Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

CD Vs. Vinyl?

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
Anonymous
March 26, 2005 8:53:46 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

I've heard about Vinyl having more midrange and what not but whenever
I hear a vinyl being played on TV or whatever, it sounds muddy,
unclear and it sounds like there's no seperation along with too much
hiss

Now is it possible that maybe the equipment used was inferior or is
this just the way Vinyl sounds?

More about : vinyl

Anonymous
March 26, 2005 7:24:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 26 Mar 2005 05:53:46 GMT, caffieneaddict@gmail.com (Cobain4evr)
wrote:

>I've heard about Vinyl having more midrange and what not but whenever
>I hear a vinyl being played on TV or whatever, it sounds muddy,
>unclear and it sounds like there's no seperation along with too much
>hiss
>
>Now is it possible that maybe the equipment used was inferior or is
>this just the way Vinyl sounds?

There is nothing wrong with what you are hearing - this is indeed just
the way vinyl sounds. CD has been around so long that most people are
unaware what a revelation it was - particularly for listeners to
classical music - when it first came out. At that time, vinyl was the
standard, and I heard not ione single 'serious audiophile' suggest
that CD was not greatly superior in most respects. It's true that some
early players (and some early CDs) had some treble harshness, but that
had vanished by the early '90s.

As with tube amplifiers, there is a tiny band of anachrophiles who
will always believe that 'older is better'. This may be true of some
aspects of society, but is rarely true of technology, and is certainly
*not* true of vinyl.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
March 26, 2005 7:29:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Cobain4evr wrote:

> I've heard about Vinyl having more midrange and what not but whenever
> I hear a vinyl being played on TV or whatever, it sounds muddy,
> unclear and it sounds like there's no seperation along with too much
> hiss

What does that mean? Records played on TV, or whatever? Look, under the
best of circumstances records can sound very good. But the best
circumstances are hardly ever encountered. In the heyday of records, at
the time CD was becoming increasingly popular, certain technologies, I'm
talking about half speed mastering, direct to disc, JVC super-vinyl, Teldec
DMM recordings, and so on, pushed the state of the art. As CD sound
(recording technique, really) became more improved there was no reason to
put up with the imperfections inherent in even the best records.

The best thing that can be said for records, today, in light of the SOA of
current CD production, is that record album liner notes were easier to read
than little CD brochures, and with a record album you might sometimes have
gotten a poster to hang on your wall.

michael
Related resources
Anonymous
March 26, 2005 7:29:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Cobain4evr wrote:
> I've heard about Vinyl having more midrange and what not but whenever
> I hear a vinyl being played on TV or whatever, it sounds muddy,
> unclear and it sounds like there's no seperation along with too much
> hiss
>
> Now is it possible that maybe the equipment used was inferior or is
> this just the way Vinyl sounds?

Don't believe everything you hear on TV. Everytime you hear Elvis
singing in one of his movies he is acompanied by musicians that aren't
there.

Scott Wheeler
Anonymous
March 27, 2005 9:42:34 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Cobain4evr" <caffieneaddict@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:D 22tda01b9m@news2.newsguy.com...
> I've heard about Vinyl having more midrange and what not but whenever
> I hear a vinyl being played on TV or whatever, it sounds muddy,
> unclear and it sounds like there's no seperation along with too much
> hiss
>
> Now is it possible that maybe the equipment used was inferior or is
> this just the way Vinyl sounds?

When you hear vinyl being played on a TV or radio program it's usually
because they don't have anything better. Thus, it's a good probability that
the vinyl is ancient and not very high fidelity.

But yes, that's just the way vinyl sounds.

Norm Strong
Anonymous
March 27, 2005 9:43:41 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> On 26 Mar 2005 05:53:46 GMT, caffieneaddict@gmail.com (Cobain4evr)
> wrote:
>
> >I've heard about Vinyl having more midrange and what not but
whenever
> >I hear a vinyl being played on TV or whatever, it sounds muddy,
> >unclear and it sounds like there's no seperation along with too much
> >hiss
> >
> >Now is it possible that maybe the equipment used was inferior or is
> >this just the way Vinyl sounds?
>
> There is nothing wrong with what you are hearing - this is indeed
just
> the way vinyl sounds. CD has been around so long that most people are
> unaware what a revelation it was - particularly for listeners to
> classical music - when it first came out. At that time, vinyl was the
> standard, and I heard not ione single 'serious audiophile' suggest
> that CD was not greatly superior in most respects.

Methinks your statement here is a tautology as an audiophile who
believes vinyl is superior in the most important aspects is
automatically "not serious." I've encountered audio engineers both at
school and in some of my early jobs, and if I remember right it was
about evenly split between those who thought that CD was superior and
those who thought that analog was generally superior and vinyl was one
of the best ways to brings those strengths into the home (although they
might rather listen to reel-to-reel tape).

>It's true that some
> early players (and some early CDs) had some treble harshness, but
that
> had vanished by the early '90s.
>
> As with tube amplifiers, there is a tiny band of anachrophiles who
> will always believe that 'older is better'.

Are you threatened by this "tiny band"? You have to put them down
three times here: calling them a "tiny band," calling them
"anachrophiles", and as a strawman asserting they believe "older is
better." I think that good vinyl is musically superior to CD (although
the inner groove distortion is still a major problem in classical
music, I would agree with that), and I have no such general belief that
"older is better."

Hmm, I do think that land lines sound better than highly compressed
bit-rate digital cell phones. I think that when they changed the
design of my favorite underwear, it didn't fit as well. I think that
my city was nicer back when it wasn't so crowded. Damn, I guess I'm an
anachrophile after all.

-Mike
Anonymous
March 27, 2005 9:43:58 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

> At that time, vinyl was the
> standard, and I heard not ione single 'serious audiophile' suggest
> that CD was not greatly superior in most respects.
The definition of a 'serious audiophile' being someone who agrees with you.

-- Richard
Anonymous
March 27, 2005 9:47:19 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

In article <d242cf027n0@news4.newsguy.com>,
Stewart Pinkerton <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:

> There is nothing wrong with what you are hearing - this is indeed just
> the way vinyl sounds. CD has been around so long that most people are
> unaware what a revelation it was - particularly for listeners to
> classical music - when it first came out. At that time, vinyl was the
> standard, and I heard not ione single 'serious audiophile' suggest
> that CD was not greatly superior in most respects. It's true that some
> early players (and some early CDs) had some treble harshness, but that
> had vanished by the early '90s.

Generally, but not always, I have preferred works originally done in
analog on LP rather than CD. There seems to be something about the
transfer to digital that messes them up. However, this is much less
true today than it was a number of years ago. In fact, I did not buy my
first CD until several years after they first came out because they did
not sound right.

As the technology advanced and works were recorded directly to digital,
CD became superior to LP. Nevertheless, if the original was analog and
there is any noticeable difference between the LP and the CD, I tend to
prefer the LP. However, more and more there is no noticeable difference.

Rather than arbitrarily say to favor CD over LP or vice versa, I would
say to listen to see if they sound different and if they do go with what
sounds most like a live performance.
Anonymous
March 27, 2005 9:48:11 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Cobain4evr wrote:
> I've heard about Vinyl having more midrange and what not but whenever
> I hear a vinyl being played on TV or whatever, it sounds muddy,
> unclear and it sounds like there's no seperation along with too much
> hiss
>
> Now is it possible that maybe the equipment used was inferior or is
> this just the way Vinyl sounds?

I owned a very good vinyl set-up (Thorens TD125/II, Magnepan ar, Stax
electrec cartridge) and had 1200 LPs. Sold it all, and have no regrets
whatsoever.
Anonymous
March 27, 2005 9:49:51 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> On 26 Mar 2005 05:53:46 GMT, caffieneaddict@gmail.com (Cobain4evr)
> wrote:
>
> >I've heard about Vinyl having more midrange and what not but
whenever
> >I hear a vinyl being played on TV or whatever, it sounds muddy,
> >unclear and it sounds like there's no seperation along with too much
> >hiss
> >
> >Now is it possible that maybe the equipment used was inferior or is
> >this just the way Vinyl sounds?
>
> There is nothing wrong with what you are hearing

Other than the fact that it has nothing to do with the actual sound of
SOTA vinyl playback.

- this is indeed just
> the way vinyl sounds.

No. It is the way sound editors represent the sound of vinyl. It hardly
represents any universal truth.

CD has been around so long that most people are
> unaware what a revelation it was - particularly for listeners to
> classical music - when it first came out. At that time, vinyl was the
> standard, and I heard not ione single 'serious audiophile' suggest
> that CD was not greatly superior in most respects.

Well of course. I did not hear one single "serious" audiophile who did
not think CD was greatly inferior. Since we are free to decide who we
think is and is not a "serious" audiophile your statement, as is mine
for the sake of example, is a reflection of your own biases on audio
and not any kind of a reflection on the opinions of the actual
individuals across this wide world that consider themselves to be
"serious" audiophiles.

It's true that some
> early players (and some early CDs) had some treble harshness, but
that
> had vanished by the early '90s.

As if that were a minor issue.

>
> As with tube amplifiers, there is a tiny band of anachrophiles who
> will always believe that 'older is better'.

The preference for tubes is hardly based on the idea that "older is
better." There may indeed be a tiny band of people that believe this
but that hardly acounts for the majority of people that prefer tube
amplification.

This may be true of some
> aspects of society, but is rarely true of technology, and is
certainly
> *not* true of vinyl.

Except in the majority of practical applications. You know, like when
someone goes out and buys some commercial title that they like and it
sounds better on vinyl. It happens. With SOTA play back equipment it
happens far more often than not IME.

Scott Wheeler
Anonymous
March 27, 2005 8:05:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 27 Mar 2005 05:43:41 GMT, "Michael Mossey"
<michaelmossey@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

>>CD has been around so long that most people are
>> unaware what a revelation it was - particularly for listeners to
>> classical music - when it first came out. At that time, vinyl was the
>> standard, and I heard not ione single 'serious audiophile' suggest
>> that CD was not greatly superior in most respects.
>
>Methinks your statement here is a tautology as an audiophile who
>believes vinyl is superior in the most important aspects is
>automatically "not serious." I've encountered audio engineers both at
>school and in some of my early jobs, and if I remember right it was
>about evenly split between those who thought that CD was superior and
>those who thought that analog was generally superior and vinyl was one
>of the best ways to brings those strengths into the home (although they
>might rather listen to reel-to-reel tape).

OK, I phrased that badly. I knew a coiuple of dozen 'serious
audiophiles' in 1982, none of whom of coutrse had any experience of
CD. Two years later, every single one of them agreed that CD was
greatly superior to LP.

It's not realy until you get into the '90s (by which time any residual
weakness in CD players had been sorted out), that it became
fashionable to knock CD. Interestingly, that would be about the same
time that it became fashionable to claim magical properties for
single-ended triode amps, a technology which had previously been
abandoned in the '20s..................

>> As with tube amplifiers, there is a tiny band of anachrophiles who
>> will always believe that 'older is better'.
>
>Are you threatened by this "tiny band"? You have to put them down
>three times here: calling them a "tiny band," calling them
>"anachrophiles", and as a strawman asserting they believe "older is
>better." I think that good vinyl is musically superior to CD (although
>the inner groove distortion is still a major problem in classical
>music, I would agree with that), and I have no such general belief that
>"older is better."

No, I'm not threatened, just amused, and you are of course free to
prefer anything you like. My only real quarrel is with those who make
false claims about analogue, such as 'infinite resolution', 'more
low-level detail' and the like.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Anonymous
March 27, 2005 8:06:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Cobain4evr wrote:
> I've heard about Vinyl having more midrange and what not but whenever
> I hear a vinyl being played on TV or whatever, it sounds muddy,
> unclear and it sounds like there's no seperation along with too much
> hiss
>
> Now is it possible that maybe the equipment used was inferior or is
> this just the way Vinyl sounds?

Oh c'mon guys! Don't you recognize a troll when you see one?

This guy wrote this thing just to see y'all get arguing about
this old bone. Then next thing you know he'll be asking you
whether tube amps sound better than transistor amps, and when
he's done with that, he'll ask you about using green felt
markers around the edge of his CDs.

Russ
Anonymous
March 27, 2005 8:47:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Good vinyl LPs were cut by disc-mastering engineers who sometimes took
liberties with equalisation, according to the known playing time of the
side.
More minures = less level, whether stereo or mono
Eq was, and still is, a personal touch. If longer duration for
compilations or some classicals or other reasons was the important factor,
bass slope was
reduced to make the grooves narrower, nut if the 12" side was about 21mins,
excellent fidelity to the master tape was usually adhered to.
These well-paid techies were "kings" in their day.

The cutter worm which scrolled gradually toward the centre of the lathe
every rev,
received pre-groove freq- and dynamics-aware info from a "read ahead" tape
head (about 4 secs) via a servo to widen the average wall pitch in time for
a loud bass excursion, or a series of
them, but which came from the real-time transfer head, and to relax pitch
when normal
levels were experienced. Even the dynamics of highs were attenuated because
of sizzle and splash excursions.
Or if no read-ahead aid, techie just ducked the bass end relative to mid and
highs when cutting.
This is why there is a bit more *mid range* heard on vinyl discs compared
with CD of same taped takes.

Then banding was another technique which involved
supervised special scrolling, also for the run-out closing circle.

Bass solos on one side of the stereo platform were a bit of a headache,
because often something less dynamic was on the other half especially in
early "ping-pong" stereo efforts.
I have bought bad stereo LPs which were transcribed from tape off-azimuth
and even a couple with L/R phase cancellation errors (both are mono
useless).
Microgroove test discs had freq tones (spot and gliding) that were deemed
flat with
the RIAA curve, but these were 10dB or 18dB below peak, never ever cut at
peak level other than a 1kHz ref.

With some labels, cutting 45s meant lots of tweaks to get maximum energy
from
the groove (think competitors' loudness in juke-boxes).
Most CDs are supposed to be direct descendants of their DAT masters, usually
with no
human-caused alteration of the sound parameters.
Anonymous
March 28, 2005 9:39:17 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Michael Mossey" <michaelmossey@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:D 25h6d0s53@news4.newsguy.com...

> Hmm, I do think that land lines sound better than highly compressed
> bit-rate digital cell phones.

"Land lines" are almost entirely digital, but normally do not use
compression. This is a separate issue from digital vs. analog,
let alone vinyl vs. CD.

- Gary Rosen
Anonymous
March 28, 2005 9:42:01 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> On 27 Mar 2005 05:43:41 GMT, "Michael Mossey"
> <michaelmossey@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>
> >>CD has been around so long that most people are
> >> unaware what a revelation it was - particularly for listeners to
> >> classical music - when it first came out. At that time, vinyl was
the
> >> standard, and I heard not ione single 'serious audiophile' suggest
> >> that CD was not greatly superior in most respects.
> >
> >Methinks your statement here is a tautology as an audiophile who
> >believes vinyl is superior in the most important aspects is
> >automatically "not serious." I've encountered audio engineers both
at
> >school and in some of my early jobs, and if I remember right it was
> >about evenly split between those who thought that CD was superior
and
> >those who thought that analog was generally superior and vinyl was
one
> >of the best ways to brings those strengths into the home (although
they
> >might rather listen to reel-to-reel tape).
>
> OK, I phrased that badly. I knew a coiuple of dozen 'serious
> audiophiles' in 1982, none of whom of coutrse had any experience of
> CD. Two years later, every single one of them agreed that CD was
> greatly superior to LP.
>
> It's not realy until you get into the '90s (by which time any
residual
> weakness in CD players had been sorted out), that it became
> fashionable to knock CD. Interestingly, that would be about the same
> time that it became fashionable to claim magical properties for
> single-ended triode amps, a technology which had previously been
> abandoned in the '20s..................
>
> >> As with tube amplifiers, there is a tiny band of anachrophiles who
> >> will always believe that 'older is better'.
> >
> >Are you threatened by this "tiny band"? You have to put them down
> >three times here: calling them a "tiny band," calling them
> >"anachrophiles", and as a strawman asserting they believe "older is
> >better." I think that good vinyl is musically superior to CD
(although
> >the inner groove distortion is still a major problem in classical
> >music, I would agree with that), and I have no such general belief
that
> >"older is better."
>
> No, I'm not threatened, just amused,

Are you also amused by people who like classical music? They are a
"tiny band" out of all music consumers. What does that prove about
these folks?

Amusement is a patronizing reaction. I'm not amused by your preference
of digital; I figure, that's the way your ears work. I don't feel
superior to you because mine work differently.

-Mike
Anonymous
March 28, 2005 8:44:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 28 Mar 2005 05:42:01 GMT, "Michael Mossey"
<michaelmossey@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>> On 27 Mar 2005 05:43:41 GMT, "Michael Mossey"
>> <michaelmossey@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> >> As with tube amplifiers, there is a tiny band of anachrophiles who
>> >> will always believe that 'older is better'.
>> >
>> >Are you threatened by this "tiny band"? You have to put them down
>> >three times here: calling them a "tiny band," calling them
>> >"anachrophiles", and as a strawman asserting they believe "older is
>> >better." I think that good vinyl is musically superior to CD (although
>> >the inner groove distortion is still a major problem in classical
>> >music, I would agree with that), and I have no such general belief that
>> >"older is better."

Please define 'musically superior'.

>> No, I'm not threatened, just amused,
>
>Are you also amused by people who like classical music?

Frequently - and I'm one of them! :-)

> They are a
>"tiny band" out of all music consumers. What does that prove about
>these folks?

Nothing at all. I am only amused by *specific* tiny bands, such as
those who claim that vinyl is in some objective way superior to CD.

>Amusement is a patronizing reaction. I'm not amused by your preference
>of digital; I figure, that's the way your ears work. I don't feel
>superior to you because mine work differently.

They do? Get help, NOW! :-)
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Anonymous
March 29, 2005 6:25:52 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

>> They are a
>>"tiny band" out of all music consumers. What does that prove about
>>these folks?
>
> Nothing at all. I am only amused by specific tiny bands, such as
> those who claim that vinyl is in some objective way superior to CD.
People only claim that vinyl is *subjectively* superior to CD. It isn't
clear to me what 'some objective way superior to CD' would mean in the
context of understanding how human hearing perception works. People listen
to SOTA vinyl systems, find they sound great and buy them. Ditto with valve
amplication. In the context of the High End audio market, vinyl and valve
amplication are a large percentage; they are not a tiny band at all. Audio
Research produce both solid state and valve amplification, and yet the
majority of their sales as far as I know are for valve/tube stuff.

These problems are amusing in the same way that Einstein or Newton found
their scientific research problems 'amusing'. It doesn't mean they are
trivial problems, or that we currently understand very well at all.
Anonymous
March 29, 2005 6:26:33 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Robert Peirce wrote:
> In article <d242cf027n0@news4.newsguy.com>,
> Stewart Pinkerton <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>There is nothing wrong with what you are hearing - this is indeed just
>>the way vinyl sounds. CD has been around so long that most people are
>>unaware what a revelation it was - particularly for listeners to
>>classical music - when it first came out. At that time, vinyl was the
>>standard, and I heard not ione single 'serious audiophile' suggest
>>that CD was not greatly superior in most respects. It's true that some
>>early players (and some early CDs) had some treble harshness, but that
>>had vanished by the early '90s.
>
>
> Generally, but not always, I have preferred works originally done in
> analog on LP rather than CD. There seems to be something about the
> transfer to digital that messes them up. However, this is much less
> true today than it was a number of years ago. In fact, I did not buy my
> first CD until several years after they first came out because they did
> not sound right.
>
> As the technology advanced and works were recorded directly to digital,
> CD became superior to LP. Nevertheless, if the original was analog and
> there is any noticeable difference between the LP and the CD, I tend to
> prefer the LP. However, more and more there is no noticeable difference.
If there's no difference, then something's wrong with the CD:)  Just from
a technical standpoint, CD will be more true to the original recording
than vinyl ever could.


> Rather than arbitrarily say to favor CD over LP or vice versa, I would
> say to listen to see if they sound different and if they do go with what
> sounds most like a live performance.

Or why not just admitt that you love vinyl because it sounds more
pleasant, and that does not necessarily, well, not at all really, sound
more accurate.

We can only judge the better format by really being able to compare the
CD or vinyl to the original master recordings. If we as consumers had
access to those, we would easily see that CD blows away vinyl.

C'mon, now, less than 30 db of separation, 80 db dynamic range if you're
lucky, etc. Vinyl is inferior, but it's analoge artifiacts make it sound
"nice"

Occaiasionally, I prefer my audio CD made from recording vinyl to my PC
rather than the mass prodcued CD of the same recording. So which format
do I prefer? ;) 

CD
Anonymous
March 29, 2005 6:27:23 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> On 28 Mar 2005 05:42:01 GMT, "Michael Mossey"
> <michaelmossey@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> >> On 27 Mar 2005 05:43:41 GMT, "Michael Mossey"
> >> <michaelmossey@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> As with tube amplifiers, there is a tiny band of anachrophiles
who
> >> >> will always believe that 'older is better'.
> >> >
> >> >Are you threatened by this "tiny band"? You have to put them
down
> >> >three times here: calling them a "tiny band," calling them
> >> >"anachrophiles", and as a strawman asserting they believe "older
is
> >> >better." I think that good vinyl is musically superior to CD
(although
> >> >the inner groove distortion is still a major problem in classical
> >> >music, I would agree with that), and I have no such general
belief that
> >> >"older is better."
>
> Please define 'musically superior'.

The reason I listen to music is to experience the emotions and feelings
of it, and to experience the beauty of it. My reference is how
classical music sounds live in a good acoustic. When listening to
vinyl, I feel the emotions and experience the beauty in a way much
closer to live music. This is of course a generalization; there is bad
vinyl and particularly good digital. I hypothesize that this general
trend happens because digital has distortion, although small in
measure, that interferes with the music more than analog's distortion.
Before you start ridiculing this hypothesis, let me mention that I
think it needs to be backed by objective evidence, as any hypothesis
does. It's not my career so I'm not in a position to do the
necessarily experiments.

Also, of course this hypothesis about digital distortion is relative to
*my* ears. It makes sense that some people aren't bothered by
digital's distortion; that's just not what their ears hear.

I know there's a lot of evidence that competant digital has no audible
distortion. My hypothesis is that this evidence applies to the average
person under the test conditions. It doesn't apply to my ears under
the conditions of enjoying music.

Best,
Mike
March 29, 2005 8:28:24 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Codifus wrote:
> Robert Peirce wrote:
>
>> In article <d242cf027n0@news4.newsguy.com>,
>> Stewart Pinkerton <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> There is nothing wrong with what you are hearing - this is indeed just
>>> the way vinyl sounds. CD has been around so long that most people are
>>> unaware what a revelation it was - particularly for listeners to
>>> classical music - when it first came out. At that time, vinyl was the
>>> standard, and I heard not ione single 'serious audiophile' suggest
>>> that CD was not greatly superior in most respects. It's true that some
>>> early players (and some early CDs) had some treble harshness, but that
>>> had vanished by the early '90s.
>>
>>
>>
>> Generally, but not always, I have preferred works originally done in
>> analog on LP rather than CD. There seems to be something about the
>> transfer to digital that messes them up. However, this is much less
>> true today than it was a number of years ago. In fact, I did not buy
>> my first CD until several years after they first came out because they
>> did not sound right.
>>
>> As the technology advanced and works were recorded directly to
>> digital, CD became superior to LP. Nevertheless, if the original was
>> analog and there is any noticeable difference between the LP and the
>> CD, I tend to prefer the LP. However, more and more there is no
>> noticeable difference.
>
> If there's no difference, then something's wrong with the CD:)  Just from
> a technical standpoint, CD will be more true to the original recording
> than vinyl ever could.
>
>
>> Rather than arbitrarily say to favor CD over LP or vice versa, I would
>> say to listen to see if they sound different and if they do go with
>> what sounds most like a live performance.
>
>
> Or why not just admitt that you love vinyl because it sounds more
> pleasant, and that does not necessarily, well, not at all really, sound
> more accurate.
>
> We can only judge the better format by really being able to compare the
> CD or vinyl to the original master recordings. If we as consumers had
> access to those, we would easily see that CD blows away vinyl.
>
> C'mon, now, less than 30 db of separation, 80 db dynamic range if you're
> lucky, etc. Vinyl is inferior, but it's analoge artifiacts make it sound
> "nice"
>
> Occaiasionally, I prefer my audio CD made from recording vinyl to my PC
> rather than the mass prodcued CD of the same recording. So which format
> do I prefer? ;) 
>
> CD

Indeed, it’s those analog imperfections that vinyl produces that people
enjoy, and not the reality of the replication of the venue in question.

I admit that before SACD, I used to take out my old tapes and records
for certain pieces. With the absolutism that SACD has solidified in my
mind, that is fortunately no longer the case.

Yours truly,

Michael
Anonymous
March 30, 2005 4:39:09 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Codifus wrote:
> Robert Peirce wrote:
> > In article <d242cf027n0@news4.newsguy.com>,
> > Stewart Pinkerton <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>There is nothing wrong with what you are hearing - this is indeed
just
> >>the way vinyl sounds. CD has been around so long that most people
are
> >>unaware what a revelation it was - particularly for listeners to
> >>classical music - when it first came out. At that time, vinyl was
the
> >>standard, and I heard not ione single 'serious audiophile' suggest
> >>that CD was not greatly superior in most respects. It's true that
some
> >>early players (and some early CDs) had some treble harshness, but
that
> >>had vanished by the early '90s.
> >
> >
> > Generally, but not always, I have preferred works originally done
in
> > analog on LP rather than CD. There seems to be something about the

> > transfer to digital that messes them up. However, this is much
less
> > true today than it was a number of years ago. In fact, I did not
buy my
> > first CD until several years after they first came out because they
did
> > not sound right.
> >
> > As the technology advanced and works were recorded directly to
digital,
> > CD became superior to LP. Nevertheless, if the original was analog
and
> > there is any noticeable difference between the LP and the CD, I
tend to
> > prefer the LP. However, more and more there is no noticeable
difference.
> If there's no difference, then something's wrong with the CD:)  Just
from
> a technical standpoint, CD will be more true to the original
recording
> than vinyl ever could.
>
>
> > Rather than arbitrarily say to favor CD over LP or vice versa, I
would
> > say to listen to see if they sound different and if they do go with
what
> > sounds most like a live performance.
>
> Or why not just admitt that you love vinyl because it sounds more
> pleasant, and that does not necessarily, well, not at all really,
sound
> more accurate.
>
> We can only judge the better format by really being able to compare
the
> CD or vinyl to the original master recordings. If we as consumers had

> access to those, we would easily see that CD blows away vinyl.

An even better test is to listen to a live feed, then listen to its
reproduction in analog and digital. Some engineers I know in the Los
Angeles area did that and said that the analog "blew away" the digital.
I've done it informally by hearing James Boyk perform live in Dabney
Concert Hall, then hearing the same piece recorded on LP and recorded
on CD. The LP "blew away" the CD. And it does sound more accurate.
Don't get confused between subjective accuracy and objective accuracy.
It SOUNDS more accurate; that's a statement about subjective
experience. If you try to tell me it sounds more "pleasant," then you
are trying to impose your own words on my subjective experience.

But please realize that analogphiles are more sophisticated then you
imply here. We are interested in accuracy, and we are interested in
direct comparison of source and recording. It's been done many times,
and analog was found to be more accurate by the listeners.

The usual caveats: speaking generally (no dogma here that digital must
be inferior, always) -- and what is more accurate applies to an
individual's ears. So you free to experience digital as more accurate.



>
> C'mon, now, less than 30 db of separation, 80 db dynamic range if
you're
> lucky, etc. Vinyl is inferior, but it's analoge artifiacts make it
sound
> "nice"

I think that digital's artifacts make it sound "crummy."

Best,
Mike
Anonymous
March 30, 2005 4:41:35 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 29 Mar 2005 02:25:52 GMT, Richard Dale
<Richard_Dale@tipitina.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>
>>> They are a
>>>"tiny band" out of all music consumers. What does that prove about
>>>these folks?
>>
>> Nothing at all. I am only amused by specific tiny bands, such as
>> those who claim that vinyl is in some objective way superior to CD.

>People only claim that vinyl is *subjectively* superior to CD.

Incorrect. We see many claims that vinyl has 'infinite resolution',
that it has more low-level detail, and that CD has 'stairsteps' and is
only a series of snapshots, whereas vinyl somehow retains the 'gestalt
of the performance' due to its continuous nature. These are all
objective claims, and they are all wrong.

> It isn't
>clear to me what 'some objective way superior to CD' would mean in the
>context of understanding how human hearing perception works.

The above mentioned have mostly been dismissed, but we still hear
claims of extended frequency response for vinyl - also untrue in 99%
of cases.

> People listen
>to SOTA vinyl systems, find they sound great and buy them. Ditto with valve
>amplication. In the context of the High End audio market, vinyl and valve
>amplication are a large percentage; they are not a tiny band at all. Audio
>Research produce both solid state and valve amplification, and yet the
>majority of their sales as far as I know are for valve/tube stuff.

The so-called 'High End' market is in itself tiny, and is
ever-shrinking, as ARC can confirm.

>These problems are amusing in the same way that Einstein or Newton found
>their scientific research problems 'amusing'. It doesn't mean they are
>trivial problems, or that we currently understand very well at all.

Oh, I think we understand the *added* euphonic artifacts of tubes and
vinyl pretty well. The problem is getting 'high enders' to admit their
existence, even though it's easy to prove.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Anonymous
March 30, 2005 4:42:16 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 29 Mar 2005 02:27:23 GMT, "Michael Mossey"
<michaelmossey@yahoo.com> wrote:

>I know there's a lot of evidence that competant digital has no audible
>distortion. My hypothesis is that this evidence applies to the average
>person under the test conditions. It doesn't apply to my ears under
>the conditions of enjoying music.

I suggest that it certainly does apply to your ears, and that you
simply prefer the *added* euphonic artifacts of vinyl. This may
readily be proven by examining your reaction to a CD-R transcribed
from vinyl. Most listeners report no difference, i.e. all the 'magic'
of vinyl is retained. Hence, nothing is lost in a digital recording,
but something is added by vinyl.

We hear many claims of 'Golden Ear' status on this newsgroup, but they
have never yet survived blind testing.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Anonymous
March 30, 2005 4:42:38 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

> The preference for tubes is hardly based on the idea that "older is
> better." There may indeed be a tiny band of people that believe this
> but that hardly acounts for the majority of people that prefer tube
> amplification.
>


What evidence do you have that the majority prefer tube amplification?
I certainly don't, and I have good ears. Tubes distort in rather
unpleasant ways.
Anonymous
March 30, 2005 4:43:15 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Codifus <codifus@optonline.net> wrote:
> Robert Peirce wrote:
> > In article <d242cf027n0@news4.newsguy.com>,
> > Stewart Pinkerton <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>There is nothing wrong with what you are hearing - this is indeed just
> >>the way vinyl sounds. CD has been around so long that most people are
> >>unaware what a revelation it was - particularly for listeners to
> >>classical music - when it first came out. At that time, vinyl was the
> >>standard, and I heard not ione single 'serious audiophile' suggest
> >>that CD was not greatly superior in most respects. It's true that some
> >>early players (and some early CDs) had some treble harshness, but that
> >>had vanished by the early '90s.
> >
> >
> > Generally, but not always, I have preferred works originally done in
> > analog on LP rather than CD. There seems to be something about the
> > transfer to digital that messes them up. However, this is much less
> > true today than it was a number of years ago. In fact, I did not buy my
> > first CD until several years after they first came out because they did
> > not sound right.
> >
> > As the technology advanced and works were recorded directly to digital,
> > CD became superior to LP. Nevertheless, if the original was analog and
> > there is any noticeable difference between the LP and the CD, I tend to
> > prefer the LP. However, more and more there is no noticeable difference.
> If there's no difference, then something's wrong with the CD:)  Just from
> a technical standpoint, CD will be more true to the original recording
> than vinyl ever could.


> > Rather than arbitrarily say to favor CD over LP or vice versa, I would
> > say to listen to see if they sound different and if they do go with what
> > sounds most like a live performance.

> Or why not just admitt that you love vinyl because it sounds more
> pleasant, and that does not necessarily, well, not at all really, sound
> more accurate.

> We can only judge the better format by really being able to compare the
> CD or vinyl to the original master recordings. If we as consumers had
> access to those, we would easily see that CD blows away vinyl.

> C'mon, now, less than 30 db of separation, 80 db dynamic range if you're
> lucky, etc. Vinyl is inferior, but it's analoge artifiacts make it sound
> "nice"


http://www.airwindows.com/analysis/VinylNoise.html

" It would be reasonable to concede that in practice, with usual program
content, maybe 80 or 90 db of dynamic range could be expected from a vinyl
record, considered as background noise relative to peak modulation (and
overlooking rumble, which in many cases will be far worse than my high end
vinyl playback system's performance)."




--

-S
It's not my business to do intelligent work. -- D. Rumsfeld, testifying
before the House Armed Services Committee
Anonymous
March 30, 2005 4:43:45 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Michael <newsoffthewire@comcast.net> wrote:
> Codifus wrote:
> > Robert Peirce wrote:
> >
> >> In article <d242cf027n0@news4.newsguy.com>,
> >> Stewart Pinkerton <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> There is nothing wrong with what you are hearing - this is indeed just
> >>> the way vinyl sounds. CD has been around so long that most people are
> >>> unaware what a revelation it was - particularly for listeners to
> >>> classical music - when it first came out. At that time, vinyl was the
> >>> standard, and I heard not ione single 'serious audiophile' suggest
> >>> that CD was not greatly superior in most respects. It's true that some
> >>> early players (and some early CDs) had some treble harshness, but that
> >>> had vanished by the early '90s.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Generally, but not always, I have preferred works originally done in
> >> analog on LP rather than CD. There seems to be something about the
> >> transfer to digital that messes them up. However, this is much less
> >> true today than it was a number of years ago. In fact, I did not buy
> >> my first CD until several years after they first came out because they
> >> did not sound right.
> >>
> >> As the technology advanced and works were recorded directly to
> >> digital, CD became superior to LP. Nevertheless, if the original was
> >> analog and there is any noticeable difference between the LP and the
> >> CD, I tend to prefer the LP. However, more and more there is no
> >> noticeable difference.
> >
> > If there's no difference, then something's wrong with the CD:)  Just from
> > a technical standpoint, CD will be more true to the original recording
> > than vinyl ever could.
> >
> >
> >> Rather than arbitrarily say to favor CD over LP or vice versa, I would
> >> say to listen to see if they sound different and if they do go with
> >> what sounds most like a live performance.
> >
> >
> > Or why not just admitt that you love vinyl because it sounds more
> > pleasant, and that does not necessarily, well, not at all really, sound
> > more accurate.
> >
> > We can only judge the better format by really being able to compare the
> > CD or vinyl to the original master recordings. If we as consumers had
> > access to those, we would easily see that CD blows away vinyl.
> >
> > C'mon, now, less than 30 db of separation, 80 db dynamic range if you're
> > lucky, etc. Vinyl is inferior, but it's analoge artifiacts make it sound
> > "nice"
> >
> > Occaiasionally, I prefer my audio CD made from recording vinyl to my PC
> > rather than the mass prodcued CD of the same recording. So which format
> > do I prefer? ;) 
> >
> > CD

> Indeed, it?s those analog imperfections that vinyl produces that people
> enjoy, and not the reality of the replication of the venue in question.

> I admit that before SACD, I used to take out my old tapes and records
> for certain pieces. With the absolutism that SACD has solidified in my
> mind, that is fortunately no longer the case.

Which is itself another interesting psychological phenomenon -- because
despite the marketing and the anecdotal testimonials, there's no real data
indicating that SACD should sound different from CD, assuming equal care
is taken in their preparation. Yet vinylphiles tend to embrace the idea
that SACD sounds intrinsically 'better' or 'more like analog' than CD. I
wonder if it's simply that vinylphiles, having staked an emotional claim
for analog and *against* digital for so long, are now happy to have an
excuse to like digital.




--

-S
It's not my business to do intelligent work. -- D. Rumsfeld, testifying
before the House Armed Services Committee
Anonymous
March 30, 2005 4:45:49 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

In article <d2aecp0uat@news2.newsguy.com>,
Codifus <codifus@optonline.net> wrote:

> Robert Peirce wrote:
> > In article <d242cf027n0@news4.newsguy.com>,

> > Rather than arbitrarily say to favor CD over LP or vice versa, I would
> > say to listen to see if they sound different and if they do go with what
> > sounds most like a live performance.
>
> Or why not just admitt that you love vinyl because it sounds more
> pleasant, and that does not necessarily, well, not at all really, sound
> more accurate.
>
> We can only judge the better format by really being able to compare the
> CD or vinyl to the original master recordings. If we as consumers had
> access to those, we would easily see that CD blows away vinyl.

Not so. The original master recording is like a photographic negative.
It must be interpreted. The object is not to make the recording sound
exactly like the master recording but like a live performance.
Sometimes the CD does this and sometimes the LP

> C'mon, now, less than 30 db of separation, 80 db dynamic range if you're
> lucky, etc. Vinyl is inferior, but it's analoge artifiacts make it sound
> "nice"

Not always. As I said originally, sometimes I prefer LP and sometimes
CD and sometimes I can't see any difference between them. However, when
I listen to them I always ask myself which sounds more like music as I
am used to hearing it. I recognize that music recorded in a dead studio
is not going to sound like music played in a hall or bar or whatever.
The key to me is whether the person making the recording can make it
sound like that. In other words, is he also an artist as well as a
technician or is he just a technician.
Anonymous
March 30, 2005 5:50:31 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> On 29 Mar 2005 02:27:23 GMT, "Michael Mossey"
> <michaelmossey@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >I know there's a lot of evidence that competant digital has no
audible
> >distortion. My hypothesis is that this evidence applies to the
average
> >person under the test conditions. It doesn't apply to my ears under
> >the conditions of enjoying music.
>
> I suggest that it certainly does apply to your ears, and that you
> simply prefer the *added* euphonic artifacts of vinyl. This may
> readily be proven by examining your reaction to a CD-R transcribed
> from vinyl. Most listeners report no difference, i.e. all the 'magic'
> of vinyl is retained. Hence, nothing is lost in a digital recording,
> but something is added by vinyl.

Your theory is a bit pat as you are trying to make one conclusion that
applies to everyone.

I'm sure what you say is true for *some* people. Some people can't
hear the difference between a digital copy of a record and the
original. Some people like vinyl specifically for its added
distortion.

That can be true, and it can also be true that other people are
irritated by digital artifacts and in that way find analog to be
superior (subjectively more accurate).

I, like you, think that evidence is necessary to suppport this
conclusion. For now, it is my hypothesis, which I'm not really in a
position to test thoroughly. I'm trying, though (see the other thread
I started). I know that you can cite reams of evidence for your
position--but that evidence is limited, I suspect, by its
"single-conclusion" nature as well as its basis on listening tests that
emphasize conscious contrast.

I'm embarking on a project of recording some LPs so I will have an
occasion to see for myself what I think of digital copies of them.


-Mike
Anonymous
March 30, 2005 6:58:10 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Michael Mossey wrote:

> Don't get confused between subjective accuracy and objective
accuracy.

You're the one who's confused, or trying to confuse. There is no such
thing as "subjective accuracy," as you define it. There may be a
"subjective sense of similarity," but to appropriate a technical term
like accuracy to elevate this concept is to muddy the waters, not
clarify them.

> It SOUNDS more accurate;

But it IS less accurate. Therefore, this seeming "accuracy" is likely
some form of illusion.

> that's a statement about subjective
> experience. If you try to tell me it sounds more "pleasant," then
you
> are trying to impose your own words on my subjective experience.
>
> But please realize that analogphiles are more sophisticated then you
> imply here. We are interested in accuracy, and we are interested in
> direct comparison of source and recording. It's been done many
times,
> and analog was found to be more accurate by the listeners.

Who knew what they were listening to, and who entered with a
preconceived notion that analog is superior. (You've just called them
"analogphiles," after all.)

bob
Anonymous
March 31, 2005 4:41:41 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 30 Mar 2005 00:43:15 GMT, Steven Sullivan <ssully@panix.com> wrote:

>Codifus <codifus@optonline.net> wrote:

>> C'mon, now, less than 30 db of separation, 80 db dynamic range if you're
>> lucky, etc. Vinyl is inferior, but it's analoge artifiacts make it sound
>> "nice"
>
>http://www.airwindows.com/analysis/VinylNoise.html
>
>" It would be reasonable to concede that in practice, with usual program
>content, maybe 80 or 90 db of dynamic range could be expected from a vinyl
>record, considered as background noise relative to peak modulation (and
>overlooking rumble, which in many cases will be far worse than my high end
>vinyl playback system's performance)."

This is a classic scam, clearly done by a vinyl apologist. Note that
that this is a *narrow band* analysis, and bears no relation whatever
to the correct measure, which is full bandwidth dynamic range.

For comparison, note the results obtained from the 16-bit TPF dither
graph, which is conventionally acknowledged as sitting 93dB below peak
level. He claims more than 130dB! Now, take that 37dB difference from
his claim of 105 dB or so for vinyl (only above 1kHz, you'll notice),
and we get back to a more realistic 68dB for vinyl, much less if you
use the full 20-20k bandwidth.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
March 31, 2005 4:42:06 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Michael Mossey wrote:

> An even better test is to listen to a live feed, then listen to its
> reproduction in analog and digital. Some engineers I know in the Los
> Angeles area did that and said that the analog "blew away" the digital.
> I've done it informally by hearing James Boyk perform live in Dabney
> Concert Hall, then hearing the same piece recorded on LP and recorded
> on CD. The LP "blew away" the CD. And it does sound more accurate.

Check out this article:

http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/bas_speaker/abx_testi...

This is one of the early ABX tests establishing the transparency of
digital audio. Also check out posts by the late Gabe Wiener, a
well-known recording engineer, on this subject, right here on rahe.
Anonymous
March 31, 2005 4:42:51 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 30 Mar 2005 01:50:31 GMT, "Michael Mossey"
<michaelmossey@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>> On 29 Mar 2005 02:27:23 GMT, "Michael Mossey"
>> <michaelmossey@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >I know there's a lot of evidence that competant digital has no audible
>> >distortion. My hypothesis is that this evidence applies to the average
>> >person under the test conditions. It doesn't apply to my ears under
>> >the conditions of enjoying music.
>>
>> I suggest that it certainly does apply to your ears, and that you
>> simply prefer the *added* euphonic artifacts of vinyl. This may
>> readily be proven by examining your reaction to a CD-R transcribed
>> from vinyl. Most listeners report no difference, i.e. all the 'magic'
>> of vinyl is retained. Hence, nothing is lost in a digital recording,
>> but something is added by vinyl.
>
>Your theory is a bit pat as you are trying to make one conclusion that
>applies to everyone.

No, I'm suggesting that *no one* has been able to demonstrate the
possession of 'Golden Ears'. We've seen these claims many, many times
on this newsgroup, and they never survive controlled listening tests.

>I'm sure what you say is true for *some* people. Some people can't
>hear the difference between a digital copy of a record and the
>original. Some people like vinyl specifically for its added
>distortion.

Actually, the vast majority can't hear any difference. In fact, there
is no reliable and repeatable evidence that *anyone* can hear the
difference, despite many anecdotal claims.

>That can be true, and it can also be true that other people are
>irritated by digital artifacts and in that way find analog to be
>superior (subjectively more accurate).

What 'digital artifacts'? Demonstrate their existence.

>I, like you, think that evidence is necessary to suppport this
>conclusion. For now, it is my hypothesis, which I'm not really in a
>position to test thoroughly. I'm trying, though (see the other thread
>I started). I know that you can cite reams of evidence for your
>position--but that evidence is limited, I suspect, by its
>"single-conclusion" nature as well as its basis on listening tests that
>emphasize conscious contrast.

The conclusion is based on the evidence. If it is a single conclusion,
that is because all the evidence points to that same conclusion.

>I'm embarking on a project of recording some LPs so I will have an
>occasion to see for myself what I think of digital copies of them.

Excellent! Be sure to level-match any comparisons.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Anonymous
March 31, 2005 4:43:49 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 30 Mar 2005 00:39:09 GMT, "Michael Mossey"
<michaelmossey@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Codifus wrote:

>> We can only judge the better format by really being able to compare the
>> CD or vinyl to the original master recordings. If we as consumers had
>> access to those, we would easily see that CD blows away vinyl.
>
>An even better test is to listen to a live feed, then listen to its
>reproduction in analog and digital. Some engineers I know in the Los
>Angeles area did that and said that the analog "blew away" the digital.
> I've done it informally by hearing James Boyk perform live in Dabney
>Concert Hall, then hearing the same piece recorded on LP and recorded
>on CD. The LP "blew away" the CD. And it does sound more accurate.

An interesting anecdote, but others will tell the opposite tale. In
particular, your tale is extremely doubtful because, while I've heard
suggestions that vinyl can be more like the original live
*performance*, I have *never* heard anyone suggest that vinyl is more
like the live mic feed.

>Don't get confused between subjective accuracy and objective accuracy.
>It SOUNDS more accurate; that's a statement about subjective
>experience. If you try to tell me it sounds more "pleasant," then you
>are trying to impose your own words on my subjective experience.

No, we're trying to explain that accuracy is an objective thing. What
you are talking about is your impression that LP sounds somehow more
'lifelike'. That is *not* the same as *being* an accurate
reproduction.

>But please realize that analogphiles are more sophisticated then you
>imply here.

Actually, 'analogphiles' seem mostly to hanker after obsolete
technologies, hardly an indication of sophistication. The most
hilarious claims tend to be in regard to modern 'hi-res' digital
formats, which 'analogphiles' seem to welcome as being 'more like
analogue'. Here's a clue - they're even *further* from vinyl than is
16/44 CD. Althiough closer to the mic feed, of course........

> We are interested in accuracy, and we are interested in
>direct comparison of source and recording. It's been done many times,
>and analog was found to be more accurate by the listeners.

No, it hasn't. Give *specific* examples of your claims.

>The usual caveats: speaking generally (no dogma here that digital must
>be inferior, always) -- and what is more accurate applies to an
>individual's ears. So you free to experience digital as more accurate.

You are free to provide *any* evidence to back up your claims.

>> C'mon, now, less than 30 db of separation, 80 db dynamic range if you're
>> lucky, etc. Vinyl is inferior, but it's analoge artifiacts make it sound
>> "nice"
>
>I think that digital's artifacts make it sound "crummy."

What artifacts are these?
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Anonymous
March 31, 2005 4:44:11 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Michael Mossey" <michaelmossey@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:D 2csfd0v1d@news1.newsguy.com...

> But please realize that analogphiles are more sophisticated then you
> imply here. We are interested in accuracy, and we are interested in
> direct comparison of source and recording. It's been done many times,
> and analog was found to be more accurate by the listeners.

I'm interested in knowing what study or studies confirmed as positively
as you state that "analog was found to be more accurate by the listeners".
Also, how many diffeent recordings and listeners do these findings
apply to?

- Gary Rosen
March 31, 2005 5:03:18 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
>>The preference for tubes is hardly based on the idea that "older is
>>better." There may indeed be a tiny band of people that believe this
>>but that hardly acounts for the majority of people that prefer tube
>>amplification.
>>
>
>
>
> What evidence do you have that the majority prefer tube amplification?
> I certainly don't, and I have good ears. Tubes distort in rather
> unpleasant ways.

Hello.

I prefer solid state amplifiers as well.

I'd like to point out that in regards to the original comment, the
audiophiles I know will tell one that tubes only sound better in certain
conditions and they are not indeed for all types of music. Most of my
friends that have tube amps also run solid state amps for pop and rock
music. So obviously, tube amplification is not some universal,
audiophile truth.

Yours truly,

Michael
March 31, 2005 5:04:45 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Michael Mossey wrote:


> I'm sure what you say is true for *some* people. Some people can't
> hear the difference between a digital copy of a record and the
> original.

> I'm embarking on a project of recording some LPs so I will have an
> occasion to see for myself what I think of digital copies of them.

The copies I make sound exceedingly like the records. I can readily
distinguish the two different cartridges I use: Denon 103 and Shure V15x.
But that is the beauty of digital-the copies are very exact. I think a
limitation may be the quality of your sound card, but I haven't been able
to hear any differences that would make me want to upgrade this part of my
computer. I simply use the integrated chipset on my Intel motherboard.
They key is keeping levels within the range of the ADC. When copying CDs
this is not an issue, or course, since most people accomplish this within
the digital domain.

Using a the Audacity tool (a Linux program, but there may be a port to
Windows or Mac, I don't know) one can even expand the waveform and edit out
some of the vinyl crud without making too much of a sonic intrusion. Of
course, anything other than a minor transient tick or pop subsequently
edited out is, then, audible as a brief timing change in the music.

We discussed this sometime back, but what one finds interesting is that one
can visualize the inherent vinyl background noise using the peak or average
meter functions before the recording begins-that is, when recording the
lead in grooves, and passages between cuts. For those not accustomed to
this, the fact that much of this noise is no less than 30dB below 0 is
something to ponder.

michael
Anonymous
March 31, 2005 5:06:12 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Steven Sullivan wrote:
> Michael <newsoffthewire@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>Codifus wrote:
>>
>>>Robert Peirce wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>In article <d242cf027n0@news4.newsguy.com>,
>>>> Stewart Pinkerton <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>There is nothing wrong with what you are hearing - this is indeed just
>>>>>the way vinyl sounds. CD has been around so long that most people are
>>>>>unaware what a revelation it was - particularly for listeners to
>>>>>classical music - when it first came out. At that time, vinyl was the
>>>>>standard, and I heard not ione single 'serious audiophile' suggest
>>>>>that CD was not greatly superior in most respects. It's true that some
>>>>>early players (and some early CDs) had some treble harshness, but that
>>>>>had vanished by the early '90s.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Generally, but not always, I have preferred works originally done in
>>>>analog on LP rather than CD. There seems to be something about the
>>>>transfer to digital that messes them up. However, this is much less
>>>>true today than it was a number of years ago. In fact, I did not buy
>>>>my first CD until several years after they first came out because they
>>>>did not sound right.
>>>>
>>>>As the technology advanced and works were recorded directly to
>>>>digital, CD became superior to LP. Nevertheless, if the original was
>>>>analog and there is any noticeable difference between the LP and the
>>>>CD, I tend to prefer the LP. However, more and more there is no
>>>>noticeable difference.
>>>
>>>If there's no difference, then something's wrong with the CD:)  Just from
>>>a technical standpoint, CD will be more true to the original recording
>>>than vinyl ever could.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Rather than arbitrarily say to favor CD over LP or vice versa, I would
>>>>say to listen to see if they sound different and if they do go with
>>>>what sounds most like a live performance.
>>>
>>>
>>>Or why not just admitt that you love vinyl because it sounds more
>>>pleasant, and that does not necessarily, well, not at all really, sound
>>>more accurate.
>>>
>>>We can only judge the better format by really being able to compare the
>>>CD or vinyl to the original master recordings. If we as consumers had
>>>access to those, we would easily see that CD blows away vinyl.
>>>
>>>C'mon, now, less than 30 db of separation, 80 db dynamic range if you're
>>>lucky, etc. Vinyl is inferior, but it's analoge artifiacts make it sound
>>>"nice"
>>>
>>>Occaiasionally, I prefer my audio CD made from recording vinyl to my PC
>>>rather than the mass prodcued CD of the same recording. So which format
>>>do I prefer? ;) 
>>>
>>>CD
>
>
>>Indeed, it?s those analog imperfections that vinyl produces that people
>>enjoy, and not the reality of the replication of the venue in question.
>
>
>>I admit that before SACD, I used to take out my old tapes and records
>>for certain pieces. With the absolutism that SACD has solidified in my
>>mind, that is fortunately no longer the case.
>
>
> Which is itself another interesting psychological phenomenon -- because
> despite the marketing and the anecdotal testimonials, there's no real data
> indicating that SACD should sound different from CD, assuming equal care
> is taken in their preparation. Yet vinylphiles tend to embrace the idea
> that SACD sounds intrinsically 'better' or 'more like analog' than CD. I
> wonder if it's simply that vinylphiles, having staked an emotional claim
> for analog and *against* digital for so long, are now happy to have an
> excuse to like digital.
>
>
>
>
I've seen some threads on these newsgroups presenting technical
arguments that support the notion that SACD does indeed sound as good as
or better than vinyl, CD, and even DVD-A. Basically, and forgive me for
my limited technical understanding, SACD D/A converters seem to be able
handle highly dynamic transients better than CD and even DVD-A. There
was also mention that DVD-A players in Europe have had their D/A
converters adjusted to have that same capability as SACD D/A converters.
DVD-A players in the US can't have the adjustment done b/c of some
potential lawsuit.

I hope DVD-A wins the battle for the next generation optical digital
audio disc simply because it is better than CD at everything, something
that SACD cannot claim.

CD
Anonymous
March 31, 2005 5:07:04 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

> On 29 Mar 2005 02:25:52 GMT, Richard Dale
> <Richard_Dale@tipitina.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>>
>>>> They are a
>>>>"tiny band" out of all music consumers. What does that prove about
>>>>these folks?
>>>
>>> Nothing at all. I am only amused by specific tiny bands, such as
>>> those who claim that vinyl is in some objective way superior to CD.
>
>>People only claim that vinyl is *subjectively* superior to CD.
>
> Incorrect. We see many claims that vinyl has 'infinite resolution',
> that it has more low-level detail, and that CD has 'stairsteps' and is
> only a series of snapshots, whereas vinyl somehow retains the 'gestalt
> of the performance' due to its continuous nature. These are all
> objective claims, and they are all wrong.
They are only trying to account for the obvious subjective superiority of a
SOTA vinyl or tube component. If an oscilloscope differs with my perception
of the quality of musical reproduction, then I don't care - I just want to
hear Duke Ellington or whoever in my living room in a way which involves me
most in the music.

>> It isn't
>>clear to me what 'some objective way superior to CD' would mean in the
>>context of understanding how human hearing perception works.
>
> The above mentioned have mostly been dismissed, but we still hear
> claims of extended frequency response for vinyl - also untrue in 99%
> of cases.
>
>> People listen
>>to SOTA vinyl systems, find they sound great and buy them. Ditto with
>>valve amplication. In the context of the High End audio market, vinyl and
>>valve amplication are a large percentage; they are not a tiny band at all.
>>Audio Research produce both solid state and valve amplification, and yet
>>the majority of their sales as far as I know are for valve/tube stuff.
>
> The so-called 'High End' market is in itself tiny, and is
> ever-shrinking, as ARC can confirm.
So what?

>>These problems are amusing in the same way that Einstein or Newton found
>>their scientific research problems 'amusing'. It doesn't mean they are
>>trivial problems, or that we currently understand very well at all.
>
> Oh, I think we understand the *added* euphonic artifacts of tubes and
> vinyl pretty well. The problem is getting 'high enders' to admit their
> existence, even though it's easy to prove.
No we don't. In what way is it easy to prove? You have a scientific theory?

-- Richard
Anonymous
March 31, 2005 8:12:05 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Gary Rosen wrote:
> "Michael Mossey" <michaelmossey@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:D 2csfd0v1d@news1.newsguy.com...
>
> > But please realize that analogphiles are more sophisticated then
you
> > imply here. We are interested in accuracy, and we are interested
in
> > direct comparison of source and recording. It's been done many
times,
> > and analog was found to be more accurate by the listeners.
>
> I'm interested in knowing what study or studies confirmed as
positively
> as you state that "analog was found to be more accurate by the
listeners".
> Also, how many diffeent recordings and listeners do these findings
> apply to?
>
> - Gary Rosen

Let me say that it wasn't a study, it was a report of subjective
experience. I'm not sure how you would establish in an objective way
that "component A creates a brain response similar to the live feed";
maybe a PET scan. However, it is still an extremely important report
to counter the constant assertions here that people who like analog are
not concerned with accuracy. *Some* people who like analog don't have
any reference, to be sure. They can report they like the sound of it
better than digital. But others do have a reference.

I was a student at Caltech 1987 to 1991. James Boyk introduced me to
an engineer at Sheffield Lab. A group of engineers at the Sheffield
Lab had, a few years prior, compared a live feed to its recording, in
digital, analog tape, and direct-to-disk master. The direct-to-disk
was the best reproduction of the live feed, followed by the analog tape
and digital.

If you want to know more, contact the folks at Sheffield Lab. Which,
by the way, has the best recordings I've ever heard.

-Mike
Anonymous
March 31, 2005 8:12:26 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> On 30 Mar 2005 00:39:09 GMT, "Michael Mossey"
> <michaelmossey@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Codifus wrote:
>
> >> We can only judge the better format by really being able to
compare the
> >> CD or vinyl to the original master recordings. If we as consumers
had
> >> access to those, we would easily see that CD blows away vinyl.
> >
> >An even better test is to listen to a live feed, then listen to its
> >reproduction in analog and digital. Some engineers I know in the
Los
> >Angeles area did that and said that the analog "blew away" the
digital.
> > I've done it informally by hearing James Boyk perform live in
Dabney
> >Concert Hall, then hearing the same piece recorded on LP and
recorded
> >on CD. The LP "blew away" the CD. And it does sound more accurate.
>
> An interesting anecdote, but others will tell the opposite tale.

Precisely. Others will tell the opposite tale, because everyone has
their own way of processing information, of making conscious experience
out of the raw input of senses. In your way, digital artifacts are
negligible. In mine, they are not.

-Mike
Anonymous
April 1, 2005 4:44:52 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Michael Mossey" <michaelmossey@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:D 2ftba01ju5@news1.newsguy.com...
> Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> > On 30 Mar 2005 00:39:09 GMT, "Michael Mossey"
> > <michaelmossey@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Codifus wrote:
> >
> > >> We can only judge the better format by really being able to
> compare the
> > >> CD or vinyl to the original master recordings. If we as consumers
> had
> > >> access to those, we would easily see that CD blows away vinyl.
> > >
> > >An even better test is to listen to a live feed, then listen to its
> > >reproduction in analog and digital. Some engineers I know in the
> Los
> > >Angeles area did that and said that the analog "blew away" the
> digital.
> > > I've done it informally by hearing James Boyk perform live in
> Dabney
> > >Concert Hall, then hearing the same piece recorded on LP and
> recorded
> > >on CD. The LP "blew away" the CD. And it does sound more accurate.
> >
> > An interesting anecdote, but others will tell the opposite tale.
>
> Precisely. Others will tell the opposite tale, because everyone has
> their own way of processing information, of making conscious experience
> out of the raw input of senses. In your way, digital artifacts are
> negligible. In mine, they are not.

What "digital artifacts" are you referring to?

- Gary Rosen
Anonymous
April 1, 2005 4:46:05 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 31 Mar 2005 04:12:26 GMT, "Michael Mossey"
<michaelmossey@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>> On 30 Mar 2005 00:39:09 GMT, "Michael Mossey"
>> <michaelmossey@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> >An even better test is to listen to a live feed, then listen to its
>> >reproduction in analog and digital. Some engineers I know in the Los
>> >Angeles area did that and said that the analog "blew away" the digital.
>> > I've done it informally by hearing James Boyk perform live in Dabney
>> >Concert Hall, then hearing the same piece recorded on LP and recorded
>> >on CD. The LP "blew away" the CD. And it does sound more accurate.
>>
>> An interesting anecdote, but others will tell the opposite tale.
>
>Precisely. Others will tell the opposite tale, because everyone has
>their own way of processing information, of making conscious experience
>out of the raw input of senses. In your way, digital artifacts are
>negligible. In mine, they are not.

This is not 'your way', or 'my way', you are making a very specific
claim - that digital artifacts exist. What are these 'digital
artifacts' whose existence you claim?
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Anonymous
April 1, 2005 4:47:03 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 31 Mar 2005 01:03:18 GMT, Michael <newsoffthewire@comcast.net>
wrote:

>uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>The preference for tubes is hardly based on the idea that "older is
>>>better." There may indeed be a tiny band of people that believe this
>>>but that hardly acounts for the majority of people that prefer tube
>>>amplification.
>>>
>> What evidence do you have that the majority prefer tube amplification?
>> I certainly don't, and I have good ears. Tubes distort in rather
>> unpleasant ways.
>
>I prefer solid state amplifiers as well.
>
>I'd like to point out that in regards to the original comment, the
>audiophiles I know will tell one that tubes only sound better in certain
>conditions and they are not indeed for all types of music. Most of my
>friends that have tube amps also run solid state amps for pop and rock
>music. So obviously, tube amplification is not some universal,
>audiophile truth.

Interesting, and somewhat weird. One might have hoped that they'd use
the less distorting solid state amps for classical music. Is this
perhaps just some simple snobbery we are discussing, whereby these
people feel that the more expensive and crankier tube amps *must*
somehow be superior for upper-class music? :-)
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Anonymous
April 1, 2005 4:47:55 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 31 Mar 2005 01:07:04 GMT, Richard Dale
<Richard_Dale@tipitina.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>
>> On 29 Mar 2005 02:25:52 GMT, Richard Dale
>> <Richard_Dale@tipitina.demon.co.uk> wrote:

Stewart wrote:

>>We see many claims that vinyl has 'infinite resolution',
>> that it has more low-level detail, and that CD has 'stairsteps' and is
>> only a series of snapshots, whereas vinyl somehow retains the 'gestalt
>> of the performance' due to its continuous nature. These are all
>> objective claims, and they are all wrong.

>They are only trying to account for the obvious subjective superiority of a
>SOTA vinyl or tube component.

Another false claim. You must realise that the *vast* majority of
audiophiles do *not* find tube amps or SOTA vinyl to be superior to SS
and CD.

> If an oscilloscope differs with my perception
>of the quality of musical reproduction, then I don't care - I just want to
>hear Duke Ellington or whoever in my living room in a way which involves me
>most in the music.

Me too, which is why I have a CD player and a SS amp. I also have a
decent vinyl rig, because not everything is available on CD.

>>>These problems are amusing in the same way that Einstein or Newton found
>>>their scientific research problems 'amusing'. It doesn't mean they are
>>>trivial problems, or that we currently understand very well at all.
>>
>> Oh, I think we understand the *added* euphonic artifacts of tubes and
>> vinyl pretty well. The problem is getting 'high enders' to admit their
>> existence, even though it's easy to prove.

>No we don't. In what way is it easy to prove?

It's easy to prove by adding these artifacts to an otherwise clean
recording. Indeed, mixdown and mastering engineers often do just this
to 'sweeten up' otherwise dry recordings.

Another obvious proof is to make a CD-R from vinyl. Most people can't
tell the difference, and all the 'magic realism' of vinyl is retained.
This pretty much proves which is the more transparent medium.

> You have a scientific theory?

Not just me, there are lots of scientific theories concerning euphonic
artifacts, they have been studied for a century or more, and they are
very well known. That you feel the need to invent some kind of mystery
to justify your preference for these artifacts, is not my problem.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
April 1, 2005 4:48:32 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Michael Mossey wrote:

>
> I was a student at Caltech 1987 to 1991.

Let me get this straight. You went to Caltech, and you believe that
interconnects may sound different? Don't you think that if there were
audible differences, they will be accompanied by easily meaasureable
differences? So why not make measurements, instead of long DBT's? Do you
have any theory as to why they may sound different?

Just out of curiosity, what did you major in at Caltech?
Anonymous
April 1, 2005 4:51:23 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Stewart Pinkerton <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
> On 30 Mar 2005 00:43:15 GMT, Steven Sullivan <ssully@panix.com> wrote:

> >Codifus <codifus@optonline.net> wrote:

> >> C'mon, now, less than 30 db of separation, 80 db dynamic range if you're
> >> lucky, etc. Vinyl is inferior, but it's analoge artifiacts make it sound
> >> "nice"
> >
> >http://www.airwindows.com/analysis/VinylNoise.html
> >
> >" It would be reasonable to concede that in practice, with usual program
> >content, maybe 80 or 90 db of dynamic range could be expected from a vinyl
> >record, considered as background noise relative to peak modulation (and
> >overlooking rumble, which in many cases will be far worse than my high end
> >vinyl playback system's performance)."

> This is a classic scam, clearly done by a vinyl apologist.

Who, btw, used to post here. I don;t know that he's really trying
to 'scam' so much as present an analysis he thinks is cogent but which
is actually flawed.


> Note that
> that this is a *narrow band* analysis, and bears no relation whatever
> to the correct measure, which is full bandwidth dynamic range.

Heh.


> For comparison, note the results obtained from the 16-bit TPF dither
> graph, which is conventionally acknowledged as sitting 93dB below peak
> level. He claims more than 130dB! Now, take that 37dB difference from
> his claim of 105 dB or so for vinyl (only above 1kHz, you'll notice),
> and we get back to a more realistic 68dB for vinyl, much less if you
> use the full 20-20k bandwidth.

I'm just wondering if he still reads this ng.




--

-S
It's not my business to do intelligent work. -- D. Rumsfeld, testifying
before the House Armed Services Committee
Anonymous
April 1, 2005 5:09:27 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 31 Mar 2005 04:12:05 GMT, "Michael Mossey"
<michaelmossey@yahoo.com> wrote:

>I was a student at Caltech 1987 to 1991. James Boyk introduced me to
>an engineer at Sheffield Lab. A group of engineers at the Sheffield
>Lab had, a few years prior, compared a live feed to its recording, in
>digital, analog tape, and direct-to-disk master. The direct-to-disk
>was the best reproduction of the live feed, followed by the analog tape
>and digital.
>
>If you want to know more, contact the folks at Sheffield Lab. Which,
>by the way, has the best recordings I've ever heard.

And guess what, Sheffield Lab made their money by selling direct-cut
vinyl. Of course *they* will say that DD is best, but many others
disagree, including the late, great Gabe Wiener of PGM, who also made
many superb recordings. For some of the best music you'll ever hear,
also try the JVC XRCD range, which are all made from analog tape
masters.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Anonymous
April 1, 2005 5:10:20 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 31 Mar 2005 04:14:57 GMT, Michael <newsoffthewire@comcast.net>
wrote:

>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> >
> > The so-called 'High End' market is in itself tiny, and is
> > ever-shrinking, as ARC can confirm.
>
>This is incorrect.

<snip most of massive ramble with little content>

>With the new crop of mini systems that carry a three
>hundred dollar price tag, one receives a much better system than what a
>baseline system would have ran them many years back. Inflation aside,
>the interest in audio is still alive and well, just as it was many years
>back.

This has *nothing* to do with 'high-end' audio.

>To make sure that my point is made obvious, I will finish restating the
>essence of my post: years ago, during the proclaimed heyday of the high
>fidelity market, the number of sales of high end equipment was neither
>less or greater than it currently is.

It was greater. This is not conjecture, check out industry sales
figures.

> Sure, people will point out that
>this or that former-great company is out of business and it obviously
>proves that the market is shrinking. Yet, I would combat this by
>pointing out how many small companies are out there selling high end
>products.

Less than there used to be............

>Similarly, one may point out the demise of
>the mom and pop stereo stores and try to use that to define the downfall
>of the market. Again, I would combat this by pointing out the natural
>progression of the consumer market across all market segments: large,
>corporate chains and the internet. With these new ways of retail, if
>anything, the number of high fidelity stores has most likely increased.

*High end* stores, however, are going out of business, and you can't
buy high end gear in supermarkets.

>For one last proof, if one truly believed that consumers of old cared
>more about high fidelity than current consumers, then the obvious
>outcomes of their buying habits would be a used market filled with high
>end equipment from yesteryear.

Not if no one is replacing their 'high end' equipment. That is the
truly obvious outcome.

>In the end, the demand for high fidelity equipment is neither smaller
>nor greater than it was long ago.

Utter nonsense, and all the rambling and handwaving in the world won't
change the *fact* that the 'high end' two-channel market is shrinking
rapidly, which is why the brighter companies like Krell are rushing
into the Home Theater market, which certainly is expanding.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Anonymous
April 1, 2005 5:11:20 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 31 Mar 2005 01:06:12 GMT, Codifus <codifus@optonline.net> wrote:

>I've seen some threads on these newsgroups presenting technical
>arguments that support the notion that SACD does indeed sound as good as
>or better than vinyl, CD, and even DVD-A.

Heck, you've seen threads here presenting technical arguments
supporting the notion that vinyl is better than CD! :-)

>Basically, and forgive me for
>my limited technical understanding, SACD D/A converters seem to be able
>handle highly dynamic transients better than CD and even DVD-A.

What on earth gives you that impression? If by transients you mean
high frequencies, SACD in fact has very *low* dynamic range at high
frequencies. It's only in the bass and midrange that it can claim
superior dynamics to CD, as it is a system which has continuously
decreasing dynamic range with increasing frequency, as opposed to the
consistent range of linear PCM, aka CD and DVD-A.

> There
>was also mention that DVD-A players in Europe have had their D/A
>converters adjusted to have that same capability as SACD D/A converters.
>DVD-A players in the US can't have the adjustment done b/c of some
>potential lawsuit.

Sounds like an urban myth to me...........

>I hope DVD-A wins the battle for the next generation optical digital
>audio disc simply because it is better than CD at everything, something
>that SACD cannot claim.

OTOH, is it *audibly* better than CD? That's a matter of debate among
industry professionals, never mind domestic audiophiles.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Anonymous
April 1, 2005 5:12:22 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 30 Mar 2005 00:42:38 GMT, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:

>> The preference for tubes is hardly based on the idea that "older is
>> better." There may indeed be a tiny band of people that believe this
>> but that hardly acounts for the majority of people that prefer tube
>> amplification.
>>
>
>
>What evidence do you have that the majority prefer tube amplification?

He didn't say that. He said of those who prefer tube amps, the majority do
not prefer them simply because they're old technology.

>I certainly don't, and I have good ears. Tubes distort in rather
>unpleasant ways.

Unpleasant for you, perhaps not so for others?

Paul Chefurka
!