Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Why would someone like LP?

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
Anonymous
June 29, 2005 6:57:44 PM

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

Hi,

I've been lurking here recently. There was a post by a self-described
"newbie" on CD vs. vinyl, which actually leads to a very important
point. I repeat the post here:

-------------
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.
------------

The question is basically, why would someone want to listen to vinyl,
with its obvious flaws?

The quick answer: because these listeners are relating the external
stimuli to a broader range of internal percepts.

Traditionally, science has investigated only the external
manifestations of response to stimuli, because only the external can be
observed in an objective way. Internal percepts (the personal
"experience of what happens") have remained off-limits to hard science.
But philosophers and Zen monks have always been able to investigate
internal percepts. Musicians and all creative artists are carrying out
their own investigations, in a way.

What is obvious to those who care to introspect is that "listening is
not listening." The crucial question is, "What are you listening for?"
It is also obvious to those who care to introspect that different
people draw on a different set of potential concepts; that is, concepts
stored in memory that can be "activated" by stimuli. New listeners to
music generally relate music to potential concepts that they have
already developed from non-musical experience with sound: "loud,"
"soft," "fast," "slow". The "beat" may seem a musical concept, but it
is closely related to the heartbeat and other phenomena of nature, so
that potential concept of "beat" is sitting in unconscious memory
waiting to be activated even in the non-musician.

On the other hand, very experienced listeners of music, and even more
so musicians, have more highly developed abstractions as potential
concepts. An experienced listener hears aspect of form and subtle
nuances of expression: this is an entirely different set of potential
concepts from the beginner. Again, it is obvious from introspection
that as experience develops, the earlier potential concepts diminish in
importance and are replaced by more abstract potential concepts.

In other words, the surface noise of an LP corresponds to a relatively
juvenile potential concept, which is immediately derived from normal,
non-musical experience. The beginner will weight this concept highly,
and since it is normally a non-musical experience, it will interfere
quite a lot with listening. In the experienced listener, the weight of
this concept has diminished greatly and is superceded by the abstract
concepts of musical expression and form. In simple terms, what this
boils down to is that the experienced listener "hears through" the
noise into the music.

This kinds of experience seems impossible to the beginner; they simply
haven't developed the necessary potential concepts yet, just as a child
wouldn't normally have the ability to comprehend something abstract
like subtle competition in a political debate.

I've noticed that the "objectivists" here are extremely naive,
philosophically. They don't understand and don't even acknowledge the
knowledge to be gained about perception through introspection. In fact,
I predict they will respond to this post by demeaning the whole idea
and claiming the superiority of "objective evidence." This
misunderstands so many things, the main thing being that life is not
"objective evidence versus introspection;" the two can and must be
integrated. I will postpone this discussion for now, but later I can
explain how the conclusions of so-called "objective" experiments
collapse over the shaky foundation of introspective naivety.

Helen

More about : question

Anonymous
June 29, 2005 8:20:19 PM

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

Helen Schmidt wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've been lurking here recently. There was a post by a self-described
> "newbie" on CD vs. vinyl, which actually leads to a very important
> point. I repeat the post here:
>
> -------------
> 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.
> ------------
>
> The question is basically, why would someone want to listen to vinyl,
> with its obvious flaws?
>
> The quick answer: because these listeners are relating the external
> stimuli to a broader range of internal percepts.
>
> Traditionally, science has investigated only the external
> manifestations of response to stimuli, because only the external can be
> observed in an objective way. Internal percepts (the personal
> "experience of what happens") have remained off-limits to hard science.
> But philosophers and Zen monks have always been able to investigate
> internal percepts. Musicians and all creative artists are carrying out
> their own investigations, in a way.
>
> What is obvious to those who care to introspect is that "listening is
> not listening." The crucial question is, "What are you listening for?"
> It is also obvious to those who care to introspect that different
> people draw on a different set of potential concepts; that is, concepts
> stored in memory that can be "activated" by stimuli. New listeners to
> music generally relate music to potential concepts that they have
> already developed from non-musical experience with sound: "loud,"
> "soft," "fast," "slow". The "beat" may seem a musical concept, but it
> is closely related to the heartbeat and other phenomena of nature, so
> that potential concept of "beat" is sitting in unconscious memory
> waiting to be activated even in the non-musician.
>
> On the other hand, very experienced listeners of music, and even more
> so musicians, have more highly developed abstractions as potential
> concepts. An experienced listener hears aspect of form and subtle
> nuances of expression: this is an entirely different set of potential
> concepts from the beginner. Again, it is obvious from introspection
> that as experience develops, the earlier potential concepts diminish in
> importance and are replaced by more abstract potential concepts.
>
> In other words, the surface noise of an LP corresponds to a relatively
> juvenile potential concept, which is immediately derived from normal,
> non-musical experience. The beginner will weight this concept highly,
> and since it is normally a non-musical experience, it will interfere
> quite a lot with listening. In the experienced listener, the weight of
> this concept has diminished greatly and is superceded by the abstract
> concepts of musical expression and form. In simple terms, what this
> boils down to is that the experienced listener "hears through" the
> noise into the music.
>
> This kinds of experience seems impossible to the beginner; they simply
> haven't developed the necessary potential concepts yet, just as a child
> wouldn't normally have the ability to comprehend something abstract
> like subtle competition in a political debate.
>
> I've noticed that the "objectivists" here are extremely naive,
> philosophically. They don't understand and don't even acknowledge the
> knowledge to be gained about perception through introspection. In fact,
> I predict they will respond to this post by demeaning the whole idea
> and claiming the superiority of "objective evidence." This
> misunderstands so many things, the main thing being that life is not
> "objective evidence versus introspection;" the two can and must be
> integrated. I will postpone this discussion for now, but later I can
> explain how the conclusions of so-called "objective" experiments
> collapse over the shaky foundation of introspective naivety.
>
> Helen


FWIW, I've been a professional musician for over 30 years, and a
professional audio engineer for nearly 28. I have indeed learned to
"hear through" the clicks, pops, & other surface noise artifacts of
vinyl playback in order to appreciate aspects of form and subtle
nuances of musical expression.

But I choose not to. Those same aspects of form and subtle nuances of
musical expression are just as accurately conveyed in a good digital
recording of the performance, and a well-mastered compact disc happily
yields all that information without the additional surface noise that I
would otherwise have to "hear through". Why bother adding an obstacle
to enjoyment, even if it's an obstacle which through time & experience
I've learned to ignore?
Anonymous
June 29, 2005 8:21:49 PM

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

Helen Schmidt wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've been lurking here recently. There was a post by a self-described
> "newbie" on CD vs. vinyl, which actually leads to a very important
> point. I repeat the post here:
>
> -------------
> 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.



I don't believe that is the whole argument at all. Generally the
argument is that the LPs sound more natural and less fatiguing.



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.



IMO high-end Technics and Stanton tables is an oxymoron. Those tables
just aint high-end. I would not say that 10k is a natural turning point
but better performance does cost money. You ae not hearing anywhee near
the best LP playback has to offer with those tables in the formula.



>
> 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.


If the vinyl is truly clean and o have pops and clicks that are that
intrusive you are likely dealing with damaged vinyl and/or serious
misracking.




> ------------
>
> The question is basically, why would someone want to listen to vinyl,
> with its obvious flaws?


Because of it's advantages. Trust me, if there were none I wouldn't
bother. Back in the eighties when CDs first came out I was one of the
first to jump on the band wagon. It was CDs that actually got me
interested in audio. Imagine that. My first CD player, a 14 bit job
from Yamaha pretty much killed my Yamaha rack system turntable with
it's freebee P-mount cartridge. During my ventures into auditioning
better equipment to go with this wonderful new technology I went ahead
and bought a 75 dollar Ortofon P-mount catridge to replace the give
away one that came with the Yamaha rack job. Well this minor upgrade
made the rack job quite competetive with the CD player. I didn't like
this at all. Next step was to replace that 14 bit player (a poor choice
but Steeo Review said it wouldn't make a difference) with a 16 bit
Yamaha player. Well CDs were once again king. In my adventures through
high end audio shops I came across one vendor that swore LPs were
vastly superior to CDs. I laughed I scoffed and even ridiculed the
idea. But I agreed to take the pepsi challenge using my CDs, my CD
player and, gasp, my old LPs and his TT on his system (one that I
eventually bought more or less). I remember telling the guy there aint
no way dragging a rock over a piece of plastic is going to outperform
digital. No way. Well, I was served up several helpings of crow and a
side of humble pie. It was a most disturbing revelation. It literlly
left me numb. My belief system had been completely turned up side down.
I thought sources would not be an issue in my quest for better sound.
It made no sense that such a crude method of playback would be so much
more realistic. The thought of the added expense made the whole thing
even more disturbing. But I could not unhear what I had just heard. I
didn't like that reality but I accepted it. Eventually I came to like
the idea that I could actually do even better than I had with CDs.


Scott Wheeler
Related resources
Anonymous
June 29, 2005 8:25:04 PM

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

Helen Schmidt <music3142-usenet@yahoo.com> wrote:

> The question is basically, why would someone want to listen to vinyl,
> with its obvious flaws?

> The quick answer: because these listeners are relating the external
> stimuli to a broader range of internal percepts.

A more to the point answer without writing 5 more paragraphs would be that
there is music on LP that folks want to listen to that will never be re-
released on any other medium. Some of them are horrible recordings in
terrible condition that one puts up with just for the music and/or the
performance or just sheer historical value. I can't speak for others,
but that's what I do.


> I've noticed that the "objectivists" here are extremely naive,
> philosophically. They don't understand and don't even acknowledge the
> knowledge to be gained about perception through introspection. In fact,
> I predict they will respond to this post by demeaning the whole idea
> and claiming the superiority of "objective evidence." This
> misunderstands so many things, the main thing being that life is not
> "objective evidence versus introspection;" the two can and must be
> integrated. I will postpone this discussion for now, but later I can
> explain how the conclusions of so-called "objective" experiments
> collapse over the shaky foundation of introspective naivety.

Actually, there's introspective naivety from both 'camps.' I know a
number of folks who don't have a CD player because they are convinced
of the subjective sonic superiority of LP and invest a considerable
amount of money in equipment to play it. They are missing out on a
lot of quality new music and performances. And I'm not referring to
the Top 40.
Anonymous
June 29, 2005 10:59:18 PM

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

On 29 Jun 2005 14:57:44 GMT, "Helen Schmidt"
<music3142-usenet@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Hi,
>
>I've been lurking here recently. There was a post by a self-described
>"newbie" on CD vs. vinyl, which actually leads to a very important
>point. I repeat the post here:
>
>-------------
>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.
>------------
>
>The question is basically, why would someone want to listen to vinyl,
>with its obvious flaws?
>
>The quick answer: because these listeners are relating the external
>stimuli to a broader range of internal percepts.

Well, that's *one* quick answer, but not IMHO *the* quick answer.

>Traditionally, science has investigated only the external
>manifestations of response to stimuli, because only the external can be
>observed in an objective way. Internal percepts (the personal
>"experience of what happens") have remained off-limits to hard science.

Not true. The science of psychoacoustics most certainly investigates
"the personal experience of what happens". That's why we now have
advanced compression algorithms such as MP3 and AAC - they were
developed by the application of hard science to subjective
experiences.

>But philosophers and Zen monks have always been able to investigate
>internal percepts. Musicians and all creative artists are carrying out
>their own investigations, in a way.

And so are numerous scientists, in a well-controlled and rigourous
way.............

>What is obvious to those who care to introspect is that "listening is
>not listening." The crucial question is, "What are you listening for?"
>It is also obvious to those who care to introspect that different
>people draw on a different set of potential concepts; that is, concepts
>stored in memory that can be "activated" by stimuli. New listeners to
>music generally relate music to potential concepts that they have
>already developed from non-musical experience with sound: "loud,"
>"soft," "fast," "slow". The "beat" may seem a musical concept, but it
>is closely related to the heartbeat and other phenomena of nature, so
>that potential concept of "beat" is sitting in unconscious memory
>waiting to be activated even in the non-musician.
>
>On the other hand, very experienced listeners of music, and even more
>so musicians, have more highly developed abstractions as potential
>concepts. An experienced listener hears aspect of form and subtle
>nuances of expression: this is an entirely different set of potential
>concepts from the beginner. Again, it is obvious from introspection
>that as experience develops, the earlier potential concepts diminish in
>importance and are replaced by more abstract potential concepts.
>
>In other words, the surface noise of an LP corresponds to a relatively
>juvenile potential concept, which is immediately derived from normal,
>non-musical experience. The beginner will weight this concept highly,
>and since it is normally a non-musical experience, it will interfere
>quite a lot with listening. In the experienced listener, the weight of
>this concept has diminished greatly and is superceded by the abstract
>concepts of musical expression and form. In simple terms, what this
>boils down to is that the experienced listener "hears through" the
>noise into the music.

Quite so - and the even more experienced listener discovers that with
more advanced media such as CD, such 'hearing through' is not
required, making for a more relaxed appreciation of the true
subtleties of the performance........

Not all of us who prefer other media to vinyl are inexperienced
listeners, indeed many of us heaved mighty sighs of relief when a
superior medium appeared in 1982. at last, we could closely approach
the sound quality of the master tape, after all these years of
suffering the grating of rocks dragged through plastic canyons!

>This kinds of experience seems impossible to the beginner; they simply
>haven't developed the necessary potential concepts yet, just as a child
>wouldn't normally have the ability to comprehend something abstract
>like subtle competition in a political debate.
>
>I've noticed that the "objectivists" here are extremely naive,
>philosophically.

Have you, indeed? :-)

Have you also noticed the extreme naivety of the 'subjectivists' who
refuse to acknowledge well-known problems with sighted evaluation, to
quote but one example?

> They don't understand and don't even acknowledge the
>knowledge to be gained about perception through introspection. In fact,
>I predict they will respond to this post by demeaning the whole idea
>and claiming the superiority of "objective evidence."

One can of course obtain plenty of objective evidence regarding the
introspective experiences of test subjects. As noted above, this is
how perceptual coding was developed. You seem to have a very naive
view of how science works, philosophically.

> This
>misunderstands so many things, the main thing being that life is not
>"objective evidence versus introspection;" the two can and must be
>integrated.

Quite so - see above.

> I will postpone this discussion for now, but later I can
>explain how the conclusions of so-called "objective" experiments
>collapse over the shaky foundation of introspective naivety.

Yeah, riiiiight............. :-)

Perhaps you should build a better foundation for your own knowledge of
how some very basic audio concepts have been developed by hard
sciencists using data gathered in subjective tests, before presuming
that others are more naive than yourself.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Anonymous
June 29, 2005 10:59:42 PM

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

Helen Schmidt <music3142-usenet@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hi,

<snip>

The idea that 'audiophiles', who are defined by their gear fetishism, are
always 'listening' the way you describe, in a sort of Zen trance trance of
'not listening' , rather than listening 'analytically' for how stuff
*sounds*, is laughable. It suggest you aren;t at all familiar with
audiophile culture.

Bye.
Anonymous
June 30, 2005 7:16:37 AM

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

<Theporkygeorge@aol.com> wrote in message
news:D 9uhqt02r7g@news2.newsguy.com...
> It made no sense that such a crude method of playback would be so much
> more realistic.

Technically, digital is crude compared to vinyl, because vinyl is analog
which is pure. The analogy the approximation of an integral (area under a
curve) by using intervals, vs. actual calculus, which simply gets it right
from the start. I say "technically" because it is, or will be, possible to
get the approximation so good that you can't tell the difference. Unless
the iPod crowd makes it financially unfeasible to do so in the market.
Anonymous
June 30, 2005 7:19:19 AM

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

Theporkygeorge@aol.com wrote:
> I remember telling the guy there aint
> no way dragging a rock over a piece of plastic is going to outperform
> digital. No way. Well, I was served up several helpings of crow and a
> side of humble pie. It was a most disturbing revelation. It literlly
> left me numb. My belief system had been completely turned up side down.
> I thought sources would not be an issue in my quest for better sound.
> It made no sense that such a crude method of playback would be so much
> more realistic. The thought of the added expense made the whole thing
> even more disturbing. But I could not unhear what I had just heard. I
> didn't like that reality but I accepted it. Eventually I came to like
> the idea that I could actually do even better than I had with CDs.
>
>
> Scott Wheeler

Hi Scott,

I agree that LP is more lifelike. One of the areas where LP is more
lifelike is its ability to convey music in the changing signal. With
LP, I experience more vividly the musical percepts that correspond to
dynamic features of the signal (change over time). When the music is
suddenly quiet, I not only hear that it is quiet, but I experience a
sense that something compelling has happened. The music is tender,
spiritual, dramatic.. that is, it resonates with broader parts of my
experience as a human.

It triggers the brain systems that respond to anything tender in the
world, anything spiritual, anything dramatic. With CD, when the music
gets quiet, I mostly notice that the sound got quiet, but miss these
other aspects to the experience.

Of course a very interesting question is "Why does vinyl sound like
this to me?" The difficulty in answering this is that we have
difficulty describing the brain reactions that correspond to musical
percepts. And we have no ability to measure these reactions.

The objectivist has a very simple "out" that lets him skip over these
difficult questions and make an unjustified claim to "understanding"
what is going on. Simply: "Vinyl has euphonic distortions." The
objectivist hears some listeners describe the experience of vinyl--in
my case, specific aspects of musical listening that correspond more
closely to live listening-- but he collapses that all into the idea
that "vinyl sounds good." Then, not understanding how or why it sounds
good, he says the distortion must sound good. Of course, you can say
that about anything you don't understand--if I claim that I like
product X, and the objectivist doesn't understand why, he can always
claim that I must like X becuase of its shortcomings.

Helen
Anonymous
June 30, 2005 6:54:40 PM

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

Helen Schmidt wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I've been lurking here recently. There was a post by a self-described
> "newbie" on CD vs. vinyl, which actually leads to a very important
> point. I repeat the post here:
>
> -------------
> 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.
> ------------
>
> The question is basically, why would someone want to listen to vinyl,
> with its obvious flaws?


I think the answer is no deeper than the fact that vinyl masks the flaws
in the rest of your system, whereas digital stresses your system to the
max. With a certain amount of noise overlaying the signal, plus a
tendency to wipe out the highest frequencies after a few plays, the
sound of the violins becomes more a matter of your sonic imagination
than what is on the disc. With the mastering requirement to ease up on
the amount and phase of the bass frequencies, your woofers are not
strained and the other frequencies get more power available. With such
low stereo separation, imaging subtleties are not a problem with vinyl.

But throw in an extremely clean signal of much greater dynamic range and
frequencies that your system never even knew about, and your troubles
are only beginning.

A good visual analogy would be High Definition television. If you show
it on a little 25 inch set, you say "I don't get it." But when you
project it to 15 feet wide with a good LCOS projector and surround sound
and subwoofers, you "get it."

Gary Eickmeier
Anonymous
June 30, 2005 7:01:36 PM

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

On 30 Jun 2005 03:16:37 GMT, "jeffc" <jeffc226@yahoo.com> wrote:

><Theporkygeorge@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:D 9uhqt02r7g@news2.newsguy.com...
>> It made no sense that such a crude method of playback would be so much
>> more realistic.
>
>Technically, digital is crude compared to vinyl, because vinyl is analog
>which is pure. The analogy the approximation of an integral (area under a
>curve) by using intervals, vs. actual calculus, which simply gets it right
>from the start. I say "technically" because it is, or will be, possible to
>get the approximation so good that you can't tell the difference.

This is a common, but completely wrong, argument. There is nothing
'pure' about vinyl, as it is a very *poor* analogue of the master tape
signal, whereas CD provides a very *good* analogue of that signal.
That the *intervening* stages in a CD-based system use digital
technology, does not affect the relative purity of the *analogue*
signals which come out of the DAC and the cartridge.

BTW, your analogy is also wrong, although a common misconception, as
digital is *not* the equivalent of an 'area under the curve by
histogram' approximation. The reconstruction filter ensures that the
output is a smooth curve, following the original bandwidth-limited
input signal *exactly*, not approximately.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Anonymous
June 30, 2005 7:02:21 PM

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

On 30 Jun 2005 03:19:19 GMT, "Helen Schmidt"
<music3142-usenet@yahoo.com> wrote:

<snip much speculation presented as fact>

>The objectivist has a very simple "out" that lets him skip over these
>difficult questions and make an unjustified claim to "understanding"
>what is going on. Simply: "Vinyl has euphonic distortions."

Correct, it does, and there is many decades of research material
available which will tell you exactly what these euphonic distortions
are.

> The
>objectivist hears some listeners describe the experience of vinyl--in
>my case, specific aspects of musical listening that correspond more
>closely to live listening-- but he collapses that all into the idea
>that "vinyl sounds good." Then, not understanding how or why it sounds
>good, he says the distortion must sound good.

Utter rubbish. The reality is that these various eupohonic distortions
can be separately added to an otherwise clean signal, and listeners
will report a preference for the distorted sound in each case. There
is no lack of understanding here.

>Of course, you can say
>that about anything you don't understand--if I claim that I like
>product X, and the objectivist doesn't understand why, he can always
>claim that I must like X becuase of its shortcomings.

OTOH, if the 'objectivist' *does* in fact clearly understand why you
might prefer vinyl, it's intereresting that *you* refuse to accept
these well-known reasons, instead claiming that some mysterious
'higher perception' is at work.

The basic test is to listen to a CD-R transcribed from vinyl on a
high-quality rig. You'll find that this retains all the 'magic' of
vinyl sound, thereby pretty much proving that what you prefer is
indeed the *added* artifacts of vinyl, not anything which is
mysteriously 'lost' by CD.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
June 30, 2005 8:14:44 PM

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

jeffc wrote:
> <Theporkygeorge@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:D 9uhqt02r7g@news2.newsguy.com...
>
>>It made no sense that such a crude method of playback would be so much
>>more realistic.
>
>
> Technically, digital is crude compared to vinyl, because vinyl is analog
> which is pure. The analogy the approximation of an integral (area under a
> curve) by using intervals, vs. actual calculus, which simply gets it right
> from the start. I say "technically" because it is, or will be, possible to
> get the approximation so good that you can't tell the difference. Unless
> the iPod crowd makes it financially unfeasible to do so in the market.

With all due respect, you simply do not understand digital audio. Or
vinyl, for that matter. Your attempt to justify a preference simply
exposes a severe lack of knowledge of the technical aspects of audio. It
does not help the vinylists' position at all, and in fact hurt it.

Please read up on the fundamentals of digital audio, and in particular
try to get a firmer grasp of the sampling theory. Highly recommended if
you don't want to appear as technically clueless.
Anonymous
June 30, 2005 8:15:16 PM

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

On 30 Jun 2005 03:16:37 GMT, "jeffc" <jeffc226@yahoo.com> wrote:


>Technically, digital is crude compared to vinyl, because vinyl is analog
>which is pure.

Stewart has described why this argument is wrong in the first place.

I would like to add that the absolute majority of LP:s are digital
whatever recording techniques was used in the studio! There sits a
digital delay line in nearly all mastering equipment on the planet,
and this delay line is implemented by a digital design... The delay
line is used to autmatically give way for loud passages on the master.
When the LP-sleeve says "Absolute Pure Analogue", I would guess most
of them are right, but only at the input of the mastering equipment.

So, folks, vinyl lovers listen to digital all the time and likes it.

Per.
Anonymous
June 30, 2005 8:17:38 PM

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

Helen Schmidt wrote:

> The question is basically, why would someone want to listen to vinyl,
> with its obvious flaws?

Hi Helen!

There are a couple of reasons why I continue to listen to vinyl.

The very first reason is that there's a wealth of fine recordings that
are not available on CD. One of my favorite jazz recordings is titled
"Supersax Plays Bird". Originally recorded in the early 1970's, it
was first released on standard vinyl, later released as a half-speed
master from Mobile Fidelity Sound Labs, and then there was a
short CD release which has been out of print for many years and
is very hard to find. Over at Amazon.com, there are 3 copies for
sale at $75, $175, and $200. But vinyl copies are pretty readily
available. It's an extraordinary recording if you love good jazz.

I have a number of recordings on both vinyl and CD. Invariably
the vinyl, even with the surface imprefections, clicks and pops,
yadda yadda, has a timbre which just sounds more natural. My
wife is a professional violinist and very much *NOT* an audiophile.
She's something of a Luddite actually and cares not a bit for our
concerns regarding audio engineering. She just listens to music,
and she hears these differences quite readily.

I have no way to know if these differences are artifacts of the
medium or because the different recordings were mastered differently,
and if so, how they were mastered differently.

As an exercise, I recently digitized "Supersax Plays Bird" from
my MFSL recording. I have a Xitel Inport, which is a cute little
A to D converter, which feeds into a PC USB port. I can then
burn a CD from it. When comparing the CD to the original
vinyl, there does appear to be some added edginess. Is that
an artifact of the Xitel Inport, or is it inherent to digitial?
I don't know.

My own vinyl rig is a Linn LP12 with a Rega RB300 arm and
Rega Elys cartridge, which is most definitely not a $10,000
combination. Were I to put it up for sale at Audiogon, it would
probably go for between $700 to $1000. It's a good combination,
but certainly not the absolute top drawer of the audio hi-end.

Russ
Anonymous
June 30, 2005 9:45:45 PM

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

Per Stromgren wrote:
> On 30 Jun 2005 03:16:37 GMT, "jeffc" <jeffc226@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> >Technically, digital is crude compared to vinyl, because vinyl is analog
> >which is pure.
>
> Stewart has described why this argument is wrong in the first place.
>
> I would like to add that the absolute majority of LP:s are digital
> whatever recording techniques was used in the studio!


I doubt the absolute majority are digital.


There sits a
> digital delay line in nearly all mastering equipment on the planet,


That would be interesting to investigate. It shouldn't be that hard
since thee are only a few places that still cut laquers.


> and this delay line is implemented by a digital design... The delay
> line is used to autmatically give way for loud passages on the master.
> When the LP-sleeve says "Absolute Pure Analogue", I would guess most
> of them are right, but only at the input of the mastering equipment.


I think a great deal of the world's LPs were made without such a device
in the chain.



>
> So, folks, vinyl lovers listen to digital all the time and likes it.



But digital isn't the issue it is CDs v. LPs. Indeed I have some LPs
made from digital recodings that I quite like. I like some, in fact
many, better than the CD version. Go figure.
Anonymous
June 30, 2005 9:47:12 PM

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

Russ Button wrote:
> <edited>
> As an exercise, I recently digitized "Supersax Plays Bird" from
> my MFSL recording. I have a Xitel Inport, which is a cute little
> A to D converter, which feeds into a PC USB port. I can then
> burn a CD from it. When comparing the CD to the original
> vinyl, there does appear to be some added edginess. Is that
> an artifact of the Xitel Inport, or is it inherent to digitial?
> I don't know.
>
> My own vinyl rig is a Linn LP12 with a Rega RB300 arm and
> Rega Elys cartridge, which is most definitely not a $10,000
> combination. Were I to put it up for sale at Audiogon, it would
> probably go for between $700 to $1000. It's a good combination,
> but certainly not the absolute top drawer of the audio hi-end.
>
> Russ

Here's the flaw: you're comparing your very nice analog setup to a just
barely adequete PC setup. I just looked up the Xitel and found that it's
claim to faim seems to be the elimination of groung loop hums. The key
to making very good Audio CDs or any digital audio is;

1. The quality of your soundcard
2. If you make MP3s, the quality of your MP3 encoder.

You have to pick and choose carefully just as you did when you purchsed
that Linn deck. Good soundcard manufacturers that come to mind are Echo
audio, Audiophile, and Lynx. If you want to make a good quality MP3, so
far I have found that the LAME mp3 encoder is an excellent choice.

CD
Anonymous
July 1, 2005 2:08:51 AM

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

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

> Utter rubbish. The reality is that these various eupohonic distortions
> can be separately added to an otherwise clean signal, and listeners
> will report a preference for the distorted sound in each case. There
> is no lack of understanding here.
>

In your wording above, "the listeners report a preference," you are
showing your basic model. I find that objectivists miss the fact that
there are actually several models that must be understood separately
as well as together.

At the simplest level, audio is about making something that sounds
good, just as food is about making something that tastes good.

However, there's something very different about audio, compared to
food. Audio is about reproducing musical percepts. There's an
"original" event, and we are trying to recreate that event. In an
appropriately broad focus, we will see that the original event is the
stimulation of musical percepts in the listener's mind. The goal of
audio then is the re-stimulation of those percepts.

An experiment which sets out to discover "what listeners prefer" is
simply ignoring this higher level. Experiments which are founded on
improper assumptions will not help us understand anything better.

Helen
Anonymous
July 1, 2005 2:09:47 AM

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

Russ Button wrote:

>
> As an exercise, I recently digitized "Supersax Plays Bird" from
> my MFSL recording. I have a Xitel Inport, which is a cute little
> A to D converter, which feeds into a PC USB port. I can then
> burn a CD from it. When comparing the CD to the original
> vinyl, there does appear to be some added edginess. Is that
> an artifact of the Xitel Inport, or is it inherent to digitial?
> I don't know.
>

When the overwhelming pattern is that CD's have faults such as
edginess (commercially produced CD's) and vinyl is free from these
faults, the obvious conclusion is that the problem is inherent to
digital.

Of course, since this can't be understood using our current set of
measurements (of audio systems and brains), the objectivist who craves
understanding must fall back on other explanations. The tricky thing
is that many of these alternative explanations are valid in some
situations. The explanations include:

- vinyl has euphonic distortions

- CD reveals the limitations of the system

Of course, these can realistically describe some situations.

There are distortions which, applied to music, make it
sound "better." But if I'm not talking about "better," but about
"truth-to-life", the objectivist answers in the same way.

There are systems with limitations which higher quality source can
reveal. But if those who favor analog do so consistently even in
SOTA systems, the objectivist answers in the same way.

As far as the explanation that "distortion sounds good" -- better
turntables are in fact better mechanically--that is they produce
*less* distortion. And those who favor analog find more truth-to-life
in such systems.


Helen
Anonymous
July 1, 2005 4:15:01 AM

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

Codifus wrote:
> Russ Button wrote:
>
>> <edited>
>> As an exercise, I recently digitized "Supersax Plays Bird" from
>> my MFSL recording. I have a Xitel Inport, which is a cute little
>> A to D converter, which feeds into a PC USB port.

> Here's the flaw: you're comparing your very nice analog setup to a just
> barely adequete PC setup. I just looked up the Xitel and found that it's
> claim to faim seems to be the elimination of groung loop hums.
>
> 1. The quality of your soundcard

The Xitel Inport is not a soundcard. It is an outboard device that takes
a line level feed and puts out a digital stream that you pick up from
a USB port. It comes with controlling capture software you run on
the PC. One of the problems with any soundcard is that the interior
of a PC is full of RFI. Being that the Inport is an outboarded device,
that eliminates that concern.

I don't know how good it is for A to D conversion, or what chipset
it uses, etc. But it seemed like a useful tool at a reasonable price,
which is why I stated that I had no idea exactly what the source
was for the artifacts I was hearing. Even so, it does a pretty good
job and I do find the recordings made with it to be acceptable.

> 2. If you make MP3s, the quality of your MP3 encoder.

I'm not an MP3 kind of guy for the most part. I've never been
into portable stereo, even going back to the original walkman
days. I like good sound in my car and when I have a car player
that will do MP3 format, I'll probably get into it then.

Russ
Anonymous
July 1, 2005 4:15:54 AM

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

Helen Schmidt wrote:
> Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>
> > Utter rubbish. The reality is that these various eupohonic distortions
> > can be separately added to an otherwise clean signal, and listeners
> > will report a preference for the distorted sound in each case. There
> > is no lack of understanding here.
> >
>
> In your wording above, "the listeners report a preference," you are
> showing your basic model.

Well, no, he's just reporting the results of a particular bit of
research.

> I find that objectivists miss the fact that
> there are actually several models that must be understood separately
> as well as together.

You seem to know very little about what objectivists really think.
Might I suggest that you take a little more time to read carefully,
before you start spraying over-generalizations around?

> At the simplest level, audio is about making something that sounds
> good, just as food is about making something that tastes good.

Well, that can be one goal. To call it "the simplest level" is to
manufacture a very artificial (and, I suspect, a somewhat elitist)
heirarchy.

> However, there's something very different about audio, compared to
> food. Audio is about reproducing musical percepts. There's an
> "original" event, and we are trying to recreate that event. In an
> appropriately broad focus, we will see that the original event is the
> stimulation of musical percepts in the listener's mind. The goal of
> audio then is the re-stimulation of those percepts.

And that is another goal. One goal is not a priori better than the
other.

> An experiment which sets out to discover "what listeners prefer" is
> simply ignoring this higher level. Experiments which are founded on
> improper assumptions will not help us understand anything better.

What improper assumption? Why is it improper to ask what listeners
prefer? If you're in the business of pleasing your customers it's a
damn proper assumption.

Now, you might argue that, in *addition* to research on listener
preferences, we might like to see some research on the effectiveness of
audio systems at what you call "re-stimulation of...percepts." I'm not
sure how much work has actually been done on that. It would not be easy
work to do, at least if you want to get beyond simply asking listeners,
"Which of these sounds more realistic?"

But a first question you should ponder is, Is there much of a
difference between the two questions? By and large, people who argue
that vinyl sounds more realistic are also the ones who report that they
prefer it. If that is generally the case, the research into preferences
may not be missing so much after all.

bob
July 1, 2005 4:16:16 AM

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

"Helen Schmidt" <music3142-usenet@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:D 9vobn0vbc@news2.newsguy.com:

> Theporkygeorge@aol.com wrote:
>> I remember telling the guy there aint
>> no way dragging a rock over a piece of plastic is going to outperform
>> digital. No way. Well, I was served up several helpings of crow and a
>> side of humble pie. It was a most disturbing revelation. It literlly
>> left me numb. My belief system had been completely turned up side down.
>> I thought sources would not be an issue in my quest for better sound.
>> It made no sense that such a crude method of playback would be so much
>> more realistic. The thought of the added expense made the whole thing
>> even more disturbing. But I could not unhear what I had just heard. I
>> didn't like that reality but I accepted it. Eventually I came to like
>> the idea that I could actually do even better than I had with CDs.
>>
>>
>> Scott Wheeler
>
> Hi Scott,
>
> I agree that LP is more lifelike. One of the areas where LP is more
> lifelike is its ability to convey music in the changing signal. With
> LP, I experience more vividly the musical percepts that correspond to
> dynamic features of the signal (change over time). When the music is
> suddenly quiet, I not only hear that it is quiet, but I experience a
> sense that something compelling has happened. The music is tender,
> spiritual, dramatic.. that is, it resonates with broader parts of my
> experience as a human.
>
> It triggers the brain systems that respond to anything tender in the
> world, anything spiritual, anything dramatic. With CD, when the music
> gets quiet, I mostly notice that the sound got quiet, but miss these
> other aspects to the experience.
>
> Of course a very interesting question is "Why does vinyl sound like
> this to me?" The difficulty in answering this is that we have
> difficulty describing the brain reactions that correspond to musical
> percepts. And we have no ability to measure these reactions.
>
> The objectivist has a very simple "out" that lets him skip over these
> difficult questions and make an unjustified claim to "understanding"
> what is going on. Simply: "Vinyl has euphonic distortions." The
> objectivist hears some listeners describe the experience of vinyl--in
> my case, specific aspects of musical listening that correspond more
> closely to live listening-- but he collapses that all into the idea
> that "vinyl sounds good." Then, not understanding how or why it sounds
> good, he says the distortion must sound good. Of course, you can say
> that about anything you don't understand--if I claim that I like
> product X, and the objectivist doesn't understand why, he can always
> claim that I must like X becuase of its shortcomings.
>
> Helen

I think, Helen, that you hear what you want to hear. You hear what fits
the self image you've chosen. And this week, for whatever reason, you've
chosen to be a vinyl-o-phile. Possibly you believe that it marks you as a
more discerning or sophisticated listener. On the other hand, it could
mark you simply as someone who delights in stirring up this hornets nest of
a newsgroup.

-- js
Anonymous
July 1, 2005 11:43:43 PM

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

On 30 Jun 2005 22:09:47 GMT, "Helen Schmidt"
<music3142-usenet@yahoo.com> wrote:

>When the overwhelming pattern is that CD's have faults such as
>edginess (commercially produced CD's) and vinyl is free from these
>faults, the obvious conclusion is that the problem is inherent to
>digital.

This looks to me to be a case of very bad logic. If even a minority of
CD's do not display this "edginess" then it must be true that the
edginess is *not* inherent in the medium. Only if 100% of CD's
exhibited "edginess" would there be any justification for suspecting
that the "edginess" is inherent.

ONE single CD without "edginess", on the other hand, is actually proof
by counterexample that the "edginess" is not inherent.


Ed Seedhouse,
Victoria, B.C.
Anonymous
July 1, 2005 11:45:17 PM

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

Helen Schmidt wrote:
>
> When the overwhelming pattern is that CD's have faults such as
> edginess (commercially produced CD's) and vinyl is free from these
> faults, the obvious conclusion is that the problem is inherent to
> digital.

No, the uninformed conclusion would be that the problem is inherent to
digital. To conclude that the problem is inherent to digital, you'd
have to go through a few more steps. First of all, you'd want to
confirm, through something more robust than anecdotal impression, that
there is indeed such a pattern of perception--for example, we don't
even know whether those who complain of "edginess" are even referring
to the same thing. And second, you'd want to do a comparison in which
the only variable is the medium. Comparing commercial releases does not
cut it.

> Of course, since this can't be understood using our current set of
> measurements (of audio systems and brains),

Why not? What is not to understand? It's actually quite simple to test
the assertion that digital is inherently "edgy." Make a good CD-R of a
vinyl record, compare the two blind, and ask listeners which sounds
more edgy to them. If digital really is "edgy," you'll know.

> the objectivist who craves
> understanding must fall back on other explanations.

I suspect that most objectivists really don't care why people think the
things they do about vinyl. Once again, you are over-generalizing--and
insulting at the same time. Very nice.

> The tricky thing
> is that many of these alternative explanations are valid in some
> situations. The explanations include:
>
> - vinyl has euphonic distortions
>
> - CD reveals the limitations of the system

This is debatable. It's also an assertion I've rarely if ever heard
from an objectivist.

> Of course, these can realistically describe some situations.
>
> There are distortions which, applied to music, make it
> sound "better." But if I'm not talking about "better," but about
> "truth-to-life", the objectivist answers in the same way.

Well, if there are known physical differences between the two, and
there are consistent perceived differences between the two (and it
doesn't matter which perceived differences we're talking about), it's
only reasonable to believe that the perceived differences are a
reaction to the physical differences.

> There are systems with limitations which higher quality source can
> reveal. But if those who favor analog do so consistently even in
> SOTA systems, the objectivist answers in the same way.

Why not? Some of those physical differences remain.

> As far as the explanation that "distortion sounds good" -- better
> turntables are in fact better mechanically--that is they produce
> *less* distortion. And those who favor analog find more truth-to-life
> in such systems.

Better turntables can reduce *some* forms of distortion, but not
others. So the explanation remains sound.

At bottom, there are only two* possible explanations for why some
listeners esteem vinyl over CD:

1) Because of some combination of the known physical differences
between the two media; or

2) Because of some unknown physical difference between the two media.

Tests can confirm #1, at least in part. And while we cannot ever
completely rule out the possibility that there is "something else,"
neither do we need to spend much time considering it until somebody
comes up with at least a reasonable hypothesis about what that
something might be.

So rather than just putting down objectivists whom you obviously
believe to be your intellectual inferiors, why don't you get to work?

bob
Anonymous
July 1, 2005 11:46:50 PM

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

Helen Schmidt wrote:
> Russ Button wrote:
>
>
>>As an exercise, I recently digitized "Supersax Plays Bird" from
>>my MFSL recording.
>
> When the overwhelming pattern is that CD's have faults such as
> edginess (commercially produced CD's) and vinyl is free from these
> faults, the obvious conclusion is that the problem is inherent to
> digital.

Remember that in my example, the vinyl is my "original"
source. The CD I made is a copy of that source and was
then compared to it. If the CD record/playback chain was
truly perfect, then it should have sounded identical when
compared to the vinyl source from which it was made.

> - vinyl has euphonic distortions

Irrelevant in this case because those "euphonic distortions"
would have been captured in the digital signal as they
were part of the source signal.

Russ
Anonymous
July 1, 2005 11:51:02 PM

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

nabob33@hotmail.com wrote:

>
> Now, you might argue that, in *addition* to research on listener
> preferences, we might like to see some research on the effectiveness of
> audio systems at what you call "re-stimulation of...percepts." I'm not
> sure how much work has actually been done on that. It would not be easy
> work to do, at least if you want to get beyond simply asking listeners,
> "Which of these sounds more realistic?"
>

Right, and without that research, any correlation of the technical
parameters of audio to a certain musical experience is premature. I
suggest that objectivists are very premature in claiming that a
preference for analog can be "understood" as a preference for certain
kinds of distortions.


> But a first question you should ponder is, Is there much of a
> difference between the two questions? By and large, people who argue
> that vinyl sounds more realistic are also the ones who report that they
> prefer it. If that is generally the case, the research into preferences
> may not be missing so much after all.
>

You are confusing the words people choose for convenience with the
underlying concept. Preference is not simply preference. Some people
prefer analog because it sounds more pleasant. Some people prefer it
because local patterns (e.g. timbre), sound truer-to-life. The least
recognized possibility is that some people prefer it because diffuse
patterns (e.g., musical form, and dynamic content) are
truer-to-life. Asking someone what they "prefer" doesn't begin to sort
through these possiblities.

On the other hand, I find vinyl truer-to-life, but I will sometimes
say that I "prefer" vinyl because it is convenient, and still true.

Helen
July 1, 2005 11:51:52 PM

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

In article <da220g05en@news2.newsguy.com>,
Jim <jdstrickler@comcast.net> wrote:

> "Helen Schmidt" <music3142-usenet@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:D 9vobn0vbc@news2.newsguy.com:
>
> > Theporkygeorge@aol.com wrote:
> >> I remember telling the guy there aint
> >> no way dragging a rock over a piece of plastic is going to outperform
> >> digital. No way. Well, I was served up several helpings of crow and a
> >> side of humble pie. It was a most disturbing revelation. It literlly
> >> left me numb. My belief system had been completely turned up side down.
> >> I thought sources would not be an issue in my quest for better sound.
> >> It made no sense that such a crude method of playback would be so much
> >> more realistic. The thought of the added expense made the whole thing
> >> even more disturbing. But I could not unhear what I had just heard. I
> >> didn't like that reality but I accepted it. Eventually I came to like
> >> the idea that I could actually do even better than I had with CDs.
> >>
> >>
> >> Scott Wheeler
> >
> > Hi Scott,
> >
> > I agree that LP is more lifelike. One of the areas where LP is more
> > lifelike is its ability to convey music in the changing signal. With
> > LP, I experience more vividly the musical percepts that correspond to
> > dynamic features of the signal (change over time). When the music is
> > suddenly quiet, I not only hear that it is quiet, but I experience a
> > sense that something compelling has happened. The music is tender,
> > spiritual, dramatic.. that is, it resonates with broader parts of my
> > experience as a human.
> >
> > It triggers the brain systems that respond to anything tender in the
> > world, anything spiritual, anything dramatic. With CD, when the music
> > gets quiet, I mostly notice that the sound got quiet, but miss these
> > other aspects to the experience.
> >
> > Of course a very interesting question is "Why does vinyl sound like
> > this to me?" The difficulty in answering this is that we have
> > difficulty describing the brain reactions that correspond to musical
> > percepts. And we have no ability to measure these reactions.
> >
> > The objectivist has a very simple "out" that lets him skip over these
> > difficult questions and make an unjustified claim to "understanding"
> > what is going on. Simply: "Vinyl has euphonic distortions." The
> > objectivist hears some listeners describe the experience of vinyl--in
> > my case, specific aspects of musical listening that correspond more
> > closely to live listening-- but he collapses that all into the idea
> > that "vinyl sounds good." Then, not understanding how or why it sounds
> > good, he says the distortion must sound good. Of course, you can say
> > that about anything you don't understand--if I claim that I like
> > product X, and the objectivist doesn't understand why, he can always
> > claim that I must like X becuase of its shortcomings.
> >
> > Helen
>
> I think, Helen, that you hear what you want to hear. You hear what fits
> the self image you've chosen. And this week, for whatever reason, you've
> chosen to be a vinyl-o-phile. Possibly you believe that it marks you as a
> more discerning or sophisticated listener. On the other hand, it could
> mark you simply as someone who delights in stirring up this hornets nest of
> a newsgroup.

Or gee, it could just be that she's an honest person who prefers the
sound of music on vinyl. Geese.
Anonymous
July 1, 2005 11:52:23 PM

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

"Stewart Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:D a11gg022f0@news2.newsguy.com...
>>
>>Technically, digital is crude compared to vinyl, because vinyl is analog
>>which is pure. The analogy the approximation of an integral (area under a
>>curve) by using intervals, vs. actual calculus, which simply gets it right
>>from the start. I say "technically" because it is, or will be, possible
>>to
>>get the approximation so good that you can't tell the difference.
>
> This is a common, but completely wrong, argument. There is nothing
> 'pure' about vinyl, as it is a very *poor* analogue of the master tape
> signal, whereas CD provides a very *good* analogue of that signal.
> That the *intervening* stages in a CD-based system use digital
> technology, does not affect the relative purity of the *analogue*
> signals which come out of the DAC and the cartridge.

That is a common red herring. The analog signal that comesout of the DAC is
a moot point because it was already digital. Digital is, by definition, an
approximation. Period.
Anonymous
July 1, 2005 11:53:06 PM

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

"chung" <chunglau@covad.net> wrote in message
news:D a15pk019p7@news4.newsguy.com...
>>
>> Technically, digital is crude compared to vinyl, because vinyl is analog
>> which is pure. The analogy the approximation of an integral (area under
>> a curve) by using intervals, vs. actual calculus, which simply gets it
>> right from the start. I say "technically" because it is, or will be,
>> possible to get the approximation so good that you can't tell the
>> difference. Unless the iPod crowd makes it financially unfeasible to do
>> so in the market.
>
> With all due respect, you simply do not understand digital audio. Or
> vinyl, for that matter. Your attempt to justify a preference simply
> exposes a severe lack of knowledge of the technical aspects of audio.

I prefer digital. Try again.
Anonymous
July 1, 2005 11:53:55 PM

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

Well don't confuse CD as the only digital. Or all flaws on CD as the
fault of digital.

Try some recordings with your computer. If you can manage it, feed the
pre-amp out to your sound card with some interconnects and adapters.
Record some LP's and then burn a CD-R or CD-RW. See what you
think? Might be very surprised.

Dennis
Anonymous
July 1, 2005 11:55:25 PM

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

"Stewart Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:D a11gg022f0@news2.newsguy.com...
>
> This is a common, but completely wrong, argument. There is nothing
> 'pure' about vinyl, as it is a very *poor* analogue of the master tape
> signal, whereas CD provides a very *good* analogue of that signal.

I didn't say CD provided a bad analog. The "pure" should be taken in
context. It is pure in the sense that it never left the analog domain.
"Analog" itself also has different meanings, as you are well aware, so there
is not sense in trying to use a different meaning than I used.

> BTW, your analogy is also wrong, although a common misconception, as
> digital is *not* the equivalent of an 'area under the curve by
> histogram' approximation. The reconstruction filter ensures that the
> output is a smooth curve, following the original bandwidth-limited
> input signal *exactly*, not approximately.

"Reconstruction filter", you say? What is that needed for? Did something
change from the original signal? If you can't follow that analogy, then
you're simply not thinking abstractly enough. No one is saying vinyl
doesn't distort the analog signal. And I have not even said the ultimate
analog signal coming from the CD player is worse than the signal coming from
the phono stage. I am saying digital technology has a fundamental design
flaw, and that is that the signal is distorted on purpose. It's inherent in
the technology. Whether the end result is more faithful to the original
signal is beside the point.
Anonymous
July 1, 2005 11:56:18 PM

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

Jim wrote:

>
> I think, Helen, that you hear what you want to hear. You hear what fits
> the self image you've chosen.

Actually, what you have done here is point out exactly the difficulty
in the "objectivist" position, which is that any "subjective"
observation which seems to contradict the "objective measurements" is
put in the category of listener bias, imagination, euphonic distortion,
etc. It's too general an idea; it can explain away anything and
everything.

Helen
Anonymous
July 1, 2005 11:57:50 PM

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

<Theporkygeorge@aol.com> wrote in message
news:D a1b4901du3@news4.newsguy.com...


> But digital isn't the issue it is CDs v. LPs. Indeed I have some LPs
> made from digital recodings that I quite like. I like some, in fact
> many, better than the CD version. Go figure.

I figure you've never done a blind test. Of course, you can't really
do a blind test with CD vs. LP since there is always surface noise
to let you know it's an LP.

- Gary Rosen
Anonymous
July 1, 2005 11:58:59 PM

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

I think there are some flaws and/or ommissions in your "modelling"
model that require scrutiny:

Helen Schmidt wrote:
>
> At the simplest level, audio is about making something that sounds
> good, just as food is about making something that tastes good.
>

Bad analogy. That's just plain wrong. It's not just an
oversimplification, but it's an extremely biased take that seems to
come at the concept of what Audio *is* from left field. (I apologize if
if this sounds antagonistic, but I really feel you have missed the
point on a very fundamental level.)

At the simplest level, audio is not about making something that sounds
good; it's not even about making something that sounds bad. Audio is
about capturing and reproducing something that sounds, period. Any
further qualifiers cease to be "at the simplest level".


> Audio is about reproducing musical percepts. There's an
> "original" event, and we are trying to recreate that event.

That's only one possibility. Audio often *is* the original event. Other
times, audio is what happens in between some "original" event & some
subsequent "potential" event. (Digression: if a recording -- either CD
or LP -- is manufactured but never played, does it make a sound?) Many
times we are not trying to recreate some original event, but rather
we're trying to deliberately manipulate it to be some "other" event.
And just as many times we unintentionally do so; it becomes some
"other" event by pure dint of our poor attempts to recreate the
"original" event. These are just some of the possibilities, all except
the last perfectly valid.


> In an
> appropriately broad focus, we will see that the original event is the
> stimulation of musical percepts in the listener's mind. The goal of
> audio then is the re-stimulation of those percepts.
>

Again, that's only one possibility. Many times in audio the goal is not
the re-stimulation of some original percept, but rather the stimulation
of some wholly unique percept, by virtue of audio's intrinsic
"time-shifting" capability. (I.e., the fact that audio reproduction can
occur at the listener's discretion.)


> Experiments which are founded on
> improper assumptions will not help us understand anything better.

Likewise for newsgroup postings! :) 
Anonymous
July 1, 2005 11:59:36 PM

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

Russ Button wrote:
> Codifus wrote:
>
>> Russ Button wrote:
>>
>>> <edited>
>>> As an exercise, I recently digitized "Supersax Plays Bird" from
>>> my MFSL recording. I have a Xitel Inport, which is a cute little
>>> A to D converter, which feeds into a PC USB port.
>
>
>> Here's the flaw: you're comparing your very nice analog setup to a
>> just barely adequete PC setup. I just looked up the Xitel and found
>> that it's claim to faim seems to be the elimination of groung loop hums.
>> 1. The quality of your soundcard
>
>
> The Xitel Inport is not a soundcard. It is an outboard device that takes
> a line level feed and puts out a digital stream that you pick up from
> a USB port. It comes with controlling capture software you run on
> the PC. One of the problems with any soundcard is that the interior
> of a PC is full of RFI. Being that the Inport is an outboarded device,
> that eliminates that concern.
>
> I don't know how good it is for A to D conversion, or what chipset
> it uses, etc. But it seemed like a useful tool at a reasonable price,
> which is why I stated that I had no idea exactly what the source
> was for the artifacts I was hearing. Even so, it does a pretty good
> job and I do find the recordings made with it to be acceptable.
>
>> 2. If you make MP3s, the quality of your MP3 encoder.
>
>
> I'm not an MP3 kind of guy for the most part. I've never been
> into portable stereo, even going back to the original walkman
> days. I like good sound in my car and when I have a car player
> that will do MP3 format, I'll probably get into it then.
>
> Russ
That's exactly my point. And the Xitel INport may not exactly be a
soundcard, I guess the more accurate description would be a soundbox.
But like a soundcard, it has an AD converter and it's functions are very
similar to that of a soundcard, hence I bundle it with the term soundcard:) 

If someone were to try to sell you a Technics belt driven plastic
turntable, you'd probably laugh at them because you apppreciate the
capability of your Linn deck. It's the same thing with soundcards. Here
are some links that will put you in the right direction;

This is a technical review of the Xitel Inport;
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1558,1231751,00.a...

Here are some soundcards of good reputation;
http://echoaudio.com/Products/PCI/
http://www.m-audio.com/index.php?do=products.list&ID=pc...
http://www.lynxstudio.com/products.html

CD
Anonymous
July 2, 2005 12:07:23 AM

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

Helen Schmidt <music3142-usenet@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

> > Utter rubbish. The reality is that these various eupohonic distortions
> > can be separately added to an otherwise clean signal, and listeners
> > will report a preference for the distorted sound in each case. There
> > is no lack of understanding here.
> >

> In your wording above, "the listeners report a preference," you are
> showing your basic model. I find that objectivists miss the fact that
> there are actually several models that must be understood separately
> as well as together.

> At the simplest level, audio is about making something that sounds
> good, just as food is about making something that tastes good.


No, at the simplest level, food is about providing the body with
nutrition.

> However, there's something very different about audio, compared to
> food. Audio is about reproducing musical percepts. There's an
> "original" event, and we are trying to recreate that event. In an
> appropriately broad focus, we will see that the original event is the
> stimulation of musical percepts in the listener's mind. The goal of
> audio then is the re-stimulation of those percepts.

For the vast majority of recorded music, including more classical music
recordings than the listener might realize , the original 'event' never
happened -- what you hear is a collection of 'events' than never occurred
together in real time.



--

-S
"You know what love really is? It's like you've swallowed a great big
secret. A warm wonderful secret that nobody else knows about." - 'Blame it
on Rio'
Anonymous
July 2, 2005 12:07:59 AM

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

> Actually, there's introspective naivety from both 'camps.' I know a
> number of folks who don't have a CD player because they are convinced
> of the subjective sonic superiority of LP and invest a considerable
> amount of money in equipment to play it. They are missing out on a
> lot of quality new music and performances.

Of the concert halls I visit, one sounds "digital" another more analog like
(and therefore "forgiving"). Some folks won't go to one or other of the
halls because they are convinced of its inferiority. They are missing out on
a lot of quality performances. It's no big deal nor sin to be a "bi-audio"
guy or gal; doing both digital and analog. Why all the fuss and waste of
time arguing over on what has become an overblown and silly dispute with a
lot of "techno" and "psycho" babble? You can be listening to the vinyl or
aluminum disc or BOTH instead. A part of our hobby should well involve
comparisons of both formats, but why the overheated and overblown blown
disputes, with insults to boot. Just *listen* to yourselves.
Anonymous
July 2, 2005 12:09:25 AM

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

On 30 Jun 2005 17:45:45 GMT, Theporkygeorge@aol.com wrote:

>Per Stromgren wrote:
>> On 30 Jun 2005 03:16:37 GMT, "jeffc" <jeffc226@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >Technically, digital is crude compared to vinyl, because vinyl is analog
>> >which is pure.
>>
>> Stewart has described why this argument is wrong in the first place.
>>
>> I would like to add that the absolute majority of LP:s are digital
>> whatever recording techniques was used in the studio!
>
>I doubt the absolute majority are digital.

They are now..............

> There sits a
>> digital delay line in nearly all mastering equipment on the planet,
>
>That would be interesting to investigate. It shouldn't be that hard
>since thee are only a few places that still cut laquers.

Indeed - which should tell you something, all by itself.

>> and this delay line is implemented by a digital design... The delay
>> line is used to autmatically give way for loud passages on the master.
>> When the LP-sleeve says "Absolute Pure Analogue", I would guess most
>> of them are right, but only at the input of the mastering equipment.
>
>I think a great deal of the world's LPs were made without such a device
>in the chain.

IIRC, the old analogue mastering tape consoles had an extra playback
head to provide the required 'read ahead' time delay needed for
Varigroove operation.

>> So, folks, vinyl lovers listen to digital all the time and likes it.
>
>But digital isn't the issue it is CDs v. LPs. Indeed I have some LPs
>made from digital recodings that I quite like. I like some, in fact
>many, better than the CD version. Go figure.

No need for much figgerin' here, as the well-known euphonic artifacts
of vinyl have been described ad nauseam. If you like those, as opposed
to the neutral transparency of digital, then of course you'll prefer
vinyl to CD, regardless of the master tape origins. The only time you
wouldn't is when the LP has been badly mastered.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Anonymous
July 2, 2005 12:23:42 AM

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

On 30 Jun 2005 22:09:47 GMT, "Helen Schmidt"
<music3142-usenet@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Russ Button wrote:
>>
>> As an exercise, I recently digitized "Supersax Plays Bird" from
>> my MFSL recording. I have a Xitel Inport, which is a cute little
>> A to D converter, which feeds into a PC USB port. I can then
>> burn a CD from it. When comparing the CD to the original
>> vinyl, there does appear to be some added edginess. Is that
>> an artifact of the Xitel Inport, or is it inherent to digitial?
>> I don't know.
>>
>When the overwhelming pattern is that CD's have faults such as
>edginess (commercially produced CD's) and vinyl is free from these
>faults, the obvious conclusion is that the problem is inherent to
>digital.

That would be *if*, not when, as relatively few current CDs exhibit
this problem. It follows that it's not an *inherent* problem of CD.

>Of course, since this can't be understood using our current set of
>measurements (of audio systems and brains), the objectivist who craves
>understanding must fall back on other explanations.

Utter rubbish. These defects can certainly be understood and measured.
I have never yet heard an audible defect that did not have a readily
measurable cause.

> The tricky thing
>is that many of these alternative explanations are valid in some
>situations. The explanations include:
>
>- vinyl has euphonic distortions
>
>- CD reveals the limitations of the system
>
>Of course, these can realistically describe some situations.
>
>There are distortions which, applied to music, make it
>sound "better." But if I'm not talking about "better," but about
>"truth-to-life", the objectivist answers in the same way.

That's because the same mechanisms apply - and *opinions* regarding
'truth to life' vary greatly.

>There are systems with limitations which higher quality source can
>reveal. But if those who favor analog do so consistently even in
>SOTA systems, the objectivist answers in the same way.
>
>As far as the explanation that "distortion sounds good" -- better
>turntables are in fact better mechanically--that is they produce
>*less* distortion. And those who favor analog find more truth-to-life
>in such systems.

Do they? Or do they simply look at all that magnificent engineering
and assume that it *must* be 'better'? There's a pattern here, in that
the 'subjectivists' seem to favour sighted listening, which leads to
this kind of expectation bias. Besides, the inherent flaws of vinyl
override playback equipment quality once you get above the level of
say the Rega Planar 3. Even a Forsell or Rockport will exhibit audible
wow if the record groove isn't *exactly* concentric with the hole, and
there's no cure for inner-groove distortion, or for rolled-off and
summed to mono bass.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Anonymous
July 2, 2005 12:24:36 AM

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

On 30 Jun 2005 22:08:51 GMT, "Helen Schmidt"
<music3142-usenet@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>
>> Utter rubbish. The reality is that these various eupohonic distortions
>> can be separately added to an otherwise clean signal, and listeners
>> will report a preference for the distorted sound in each case. There
>> is no lack of understanding here.
>>
>In your wording above, "the listeners report a preference," you are
>showing your basic model.

Indeed so - the reporting of subjective experiences by the listener.
IIRC, that was also *your* model when you were complaining about the
'simplicity' of objective measures.

> I find that objectivists miss the fact that
>there are actually several models that must be understood separately
>as well as together.

I find that, having lost your basic argument, you are now attempting
to muddy the water.

>At the simplest level, audio is about making something that sounds
>good, just as food is about making something that tastes good.

And at higher levels, it's about 'the closest approach to the original
sound'.

>However, there's something very different about audio, compared to
>food. Audio is about reproducing musical percepts. There's an
>"original" event, and we are trying to recreate that event.

Indeed so.

> In an
>appropriately broad focus, we will see that the original event is the
>stimulation of musical percepts in the listener's mind.

Will we indeed? or is this simply *your* opinion on the matter?

> The goal of
>audio then is the re-stimulation of those percepts.
>
>An experiment which sets out to discover "what listeners prefer" is
>simply ignoring this higher level.

No. it's examing the internalised experience of the listener, in its
entirety. IIRC, this was *your* expressed preference, but you failed
to make your case and are now attempting to change tack.

> Experiments which are founded on
>improper assumptions will not help us understand anything better.

And wild arm-waving about 'musical percepts' will advance our
knowledge of audio not one whit.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Anonymous
July 2, 2005 1:13:22 AM

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

Helen Schmidt <music3142-usenet@yahoo.com> wrote:
....
> Actually, what you have done here is point out exactly the difficulty
> in the "objectivist" position, which is that any "subjective"
> observation which seems to contradict the "objective measurements" is
> put in the category of listener bias, imagination, euphonic distortion,
> etc. It's too general an idea; it can explain away anything and
> everything.

But that's what always happens with observations that contradict
established theories. They're dismissed. Only new and better
theories can win out. What's wanted from the non-"objectivist"
side is some alternative theoretical understanding. If you don't
want to be explained away, explain.
--
Greg Lee <greg@ling.lll.hawaii.edu>
Anonymous
July 2, 2005 1:14:27 AM

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

Helen Schmidt wrote:
> nabob33@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >
> > Now, you might argue that, in *addition* to research on listener
> > preferences, we might like to see some research on the effectiveness of
> > audio systems at what you call "re-stimulation of...percepts." I'm not
> > sure how much work has actually been done on that. It would not be easy
> > work to do, at least if you want to get beyond simply asking listeners,
> > "Which of these sounds more realistic?"
> >
>
> Right, and without that research, any correlation of the technical
> parameters of audio to a certain musical experience is premature. I
> suggest that objectivists are very premature in claiming that a
> preference for analog can be "understood" as a preference for certain
> kinds of distortions.

First of all, while I can't point you to particular research, it's my
understanding that some such work has been done. Perhaps others can
provide details. Second, even absent research, we can formulate
hypotheses, and consider their plausibility. A hypothesis based on
known forms of distortion is more plausible than one that posits some
unknown form of distortion, for example. And it would certainly be more
plausible than one based on a total misunderstanding of the technology.
(And we see a lot of that around here--in this very thread, in fact!)

> > But a first question you should ponder is, Is there much of a
> > difference between the two questions? By and large, people who argue
> > that vinyl sounds more realistic are also the ones who report that they
> > prefer it. If that is generally the case, the research into preferences
> > may not be missing so much after all.
> >
>
> You are confusing the words people choose for convenience with the
> underlying concept. Preference is not simply preference.

Well, yes it is, in the sense that it's nonspecific.

> Some people
> prefer analog because it sounds more pleasant. Some people prefer it
> because local patterns (e.g. timbre), sound truer-to-life. The least
> recognized possibility is that some people prefer it because diffuse
> patterns (e.g., musical form, and dynamic content) are
> truer-to-life.

Hmmm...If you're comparing two pieces of audio equipment, and you hear
differences of musical form, then something is catastrophically wrong
with one of those components!

> Asking someone what they "prefer" doesn't begin to sort
> through these possiblities.

No, but what I'm suggesting is that we may not really need to sort
through these possibilities. See below.

> On the other hand, I find vinyl truer-to-life, but I will sometimes
> say that I "prefer" vinyl because it is convenient, and still true.

I believe that when people say they prefer vinyl, they mean it. And
when they say they find it more "lifelike," they mean that, too. I
seriously doubt that whenever people say they "prefer" vinyl, what they
really mean is *only* that they find it more lifelike. It may be used
as an occasional shorthand, but it is certainly not a universal one.

At the same time, I don't think they arrive at a judgment that vinyl is
more lifelike without taking account of their preferences. I've even
suggested that people may decide first that they prefer the sound, and
then presume that the *reason* they prefer the sound is because it is
more lifelike. If that's the case, then doing research on why some
people find vinyl more life-like would be rather pointless.

bob
July 2, 2005 6:03:16 AM

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

jeffc wrote:
> "chung" <chunglau@covad.net> wrote in message
> news:D a15pk019p7@news4.newsguy.com...
>>>
>>> Technically, digital is crude compared to vinyl, because vinyl is analog
>>> which is pure. The analogy the approximation of an integral (area under
>>> a curve) by using intervals, vs. actual calculus, which simply gets it
>>> right from the start. I say "technically" because it is, or will be,
>>> possible to get the approximation so good that you can't tell the
>>> difference. Unless the iPod crowd makes it financially unfeasible to do
>>> so in the market.
>>
>> With all due respect, you simply do not understand digital audio. Or
>> vinyl, for that matter. Your attempt to justify a preference simply
>> exposes a severe lack of knowledge of the technical aspects of audio.
>
> I prefer digital. Try again.

With all due respect you simply fo not understand digital audio. You
really have exposed a severe lack of knowledge of the technical aspects
of audio in that post. The fact that you said analog is "pure", strongly
supggests that you prefer analog.

Better?
Anonymous
July 2, 2005 6:03:47 AM

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

Greg Lee wrote:
> Helen Schmidt <music3142-usenet@yahoo.com> wrote:
> ...
> > Actually, what you have done here is point out exactly the difficulty
> > in the "objectivist" position, which is that any "subjective"
> > observation which seems to contradict the "objective measurements" is
> > put in the category of listener bias, imagination, euphonic distortion,
> > etc. It's too general an idea; it can explain away anything and
> > everything.
>
> But that's what always happens with observations that contradict
> established theories. They're dismissed. Only new and better
> theories can win out. What's wanted from the non-"objectivist"
> side is some alternative theoretical understanding. If you don't
> want to be explained away, explain.

Yes, when new evidence comes in, theories that don't fit are discarded.
The problem is that neither measurements nor asking questions is a very
good way of determining someone's mental state; neither of them are
very good evidence. But measurements at present are completely
worthless at determining mental state, so to support a theory of mental
state on the basis of measurements is absurd.

Helen Schmidt
July 2, 2005 6:05:20 AM

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

Helen Schmidt wrote:

> Russ Button wrote:
>
>>
>> As an exercise, I recently digitized "Supersax Plays Bird" from
>> my MFSL recording. I have a Xitel Inport, which is a cute little
>> A to D converter, which feeds into a PC USB port. I can then
>> burn a CD from it. When comparing the CD to the original
>> vinyl, there does appear to be some added edginess. Is that
>> an artifact of the Xitel Inport, or is it inherent to digitial?
>> I don't know.
>>
>
> When the overwhelming pattern is that CD's have faults such as
> edginess (commercially produced CD's) and vinyl is free from these
> faults, the obvious conclusion is that the problem is inherent to
> digital.
>

This paragraph speaks volumes about the poster's bias against CD.

1. There are many CD's that do not exhibit edginess at all. Edginess
is most likely a result of equalization by the mastering engineers. In
fact, other than some very poorly mastered CD's from the early '80's, I
have heard very few "edgy" CD's. I guess I should qualify that by saying
that I mostly listen to classical music these days.

2. I have heard many vinyl recordings that exhibit edginess. These
were mostly from the 1970's and '80's.

3. Even if you accept that there are more edgy CD's than vinyl LP's,
the conclusion that the problem is inherent to digital is seriously
wrong. To arrive at that conclusion, you have to show evidence that (a)
there is no vinyl LP that is edgy, (b) all digital recordings show
edginess, and (c) have vinyl and digital records made from the same
master where you prove that the vinyl is not edgy while the digital is.

4. There is not even a consensus about what "edgy" means. Edgy to you
may be clear and transparent to others. Define "edgy" in a way that is
quantifiable, then we can have a more meaningful discussion.

> Of course, since this can't be understood using our current set of
> measurements (of audio systems and brains), the objectivist who craves
> understanding must fall back on other explanations. The tricky thing
> is that many of these alternative explanations are valid in some
> situations. The explanations include:
>
> - vinyl has euphonic distortions
>
> - CD reveals the limitations of the system
>
> Of course, these can realistically describe some situations.
>

I guess it is tricky when you do not have any argument against those
explanations, and you really, really, don't want to believe them :) .

I can provide other explanations, too. Maybe you'll find them tricky
also. How about:

(a) There are excellent vinyl recordings of certain performances that
have not been successfully remastered in digital.

(b) Some people like vinyl for nostalgic reasons.

(c) Some people like vinyl for the coolness factor. Vinyl is such a
samll niche that it might make someone feel special to still prefer
vinyl. One of my sons told me that, so it is true.

(d) Some people have no luck in getting good CD's (and/or high-rez digital).

(e) Some people just love going through the ritual of cleaning,
adjusting, tweaking, getting up to change sides, etc.

(f) Some people do not like to be startled by the huge dynamic range
inherent in CD and digital. They feel more comfortable listening to
recordings where there is always a certain hiss, reminding them that
they are listening to a vinyl record.

(g) Vinyl provides limitless opportunities in tweaking. There are many
things in a vinyl system that you can change to effect a noticeable
audio difference. Some people like tweaking. Some people like to always
look for upgrades. Some people want to debate what is SOTA, or what is
hi-end, and the vinyl systems allow them to do that.

But, seriously, why do you care about why people prefer certain things?
If I prefer CD's, are you going to start researching why?
Anonymous
July 2, 2005 6:06:04 AM

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

"Gary Rosen" <garymrosen@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:D a477u018ii@news3.newsguy.com...
> <Theporkygeorge@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:D a1b4901du3@news4.newsguy.com...
>
>
>> But digital isn't the issue it is CDs v. LPs. Indeed I have some LPs
>> made from digital recodings that I quite like. I like some, in fact
>> many, better than the CD version. Go figure.
>
> I figure you've never done a blind test. Of course, you can't really
> do a blind test with CD vs. LP since there is always surface noise
> to let you know it's an LP.

No, not really. With a good record and record player, the surface noise can
easily be below level of tape hiss of the master from which the 2 sources
were made.
Anonymous
July 2, 2005 6:07:31 AM

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

Dennis Moore wrote:
> Well don't confuse CD as the only digital. Or all flaws on CD as the
> fault of digital.

Agreed.

> Try some recordings with your computer. If you can manage it, feed the
> pre-amp out to your sound card with some interconnects and adapters.
> Record some LP's and then burn a CD-R or CD-RW. See what you
> think? Might be very surprised.

This is exactly what I did. The edginess is there, though it is not glaring.
I can think of several possible reasons for it.

1. Operator error. I may not be running the equipment properly or
I might be using less than optimal settings on the capture software.

2. The A to D converter in the Xitel Inport may just be of a lower
quality than A to D converters used in pro grade setups.

3. Digital at 44.1 khz may introduce audible artifacts which manifest
as edginess.

Russ
Anonymous
July 2, 2005 6:08:11 AM

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

Ed Seedhouse <eseedhouse@shaw.ca> wrote:
> On 30 Jun 2005 22:09:47 GMT, "Helen Schmidt"
> <music3142-usenet@yahoo.com> wrote:

> >When the overwhelming pattern is that CD's have faults such as
> >edginess (commercially produced CD's) and vinyl is free from these
> >faults, the obvious conclusion is that the problem is inherent to
> >digital.

> This looks to me to be a case of very bad logic. If even a minority of
> CD's do not display this "edginess" then it must be true that the
> edginess is *not* inherent in the medium. Only if 100% of CD's
> exhibited "edginess" would there be any justification for suspecting
> that the "edginess" is inherent.

> ONE single CD without "edginess", on the other hand, is actually proof
> by counterexample that the "edginess" is not inherent.

Aside from which, it is NOT the 'overhwhelming pattern' that CDs have
'faults such as edginess'; that is only a *common belief* of
*audiophile culture* -- which is a tiny, tiny segment of the listening
public.


--

-S
"You know what love really is? It's like you've swallowed a great big
secret. A warm wonderful secret that nobody else knows about." - 'Blame it
on Rio'
Anonymous
July 2, 2005 6:08:45 AM

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

Russ Button <russ@button.com> wrote:
> Helen Schmidt wrote:
> > Russ Button wrote:
> >
> >
> >>As an exercise, I recently digitized "Supersax Plays Bird" from
> >>my MFSL recording.
> >
> > When the overwhelming pattern is that CD's have faults such as
> > edginess (commercially produced CD's) and vinyl is free from these
> > faults, the obvious conclusion is that the problem is inherent to
> > digital.

> Remember that in my example, the vinyl is my "original"
> source. The CD I made is a copy of that source and was
> then compared to it. If the CD record/playback chain was
> truly perfect, then it should have sounded identical when
> compared to the vinyl source from which it was made.

In my personal experience, which accords with the scientific
literature, comparisons of audio that are done 'sighted',
such as yours seems to have been, are highly prone to false positive
impressions of 'difference'. Have you tried to repeat the comparison
with some elementary controls in place? Admittedly these will
be difficult to put in place for a vinyl/CD copy comparison,
since to do it right you'll have to not only level match both
channels, but also time-synch the two sources, and devise some
means of random switching between them. It also assumes that
the LP doesn't pick up new pops and ticks before or during the
test.

Without these precautions any report of difference between an LP
and a competently-made digital copy of same is inherently suspect.




--

-S
"You know what love really is? It's like you've swallowed a great big
secret. A warm wonderful secret that nobody else knows about." - 'Blame it
on Rio'
Anonymous
July 2, 2005 6:09:07 AM

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

Gary Rosen <garymrosen@comcast.net> wrote:
> <Theporkygeorge@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:D a1b4901du3@news4.newsguy.com...


> > But digital isn't the issue it is CDs v. LPs. Indeed I have some LPs
> > made from digital recodings that I quite like. I like some, in fact
> > many, better than the CD version. Go figure.

> I figure you've never done a blind test. Of course, you can't really
> do a blind test with CD vs. LP since there is always surface noise
> to let you know it's an LP.

That only matters if the LP accretes *more* noise
after you've done the transfer.


--

-S
"You know what love really is? It's like you've swallowed a great big
secret. A warm wonderful secret that nobody else knows about." - 'Blame it
on Rio'
Anonymous
July 2, 2005 6:09:24 AM

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

Greg Lee <greg@ling.lll.hawaii.edu> wrote:
> Helen Schmidt <music3142-usenet@yahoo.com> wrote:
> ...
> > Actually, what you have done here is point out exactly the difficulty
> > in the "objectivist" position, which is that any "subjective"
> > observation which seems to contradict the "objective measurements" is
> > put in the category of listener bias, imagination, euphonic distortion,
> > etc. It's too general an idea; it can explain away anything and
> > everything.

> But that's what always happens with observations that contradict
> established theories. They're dismissed. Only new and better
> theories can win out. What's wanted from the non-"objectivist"
> side is some alternative theoretical understanding. If you don't
> want to be explained away, explain.

Better still would be some experimental testing of the alternative
theory. *Anyone* can theorize. ;>



--

-S
"You know what love really is? It's like you've swallowed a great big
secret. A warm wonderful secret that nobody else knows about." - 'Blame it
on Rio'
    • 1 / 8
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
    • More pages
    • Next
    • Newest
!