Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Simple Newbie CD vs Vinyl Question

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
Anonymous
April 22, 2005 4:02:43 AM

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

I've heard of this endless debate and am not trying to start another one. I
just finished reading lots of info and graphs on why analog is better than
digital since it has 'higher resolution', etc.

My simple question is that the analog vs digital signal comparison does
make sense to me and analog technically should have much better dynamic
range, then why is it when I listen to a turntable, it sounds the
opposite? Especially the highs always seem cut off where as I throw in any
CD and the extreme high/low range sound much fuller. It's funny because I
know the whole argument is that vinyl is supposed to sound fuller. Is it
because I have to listen to vinyl on some $10k turntable? I've only
listened on some high-end Technics and Stanton tables.

Also the fact that there's pops and clicks on vinyl from dust is extremely
annoying to me even when you clean it ever 2 seconds.
Anonymous
April 22, 2005 6:35:16 AM

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

dasmodul wrote:
> I've heard of this endless debate and am not trying to start another
one. I
> just finished reading lots of info and graphs on why analog is better
than
> digital since it has 'higher resolution', etc.

What you read was drivel.

> My simple question is that the analog vs digital signal comparison
does
> make sense to me and analog technically should have much better
dynamic
> range,

Not to repeat myself, but what you read was drivel. CD probably has a
good 20 dB on vinyl.

> then why is it when I listen to a turntable, it sounds the
> opposite? Especially the highs always seem cut off where as I throw
in any
> CD and the extreme high/low range sound much fuller. It's funny
because I
> know the whole argument is that vinyl is supposed to sound fuller. Is
it
> because I have to listen to vinyl on some $10k turntable? I've only
> listened on some high-end Technics and Stanton tables.
>
> Also the fact that there's pops and clicks on vinyl from dust is
extremely
> annoying to me even when you clean it ever 2 seconds.

Yeah, there's that, too.

To explain: Vinyl has limited dynamic range and a whole host of
distortions besides, but some of those distortions give it a wonderful,
resonant sound. Some audiophiles mistake this resonance for "accuracy,"
which is a technical term referring to the relationship between the
recording and the output. But many people who love vinyl don't want to
admit that what they love about it is, technically speaking,
distortion. So they invent all sorts of pseudoscientific theories about
how vinyl must somehow be technically superior to CD. I'm surprised you
found someone making the argument that vinyl offers higher dynamic
range, because that is so obviously wrong, but it gives you some idea
of the lengths to which some vinylphiles will go to avoid facing up to
the fact that what appeals to them about vinyl is a technical weakness
of the medium.

bob
Anonymous
April 22, 2005 6:36:56 AM

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

dasmodul <damionvalentine@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I've heard of this endless debate and am not trying to start another one. I
> just finished reading lots of info and graphs on why analog is better than
> digital since it has 'higher resolution', etc.

All analog media are not alike. An LP is *extremely* unlikely to have
higher resolution than a CD of the same recording, unless the CD mastering
has been done very poorly indeed!

> My simple question is that the analog vs digital signal comparison does
> make sense to me and analog technically should have much better dynamic
> range, then why is it when I listen to a turntable, it sounds the
> opposite? Especially the highs always seem cut off where as I throw in any
> CD and the extreme high/low range sound much fuller.

Well, CDs are capable of reproducing the audible frequency range -- 20 Hz
to 20,000 Hz, more or less -- with the same excellnet fidelity from lowest
to highest. LPs simply can't do that.

> It's funny because I
> know the whole argument is that vinyl is supposed to sound fuller. Is it
> because I have to listen to vinyl on some $10k turntable? I've only
> listened on some high-end Technics and Stanton tables.

Well, you'll be told you need an expensive turntable to reap the full
benefits of vinyl...but you'll still be limited by the medium itself.

> Also the fact that there's pops and clicks on vinyl from dust is extremely
> annoying to me even when you clean it ever 2 seconds.

Indeed. You'll be told that careful -- read: obsessive -- devotion to
record cleaning rituals will 'all but' eliminate clicks and pops. But
they always seem to creep in anyway, don't they?

Btw, if you like the way a record sounds, you can always transfer it to
CD, and eliminate the clicks and pops digitally. That way you' will
completely preserve whatever good the LP has to offer, and none of the
bad.


--

-S
It's not my business to do intelligent work. -- D. Rumsfeld, testifying
before the House Armed Services Committee
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
April 22, 2005 6:37:20 AM

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

dasmodul wrote:

> I've heard of this endless debate and am not trying to start another one. I
> just finished reading lots of info and graphs on why analog is better than
> digital since it has 'higher resolution', etc.
>

Perhaps you still have not read enough? :) 

Vinyl simply has less resolution, because of noise and distortion.
Resolution is determined by the loudest and softest that the medium can
reproduce. Vinyl has at best 70 dB or so of dynamic range (i.e. the
difference between the loudest signal it can reproduce without
significant distortion and the noise floor), and that is equivalent to
only 12 bits or 13 bits of resolution. Most vinyl LP's have even less
resolution because of excessive surface noise.

Whether one likes analog or digital is a matter of preference, and there
are factors like the quality of the mastering that can be most important
in determining the resulting quality of a record, but there is really no
argument that digital is the *measureably* more accurate medium than vinyl.

> My simple question is that the analog vs digital signal comparison does
> make sense to me and analog technically should have much better dynamic
> range, then why is it when I listen to a turntable, it sounds the
> opposite?

Vinyl has inferior dynamic range compared to CD. Measurements clearly
reveal that. Most of us also are able to observe that fact by listening.

> Especially the highs always seem cut off where as I throw in any
> CD and the extreme high/low range sound much fuller. It's funny because I
> know the whole argument is that vinyl is supposed to sound fuller. Is it
> because I have to listen to vinyl on some $10k turntable? I've only
> listened on some high-end Technics and Stanton tables.

The CD standard is flat up to 20 KHz, whereas it is rare to find an LP
with significant signal power above 15 KHz. If you do not have optimal
cartridge/phono preamp combinations, you may get significant droop (or
ripples) below 15 KHz.

>
> Also the fact that there's pops and clicks on vinyl from dust is extremely
> annoying to me even when you clean it ever 2 seconds.

That's one of the reasons why CD's have totally taken over.
Anonymous
April 22, 2005 5:37:29 PM

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

Regarding content, if you compare a vinyl LP made with the *same source*
Master tape copied to HD or DAT (or direct) to make a Master CD, the eq at
the disc-cutter i/p was often adjusted (and maybe the path's dynamic range
too) as it progressed, whereas the CD transfer is deemed linear.

"dasmodul" <damionvalentine@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:D 49ev3018gq@news2.newsguy.com...
> I've heard of this endless debate and am not trying to start another one.
> I
> just finished reading lots of info and graphs on why analog is better than
> digital since it has 'higher resolution', etc.
>
> My simple question is that the analog vs digital signal comparison does
> make sense to me and analog technically should have much better dynamic
> range, then why is it when I listen to a turntable, it sounds the
> opposite? Especially the highs always seem cut off where as I throw in any
> CD and the extreme high/low range sound much fuller. It's funny because I
> know the whole argument is that vinyl is supposed to sound fuller. Is it
> because I have to listen to vinyl on some $10k turntable? I've only
> listened on some high-end Technics and Stanton tables.
>
> Also the fact that there's pops and clicks on vinyl from dust is extremely
> annoying to me even when you clean it ever 2 seconds.
Anonymous
April 22, 2005 8:28:24 PM

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

"dasmodul" <damionvalentine@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:D 49ev3018gq@news2.newsguy.com...

It's funny because I
> know the whole argument is that vinyl is supposed to sound fuller. Is it
> because I have to listen to vinyl on some $10k turntable? I've only
> listened on some high-end Technics and Stanton tables.
>
A $500 cartridge/tonearm combo should be more than is required.
You forgot to tell us your age. Regardless, when your hearing goes, perhaps
a little CD pre-emphasis :-) is not a bad thing. Additionally in your
CD/vinyl comparison your pre-amp's phono section and its RIAA equalization
comes into the picture. (I purposely avoided introducing your speakers into
the matter.) In any event try to get yourself one of those old commercial
Telarc (digital) LPs and its CD counterpart, and repeat your comparisons. I
believe this will really tell you something about (your) vinyl playback. I
only have modest vinyl and CD playback equipment and to my aged ears there
is not a big difference in the two formats (of course, excepting surface
noise, and tracking problems should those arise in your system.)
Anonymous
April 23, 2005 5:57:32 AM

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

http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/question487.htm

Is one of the main visual sites I was reading about Vinyl vs. CD.

Well, thank goodness most of you hear the same 'problems' with vinyl as I.
I was hearing so much hoopla by vinyl enthusiasts, I thought maybe I was
the one with the bad ear or equipment. For me personally, even if vinyl
did have a wider dynamic range, etc. I wouldn't prefer it for the
dust/static magnet that it is. Yikes.
Anonymous
April 23, 2005 7:22:33 AM

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

dasmodul wrote:
> http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/question487.htm
>
> Is one of the main visual sites I was reading about Vinyl vs. CD.

I am speechless.

All right, now I'm over it. What a fine example of why you shouldn't
trust anything you read on the Web. (That includes Usenet posts, BTW.)
That page looks professional and sounds authoritative, and yet it is
jaw-droppingly wrong in practically every sentence.

Others here can parse its flaws better than I, but you should have been
skeptical from the start: First and foremost, no one's name is attached
to the information. For a lay person such as yourself (or me), faced
with some technical explanation far beyond one's own level of
expertise, the first clue to whether the information can be trusted is
the credentials of the person providing it. That's not perfect,
obviously. People can lie about their background, and even "experts"
can be wrong, so you should never rely on a single source of
information. But at least it gives you some basis for believing that
this is somewhat more authoritative than if you had made it up
yourself.

bob
Anonymous
April 23, 2005 6:46:01 PM

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

nabob33@hotmail.com wrote:
> dasmodul wrote:
> > http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/question487.htm
> >
> > Is one of the main visual sites I was reading about Vinyl vs. CD.

> I am speechless.

> All right, now I'm over it. What a fine example of why you shouldn't
> trust anything you read on the Web. (That includes Usenet posts, BTW.)
> That page looks professional and sounds authoritative, and yet it is
> jaw-droppingly wrong in practically every sentence.

It's the familiar and apparently deathless 'sampling means
missing information' canard about CD vs. LP. One of audiophile
culture's 'greatest hits' as it were.


> Others here can parse its flaws better than I, but you should have been
> skeptical from the start: First and foremost, no one's name is attached
> to the information. For a lay person such as yourself (or me), faced
> with some technical explanation far beyond one's own level of
> expertise, the first clue to whether the information can be trusted is
> the credentials of the person providing it. That's not perfect,
> obviously. People can lie about their background, and even "experts"
> can be wrong, so you should never rely on a single source of
> information. But at least it gives you some basis for believing that
> this is somewhat more authoritative than if you had made it up
> yourself.


Here's the URL for emailing HowStuffWorks the correct information:

http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/contact.php?s=hsw&...



--

-S
It's not my business to do intelligent work. -- D. Rumsfeld, testifying
before the House Armed Services Committee
Anonymous
April 23, 2005 7:00:22 PM

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

On 23 Apr 2005 01:57:32 GMT, "dasmodul" <damionvalentine@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/question487.htm
>
>Is one of the main visual sites I was reading about Vinyl vs. CD.

That article is one of the most appalingly ignorant misrepresentations
I have ever seen. To include it in a series called 'how stuff works'
is an absolute travesty. It is obvious that the author has absoliutely
*no* idea how digital audio works, and as a result, his statements
regarding CD vs vinyl are just plain wrong.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
April 23, 2005 8:28:14 PM

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

nabob33@hotmail.com wrote:

> dasmodul wrote:
>
>>http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/question487.htm
>>
>>Is one of the main visual sites I was reading about Vinyl vs. CD.
>
>
> I am speechless.
>
> All right, now I'm over it. What a fine example of why you shouldn't
> trust anything you read on the Web. (That includes Usenet posts, BTW.)
> That page looks professional and sounds authoritative, and yet it is
> jaw-droppingly wrong in practically every sentence.



"From the graph above you can see that CD quality audio does not do a
very good job of replicating the original signal. The main ways to
improve the quality of a digital recording are to increase the sampling
rate and to increase the accuracy of the sampling."



The above is taken from the site, along with a simplistic graph showing
a "sampled stepped" waveform. There is nothing I found in the "article"
explaining the niceties of the Shannon-Nyquist theorem, nor are there
any explanations of why, when one looks at a waveform on a 'scope taken
from a CD, one does not observe these irregular steps. All this
nonsense was a common and prevalent misunderstanding in the early days
of digital audio. Today, it is an embarrassment.



The problem with understanding sampling is that it requires a degree of
specialized knowledge not available to the average audiophile-someone
who knows how to, maybe, align a cartridge using a protractor, but is
uninitiated in higher mathematics and engineering. Thus, people get
away with offering simplistic and naive explanations, like those found
on the site mentioned above. To understand sampling theory one must
understand higher math. But anyone can look at a simple diagram on a
simple Web site and then wonder how a stepped and truncated waveform can
ever be representative of music? Without a technical background they
will never be able to understand, and are, therefore, open to all kinds
of obfuscation from people who don't know what they are talking about.



While the following may be a bit technical, the original poster may want
to dig up: Clock Jitter, D/A Converters, and Sample-Rate Conversion by
Robert Adams of Analog Devices, in The Audio Critic Issue 21. For
more technical discussions there is plenty of free material out there.
Some examples:


http://www.datasheetarchive.com/datasheet/pdf/23/2326.h...

http://www.datasheetarchive.com/datasheet/pdf/70/709988...


Also, googling "Nyquist" will turn up many sites that explain, in
varying degrees of sophistication, the principles behind digital sampling.



michael
Anonymous
April 23, 2005 9:10:22 PM

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

dasmodul <damionvalentine@yahoo.com> wrote:
> http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/question487.htm

> Is one of the main visual sites I was reading about Vinyl vs. CD.

For a good explanation about how a DAC really works, see this paper:

http://www.lavryengineering.com/documents/Sampling_Theo...

--
http://www.mat.uc.pt/~rps/

..pt is Portugal| `Whom the gods love die young'-Menander (342-292 BC)
Europe | Villeneuve 50-82, Toivonen 56-86, Senna 60-94
Anonymous
April 24, 2005 2:48:00 AM

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

CD is a convenience thing. They can both sound very good, but yes you
do need to have some pretty nice anaolg gear to get the best from
vinyl. You also have to have the vinyl in good condition and clean as
you have noticed. For the average Joe, CD is fine and is certainly
easier. Many people have collections of Lp's that make keeping a nice
analog rig very desirable. You can also find Lp's for peanuts Vs CD
prices and so even a first time analog system will pay for itself in
music savings.
-Bill
www.uptownaudio.com
Roanoke VA
(540) 343-1250

"dasmodul" <damionvalentine@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:D 49ev3018gq@news2.newsguy.com...
> I've heard of this endless debate and am not trying to start another
> one. I
> just finished reading lots of info and graphs on why analog is
> better than
> digital since it has 'higher resolution', etc.
>
> My simple question is that the analog vs digital signal comparison
> does
> make sense to me and analog technically should have much better
> dynamic
> range, then why is it when I listen to a turntable, it sounds the
> opposite? Especially the highs always seem cut off where as I throw
> in any
> CD and the extreme high/low range sound much fuller. It's funny
> because I
> know the whole argument is that vinyl is supposed to sound fuller.
> Is it
> because I have to listen to vinyl on some $10k turntable? I've only
> listened on some high-end Technics and Stanton tables.
>
> Also the fact that there's pops and clicks on vinyl from dust is
> extremely
> annoying to me even when you clean it ever 2 seconds.
Anonymous
April 24, 2005 2:50:27 AM

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

dasmodul wrote:
> http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/question487.htm
>
> Is one of the main visual sites I was reading about Vinyl vs. CD.
>
> Well, thank goodness most of you hear the same 'problems' with vinyl
as I.
> I was hearing so much hoopla by vinyl enthusiasts, I thought maybe I
was
> the one with the bad ear or equipment. For me personally, even if
vinyl
> did have a wider dynamic range, etc. I wouldn't prefer it for the
> dust/static magnet that it is. Yikes.

Here is a suggestion. Instead of asking for opinions go out and find
someone or some stereo shop that has a legitimate high end rig set up
for you to compare for yourself. Form your own opinion then. Why
speculate when you can go by an actual comparison?



Scott Wheeler
April 24, 2005 6:53:16 PM

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

Here's my $0.02 based on my experience and my ears:

In my life, I've owned very high-end analogue and digital front ends.
Today, I have a more modest system (Denon/Grado for analogue, Rotel for
digital, with Rotel electronics, Vandersteen speakers.) I know the
sound of live, acoustic classical and guitar VERY well. RIght now, I
listening to an old Philips disk of the Netherlands Wind Ensemble
playing wind chamber music. The sound that I am listening to is more
life-like and ANYTHING I've ever heard on CD. The instruments sound
more like the real thing. Again, just my opinion.
Anonymous
April 24, 2005 7:04:32 PM

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

On 23 Apr 2005 22:48:00 GMT, Uptown Audio <uptownaudio@rev.net> wrote:

>CD is a convenience thing.

It's also a sound quality thing.

> They can both sound very good, but yes you
>do need to have some pretty nice anaolg gear to get the best from
>vinyl. You also have to have the vinyl in good condition and clean as
>you have noticed. For the average Joe, CD is fine and is certainly
>easier.

It is also much closer to the master tape than vinyl can ever be.
Hence, it's just fine for the really serious audiophile, not only 'the
average Joe'.

>Many people have collections of Lp's that make keeping a nice
>analog rig very desirable. You can also find Lp's for peanuts Vs CD
>prices and so even a first time analog system will pay for itself in
>music savings.

This is certainly true, although the quality of most of this vinyl is
somewhat less than pristine..........

And of course, if vinyl quality is adequate for you, there's always
MP3 and the Internet, where even greater savings can be made with no
'wear' concerns.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Anonymous
April 24, 2005 8:41:59 PM

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

Jenn wrote:
> Here's my $0.02 based on my experience and my ears:
>
> In my life, I've owned very high-end analogue and digital front ends.
> Today, I have a more modest system (Denon/Grado for analogue, Rotel
for
> digital, with Rotel electronics, Vandersteen speakers.) I know the
> sound of live, acoustic classical and guitar VERY well. RIght now, I
> listening to an old Philips disk of the Netherlands Wind Ensemble
> playing wind chamber music. The sound that I am listening to is more
> life-like and ANYTHING I've ever heard on CD. The instruments sound
> more like the real thing.

Which may have everything to do with the quality of that particular
recording, and nothing to do with the merits of the respective media.
Or it may have to do with the euphonic effects of distortion inherent
in vinyl. Or a combination of the two. And maybe there's a dram of
nostalgia mixed in.

bob
Anonymous
April 24, 2005 9:05:19 PM

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

On 24 Apr 2005 14:53:16 GMT, "Jenn" <jennconducts@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Here's my $0.02 based on my experience and my ears:
>
>In my life, I've owned very high-end analogue and digital front ends.
>Today, I have a more modest system (Denon/Grado for analogue, Rotel for
>digital, with Rotel electronics, Vandersteen speakers.) I know the
>sound of live, acoustic classical and guitar VERY well. RIght now, I
>listening to an old Philips disk of the Netherlands Wind Ensemble
>playing wind chamber music. The sound that I am listening to is more
>life-like and ANYTHING I've ever heard on CD. The instruments sound
>more like the real thing. Again, just my opinion.

I own a pretty high-end vinyl system, and my CD player sounds as good
as anything I've ever heard. You can see pictures of it here :
http://www.lurcher.org/ukra/

Right now, I'm listening to an old DG recording of Emil Gilels playing
Beethoven sonatas. The sound that I am listening to is more lifelike
than *anything* I've ever heard on LP. The piano sounds much more like
the real thing. Again, just my opinion.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Anonymous
April 24, 2005 10:39:37 PM

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

Theporkygeorge@aol.com wrote:
> dasmodul wrote:
> > http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/question487.htm
> >
> > Is one of the main visual sites I was reading about Vinyl vs. CD.
> >
> > Well, thank goodness most of you hear the same 'problems' with vinyl
> as I.
> > I was hearing so much hoopla by vinyl enthusiasts, I thought maybe I
> was
> > the one with the bad ear or equipment. For me personally, even if
> vinyl
> > did have a wider dynamic range, etc. I wouldn't prefer it for the
> > dust/static magnet that it is. Yikes.

> Here is a suggestion. Instead of asking for opinions go out and find
> someone or some stereo shop that has a legitimate high end rig set up
> for you to compare for yourself. Form your own opinion then. Why
> speculate when you can go by an actual comparison?

Sure , it'll give you an answer that satisfies, but that might not be
true. That seems to suffice in audiophilia.


--

-S
It's not my business to do intelligent work. -- D. Rumsfeld, testifying
before the House Armed Services Committee
April 25, 2005 1:26:28 AM

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

nabob33@hotmail.com wrote:
> Jenn wrote:
>
>>Here's my $0.02 based on my experience and my ears:
>>
>>In my life, I've owned very high-end analogue and digital front ends.
>>Today, I have a more modest system (Denon/Grado for analogue, Rotel
>
> for
>
>>digital, with Rotel electronics, Vandersteen speakers.) I know the
>>sound of live, acoustic classical and guitar VERY well. RIght now, I
>>listening to an old Philips disk of the Netherlands Wind Ensemble
>>playing wind chamber music. The sound that I am listening to is more
>>life-like and ANYTHING I've ever heard on CD. The instruments sound
>>more like the real thing.
>
>
> Which may have everything to do with the quality of that particular
> recording, and nothing to do with the merits of the respective media.
> Or it may have to do with the euphonic effects of distortion inherent
> in vinyl. Or a combination of the two. And maybe there's a dram of
> nostalgia mixed in.
>
> bob

Nostalgia can certainly play a major role. I remember when I was in
college I played the Carole King album "Tapestry" so much that I
memorized every click and pop, and got used to all that surface noise.
Much later, when I played the CD, it did not sound the same to me.
Someone else may may say that the LP was more life-like or accurate, but
the fact is that the higher sound quality of the CD did not create the
same effects on me, as the vinyl LP still does. And that has nothing to
do with technical merits of the media or the gear.
Anonymous
April 25, 2005 1:28:17 AM

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

Steven Sullivan wrote:
> Theporkygeorge@aol.com wrote:
> > dasmodul wrote:
> > > http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/question487.htm
> > >
> > > Is one of the main visual sites I was reading about Vinyl vs. CD.
> > >
> > > Well, thank goodness most of you hear the same 'problems' with
vinyl
> > as I.
> > > I was hearing so much hoopla by vinyl enthusiasts, I thought
maybe I
> > was
> > > the one with the bad ear or equipment. For me personally, even if
> > vinyl
> > > did have a wider dynamic range, etc. I wouldn't prefer it for the
> > > dust/static magnet that it is. Yikes.
>
> > Here is a suggestion. Instead of asking for opinions go out and
find
> > someone or some stereo shop that has a legitimate high end rig set
up
> > for you to compare for yourself. Form your own opinion then. Why
> > speculate when you can go by an actual comparison?
>
> Sure , it'll give you an answer that satisfies, but that might not be
> true. That seems to suffice in audiophilia.



I think this is quite ironic. The satisfying answer might not be the
"true" answer. Heaven forbid anyone else might actually end up
prefering high end vinyl playback to CD playback. Steve, do you think
maybe people shouldn't make such comparisons in that they risk finding
satisfaction in the high end vinyl playback and this isn't the "true"
choice to make?



Scott Wheeler
Anonymous
April 25, 2005 3:14:42 AM

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

In article <d4h31h02oke@news1.newsguy.com>, Theporkygeorge@aol.com
wrote:

> I think this is quite ironic. The satisfying answer might not be the
> "true" answer. Heaven forbid anyone else might actually end up
> prefering high end vinyl playback to CD playback. Steve, do you think
> maybe people shouldn't make such comparisons in that they risk finding
> satisfaction in the high end vinyl playback and this isn't the "true"
> choice to make?

Actually, if it is demonstrably true based on what is known at the time,
it can never be untrue. At vaious times in the past, to claim that it
was untrue could lead to imprisonment or even death. I leave it to the
student to decide whether I am talking about CD or vinyl!!
Anonymous
April 25, 2005 8:00:23 AM

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

Robert Peirce wrote:
> In article <d4h31h02oke@news1.newsguy.com>, Theporkygeorge@aol.com
> wrote:
>
> > I think this is quite ironic. The satisfying answer might not be
the
> > "true" answer. Heaven forbid anyone else might actually end up
> > prefering high end vinyl playback to CD playback. Steve, do you
think
> > maybe people shouldn't make such comparisons in that they risk
finding
> > satisfaction in the high end vinyl playback and this isn't the
"true"
> > choice to make?
>
> Actually, if it is demonstrably true based on what is known at the
time,
> it can never be untrue. At vaious times in the past, to claim that
it
> was untrue could lead to imprisonment or even death. I leave it to
the
> student to decide whether I am talking about CD or vinyl!!

It seems to me you might not be following the thread. The "true" answer
to the question which one do you like better CD or high end LP is
purely a personal choice that can only be "demonstrated" by
testimonial. So I find it ironic that someone would claim that the
satisfying answer might not be the true answer. I suppose this is the
case for those seeking dissatisfaction. Think about it.



Scott Wheeler
April 26, 2005 3:18:42 AM

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

Bob: <<> Which may have everything to do with the quality of that
particular
> recording, and nothing to do with the merits of the respective media.

> Or it may have to do with the euphonic effects of distortion inherent

> in vinyl. Or a combination of the two. And maybe there's a dram of
> nostalgia mixed in.


> bob

Chung: <<Nostalgia can certainly play a major role. I remember when I
was in
college I played the Carole King album "Tapestry" so much that I
memorized every click and pop, and got used to all that surface noise.
Much later, when I played the CD, it did not sound the same to me.
Someone else may may say that the LP was more life-like or accurate,
but
the fact is that the higher sound quality of the CD did not create the
same effects on me, as the vinyl LP still does. And that has nothing to

do with technical merits of the media or the gear. >>>

You are correct that nostalgia can play an important role in listening.
I've had those same kind of experiences. All is know is that FOR ME,
analogue generally provides me with a more true to life listening
experience, especially in the realm of instrument timbres. There are
some CDs that I like, and the timbres are true enough that they don't
distract too much from the experience. But on average, I'll take
analogue because it best matches my daily listening to live acoustic
instruments, including an excellent Steinway D that I hear daily. It's
great that we have a variety of opinions, huh? Oh, and just for the
record, I don't give a rat's patoey which is has the greater technical
merits.
Anonymous
April 26, 2005 3:25:42 AM

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

Theporkygeorge@aol.com wrote:
> Steven Sullivan wrote:
> > Theporkygeorge@aol.com wrote:
> > > dasmodul wrote:
> > > > http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/question487.htm
> > > >
> > > > Is one of the main visual sites I was reading about Vinyl vs. CD.
> > > >
> > > > Well, thank goodness most of you hear the same 'problems' with
> vinyl
> > > as I.
> > > > I was hearing so much hoopla by vinyl enthusiasts, I thought
> maybe I
> > > was
> > > > the one with the bad ear or equipment. For me personally, even if
> > > vinyl
> > > > did have a wider dynamic range, etc. I wouldn't prefer it for the
> > > > dust/static magnet that it is. Yikes.
> >
> > > Here is a suggestion. Instead of asking for opinions go out and
> find
> > > someone or some stereo shop that has a legitimate high end rig set
> up
> > > for you to compare for yourself. Form your own opinion then. Why
> > > speculate when you can go by an actual comparison?
> >
> > Sure , it'll give you an answer that satisfies, but that might not be
> > true. That seems to suffice in audiophilia.


> I think this is quite ironic. The satisfying answer might not be the
> "true" answer.

And where would religion be without that?

> Heaven forbid anyone else might actually end up
> prefering high end vinyl playback to CD playback.

No, heaven allows that. My quibble is that you propose 'actual
comparison' as meaning 'sighted comparison'. When such an 'actual
comparison' can lead you to believe that A sounds better than B, even when
A is the same as B, what real value except as emotional palliative, can
that 'actual comparison' have? It can't have much value as
truth-finding.

And yes, there is 'truth' to be found here, beyond 'sincere preference'.


> Steve, do you think
> maybe people shouldn't make such comparisons in that they risk finding
> satisfaction in the high end vinyl playback and this isn't the "true"
> choice to make?

Heaven forbid.


--
-S
It's not my business to do intelligent work. -- D. Rumsfeld, testifying
before the House Armed Services Committee
Anonymous
April 26, 2005 3:26:03 AM

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

Theporkygeorge@aol.com wrote:
> Robert Peirce wrote:
> > In article <d4h31h02oke@news1.newsguy.com>, Theporkygeorge@aol.com
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I think this is quite ironic. The satisfying answer might not be
> the
> > > "true" answer. Heaven forbid anyone else might actually end up
> > > prefering high end vinyl playback to CD playback. Steve, do you
> think
> > > maybe people shouldn't make such comparisons in that they risk
> finding
> > > satisfaction in the high end vinyl playback and this isn't the
> "true"
> > > choice to make?
> >
> > Actually, if it is demonstrably true based on what is known at the
> time,
> > it can never be untrue. At vaious times in the past, to claim that
> it
> > was untrue could lead to imprisonment or even death. I leave it to
> the
> > student to decide whether I am talking about CD or vinyl!!

> It seems to me you might not be following the thread. The "true" answer
> to the question which one do you like better CD or high end LP is
> purely a personal choice that can only be "demonstrated" by
> testimonial. So I find it ironic that someone would claim that the
> satisfying answer might not be the true answer. I suppose this is the
> case for those seeking dissatisfaction. Think about it.

Then again, if the vinyl rig and the CD rig were put behind screens, a
listener could easily be led to 'prefer' on or the other, by applying
simple psychological principles (e.g., small level differences, visual or
verbal cues that one is 'better' than other) that have nothing to do with
the intrinsic sound of either. So what does this say about the 'truth' of
the preference you have gleaned from your 'actual comparison'?





--

-S
It's not my business to do intelligent work. -- D. Rumsfeld, testifying
before the House Armed Services Committee
April 26, 2005 7:25:43 AM

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

Jenn wrote:
> Bob: <<> Which may have everything to do with the quality of that
> particular
>> recording, and nothing to do with the merits of the respective media.
>
>> Or it may have to do with the euphonic effects of distortion inherent
>
>> in vinyl. Or a combination of the two. And maybe there's a dram of
>> nostalgia mixed in.
>
>
>> bob
>
> Chung: <<Nostalgia can certainly play a major role. I remember when I
> was in
> college I played the Carole King album "Tapestry" so much that I
> memorized every click and pop, and got used to all that surface noise.
> Much later, when I played the CD, it did not sound the same to me.
> Someone else may may say that the LP was more life-like or accurate,
> but
> the fact is that the higher sound quality of the CD did not create the
> same effects on me, as the vinyl LP still does. And that has nothing to
>
> do with technical merits of the media or the gear. >>>
>
> You are correct that nostalgia can play an important role in listening.
> I've had those same kind of experiences. All is know is that FOR ME,
> analogue generally provides me with a more true to life listening
> experience, especially in the realm of instrument timbres. There are
> some CDs that I like, and the timbres are true enough that they don't
> distract too much from the experience. But on average, I'll take
> analogue because it best matches my daily listening to live acoustic
> instruments, including an excellent Steinway D that I hear daily. It's
> great that we have a variety of opinions, huh? Oh, and just for the
> record, I don't give a rat's patoey which is has the greater technical
> merits.

Of course, we should care which has the greater technical merit, because
the one with higher technical merit will produce better results when
other factors are equal. And technical merits include reliability,
repeatability, convenience, etc., and all those are important to us.

If you have not noticed already, a lot of discussions on CD vs vinyl
actually are about which format has the higher technical accuracy. Like
the ability to reproduce a piano's sounds.
April 27, 2005 3:55:23 AM

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

Jenn: <<<Oh, and just for the
> record, I don't give a rat's patoey which is has the greater
technical
> merits.

Chung: <<<Of course, we should care which has the greater technical
merit, because
the one with higher technical merit will produce better results when
other factors are equal. And technical merits include reliability,
repeatability, convenience, etc., and all those are important to us.
If you have not noticed already, a lot of discussions on CD vs vinyl
actually are about which format has the higher technical accuracy. Like

the ability to reproduce a piano's sounds. >>>

But I don't listen to technical merit; I listen to music. If a given
piece of equipment or recording sounds more like music, I like it
better. It does me no good if one piece measures at ,0002 of some
measurement and another measures .9996 of that thing, if the better
measurement doesn't result in a more realistic piano, or orchestra, or
wind band, or whatever. My first test is "Do I get a headache when I
listen to this?" Some digital gives me a headache. No analogue gear
playing an all analogue recording has ever done this. Do I care why?
Not really, though I have some theories on this.
Anonymous
April 28, 2005 3:48:26 AM

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

the answer to your dilema is simple - just stick with CDs!

Vinyl is far better than some here give it credit for (if you read between
the lines you can tell that some folks like it better than they let on) but
it does comes with warts and even the mutli-thousand dollar analog front
ends don't sound radically superior (if at all) to cd/dvd units costing less
than I plan on spending on a new cartridge (about $200 US - my Pioneer d575
DVD unit was lower than that).
Anonymous
April 28, 2005 3:51:09 AM

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

Jenn <jennconducts@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Jenn: <<<Oh, and just for the
> > record, I don't give a rat's patoey which is has the greater
> technical
> > merits.

> Chung: <<<Of course, we should care which has the greater technical
> merit, because
> the one with higher technical merit will produce better results when
> other factors are equal. And technical merits include reliability,
> repeatability, convenience, etc., and all those are important to us.
> If you have not noticed already, a lot of discussions on CD vs vinyl
> actually are about which format has the higher technical accuracy. Like

> the ability to reproduce a piano's sounds. >>>

> But I don't listen to technical merit; I listen to music. If a given
> piece of equipment or recording sounds more like music, I like it
> better. It does me no good if one piece measures at ,0002 of some
> measurement and another measures .9996 of that thing, if the better
> measurement doesn't result in a more realistic piano, or orchestra, or
> wind band, or whatever. My first test is "Do I get a headache when I
> listen to this?" Some digital gives me a headache. No analogue gear
> playing an all analogue recording has ever done this. Do I care why?
> Not really, though I have some theories on this.

Here's one: you have your listening gear and room set up so that
analog tends to sound good, whereas a more accurate reproduction of
the frequency spectrum and more lifelike dynamic range, does not.

And too, we have no way of knowing of your idea of 'realistic' has
any objective credibility.




--

-S
It's not my business to do intelligent work. -- D. Rumsfeld, testifying
before the House Armed Services Committee
Anonymous
April 28, 2005 7:07:18 AM

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

In article <d4jtsi02iha@news1.newsguy.com>,
"Jenn" <jennconducts@hotmail.com> wrote:

> All is know is that FOR ME,
> analogue generally provides me with a more true to life listening
> experience,

Well if the recording is done with a crackling fire in the
background, I can see it. Otherwise the pops, cracks, and general
vinly background noise tend to get in the way for me.
April 29, 2005 3:52:21 AM

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

Jenn: <<<<Oh, and just for the
> > record, I don't give a rat's patoey which is has the greater
> technical
> > merits.
Chung: < <<<Of course, we should care which has the greater technical

> merit, because
> the one with higher technical merit will produce better results when
> other factors are equal. And technical merits include reliability,
> repeatability, convenience, etc., and all those are important to us.
> If you have not noticed already, a lot of discussions on CD vs vinyl
> actually are about which format has the higher technical accuracy.
Like
> the ability to reproduce a piano's sounds. >>>
> But I don't listen to technical merit; I listen to music. If a
given
> piece of equipment or recording sounds more like music, I like it
> better. It does me no good if one piece measures at ,0002 of some
> measurement and another measures .9996 of that thing, if the better
> measurement doesn't result in a more realistic piano, or orchestra,
or
> wind band, or whatever. My first test is "Do I get a headache when I
> listen to this?" Some digital gives me a headache. No analogue
gear
> playing an all analogue recording has ever done this. Do I care
why?
> Not really, though I have some theories on this.

Steven: <<Here's one: you have your listening gear and room set up so
that
analog tends to sound good, whereas a more accurate reproduction of
the frequency spectrum and more lifelike dynamic range, does not.

That could be, I guess, though my experience encompasses several
systems and several rooms.

Steven: <<And too, we have no way of knowing of your idea of
'realistic' has
any objective credibility.

All I have to go by is comparisons with the live music I hear virtually
every day.
Anonymous
April 29, 2005 3:53:05 AM

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

Ralph Heidecke wrote:

> the answer to your dilema is simple - just stick with CDs!
>
> Vinyl is far better than some here give it credit for (if you read between
> the lines you can tell that some folks like it better than they let on) but
> it does comes with warts and even the mutli-thousand dollar analog front
> ends don't sound radically superior (if at all) to cd/dvd units costing less
> than I plan on spending on a new cartridge (about $200 US - my Pioneer d575
> DVD unit was lower than that).
>
>
Vinyl isn't bad, you're right. Here's a good analogy:

Vinly is like a car. Drive it right and it works well, quite well. Drive
it wrong and it crashes. The car gets totalled etc.

Digital audio is like the space shuttle. Drive it right and it will do
wonders; deploy space stations, take you to the moon etc. Drive it
wrong, it crashes, HARD, and SPECTACULARLY.

So, when people say that vinyl sounds better than CD, it is usually due
to some bad process on the digital medium, be bad DA converters,
in-correct mastering process etc. These mistakes show up and really make
the digital audio sound a whole lot worse, compared to mistakes with
vinyl. For example, because a CD is so quiet, you could proably hear the
mastering engineer sneezing outside the sound booth:)  Of cousre, that
small exxageration is and example of how digital audio's capabilties
show up small flaws more readily. But then, If I heard something like
that, I'd be even more impressed with CD.

Vinyl can sound worse, but we're already numbed by the surface noise,
the wow and flutter, that any more imperfections don't degrade the
overall sound experience that much more.

CD
Anonymous
April 29, 2005 3:55:35 AM

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

"Billy Shears" <w.ramey@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:D 4pk1602v8o@news1.newsguy.com...
> In article <d4jtsi02iha@news1.newsguy.com>,
> "Jenn" <jennconducts@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> All is know is that FOR ME,
>> analogue generally provides me with a more true to life listening
>> experience,
>
> Well if the recording is done with a crackling fire in the
> background, I can see it. Otherwise the pops, cracks, and general
> vinly background noise tend to get in the way for me.

Perhaps the listener and/or his equipment, listening area, etc. can't
tolerate higher (or lower) frequencies or mixtures of those when present.
One might prefer vinyl for all the wrong reasons, one being (regardless of
what is written elsewhere) there is little if anything beyond 12 Khz present
or which can be played back. I've yet to see any meters respond to bands
containing frequencies higher than that when said to be present on test or
demo LPs. One such LP in my possession for a very long time comes from the
JBL 2 LP album "Sessions" containing both High and Low frequency
demonstrations. However I have not used laboratory grade test equipment or
tonearm cartridge combo in the mega buck range. Who here can testify to the
fact that vinyl can or does contain such information? What is the (+)/----
dB readout assuming any is measurable? (BTW it is the announcer on the LP
who talks about this deficiency and it does not represent my opinion.)
However his statement is confirmed by what I have ever observed from the
behavior of meters on an amplifier AND recording devices, and not my younger
or now aged ears.
Anonymous
April 29, 2005 10:35:34 PM

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

You don't do anyone any service by attempting to compare MP3 to vinyl
as equals. Vinyl is noticably superior to MP3 by even the most novice
of listeners. The only difference is the requirements for quality
playback systems for vinyl. MP3 sounds terrible, no matter what
quality system it is played back on.
-Bill
www.uptownaudio.com
Roanoke VA
(540) 343-1250

"Stewart Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:D 4gci00q58@news4.newsguy.com...
> On 23 Apr 2005 22:48:00 GMT, Uptown Audio <uptownaudio@rev.net>
> wrote:
>
>>CD is a convenience thing.
>
> It's also a sound quality thing.
>
>> They can both sound very good, but yes you
>>do need to have some pretty nice anaolg gear to get the best from
>>vinyl. You also have to have the vinyl in good condition and clean
>>as
>>you have noticed. For the average Joe, CD is fine and is certainly
>>easier.
>
> It is also much closer to the master tape than vinyl can ever be.
> Hence, it's just fine for the really serious audiophile, not only
> 'the
> average Joe'.
>
>>Many people have collections of Lp's that make keeping a nice
>>analog rig very desirable. You can also find Lp's for peanuts Vs CD
>>prices and so even a first time analog system will pay for itself in
>>music savings.
>
> This is certainly true, although the quality of most of this vinyl
> is
> somewhat less than pristine..........
>
> And of course, if vinyl quality is adequate for you, there's always
> MP3 and the Internet, where even greater savings can be made with no
> 'wear' concerns.
> --
>
> Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
April 30, 2005 12:03:00 AM

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

Uptown Audio wrote:
> You don't do anyone any service by attempting to compare MP3 to vinyl
> as equals. Vinyl is noticably superior to MP3 by even the most novice
> of listeners. The only difference is the requirements for quality
> playback systems for vinyl. MP3 sounds terrible, no matter what
> quality system it is played back on.
> -Bill
> www.uptownaudio.com
> Roanoke VA
> (540) 343-1250

Just out of curiosity, have you listened to mp3's or aac's encoded at
320 Kbps?
Anonymous
April 30, 2005 4:44:58 AM

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

Yes. It's true that the higher the rate, the better the sound, but I
only burn CD's uncompressed. I don't do that very often as I have
enough to just carry the ones I want about without worry for copies. I
actually own two copies of many. I don't know, i suppose I like the
artwork as much as the disc itself, so I would rather have a complete
set than a stack of discs or a hard drive full of MP3s. Many kids
(young and old!) like to store music files but I just say gimme an Lp,
gimme a CD, or get outta here! It is amazing to me how people can
spend hours at a computer making their music sound worse for
convenience, yet they can't get off the couch to plop on another disc!
Get some excercise, - get up and grab a beer!
-Bill
www.uptownaudio.com
Roanoke VA
(540) 343-1250

"chung" <chunglau@covad.net> wrote in message
news:D 4u3tk02rof@news3.newsguy.com...
> Uptown Audio wrote:
>> You don't do anyone any service by attempting to compare MP3 to
>> vinyl as equals. Vinyl is noticably superior to MP3 by even the
>> most novice of listeners. The only difference is the requirements
>> for quality playback systems for vinyl. MP3 sounds terrible, no
>> matter what quality system it is played back on.
>> -Bill
>> www.uptownaudio.com
>> Roanoke VA
>> (540) 343-1250
>
> Just out of curiosity, have you listened to mp3's or aac's encoded
> at 320 Kbps?
April 30, 2005 6:16:37 PM

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

Uptown Audio wrote:
> Yes. It's true that the higher the rate, the better the sound, but I
> only burn CD's uncompressed. I don't do that very often as I have
> enough to just carry the ones I want about without worry for copies. I
> actually own two copies of many. I don't know, i suppose I like the
> artwork as much as the disc itself, so I would rather have a complete
> set than a stack of discs or a hard drive full of MP3s. Many kids
> (young and old!) like to store music files but I just say gimme an Lp,
> gimme a CD, or get outta here! It is amazing to me how people can
> spend hours at a computer making their music sound worse for
> convenience, yet they can't get off the couch to plop on another disc!
> Get some excercise, - get up and grab a beer!
> -Bill
> www.uptownaudio.com
> Roanoke VA
> (540) 343-1250

But you were saying that mp3's sound terrible, and that vinyl is
noticeably superior than mp3's to even the most novice of listeners. I
would ask that you do this experiment. Take your favorite CD. Compress
all the tracks into mp3's at 320Kbps using Lame or some similar high
quality encoders. Then burn an audio CD by decompressing the mp3's. So
now you have two CD's with the same tracks, one original, and one based
on mp3's coded at 320 Kbps. Now play those CD's and see if you can
reliably tell them apart. I would bet that you will not find the mp3s'
sound "terrible". In fact I don't think you can reliably tell them
apart, for the majority of music. I have tried, and I can tell you it is
hard.

You overlooked the convenience factor. To have hours or days of quality
audio on a portable device is convenience. The work required to code is
minimal; you can batch encode entire CD's with a few mouse clicks, and
you only do it once per CD. Try Apple's iTunes to see how easy this
process is. Now having to switch sides on an LP every 20 minutes or so,
who wants to do that? :)  And did you read what Mr. Lavo wrote on what
you need to do to play vinyl well?

>
> "chung" <chunglau@covad.net> wrote in message
> news:D 4u3tk02rof@news3.newsguy.com...
>> Uptown Audio wrote:
>>> You don't do anyone any service by attempting to compare MP3 to
>>> vinyl as equals. Vinyl is noticably superior to MP3 by even the
>>> most novice of listeners. The only difference is the requirements
>>> for quality playback systems for vinyl. MP3 sounds terrible, no
>>> matter what quality system it is played back on.
>>> -Bill
>>> www.uptownaudio.com
>>> Roanoke VA
>>> (540) 343-1250
>>
>> Just out of curiosity, have you listened to mp3's or aac's encoded
>> at 320 Kbps?
>
Anonymous
April 30, 2005 6:19:53 PM

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

On 29 Apr 2005 18:35:34 GMT, Uptown Audio <uptownaudio@rev.net> wrote:

>You don't do anyone any service by attempting to compare MP3 to vinyl
>as equals. Vinyl is noticably superior to MP3 by even the most novice
>of listeners. The only difference is the requirements for quality
>playback systems for vinyl. MP3 sounds terrible, no matter what
>quality system it is played back on.

This is arrant nonsense. Once above say 192 kbits/sec, very few people
can tell an MP3 from the original - even if that original is vinyl.
OTOH, *everyone* can tell vinyl apart from CD or the master tape from
which the vinyl was made - even on the best vinyl rigs.

To any rational being, it should be obvious that when all vinyl rigs
sound diffrent from each other, none of them can be objectively
accurate. OTOH, most CD players sound the same, despite massively
different internal electronics, which is a pretty good indicator of
transparency.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Anonymous
April 30, 2005 8:08:42 PM

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

Thanks, but I don't need to read about what to do as I have already
done it. I was listening to an Lp last night that sounds "better" than
its CD counterpart. I have quite a nice Lp playback system, but it is
not really anything outrageous. I also have a very nice CD playback
system. I have even been into audio for many years and have owned more
types and models of equipment than many people have seen or knew
existed. Give me some credit for experience.
You may prefer digital formats and that's fine, just don't try to
belittle my findings and suggest that only yours are valid. I enjoy
both analog sound and uncompressed digital sound and don't feel a need
to go about and attempt to influence people's preferences. My position
is not to try and "prove" anything, but to enjoy music. I'll enjoy it
the way that it suits me best, thank you.
-Bill
www.uptownaudio.com
Roanoke VA
(540) 343-1250

"chung" <chunglau@covad.net> wrote in message
news:D 504050ii3@news1.newsguy.com...
> Uptown Audio wrote:
>> Yes. It's true that the higher the rate, the better the sound, but
>> I only burn CD's uncompressed. I don't do that very often as I have
>> enough to just carry the ones I want about without worry for
>> copies. I actually own two copies of many. I don't know, i suppose
>> I like the artwork as much as the disc itself, so I would rather
>> have a complete set than a stack of discs or a hard drive full of
>> MP3s. Many kids (young and old!) like to store music files but I
>> just say gimme an Lp, gimme a CD, or get outta here! It is amazing
>> to me how people can spend hours at a computer making their music
>> sound worse for convenience, yet they can't get off the couch to
>> plop on another disc! Get some excercise, - get up and grab a beer!
>> -Bill
>> www.uptownaudio.com
>> Roanoke VA
>> (540) 343-1250
>
> But you were saying that mp3's sound terrible, and that vinyl is
> noticeably superior than mp3's to even the most novice of listeners.
> I would ask that you do this experiment. Take your favorite CD.
> Compress all the tracks into mp3's at 320Kbps using Lame or some
> similar high quality encoders. Then burn an audio CD by
> decompressing the mp3's. So now you have two CD's with the same
> tracks, one original, and one based on mp3's coded at 320 Kbps. Now
> play those CD's and see if you can reliably tell them apart. I would
> bet that you will not find the mp3s' sound "terrible". In fact I
> don't think you can reliably tell them apart, for the majority of
> music. I have tried, and I can tell you it is hard.
>
> You overlooked the convenience factor. To have hours or days of
> quality audio on a portable device is convenience. The work required
> to code is minimal; you can batch encode entire CD's with a few
> mouse clicks, and you only do it once per CD. Try Apple's iTunes to
> see how easy this process is. Now having to switch sides on an LP
> every 20 minutes or so, who wants to do that? :)  And did you read
> what Mr. Lavo wrote on what you need to do to play vinyl well?
>
>>
>> "chung" <chunglau@covad.net> wrote in message
>> news:D 4u3tk02rof@news3.newsguy.com...
>>> Uptown Audio wrote:
>>>> You don't do anyone any service by attempting to compare MP3 to
>>>> vinyl as equals. Vinyl is noticably superior to MP3 by even the
>>>> most novice of listeners. The only difference is the requirements
>>>> for quality playback systems for vinyl. MP3 sounds terrible, no
>>>> matter what quality system it is played back on.
>>>> -Bill
>>>> www.uptownaudio.com
>>>> Roanoke VA
>>>> (540) 343-1250
>>>
>>> Just out of curiosity, have you listened to mp3's or aac's encoded
>>> at 320 Kbps?
>>
Anonymous
April 30, 2005 10:43:33 PM

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

No doubt that many digital devices sound similar as they operate with
similar principals to a standard. Lp's are not cut to that standard
and can sound better or worse depending upon a lot of variables. So if
consistency is what you are after, then stick with your CD player. It
may be consistently bad, but that's just fine with me as it is your
decision and does not effect mine.
Not all analog systems nor CD playback systems sound alike. It is
still easy to find many examples of players that have differing sound,
not to mention function and design.
Just so that we remember, this forum has been dedicated to the
discussion of high end audio. I don't mean to say that we all should
should find that everything gets rosier as prices increase, but
several people here are almost never coming in defense of a product
that has merit, yet is expensive. It is disruptive of this forum and
the persistent badgering by a few of all others who might have another
viewpoint has created a situation that has been going on for at least
a year and that is preventing others who have interest and questions
from participating for fear of ridicule and ostracism. I am sure that
you do have valuable contributions that you could make, but it is very
important to the group to feel free to post their questions and
beliefs without detroying the sense of community here.
I support your right to listen to and express your thoughts about your
system to anyone, but being intentionally disruptive by repeating the
same views, regardless of the original questions is not helpful. You
certainly realize that I and others also like vinyl playback and as
such, you should not jump at every opportunity to talk about digital.
I remember years ago when you had some helpful posts about analog
set-up to help others who asked. Many people still use turntables and
have extensive Lp collections which they would like to get the most
enjoyment out of. Just because a form of digital compression is
available, does not make it practical for everyone to use it. Perhaps
assisting those who have questions about digital compression with
answers about digital compression and likewise assisting those who
like analog with helpful tips about Lp playback would be more
productive. Reading the same posts by the same people everytime that
the "CD Vs Vinyl" issue comes up has become tiresome and makes this
group static. I know that you have also noticed fewer posts in the
last year or so and even fewer from "new faces".
"Can't we all just get along?!" ;-)
-Bill
www.uptownaudio.com
Roanoke VA
(540) 343-1250

"Stewart Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:D 504690ilg@news1.newsguy.com...
> On 29 Apr 2005 18:35:34 GMT, Uptown Audio <uptownaudio@rev.net>
> wrote:
>
>>You don't do anyone any service by attempting to compare MP3 to
>>vinyl
>>as equals. Vinyl is noticably superior to MP3 by even the most
>>novice
>>of listeners. The only difference is the requirements for quality
>>playback systems for vinyl. MP3 sounds terrible, no matter what
>>quality system it is played back on.
>
> This is arrant nonsense. Once above say 192 kbits/sec, very few
> people
> can tell an MP3 from the original - even if that original is vinyl.
> OTOH, *everyone* can tell vinyl apart from CD or the master tape
> from
> which the vinyl was made - even on the best vinyl rigs.
>
> To any rational being, it should be obvious that when all vinyl rigs
> sound diffrent from each other, none of them can be objectively
> accurate. OTOH, most CD players sound the same, despite massively
> different internal electronics, which is a pretty good indicator of
> transparency.
> --
>
> Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
April 30, 2005 10:44:27 PM

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

Uptown Audio wrote:
> Thanks, but I don't need to read about what to do as I have already
> done it. I was listening to an Lp last night that sounds "better" than
> its CD counterpart. I have quite a nice Lp playback system, but it is
> not really anything outrageous. I also have a very nice CD playback
> system. I have even been into audio for many years and have owned more
> types and models of equipment than many people have seen or knew
> existed. Give me some credit for experience.
> You may prefer digital formats and that's fine, just don't try to
> belittle my findings and suggest that only yours are valid. I enjoy
> both analog sound and uncompressed digital sound and don't feel a need
> to go about and attempt to influence people's preferences. My position
> is not to try and "prove" anything, but to enjoy music. I'll enjoy it
> the way that it suits me best, thank you.
> -Bill
> www.uptownaudio.com
> Roanoke VA
> (540) 343-1250
>
> "chung" <chunglau@covad.net> wrote in message
> news:D 504050ii3@news1.newsguy.com...
>
>>Uptown Audio wrote:
>>
>>>Yes. It's true that the higher the rate, the better the sound, but
>>>I only burn CD's uncompressed. I don't do that very often as I have
>>>enough to just carry the ones I want about without worry for
>>>copies. I actually own two copies of many. I don't know, i suppose
>>>I like the artwork as much as the disc itself, so I would rather
>>>have a complete set than a stack of discs or a hard drive full of
>>>MP3s. Many kids (young and old!) like to store music files but I
>>>just say gimme an Lp, gimme a CD, or get outta here! It is amazing
>>>to me how people can spend hours at a computer making their music
>>>sound worse for convenience, yet they can't get off the couch to
>>>plop on another disc! Get some excercise, - get up and grab a beer!
>>>-Bill
>>>www.uptownaudio.com
>>>Roanoke VA
>>>(540) 343-1250


Actually I was only trying to help you determine whether your finding
that "mp3s sound terrible" is true when the encoding is at high bit
rates. It seems like you have your mind made up, and don't really want
to change it. Fine.
Anonymous
May 1, 2005 3:19:31 AM

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

There is no reason to change it...
-Bill
www.uptownaudio.com
Roanoke VA
(540) 343-1250

"chung" <chunglau@covad.net> wrote in message
news:D 50jmb013nq@news1.newsguy.com...
> Uptown Audio wrote:
>> Thanks, but I don't need to read about what to do as I have already
>> done it. I was listening to an Lp last night that sounds "better"
>> than its CD counterpart. I have quite a nice Lp playback system,
>> but it is not really anything outrageous. I also have a very nice
>> CD playback system. I have even been into audio for many years and
>> have owned more types and models of equipment than many people have
>> seen or knew existed. Give me some credit for experience.
>> You may prefer digital formats and that's fine, just don't try to
>> belittle my findings and suggest that only yours are valid. I
>> enjoy both analog sound and uncompressed digital sound and don't
>> feel a need to go about and attempt to influence people's
>> preferences. My position is not to try and "prove" anything, but to
>> enjoy music. I'll enjoy it the way that it suits me best, thank
>> you.
>> -Bill
>> www.uptownaudio.com
>> Roanoke VA
>> (540) 343-1250
>>
>> "chung" <chunglau@covad.net> wrote in message
>> news:D 504050ii3@news1.newsguy.com...
>>
>>>Uptown Audio wrote:
>>>
>>>>Yes. It's true that the higher the rate, the better the sound, but
>>>>I only burn CD's uncompressed. I don't do that very often as I
>>>>have enough to just carry the ones I want about without worry for
>>>>copies. I actually own two copies of many. I don't know, i suppose
>>>>I like the artwork as much as the disc itself, so I would rather
>>>>have a complete set than a stack of discs or a hard drive full of
>>>>MP3s. Many kids (young and old!) like to store music files but I
>>>>just say gimme an Lp, gimme a CD, or get outta here! It is amazing
>>>>to me how people can spend hours at a computer making their music
>>>>sound worse for convenience, yet they can't get off the couch to
>>>>plop on another disc! Get some excercise, - get up and grab a
>>>>beer!
>>>>-Bill
>>>>www.uptownaudio.com
>>>>Roanoke VA
>>>>(540) 343-1250
>
>
> Actually I was only trying to help you determine whether your
> finding that "mp3s sound terrible" is true when the encoding is at
> high bit rates. It seems like you have your mind made up, and don't
> really want to change it. Fine.
Anonymous
May 1, 2005 3:19:54 AM

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

Uptown Audio <uptownaudio@rev.net> wrote:
> Thanks, but I don't need to read about what to do as I have already
> done it.


You've alreedy made high bitrate mp3s of a CD and found that the mp3s
sounded terrible?

I'd be very curious to know what the encoded CD was.
Anonymous
May 1, 2005 6:53:06 PM

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

On 30 Apr 2005 23:19:31 GMT, Uptown Audio <uptownaudio@rev.net> wrote:

>There is no reason to change it...

Even for one that works? :-)

Interesting that you completely refuse to answer the points being made
by Chung and others. Could this deperate defence of so-called
'high-end' audio electronics have some relation to the fact that you
sell it for a living?

>>>>>Yes. It's true that the higher the rate, the better the sound, but
>>>>>I only burn CD's uncompressed. I don't do that very often as I
>>>>>have enough to just carry the ones I want about without worry for
>>>>>copies. I actually own two copies of many. I don't know, i suppose
>>>>>I like the artwork as much as the disc itself, so I would rather
>>>>>have a complete set than a stack of discs or a hard drive full of
>>>>>MP3s. Many kids (young and old!) like to store music files but I
>>>>>just say gimme an Lp, gimme a CD, or get outta here! It is amazing
>>>>>to me how people can spend hours at a computer making their music
>>>>>sound worse for convenience, yet they can't get off the couch to
>>>>>plop on another disc! Get some excercise, - get up and grab a
>>>>>beer!
>>>>>-Bill
>>>>>www.uptownaudio.com
>>>>>Roanoke VA
>>>>>(540) 343-1250
>>
>>
>> Actually I was only trying to help you determine whether your
>> finding that "mp3s sound terrible" is true when the encoding is at
>> high bit rates. It seems like you have your mind made up, and don't
>> really want to change it. Fine.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Anonymous
May 1, 2005 6:55:33 PM

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

On 30 Apr 2005 18:43:33 GMT, Uptown Audio <uptownaudio@rev.net> wrote:

>No doubt that many digital devices sound similar as they operate with
>similar principals to a standard.

That's certainly one good reason.

> Lp's are not cut to that standard
>and can sound better or worse depending upon a lot of variables.

You are unfamiliar with the work done in this regard by the RIAA? Of
course, you did just put your finger on the nub of the problem - if
all analogue rigs sound different, then by definition only one *at
most* can be genuinely 'high fidelity'. Occam would suggest that of
course *none* of them are.

>So if
>consistency is what you are after, then stick with your CD player. It
>may be consistently bad, but that's just fine with me as it is your
>decision and does not effect mine.

None so blind as those who will not see. I have seldom seen such a
ludicrous argument against CD. Of course, if you want your CDs to
sound different, that's easy enough - just record LPs from different
rigs to CD-R, then you'll retain all the 'magic' of LP, will have
plenty of variation, and will never have to damage your LPs again.

>Not all analog systems nor CD playback systems sound alike. It is
>still easy to find many examples of players that have differing sound,
>not to mention function and design.

Indeed yes - especially in the so-called 'high end', where many CD
players are *deliberately* broken. Heck, some of them don't even have
a reconstruction filter, which is an *essential* part of the A/D-D/A
process.

>Just so that we remember, this forum has been dedicated to the
>discussion of high end audio. I don't mean to say that we all should
>should find that everything gets rosier as prices increase, but
>several people here are almost never coming in defense of a product
>that has merit, yet is expensive.

Just so that we remember, the term 'high-end' is supposed to be
related to *performance*, not to price.

In the world of digital audio, it's *very* difficult to find any
product that is expensive and yet has merit when compared to much
cheaper products.

> It is disruptive of this forum and
>the persistent badgering by a few of all others who might have another
>viewpoint has created a situation that has been going on for at least
>a year and that is preventing others who have interest and questions
>from participating for fear of ridicule and ostracism.

Intelligent questions tend to receive intelligent answers, mere
repetition of a blinkered viewpoint (such as youi have been doing in
this thread), gets a different response.

>I am sure that
>you do have valuable contributions that you could make, but it is very
>important to the group to feel free to post their questions and
>beliefs without detroying the sense of community here.

I'm sure the group does so feel - after all, it's a *moderated* forum.

>I support your right to listen to and express your thoughts about your
>system to anyone, but being intentionally disruptive by repeating the
>same views, regardless of the original questions is not helpful.

Perhaps you should take your own advice. You have answered none of the
points made, and have merely repeated your ill-considered attack on
MP3 with no justification whatever.

>You certainly realize that I and others also like vinyl playback and as
>such, you should not jump at every opportunity to talk about digital.

*You* are the one who said that "Vinyl is noticably superior to MP3 by
even the most novice of listeners", so don't complain when that LAME
argument is thrown back in your face.

>I remember years ago when you had some helpful posts about analog
>set-up to help others who asked. Many people still use turntables and
>have extensive Lp collections which they would like to get the most
>enjoyment out of.

As noted, intelligent questions will get intelligent answers. I
maintain a vinyl rig because I too like the sound of vinyl. However,
I don't kid myself that it's a sonically transparent medium - unlike
high bit-rate MP3, which certainly can be.

> Just because a form of digital compression is
>available, does not make it practical for everyone to use it.

It is however practical for an extremely large number of users in
2005. Perhaps it's time for 'Uptown Audio' to move into the 21st
Century - while it still can?

>Perhaps
>assisting those who have questions about digital compression with
>answers about digital compression and likewise assisting those who
>like analog with helpful tips about Lp playback would be more
>productive.

Perhaps it would be a good start if *you* were to avoid making such
patently ludicrous statements as "Vinyl is noticably superior to MP3
by even the most novice of listeners." and "MP3 sounds terrible, no
matter what quality system it is played back on."

Anyone familiar with both top-quality vinyl and high bit-rate MP3
realises how utterly wrong both those statements are.

And yet people are expected to take advice on so-called 'high end'
audio from *you*, when they walk into your store? Hmmmmmm.

>Reading the same posts by the same people everytime that
>the "CD Vs Vinyl" issue comes up has become tiresome and makes this
>group static.

That may well be true, but if you keep making the same ill-considered
statements, then you must expect them to be rebutted in the same way.

I canna' change the Laws o' Physics, cap'n.............

> I know that you have also noticed fewer posts in the
>last year or so and even fewer from "new faces".
>"Can't we all just get along?!" ;-)

Remember what happened after Jack Nicholson said that? :-)

BTW, top-posting is sloppy, confusing, and disruptive to cogent
argument, please don't do it.

>"Stewart Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:D 504690ilg@news1.newsguy.com...
>> On 29 Apr 2005 18:35:34 GMT, Uptown Audio <uptownaudio@rev.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>You don't do anyone any service by attempting to compare MP3 to vinyl
>>>as equals. Vinyl is noticably superior to MP3 by even the most novice
>>>of listeners. The only difference is the requirements for quality
>>>playback systems for vinyl. MP3 sounds terrible, no matter what
>>>quality system it is played back on.
>>
>> This is arrant nonsense. Once above say 192 kbits/sec, very few people
>> can tell an MP3 from the original - even if that original is vinyl.
>> OTOH, *everyone* can tell vinyl apart from CD or the master tape from
>> which the vinyl was made - even on the best vinyl rigs.
>>
>> To any rational being, it should be obvious that when all vinyl rigs
>> sound diffrent from each other, none of them can be objectively
>> accurate. OTOH, most CD players sound the same, despite massively
>> different internal electronics, which is a pretty good indicator of
>> transparency.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Anonymous
May 1, 2005 9:34:41 PM

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

"chung" <chunglau@covad.net> wrote in message
news:D 504050ii3@news1.newsguy.com...
> Uptown Audio wrote:
>> Yes. It's true that the higher the rate, the better the sound, but I only
>> burn CD's uncompressed. I don't do that very often as I have enough to
>> just carry the ones I want about without worry for copies. I actually own
>> two copies of many. I don't know, i suppose I like the artwork as much as
>> the disc itself, so I would rather have a complete set than a stack of
>> discs or a hard drive full of MP3s. Many kids (young and old!) like to
>> store music files but I just say gimme an Lp, gimme a CD, or get outta
>> here! It is amazing to me how people can spend hours at a computer making
>> their music sound worse for convenience, yet they can't get off the couch
>> to plop on another disc! Get some excercise, - get up and grab a beer!
>> -Bill
>> www.uptownaudio.com
>> Roanoke VA
>> (540) 343-1250
>
> But you were saying that mp3's sound terrible, and that vinyl is
> noticeably superior than mp3's to even the most novice of listeners. I
> would ask that you do this experiment. Take your favorite CD. Compress all
> the tracks into mp3's at 320Kbps using Lame or some similar high quality
> encoders. Then burn an audio CD by decompressing the mp3's. So now you
> have two CD's with the same tracks, one original, and one based on mp3's
> coded at 320 Kbps. Now play those CD's and see if you can reliably tell
> them apart. I would bet that you will not find the mp3s' sound "terrible".
> In fact I don't think you can reliably tell them apart, for the majority
> of music. I have tried, and I can tell you it is hard.
>
> You overlooked the convenience factor. To have hours or days of quality
> audio on a portable device is convenience. The work required to code is
> minimal; you can batch encode entire CD's with a few mouse clicks, and you
> only do it once per CD. Try Apple's iTunes to see how easy this process
> is. Now having to switch sides on an LP every 20 minutes or so, who wants
> to do that? :)  And did you read what Mr. Lavo wrote on what you need to do
> to play vinyl well?

I don't know about Uptown, but I flunked the test at only 128kb/s. Of
course I'm 74, and my hearing isn't all that good--even for a 74 year old.
As a result, I compress to 64kb/s WMA, and I'm entirely satisfied with the
results.

I chose WMA because of the rumor that it's better at low bit rates. It may
or may not be true, but that's how I got started, so I might as well
continue. BTW, has anyone compared WMA with mp3 Pro or AAC? Although I'm
not apt to change horses in the middle of this stream, it would be nice to
know the optimum solution at 64kb/s.

Thanks,

Norm Strong
Anonymous
May 1, 2005 9:35:35 PM

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

"Uptown Audio" <uptownaudio@rev.net> wrote in message
news:D 50jkl013mb@news1.newsguy.com...
> No doubt that many digital devices sound similar as they operate with
> similar principals to a standard. Lp's are not cut to that standard
> and can sound better or worse depending upon a lot of variables. So if
> consistency is what you are after, then stick with your CD player. It
> may be consistently bad, but that's just fine with me as it is your
> decision and does not effect mine.

You sound like the guy that wanted an accurate clock, but didn't have a
standard to compare them to. So he set 5 different clocks to the same time.
When he came back a month later, 4 of the 5 were within a minute of each
other, but the 5th one was 6 minutes faster. Should he buy the 5th one?
It's possible that the 5th clock was spot one, and the other 4 were all 5
minutes slow. Consistency does not guarantee accuracy--but that's the way
to bet!

Norm Strong
Anonymous
May 1, 2005 11:29:30 PM

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

In article <d52ql502c3p@news3.newsguy.com>,
Stewart Pinkerton <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:

> You are unfamiliar with the work done in this regard by the RIAA? Of
> course, you did just put your finger on the nub of the problem - if
> all analogue rigs sound different, then by definition only one *at
> most* can be genuinely 'high fidelity'.

small quibble: it's not "by definition". It's elementary logic.
Anonymous
May 1, 2005 11:29:51 PM

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

No. I am not arguing anything; that's your trip. I am just explaining
my listening habits and informing Mr Chung that I have my own
experiences and preferences.
-Bill
www.uptownaudio.com
Roanoke VA
(540) 343-1250

"Stewart Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:D 52qgi02bte@news3.newsguy.com...
> On 30 Apr 2005 23:19:31 GMT, Uptown Audio <uptownaudio@rev.net>
> wrote:
>
>>There is no reason to change it...
>
> Even for one that works? :-)
>
> Interesting that you completely refuse to answer the points being
> made
> by Chung and others. Could this deperate defence of so-called
> 'high-end' audio electronics have some relation to the fact that you
> sell it for a living?
>
>>>>>>Yes. It's true that the higher the rate, the better the sound,
>>>>>>but
>>>>>>I only burn CD's uncompressed. I don't do that very often as I
>>>>>>have enough to just carry the ones I want about without worry
>>>>>>for
>>>>>>copies. I actually own two copies of many. I don't know, i
>>>>>>suppose
>>>>>>I like the artwork as much as the disc itself, so I would rather
>>>>>>have a complete set than a stack of discs or a hard drive full
>>>>>>of
>>>>>>MP3s. Many kids (young and old!) like to store music files but I
>>>>>>just say gimme an Lp, gimme a CD, or get outta here! It is
>>>>>>amazing
>>>>>>to me how people can spend hours at a computer making their
>>>>>>music
>>>>>>sound worse for convenience, yet they can't get off the couch to
>>>>>>plop on another disc! Get some excercise, - get up and grab a
>>>>>>beer!
>>>>>>-Bill
>>>>>>www.uptownaudio.com
>>>>>>Roanoke VA
>>>>>>(540) 343-1250
>>>
>>>
>>> Actually I was only trying to help you determine whether your
>>> finding that "mp3s sound terrible" is true when the encoding is at
>>> high bit rates. It seems like you have your mind made up, and
>>> don't
>>> really want to change it. Fine.
>
> --
>
> Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
    • 1 / 14
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
    • More pages
    • Next
    • Newest
!