CD Vs. Vinyl?

[Guest]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

Best,
Mike

 

[Guest]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

 

[Guest]

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

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

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

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

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

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

 

[Guest]

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

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


What evidence do you have that the majority prefer tube amplification?
I certainly don't, and I have good ears. Tubes distort in rather
unpleasant ways.

 

[Guest]

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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




--

-S
It's not my business to do intelligent work. -- D. Rumsfeld, testifying
before the House Armed Services Committee

 

[Guest]

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

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

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

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

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




--

-S
It's not my business to do intelligent work. -- D. Rumsfeld, testifying
before the House Armed Services Committee

 

[Guest]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Guest]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


-Mike

 

[Guest]

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

Michael Mossey wrote:

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

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

> It SOUNDS more accurate;

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

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

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

bob

 

[Guest]

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

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

>Codifus <codifus@optonline.net> wrote:

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

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

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

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

 

[chung]

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

Michael Mossey wrote:

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

Check out this article:

http/www.bostonaudiosociety.org/bas_speaker/abx_testing2.htm

This is one of the early ABX tests establishing the transparency of
digital audio. Also check out posts by the late Gabe Wiener, a
well-known recording engineer, on this subject, right here on rahe.

 

[Guest]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What 'digital artifacts'? Demonstrate their existence.

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

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

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

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

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

 

[Guest]

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

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

>Codifus wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What artifacts are these?
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

 

[Guest]

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

"Michael Mossey" <michaelmossey@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d2csfd0v1d@news1.newsguy.com...

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

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

- Gary Rosen

 

[Michael]

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

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

Hello.

I prefer solid state amplifiers as well.

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

Yours truly,

Michael

 

[Michael]

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

Michael Mossey wrote:


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

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

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

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

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

michael

 

[Guest]

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

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

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

CD

 

[Guest]

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

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

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

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

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

-- Richard

 

[Guest]

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

Gary Rosen wrote:
> "Michael Mossey" <michaelmossey@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:d2csfd0v1d@news1.newsguy.com...
>
> > But please realize that analogphiles are more sophisticated then
you
> > imply here. We are interested in accuracy, and we are interested
in
> > direct comparison of source and recording. It's been done many
times,
> > and analog was found to be more accurate by the listeners.
>
> I'm interested in knowing what study or studies confirmed as
positively
> as you state that "analog was found to be more accurate by the
listeners".
> Also, how many diffeent recordings and listeners do these findings
> apply to?
>
> - Gary Rosen

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

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

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

-Mike

 

[Guest]

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

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

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

-Mike