Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Turntable report

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
April 17, 2005 12:46:35 AM

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

Hi all,

A couple of weeks ago, I solicited opinions on whether I should
pruchase a new lower cost TT like the Pro-ject, et al, or refurbish my
old Denon DP-62-L that had been in storage for some time, as I reenter
the analogue world. Well, I took the TT in to my trusty local store,
Audio Ectasy, and had them mount a new Grado Red, Audioquest mat, and
replace the stock cable with Audioquest. I also bought a Record Doctor
and some isolation feet from Audio Advisor. I've lived with the combo
for a few days now. The results? WONDERFUL! After having spent a
week in Carnegie Hall recently, conducting and hearing 4 concerts, I
now remember why I like analogue so much. It's MUCH more like music in
a good hall. Thanks to everyone for your advice.

More about : turntable report

Anonymous
April 18, 2005 12:45:25 AM

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

Jenn wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> A couple of weeks ago, I solicited opinions on whether I should
> pruchase a new lower cost TT like the Pro-ject, et al, or refurbish
my
> old Denon DP-62-L that had been in storage for some time, as I
reenter
> the analogue world. Well, I took the TT in to my trusty local store,
> Audio Ectasy, and had them mount a new Grado Red, Audioquest mat, and
> replace the stock cable with Audioquest. I also bought a Record
Doctor
> and some isolation feet from Audio Advisor. I've lived with the
combo
> for a few days now. The results? WONDERFUL! After having spent a
> week in Carnegie Hall recently, conducting and hearing 4 concerts, I
> now remember why I like analogue so much. It's MUCH more like music
in
> a good hall. Thanks to everyone for your advice.

Hmmm, someone who lives with live music and thinks vinyl is much more
like it than CD playback. And with an entry level system no less. I'm
surprised no one has chimmed in and called you a promoter of mythology.
I am glad you were able to find simple solutions to your needs and
things worked out well. And just think, there is still much room for
improvement should you choose to seek it. Enjoy the music. Thanks for
the report.


Scott Wheeler
Anonymous
April 18, 2005 5:45:43 AM

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

Theporkygeorge@aol.com wrote:
> Jenn wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > A couple of weeks ago, I solicited opinions on whether I should
> > pruchase a new lower cost TT like the Pro-ject, et al, or refurbish
> my
> > old Denon DP-62-L that had been in storage for some time, as I
> reenter
> > the analogue world. Well, I took the TT in to my trusty local
store,
> > Audio Ectasy, and had them mount a new Grado Red, Audioquest mat,
and
> > replace the stock cable with Audioquest. I also bought a Record
> Doctor
> > and some isolation feet from Audio Advisor. I've lived with the
> combo
> > for a few days now. The results? WONDERFUL! After having spent a
> > week in Carnegie Hall recently, conducting and hearing 4 concerts,
I
> > now remember why I like analogue so much. It's MUCH more like
music
> in
> > a good hall. Thanks to everyone for your advice.
>
> Hmmm, someone who lives with live music and thinks vinyl is much more
> like it than CD playback. And with an entry level system no less.

Hmmm, does this mean that the next time someone suggests that vinyl is
less than perfect, we won't hear in response, "Well, that's because
you've never heard a really high-end rig"?

bob
Related resources
April 18, 2005 7:33:15 AM

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

nabob33@hotmail.com wrote:
> Theporkygeorge@aol.com wrote:
>> Jenn wrote:
>> > Hi all,
>> >
>> > A couple of weeks ago, I solicited opinions on whether I should
>> > pruchase a new lower cost TT like the Pro-ject, et al, or refurbish
>> my
>> > old Denon DP-62-L that had been in storage for some time, as I
>> reenter
>> > the analogue world. Well, I took the TT in to my trusty local
> store,
>> > Audio Ectasy, and had them mount a new Grado Red, Audioquest mat,
> and
>> > replace the stock cable with Audioquest. I also bought a Record
>> Doctor
>> > and some isolation feet from Audio Advisor. I've lived with the
>> combo
>> > for a few days now. The results? WONDERFUL! After having spent a
>> > week in Carnegie Hall recently, conducting and hearing 4 concerts,
> I
>> > now remember why I like analogue so much. It's MUCH more like
> music
>> in
>> > a good hall. Thanks to everyone for your advice.
>>
>> Hmmm, someone who lives with live music and thinks vinyl is much more
>> like it than CD playback. And with an entry level system no less.
>
> Hmmm, does this mean that the next time someone suggests that vinyl is
> less than perfect, we won't hear in response, "Well, that's because
> you've never heard a really high-end rig"?
>
> bob

Well, I attended a piano recital by the rising star Yundi Li last week.
And throughout the recital, I kept thinking how close my CD rig sounds
to the live piano I was hearing. You know, the solid sustained notes,
the great dynamic range, and so on. There was no way the LP can
reproduce that piano sound without very noticeable degradation. That was
a reminder of why I like digital so much. As someone who owns a grand
piano, I can say without any doubt that the CD sounds so much better
than vinyl on piano music.

And to the OP, someone *could* have said "But you have not heard a
decent CD rig and decently recorded CD's!" :)  But of course, we won't
resort to that.

BTW, none of Yundi Li's music is available on vinyl. Only on CD's.
Anonymous
April 18, 2005 7:33:41 AM

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

nabob33@hotmail.com wrote:
> Theporkygeorge@aol.com wrote:
> > Jenn wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > A couple of weeks ago, I solicited opinions on whether I should
> > > pruchase a new lower cost TT like the Pro-ject, et al, or
refurbish
> > my
> > > old Denon DP-62-L that had been in storage for some time, as I
> > reenter
> > > the analogue world. Well, I took the TT in to my trusty local
> store,
> > > Audio Ectasy, and had them mount a new Grado Red, Audioquest mat,
> and
> > > replace the stock cable with Audioquest. I also bought a Record
> > Doctor
> > > and some isolation feet from Audio Advisor. I've lived with the
> > combo
> > > for a few days now. The results? WONDERFUL! After having spent
a
> > > week in Carnegie Hall recently, conducting and hearing 4
concerts,
> I
> > > now remember why I like analogue so much. It's MUCH more like
> music
> > in
> > > a good hall. Thanks to everyone for your advice.
> >
> > Hmmm, someone who lives with live music and thinks vinyl is much
more
> > like it than CD playback. And with an entry level system no less.
>
> Hmmm, does this mean that the next time someone suggests that vinyl
is
> less than perfect, we won't hear in response, "Well, that's because
> you've never heard a really high-end rig"?
>


Who ever said vinyl was perfect? The point of using a high end rig for
comparisons to CD is for the sake of hearing each medium at their best.
What does it mean to say one prefers CD over vinyl when the comparison
is made with inferior vinyl playback equipment?



Scott Wheeler
Anonymous
April 19, 2005 3:51:10 AM

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

chung wrote:
> nabob33@hotmail.com wrote:
> > Theporkygeorge@aol.com wrote:
> >> Jenn wrote:
> >> > Hi all,
> >> >
> >> > A couple of weeks ago, I solicited opinions on whether I should
> >> > pruchase a new lower cost TT like the Pro-ject, et al, or
refurbish
> >> my
> >> > old Denon DP-62-L that had been in storage for some time, as I
> >> reenter
> >> > the analogue world. Well, I took the TT in to my trusty local
> > store,
> >> > Audio Ectasy, and had them mount a new Grado Red, Audioquest
mat,
> > and
> >> > replace the stock cable with Audioquest. I also bought a Record
> >> Doctor
> >> > and some isolation feet from Audio Advisor. I've lived with the
> >> combo
> >> > for a few days now. The results? WONDERFUL! After having
spent a
> >> > week in Carnegie Hall recently, conducting and hearing 4
concerts,
> > I
> >> > now remember why I like analogue so much. It's MUCH more like
> > music
> >> in
> >> > a good hall. Thanks to everyone for your advice.
> >>
> >> Hmmm, someone who lives with live music and thinks vinyl is much
more
> >> like it than CD playback. And with an entry level system no less.
> >
> > Hmmm, does this mean that the next time someone suggests that vinyl
is
> > less than perfect, we won't hear in response, "Well, that's because
> > you've never heard a really high-end rig"?
> >
> > bob
>
> Well, I attended a piano recital by the rising star Yundi Li last
week.
> And throughout the recital, I kept thinking how close my CD rig
sounds
> to the live piano I was hearing. You know, the solid sustained notes,


Solid sustained notes? I've certainly heard this on numerous CDs of
piano but never on a live piano. This is one of the most easily
identifiable shortcomings one can hear on most CDs. A sustained note on
a real piano is anything but solid.


> the great dynamic range, and so on. There was no way the LP can
> reproduce that piano sound without very noticeable degradation.

There is no way any recording/playback system can reproduce a live
piano without very noticable degradation. I doubt your system CD player
and all are really any exception.



That was
> a reminder of why I like digital so much. As someone who owns a grand

> piano, I can say without any doubt that the CD sounds so much better
> than vinyl on piano music.


Opinions abound. The person who started this thread clearly disagrees.
It seems she does speak from considerable experience with live music.


>
> And to the OP, someone *could* have said "But you have not heard a
> decent CD rig and decently recorded CD's!" :)  But of course, we won't

> resort to that.


Of course not. You believe they all sound the same don't you? Does
anybody believe all turntable rigs sound the same?



>
> BTW, none of Yundi Li's music is available on vinyl. Only on CD's.


Only CD? Can't get it on MP3?



Scott Wheeler
Anonymous
April 19, 2005 3:53:04 AM

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

On 18 Apr 2005 03:33:41 GMT, Theporkygeorge@aol.com wrote:

>nabob33@hotmail.com wrote:
>> Theporkygeorge@aol.com wrote:

>> > Hmmm, someone who lives with live music and thinks vinyl is much more
>> > like it than CD playback. And with an entry level system no less.
>>
>> Hmmm, does this mean that the next time someone suggests that vinyl is
>> less than perfect, we won't hear in response, "Well, that's because
>> you've never heard a really high-end rig"?
>>
>Who ever said vinyl was perfect? The point of using a high end rig for
>comparisons to CD is for the sake of hearing each medium at their best.
>What does it mean to say one prefers CD over vinyl when the comparison
>is made with inferior vinyl playback equipment?

It means that it's the standard copout for vinylphiles, much like the
somewhat suspicious original post implying that those who live with
live music prefer vinyl. Heads up now, what really launched CD into
the mass market was *classical* music listeners, i.e. people who live
with live music.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Anonymous
April 19, 2005 3:54:32 AM

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

In article <d3v9pr04dt@news1.newsguy.com>, chung <chunglau@covad.net>
wrote:

> Well, I attended a piano recital by the rising star Yundi Li last week.
> And throughout the recital, I kept thinking how close my CD rig sounds
> to the live piano I was hearing. You know, the solid sustained notes,
> the great dynamic range, and so on. There was no way the LP can
> reproduce that piano sound without very noticeable degradation. That was
> a reminder of why I like digital so much. As someone who owns a grand
> piano, I can say without any doubt that the CD sounds so much better
> than vinyl on piano music.

I have heard that is the case. I don't know why the piano should almost
always sound so much better on CD when other instruments don't (always).
You might think it is the percussive qualities, which a needle in a
groove might have trouble tracking, but certain drum sounds seem usually
to work better on vinyl, although not as much so as they used to.

There is no doubt CD is getting very good, which means it must be close
to being replaced. Vinyl showed the most improvement after CD came out.
Cd will probably do likewise when the next best thing comes along.
Maybe that is SACD or DVD-A. Only time will tell. Then, of course,
there will be the CD people who claim the new stuff doesn't sound as
good, and it won't for a long time.
April 19, 2005 7:12:23 AM

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

Stewart: <<<It means that it's the standard copout for vinylphiles,
much like the
somewhat suspicious original post implying that those who live with
live music prefer vinyl. Heads up now, what really.....

Pardon me.... I don't know makes my post "somewhat suspicious" to you,
but... whatever. Nor did I imply "that those who live with live music
prefer vinyl." I simply stated that ***I*** prefer vinyl. I also
enjoy listening to CD at times.
April 19, 2005 7:13:33 AM

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

Theporkygeorge@aol.com wrote:
> chung wrote:
>> nabob33@hotmail.com wrote:
>> > Theporkygeorge@aol.com wrote:
>> >> Jenn wrote:
>> >> > Hi all,
>> >> >
>> >> > A couple of weeks ago, I solicited opinions on whether I should
>> >> > pruchase a new lower cost TT like the Pro-ject, et al, or
> refurbish
>> >> my
>> >> > old Denon DP-62-L that had been in storage for some time, as I
>> >> reenter
>> >> > the analogue world. Well, I took the TT in to my trusty local
>> > store,
>> >> > Audio Ectasy, and had them mount a new Grado Red, Audioquest
> mat,
>> > and
>> >> > replace the stock cable with Audioquest. I also bought a Record
>> >> Doctor
>> >> > and some isolation feet from Audio Advisor. I've lived with the
>> >> combo
>> >> > for a few days now. The results? WONDERFUL! After having
> spent a
>> >> > week in Carnegie Hall recently, conducting and hearing 4
> concerts,
>> > I
>> >> > now remember why I like analogue so much. It's MUCH more like
>> > music
>> >> in
>> >> > a good hall. Thanks to everyone for your advice.
>> >>
>> >> Hmmm, someone who lives with live music and thinks vinyl is much
> more
>> >> like it than CD playback. And with an entry level system no less.
>> >
>> > Hmmm, does this mean that the next time someone suggests that vinyl
> is
>> > less than perfect, we won't hear in response, "Well, that's because
>> > you've never heard a really high-end rig"?
>> >
>> > bob
>>
>> Well, I attended a piano recital by the rising star Yundi Li last
> week.
>> And throughout the recital, I kept thinking how close my CD rig
> sounds
>> to the live piano I was hearing. You know, the solid sustained notes,
>
>
> Solid sustained notes? I've certainly heard this on numerous CDs of
> piano but never on a live piano. This is one of the most easily
> identifiable shortcomings one can hear on most CDs. A sustained note on
> a real piano is anything but solid.
>

Well, I have a grand piano, and the sustained notes are solid. Perhaps
you are too used to vinyl?

You think there are some magical process in CD's that stabilize those
"real-life" wavering notes? Hey, there will certainly be fame and riches
for you if you could figure out how...

>
>> the great dynamic range, and so on. There was no way the LP can
>> reproduce that piano sound without very noticeable degradation.
>
> There is no way any recording/playback system can reproduce a live
> piano without very noticable degradation. I doubt your system CD player
> and all are really any exception.
>

The degradations from a CD are much less than those from vinyl. In fact,
I have piano recital CD's that sound very close to the real thing.


>
> That was
>> a reminder of why I like digital so much. As someone who owns a grand
>
>> piano, I can say without any doubt that the CD sounds so much better
>> than vinyl on piano music.
>
>
> Opinions abound. The person who started this thread clearly disagrees.
> It seems she does speak from considerable experience with live music.
>

That's my point, in case you missed it. Opinions abound. and I speak
with considerable experience from listening to a live piano. In fact, I
just did.


>>
>> And to the OP, someone *could* have said "But you have not heard a
>> decent CD rig and decently recorded CD's!" :)  But of course, we won't
>
>> resort to that.
>
>
> Of course not. You believe they all sound the same don't you? Does
> anybody believe all turntable rigs sound the same?
>

No, some CD rigs sound bad because of poor speakers. And then there are
poorly recorded/mastered CD's. Of course, the competent CD players sound
very similar, but you know that.

>
>
>>
>> BTW, none of Yundi Li's music is available on vinyl. Only on CD's.
>
>
> Only CD? Can't get it on MP3?

You can make mp3's out of CD's, of course. What exactly is your point,
or do you have one?
April 19, 2005 7:14:12 AM

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

Robert Peirce wrote:

> In article <d3v9pr04dt@news1.newsguy.com>, chung <chunglau@covad.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Well, I attended a piano recital by the rising star Yundi Li last week.
>> And throughout the recital, I kept thinking how close my CD rig sounds
>> to the live piano I was hearing. You know, the solid sustained notes,
>> the great dynamic range, and so on. There was no way the LP can
>> reproduce that piano sound without very noticeable degradation. That was
>> a reminder of why I like digital so much. As someone who owns a grand
>> piano, I can say without any doubt that the CD sounds so much better
>> than vinyl on piano music.
>
> I have heard that is the case. I don't know why the piano should almost
> always sound so much better on CD when other instruments don't (always).
> You might think it is the percussive qualities, which a needle in a
> groove might have trouble tracking, but certain drum sounds seem usually
> to work better on vinyl, although not as much so as they used to.

The wow and flutter have the biggest impact on solid sustained piano
notes. Any inherent frquency instability (like wow and flutter) in the
turntable, any slight error in the record (off-centered holes) etc., and
of course any distortion and lack of dynamic range will show up readily,
especially on piano solos.

>
> There is no doubt CD is getting very good, which means it must be close
> to being replaced.

Assuming there are real advantages in the medium replacing it, of course.

> Vinyl showed the most improvement after CD came out.

I am not sure if you can prove that statement. Some of the best discs I
own are direct-to-discs made in the late 70's.

> Cd will probably do likewise when the next best thing comes along.
> Maybe that is SACD or DVD-A. Only time will tell.

Time has apparently told that it is neither.

> Then, of course,
> there will be the CD people who claim the new stuff doesn't sound as
> good, and it won't for a long time.

It's more like there will be people who claim the the new stiff don't
sound better...I have yet to hear people say that the hi-rez formats
have less accuracy.
April 20, 2005 3:51:20 AM

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

Theporkygeorge@aol.com wrote:
>
>
> Of course not. You believe they all sound the same don't you? Does
> anybody believe all turntable rigs sound the same?
>
>
Well, the crackles and the distortion sound similar, but of course each
catridge has its own colour, which is superimposed on the music, much like a
loudspeaker. Then some have more hum than others, and some are better
isolated from vibrations.

Scott, a simple test can be done:
Record your favourite music from the rig to CD. Now start the turntable and
play the record and when the sound arrives, start the CD player. listen with
the headphone to the CD and synchronize the vinyl by slowing the platter
with your hand.
Now turn down the volume, switch the preamp over and turn up the volume to
the same loudness. (It will be good to mark the 2 settings with a chalk
pen).
Have a friend or your wife switch without your knowledge. Now try to
identify the real turntable. Can you do that?

>
>>
>> BTW, none of Yundi Li's music is available on vinyl. Only on CD's.
>
>
> Only CD? Can't get it on MP3?
>
>
>
> Scott Wheeler

Even MP3 is much more difficult to identify than vinyl, I wonder why?
--
ciao Ban
Bordighera, Italy
Anonymous
April 20, 2005 3:53:41 AM

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

Chung wrote:
> Theporkygeorge@aol.com wrote:
> > chung wrote:
> >> nabob33@hotmail.com wrote:
> >> > Theporkygeorge@aol.com wrote:
> >> >> Jenn wrote:
> >> >> > Hi all,
> >> >> >
> >> >> > A couple of weeks ago, I solicited opinions on whether I
should
> >> >> > pruchase a new lower cost TT like the Pro-ject, et al, or
> > refurbish
> >> >> my
> >> >> > old Denon DP-62-L that had been in storage for some time, as
I
> >> >> reenter
> >> >> > the analogue world. Well, I took the TT in to my trusty
local
> >> > store,
> >> >> > Audio Ectasy, and had them mount a new Grado Red, Audioquest
> > mat,
> >> > and
> >> >> > replace the stock cable with Audioquest. I also bought a
Record
> >> >> Doctor
> >> >> > and some isolation feet from Audio Advisor. I've lived with
the
> >> >> combo
> >> >> > for a few days now. The results? WONDERFUL! After having
> > spent a
> >> >> > week in Carnegie Hall recently, conducting and hearing 4
> > concerts,
> >> > I
> >> >> > now remember why I like analogue so much. It's MUCH more
like
> >> > music
> >> >> in
> >> >> > a good hall. Thanks to everyone for your advice.
> >> >>
> >> >> Hmmm, someone who lives with live music and thinks vinyl is
much
> > more
> >> >> like it than CD playback. And with an entry level system no
less.
> >> >
> >> > Hmmm, does this mean that the next time someone suggests that
vinyl
> > is
> >> > less than perfect, we won't hear in response, "Well, that's
because
> >> > you've never heard a really high-end rig"?
> >> >
> >> > bob
> >>
> >> Well, I attended a piano recital by the rising star Yundi Li last
> > week.
> >> And throughout the recital, I kept thinking how close my CD rig
> > sounds
> >> to the live piano I was hearing. You know, the solid sustained
notes,
> >
> >
> > Solid sustained notes? I've certainly heard this on numerous CDs of
> > piano but never on a live piano. This is one of the most easily
> > identifiable shortcomings one can hear on most CDs. A sustained
note on
> > a real piano is anything but solid.
> >
>
> Well, I have a grand piano, and the sustained notes are solid.
Perhaps
> you are too used to vinyl?


No. It is not natural for any real paino to have solid sustained notes.
The decay of a note from a live piano is anything but solid.



>
> You think there are some magical process in CD's that stabilize those

> "real-life" wavering notes?



No. Simplifying a a complex signal is not magic.




Hey, there will certainly be fame and riches
> for you if you could figure out how...


No. Just lower the resolution of any signal and ou will loose
information. I'm surprised you didn't know this already.



>
> >
> >> the great dynamic range, and so on. There was no way the LP can
> >> reproduce that piano sound without very noticeable degradation.
> >
> > There is no way any recording/playback system can reproduce a live
> > piano without very noticable degradation. I doubt your system CD
player
> > and all are really any exception.
> >
>
> The degradations from a CD are much less than those from vinyl. In
fact,
> I have piano recital CD's that sound very close to the real thing.


Again. I am quite skeptical of such claims. But, if you cannot hear the
complexity of the decay of a sustained note on a real live piano maybe
you simply aren't picking up on the substantial differences between a
live piano and the recording and playback of a live piano.



>
>
> >
> > That was
> >> a reminder of why I like digital so much. As someone who owns a
grand
> >
> >> piano, I can say without any doubt that the CD sounds so much
better
> >> than vinyl on piano music.
> >
> >
> > Opinions abound. The person who started this thread clearly
disagrees.
> > It seems she does speak from considerable experience with live
music.
> >
>
> That's my point, in case you missed it. Opinions abound. and I speak
> with considerable experience from listening to a live piano.


And yet you think the decay of a sustained note is solid. I'm afraid
that there is more to it than just experience.




In fact, I
> just did.
>
>
> >>
> >> And to the OP, someone *could* have said "But you have not heard a
> >> decent CD rig and decently recorded CD's!" :)  But of course, we
won't
> >
> >> resort to that.
> >
> >
> > Of course not. You believe they all sound the same don't you? Does
> > anybody believe all turntable rigs sound the same?
> >
>
> No, some CD rigs sound bad because of poor speakers. And then there
are
> poorly recorded/mastered CD's. Of course, the competent CD players
sound
> very similar, but you know that.

I don't know that. I know some people believe that and some believe
otherwise. I have not spent much time c0omparing CD players myself.



>
> >
> >
> >>
> >> BTW, none of Yundi Li's music is available on vinyl. Only on CD's.
> >
> >
> > Only CD? Can't get it on MP3?
>
> You can make mp3's out of CD's, of course. What exactly is your
point,
> or do you have one?



That it can be had on more than just CD. Wasn't it obvious?




Scott Wheeler
Anonymous
April 20, 2005 3:54:07 AM

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

"Jenn" <jennconducts@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:D 41sun02pdc@news1.newsguy.com...
> Stewart: <<<It means that it's the standard copout for vinylphiles,
> much like the
> somewhat suspicious original post implying that those who live with
> live music prefer vinyl. Heads up now, what really.....
>
> Pardon me.... I don't know makes my post "somewhat suspicious" to you,
> but... whatever. Nor did I imply "that those who live with live music
> prefer vinyl." I simply stated that ***I*** prefer vinyl. I also
> enjoy listening to CD at times.

Nevermind...your post is simply being used as a springboard for the personal
agendas of some here. Doesn't mean they've actually read carefully or given
any real consideration to what you said. That's increasingly commong on
usenet these days, and unfortunately it has infected RAHE as well.
Anonymous
April 20, 2005 3:54:39 AM

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

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> On 18 Apr 2005 03:33:41 GMT, Theporkygeorge@aol.com wrote:
>
> >nabob33@hotmail.com wrote:
> >> Theporkygeorge@aol.com wrote:
>
> >> > Hmmm, someone who lives with live music and thinks vinyl is much
more
> >> > like it than CD playback. And with an entry level system no
less.
> >>
> >> Hmmm, does this mean that the next time someone suggests that
vinyl is
> >> less than perfect, we won't hear in response, "Well, that's
because
> >> you've never heard a really high-end rig"?
> >>
> >Who ever said vinyl was perfect? The point of using a high end rig
for
> >comparisons to CD is for the sake of hearing each medium at their
best.
> >What does it mean to say one prefers CD over vinyl when the
comparison
> >is made with inferior vinyl playback equipment?
>
> It means that it's the standard copout for vinylphiles, much like the
> somewhat suspicious original post implying that those who live with
> live music prefer vinyl. Heads up now, what really launched CD into
> the mass market was *classical* music listeners, i.e. people who live
> with live music.
> --
>
> Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Stewert gets his facts wrong again. What really launched CD into the
masss market was the availablity of portable CD players and car CD
players. The classical music listeners are very much a niche market
that barely impact the commercial scene over all. By the way, many
classical music lovers do not spend much time with live music.


Scott Wheeler
Anonymous
April 20, 2005 3:55:00 AM

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

<Theporkygeorge@aol.com> wrote in message
news:D 41h5e0uq6@news3.newsguy.com...
>
> Of course not. You believe they all sound the same don't you? Does
> anybody believe all turntable rigs sound the same?
>

Of course not, and therein lies the problem with vinyl. The best turntable
rig almost sounds as good as the least expensive CD player. Additionally the
tonearm height needs to be altered whenever playing a thicker or thinner LP.
Anonymous
April 20, 2005 3:56:22 AM

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

Chung <chunglau@covad.net> wrote:
> Robert Peirce wrote:

> > In article <d3v9pr04dt@news1.newsguy.com>, chung <chunglau@covad.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Well, I attended a piano recital by the rising star Yundi Li last week.
> >> And throughout the recital, I kept thinking how close my CD rig sounds
> >> to the live piano I was hearing. You know, the solid sustained notes,
> >> the great dynamic range, and so on. There was no way the LP can
> >> reproduce that piano sound without very noticeable degradation. That was
> >> a reminder of why I like digital so much. As someone who owns a grand
> >> piano, I can say without any doubt that the CD sounds so much better
> >> than vinyl on piano music.
> >
> > I have heard that is the case. I don't know why the piano should almost
> > always sound so much better on CD when other instruments don't (always).
> > You might think it is the percussive qualities, which a needle in a
> > groove might have trouble tracking, but certain drum sounds seem usually
> > to work better on vinyl, although not as much so as they used to.

> The wow and flutter have the biggest impact on solid sustained piano
> notes. Any inherent frquency instability (like wow and flutter) in the
> turntable, any slight error in the record (off-centered holes) etc., and
> of course any distortion and lack of dynamic range will show up readily,
> especially on piano solos.

The wow/flutter issue shows up even more clearly on recordings of
instruments where sustained notes don't necessarily decay...like organ and
synthesizers.

In that sense CD was the saviour of Bach *and* prog rock ;>

> > There is no doubt CD is getting very good, which means it must be close
> > to being replaced.

> Assuming there are real advantages in the medium replacing it, of course.

> > Vinyl showed the most improvement after CD came out.

> I am not sure if you can prove that statement. Some of the best discs I
> own are direct-to-discs made in the late 70's.

Maybe he means turntable technology. Vinyl itself hasn't
made any technological leaps, AFAIK.


--

-S
It's not my business to do intelligent work. -- D. Rumsfeld, testifying
before the House Armed Services Committee
Anonymous
April 20, 2005 3:56:39 AM

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

That's great! It is always a pleasure to be able to appreciate what
you have.
-Bill
www.uptownaudio.com
Roanoke VA
(540) 343-1250

"Jenn" <jennconducts@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:D 3rtjb014pf@news3.newsguy.com...
> Hi all,
>
> A couple of weeks ago, I solicited opinions on whether I should
> pruchase a new lower cost TT like the Pro-ject, et al, or refurbish
> my
> old Denon DP-62-L that had been in storage for some time, as I
> reenter
> the analogue world. Well, I took the TT in to my trusty local
> store,
> Audio Ectasy, and had them mount a new Grado Red, Audioquest mat,
> and
> replace the stock cable with Audioquest. I also bought a Record
> Doctor
> and some isolation feet from Audio Advisor. I've lived with the
> combo
> for a few days now. The results? WONDERFUL! After having spent a
> week in Carnegie Hall recently, conducting and hearing 4 concerts, I
> now remember why I like analogue so much. It's MUCH more like music
> in
> a good hall. Thanks to everyone for your advice.
April 21, 2005 3:59:14 AM

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

Theporkygeorge@aol.com wrote:
> Chung wrote:
>> Theporkygeorge@aol.com wrote:
>> > chung wrote:
>> >> nabob33@hotmail.com wrote:
>> >> > Theporkygeorge@aol.com wrote:
>> >> >> Jenn wrote:
>> >> >> > Hi all,
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > A couple of weeks ago, I solicited opinions on whether I
> should
>> >> >> > pruchase a new lower cost TT like the Pro-ject, et al, or
>> > refurbish
>> >> >> my
>> >> >> > old Denon DP-62-L that had been in storage for some time, as
> I
>> >> >> reenter
>> >> >> > the analogue world. Well, I took the TT in to my trusty
> local
>> >> > store,
>> >> >> > Audio Ectasy, and had them mount a new Grado Red, Audioquest
>> > mat,
>> >> > and
>> >> >> > replace the stock cable with Audioquest. I also bought a
> Record
>> >> >> Doctor
>> >> >> > and some isolation feet from Audio Advisor. I've lived with
> the
>> >> >> combo
>> >> >> > for a few days now. The results? WONDERFUL! After having
>> > spent a
>> >> >> > week in Carnegie Hall recently, conducting and hearing 4
>> > concerts,
>> >> > I
>> >> >> > now remember why I like analogue so much. It's MUCH more
> like
>> >> > music
>> >> >> in
>> >> >> > a good hall. Thanks to everyone for your advice.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Hmmm, someone who lives with live music and thinks vinyl is
> much
>> > more
>> >> >> like it than CD playback. And with an entry level system no
> less.
>> >> >
>> >> > Hmmm, does this mean that the next time someone suggests that
> vinyl
>> > is
>> >> > less than perfect, we won't hear in response, "Well, that's
> because
>> >> > you've never heard a really high-end rig"?
>> >> >
>> >> > bob
>> >>
>> >> Well, I attended a piano recital by the rising star Yundi Li last
>> > week.
>> >> And throughout the recital, I kept thinking how close my CD rig
>> > sounds
>> >> to the live piano I was hearing. You know, the solid sustained
> notes,
>> >
>> >
>> > Solid sustained notes? I've certainly heard this on numerous CDs of
>> > piano but never on a live piano. This is one of the most easily
>> > identifiable shortcomings one can hear on most CDs. A sustained
> note on
>> > a real piano is anything but solid.
>> >
>>
>> Well, I have a grand piano, and the sustained notes are solid.
> Perhaps
>> you are too used to vinyl?
>
>
> No. It is not natural for any real paino to have solid sustained notes.
> The decay of a note from a live piano is anything but solid.

Perhaps you were confused when I said solid sustained notes. I meant the
frequency of the notes, and not amplitude. I thought it was obvious from
the context, but I guess one never knows.

So, it is perfectly natural for a real piano to have solid sustained
notes in terms of frequency stability. Now, do you still want to argue
that it's not the case?

>
>
>
>>
>> You think there are some magical process in CD's that stabilize those
>
>> "real-life" wavering notes?
>
>
>
> No. Simplifying a a complex signal is not magic.

Taking out the frequency variations (which caused the wavering of the
pitch) is almost magic...

Now, do you think the CD is capable of removing frequency instability?

>
>
>
>
> Hey, there will certainly be fame and riches
>> for you if you could figure out how...
>
>
> No. Just lower the resolution of any signal and ou will loose
> information. I'm surprised you didn't know this already.

If you can lower the resolution and hence remove the frequency
instability, there will certainly be fame and riches for you.

>
>
>
>>
>> >
>> >> the great dynamic range, and so on. There was no way the LP can
>> >> reproduce that piano sound without very noticeable degradation.
>> >
>> > There is no way any recording/playback system can reproduce a live
>> > piano without very noticable degradation. I doubt your system CD
> player
>> > and all are really any exception.
>> >
>>
>> The degradations from a CD are much less than those from vinyl. In
> fact,
>> I have piano recital CD's that sound very close to the real thing.
>
>
> Again. I am quite skeptical of such claims.

There is nothing like listening, I guess. Try recording the output of
the phono stage onto CD's. Voila, all the magical "complex" signals that
you claim can only be heard on vinyl are preserved!



>But, if you cannot hear the
> complexity of the decay of a sustained note on a real live piano maybe
> you simply aren't picking up on the substantial differences between a
> live piano and the recording and playback of a live piano.

So you are saying that you cannot observe the complex amplitude decay of
piano music on CD's?

Here is a good one for you to try out:

Emil Gilel's Beethoven Sonata #8 (Pathetique) on DG 400036-2. This is an
early 1980 digital recording. You can easily find it at the local
library. Check out track 1. Listen to the solid frequency stability of
the big chords. See if that sounds like a real piano in your experience.

>
>
>
>>
>>
>> >
>> > That was
>> >> a reminder of why I like digital so much. As someone who owns a
> grand
>> >
>> >> piano, I can say without any doubt that the CD sounds so much
> better
>> >> than vinyl on piano music.
>> >
>> >
>> > Opinions abound. The person who started this thread clearly
> disagrees.
>> > It seems she does speak from considerable experience with live
> music.
>> >
>>
>> That's my point, in case you missed it. Opinions abound. and I speak
>> with considerable experience from listening to a live piano.
>
>
> And yet you think the decay of a sustained note is solid. I'm afraid
> that there is more to it than just experience.

The frequency is solid. Not sure what solid decay means, since I never
used that term...

>
>
>
>
> In fact, I
>> just did.
>>
>>
>> >>
>> >> And to the OP, someone *could* have said "But you have not heard a
>> >> decent CD rig and decently recorded CD's!" :)  But of course, we
> won't
>> >
>> >> resort to that.
>> >
>> >
>> > Of course not. You believe they all sound the same don't you? Does
>> > anybody believe all turntable rigs sound the same?
>> >
>>
>> No, some CD rigs sound bad because of poor speakers. And then there
> are
>> poorly recorded/mastered CD's. Of course, the competent CD players
> sound
>> very similar, but you know that.
>
> I don't know that. I know some people believe that and some believe
> otherwise. I have not spent much time c0omparing CD players myself.


>
>
>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> BTW, none of Yundi Li's music is available on vinyl. Only on CD's.
>> >
>> >
>> > Only CD? Can't get it on MP3?
>>
>> You can make mp3's out of CD's, of course. What exactly is your
> point,
>> or do you have one?
>
>
>
> That it can be had on more than just CD. Wasn't it obvious?

It is a rather, shall we say, pointless point then. You can of course
make cassette tapes, MD tapes out of the CD. I guess according to your
logic, when someone releases a movie on DVD, it is simultaneously
released in divx, mpeg4, vcd, realmedia, windows media formats already.

To make it easier for you to grasp, Yundi Li's music is not released in
vinyl. So is a lot of new classical music.

>
>
>
>
> Scott Wheeler
Anonymous
April 21, 2005 4:13:20 AM

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

On 19 Apr 2005 23:54:39 GMT, Theporkygeorge@aol.com wrote:

>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

>>Heads up now, what really launched CD into
>> the mass market was *classical* music listeners, i.e. people who live
>> with live music.

>Stewert gets his facts wrong again. What really launched CD into the
>masss market was the availablity of portable CD players and car CD
>players. The classical music listeners are very much a niche market
>that barely impact the commercial scene over all. By the way, many
>classical music lovers do not spend much time with live music.

This comes from a guy who has just attempted to tell someone who
*owns* a grand piano, what sustained notes from it sound like......

Unfortunately for Wheeler, he doesn't get to write history books, and
the plain *facts* of the matter are that CD sales in the first two
years were below predictions, until the word began to spread among
classical music lovers that this new medium simply did not suffer from
wow and flutter (which, contrary to Wheeler's bizarre opinion, are
horribly destructive of solo piano music), and had such low background
noise that all kinds of musical subtleties became noticeable, which
had previously been swamped by surface noise. It was the classical
market which dragged CD out of the red in the early years, and
everyone but you is well aware of this - ask any record store owner
who was in business in the '80s, or of course go straight to RIAA
sales archives.

Certainly portable players and car players helped to boost volumes,
but note that they did not become widespread (especially car players),
until well after CD was firmly established.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Anonymous
April 21, 2005 4:15:18 AM

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

On 19 Apr 2005 23:56:22 GMT, Steven Sullivan <ssully@panix.com> wrote:

>Chung <chunglau@covad.net> wrote:

>> The wow and flutter have the biggest impact on solid sustained piano
>> notes. Any inherent frquency instability (like wow and flutter) in the
>> turntable, any slight error in the record (off-centered holes) etc., and
>> of course any distortion and lack of dynamic range will show up readily,
>> especially on piano solos.
>
>The wow/flutter issue shows up even more clearly on recordings of
>instruments where sustained notes don't necessarily decay...like organ and
>synthesizers.
>
>In that sense CD was the saviour of Bach *and* prog rock ;>

Sometimes they are the same - Switched on Bach, anyone? :-)

>> > There is no doubt CD is getting very good, which means it must be close
>> > to being replaced.
>
>> Assuming there are real advantages in the medium replacing it, of course.

There aren't, aside from multiple channels, but that won't stop the
marketing boys selling the biggernumbers! I mean, it stands to reason
that 24/96 just *must* sound better than 16/44...............

OTOH, it does like as if SACD and the technologically superior DVD-A
will *both* sink without trace after the 'format wars', leaving DVD-V
and multi-channel DD/DTS as the market winners.

>> > Vinyl showed the most improvement after CD came out.
>
>> I am not sure if you can prove that statement. Some of the best discs I
>> own are direct-to-discs made in the late 70's.
>
>Maybe he means turntable technology. Vinyl itself hasn't
>made any technological leaps, AFAIK.

Indeed so. The last 'improvement' was Direct Metal Mastering, and DMM
records were notorious for really shrill treble. So far as the replay
gear goes, and typically of the valves 'n vinyl brigade, some still
swear by really crippled technologies from the '60s such as Decca
carts and the Garrard 301/401 table.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Anonymous
April 22, 2005 3:55:47 AM

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

In article <d46qci02bbm@news1.newsguy.com>, Chung <chunglau@covad.net>
wrote:
> >
> > And yet you think the decay of a sustained note is solid. I'm afraid
> > that there is more to it than just experience.
>
> The frequency is solid. Not sure what solid decay means, since I never
> used that term...
>
> >
> >
> >
> > Scott Wheeler

Just a technical question coming; at the attack of a piano tone the
overtone spectra is quite large i think, ranging way up in frequence
even, how are the overtones decaying on a tone like that?

Somehow i get the feeling that if you'd analyze this note
1) at attack
2) 1 second later
3) 10 seconds later
you'd get quite a variety of visible overtones thus suggesting not so
solid decay?

Excuse my lack of knowledge, the question is serious.
Joakim

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

My homepage : http://violinist.nu
Anonymous
April 22, 2005 3:59:10 AM

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

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> On 19 Apr 2005 23:54:39 GMT, Theporkygeorge@aol.com wrote:
>
> >Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>
> >>Heads up now, what really launched CD into
> >> the mass market was *classical* music listeners, i.e. people who
live
> >> with live music.
>
> >Stewert gets his facts wrong again. What really launched CD into the
> >masss market was the availablity of portable CD players and car CD
> >players. The classical music listeners are very much a niche market
> >that barely impact the commercial scene over all. By the way, many
> >classical music lovers do not spend much time with live music.
>
> This comes from a guy who has just attempted to tell someone who
> *owns* a grand piano, what sustained notes from it sound like......


What does Chungs inability to recognize that a sustained note from a
live piano is not solifd but cmplex and constantly changing in tone?
Does it make my true statement a false one? Where is your logic?



>
> Unfortunately for Wheeler, he doesn't get to write history books, and
> the plain *facts* of the matter are that CD sales in the first two
> years were below predictions, until the word began to spread among
> classical music lovers that this new medium simply did not suffer
from
> wow and flutter (which, contrary to Wheeler's bizarre opinion, are
> horribly destructive of solo piano music), and had such low
background
> noise that all kinds of musical subtleties became noticeable, which
> had previously been swamped by surface noise. It was the classical
> market which dragged CD out of the red in the early years, and
> everyone but you is well aware of this - ask any record store owner
> who was in business in the '80s, or of course go straight to RIAA
> sales archives.


Fortunately for audiophiles Pinkerton does not get to rewrite history.
The *fact* is that CD sales took off exactly when portable CD players
and car CD players became widely available at affordable prices.
Fortunately for people who enjoy CDs the success of that medium was
driven by somethging more than a niche market like classical music.




> Certainly portable players and car players helped to boost volumes,
> but note that they did not become widespread (especially car
players),
> until well after CD was firmly established.


Wrong. The availablity of those players coicided exactly with CD
becoming the dominant medium in music play back. It wasn't just a
coincidence though. I would suggest that you take your own advice and
check out the numbers on CD sales. You should be saavy enough with math
to figure out that classical music sales didn't have much of an impact
in making CDs the dominant medium for music.



Scott Wheeler
April 22, 2005 3:59:56 AM

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

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

> This comes from a guy who has just attempted to tell someone who
> *owns* a grand piano, what sustained notes from it sound like......

I believe you are certainly correct. For me, one of the best musical
experiences is Wagner opera, and Liszt lieder. The great dynamic range
of these sources was really highlighted by CD. I am a record fan, and
have lots of them. But there is no comparison.


For anyone interested, I'd suggest the Levine/Met Ring (on CD--not the
DVD which is a "live" performance and not of the technical quality of
the studio set). The DGG engineers did a tremendous job at recreating
the dynamics, and the recording is stupendous. [Here, I am speaking of
the recording quality, only...I don't want to get into discussions or
debates about Levine v Solti, et al!]


michael
Anonymous
April 22, 2005 4:02:28 AM

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

On 20 Apr 2005 23:59:14 GMT, Chung <chunglau@covad.net> wrote:

>Theporkygeorge@aol.com wrote:

>>But, if you cannot hear the
>> complexity of the decay of a sustained note on a real live piano maybe
>> you simply aren't picking up on the substantial differences between a
>> live piano and the recording and playback of a live piano.
>
>So you are saying that you cannot observe the complex amplitude decay of
>piano music on CD's?
>
>Here is a good one for you to try out:
>
>Emil Gilel's Beethoven Sonata #8 (Pathetique) on DG 400036-2. This is an
>early 1980 digital recording. You can easily find it at the local
>library. Check out track 1. Listen to the solid frequency stability of
>the big chords. See if that sounds like a real piano in your experience.

What a bizarre coincidence! I only have half a dozen or so solo piano
recordings, but that superb performance is one of them, and the first
part of the 'Pathetique' is indeed a superb recording of the natural
decay of a solo piano, as is the 'Moonlight' on the same CD.

On vinyl, there would be impossible distractions from wow and surface
noise, but that CD is an immaculate recording which allows the natural
sound of the piano to flow into your listening room. Wheeler is just
plain wrong about this.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
April 22, 2005 5:07:53 AM

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

Joakim Wendel wrote:
> In article <d46qci02bbm@news1.newsguy.com>, Chung <chunglau@covad.net>
> wrote:
>> >
>> > And yet you think the decay of a sustained note is solid. I'm afraid
>> > that there is more to it than just experience.
>>
>> The frequency is solid. Not sure what solid decay means, since I never
>> used that term...
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Scott Wheeler
>
> Just a technical question coming; at the attack of a piano tone the
> overtone spectra is quite large i think, ranging way up in frequence
> even, how are the overtones decaying on a tone like that?
>
> Somehow i get the feeling that if you'd analyze this note
> 1) at attack
> 2) 1 second later
> 3) 10 seconds later
> you'd get quite a variety of visible overtones thus suggesting not so
> solid decay?
>
> Excuse my lack of knowledge, the question is serious.
> Joakim
>


Not sure what you meant by solid decay. You can certainly analyze the
spectrum of the waveform of a sustained chord, and you see the
amplitudes of the harmonics (including the fundamental) changing
(decaying) over time. But the frequency should be stable, i.e., there is
no frequency modulation on the tones.

When I used the term solid sustained notes, I was referring to the
frequency, not amplitude (which is of course decaying over time).
April 22, 2005 6:35:38 AM

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

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

> On 20 Apr 2005 23:59:14 GMT, Chung <chunglau@covad.net> wrote:
>
>>Theporkygeorge@aol.com wrote:
>
>>>But, if you cannot hear the
>>> complexity of the decay of a sustained note on a real live piano maybe
>>> you simply aren't picking up on the substantial differences between a
>>> live piano and the recording and playback of a live piano.
>>
>>So you are saying that you cannot observe the complex amplitude decay of
>>piano music on CD's?
>>
>>Here is a good one for you to try out:
>>
>>Emil Gilel's Beethoven Sonata #8 (Pathetique) on DG 400036-2. This is an
>>early 1980 digital recording. You can easily find it at the local
>>library. Check out track 1. Listen to the solid frequency stability of
>>the big chords. See if that sounds like a real piano in your experience.
>
> What a bizarre coincidence! I only have half a dozen or so solo piano
> recordings, but that superb performance is one of them, and the first
> part of the 'Pathetique' is indeed a superb recording of the natural
> decay of a solo piano, as is the 'Moonlight' on the same CD.
>
> On vinyl, there would be impossible distractions from wow and surface
> noise, but that CD is an immaculate recording which allows the natural
> sound of the piano to flow into your listening room. Wheeler is just
> plain wrong about this.
>

I mentioned that particular recording because I also have the vinyl
version. Now someone may want to argue that I do not have the ultimate
vinyl gear, but the CD is simply superior in every respect: stability of
the tones (frequency domain) in sustained notes, the huge dynamic range
that allows the big chords to decay to silence and the quiet passages
(like the Moonlight Sonata) to come through cleanly, and the lack of any
surface effects or tracking distortion. All this from a 1981 digital
recording.
Anonymous
April 22, 2005 6:36:05 AM

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

Theporkygeorge@aol.com wrote:
> Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> > On 19 Apr 2005 23:54:39 GMT, Theporkygeorge@aol.com wrote:
> >
> > >Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> >
> > >>Heads up now, what really launched CD into
> > >> the mass market was *classical* music listeners, i.e. people who
> live
> > >> with live music.
> >
> > >Stewert gets his facts wrong again. What really launched CD into the
> > >masss market was the availablity of portable CD players and car CD
> > >players. The classical music listeners are very much a niche market
> > >that barely impact the commercial scene over all. By the way, many
> > >classical music lovers do not spend much time with live music.
> >
> > This comes from a guy who has just attempted to tell someone who
> > *owns* a grand piano, what sustained notes from it sound like......


> What does Chungs inability to recognize that a sustained note from a
> live piano is not solifd but cmplex and constantly changing in tone?

As I suspect you well know, Chung is referring to the cyclic pitch
instability always *added* in some degree to the recorded note, *as a
result of* the inevitably imperfect pressing of vinyl, versus the
granitically-stable presentation of sounded note and its audible
harmonics, in all their 'complexity', by CD. I've heard records where
sustained notes varied by as much as a semitone per rotation, due to bad
pressing -- and never due to the interaction of the note with its
overtones. You will *never* hear that sort of artifactual pitch
instability added by CD playback.

So please stop trying to obfuscate -- you aren't fooling anyone.
Anonymous
April 22, 2005 6:37:47 AM

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

On 21 Apr 2005 23:59:10 GMT, Theporkygeorge@aol.com wrote:

>Fortunately for audiophiles Pinkerton does not get to rewrite history.
>The *fact* is that CD sales took off exactly when portable CD players
>and car CD players became widely available at affordable prices.
>Fortunately for people who enjoy CDs the success of that medium was
>driven by somethging more than a niche market like classical music.

This could go in a textbook as an example of bad reasoning! Correlation
does not prove causation. The fact that two things happen at the same
time does not prove that one causes the other. The fact that something
occurs before something else does not prove it causes the something
else. "Pos hoc, ergo propter hoc" is still a fallacy and always will
be.


Ed Seedhouse,
Victoria, B.C.
Anonymous
April 22, 2005 5:39:05 PM

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

On 21 Apr 2005 23:55:47 GMT, Joakim Wendel <oviktig@bostreammail.net>
wrote:

>In article <d46qci02bbm@news1.newsguy.com>, Chung <chunglau@covad.net>
>wrote:
>> >
>> > And yet you think the decay of a sustained note is solid. I'm afraid
>> > that there is more to it than just experience.
>>
>> The frequency is solid. Not sure what solid decay means, since I never
>> used that term...
>>
>> > Scott Wheeler
>
>Just a technical question coming; at the attack of a piano tone the
>overtone spectra is quite large i think, ranging way up in frequence
>even, how are the overtones decaying on a tone like that?

In a typical listening room, the extreme treble will decay a little
faster than bass, but there should not be any significant skew in the
decay of a piano note.

>Somehow i get the feeling that if you'd analyze this note
>1) at attack
>2) 1 second later
>3) 10 seconds later
>you'd get quite a variety of visible overtones thus suggesting not so
>solid decay?

I believe that the recorded sound will match the live sound very well
in this regard, and that the timbral character of the note does not
dramatically change as it decays in either case.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
April 23, 2005 12:18:20 AM

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

Theporkygeorge@aol.com wrote:
> Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>> On 19 Apr 2005 23:54:39 GMT, Theporkygeorge@aol.com wrote:
>>
>> >Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>>
>> >>Heads up now, what really launched CD into
>> >> the mass market was *classical* music listeners, i.e. people who
> live
>> >> with live music.
>>
>> >Stewert gets his facts wrong again. What really launched CD into the
>> >masss market was the availablity of portable CD players and car CD
>> >players. The classical music listeners are very much a niche market
>> >that barely impact the commercial scene over all. By the way, many
>> >classical music lovers do not spend much time with live music.
>>
>> This comes from a guy who has just attempted to tell someone who
>> *owns* a grand piano, what sustained notes from it sound like......
>
>
> What does Chungs inability to recognize that a sustained note from a
> live piano is not solifd but cmplex and constantly changing in tone?
> Does it make my true statement a false one? Where is your logic?

Well, you choose to mis-interpret Chung's statement in a way that you
could attack Chung's ability to listen. Despite the subsequent
clarification by Chung. One would think that this is a display of your
tendency to argue on semantics, and to burn the strawman.

The statement that "many classical music lovers do not spend much time
with live music" is patently false. Most classical music lovers I know
of play instruments, attend concerts and recitals, and a lot them have
children who play classical music.

Out of curiosity, do you consider the jazz music market a "niche market
that barely impact the commercial scene overall"?

>
>
>
>>
>> Unfortunately for Wheeler, he doesn't get to write history books, and
>> the plain *facts* of the matter are that CD sales in the first two
>> years were below predictions, until the word began to spread among
>> classical music lovers that this new medium simply did not suffer
> from
>> wow and flutter (which, contrary to Wheeler's bizarre opinion, are
>> horribly destructive of solo piano music), and had such low
> background
>> noise that all kinds of musical subtleties became noticeable, which
>> had previously been swamped by surface noise. It was the classical
>> market which dragged CD out of the red in the early years, and
>> everyone but you is well aware of this - ask any record store owner
>> who was in business in the '80s, or of course go straight to RIAA
>> sales archives.
>
>
> Fortunately for audiophiles Pinkerton does not get to rewrite history.
> The *fact* is that CD sales took off exactly when portable CD players
> and car CD players became widely available at affordable prices.
> Fortunately for people who enjoy CDs the success of that medium was
> driven by somethging more than a niche market like classical music.
>
>
>
>
>> Certainly portable players and car players helped to boost volumes,
>> but note that they did not become widespread (especially car
> players),
>> until well after CD was firmly established.
>
>
> Wrong.

You are wrong, CD displaced vinyl several years before the widespread
use of portable players and car players. As early as 1989, CD's already
outsold vinyl LP's by a ratio of 2.7 to 1. In 1989, portable and car CD
players were not in widespread use. For home audio, CD became the
dominant medium as early as in the mid-to-late 80's. Of course, for
mobile audio, CD did not replace cassette until mobile CD players became
popular in the mid-90's.

Wouldn't you call a medium that outsold vinyl LP 2.7 to 1 "firmly
established"?
Anonymous
April 23, 2005 7:01:25 PM

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

"Chung" <chunglau@covad.net> wrote in message
news:D 49ntq010rs@news3.newsguy.com...
> Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>
> > On 20 Apr 2005 23:59:14 GMT, Chung <chunglau@covad.net> wrote:
> >
> >>Theporkygeorge@aol.com wrote:
> >
> >>>But, if you cannot hear the
> >>> complexity of the decay of a sustained note on a real live piano maybe
> >>> you simply aren't picking up on the substantial differences between a
> >>> live piano and the recording and playback of a live piano.
> >>
> >>So you are saying that you cannot observe the complex amplitude decay of
> >>piano music on CD's?
> >>
> >>Here is a good one for you to try out:
> >>
> >>Emil Gilel's Beethoven Sonata #8 (Pathetique) on DG 400036-2. This is an
> >>early 1980 digital recording. You can easily find it at the local
> >>library. Check out track 1. Listen to the solid frequency stability of
> >>the big chords. See if that sounds like a real piano in your experience.
> >
> > What a bizarre coincidence! I only have half a dozen or so solo piano
> > recordings, but that superb performance is one of them, and the first
> > part of the 'Pathetique' is indeed a superb recording of the natural
> > decay of a solo piano, as is the 'Moonlight' on the same CD.
> >
> > On vinyl, there would be impossible distractions from wow and surface
> > noise, but that CD is an immaculate recording which allows the natural
> > sound of the piano to flow into your listening room. Wheeler is just
> > plain wrong about this.
> >
>
> I mentioned that particular recording because I also have the vinyl
> version. Now someone may want to argue that I do not have the ultimate
> vinyl gear, but the CD is simply superior in every respect: stability of
> the tones (frequency domain) in sustained notes, the huge dynamic range
> that allows the big chords to decay to silence and the quiet passages
> (like the Moonlight Sonata) to come through cleanly, and the lack of any
> surface effects or tracking distortion. All this from a 1981 digital
> recording.


I continue to wonder if those who claim in the past to be horrified by
wow and flutter on piano tones when playing vinyl, or who go on and on
about clicks and pops, ever really optimized their vinyl setup.

In the first place, no decent vinyl rig should have audible wow or
flutter on its own. If it does, then it needs a belt, idler wheel, or
DD motor replaced. Secondly, the arm and cartridge must be
matched...high compliance cartridge with low mass arm, medium
compliance with medium mass arm, and low compliance with high mass
arm. Any other combination will result in anomanolies caused by
stylus compression or unweighting.

Third, records must be cleaned. I don't necessarily mean with a
washer, but at least cleaned with a record brush before every playing
or as I do using Last cleaner fluid and application brush. Otherwise
the stylus will run into grunge in the grooves which will distort
sound in addition to creating lots of the dread clicks and pops, which
will only become worse with time if they are ground in by playing an
uncleaned record. If you have a supply of Last record preservative
(hard to get these days) treatment will create records that sound
subtly cleaner in the mid's and high's, an effect that is permament
(only need to treat once). It must also be mentioned that a bi-radius
or line-contact stylus is necessary to minimize noise and get the most
from the grooves.

Finally, a record clamp is needed to prevent vinyl resonance..no using
one will accentuate pops and clicks and can cause slight
disintegration of image localization.

All this of course is to naught if the cartridge is not matched
properly to the preamp input. This requires an effort to get and
understand information and to work to make whatever changes are
required to get that optimization. This is one area where most high
end phono preamps made the job much easier than lower priced preamps,
which tended to be non-adjustable. Since 1990 I have used three
different cartridges in three different turntable/arm/cable combos and
into two different headamps/preamps. I hve never been unable to get
the cartridge/turntable/preamp combo to sound tonally identical to my
CD players during this period of time. There are still subtle
differences, often to the preference (in my case) to phono, but they
are subtle and not in any way major difference in tonality.

When all is right, their needs be little or no difference between CD
and vinyl. Including wow and flutter. Case in point, I picked the
top record off the group of RCA's I had out, which was Van Cliburn
playing the Rachmaninoff 2nd Piano Concerto with Fritz Reinger and the
Chicago Symphony orchestra. I recently picked this up as a $2 used
record, but only played it once now that I also have the SACD release
of this same recording. This is not the original, but a Dynagroove
re-release on inferior, thin vinyl. Accordingly it is somewhat warped
and especially vulnerable to vinyl resonance. So put it on the
turntable (at this point a modest Dual 701 with Accuphase AC-2 MC
cartridge, into a modified Marcoff PPA-2 headamp). Cleaned it, clamped
it, synced the start with my Sony C222ES SACD machine...and listened
through the whole piece, occassionally switching back and forth CD to
Vinyl and back. The two where reasonable level matched and synched.
Other than an occassional low-level pop (maybe one a minute) I'd be
hard pressed to remember which I was listeing to. Plenty of sustained
tones and no difference in wow and flutter. The record was showing
plenty of warp, but the cartridge and arm were riding the groove with
equanimity and no sign of "bounce".

My conclusion, if you really want to enjoy your records, make the time
and effort to optimize your system...the annoyances of vinyl will be
largely minimized and the sound quality may astound you.
April 23, 2005 9:11:06 PM

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

Harry Lavo wrote:
>>
>
> I continue to wonder if those who claim in the past to be horrified by
> wow and flutter on piano tones when playing vinyl, or who go on and on
> about clicks and pops, ever really optimized their vinyl setup.
>
> In the first place, no decent vinyl rig should have audible wow or
> flutter on its own. If it does, then it needs a belt, idler wheel, or
> DD motor replaced. Secondly, the arm and cartridge must be
> matched...high compliance cartridge with low mass arm, medium
> compliance with medium mass arm, and low compliance with high mass
> arm. Any other combination will result in anomanolies caused by
> stylus compression or unweighting.
>
> Third, records must be cleaned. I don't necessarily mean with a
> washer, but at least cleaned with a record brush before every playing
> or as I do using Last cleaner fluid and application brush. Otherwise
> the stylus will run into grunge in the grooves which will distort
> sound in addition to creating lots of the dread clicks and pops, which
> will only become worse with time if they are ground in by playing an
> uncleaned record. If you have a supply of Last record preservative
> (hard to get these days) treatment will create records that sound
> subtly cleaner in the mid's and high's, an effect that is permament
> (only need to treat once). It must also be mentioned that a bi-radius
> or line-contact stylus is necessary to minimize noise and get the most
> from the grooves.
>
> Finally, a record clamp is needed to prevent vinyl resonance..no using
> one will accentuate pops and clicks and can cause slight
> disintegration of image localization.
>
> All this of course is to naught if the cartridge is not matched
> properly to the preamp input. This requires an effort to get and
> understand information and to work to make whatever changes are
> required to get that optimization. This is one area where most high
> end phono preamps made the job much easier than lower priced preamps,
> which tended to be non-adjustable. Since 1990 I have used three
> different cartridges in three different turntable/arm/cable combos and
> into two different headamps/preamps. I hve never been unable to get
> the cartridge/turntable/preamp combo to sound tonally identical to my
> CD players during this period of time. There are still subtle
> differences, often to the preference (in my case) to phono, but they
> are subtle and not in any way major difference in tonality.
>
> When all is right, their needs be little or no difference between CD
> and vinyl. Including wow and flutter. Case in point, I picked the
> top record off the group of RCA's I had out, which was Van Cliburn
> playing the Rachmaninoff 2nd Piano Concerto with Fritz Reinger and the
> Chicago Symphony orchestra. I recently picked this up as a $2 used
> record, but only played it once now that I also have the SACD release
> of this same recording. This is not the original, but a Dynagroove
> re-release on inferior, thin vinyl. Accordingly it is somewhat warped
> and especially vulnerable to vinyl resonance. So put it on the
> turntable (at this point a modest Dual 701 with Accuphase AC-2 MC
> cartridge, into a modified Marcoff PPA-2 headamp). Cleaned it, clamped
> it, synced the start with my Sony C222ES SACD machine...and listened
> through the whole piece, occassionally switching back and forth CD to
> Vinyl and back. The two where reasonable level matched and synched.
> Other than an occassional low-level pop (maybe one a minute) I'd be
> hard pressed to remember which I was listeing to. Plenty of sustained
> tones and no difference in wow and flutter. The record was showing
> plenty of warp, but the cartridge and arm were riding the groove with
> equanimity and no sign of "bounce".
>
> My conclusion, if you really want to enjoy your records, make the time
> and effort to optimize your system...the annoyances of vinyl will be
> largely minimized and the sound quality may astound you.

This is a really fine description of what you have to go through as a black
record fan. And I noted that Harry tries to avoid the usual hype about the
sound. I have been doing the same from 1971 with a Thorens150 until 1985
when I got my first CD-player, a Philips 101 or whatever. I immediately
tossed my in the mean time quite costly turntable rig and just started
buying almost all the CDs that were available in those times, my record shop
had around 50 then. I already had made many tapes to play on my reel to reel
machine, because the 20min. to listen and then turn around the record were
for me a PITA.
It is the same with the collector spirit of vintage cars nowadays. But
nobody claims that the performance is better than a modern car.
Isn't it enough to ride a 50yrs. old Porsche356? There isn't even the
question that a simple modern car will outperform it in all diciplines, but
still the feeling of riding or rather cruising is untopped. The love for the
car and the beauty will just go to the vintage model. This cannot be
measured in contrary to speed and acceleration, and somehow I have the idea
it might be similar with the vinyl-enthusiast.

--
ciao Ban
Bordighera, Italy
April 23, 2005 11:27:31 PM

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

Harry Lavo wrote:
> "Chung" <chunglau@covad.net> wrote in message
> news:D 49ntq010rs@news3.newsguy.com...
>
>>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On 20 Apr 2005 23:59:14 GMT, Chung <chunglau@covad.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Theporkygeorge@aol.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>>But, if you cannot hear the
>>>>>complexity of the decay of a sustained note on a real live piano maybe
>>>>>you simply aren't picking up on the substantial differences between a
>>>>>live piano and the recording and playback of a live piano.
>>>>
>>>>So you are saying that you cannot observe the complex amplitude decay of
>>>>piano music on CD's?
>>>>
>>>>Here is a good one for you to try out:
>>>>
>>>>Emil Gilel's Beethoven Sonata #8 (Pathetique) on DG 400036-2. This is an
>>>>early 1980 digital recording. You can easily find it at the local
>>>>library. Check out track 1. Listen to the solid frequency stability of
>>>>the big chords. See if that sounds like a real piano in your experience.
>>>
>>>What a bizarre coincidence! I only have half a dozen or so solo piano
>>>recordings, but that superb performance is one of them, and the first
>>>part of the 'Pathetique' is indeed a superb recording of the natural
>>>decay of a solo piano, as is the 'Moonlight' on the same CD.
>>>
>>>On vinyl, there would be impossible distractions from wow and surface
>>>noise, but that CD is an immaculate recording which allows the natural
>>>sound of the piano to flow into your listening room. Wheeler is just
>>>plain wrong about this.
>>>
>>
>>I mentioned that particular recording because I also have the vinyl
>>version. Now someone may want to argue that I do not have the ultimate
>>vinyl gear, but the CD is simply superior in every respect: stability of
>>the tones (frequency domain) in sustained notes, the huge dynamic range
>>that allows the big chords to decay to silence and the quiet passages
>>(like the Moonlight Sonata) to come through cleanly, and the lack of any
>>surface effects or tracking distortion. All this from a 1981 digital
>>recording.
>
>
>
> I continue to wonder if those who claim in the past to be horrified by
> wow and flutter on piano tones when playing vinyl, or who go on and on
> about clicks and pops, ever really optimized their vinyl setup.
>
> In the first place, no decent vinyl rig should have audible wow or
> flutter on its own. If it does, then it needs a belt, idler wheel, or
> DD motor replaced. Secondly, the arm and cartridge must be
> matched...high compliance cartridge with low mass arm, medium
> compliance with medium mass arm, and low compliance with high mass
> arm. Any other combination will result in anomanolies caused by
> stylus compression or unweighting.
>
> Third, records must be cleaned. I don't necessarily mean with a
> washer, but at least cleaned with a record brush before every playing
> or as I do using Last cleaner fluid and application brush. Otherwise
> the stylus will run into grunge in the grooves which will distort
> sound in addition to creating lots of the dread clicks and pops, which
> will only become worse with time if they are ground in by playing an
> uncleaned record. If you have a supply of Last record preservative
> (hard to get these days) treatment will create records that sound
> subtly cleaner in the mid's and high's, an effect that is permament
> (only need to treat once). It must also be mentioned that a bi-radius
> or line-contact stylus is necessary to minimize noise and get the most
> from the grooves.
>
> Finally, a record clamp is needed to prevent vinyl resonance..no using
> one will accentuate pops and clicks and can cause slight
> disintegration of image localization.
>
> All this of course is to naught if the cartridge is not matched
> properly to the preamp input. This requires an effort to get and
> understand information and to work to make whatever changes are
> required to get that optimization. This is one area where most high
> end phono preamps made the job much easier than lower priced preamps,
> which tended to be non-adjustable. Since 1990 I have used three
> different cartridges in three different turntable/arm/cable combos and
> into two different headamps/preamps. I hve never been unable to get
> the cartridge/turntable/preamp combo to sound tonally identical to my
> CD players during this period of time. There are still subtle
> differences, often to the preference (in my case) to phono, but they
> are subtle and not in any way major difference in tonality.
>
> When all is right,

That's a big "when"!

> their needs be little or no difference between CD
> and vinyl. Including wow and flutter. Case in point, I picked the
> top record off the group of RCA's I had out, which was Van Cliburn
> playing the Rachmaninoff 2nd Piano Concerto with Fritz Reinger and the
> Chicago Symphony orchestra. I recently picked this up as a $2 used
> record, but only played it once now that I also have the SACD release
> of this same recording. This is not the original, but a Dynagroove
> re-release on inferior, thin vinyl. Accordingly it is somewhat warped
> and especially vulnerable to vinyl resonance. So put it on the
> turntable (at this point a modest Dual 701 with Accuphase AC-2 MC
> cartridge, into a modified Marcoff PPA-2 headamp). Cleaned it, clamped
> it, synced the start with my Sony C222ES SACD machine...and listened
> through the whole piece, occassionally switching back and forth CD to
> Vinyl and back. The two where reasonable level matched and synched.
> Other than an occassional low-level pop (maybe one a minute) I'd be
> hard pressed to remember which I was listeing to. Plenty of sustained
> tones and no difference in wow and flutter. The record was showing
> plenty of warp, but the cartridge and arm were riding the groove with
> equanimity and no sign of "bounce".
>
> My conclusion, if you really want to enjoy your records, make the time
> and effort to optimize your system...the annoyances of vinyl will be
> largely minimized and the sound quality may astound you.

If the preceding paragraphs have not scared off potential vinyl lovers
already... :) 


Since Mr. Wheeler believes that the CD just cannot reproduce the live
piano, unlike the vinyl, are you right or is he right? I can't see how
you both can be right, since you seem to say that other than surface
noise (which is a big degradation in solo piano pieces), the CD and
vinyl sound about the same, while Mr. Wheeler believes that the CD just
cannot reproduce the magical decay of complex piano notes (he said it's
one of the most easily identified shortcomings on most CDs!).

I would also grant you that some better-conditioned LP's have lower
wow-and-flutter and surface noise than others, and better rigs can have
less distortion. But compared to the CD, those imperfections are an
order of magnitude larger still, and noticeable in sustained notes or in
high dynamic range recordings, as in piano solos.

Try comparing some more recent digital recordings of piano sonatas on
the two media, Harry, like the one I mentioned. See if the difference is
still unnoticeable to you.
Anonymous
April 24, 2005 12:50:53 AM

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

Chung wrote:
> Theporkygeorge@aol.com wrote:
> > Chung wrote:
> >> Theporkygeorge@aol.com wrote:
> >> > chung wrote:
> >> >> nabob33@hotmail.com wrote:
> >> >> > Theporkygeorge@aol.com wrote:
> >> >> >> Jenn wrote:
> >> >> >> > Hi all,
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > A couple of weeks ago, I solicited opinions on whether I
> > should
> >> >> >> > pruchase a new lower cost TT like the Pro-ject, et al, or
> >> > refurbish
> >> >> >> my
> >> >> >> > old Denon DP-62-L that had been in storage for some time,
as
> > I
> >> >> >> reenter
> >> >> >> > the analogue world. Well, I took the TT in to my trusty
> > local
> >> >> > store,
> >> >> >> > Audio Ectasy, and had them mount a new Grado Red,
Audioquest
> >> > mat,
> >> >> > and
> >> >> >> > replace the stock cable with Audioquest. I also bought a
> > Record
> >> >> >> Doctor
> >> >> >> > and some isolation feet from Audio Advisor. I've lived
with
> > the
> >> >> >> combo
> >> >> >> > for a few days now. The results? WONDERFUL! After
having
> >> > spent a
> >> >> >> > week in Carnegie Hall recently, conducting and hearing 4
> >> > concerts,
> >> >> > I
> >> >> >> > now remember why I like analogue so much. It's MUCH more
> > like
> >> >> > music
> >> >> >> in
> >> >> >> > a good hall. Thanks to everyone for your advice.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Hmmm, someone who lives with live music and thinks vinyl is
> > much
> >> > more
> >> >> >> like it than CD playback. And with an entry level system no
> > less.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Hmmm, does this mean that the next time someone suggests that
> > vinyl
> >> > is
> >> >> > less than perfect, we won't hear in response, "Well, that's
> > because
> >> >> > you've never heard a really high-end rig"?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > bob
> >> >>
> >> >> Well, I attended a piano recital by the rising star Yundi Li
last
> >> > week.
> >> >> And throughout the recital, I kept thinking how close my CD rig
> >> > sounds
> >> >> to the live piano I was hearing. You know, the solid sustained
> > notes,
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Solid sustained notes? I've certainly heard this on numerous CDs
of
> >> > piano but never on a live piano. This is one of the most easily
> >> > identifiable shortcomings one can hear on most CDs. A sustained
> > note on
> >> > a real piano is anything but solid.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Well, I have a grand piano, and the sustained notes are solid.
> > Perhaps
> >> you are too used to vinyl?
> >
> >
> > No. It is not natural for any real paino to have solid sustained
notes.
> > The decay of a note from a live piano is anything but solid.
>
> Perhaps you were confused when I said solid sustained notes.


I don't think so. Perhaps you didn't mean what you said. Solid does
have a pretty well known definition.
(2) : joined without a hyphen <a solid compound> c : not interrupted by
a break or opening <a solid wall>
3 a : of uniformly close and coherent texture : not loose or spongy :
COMPACT b : possessing or characterized by the properties of a solid :
neither gaseous nor liquid .


I meant the
> frequency of the notes, and not amplitude. I thought it was obvious
from
> the context, but I guess one never knows.


Well there are several different overtones coming from a sustained note
from a piano, Their decay patterns are each different which creates a
sound that is constantly changing in tone, location and volume. By the
above definitions how does one find such a character of decay solid?
IMO the decay of a sustained note of a piano is quite the opposite of
the above cited definitions of solid.



>
> So, it is perfectly natural for a real piano to have solid sustained
> notes in terms of frequency stability. Now, do you still want to
argue
> that it's not the case?


Yes. You are now changing your claim and yet it still doesn't hold
water in terms of human perception. If one listens to a sustained note
on a piano it does not *sound the same in tone* as it decays. Now if
one were to take a test tone or a combination of test tones and dim the
level at a constant rate in time you would have what I would call a
solid sounding sustained note. That is nothing like what one hears from
a live piano. It does acurately describe the sound of a sustained note
on any number of CDs I have listened to.



>
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> You think there are some magical process in CD's that stabilize
those
> >
> >> "real-life" wavering notes?
> >
> >
> >
> > No. Simplifying a a complex signal is not magic.
>
> Taking out the frequency variations (which caused the wavering of the

> pitch) is almost magic...


No it's not.



>
> Now, do you think the CD is capable of removing frequency
instability?


I think it is possible to get CDs in which this has happened. I don't
think it is magical or desireable.



>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Hey, there will certainly be fame and riches
> >> for you if you could figure out how...
> >
> >
> > No. Just lower the resolution of any signal and ou will loose
> > information. I'm surprised you didn't know this already.
>
> If you can lower the resolution and hence remove the frequency
> instability, there will certainly be fame and riches for you.


Really? It's that difficult to lower the resolution of a live piano in
the recording and playback proccess? I think you are quite mistaken
here. Any telephone will do the trick quite nicely. No fame or riches
for me. Loss of resolution has been with us all along.




>
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> >> the great dynamic range, and so on. There was no way the LP can
> >> >> reproduce that piano sound without very noticeable degradation.
> >> >
> >> > There is no way any recording/playback system can reproduce a
live
> >> > piano without very noticable degradation. I doubt your system CD
> > player
> >> > and all are really any exception.
> >> >
> >>
> >> The degradations from a CD are much less than those from vinyl. In
> > fact,
> >> I have piano recital CD's that sound very close to the real thing.
> >
> >
> > Again. I am quite skeptical of such claims.
>
> There is nothing like listening, I guess.



An odd guess. It seems you arte assuming that I am not listening to CDs
of piano recordings. I suggest you listen more carefully if you really
believe sustained piano notes sound "solid."



Try recording the output of
> the phono stage onto CD's. Voila, all the magical "complex" signals
that
> you claim can only be heard on vinyl are preserved!


Been there, done that. Didn't seem to happen so well.



>
>
>
> >But, if you cannot hear the
> > complexity of the decay of a sustained note on a real live piano
maybe
> > you simply aren't picking up on the substantial differences between
a
> > live piano and the recording and playback of a live piano.
>
> So you are saying that you cannot observe the complex amplitude decay
of
> piano music on CD's?

I am saying that IME it is often reduced or lost on CDs.



>
> Here is a good one for you to try out:
>
> Emil Gilel's Beethoven Sonata #8 (Pathetique) on DG 400036-2. This is
an
> early 1980 digital recording. You can easily find it at the local
> library. Check out track 1. Listen to the solid frequency stability
of
> the big chords. See if that sounds like a real piano in your
experience.

I'll keep an eye out for it. I don't have high expectations though. I
have heard nothing but awful sound from that label in that era.



>
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> > That was
> >> >> a reminder of why I like digital so much. As someone who owns a
> > grand
> >> >
> >> >> piano, I can say without any doubt that the CD sounds so much
> > better
> >> >> than vinyl on piano music.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Opinions abound. The person who started this thread clearly
> > disagrees.
> >> > It seems she does speak from considerable experience with live
> > music.
> >> >
> >>
> >> That's my point, in case you missed it. Opinions abound. and I
speak
> >> with considerable experience from listening to a live piano.
> >
> >
> > And yet you think the decay of a sustained note is solid. I'm
afraid
> > that there is more to it than just experience.
>
> The frequency is solid.


The tone is not. That is what we percieve.


Not sure what solid decay means, since I never
> used that term...


You said sustained notes. They decay as they are sustained.
decay:2 : to decrease gradually in quantity, activity, or force



>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > In fact, I
> >> just did.
> >>
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> And to the OP, someone *could* have said "But you have not
heard a
> >> >> decent CD rig and decently recorded CD's!" :)  But of course, we
> > won't
> >> >
> >> >> resort to that.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Of course not. You believe they all sound the same don't you?
Does
> >> > anybody believe all turntable rigs sound the same?
> >> >
> >>
> >> No, some CD rigs sound bad because of poor speakers. And then
there
> > are
> >> poorly recorded/mastered CD's. Of course, the competent CD players
> > sound
> >> very similar, but you know that.
> >
> > I don't know that. I know some people believe that and some believe
> > otherwise. I have not spent much time c0omparing CD players myself.
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> BTW, none of Yundi Li's music is available on vinyl. Only on
CD's.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Only CD? Can't get it on MP3?
> >>
> >> You can make mp3's out of CD's, of course. What exactly is your
> > point,
> >> or do you have one?
> >
> >
> >
> > That it can be had on more than just CD. Wasn't it obvious?
>
> It is a rather, shall we say, pointless point then.

No.


You can of course
> make cassette tapes, MD tapes out of the CD.


You can also legaly down load music on line in the form of MP3s. It is
a different medium in which commercial music can be aquired and used.



I guess according to your
> logic, when someone releases a movie on DVD, it is simultaneously
> released in divx, mpeg4, vcd, realmedia, windows media formats
already.

In some cases they are released on vcd. Most of those others would be
pirate copies. I am not talking about pirated copies but legal releases
on various formats.


>
> To make it easier for you to grasp, Yundi Li's music is not released
in
> vinyl. So is a lot of new classical music.


I guess *you* didn't get *my* point.



Scott Wheeler
Anonymous
April 24, 2005 12:52:07 AM

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

Chung wrote:
> Theporkygeorge@aol.com wrote:
> > Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> >> On 19 Apr 2005 23:54:39 GMT, Theporkygeorge@aol.com wrote:
> >>
> >> >Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> >>
> >> >>Heads up now, what really launched CD into
> >> >> the mass market was *classical* music listeners, i.e. people
who
> > live
> >> >> with live music.
> >>
> >> >Stewert gets his facts wrong again. What really launched CD into
the
> >> >masss market was the availablity of portable CD players and car
CD
> >> >players. The classical music listeners are very much a niche
market
> >> >that barely impact the commercial scene over all. By the way,
many
> >> >classical music lovers do not spend much time with live music.
> >>
> >> This comes from a guy who has just attempted to tell someone who
> >> *owns* a grand piano, what sustained notes from it sound
like......
> >
> >
> > What does Chungs inability to recognize that a sustained note from
a
> > live piano is not solifd but cmplex and constantly changing in
tone?
> > Does it make my true statement a false one? Where is your logic?
>
> Well, you choose to mis-interpret Chung's statement in a way that you

> could attack Chung's ability to listen. Despite the subsequent
> clarification by Chung. One would think that this is a display of
your
> tendency to argue on semantics, and to burn the strawman.
>
> The statement that "many classical music lovers do not spend much
time
> with live music" is patently false.


Absolute balony. One need only look at concert ticket sales to see
this.




Most classical music lovers I know
> of play instruments, attend concerts and recitals, and a lot them
have
> children who play classical music.

Well that is a sound scientific rebutal of my claim. Not.



>
> Out of curiosity, do you consider the jazz music market a "niche
market
> that barely impact the commercial scene overall"?


Unfortunately, yes. Are you aware of the sales being done in the music
industry?



>
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Unfortunately for Wheeler, he doesn't get to write history books,
and
> >> the plain *facts* of the matter are that CD sales in the first two
> >> years were below predictions, until the word began to spread among
> >> classical music lovers that this new medium simply did not suffer
> > from
> >> wow and flutter (which, contrary to Wheeler's bizarre opinion, are
> >> horribly destructive of solo piano music), and had such low
> > background
> >> noise that all kinds of musical subtleties became noticeable,
which
> >> had previously been swamped by surface noise. It was the classical
> >> market which dragged CD out of the red in the early years, and
> >> everyone but you is well aware of this - ask any record store
owner
> >> who was in business in the '80s, or of course go straight to RIAA
> >> sales archives.
> >
> >
> > Fortunately for audiophiles Pinkerton does not get to rewrite
history.
> > The *fact* is that CD sales took off exactly when portable CD
players
> > and car CD players became widely available at affordable prices.
> > Fortunately for people who enjoy CDs the success of that medium was
> > driven by somethging more than a niche market like classical music.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> Certainly portable players and car players helped to boost
volumes,
> >> but note that they did not become widespread (especially car
> > players),
> >> until well after CD was firmly established.
> >
> >
> > Wrong.
>
> You are wrong, CD displaced vinyl several years before the widespread

> use of portable players and car players.


Now you are ridiculously wrong. Lps were never displaced by CD in the
first place. They were displaced by cassettes and for the very same
reason. Portability and car play.



As early as 1989, CD's already
> outsold vinyl LP's by a ratio of 2.7 to 1.


In 1989 Cd was still not the dominant medium for music consumption.
Nice try. Funny, It had been on the market for six years by then.
Funny, when it did become the dominant medium it was when car players
and portable CD players did become common and affordable.



In 1989, portable and car CD
> players were not in widespread use. For home audio, CD became the
> dominant medium as early as in the mid-to-late 80's.


Guess again. Actually dont guess, just look at sales.



Of course, for
> mobile audio, CD did not replace cassette until mobile CD players
became
> popular in the mid-90's.

Sorry Stewert. You don't know what people were doing with their
cassettes. We can look at sales. Sales support my claim not yours.



>
> Wouldn't you call a medium that outsold vinyl LP 2.7 to 1 "firmly
> established"?


Seems you are now trying to change the subject.


Scott Wheeler
Anonymous
April 24, 2005 12:52:36 AM

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

Steven Sullivan wrote:
> Theporkygeorge@aol.com wrote:
> > Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> > > On 19 Apr 2005 23:54:39 GMT, Theporkygeorge@aol.com wrote:
> > >
> > > >Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> > >
> > > >>Heads up now, what really launched CD into
> > > >> the mass market was *classical* music listeners, i.e. people
who
> > live
> > > >> with live music.
> > >
> > > >Stewert gets his facts wrong again. What really launched CD into
the
> > > >masss market was the availablity of portable CD players and car
CD
> > > >players. The classical music listeners are very much a niche
market
> > > >that barely impact the commercial scene over all. By the way,
many
> > > >classical music lovers do not spend much time with live music.
> > >
> > > This comes from a guy who has just attempted to tell someone who
> > > *owns* a grand piano, what sustained notes from it sound
like......
>
>
> > What does Chungs inability to recognize that a sustained note from
a
> > live piano is not solifd but cmplex and constantly changing in
tone?
>
> As I suspect you well know, Chung is referring to the cyclic pitch
> instability always *added* in some degree to the recorded note, *as a

> result of* the inevitably imperfect pressing of vinyl, versus the
> granitically-stable presentation of sounded note and its audible
> harmonics, in all their 'complexity', by CD.

No. I am simply going by what he said. I have experienced CD recordings
of painos in which the sustained noted do indeed sound solid by the
defintion of the word solid. They were bad because of that solid sound.



I've heard records where
> sustained notes varied by as much as a semitone per rotation, due to
bad
> pressing -- and never due to the interaction of the note with its
> overtones. You will *never* hear that sort of artifactual pitch
> instability added by CD playback.
>
> So please stop trying to obfuscate -- you aren't fooling anyone.


I am not trying to do either. Maybe you should stop misrepresenting my
intentions.


Scott Wheeler
Anonymous
April 24, 2005 12:53:14 AM

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

Ed Seedhouse wrote:
> On 21 Apr 2005 23:59:10 GMT, Theporkygeorge@aol.com wrote:
>
> >Fortunately for audiophiles Pinkerton does not get to rewrite
history.
> >The *fact* is that CD sales took off exactly when portable CD
players
> >and car CD players became widely available at affordable prices.
> >Fortunately for people who enjoy CDs the success of that medium was
> >driven by somethging more than a niche market like classical music.
>
> This could go in a textbook as an example of bad reasoning!


Balony.



Correlation
> does not prove causation.


It supports it.



The fact that two things happen at the same
> time does not prove that one causes the other.


It supports it.


The fact that something
> occurs before something else does not prove it causes the something
> else. "Pos hoc, ergo propter hoc" is still a fallacy and always will
> be.
>
>

Well the real bad reasoning is ignoring the fact that the medium was
around for quite some time as a niche market product and did not
dominate the market until such a time as it became convenient to play
in the car and on portable players. It would be quite bad reasoning to
ignore the fact that exactly the same "coincidence" took place with the
previously dominant medium. It would also be poor logic to ignore the
fact that classical music sales by their sheer lack of volume cannot
possible impact the market the way sales due to portability can. Oh
well.



Scott Wheeler
Anonymous
April 24, 2005 2:48:27 AM

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

Ban wrote:
> Theporkygeorge@aol.com wrote:
> >
> >
> > Of course not. You believe they all sound the same don't you? Does
> > anybody believe all turntable rigs sound the same?
> >
> >
> Well, the crackles and the distortion sound similar, but of course
each
> catridge has its own colour, which is superimposed on the music, much
like a
> loudspeaker. Then some have more hum than others, and some are better

> isolated from vibrations.
>
> Scott, a simple test can be done:
> Record your favourite music from the rig to CD. Now start the
turntable and
> play the record and when the sound arrives, start the CD player.
listen with
> the headphone to the CD and synchronize the vinyl by slowing the
platter
> with your hand.
> Now turn down the volume, switch the preamp over and turn up the
volume to
> the same loudness. (It will be good to mark the 2 settings with a
chalk
> pen).
> Have a friend or your wife switch without your knowledge. Now try to
> identify the real turntable. Can you do that?


I have done comparisons of CDs ripped form my turntable and direct feed
from my turntable. I have no problem hearing differences.



>
> >
> >>
> >> BTW, none of Yundi Li's music is available on vinyl. Only on CD's.
> >
> >
> > Only CD? Can't get it on MP3?
> >
> >
> >
> > Scott Wheeler
>
> Even MP3 is much more difficult to identify than vinyl, I wonder why?


You have trouble hearing the colorations of MP3?


Scott Wheeler
Anonymous
April 24, 2005 6:51:47 PM

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

On 23 Apr 2005 20:53:14 GMT, Theporkygeorge@aol.com wrote:

>Ed Seedhouse wrote:

>> This could go in a textbook as an example of bad reasoning!

>Balony.

Calling in "Balony" doesn't make it balony. Name calling isn't good
reasoning either.

>> Correlation does not prove causation.

>It supports it.

By itself, no it doesn't.

> The fact that two things happen at the same
>> time does not prove that one causes the other.

>It supports it.

By itself, no it doesn't.

>Well the real bad reasoning is ignoring the fact that the medium was
>around for quite some time as a niche market product and did not
>dominate the market until such a time as it became convenient to play
>in the car and on portable players.

No one has ignored that so far as I can see. You've stated it was the
*cause* of the CD's success, but the only evidence you've supplied is a
claimed correlation. That's fallacious reasoning and all your
handwaving won't change the fact.


Ed Seedhouse,
Victoria, B.C.
April 24, 2005 6:52:49 PM

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

Theporkygeorge@aol.com wrote:
> Ban wrote:
>> Theporkygeorge@aol.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Of course not. You believe they all sound the same don't you? Does
>>> anybody believe all turntable rigs sound the same?
>>>
>>>
>> Well, the crackles and the distortion sound similar, but of course
>> each catridge has its own colour, which is superimposed on the
>> music, much like a loudspeaker. Then some have more hum than others,
>> and some are better
>
>> isolated from vibrations.
>>
>> Scott, a simple test can be done:
>> Record your favourite music from the rig to CD. Now start the
>> turntable and play the record and when the sound arrives, start the
>> CD player. listen with the headphone to the CD and synchronize the
>> vinyl by slowing the platter with your hand.
>> Now turn down the volume, switch the preamp over and turn up the
>> volume to the same loudness. (It will be good to mark the 2 settings
>> with a chalk pen).
>> Have a friend or your wife switch without your knowledge. Now try to
>> identify the real turntable. Can you do that?
>
>
> I have done comparisons of CDs ripped form my turntable and direct
> feed from my turntable. I have no problem hearing differences.
>
>
>
>> Even MP3 is much more difficult to identify than vinyl, I wonder why?
>
>
> You have trouble hearing the colorations of MP3?
>

Yeah, at 320kb/s VBR I really cannot identify the MP3 reliably. At 128kb/s
it is easy: the soundstage collapses from outside the speakers to a line
between the speakers. Also transients when brass or violins are coming in
are more "smooth" and do not have this "edgey" scratch in the beginning. I
do not hear colourations though.
--
ciao Ban
Bordighera, Italy
Anonymous
April 24, 2005 7:06:05 PM

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

On 23 Apr 2005 15:01:25 GMT, "Harry Lavo" <hlavo@comcast.net> wrote:

>"Chung" <chunglau@covad.net> wrote in message
>news:D 49ntq010rs@news3.newsguy.com...
>> Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>>
>> > On 20 Apr 2005 23:59:14 GMT, Chung <chunglau@covad.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >>Theporkygeorge@aol.com wrote:
>> >
>> >>>But, if you cannot hear the
>> >>> complexity of the decay of a sustained note on a real live piano maybe
>> >>> you simply aren't picking up on the substantial differences between a
>> >>> live piano and the recording and playback of a live piano.
>> >>
>> >>So you are saying that you cannot observe the complex amplitude decay of
>> >>piano music on CD's?
>> >>
>> >>Here is a good one for you to try out:
>> >>
>> >>Emil Gilel's Beethoven Sonata #8 (Pathetique) on DG 400036-2. This is an
>> >>early 1980 digital recording. You can easily find it at the local
>> >>library. Check out track 1. Listen to the solid frequency stability of
>> >>the big chords. See if that sounds like a real piano in your experience.
>> >
>> > What a bizarre coincidence! I only have half a dozen or so solo piano
>> > recordings, but that superb performance is one of them, and the first
>> > part of the 'Pathetique' is indeed a superb recording of the natural
>> > decay of a solo piano, as is the 'Moonlight' on the same CD.
>> >
>> > On vinyl, there would be impossible distractions from wow and surface
>> > noise, but that CD is an immaculate recording which allows the natural
>> > sound of the piano to flow into your listening room. Wheeler is just
>> > plain wrong about this.
>> >
>>
>> I mentioned that particular recording because I also have the vinyl
>> version. Now someone may want to argue that I do not have the ultimate
>> vinyl gear, but the CD is simply superior in every respect: stability of
>> the tones (frequency domain) in sustained notes, the huge dynamic range
>> that allows the big chords to decay to silence and the quiet passages
>> (like the Moonlight Sonata) to come through cleanly, and the lack of any
>> surface effects or tracking distortion. All this from a 1981 digital
>> recording.
>
>
>I continue to wonder if those who claim in the past to be horrified by
>wow and flutter on piano tones when playing vinyl, or who go on and on
>about clicks and pops, ever really optimized their vinyl setup.

Oh dear, here we go again..................

>In the first place, no decent vinyl rig should have audible wow or
>flutter on its own. If it does, then it needs a belt, idler wheel, or
>DD motor replaced. Secondly, the arm and cartridge must be
>matched...high compliance cartridge with low mass arm, medium
>compliance with medium mass arm, and low compliance with high mass
>arm. Any other combination will result in anomanolies caused by
>stylus compression or unweighting.

Yes, all the above is a given for the serious audiophile who has a
collection of vinyl.

>Third, records must be cleaned. I don't necessarily mean with a
>washer, but at least cleaned with a record brush before every playing
>or as I do using Last cleaner fluid and application brush. Otherwise
>the stylus will run into grunge in the grooves which will distort
>sound in addition to creating lots of the dread clicks and pops, which
>will only become worse with time if they are ground in by playing an
>uncleaned record. If you have a supply of Last record preservative
>(hard to get these days) treatment will create records that sound
>subtly cleaner in the mid's and high's, an effect that is permament
>(only need to treat once). It must also be mentioned that a bi-radius
>or line-contact stylus is necessary to minimize noise and get the most
>from the grooves.

Indeed, vinyl is a serious pain in the butt if you wish to get the
best from it! :-)

>Finally, a record clamp is needed to prevent vinyl resonance..no using
>one will accentuate pops and clicks and can cause slight
>disintegration of image localization.

I agree, but there are certainly those of a different presuasion.
Indeed, the original Roksan Xerxes even had a removable spindle!

Personally, I'd go the whole hog and advocate vacuum hold-down. If
it's good enough for the cutting lathe...............

>All this of course is to naught if the cartridge is not matched
>properly to the preamp input. This requires an effort to get and
>understand information and to work to make whatever changes are
>required to get that optimization. This is one area where most high
>end phono preamps made the job much easier than lower priced preamps,
>which tended to be non-adjustable. Since 1990 I have used three
>different cartridges in three different turntable/arm/cable combos and
>into two different headamps/preamps. I hve never been unable to get
>the cartridge/turntable/preamp combo to sound tonally identical to my
>CD players during this period of time. There are still subtle
>differences, often to the preference (in my case) to phono, but they
>are subtle and not in any way major difference in tonality.

I cheated and built my own headamp, but my GyroDec/RB300/OC9 combo
certainly sounds 'drier' than most vinyl rigs, and quite neutral in
balance - or as near as it can be, playing vinyl.

>When all is right, their needs be little or no difference between CD
>and vinyl. Including wow and flutter.

Now *that* is utter rubbish. While wow *may* be inaudible if the
record centring is *exactly* correct, there remains a *very*
significant audible difference between CD and vinyl. The regular
'swoosh' of surface noise, the inevitable ticks and pops, and the
equally inevitable splashy treble as you approach the inner grooves,
are fundamental weaknesses of vinyl, and not subject to the expense or
careful setup of the replay gear.

> Case in point, I picked the
>top record off the group of RCA's I had out, which was Van Cliburn
>playing the Rachmaninoff 2nd Piano Concerto with Fritz Reinger and the
>Chicago Symphony orchestra. I recently picked this up as a $2 used
>record, but only played it once now that I also have the SACD release
>of this same recording. This is not the original, but a Dynagroove
>re-release on inferior, thin vinyl. Accordingly it is somewhat warped
>and especially vulnerable to vinyl resonance. So put it on the
>turntable (at this point a modest Dual 701 with Accuphase AC-2 MC
>cartridge, into a modified Marcoff PPA-2 headamp). Cleaned it, clamped
>it, synced the start with my Sony C222ES SACD machine...and listened
>through the whole piece, occassionally switching back and forth CD to
>Vinyl and back. The two where reasonable level matched and synched.
>Other than an occassional low-level pop (maybe one a minute) I'd be
>hard pressed to remember which I was listeing to. Plenty of sustained
>tones and no difference in wow and flutter. The record was showing
>plenty of warp, but the cartridge and arm were riding the groove with
>equanimity and no sign of "bounce".

Interesting claim, since Dynagroove records are known to contain a lot
of *deliberately* introduced distortion, which is at its worst with a
line-contact stylus, as well as being notorious for the heavy-handed
use of compression to lift 'low level' detail.

Of course, to the uncritical listener there might be a passing
resemblance to an SACD............... :-)

>My conclusion, if you really want to enjoy your records, make the time
>and effort to optimize your system...the annoyances of vinyl will be
>largely minimized and the sound quality may astound you.

Indeed, it can sound very good, but it will never have the fidelity of
CD.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Anonymous
April 24, 2005 10:37:44 PM

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

"Stewart Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:D 4gckt0qac@news4.newsguy.com...
> On 23 Apr 2005 15:01:25 GMT, "Harry Lavo" <hlavo@comcast.net> wrote:

<snip>

>
> > Case in point, I picked the
> >top record off the group of RCA's I had out, which was Van Cliburn
> >playing the Rachmaninoff 2nd Piano Concerto with Fritz Reinger and the
> >Chicago Symphony orchestra. I recently picked this up as a $2 used
> >record, but only played it once now that I also have the SACD release
> >of this same recording. This is not the original, but a Dynagroove
> >re-release on inferior, thin vinyl. Accordingly it is somewhat warped
> >and especially vulnerable to vinyl resonance. So put it on the
> >turntable (at this point a modest Dual 701 with Accuphase AC-2 MC
> >cartridge, into a modified Marcoff PPA-2 headamp). Cleaned it, clamped
> >it, synced the start with my Sony C222ES SACD machine...and listened
> >through the whole piece, occassionally switching back and forth CD to
> >Vinyl and back. The two where reasonable level matched and synched.
> >Other than an occassional low-level pop (maybe one a minute) I'd be
> >hard pressed to remember which I was listeing to. Plenty of sustained
> >tones and no difference in wow and flutter. The record was showing
> >plenty of warp, but the cartridge and arm were riding the groove with
> >equanimity and no sign of "bounce".
>
> Interesting claim, since Dynagroove records are known to contain a lot
> of *deliberately* introduced distortion, which is at its worst with a
> line-contact stylus, as well as being notorious for the heavy-handed
> use of compression to lift 'low level' detail.
>

You are correct, and as a result I went back and looked at the album cover,
and I was wrong. The recoding is indeep the thin, warped vinyl. But it is
labeled "Dynaflex" which is what RCA started calling them after they dropped
the "pre-distortion" aspect of Dynaagroove (which was roundly criticized).

> Of course, to the uncritical listener there might be a passing
> resemblance to an SACD............... :-)
>

As does any other high quality recording in which I have been able to make
the comparison.

> >My conclusion, if you really want to enjoy your records, make the time
> >and effort to optimize your system...the annoyances of vinyl will be
> >largely minimized and the sound quality may astound you.
>
> Indeed, it can sound very good, but it will never have the fidelity of
> CD.

Maybe not on paper, but in reality with proper care it can. And it opens up
a whole additional world of collecting...I know I've taken chances on $1.50
or 2.00 records that I never would have if they had been $15.00 CD's or
SACD's. Not to mention the fact that my LP library with choice titles from
the '60's and '70's is pretty damn large and hugely enjoyable.
Anonymous
April 24, 2005 10:39:17 PM

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

Theporkygeorge@aol.com wrote:
> Ban wrote:
> > Theporkygeorge@aol.com wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Of course not. You believe they all sound the same don't you? Does
> > > anybody believe all turntable rigs sound the same?
> > >
> > >
> > Well, the crackles and the distortion sound similar, but of course
> each
> > catridge has its own colour, which is superimposed on the music, much
> like a
> > loudspeaker. Then some have more hum than others, and some are better

> > isolated from vibrations.
> >
> > Scott, a simple test can be done:
> > Record your favourite music from the rig to CD. Now start the
> turntable and
> > play the record and when the sound arrives, start the CD player.
> listen with
> > the headphone to the CD and synchronize the vinyl by slowing the
> platter
> > with your hand.
> > Now turn down the volume, switch the preamp over and turn up the
> volume to
> > the same loudness. (It will be good to mark the 2 settings with a
> chalk
> > pen).
> > Have a friend or your wife switch without your knowledge. Now try to
> > identify the real turntable. Can you do that?


> I have done comparisons of CDs ripped form my turntable and direct feed
> from my turntable. I have no problem hearing differences.


Unless you have done them badly: baloney.


> > >> BTW, none of Yundi Li's music is available on vinyl. Only on CD's.
> > >
> > >
> > > Only CD? Can't get it on MP3?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Scott Wheeler
> >
> > Even MP3 is much more difficult to identify than vinyl, I wonder why?

> You have trouble hearing the colorations of MP3?

You can't make an MP3 that's audibly indistinguishable from source?



--

-S
It's not my business to do intelligent work. -- D. Rumsfeld, testifying
before the House Armed Services Committee
Anonymous
April 24, 2005 10:40:17 PM

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

Theporkygeorge@aol.com wrote:
> Well the real bad reasoning is ignoring the fact that the medium was
> around for quite some time as a niche market product and did not
> dominate the market until such a time as it became convenient to play
> in the car and on portable players.

This is not wholly correct. It is true that CD did not supplant
cassettes as the top-selling medium until portable/mobile disk players
became popular in the early to mid 90s, but CD "took off" long before
then. In fact, CD's year-to-year growth rate was falling by the time it
started really eating into cassette sales. But by the latter half of
the 80s, CD was anything but a niche product. In 1989 (the earliest
figures at www.riaa.org), CD had 28% of the long-playing market share
by units shipped. In a three-competitor market, 28% is not a niche.

By contrast, vinyl fell below 2% in 1991, and has never recovered.
Ignoring single-year blips, it's basically flatlined at 600,000 units
per annum for the last decade. That's a niche. (Not that there's
anything wrong with being a niche!)

bob
April 24, 2005 10:43:55 PM

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

Theporkygeorge@aol.com wrote:
> Chung wrote:
snip

>
>>>>>>Well, I attended a piano recital by the rising star Yundi Li
>
> last
>
>>>>>week.
>>>>>
>>>>>>And throughout the recital, I kept thinking how close my CD rig
>>>>>
>>>>>sounds
>>>>>
>>>>>>to the live piano I was hearing. You know, the solid sustained
>>>
>>>notes,
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Solid sustained notes? I've certainly heard this on numerous CDs
>
> of
>
>>>>>piano but never on a live piano. This is one of the most easily
>>>>>identifiable shortcomings one can hear on most CDs. A sustained
>>>
>>>note on
>>>
>>>>>a real piano is anything but solid.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Well, I have a grand piano, and the sustained notes are solid.
>>>
>>>Perhaps
>>>
>>>>you are too used to vinyl?
>>>
>>>
>>>No. It is not natural for any real paino to have solid sustained
>
> notes.
>
>>>The decay of a note from a live piano is anything but solid.
>>
>>Perhaps you were confused when I said solid sustained notes.
>
>
>
> I don't think so. Perhaps you didn't mean what you said.

As another poster once said, how could you possibly argue with me about
what I meant when I said it? :) 

> Solid does
> have a pretty well known definition.
> (2) : joined without a hyphen <a solid compound> c : not interrupted by
> a break or opening <a solid wall>
> 3 a : of uniformly close and coherent texture : not loose or spongy :
> COMPACT b : possessing or characterized by the properties of a solid :
> neither gaseous nor liquid .
>

I clarified what I meant when I said solid sustained notes already, so
you are simply trying to argue semantics.

>
> I meant the
>
>>frequency of the notes, and not amplitude. I thought it was obvious
>
> from
>
>>the context, but I guess one never knows.
>
>
>
> Well there are several different overtones coming from a sustained note
> from a piano, Their decay patterns are each different which creates a
> sound that is constantly changing in tone, location and volume. By the
> above definitions how does one find such a character of decay solid?
> IMO the decay of a sustained note of a piano is quite the opposite of
> the above cited definitions of solid.
>

I thought I said the frequencies already, but perhaps you were too busy
caught up in your own thoughts?

>
>
>
>>So, it is perfectly natural for a real piano to have solid sustained
>>notes in terms of frequency stability. Now, do you still want to
>
> argue
>
>>that it's not the case?
>
>
>
> Yes. You are now changing your claim and yet it still doesn't hold
> water in terms of human perception.

I never changed my claim. It's only for your edification that I provided
the clarification. Other posters don't seem to have any trouble
understanding...

>If one listens to a sustained note
> on a piano it does not *sound the same in tone* as it decays. Now if
> one were to take a test tone or a combination of test tones and dim the
> level at a constant rate in time you would have what I would call a
> solid sounding sustained note. That is nothing like what one hears from
> a live piano. It does acurately describe the sound of a sustained note
> on any number of CDs I have listened to.

I suggest you either (a) listen to live pianos, and (b) get good CD's,
preferably good digital recordings. It seems rather obvious that you
have been preconditioned to the vinyl sound, and the CD sound somehow
does not sound right to you.
>
>
>
>
>>>
>>>
>>>>You think there are some magical process in CD's that stabilize
>
> those
>
>>>>"real-life" wavering notes?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>No. Simplifying a a complex signal is not magic.
>>
>>Taking out the frequency variations (which caused the wavering of the
>
>
>>pitch) is almost magic...
>
>
>
> No it's not.

Well, why don't you provide some examples of technologies that take out
frequency variations in recorded sound?

>
>
>
>
>>Now, do you think the CD is capable of removing frequency
>
> instability?
>
>
> I think it is possible to get CDs in which this has happened. I don't
> think it is magical or desireable.
>

Examples of CD's removing any frequency variations from the original
please? What you think really is not that important, is it?

>
>
>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Hey, there will certainly be fame and riches
>>>
>>>>for you if you could figure out how...
>>>
>>>
>>>No. Just lower the resolution of any signal and ou will loose
>>>information. I'm surprised you didn't know this already.
>>
>>If you can lower the resolution and hence remove the frequency
>>instability, there will certainly be fame and riches for you.
>
>
>
> Really? It's that difficult to lower the resolution of a live piano in
> the recording and playback proccess? I think you are quite mistaken
> here. Any telephone will do the trick quite nicely. No fame or riches
> for me. Loss of resolution has been with us all along.

Can a telephone remove the frequency variations in sound? Now you are
being seriously technically challenged.

>
>
>
>
>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>the great dynamic range, and so on. There was no way the LP can
>>>>>>reproduce that piano sound without very noticeable degradation.
>>>>>
>>>>>There is no way any recording/playback system can reproduce a
>
> live
>
>>>>>piano without very noticable degradation. I doubt your system CD
>>>
>>>player
>>>
>>>>>and all are really any exception.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>The degradations from a CD are much less than those from vinyl. In
>>>
>>>fact,
>>>
>>>>I have piano recital CD's that sound very close to the real thing.
>>>
>>>
>>>Again. I am quite skeptical of such claims.
>>
>>There is nothing like listening, I guess.
>
>
>
>
> An odd guess. It seems you arte assuming that I am not listening to CDs
> of piano recordings. I suggest you listen more carefully if you really
> believe sustained piano notes sound "solid."

That was an obviously educated guess, based on your descriptions of how
the piano sounds worse than on vinyl. The other guess is that you simply
have not listened to good CD recordings.


>
>
>
> Try recording the output of
>
>>the phono stage onto CD's. Voila, all the magical "complex" signals
>
> that
>
>>you claim can only be heard on vinyl are preserved!
>
>
>
> Been there, done that. Didn't seem to happen so well.

Well, it does take some competence to do this right. Certainly not a
given that everyone is capable of transcribing to CD's, but it is
definitely not difficult to do either.

>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>>But, if you cannot hear the
>>>complexity of the decay of a sustained note on a real live piano
>
> maybe
>
>>>you simply aren't picking up on the substantial differences between
>
> a
>
>>>live piano and the recording and playback of a live piano.
>>
>>So you are saying that you cannot observe the complex amplitude decay
>
> of
>
>>piano music on CD's?
>
>
> I am saying that IME it is often reduced or lost on CDs.

Your experience is simply, shall we say, unusual?

>
>
>
>
>>Here is a good one for you to try out:
>>
>>Emil Gilel's Beethoven Sonata #8 (Pathetique) on DG 400036-2. This is
>
> an
>
>>early 1980 digital recording. You can easily find it at the local
>>library. Check out track 1. Listen to the solid frequency stability
>
> of
>
>>the big chords. See if that sounds like a real piano in your
>
> experience.
>
> I'll keep an eye out for it. I don't have high expectations though. I
> have heard nothing but awful sound from that label in that era.

That particular record is very highly regarded. Don't take my word for
it, check out the reviews.

>
>
>
>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> That was
>>>>>
>>>>>>a reminder of why I like digital so much. As someone who owns a
>>>
>>>grand
>>>
>>>>>>piano, I can say without any doubt that the CD sounds so much
>>>
>>>better
>>>
>>>>>>than vinyl on piano music.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Opinions abound. The person who started this thread clearly
>>>
>>>disagrees.
>>>
>>>>>It seems she does speak from considerable experience with live
>>>
>>>music.
>>>
>>>>That's my point, in case you missed it. Opinions abound. and I
>
> speak
>
>>>>with considerable experience from listening to a live piano.
>>>
>>>
>>>And yet you think the decay of a sustained note is solid. I'm
>
> afraid
>
>>>that there is more to it than just experience.
>>
>>The frequency is solid.
>
>
>
> The tone is not. That is what we percieve.

Your definition of tone may not be conventional.
>
>
> Not sure what solid decay means, since I never
>
>>used that term...
>
>
>
> You said sustained notes. They decay as they are sustained.
> decay:2 : to decrease gradually in quantity, activity, or force
>

Since I did not use that term, not sure why you bother defining it for me...
>
>
>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> In fact, I
>>>
>>>>just did.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>And to the OP, someone *could* have said "But you have not
>
> heard a
>
>>>>>>decent CD rig and decently recorded CD's!" :)  But of course, we
>>>
>>>won't
>>>
>>>>>>resort to that.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Of course not. You believe they all sound the same don't you?
>
> Does
>
>>>>>anybody believe all turntable rigs sound the same?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>No, some CD rigs sound bad because of poor speakers. And then
>
> there
>
>>>are
>>>
>>>>poorly recorded/mastered CD's. Of course, the competent CD players
>>>
>>>sound
>>>
>>>>very similar, but you know that.
>>>
>>>I don't know that. I know some people believe that and some believe
>>>otherwise. I have not spent much time c0omparing CD players myself.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>BTW, none of Yundi Li's music is available on vinyl. Only on
>
> CD's.
>
>>>>>
>>>>>Only CD? Can't get it on MP3?
>>>>
>>>>You can make mp3's out of CD's, of course. What exactly is your
>>>
>>>point,
>>>
>>>>or do you have one?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>That it can be had on more than just CD. Wasn't it obvious?
>>
>>It is a rather, shall we say, pointless point then.
>
>
> No.
>
>
> You can of course
>
>>make cassette tapes, MD tapes out of the CD.
>
>
>
> You can also legaly down load music on line in the form of MP3s. It is
> a different medium in which commercial music can be aquired and used.

You still are either totally missing the point, or simply want to argue
for the sake of arguing. To make it clear for you, his music is only
mastered for CD release, not for other formats. The mp3's are simply
compressed versions of the CD.
>
>
>
> I guess according to your
>
>>logic, when someone releases a movie on DVD, it is simultaneously
>>released in divx, mpeg4, vcd, realmedia, windows media formats
>
> already.
>
> In some cases they are released on vcd. Most of those others would be
> pirate copies. I am not talking about pirated copies but legal releases
> on various formats.
>
>
>
>>To make it easier for you to grasp, Yundi Li's music is not released
>
> in
>
>>vinyl. So is a lot of new classical music.
>
>
>
> I guess *you* didn't get *my* point.

If it was the rather pointless point, it really does not matter.

>
>
>
> Scott Wheeler
April 24, 2005 10:45:14 PM

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

Theporkygeorge@aol.com wrote:
> Chung wrote:
>
>>Theporkygeorge@aol.com wrote:
>>
>>>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 19 Apr 2005 23:54:39 GMT, Theporkygeorge@aol.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>Heads up now, what really launched CD into
>>>>>>the mass market was *classical* music listeners, i.e. people
>
> who
>
>>>live
>>>
>>>>>>with live music.
>>>>
>>>>>Stewert gets his facts wrong again. What really launched CD into
>
> the
>
>>>>>masss market was the availablity of portable CD players and car
>
> CD
>
>>>>>players. The classical music listeners are very much a niche
>
> market
>
>>>>>that barely impact the commercial scene over all. By the way,
>
> many
>
>>>>>classical music lovers do not spend much time with live music.
>>>>
>>>>This comes from a guy who has just attempted to tell someone who
>>>>*owns* a grand piano, what sustained notes from it sound
>
> like......
>
>>>
>>>What does Chungs inability to recognize that a sustained note from
>
> a
>
>>>live piano is not solifd but cmplex and constantly changing in
>
> tone?
>
>>>Does it make my true statement a false one? Where is your logic?
>>
>>Well, you choose to mis-interpret Chung's statement in a way that you
>
>
>>could attack Chung's ability to listen. Despite the subsequent
>>clarification by Chung. One would think that this is a display of
>
> your
>
>>tendency to argue on semantics, and to burn the strawman.
>>
>>The statement that "many classical music lovers do not spend much
>
> time
>
>>with live music" is patently false.
>
>
>
> Absolute balony. One need only look at concert ticket sales to see
> this.

How can you see this by looking at concert sales? The last piano concert
I attended was sold out two months in advance. And, of course, there are
many ways of "spending time with live music" without attending concerts.
I can do that any time of the day, in my home.

>
>
>
>
> Most classical music lovers I know
>
>>of play instruments, attend concerts and recitals, and a lot them
>
> have
>
>>children who play classical music.
>
>
> Well that is a sound scientific rebutal of my claim. Not.

It is a lot more scientific that the other claim "many classical music
lovers do not spend much time with live music".

>
>
>
>
>>Out of curiosity, do you consider the jazz music market a "niche
>
> market
>
>>that barely impact the commercial scene overall"?
>
>
>
> Unfortunately, yes. Are you aware of the sales being done in the music
> industry?

Not sure what you meant by "sales being done", although I am aware that
there are sales in the industry :) . I have some access to sales figures,
though. Do you?

>
>
>
>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Unfortunately for Wheeler, he doesn't get to write history books,
>
> and
>
>>>>the plain *facts* of the matter are that CD sales in the first two
>>>>years were below predictions, until the word began to spread among
>>>>classical music lovers that this new medium simply did not suffer
>>>
>>>from
>>>
>>>>wow and flutter (which, contrary to Wheeler's bizarre opinion, are
>>>>horribly destructive of solo piano music), and had such low
>>>
>>>background
>>>
>>>>noise that all kinds of musical subtleties became noticeable,
>
> which
>
>>>>had previously been swamped by surface noise. It was the classical
>>>>market which dragged CD out of the red in the early years, and
>>>>everyone but you is well aware of this - ask any record store
>
> owner
>
>>>>who was in business in the '80s, or of course go straight to RIAA
>>>>sales archives.
>>>
>>>
>>>Fortunately for audiophiles Pinkerton does not get to rewrite
>
> history.
>
>>>The *fact* is that CD sales took off exactly when portable CD
>
> players
>
>>>and car CD players became widely available at affordable prices.
>>>Fortunately for people who enjoy CDs the success of that medium was
>>>driven by somethging more than a niche market like classical music.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Certainly portable players and car players helped to boost
>
> volumes,
>
>>>>but note that they did not become widespread (especially car
>>>
>>>players),
>>>
>>>>until well after CD was firmly established.
>>>
>>>
>>>Wrong.
>>
>>You are wrong, CD displaced vinyl several years before the widespread
>
>
>>use of portable players and car players.
>
>
>
> Now you are ridiculously wrong. Lps were never displaced by CD in the
> first place. They were displaced by cassettes and for the very same
> reason. Portability and car play.

Now you are wrong again. CD displacing vinyl means CD taking over the
place of vinyl in sales. You seem to have trouble understanding what I
said, again. The point is, of course, having displaced vinyl, CD was now
"firmly established", before the widespread use of car and mobile CD
players. Unless you want to argue that vinyl was never firmly established.

>
>
>
> As early as 1989, CD's already
>
>>outsold vinyl LP's by a ratio of 2.7 to 1.
>
>
>
> In 1989 Cd was still not the dominant medium for music consumption.
> Nice try. Funny, It had been on the market for six years by then.
> Funny, when it did become the dominant medium it was when car players
> and portable CD players did become common and affordable.
>

The point is that it had solidly displaced vinyl's position in sales.
Wonder why you found all this funny?

>
>
> In 1989, portable and car CD
>
>>players were not in widespread use. For home audio, CD became the
>>dominant medium as early as in the mid-to-late 80's.
>
>
>
> Guess again. Actually dont guess, just look at sales.

Been there, done that, have you?

>
>
>
> Of course, for
>
>>mobile audio, CD did not replace cassette until mobile CD players
>
> became
>
>>popular in the mid-90's.
>
>
> Sorry Stewert. You don't know what people were doing with their
> cassettes. We can look at sales. Sales support my claim not yours.

Sorry Stewart for having Mr Wheeler feel sorry for you :) .

>
>
>
>
>>Wouldn't you call a medium that outsold vinyl LP 2.7 to 1 "firmly
>>established"?
>
>
>
> Seems you are now trying to change the subject.

Just to make sure you understand, when Stewart said that portable and
car players did not get widespread use until after the CD was firmly
established, you said he was wrong. My question was not to change the
subject, but to ask you if outselling vinyl 2.7 to 1 mean that CD was
firmly established. If the answer is yes, then clearly you were wrong
when you said Steware was wrong. Got that?

>
>
> Scott Wheeler
April 25, 2005 1:25:58 AM

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

Theporkygeorge@aol.com wrote:
> Ed Seedhouse wrote:
>
>>On 21 Apr 2005 23:59:10 GMT, Theporkygeorge@aol.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Fortunately for audiophiles Pinkerton does not get to rewrite
>
> history.
>
>>>The *fact* is that CD sales took off exactly when portable CD
>
> players
>
>>>and car CD players became widely available at affordable prices.
>>>Fortunately for people who enjoy CDs the success of that medium was
>>>driven by somethging more than a niche market like classical music.
>>
>>This could go in a textbook as an example of bad reasoning!
>
>
>
> Balony.
>

I guess anything that Mr. Wheeler does not agree with tends to be called
"Balony" (sic).

>
>
> Correlation
>
>>does not prove causation.
>
>
>
> It supports it.
>
>
>
> The fact that two things happen at the same
>
>>time does not prove that one causes the other.
>
>
>
> It supports it.
>
>
> The fact that something
>
>>occurs before something else does not prove it causes the something
>>else. "Pos hoc, ergo propter hoc" is still a fallacy and always will
>>be.
>>
>>
>
>
> Well the real bad reasoning is ignoring the fact that the medium was
> around for quite some time as a niche market product and did not
> dominate the market until such a time as it became convenient to play
> in the car and on portable players. It would be quite bad reasoning to
> ignore the fact that exactly the same "coincidence" took place with the
> previously dominant medium. It would also be poor logic to ignore the
> fact that classical music sales by their sheer lack of volume cannot
> possible impact the market the way sales due to portability can. Oh
> well.

The real bad reasoning is saying that CD was just a niche market because
it did not have the largest sales. In 1990, there were 9.2 million CD
players sold annually in the US, and 288 million CD's sold in the US.
And as early as in 1986, there were already 53 million CD's sold in the
US. A niche market?

Perhaps now is the time for Mr. Wheeler to provide another definition of
niche market.

>
>
>
> Scott Wheeler
Anonymous
April 25, 2005 1:27:02 AM

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

nabo...@hotmail.com wrote:

> By contrast, vinyl fell below 2% in 1991, and has never recovered.
> Ignoring single-year blips, it's basically flatlined at 600,000 units
> per annum for the last decade.

Pardon me. I was reading a chart of market share, not units. That last
sentence should read, "...flatlined at 0.6% of units shipped for the
last decade."

BTW, the 2004 RIAA figures came out earlier this month. Overall sales
were up for the first time since '99, with CD unit sales up about 3%
over 2003. By contrast, vinyl was down 12% from 2003, DVD-A down 21%,
and SACD down 40%. "Niche market" may now be an overstatement.

bob
Anonymous
April 25, 2005 1:29:41 AM

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

chung wrote:
> Theporkygeorge@aol.com wrote:
> > Chung wrote:
> >
> >>Theporkygeorge@aol.com wrote:
> >>
> >>>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>On 19 Apr 2005 23:54:39 GMT, Theporkygeorge@aol.com wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>>Heads up now, what really launched CD into
> >>>>>>the mass market was *classical* music listeners, i.e. people
> >
> > who
> >
> >>>live
> >>>
> >>>>>>with live music.
> >>>>
> >>>>>Stewert gets his facts wrong again. What really launched CD into
> >
> > the
> >
> >>>>>masss market was the availablity of portable CD players and car
> >
> > CD
> >
> >>>>>players. The classical music listeners are very much a niche
> >
> > market
> >
> >>>>>that barely impact the commercial scene over all. By the way,
> >
> > many
> >
> >>>>>classical music lovers do not spend much time with live music.
> >>>>
> >>>>This comes from a guy who has just attempted to tell someone who
> >>>>*owns* a grand piano, what sustained notes from it sound
> >
> > like......
> >
> >>>
> >>>What does Chungs inability to recognize that a sustained note from
> >
> > a
> >
> >>>live piano is not solifd but cmplex and constantly changing in
> >
> > tone?
> >
> >>>Does it make my true statement a false one? Where is your logic?
> >>
> >>Well, you choose to mis-interpret Chung's statement in a way that
you
> >
> >
> >>could attack Chung's ability to listen. Despite the subsequent
> >>clarification by Chung. One would think that this is a display of
> >
> > your
> >
> >>tendency to argue on semantics, and to burn the strawman.
> >>
> >>The statement that "many classical music lovers do not spend much
> >
> > time
> >
> >>with live music" is patently false.
> >
> >
> >
> > Absolute balony. One need only look at concert ticket sales to see
> > this.
>
> How can you see this by looking at concert sales?

That is where classical music lover go for quality live music.




The last piano concert
> I attended was sold out two months in advance.


That is good to hear but how many seats were there to begin with?




And, of course, there are
> many ways of "spending time with live music" without attending
concerts.
> I can do that any time of the day, in my home.


Not quite the same thing.




>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Most classical music lovers I know
> >
> >>of play instruments, attend concerts and recitals, and a lot them
> >
> > have
> >
> >>children who play classical music.
> >
> >
> > Well that is a sound scientific rebutal of my claim. Not.
>
> It is a lot more scientific that the other claim "many classical
music
> lovers do not spend much time with live music".


No it isn't.




>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>Out of curiosity, do you consider the jazz music market a "niche
> >
> > market
> >
> >>that barely impact the commercial scene overall"?
> >
> >
> >
> > Unfortunately, yes. Are you aware of the sales being done in the
music
> > industry?
>
> Not sure what you meant by "sales being done", although I am aware
that
> there are sales in the industry :) . I have some access to sales
figures,
> though. Do you?


Sure. Now lets look at what percentage of over all music sales are from
classical music.



>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Unfortunately for Wheeler, he doesn't get to write history books,
> >
> > and
> >
> >>>>the plain *facts* of the matter are that CD sales in the first
two
> >>>>years were below predictions, until the word began to spread
among
> >>>>classical music lovers that this new medium simply did not suffer
> >>>
> >>>from
> >>>
> >>>>wow and flutter (which, contrary to Wheeler's bizarre opinion,
are
> >>>>horribly destructive of solo piano music), and had such low
> >>>
> >>>background
> >>>
> >>>>noise that all kinds of musical subtleties became noticeable,
> >
> > which
> >
> >>>>had previously been swamped by surface noise. It was the
classical
> >>>>market which dragged CD out of the red in the early years, and
> >>>>everyone but you is well aware of this - ask any record store
> >
> > owner
> >
> >>>>who was in business in the '80s, or of course go straight to RIAA
> >>>>sales archives.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Fortunately for audiophiles Pinkerton does not get to rewrite
> >
> > history.
> >
> >>>The *fact* is that CD sales took off exactly when portable CD
> >
> > players
> >
> >>>and car CD players became widely available at affordable prices.
> >>>Fortunately for people who enjoy CDs the success of that medium
was
> >>>driven by somethging more than a niche market like classical
music.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Certainly portable players and car players helped to boost
> >
> > volumes,
> >
> >>>>but note that they did not become widespread (especially car
> >>>
> >>>players),
> >>>
> >>>>until well after CD was firmly established.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Wrong.
> >>
> >>You are wrong, CD displaced vinyl several years before the
widespread
> >
> >
> >>use of portable players and car players.
> >
> >
> >
> > Now you are ridiculously wrong. Lps were never displaced by CD in
the
> > first place. They were displaced by cassettes and for the very same
> > reason. Portability and car play.
>
> Now you are wrong again. CD displacing vinyl means CD taking over the

> place of vinyl in sales. You seem to have trouble understanding what
I
> said, again. The point is, of course, having displaced vinyl, CD was
now
> "firmly established", before the widespread use of car and mobile CD
> players. Unless you want to argue that vinyl was never firmly
established.



It didn't displace vinyl regardless of how you try to re-word your
claims. Vinyl was the top selling medium until Cassettes displaced it.
Cds did eventually displace Cassttes after the portable CD players and
car CD players became readily available and affordable.



>
> >
> >
> >
> > As early as 1989, CD's already
> >
> >>outsold vinyl LP's by a ratio of 2.7 to 1.
> >
> >
> >
> > In 1989 Cd was still not the dominant medium for music
consumption.
> > Nice try. Funny, It had been on the market for six years by then.
> > Funny, when it did become the dominant medium it was when car
players
> > and portable CD players did become common and affordable.
> >
>
> The point is that it had solidly displaced vinyl's position in sales.

> Wonder why you found all this funny?


Because of all the backpeddling.



>
> >
> >
> > In 1989, portable and car CD
> >
> >>players were not in widespread use. For home audio, CD became the
> >>dominant medium as early as in the mid-to-late 80's.
> >
> >
> >
> > Guess again. Actually dont guess, just look at sales.
>
> Been there, done that, have you?


Yes, that is why I am making the claims that you are reading here.



>
> >
> >
> >
> > Of course, for
> >
> >>mobile audio, CD did not replace cassette until mobile CD players
> >
> > became
> >
> >>popular in the mid-90's.
> >
> >
> > Sorry Stewert. You don't know what people were doing with their
> > cassettes. We can look at sales. Sales support my claim not yours.
>
> Sorry Stewart for having Mr Wheeler feel sorry for you :) .
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>Wouldn't you call a medium that outsold vinyl LP 2.7 to 1 "firmly
> >>established"?
> >
> >
> >
> > Seems you are now trying to change the subject.
>
> Just to make sure you understand, when Stewart said that portable and

> car players did not get widespread use until after the CD was firmly
> established, you said he was wrong.



Wrong again. this what Stewert actually said.
"Heads up now, what really launched CD into the mass market was
*classical* music listeners," To which I said he was wrong. CDs were
"launched" into the mass market with the wide spead availablitity of
portable CD players and car CD players. Not with the introduction of
classical material on CDs Classical CDs were available for years before
CDs were a successful "mass market" item.



My question was not to change the
> subject, but to ask you if outselling vinyl 2.7 to 1 mean that CD was

> firmly established.


Once you and Stewert started talking about "firmly established,"
whatever you guys want that to mean, you changed the subject. The
subject was the launch into the mass market. Hey our local burger joint
has been in business for 50 years. I think that makes it "firmly
established." It has never been launched into the mass market. Apples
and oranges.



If the answer is yes, then clearly you were wrong
> when you said Steware was wrong. Got that?


The question has no meaning since I never said no to the claim of
"firmly established." Got that?


Scott Wheeler
!