CD Vs. Vinyl?

[Guest]

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

On 16 Apr 2005 17:48:28 GMT, Sam Odom <samodom51@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On 16 Apr 2005 15:47:37 GMT, Stewart Pinkerton <patent3@dircon.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>Vinyl is dead, the only movement you see is rigor mortis........
>
>Stewart Pinkerton, I wish you would stop beating around the bush and
>speak your mind. LOL

Sorry, but the moderators, y'know...............

>I disagree! Young kids (16-25yo) are buying vinyl now.

Yes, but because it's 'kool', not for any reasons to do with 'natural
sound' or other such vinyl mythology.

> Rap Masters are
>the reason they became interested. Once they heard LPs then they, the
>kids, started listening to other styles of music.

I'd like to see some evidence that they moved to other styles of music
on LP because they thought LPs had 'superior reality' etc etc.

No one denies that vinyl can sound *nice*, but that's hardly a good
argument in *this* forum!

>Disclaimer: I did not mean to equate Rap & music.

Noted and concurred. Word.........
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

 

[Guest]

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

On 16 Apr 2005 18:36:29 GMT, Theporkygeorge@aol.com wrote:

>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>> On 15 Apr 2005 20:36:17 GMT, none <Vampyres@nettaxi.com> wrote:

>> >CD's are limited to 16bit encoding, something that the recording
>> >industry has never deemed to correct.
>>
>> Given that this gives 93dB dynamic range, comfortably more than any
>> *master tape*, what's the problem?
>>
>> >(24bit is a must for complex musical arrangements.)
>>
>> This is one of the most ludicrous assertions I've ever seen. Not one
>> single industry professional has *ever* suggested that more than 20
>> bits would have any audible effect on music.
>
>Simply not true. Many of the best recording and mastering engineers
>have more than suggested as much.

In the *replay* medium? Name one. I'm not saying that everyone
considers 16/44 to be adequate (although many do), simply that 24/96
is recognised as overkill - but now commercially viable.

> Of course, with DVD, we
>> get 24/96 by default, but absolutely no one claims that this is
>> *necessary* in the replay medium, although it's useful when
>recording.
>>
>> >Vinyl is as strong as ever, at least with those really want natural
>> >sounding hifi.
>>
>> Vinyl is dead, the only movement you see is rigor mortis........
>
>You are simply out of touch with reality here. Vinyl is alive and well.
>There are numerous producers of new vinyl and audiophile reissues.
>There are also many manufacturers of high end playback equipment. The
>market is far more vital than it was 10 years ago. Hardly the sign of
>rigor mortis.

I'm not the one who's out of touch with reality here. There are *zero*
new albums which are *only* available on vinyl, and a product which
used to command more than 50% of the market, and is now rattling along
at less than 1% on the back of rap and club music, plus a tiny dribble
of 'audiophile' releases, cannot reasonably be described as 'alive and
well'. I can still buy a buggy whip, but that doesn't make the buggy
whip industry 'alive and well'..............

The fact that people are still buying high-end playback equipment is
simply an indication of the large amount of legacy vinyl still out
there, plus the traditional 'gear-churning' caused by audiophilia
nervosa. If you're gullible enough to think that vinyl is 'superior',
then naturally you have to have this year's wonder replay gear as
approved by the ragazine gurus like Fremer, to maintain your 'high
end' credentials!
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

 

[Guest]

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

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> On 16 Apr 2005 18:36:29 GMT, Theporkygeorge@aol.com wrote:
>
> >Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> >> On 15 Apr 2005 20:36:17 GMT, none <Vampyres@nettaxi.com> wrote:
>
> >> >CD's are limited to 16bit encoding, something that the recording
> >> >industry has never deemed to correct.
> >>
> >> Given that this gives 93dB dynamic range, comfortably more than
any
> >> *master tape*, what's the problem?
> >>
> >> >(24bit is a must for complex musical arrangements.)
> >>
> >> This is one of the most ludicrous assertions I've ever seen. Not
one
> >> single industry professional has *ever* suggested that more than
20
> >> bits would have any audible effect on music.
> >
> >Simply not true. Many of the best recording and mastering engineers
> >have more than suggested as much.
>
> In the *replay* medium? Name one.


Stan Ricker. There are many more but you asked me to name one. So
there, a top notch inductry pro who has more than suggested that more
than 20 bits will have an audible affect on music.


I'm not saying that everyone
> considers 16/44 to be adequate (although many do), simply that 24/96
> is recognised as overkill - but now commercially viable.


Some see it as overkill, some see it as a big improvement over 16/44.
Opinions abound, even amoung the pros.



>
> > Of course, with DVD, we
> >> get 24/96 by default, but absolutely no one claims that this is
> >> *necessary* in the replay medium, although it's useful when
> >recording.
> >>
> >> >Vinyl is as strong as ever, at least with those really want
natural
> >> >sounding hifi.
> >>
> >> Vinyl is dead, the only movement you see is rigor mortis........
> >
> >You are simply out of touch with reality here. Vinyl is alive and
well.
> >There are numerous producers of new vinyl and audiophile reissues.
> >There are also many manufacturers of high end playback equipment.
The
> >market is far more vital than it was 10 years ago. Hardly the sign
of
> >rigor mortis.
>
> I'm not the one who's out of touch with reality here.

OK you are simply in denial.


There are *zero*
> new albums which are *only* available on vinyl, and a product which
> used to command more than 50% of the market,


How does that make vinyl dead? By that reasoning CD must also be dead
since there are zero new albums that are *only* avaiable on CD.



and is now rattling along
> at less than 1% on the back of rap and club music,


Dead things don't rattle along. Of course that is also a
misrepresentation. You choose to ignore the *fact* that audiophile
vinyl production and sales are substantially higher than they were 10
years ago. That's called growth. Calling a growth industry dead is a
gross misrepresentation, period.



plus a tiny dribble
> of 'audiophile' releases, cannot reasonably be described as 'alive
and
> well'.



Sure it can. Just because something isn't a mass market product doesn't
make it dead.


I can still buy a buggy whip, but that doesn't make the buggy
> whip industry 'alive and well'..............


Straw man argument. You can ignore the facts if you wish. Audiophile
vinyl is alive and well. In fact the riches are greater than ever
before. You can buy more excellent sounding vinyl and vinyl playback
equipment now than ever before in the history of the medium. All things
should enjoy such a viberant lively death.



>
> The fact that people are still buying high-end playback equipment is
> simply an indication of the large amount of legacy vinyl still out
> there, plus the traditional 'gear-churning' caused by audiophilia
> nervosa.


Pure speculation that ignores the claims of the very people you now try
to speak for.


If you're gullible enough to think that vinyl is 'superior',


Has nothing to so with guilibility. Has everything to do with actual
listening experience.



> then naturally you have to have this year's wonder replay gear as
> approved by the ragazine gurus like Fremer, to maintain your 'high
> end' credentials!

You are just making things up now. I find vinyl to be superior to CD in
most head to head comparisons of the same title yet I have no
compulsion to have "this years wonder replay gear." Your
misrepresentation of audiophiles such as myself just reduces the
credibility of your comments on the subject. You are indeed totally out
of touch on the subject of audiophile vinyl and the motivations behind
the people that keep that industry alive and well despite your claims
that said industry has died. IMO if you had a legitimate point to make
you wouldn't need to make so many misrepresentations of the facts.


Scott Wheeler

 

[Guest]

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

On 17 Apr 2005 20:44:58 GMT, Theporkygeorge@aol.com wrote:

>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>> On 16 Apr 2005 18:36:29 GMT, Theporkygeorge@aol.com wrote:

>> In the *replay* medium? Name one.
>
>Stan Ricker. There are many more but you asked me to name one. So
>there, a top notch inductry pro who has more than suggested that more
>than 20 bits will have an audible affect on music.

Excuse me? Stan Ricker? He is a *vinyl* mastering engineer, so he
works with 13 bits on the best day of his life!

> I'm not saying that everyone
>> considers 16/44 to be adequate (although many do), simply that 24/96
>> is recognised as overkill - but now commercially viable.
>
>Some see it as overkill, some see it as a big improvement over 16/44.
>Opinions abound, even amoung the pros.

As often noted, opinions are abundant - everybody has one.

> There are *zero*
>> new albums which are *only* available on vinyl, and a product which
>> used to command more than 50% of the market,
>
>How does that make vinyl dead? By that reasoning CD must also be dead
>since there are zero new albums that are *only* avaiable on CD.

Nonsense, there are *hundreds* of albums released each year which are
only available on CD - until they get compressed to MP3, of course....

> and is now rattling along
>> at less than 1% on the back of rap and club music,
>
>Dead things don't rattle along. Of course that is also a
>misrepresentation. You choose to ignore the *fact* that audiophile
>vinyl production and sales are substantially higher than they were 10
>years ago. That's called growth.

No, that's called an untrue statement.................

>Audiophile
>vinyl is alive and well. In fact the riches are greater than ever
>before. You can buy more excellent sounding vinyl and vinyl playback
>equipment now than ever before in the history of the medium. All things
>should enjoy such a viberant lively death.

That is an utterly *ludicrous* claim. AFAIAA, the 'audiophile' vinyl
industry is now reduced to *one* pressing plant in the entire
continental USA. That's 'healthy'?

>You are just making things up now. I find vinyl to be superior to CD in
>most head to head comparisons of the same title yet I have no
>compulsion to have "this years wonder replay gear." Your
>misrepresentation of audiophiles such as myself just reduces the
>credibility of your comments on the subject. You are indeed totally out
>of touch on the subject of audiophile vinyl and the motivations behind
>the people that keep that industry alive and well despite your claims
>that said industry has died. IMO if you had a legitimate point to make
>you wouldn't need to make so many misrepresentations of the facts.

Yawn......................

>Scott Wheeler

Aaaah, all is explained.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

 

[Guest]

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

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> On 17 Apr 2005 20:44:58 GMT, Theporkygeorge@aol.com wrote:
>
> >Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> >> On 16 Apr 2005 18:36:29 GMT, Theporkygeorge@aol.com wrote:
>
> >> In the *replay* medium? Name one.
> >
> >Stan Ricker. There are many more but you asked me to name one. So
> >there, a top notch inductry pro who has more than suggested that
more
> >than 20 bits will have an audible affect on music.
>
> Excuse me?

No


Stan Ricker?


Yes.



He is a *vinyl* mastering engineer, so he
> works with 13 bits on the best day of his life!


Wrong. He is also a CD mastering engineer and a long time recording
engineer in analogue and digital. I suggest you do your homework next
time. By the way, there are no "bits" involved in Stan's LP mastering
munless there was a digital recording involved.



>
> > I'm not saying that everyone
> >> considers 16/44 to be adequate (although many do), simply that
24/96
> >> is recognised as overkill - but now commercially viable.
> >
> >Some see it as overkill, some see it as a big improvement over
16/44.
> >Opinions abound, even amoung the pros.
>
> As often noted, opinions are abundant - everybody has one.
>
> > There are *zero*
> >> new albums which are *only* available on vinyl, and a product
which
> >> used to command more than 50% of the market,
> >
> >How does that make vinyl dead? By that reasoning CD must also be
dead
> >since there are zero new albums that are *only* avaiable on CD.
>
> Nonsense, there are *hundreds* of albums released each year which are
> only available on CD - until they get compressed to MP3, of
course....


That means they are not exclusive to CD. So...by your reasoning CDs are
dead.




>
> > and is now rattling along
> >> at less than 1% on the back of rap and club music,
> >
> >Dead things don't rattle along. Of course that is also a
> >misrepresentation. You choose to ignore the *fact* that audiophile
> >vinyl production and sales are substantially higher than they were
10
> >years ago. That's called growth.
>
> No, that's called an untrue statement.................



Wrong. Get back to me when you get in touch with the facts.



>
> >Audiophile
> >vinyl is alive and well. In fact the riches are greater than ever
> >before. You can buy more excellent sounding vinyl and vinyl playback
> >equipment now than ever before in the history of the medium. All
things
> >should enjoy such a viberant lively death.
>
> That is an utterly *ludicrous* claim. AFAIAA, the 'audiophile' vinyl
> industry is now reduced to *one* pressing plant in the entire
> continental USA. That's 'healthy'?




Since it is superior, yes it is healthy. The plant that Simply Vinyl
uses in Europe and the plant that King Super Analog uses are also
superior. That is also quite healthy for audiophile vinyl.




>
> >You are just making things up now. I find vinyl to be superior to CD
in
> >most head to head comparisons of the same title yet I have no
> >compulsion to have "this years wonder replay gear." Your
> >misrepresentation of audiophiles such as myself just reduces the
> >credibility of your comments on the subject. You are indeed totally
out
> >of touch on the subject of audiophile vinyl and the motivations
behind
> >the people that keep that industry alive and well despite your
claims
> >that said industry has died. IMO if you had a legitimate point to
make
> >you wouldn't need to make so many misrepresentations of the facts.
>
> Yawn......................



That's useful and meaningful. Again, I suggest you aquaint yourself
with the facts before discussing this topic.



>
> >Scott Wheeler
>
> Aaaah, all is explained.
> --
>
> Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering




Aaaaah, indeed, all is explained.

 

[Guest]

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

On 19 Apr 2005 23:52:42 GMT, Theporkygeorge@aol.com wrote:

>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>> On 17 Apr 2005 20:44:58 GMT, Theporkygeorge@aol.com wrote:
>>
>> >Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>> >> On 16 Apr 2005 18:36:29 GMT, Theporkygeorge@aol.com wrote:
>>
>> >> In the *replay* medium? Name one.
>> >
>> >Stan Ricker. There are many more but you asked me to name one. So
>> >there, a top notch inductry pro who has more than suggested that more
>> >than 20 bits will have an audible affect on music.
>>
>> Excuse me?

>> He is a *vinyl* mastering engineer, so he
>> works with 13 bits on the best day of his life!
>
>Wrong. He is also a CD mastering engineer and a long time recording
>engineer in analogue and digital. I suggest you do your homework next
>time. By the way, there are no "bits" involved in Stan's LP mastering
>munless there was a digital recording involved.

As ever, you are fact-challenged. You are also ducking the issue, as
you're perfectly well aware that '13 bits' refers to a dynamic range
of 75dB, which Stan will never see on vinyl. Ricker does CD to keep
the tills ringing, but he is an analogue specialist, as you well know.
BTW, I'm not knocking his contribution to audio, since he did pioneer
half-speed mastering, a genuinely useful improvement.

OTOH, when you see 'useful links' on his website pointing to Cardas
and Shakti, the old bullshit detector starts to twitch!

>> That is an utterly *ludicrous* claim. AFAIAA, the 'audiophile' vinyl
>> industry is now reduced to *one* pressing plant in the entire
>> continental USA. That's 'healthy'?

>Since it is superior, yes it is healthy. The plant that Simply Vinyl
>uses in Europe and the plant that King Super Analog uses are also
>superior. That is also quite healthy for audiophile vinyl.

Superior to what? Which part of 'one' did you fail to understand?

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

 

[Guest]

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

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> On 19 Apr 2005 23:52:42 GMT, Theporkygeorge@aol.com wrote:
>
> >Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> >> On 17 Apr 2005 20:44:58 GMT, Theporkygeorge@aol.com wrote:
> >>
> >> >Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> >> >> On 16 Apr 2005 18:36:29 GMT, Theporkygeorge@aol.com wrote:
> >>
> >> >> In the *replay* medium? Name one.
> >> >
> >> >Stan Ricker. There are many more but you asked me to name one. So
> >> >there, a top notch inductry pro who has more than suggested that
more
> >> >than 20 bits will have an audible affect on music.
> >>
> >> Excuse me?
>
> >> He is a *vinyl* mastering engineer, so he
> >> works with 13 bits on the best day of his life!
> >
> >Wrong. He is also a CD mastering engineer and a long time recording
> >engineer in analogue and digital. I suggest you do your homework
next
> >time. By the way, there are no "bits" involved in Stan's LP
mastering
> >munless there was a digital recording involved.
>
> As ever, you are fact-challenged.


I would like to remind you that the last time we debated the history of
an industry pro whose beliefs on audio differed greatly from yours you
made false claims that said person had ben fired from their job. I
suggest that you check your facts before you make the same mistake and
make disparaging flase claims about another industry pro's history in
the business.



You are also ducking the issue,


No you are. The issue was whether or not any industry pro had made a
particular claim. You asked me to name one and I named one. One of
many. You went on to misrepresent that industry pro's experience. You
seemed to have not learned your lesson on misrepresenting others just
because they don't agree with you.


as
> you're perfectly well aware that '13 bits' refers to a dynamic range
> of 75dB, which Stan will never see on vinyl.


Don't ell me what I am and am not aware of.


Ricker does CD to keep
> the tills ringing, but he is an analogue specialist, as you well
know.



I know that he works extensively with digital and has views on it that
you claimed no industry pro has. Is this hard to understand?



> BTW, I'm not knocking his contribution to audio, since he did pioneer
> half-speed mastering, a genuinely useful improvement.

He also has done some of the best *digital* mastering to be found in
the business. I don't think that has happened via a lack of experience
with digital.



>
> OTOH, when you see 'useful links' on his website pointing to Cardas
> and Shakti, the old bullshit detector starts to twitch!



Arm chair quarterbacks are a dime a dozen. He has a track record in the
business both in analog and digital.



>
> >> That is an utterly *ludicrous* claim. AFAIAA, the 'audiophile'
vinyl
> >> industry is now reduced to *one* pressing plant in the entire
> >> continental USA. That's 'healthy'?
>
> >Since it is superior, yes it is healthy. The plant that Simply Vinyl
> >uses in Europe and the plant that King Super Analog uses are also
> >superior. That is also quite healthy for audiophile vinyl.
>
> Superior to what?


To th wide variety of pressing plants that used to press vinyl. How
could you not understand this in light of your question?



Which part of 'one' did you fail to understand?


Which part of my answer did you not undersatnd? Was it "Yes" (it is
healthy)? Or did you not understand the reason given (that it made for
better pressings)?


Scott Wheeler

 

[moe]

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

Maybe a bit off topic, but I totally forgot what a pain scratches are on
vinyl. CD's have gotten us used to zero scratch sounds. I was listening
to an LP the other day and couldn't get my head around all the ticks and
pops and this one was in pretty good condition.

So, even if you remove the audio quality argument for now, scratching
vinyl even with very expensive turntables/stylus/arm -- is a serious
issue we tend to forget today in the age of compact discs.

 

[Guest]

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

Moe wrote:
> Maybe a bit off topic, but I totally forgot what a pain scratches are
on
> vinyl. CD's have gotten us used to zero scratch sounds. I was
listening
> to an LP the other day and couldn't get my head around all the ticks
and
> pops and this one was in pretty good condition.
>
> So, even if you remove the audio quality argument for now, scratching

> vinyl even with very expensive turntables/stylus/arm -- is a serious
> issue we tend to forget today in the age of compact discs.

I have a few scratched-up LPs that I still absolutely love. DSOTM
without surface noise is unnatural.

bob

 

[Guest]

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

"Moe" <moebelli@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:d65cbm02f3o@news4.newsguy.com...
> Maybe a bit off topic, but I totally forgot what a pain scratches are on
> vinyl. CD's have gotten us used to zero scratch sounds. I was listening
> to an LP the other day and couldn't get my head around all the ticks and
> pops and this one was in pretty good condition.
>
> So, even if you remove the audio quality argument for now, scratching
> vinyl even with very expensive turntables/stylus/arm -- is a serious
> issue we tend to forget today in the age of compact discs.
>

Scratchy vinyl can be greatly reduced, in some cases even eliminated, with
careful record cleaning, future care to brush dust before every play, and a
line contact stylus. However, this is too much work for some people and the
convenience of CD is certainly real.

 

[chung]

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

nabob33@hotmail.com wrote:

> Moe wrote:
>> Maybe a bit off topic, but I totally forgot what a pain scratches are
> on
>> vinyl. CD's have gotten us used to zero scratch sounds. I was
> listening
>> to an LP the other day and couldn't get my head around all the ticks
> and
>> pops and this one was in pretty good condition.
>>
>> So, even if you remove the audio quality argument for now, scratching
>
>> vinyl even with very expensive turntables/stylus/arm -- is a serious
>> issue we tend to forget today in the age of compact discs.
>
> I have a few scratched-up LPs that I still absolutely love. DSOTM
> without surface noise is unnatural.
>
> bob

For me, "Too Late Now" by Carole King without pops, clicks and surface
noise is a different song... .

 

[Guest]

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

Chung wrote:
>
> For me, "Too Late Now" by Carole King without pops, clicks and
surface
> noise is a different song... .

Ah, a piano number for which wow and flutter is essential.

bob

 

[chung]

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

nabob33@hotmail.com wrote:

> Chung wrote:
>>
>> For me, "Too Late Now" by Carole King without pops, clicks and
> surface
>> noise is a different song... .
>
> Ah, a piano number for which wow and flutter is essential.
>
> bob

Hmmm, I haven't really thought about it, but you may be right. Also, the
piano definitely sounds a little more "bloated" on vinyl, and "leaner"
on CD. Sorry to use those really ambiguous words...

 

[None]

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

On 14 May 2005 17:26:14 GMT, Moe <moebelli@rogers.com> wrote:

>Maybe a bit off topic, but I totally forgot what a pain scratches are on
>vinyl. CD's have gotten us used to zero scratch sounds. I was listening
>to an LP the other day and couldn't get my head around all the ticks and
>pops and this one was in pretty good condition.
>
>So, even if you remove the audio quality argument for now, scratching
>vinyl even with very expensive turntables/stylus/arm -- is a serious
>issue we tend to forget today in the age of compact discs.

That's why they make tick and pop filters.
Also if you stick with DBX vinyl recordings it's not even an issue,
zero noise inregards to surface noise.
Also I've listened to some French pressed audiophile vinyl lately that
was immaculate, not a scratch or pop to be heard.

 

[Guest]

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

Harry Lavo wrote:

> "Moe" <moebelli@rogers.com> wrote in message
> news:d65cbm02f3o@news4.newsguy.com...
>
>>Maybe a bit off topic, but I totally forgot what a pain scratches are on
>>vinyl. CD's have gotten us used to zero scratch sounds. I was listening
>>to an LP the other day and couldn't get my head around all the ticks and
>>pops and this one was in pretty good condition.
>>
>>So, even if you remove the audio quality argument for now, scratching
>>vinyl even with very expensive turntables/stylus/arm -- is a serious
>>issue we tend to forget today in the age of compact discs.
>>
>
>
> Scratchy vinyl can be greatly reduced, in some cases even eliminated, with
> careful record cleaning, future care to brush dust before every play, and a
> line contact stylus. However, this is too much work for some people and the
> convenience of CD is certainly real.
>
C'mon. It's too much work.....period. You spend 20-30 minutes cleaning a
record which you will play for 20-30 minutes? Actually, that would makes
sense, if, when you play the record, you record and burn a CDR of that
playback session


CD

 

[Guest]

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

"Codifus" <codifus@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:d70fru0fv2@news3.newsguy.com...
> Harry Lavo wrote:
>
> > "Moe" <moebelli@rogers.com> wrote in message
> > news:d65cbm02f3o@news4.newsguy.com...
> >
> >>Maybe a bit off topic, but I totally forgot what a pain scratches are on
> >>vinyl. CD's have gotten us used to zero scratch sounds. I was listening
> >>to an LP the other day and couldn't get my head around all the ticks and
> >>pops and this one was in pretty good condition.
> >>
> >>So, even if you remove the audio quality argument for now, scratching
> >>vinyl even with very expensive turntables/stylus/arm -- is a serious
> >>issue we tend to forget today in the age of compact discs.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Scratchy vinyl can be greatly reduced, in some cases even eliminated,
with
> > careful record cleaning, future care to brush dust before every play,
and a
> > line contact stylus. However, this is too much work for some people and
the
> > convenience of CD is certainly real.
> >
> C'mon. It's too much work.....period. You spend 20-30 minutes cleaning a
> record which you will play for 20-30 minutes? Actually, that would makes
> sense, if, when you play the record, you record and burn a CDR of that
> playback session
>

First, it takes more like 10 mins to clean the first time; after that about
10 secs. each time you play it. For those of us who like our records, its a
small price to pay.

 

[Guest]

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

"none" <Vampyres@nettaxi.com> wrote in message
news:d6e5d002qo0@news3.newsguy.com...
> On 14 May 2005 17:26:14 GMT, Moe <moebelli@rogers.com> wrote:
>
>>Maybe a bit off topic, but I totally forgot what a pain scratches are on
>>vinyl. CD's have gotten us used to zero scratch sounds. I was listening
>>to an LP the other day and couldn't get my head around all the ticks and
>>pops and this one was in pretty good condition.

The problem was more likely the system, not the record. Ordinary, i.e.,
most, cartridges tend to be very resonant in the scratch/pop/tick range. So
are most turntables. So are most arms. The result is that you hear
relatively loud garbage and a relatively quiet signal.

In my experience, dirt is at least as big a problem as damaged vinyl.
Cleaning with a vacuum-type record cleaning machine is always superior to
hand cleaning.

>>So, even if you remove the audio quality argument for now, scratching
>>vinyl even with very expensive turntables/stylus/arm -- is a serious
>>issue we tend to forget today in the age of compact discs.
>
> That's why they make tick and pop filters.

Eh?

> Also if you stick with DBX vinyl recordings it's not even an issue,
> zero noise inregards to surface noise.
> Also I've listened to some French pressed audiophile vinyl lately that
> was immaculate, not a scratch or pop to be heard.

There's plenty of high-end vinyl available, and it's very, very quiet. Check
out the catalog available from http/store.acousticsounds.com. (I have no
interest in the company.)

Unfortunately, good cartridges are VERY expensive, but they are highly
resistant to the resonances caused by surface noise, pops and ticks. The
best tick and pop filter is a good cartridge/arm/turntable setup, and a good
record played on such a setup produces the best sounding MUSIC. On a good
system, it's hard to tell an LP from a CD, except that the music on the LP
sounds more like the real thing. But great sound doesn't come cheap. That's
why they call it "high end."

Tom

 

[Guest]

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

On 28 May 2005 20:02:35 GMT, "Tom Kelly" <kellytom@earthlink.net>
wrote:

>There's plenty of high-end vinyl available, and it's very, very quiet. Check
>out the catalog available from http/store.acousticsounds.com. (I have no
>interest in the company.)
>
>Unfortunately, good cartridges are VERY expensive, but they are highly
>resistant to the resonances caused by surface noise, pops and ticks. The
>best tick and pop filter is a good cartridge/arm/turntable setup, and a good
>record played on such a setup produces the best sounding MUSIC. On a good
>system, it's hard to tell an LP from a CD, except that the music on the LP
>sounds more like the real thing. But great sound doesn't come cheap. That's
>why they call it "high end."

Great sound *does* come cheap - just avoid vinyl! If *you* think that
vinyl sounds 'more like the real thing', that's fine for *you*, but
please don't state it as a *fact*, because it just ain't so.

I also find it trivially easy to tell LP from CD, and that's precisely
because of all the *additional* artifacts of vinyl, not anything
mysteriously 'missing' from CD.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

 

[brianhiatt]

This is a long thread.

I have Large collections of CD's and LP's. When I want to listen to music I pick up a record and play it. I love it. Try it, you might too.

I do, however, disagree with your tagline: I suggest the following: Music is Math - Audio is Art - Audio production and playback is engineering...

 

[Guest]

This topic has been closed by Fihart