076126741
"Allas to those who never sing but die with all their music in them..."



Oliver Wendell Holmes


%
Anonymous
April 18, 2005 7:54:02 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"vinyl believer" <vinylbeliever@hotmail.com> wrote in message
[...]
> In defense of digital let me state that the problem seems in most part
> the resolution of CDs, 16bit/44khz. I record a lot at 24/96 and it's
> worlds better than CD. But vinyl still has a presence that's hard to
> beat.

The old TM guru, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, won't allow vedic pundit's chanting
to be distributed on CD because the subtleties of the human voice are lost,
in his opinion. Since his belief-system says that the effect of Vedic
chanting is due to the phsyical effect of the sound, rather than due to some
undetectable mystical thingie , this is an important issue.

Apparently, with instrumental music, the issue isn't as important, because
you CAN purchase sitar, etc., music on CDs via his organization. For Vedic
hymns, audio-tapes only are allowed.
April 18, 2005 10:39:20 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

that deep turntable rumble adds some nice warmth...

Mark
Anonymous
April 18, 2005 11:17:15 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Good vinyl is definately better than CDs. But 24-bit/96KHz is the best so
far.

I have a Crystal Clear Records direct-to-disc recording of the Atlanta
Symphony Orchestra performing various pieces and recently I played this disc
and was astonished at how palpable the stereo image was, compared with my
digitally-mastered CDs.

In the fall, presuming my negotiation skills are up to it, I hope to be
recording a regional orchestra in 24/96 x 8 channels. That should become my
new benchmark recording.

CDs just never sounded right for classical music. Too gritty on the
pianissimo parts and definately lacking in interaural timing information
(smears the position of instruments).


--
Best Regards,

Mark A. Weiss, P.E.
www.mwcomms.com
-
Anonymous
April 18, 2005 11:47:45 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

It's part "gozinta" and part "gozouta".

On the gozinta, if the source is THE deck-original stereo master, and
if the A/D converter was good, the CD should be quite faithful to the
original.

On the gozouta, it needs to be a good CD player, amp, speakers. You
can't compare a turntable (most today are the good audiophile ones)
with a garden variety CD player.

Certainly an average CD player sounds better than the average Webcor
record player with detachable speakers of old!

I like CDs for their resistance to scratches/pops and theoretical
fidelity to the original. Slight variance in the gozinta RIAA curve and
the gozouta RIAA curve can make vinyl sound quite different than the
original. Same with pre/post emphasis on tape, especially in
conjunction with NR.
Anonymous
April 18, 2005 12:43:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

> Well, I think that compared to any digital recording, a Neumann's DMM
> (direct-to-metal) cutting combined with direct-to-disk recording
> technique would be utterly speaking unbeatable.

Apart from about 40dB s/n and several orders of magnitude of
distortion.

geoff

Well, I know Geoff is just a bloody troll but My many years of disc
cutting force me to answer.
I take it geoff has never heard a well cut lacquer disc, much less a
DMM. You can get 110 db S/N from a lacquer and better from a DMM
although that wasn't the point. And while some distortion is inevitable
If you did a good job an playback was with a good stylus you wouldn't
hear it.
Sorry, I know I shouldn't feed the trolls but I couldn't help myself.
Phil Brown
Anonymous
April 18, 2005 1:12:02 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

marysue <marysue1980@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>hhhmmmmm.....some good points. I've always liked the sound of records.
>
>I've always wanted to cut an album too. Where can you have that done?

I do mastering for perhaps a dozen or so a year. You can take the
lacquer and have it pressed in any one of a number of plants. I
will strongly recommend RTI for high-grade pressing work, although
recently I have been having a lot of work done at Alpha Records in
Florida which does surprisingly decent work for cheap. They did the
RAP LP compilation.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
April 18, 2005 1:43:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

My vinyl lps also passed the "Girlfriend Test". It was actually kinda
funny because my wife had never heard an lp before she married me, and
thought the whole turntable + big black disk contraption was weird & old
fashioned. But she could tell there was something superior when I played
them for her.

Having said all that, the "Girlfriend Test" is hardly scientific! I
encoded some sound clips to mp3 at various bitrates to try to determine
the optimal rate to rip my cds & she couldn't tell them apart, not even
96 kpbs vs. the original uncompressed wave file--something that was
quite apparent to even my old abused ears.

vinyl believer wrote:
> And my wife really noticed the difference (the old reliable "Girlfriend
> Test"). I put on an old Stones record (her favorite) and she really
> loved the sound. We then put on some cuts from the Stones' "40 Licks"
> CD and there was no comparison for listening pleasure...... "Can you
> really hear the difference?" I asked. After some thought she replied
> "Well I can Feel the difference".
Anonymous
April 18, 2005 1:54:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 17 Apr 2005 23:29:23 -0700, "vinyl believer"
<vinylbeliever@hotmail.com> wrote:

---------------8<----------------------
>
>In defense of digital let me state that the problem seems in most part
>the resolution of CDs, 16bit/44khz. I record a lot at 24/96 and it's
>worlds better than CD. But vinyl still has a presence that's hard to
>beat.
>
>VB

Well, I think that compared to any digital recording, a Neumann's DMM
(direct-to-metal) cutting combined with direct-to-disk recording
technique would be utterly speaking unbeatable.

Edi Zubovic, Crikvenica, Croatia

{PS. Sorry, I'm an old fa.......xyz, can't help}
Anonymous
April 18, 2005 2:07:28 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Mark <makolber@yahoo.com> wrote:
>that deep turntable rumble adds some nice warmth...

Not here. Nothing between the warp mode and 20 KC.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
April 18, 2005 4:10:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

> I've done a lot of pro audio recording in the last 20 years but haven't
> listened to LPs much at all during that time. But in the last year I've
> been collecting some vinyl and bought a turntable. I was pretty amazed
> at how much more presence Albums have compared to CDs. Sure CDs may
> have more highs and lows but they really seem to be missing a lot of
> information in comparison.

I personally find these sorts of impressions hard to follow. First of
all, I personally don't think that there's really all that much
difference in presence, if you play both on a carefully laid out system.
However, even if there were big differences in presence, I really
don't think there's any way that it could come even close to
compensating for vinyl's other limitations.

You correctly pointed out the better highs and lows, and CDs also have
far greater dynamic range and stereo separation. And even if those
factors for some reason didn't matter, it's not as though all those
obnoxious pops, wows, scraping sounds, and rumble were inaudible. I
personally can't see any way that even a huge improvement in presence
could compensate just for the noise alone, even without taking into
account frequency- and dynamic-range improvements.

I have always found presence to be a much bigger function of your
speaker setup than anything else, such as how well-matched they are, and
how well-placed they are.

--

(Preferably reply to the newsgroup, please. If you reply by Email, I
will sincerely try to receive your message, but it will probably get
buried in spam.)
Anonymous
April 18, 2005 4:10:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Gary Morrison wrote:

>vinyl believer wrote:

>> I've done a lot of pro audio recording in the last 20 years but
>> haven't listened to LPs much at all during that time. But in the
>> last year I've been collecting some vinyl and bought a turntable. I
>> was pretty amazed at how much more presence Albums have compared to
>> CDs. Sure CDs may have more highs and lows but they really seem to
>> be missing a lot of information in comparison.

> I personally find these sorts of impressions hard to follow.

They are easy to explain. Hype, sentimentality, decreasing hearing
acuity.

> First of
> all, I personally don't think that there's really all that much
> difference in presence, if you play both on a carefully laid out
> system.

The first problem I see is the implicit claim by "vinyl believer" that
one can so easily characterize all CDs and all LPs in terms of a vague
parameter like presence.

My experience is that vinyl varies all over the map, and CDs vary all
over the map.


>However, even if there were big differences in presence, I really
> don't think there's any way that it could come even close to
> compensating for vinyl's other limitations.

Indeed. Vinyl has well-known inherent technical failings of a fairly
grotesque nature, as compared to the CD format. When I listen to
old-tech recordings, I'm amazed they sound as good as they do, all
things considered.


> You correctly pointed out the better highs and lows, and CDs also
have
> far greater dynamic range and stereo separation. And even if those
> factors for some reason didn't matter, it's not as though all those
> obnoxious pops, wows, scraping sounds, and rumble were inaudible.

In fact they may be severely attenuated for "vinyl believer", due to
one or more of the issues I listed above.

> I personally can't see any way that even a huge improvement in
presence
> could compensate just for the noise alone, even without taking into
> account frequency- and dynamic-range improvements.

Totally agreed. It is generally accepted at this time that you can get
facsimile reproduction of vinyl off of CD, but the inverse is not
true. The reasons why are as obvious as the proverbial nose on the
face, at least for a younger person with normal hearing.

> I have always found presence to be a much bigger function of your
> speaker setup than anything else, such as how well-matched they are,
> and how well-placed they are.

Or, what's been done to tune them. I frequently find that vinylphiles
tune their systems to conceal the technical failings of vinyl. Some of
these tunings are unfavorable for the best possible reproduction of
digital.
Anonymous
April 18, 2005 4:35:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Oh please... not this argument again... one more time fron the top...

Back in the good old days, recording was much simpler, and playback systems
provided much of the color. Nowadays playback systems are much more
neutral, and the coloring is done in mixing/mastering. A good turntable
will color the sound in a pleasant manner, leading people to think that LP's
are more accurate, when they just sound better for certain recording types.
That's why pro's call audiophiles "audiophools", they're misled into
thinking they're getting closer to the "true sound".

There is no better or best, only what is preferred. Just don't mix on an
audiophile system...
Anonymous
April 18, 2005 5:06:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

philcycles wrote:

> I take it geoff has never heard a well cut lacquer disc, much less a
> DMM. You can get 110 db S/N from a lacquer and better from a DMM
> although that wasn't the point.

Which alternative universe is this?
Anonymous
April 18, 2005 5:59:33 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

playon wrote:
> it's funny how I hardly
> ever listen to my CDs except in the car. [CLICK] I always seem to
gravitate
> towards vinyl [POP] at home. The is some subliminal [CLICK]
annoyance with CDs, [POP]
> they almost never sounds "right" to me. [CLICK POP] The problem
could also be the [SCRAAAAATCH]
> converters in my consumer-grade CD player though...[CLICK]
>
Anonymous
April 18, 2005 7:28:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

> The old TM guru, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, won't allow vedic pundit's chanting
> to be distributed on CD because the subtleties of the human voice are lost,
> in his opinion. Since his belief-system says that the effect of Vedic
> chanting is due to the phsyical effect of the sound, rather than due to some
> undetectable mystical thingie , this is an important issue.
>

Sexy Sadie; what have you done?

You've made a fool of everyone.

You've made a fool of everywuh uh uhn..

Sexy Sadie, what have you done?

Chewy
Anonymous
April 18, 2005 7:54:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

philcycles wrote:
> I take it geoff has never heard a well cut lacquer disc, much less a
> DMM. You can get 110 db S/N from a lacquer and better from a DMM
> although that wasn't the point.

Which alternative universe is this?


This one. Notice I wrote lacquer and not pressed record. But I suppose
a careful reading of the post would be a bit much to ask. In fact if I
couldn't get an silent groove at high playback volumes than I'd put a
new stylus in the head.
Phil Brown
Anonymous
April 18, 2005 7:54:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

vinyl believer wrote:

> In defense of digital let me state that the problem seems in most part
> the resolution of CDs, 16bit/44khz. I record a lot at 24/96 and it's
> worlds better than CD. But vinyl still has a presence that's hard to
> beat.

I'd have to agree with you there. I used to have a quasi-surround
system cobbled together in my bedroom, with tower speakers at the foot
of the bed, bookshelf speakers on the headboard with their ground lifted
(poor man's surround/cancellation setup), and a cheapie sub under the
bed. Listening to the beginning of Pink Floyd's "The Wall", with the
chopper coming in, you could literally "feel" it hovering overhead when
sitting in the middle of the bed, playing from the old LP... the effect
was lost when playing the CD. Same with some of the effects like at the
beginning of "Money" (Dark Side of the Moon).

The drawback of course, is that even the slightest dirt, scratch or
other imperfection becomes VERY noticeable on LP, and every time you
play it, you wear it just a little bit more. CDs may not be the
infinite, imprevious medium it was originally promised to be, but it's a
thousand times more durable than LP.

I work with CCTV (closed-circuit) video systems. A lot of cheaper
systems are running video multiplexers and time-lapse VCRs (fit up to 72
hours of 16 cameras onto a T-160 VHS tape <shudder>). People that have
these systems are used to normally sitting and watching a clear
direct-camera-to-monitor picture for regular monitoring. Looks like a
nice clean cable-TV picture.

Then we upgrade them to DVRs - up to 16 channels of digital video, in
most systems, and up to 640x480 each. And immediately they complain
that the picture (digitized on the computer monitor) isn't as clear.
And they'll argue that they can't see details anymore, can't make out
this or that, why are they paying all this extra money, blah blah blah.

What they don't compare is the recorded digital picture, which will
never degrade, with the PLAYBACK from the tape, which is lousy at best,
and gets steadily worse with every pass. After three or four record
passes, you start getting neat artifacts like color bands and images
jumping between frames and what not, and tapes need to be replaced, on
average, within 8-10 uses. Given that the main point of these systems
is to be able to see what HAPPENED, not what is happening...


---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0515-6, 04/17/2005
Tested on: 4/18/2005 8:54:16 AM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com
April 18, 2005 8:04:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 18 Apr 2005 09:09:47 -0400, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

>For the most part, I think a lot of what you are hearing is the terrible
>remastering job that has been done to a lot of old material.

I'm with Scott on this one. I'll also admit, I've only had cheaper CD
players. Whereas I always had a top end turntable. Of course I knew
nothing about converters at first. The more expensive decks just
seemed to have more unnecessary bells and whistles.
Amazingly even with the better converters on my recording system, the
unmastered CD of a project I'm working on always sounds much better
than the computer. I'm delighted when it does have that more physical
presence in the room, but unclear as to why?
Anonymous
April 18, 2005 8:06:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

These comparisons are always fun, but they skip the only real validating
element:
Do you KNOW that you were listeneing to IDENTICAL master sources?

I'll bet dollars against doughnuts you don;t know and so shouldn;t be
automatically laying the blame/credit on vinyl Magic... the differences
(ASIDE from the mismatches and inaccuracies of stylus/cartidge/preamp
issues) are more likely differing mastering issues.
This is NOT to say that you don;t LIKE (or even that you SHOULDN:T like)
what you heard off the LP, but it IS saying you have to KNOW whether what
you heard is part of what was done in mastering to the LP version vs the
particular CD you compared it to. I have several discs containing TOTO
best-of collections and they all sound HUGELY different. Likewise compare an
older copy of the ALLMAN BROTHERS at FILLMORE with the latest special
edition set that's had at least 6dB or more loudness squeezed out of it at
the expense of transparency.

On 4/18/05 2:29 AM, in article
1113805763.086573.193840@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com, "vinyl believer"
<vinylbeliever@hotmail.com> wrote:

> I've done a lot of pro audio recording in the last 20 years but haven't
> listened to LPs much at all during that time. But in the last year I've
> been collecting some vinyl and bought a turntable. I was pretty amazed
> at how much more presence Albums have compared to CDs. Sure CDs may
> have more highs and lows but they really seem to be missing a lot of
> information in comparison.
>
> And my wife really noticed the difference (the old reliable "Girlfriend
> Test"). I put on an old Stones record (her favorite) and she really
> loved the sound. We then put on some cuts from the Stones' "40 Licks"
> CD and there was no comparison for listening pleasure...... "Can you
> really hear the difference?" I asked. After some thought she replied
> "Well I can Feel the difference".
>
> And you know she's right. We don't just hear sound. We always feel
> sound to. And records are the only playback medium that actually
> physically create a sound (a needle on vinyl that is then amplified.)
> All other mediums are reproductions of sound and are not actually
> physically re-creating a sound. (And of course speakers create sound in
> all mediums.)
>
> Anyway, we now play records most of the time and our listening pleasure
> has increased greatly. (Of course it helps that we happen to be OLD and
> like classic stuff.).... But records are a great bargin and more people
> should consider it as a listening medium. You can go to the used record
> store and get a nice collection for under $100 bucks!
>
> In defense of digital let me state that the problem seems in most part
> the resolution of CDs, 16bit/44khz. I record a lot at 24/96 and it's
> worlds better than CD. But vinyl still has a presence that's hard to
> beat.
>
> VB
>
Anonymous
April 18, 2005 9:05:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 18 Apr 2005 13:59:33 -0700, "Buster Mudd" <mr_furious@mail.com>
wrote:

>playon wrote:
>> it's funny how I hardly
>> ever listen to my CDs except in the car. [CLICK] I always seem to
>gravitate
>> towards vinyl [POP] at home. The is some subliminal [CLICK]
>annoyance with CDs, [POP]
>> they almost never sounds "right" to me. [CLICK POP] The problem
>could also be the [SCRAAAAATCH]
>> converters in my consumer-grade CD player though...[CLICK]
>>

That is correct -- despite the pops & clicks, I still often prefer
vinyl. But as a long time record collector I've learned to
concentrate on the music.

Al
April 18, 2005 9:54:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

A $30 CD player sounds so much better than any $30 record player ever did.
That's the comparison that matters to the rest of the world, fortunately
or unfortunately.
Anonymous
April 18, 2005 10:10:04 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"playon" <playonAT@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vdu661tlg5a16kjv0o390134km0mf0r4gr@4ax.com...
> I have a lot of records and a lot of CDs... it's funny how I hardly
> ever listen to my CDs except in the car. I always seem to gravitate
> towards vinyl at home. The is some subliminal annoyance with CDs,
> they almost never sounds "right" to me. The problem could also be the
> converters in my consumer-grade CD player though...
>
> Al
>
> On 17 Apr 2005 23:29:23 -0700, "vinyl believer"
> <vinylbeliever@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >I've done a lot of pro audio recording in the last 20 years but haven't
> >listened to LPs much at all during that time. But in the last year I've
> >been collecting some vinyl and bought a turntable. I was pretty amazed
> >at how much more presence Albums have compared to CDs. Sure CDs may
> >have more highs and lows but they really seem to be missing a lot of
> >information in comparison.
> >
> >And my wife really noticed the difference (the old reliable "Girlfriend
> >Test"). I put on an old Stones record (her favorite) and she really
> >loved the sound. We then put on some cuts from the Stones' "40 Licks"
> >CD and there was no comparison for listening pleasure...... "Can you
> >really hear the difference?" I asked. After some thought she replied
> >"Well I can Feel the difference".
> >
> >And you know she's right. We don't just hear sound. We always feel
> >sound to. And records are the only playback medium that actually
> >physically create a sound (a needle on vinyl that is then amplified.)
> >All other mediums are reproductions of sound and are not actually
> >physically re-creating a sound. (And of course speakers create sound in
> >all mediums.)
> >
> >Anyway, we now play records most of the time and our listening pleasure
> >has increased greatly. (Of course it helps that we happen to be OLD and
> >like classic stuff.).... But records are a great bargin and more people
> >should consider it as a listening medium. You can go to the used record
> >store and get a nice collection for under $100 bucks!
> >
> >In defense of digital let me state that the problem seems in most part
> >the resolution of CDs, 16bit/44khz. I record a lot at 24/96 and it's
> >worlds better than CD. But vinyl still has a presence that's hard to
> >beat.
> >
> >VB
>

IMHO CD has outrun its welcome in some circumstances.
Before everyone starts getting off their high horses, please let me explain.

Recording technology, reproduction equipment standards and in some cases
consumer standards and expectations have moved on in the past 20 or so
years.

Over 20 years ago when CD first become available to the masses, we thought
it was the answer to our prayers. Unfortunately I think CD and the sampling
/ encoding
process technology behind it was perhaps a bit rushed. Albeit that 16 bits
is deemed
enough depth to over the dynamic range of music and 44.1kHz sampling enough
to span
the audible range, the end result just doesn't sound quite right for some
music. In particular
jazz and classical recordings. I tribute the harshness in the sound of CD
evident on some
recordings to the 22.05kHz brickwall upper frequency limit at encoding and
trying to make
the best out of a 16 bit recording / mastering depth.

Increasing the sampling frequency to extend the upper frequency limit to
twice that of CD
at least pushes the potential phase and distortion problems encountered at
the upper end
of the audible range (18 - 20kHz) created by CD brickwall sampling
limitations out well
beyond what we can clearly hear. To my ears even 16/48 discs sound better
than the same
recording on CD at 16/44.1

I agree with some of the comment already made here about the difference in
high resolution
digital recordings at say 24/96 or better. I have quite a few DVD-A, DAD,
HDAD, DualDisc
and SACDs in my library. In most cases, they beat the same recoding on CD
hands down
and come closer to the vibrancy of good vinyl. The high resolution discs
seem smoother
sounding and more detailed without being bright or harsh.

The only thing I've heard in the CD format that sounds better than standard
CD is Super XRCD24
discs.

Just my 2c worth.

Cheers,
Alan
Anonymous
April 18, 2005 10:10:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

revolutionary thoughts coming up...

Music mixed for Vinyl sounds better on Vinyl
Music mixed foor CD sounds better on CD

The problem with CD's is also that you need a serious CD player to hear
it properly...I find relatively inexpensive turntables sound ok (except
for the numark PT01 I just picked up and put on ebay straight away. YUCK).
Also, CD's have been available at the same time as a quest for volume
(hence badly mastered or dynamically butchered recordings)

Personally, I prefer vinyl, but my taste in music is very 70's..new
things I enjoy on CD.
Anonymous
April 18, 2005 11:39:02 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"vinyl believer" <vinylbeliever@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1113805763.086573.193840@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> I've done a lot of pro audio recording in the last 20 years but haven't
> listened to LPs much at all during that time. But in the last year I've
> been collecting some vinyl and bought a turntable....

For classical chamber music, I prefer to hire an appropriate ensemble made
up of musicians from the local symphony. If you're on a budget, you might
find it a tad expensive for everyday listening, and you do need a bit of
room to fit them. Plus, some of them have really bad table manners.
Anonymous
April 19, 2005 12:45:22 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

james wrote:
> A $30 CD player sounds so much better than any $30 record player ever did.
> That's the comparison that matters to the rest of the world, fortunately
> or unfortunately.
damn, are we really spending the price of 1.5 CD's to listen to our
music on?
I got my turntable for $350 and it had a list of a couple of thousand
dollars
I have an audio alchemy CD player that had a list of $5000 or something
absurd (i got it cheap don't worry)
I still prefer the turntable despite the CD sounding as good as I have
heard CD's sound..
Anonymous
April 19, 2005 1:06:22 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

BINGO ... The "digital remastering" of a lot of stuff previously on LP
has ruined many of these albums. After spending many years in the radio
business, I really got tired of vinyl that had cue burns and were
handled poorly. Noise, wow, flutter etc were terrible. The first CD I
heard blew me away with the low noise floor and dynamic range and the
lack of wow or flutter. The LAST CD I heard blew me away with the lack
of dynamic range and the clipping distortion. The difference? 20 years
of people screwing it up.



Announcer
Anonymous
April 19, 2005 1:36:18 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"vinyl believer" <vinylbeliever@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> In defense of digital let me state that the problem seems in most part
> the resolution of CDs, 16bit/44khz. I record a lot at 24/96 and it's
> worlds better than CD. But vinyl still has a presence that's hard to
> beat.


What you are hearing and evidently preferring is distortion and bandwidth
limitation.

geoff
Anonymous
April 19, 2005 1:36:19 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Geoff Wood wrote:

> What you are hearing and evidently preferring is distortion and bandwidth
> limitation.

You sure about that?
Anonymous
April 19, 2005 1:36:19 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <42637f8c@clear.net.nz> geoff@nospam-paf.co.nz writes:

> What you are hearing and evidently preferring is distortion and bandwidth
> limitation.

Naw, I think it's just a matter that we produced music in a more
musical way 25 years ago. Take an LP and "remaster" it like a current
CD and you'd dislike it as much as a CD that was made last week.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
April 19, 2005 1:36:20 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Mike Rivers wrote:
> In article <42637f8c@clear.net.nz> geoff@nospam-paf.co.nz writes:
>
>
>>What you are hearing and evidently preferring is distortion and bandwidth
>>limitation.
>
>
> Naw, I think it's just a matter that we produced music in a more
> musical way 25 years ago. Take an LP and "remaster" it like a current
> CD and you'd dislike it as much as a CD that was made last week.
>
Exactamundo
Anonymous
April 19, 2005 1:36:20 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Joe Sensor wrote:

> Geoff Wood wrote:
>
>> What you are hearing and evidently preferring is distortion and
>> bandwidth limitation.
>
>
> You sure about that?
OK, vinyl does sound better. You see, let's take a church organ playing
a 20 Hz tone at 80 Decibels. Recorded on CD, it will deliver that tone
to you (if your speaker and amp can handle it) in all its brutal
reality. Recorded on vinyl, it will mix in nicely with the rumble, not
to mention step down the dynamics somewhat because there's only so much
bass energy you can fit in a groove. So the vinyl recording will have
smoother interpretation of that organ playing that note.
Now, let's take high frequency sounds, like thousands of bats suddenly
flying out of a cave. Here, on the record, with its reduced top end
response and gently rolled of eq, will play those sounds back to you in
a much more pleasant audible experiecne. The CD will play those sounds
back to you like bats out of hell, and we don't want that! So unpleasant;)

CD
Anonymous
April 19, 2005 1:36:21 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 16:20:39 -0400, Codifus <codifus@optonline.net>
wrote:

>Joe Sensor wrote:
>
>> Geoff Wood wrote:
>>
>>> What you are hearing and evidently preferring is distortion and
>>> bandwidth limitation.
>>
>>
>> You sure about that?
>OK, vinyl does sound better. You see, let's take a church organ playing
>a 20 Hz tone at 80 Decibels. Recorded on CD, it will deliver that tone
>to you (if your speaker and amp can handle it) in all its brutal
>reality. Recorded on vinyl, it will mix in nicely with the rumble, not
>to mention step down the dynamics somewhat because there's only so much
>bass energy you can fit in a groove. So the vinyl recording will have
>smoother interpretation of that organ playing that note.
>Now, let's take high frequency sounds, like thousands of bats suddenly
>flying out of a cave. Here, on the record, with its reduced top end
>response and gently rolled of eq, will play those sounds back to you in
>a much more pleasant audible experiecne. The CD will play those sounds
>back to you like bats out of hell, and we don't want that! So unpleasant;)
>
>CD

I don't know about everyone else, but I rarely listen to recordings of
church organs or bats.

Al
Anonymous
April 19, 2005 1:38:14 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Mark & Mary Ann Weiss" <mweissX294@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:%9J8e.8604$go4.3430@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> Good vinyl is definately better than CDs. But 24-bit/96KHz is the best so
> far.
>
> I have a Crystal Clear Records direct-to-disc recording of the Atlanta
> Symphony Orchestra performing various pieces and recently I played this
> disc
> and was astonished at how palpable the stereo image was, compared with my
> digitally-mastered CDs.

Try transcribing it to CD, and playing back to see if it isn't just like the
vinyl.

geoff
Anonymous
April 19, 2005 1:38:15 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Geoff Wood wrote:
> "Mark & Mary Ann Weiss" <mweissX294@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:%9J8e.8604$go4.3430@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>> Good vinyl is definately better than CDs. But 24-bit/96KHz is the
>> best so far.
>>
>> I have a Crystal Clear Records direct-to-disc recording of the
>> Atlanta Symphony Orchestra performing various pieces and recently I
>> played this disc
>> and was astonished at how palpable the stereo image was, compared
>> with my digitally-mastered CDs.

> Try transcribing it to CD, and playing back to see if it isn't just
> like the vinyl.

Forget it Geoff, they are just trolling.
Anonymous
April 19, 2005 1:39:40 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Edi Zubovic" <edi.zubovic[rem this].@ri.htnet.hr> wrote in message
news:2lp6611v2ulreu1j2kc9qj4jcoi98r407q@4ax.com...
> On 17 Apr 2005 23:29:23 -0700, "vinyl believer"
> <vinylbeliever@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> ---------------8<----------------------
>>
>>In defense of digital let me state that the problem seems in most part
>>the resolution of CDs, 16bit/44khz. I record a lot at 24/96 and it's
>>worlds better than CD. But vinyl still has a presence that's hard to
>>beat.
>>
>>VB
>
> Well, I think that compared to any digital recording, a Neumann's DMM
> (direct-to-metal) cutting combined with direct-to-disk recording
> technique would be utterly speaking unbeatable.


Apart from about 40dB s/n and several orders of magnitude of distortion.

geoff
Anonymous
April 19, 2005 2:18:55 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
> For the most part, I think a lot of what you are hearing is the terrible
> remastering job that has been done to a lot of old material. For example,
> if you want to listen to the Eagle's _Hotel California_, you can either
> get the older CD issue that was made on a PCM 1610 machine, or the newer
> one that is compressed to hell and back. Needless to say, the LP sounds
> a whole lot better.
>
>


Also, most of those full remastering jobs are done by baking the
original tape and transfering it to digital for mixing. Whether or not
you think baking has an effect, there's also the fact that tape that's
been sitting around since the 60's is likely chalk full of print through
and other types of noise.

Jonny Durango
Anonymous
April 19, 2005 2:32:28 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Joe Sensor wrote:
> Geoff Wood wrote:
>
>> What you are hearing and evidently preferring is distortion and
>> bandwidth limitation.
>
>
> You sure about that?

What I'm pretty sure of is that I can record that vinyl at
16/44.1 and no one would be able to tell the digital
recording from the original. The usual caveats WRT the
quality of the converters but they don't have to be all that.

Many, many people find that vinyl is an effect that they
like. Nothing wrong with that IMO.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein
Anonymous
April 19, 2005 3:12:14 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <3chgjtF6phk4mU1@individual.net>,
david morley <david.morley@gmx.net> wrote:

> revolutionary thoughts coming up...
>
> Music mixed for Vinyl sounds better on Vinyl
> Music mixed foor CD sounds better on CD
>
> The problem with CD's is also that you need a serious CD player to hear
> it properly...I find relatively inexpensive turntables sound ok (except
> for the numark PT01 I just picked up and put on ebay straight away. YUCK).
> Also, CD's have been available at the same time as a quest for volume
> (hence badly mastered or dynamically butchered recordings)
>
> Personally, I prefer vinyl, but my taste in music is very 70's..new
> things I enjoy on CD.

Exactly my thought!
Last year i bought Steely Dan "Everything Must Go" i 3 different
versions just to see what i liked better;
1) LP
2) CD
3) DVD-A
Of course they are all 3 excellently (IMvHO) mixed for their media.

1) The LP is the most capturing of the three in my setup, it even makes
the drums feel interesting (!)
2) The CD is best for use in a car or something, i gave it away
3) I LIKE the surround mix, it's funny, witty, good sound

Conclusion=the guys mixing, mastering these 3 things new EXACTLY what
they were doing;

1) For ppl that want to tap their feet
2) For most ppl out there
3) For the proud owners of gadgets and with great need for showoff

--
Joakim Wendel
Remove obvious mail JUNK block for mail reply.

My homepage : http://violinist.nu
Anonymous
April 19, 2005 3:26:35 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Arny Krueger wrote:
>
> The first problem I see is the implicit claim by "vinyl believer"
that
> one can so easily characterize all CDs and all LPs in terms of a
vague
> parameter like presence.
>

Sorry to confuse you with fancy technical terms like "presence" Arny.
:) 

To further confuse and clarify my personal sonic impressions of CDs
compared to vinyl I'll quote Gertrude Stein's observations about
Oakland....."There's no there there" ..... ie, no presence. Not
satisfying. Life a cup of decaf.

As I stated, you don't just hear sound. You also feel it and experience
the presence of sound. You can't technically measure presence but it is
an important part of the listening experience...... Presence is the
feeling of realism but not to the degree of total sonic accuracy.

I find "presence" especially evident in things that actually physically
produce sound such as microphones and speakers and noticing their
presence is useful in judging the sound quality of these items

Vinyl on a turntable is the only listening medium that physically
re-creates a sound which partially explains to me why vinyl has a
realism (though certainly not sonic accuracy) that is
appealing......But as with everything we experience, it's all very
personal.

VB

"Blow up 'yer CDs" ...... Once you go Vinyl it's Final!
Anonymous
April 19, 2005 5:05:42 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 18 Apr 2005 20:09:52 -0400, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

>I will say that I have heard an awful lot of records, and I mean pressings
>here, not even lacquers, where the noise floor of the master tape was higher
>than the noise floor of the record. So you could tell exactly when the
>paper leader finished....

And, FWIW, folks who haven't heard their old vinyl records
after cleaning with an alcohol and vacuum machine simply
have *not* heard their records. And it's much more than
just a matter of background noise.

Or even their *new* vinyl records. Really; it's fundamental.

And to join the fray, when I was finally able to make a
homemade CDR transfer from a vinyl record that I couldn't
tell from the original, I learned something important (to me).

Still have fifty feet plus of vinyl. Yikes. When I die the new
homeowner will have quite the Herculean Labor...

Chris Hornbeck
6x9=42 April 29
Anonymous
April 19, 2005 5:32:35 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

playon wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 16:20:39 -0400, Codifus <codifus@optonline.net>
> wrote:

>>OK, vinyl does sound better. You see, let's take a church organ playing
>>a 20 Hz tone at 80 Decibels. Recorded on CD, it will deliver that tone
>>to you (if your speaker and amp can handle it) in all its brutal
>>reality. Recorded on vinyl, it will mix in nicely with the rumble, not
>>to mention step down the dynamics somewhat because there's only so much
>>bass energy you can fit in a groove.

> I don't know about everyone else, but I rarely listen to recordings of
> church organs or bats.

Well, actually, the last thing I listened to before I sat down at
the computer was Bach's Fantasia and Fugue in G minor (BWV 542), which
has this nice sustained low note that goes on for measure after
measure after measure.

Of course, I was listening in the car, so I couldn't hear the low
bass tones there. But then again, I couldn't have listened to vinyl
there either...

- Logan
Anonymous
April 19, 2005 7:16:31 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

rny Krueger wrote:
> >
> > Sorry to confuse you with fancy technical terms like "presence"
> Arny.
> > :) 
>
> Bite me. ;-(

Arny, open your mind and your ass will follow.

>
> This is absolute BS, technically speaking.

hehe.... can I quote you on that?

>> I won't try to confuse you with the facts. >>

And don't confuse yourself either.

VB
Anonymous
April 19, 2005 7:32:44 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

>
> And, FWIW, folks who haven't heard their old vinyl records
> after cleaning with an alcohol and vacuum machine simply
> have *not* heard their records. And it's much more than
> just a matter of background noise.
>
> Or even their *new* vinyl records. Really; it's fundamental.
>
> And to join the fray, when I was finally able to make a
> homemade CDR transfer from a vinyl record that I couldn't
> tell from the original, I learned something important (to me).
>
> Still have fifty feet plus of vinyl. Yikes. When I die the new
> homeowner will have quite the Herculean Labor...
>
> Chris Hornbeck
> 6x9=42 April 29

I have a little side business restoring old recordings, and one of the
tricks in my technique is to put the LP/78/45 on a spindle, spray it with an
organic cleaner solution and run 70ºF water into the grooves at a shallow
angle. It makes a night & day difference and enables me to start with a
better sounding master before I apply digital cleanup tools.


--
Best Regards,

Mark A. Weiss, P.E.
www.mwcomms.com
-
Anonymous
April 19, 2005 7:35:12 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

>
> Wait for DVD-Audio to bridge that gap....24/192k and the ability to do
> 5.1. I can't wait to start listening to my own mixes in 24-bit 5.1!!
>
> Jonny Durango

I'm already making recordings of everything from keys jangling to fireworks
(and hopefully this fall, a regional symphony orchestra) and let me tell
you, there is NO noise and much of what's recorded falls outside of human
hearing. The keys, for instance, have harmonics up to 45KHz, on the FFT
analysis. 24/96 is a wonderful thing. More than 114dB s/n ratio and
ultrawideband response.


--
Best Regards,

Mark A. Weiss, P.E.
www.mwcomms.com
-
Anonymous
April 19, 2005 7:35:13 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Mark & Mary Ann Weiss wrote:
>>Wait for DVD-Audio to bridge that gap....24/192k and the ability to do
>>5.1. I can't wait to start listening to my own mixes in 24-bit 5.1!!
>>
>>Jonny Durango
>
>
> I'm already making recordings of everything from keys jangling to fireworks
> (and hopefully this fall, a regional symphony orchestra) and let me tell
> you, there is NO noise and much of what's recorded falls outside of human
> hearing. The keys, for instance, have harmonics up to 45KHz, on the FFT
> analysis. 24/96 is a wonderful thing. More than 114dB s/n ratio and
> ultrawideband response.
>
>
> --
> Best Regards,
>
> Mark A. Weiss, P.E.
> www.mwcomms.com
> -
>
>
>

Don't mean to rehash this old debate, but to capture that 45k would
require a specialized mic which would probably not also happen to be the
ideal mic for the job...In other words, you'd have to choose between a
great sounding 20-20k or a less-than-great 20-45k recording (I'd take
the former any day). Secondly, even if you are lucky enough to have a
playback system that can generate >25k, it's doubtful that other people
will who might get the recording. And that's with the benefit of the
doubt assuming you could feel/hear those frequencies even if it were
possible to capture and reproduce them accurately.

The main reason I'm excited about higher sample rate recordings is that
it will allow more headroom and a larger rolloff Q for anti-aliasing
filters, which I've found to very "buggy" in some systems. Combined with
the higher bit depth for larger dynamic range and SNR it should be able
to approach the fidelity of analog.....and even if not, I'd love to see
a record player do 5.1 =)

Jonny Durango
    • 1 / 7
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
    • More pages
    • Next
    • Newest
!