CD Vs. Vinyl?

[Guest]

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

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> On 31 Mar 2005 01:06:12 GMT, Codifus <codifus@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>
>>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.
>
>
> Heck, you've seen threads here presenting technical arguments
> supporting the notion that vinyl is better than CD!

True, but the arguments supporting digital audio seemed more
beleivable Or maybe I'm just blinded towards digital audio, but not
really. I have CDs of bands that I love and the CDs sound awful, and I'm
pretty sure because they were 1st gen CDs using 1st gen D/A etc.
>
>
>>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.
>
>
> What on earth gives you that impression? If by transients you mean
> high frequencies, SACD in fact has very *low* dynamic range at high
> frequencies. It's only in the bass and midrange that it can claim
> superior dynamics to CD, as it is a system which has continuously
> decreasing dynamic range with increasing frequency, as opposed to the
> consistent range of linear PCM, aka CD and DVD-A.
I wish I could recall the article. I have a bad enough time just keeping
up with threads I've posted in! On the other hand, you showed yet more
evidence why SACD is not better than even CD in some aspects, and that's
what I'm talking about
>
>
>>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.
>
>
> Sounds like an urban myth to me...........

Don't think so, but It was one these newgroups somewhere. There mention
of a meridian DAC, but my memory is extremely foggy. Anyone else know
what I'm trying to refer to?
>
>
>>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.
>
>
> OTOH, is it *audibly* better than CD? That's a matter of debate among
> industry professionals, never mind domestic audiophiles.

Whether or not it is audible I simply hope it wins just from a technical
standpoint. If DVD-A doesn't win, then CD should be here to stay. I'm
very happy with extremely well mastered redbook CDs like JVC's XRCD and
to some extent even HDCD, even though that format is pretty much dead.
Yeah, Microsoft bought it. It's dead

CD

 

[Guest]

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

"Michael Mossey" <michaelmossey@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d2kq7o02sd@news4.newsguy.com...
> Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> > On 31 Mar 2005 04:12:05 GMT, "Michael Mossey"
> > <michaelmossey@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > >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.
> >
> > And guess what, Sheffield Lab made their money by selling direct-cut
> > vinyl. Of course *they* will say that DD is best,
>
> I think that it is convenient for you to believe that people who
> disagree with you have some ulterior motive.
>
> I'm sure you've done listening tests in which the result came back
> null. Perhaps you've compared two amplifiers or inserted a digital
> processor into a live feed. And very likely you reported hearing no
> difference. Now, if I wanted to do the same thing you are doing, I
> could say that you didn't hear a difference because you didn't want to
> hear a difference. After all, it is far more comforting to live in a
> world that's logical, predictable, and can be understood via
> reductionism. To hear a difference would threaten this world.

What exactly do you mean by "reductionism"? And how is
Stewart's viewpoint (which has considerably more evidence
to support it than yours, as far as I can tell) more "reductionist"
than yours? I don't mean to start a flame war, but it seems
to me you are using this term to denigrate those who
disagree with you without addressing the evidence supporting
them.

- Gary Rosen

 

[chung]

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

Michael Mossey wrote:
> Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>> On 31 Mar 2005 04:12:05 GMT, "Michael Mossey"
>> <michaelmossey@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >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.
>>
>> And guess what, Sheffield Lab made their money by selling direct-cut
>> vinyl. Of course *they* will say that DD is best,
>
> I think that it is convenient for you to believe that people who
> disagree with you have some ulterior motive.
>
> I'm sure you've done listening tests in which the result came back
> null. Perhaps you've compared two amplifiers or inserted a digital
> processor into a live feed. And very likely you reported hearing no
> difference. Now, if I wanted to do the same thing you are doing, I
> could say that you didn't hear a difference because you didn't want to
> hear a difference. After all, it is far more comforting to live in a
> world that's logical, predictable, and can be understood via
> reductionism. To hear a difference would threaten this world.
>
> Do you admit to this possibility? Are you at least willing to say, "I
> could have failed to hear a difference because I was biased?"
>
> If you refuse to admit this, then you have to allow the possibility
> that Sheffield Lab engineers ranked storage media in that order because
> that's honestly how they experienced the relationship to the live feed.
>
>
>

You missed a key point in that ABX article I referenced: the testee was
absolutely adamant that the digital artifacts (as you put in) were
obvious and vile. It is much better for those who strongly believe they
can hear differences to take these blind controlled tests, since they
have established already that they could hear the differences in open,
sighted listening comparisons.

Similarly, in Gabe Wiener's posts, he specifically was asking other
people to take the test (to tell the difference between live feed and
digitized version of it). You really should read up on these old posts,
and try to follow the arguments from both sides carefully.

 

[Michael]

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

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

> Anyone who doubts the truth of this matter is directed to Ken
> Kessler's article on the back page of this month's Hi-Fi News, just
> out.

Hello, Stew.

And, that is your opinion of the current situation, friend. For my
reference, I would point out Audio Sound's April issue of last year, in
which they went through great detail showing the progression of consumer
spending on stereo equipment over the last thirty years. Hardware
aside, the media is also selling more and faster than ever, which has
occurred in leu of internet file sharing.

Michael

 

[Michael]

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

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> This has *nothing* to do with 'high-end' audio.

It most certainly does. It simply states that equal base-points do not
imply equal performance when contrasting two periods.

> It was greater. This is not conjecture, check out industry sales
> figures.

It was more or less the same.

> Less than there used to be............

Wrong again. Currently, consumers have more options than ever.

> *High end* stores, however, are going out of business, and you can't
> buy high end gear in supermarkets.

When one high end store closes, ten popup on the internet.

> Not if no one is replacing their 'high end' equipment. That is the
> truly obvious outcome.

That is flawed, because if it were the case, most audiophiles would be
running antiques. Yet, most antique pieces are used more as commodities
or good bargains. As time changes, technology does get better. If
you're trying to argue that high end audio was better back thirty years
ago, then you'll be alone in the audiophile world. I do not know of any
antique users that would agree with you.

> Utter nonsense, and all the rambling and handwaving in the world won't
> change the *fact* that the 'high end' two-channel market is shrinking
> rapidly, which is why the brighter companies like Krell are rushing
> into the Home Theater market, which certainly is expanding.

Sure, Krell left the market, but I know of a few companies that have
since emerged: Maori, Audio Dominance, Lister Audio Systems, etc. All
of these companies make only stereo gear, and their ads are usually
found in audiophile magazines.

With that aside, your post makes no sense. For people clearly are using
high end multichannel audio gear for music, so your point is moot.
Whatever the intended purpose of the gear is, people are using it to
fulfill their required functions, and listening to stereo music is part
of that. Whether you like it or not, those multichannel receivers have
to be considered when looking at the audio world. And, as we all know,
the passion for multichannel receivers is a force to be reckoned with.

Yours truly,

Michael

 

[chung]

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

Harry F Lavo wrote:
> "Stewart Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
>
>
> The industry is firmly committed to high res as sounding better. They just
> don't know what its commercial future is. Hard to find a sound engineer
> anywhere who will support your position. Hard to find any pro gear that is
> not upgrading to 24/96 (in or out) or greater. Would Benchmark have built
> in 24/96 downconversion if it didn't count in monitoring quality? And don't
> tell me that it is only for mixing...that may hold for the inputs, but not
> for the outputs. The ordinary pro audio world is moving to 24/96 surround
> as a needed output, whether as straight DVD-A, or as downmixed Dolby Digital
> / DTS. With the stereo tracks maintained at this or a higher 24/192 rate.
> And a substantial portion of the classical pro audio world has moved to DSD
> for its superior naturalness as a mastering technology using simple micing.
>

Given the line of reasoning you have demonstrated above, can we finally
conclude that digital audio (including the redbook CD standard) sounds
better than vinyl? After all, the industry has been firmly committed to
digital audio since, oh, the early '80's.

It's so nice to have closure...

 

[Guest]

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

On 2 Apr 2005 00:50:00 GMT, "Michael Mossey" <michaelmossey@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>> On 31 Mar 2005 04:12:05 GMT, "Michael Mossey"
>> <michaelmossey@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >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.
>>
>> And guess what, Sheffield Lab made their money by selling direct-cut
>> vinyl. Of course *they* will say that DD is best,
>
>I think that it is convenient for you to believe that people who
>disagree with you have some ulterior motive.
>
>I'm sure you've done listening tests in which the result came back
>null. Perhaps you've compared two amplifiers or inserted a digital
>processor into a live feed. And very likely you reported hearing no
>difference.

Indeed so. I've also done such comparisons where there *was* an
audible difference.

> Now, if I wanted to do the same thing you are doing, I
>could say that you didn't hear a difference because you didn't want to
>hear a difference. After all, it is far more comforting to live in a
>world that's logical, predictable, and can be understood via
>reductionism. To hear a difference would threaten this world.

Again with the reductionism? It seems that your comforter is to accuse
everything with which you don't agree as being 'reductionist'.

>Do you admit to this possibility? Are you at least willing to say, "I
>could have failed to hear a difference because I was biased?"

No, that's an incredibly wrong-headed suggestion, since I was always
trying really hard to hear a difference, and often did. That's part of
my *design* process.

>If you refuse to admit this, then you have to allow the possibility
>that Sheffield Lab engineers ranked storage media in that order because
>that's honestly how they experienced the relationship to the live feed.

That's certainly possible, although it seems highly unlikely that the
direct-cut records sounded better than the 'Treasury' tapes which
miraculously appearaed some years down the line.

>Any by the way, they also make the best CD's I've ever heard, in terms
>of recorded sound.

They make *some* of the best I've heard, although I'd say that the JVC
XRCD range has more strength in depth, and mostly *much* better
musical performances. The stress of 'single-take' recording for
Sheffield does not seem to have inspired the performers.........

>>but many others
>> disagree, including the late, great Gabe Wiener of PGM, who also made
>> many superb recordings.
>
>How can they be located?

Sorry, I don't know where you'd source them, as I believe the company
was wound up after Gabe's death. He specialised in early religious
music. The main reason I mention him is that he was a firm believer in
the highest possible accyuracy to the original live sound, and used
minimalist microphone techniques, sometimes just a single Schoeps
KFM-6. I have the St John Passion (PGM111), and the realism of the
recording is uncanny.

He is truly a great loss the recorded music community, he was utterly
dedicated to the finest possible quality both of performance and of
recording - and he was a digital fan to his fingertips.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

 

[Guest]

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

On 2 Apr 2005 00:52:37 GMT, "Harry F Lavo" <hlavo@comcast.net> wrote:

>"Stewart Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:d2i73o01uiq@news2.newsguy.com...
>> On 31 Mar 2005 01:06:12 GMT, Codifus <codifus@optonline.net> wrote:
>>
>> >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.
>>
>> Heck, you've seen threads here presenting technical arguments
>> supporting the notion that vinyl is better than CD!
>>
>> >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.
>>
>> What on earth gives you that impression? If by transients you mean
>> high frequencies, SACD in fact has very *low* dynamic range at high
>> frequencies. It's only in the bass and midrange that it can claim
>> superior dynamics to CD, as it is a system which has continuously
>> decreasing dynamic range with increasing frequency, as opposed to the
>> consistent range of linear PCM, aka CD and DVD-A.
>>
>It is based on the lack of pre-transient ringing compared to both CD and
>DVD-A. I even refenced an article here in the past that pointed it out. It
>is fact. You can argue about its audibility, but not its existence. The
>"US legal issue" is Wadia's design, which was specifically done to get rid
>of this artifact.

But by doing so, introduced a raft of false images sprayed across the
audio baseband, which I find disturbing on complex music. I've heard
Sony players with switchable filters very similar to the Wadia style,
and I always preferred the standard 'brick wall' Certainly, that is a
matter of subjective preference.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

 

[Guest]

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

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

> disagree, including the late, great Gabe Wiener of PGM, who also made
> many superb recordings. For some of the best music you'll ever hear,
> also try the JVC XRCD range, which are all made from analog tape
> masters.
> --
>
> Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

I was reading an old thread about Gabe Wiener and you mentioned his St.
John Passion recording. I found it on Amazon, and I'm interested to
hear it for the sound, but I wonder about the performance. As far as
Bach interpretation and my taste, Leonhardt is just right, I can't
stand Harnoncourt, and Klemperer can be dramatic but not really enough
genuine Baroque in him. Does this give you any reference to describe
the Milnes interpretation?

By the way, have you heard any of James Boyk's piano recordings? I
think they are fabulous, and I've attended a couple of the live
concerts that were being recorded. I would be curious to know if you
think that a guy, who in your opinion is full of nonsense on the
subject of engineering, created a piano recording that sounds lifelike
to you?

Boyk consistently states over and over that tubes and analog produce a
more accurate sound, one that captures the details of the sound he
hears at the piano, while digital generally falls down at this task.

Your explanation, no doubt, is that he loves the euphonic effects. So
do you hear these in his recordings? In fact, do the distortions of
tape, LP, and tubes specifically sound not lifelike to you?

-Mike

 

[Guest]

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

"Stewart Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:d2mfjl0266p@news4.newsguy.com...
> On 2 Apr 2005 00:50:00 GMT, "Michael Mossey" <michaelmossey@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> >> On 31 Mar 2005 04:12:05 GMT, "Michael Mossey"
> >> <michaelmossey@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >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.
> >>
> >> And guess what, Sheffield Lab made their money by selling direct-cut
> >> vinyl. Of course *they* will say that DD is best,
> >
> >I think that it is convenient for you to believe that people who
> >disagree with you have some ulterior motive.
> >
> >I'm sure you've done listening tests in which the result came back
> >null. Perhaps you've compared two amplifiers or inserted a digital
> >processor into a live feed. And very likely you reported hearing no
> >difference.
>
> Indeed so. I've also done such comparisons where there *was* an
> audible difference.
>
> > Now, if I wanted to do the same thing you are doing, I
> >could say that you didn't hear a difference because you didn't want to
> >hear a difference. After all, it is far more comforting to live in a
> >world that's logical, predictable, and can be understood via
> >reductionism. To hear a difference would threaten this world.
>
> Again with the reductionism? It seems that your comforter is to accuse
> everything with which you don't agree as being 'reductionist'.
>
> >Do you admit to this possibility? Are you at least willing to say, "I
> >could have failed to hear a difference because I was biased?"
>
> No, that's an incredibly wrong-headed suggestion, since I was always
> trying really hard to hear a difference, and often did. That's part of
> my *design* process.
>
> >If you refuse to admit this, then you have to allow the possibility
> >that Sheffield Lab engineers ranked storage media in that order because
> >that's honestly how they experienced the relationship to the live feed.
>
> That's certainly possible, although it seems highly unlikely that the
> direct-cut records sounded better than the 'Treasury' tapes which
> miraculously appearaed some years down the line.
>
> >Any by the way, they also make the best CD's I've ever heard, in terms
> >of recorded sound.
>
> They make *some* of the best I've heard, although I'd say that the JVC
> XRCD range has more strength in depth, and mostly *much* better
> musical performances. The stress of 'single-take' recording for
> Sheffield does not seem to have inspired the performers.........
>
> >>but many others
> >> disagree, including the late, great Gabe Wiener of PGM, who also made
> >> many superb recordings.
> >
> >How can they be located?
>
> Sorry, I don't know where you'd source them, as I believe the company
> was wound up after Gabe's death. He specialised in early religious
> music. The main reason I mention him is that he was a firm believer in
> the highest possible accyuracy to the original live sound, and used
> minimalist microphone techniques, sometimes just a single Schoeps
> KFM-6. I have the St John Passion (PGM111), and the realism of the
> recording is uncanny.
>
> He is truly a great loss the recorded music community, he was utterly
> dedicated to the finest possible quality both of performance and of
> recording - and he was a digital fan to his fingertips.

As were many other early classical recording engineers, because the medium
at the recording stage offered solutions to problems that bettered
analog...but when turned into a commercial playback vehicle, all kinds of
problems crept in and the final commerical results in the early years were
pretty dismal, with a few exceptions. So vinyl continued to be the
preferred solution for many audiophiles. Also, from the standpoint of pop
recording, analog multitrack offered a "sound" and a comfortable medium that
took a long time to overcome.

 

[Guest]

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

"Chung" <chunglau@covad.net> wrote in message
news:d2mfh30263k@news4.newsguy.com...
> Harry F Lavo wrote:
> > "Stewart Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
> >
> >
> > The industry is firmly committed to high res as sounding better. They
just
> > don't know what its commercial future is. Hard to find a sound engineer
> > anywhere who will support your position. Hard to find any pro gear that
is
> > not upgrading to 24/96 (in or out) or greater. Would Benchmark have
built
> > in 24/96 downconversion if it didn't count in monitoring quality? And
don't
> > tell me that it is only for mixing...that may hold for the inputs, but
not
> > for the outputs. The ordinary pro audio world is moving to 24/96
surround
> > as a needed output, whether as straight DVD-A, or as downmixed Dolby
Digital
> > / DTS. With the stereo tracks maintained at this or a higher 24/192
rate.
> > And a substantial portion of the classical pro audio world has moved to
DSD
> > for its superior naturalness as a mastering technology using simple
micing.
> >
>
> Given the line of reasoning you have demonstrated above, can we finally
> conclude that digital audio (including the redbook CD standard) sounds
> better than vinyl? After all, the industry has been firmly committed to
> digital audio since, oh, the early '80's.
>
> It's so nice to have closure...

Only by your stretch of logic.......

You've had closure...or at least a closed mind to vinyl...for as long as
you've been here.

Measured by recreating the emotional impact and sense of "realism" of the
original performance, vinyl still has much to recommend it, given careful
selection of the components reproducing it.

 

[Guest]

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

> On 1 Apr 2005 01:13:54 GMT, "Michael Mossey" <michaelmossey@yahoo.com>
> wrote:

>>If we get away from a reductionist viewpoint, we also realize that a
>>live digital feed is a different system than stored digital recordings.
>> So the fact that most CD's sound like degraded live feeds to me, and
>>my hypothesis that this occurs from artifacts in the process, is still
>>tenable.

What you're saying here is that you can tell whether a signal is a digitized
analog signal, or a digital recording of the digitized analog signal,
because the process of storing the digital signal causes a reduction in
quality.

If this is true, then you should be able to tell the difference between a CD
and a copy of that CD. Or is it your contention that all degradation
occurs the first time the digital original is recorded, and all further
copies are identical?

Or is this an April fool?

Norm Strong

 

[Guest]

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

"Michael Mossey" <michaelmossey@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d2kq7o02sd@news4.newsguy.com...

> I'm sure you've done listening tests in which the result came back
> null. Perhaps you've compared two amplifiers or inserted a digital
> processor into a live feed. And very likely you reported hearing no
> difference. Now, if I wanted to do the same thing you are doing, I
> could say that you didn't hear a difference because you didn't want to
> hear a difference. After all, it is far more comforting to live in a
> world that's logical, predictable, and can be understood via
> reductionism. To hear a difference would threaten this world.

If what you say is true, then it should be possible to find at least one
person who CAN hear the difference--and can prove it. This certainly would
be embarrassing to Stewart and others that hold his point of view--including
me. Here would be a bunch of people who claimed to hear no difference in
signals that believers conclusively proved could be heard. The shame would
be unbearable. The non-believers would be shown up as not only wrong, but
for the worst possible reason; they didn't even try. And add to this this
the money they'd have to pay the believers!

This scenario makes my blood run cold. I can't bear to think of it.

Norm Strong

 

[Guest]

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

On 2 Apr 2005 15:57:53 GMT, Michael <newsoffthewire@comcast.net>
wrote:

>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>
>> Anyone who doubts the truth of this matter is directed to Ken
>> Kessler's article on the back page of this month's Hi-Fi News, just
>> out.
>
>Hello, Stew.
>
>And, that is your opinion of the current situation, friend.

The point was that it's also Ken Kessler's, and is shared by the
high-end manufacturers, which is why the brighter ones are getting
into 'home theater'.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

 

[chung]

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

Harry F Lavo wrote:
> "Chung" <chunglau@covad.net> wrote in message
> news:d2mfh30263k@news4.newsguy.com...
>> Harry F Lavo wrote:
>> > "Stewart Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
>> >
>> >
>> > The industry is firmly committed to high res as sounding better. They
> just
>> > don't know what its commercial future is. Hard to find a sound engineer
>> > anywhere who will support your position. Hard to find any pro gear that
> is
>> > not upgrading to 24/96 (in or out) or greater. Would Benchmark have
> built
>> > in 24/96 downconversion if it didn't count in monitoring quality? And
> don't
>> > tell me that it is only for mixing...that may hold for the inputs, but
> not
>> > for the outputs. The ordinary pro audio world is moving to 24/96
> surround
>> > as a needed output, whether as straight DVD-A, or as downmixed Dolby
> Digital
>> > / DTS. With the stereo tracks maintained at this or a higher 24/192
> rate.
>> > And a substantial portion of the classical pro audio world has moved to
> DSD
>> > for its superior naturalness as a mastering technology using simple
> micing.
>> >
>>
>> Given the line of reasoning you have demonstrated above, can we finally
>> conclude that digital audio (including the redbook CD standard) sounds
>> better than vinyl? After all, the industry has been firmly committed to
>> digital audio since, oh, the early '80's.
>>
>> It's so nice to have closure...
>
> Only by your stretch of logic.......

Somehow, your own logic, applied to vinyl vs digital, sounds rather
illogical to you, I guess...

>
> You've had closure...or at least a closed mind to vinyl...for as long as
> you've been here.

I have some vinyl recordings that are well recorded, and I have digital
recordings that are poorly recorded. What I am objecting to, if you have
noticed, are pseudo-technical claims of the imaginary short-comings of
digital so as to prove the superiority of vinyl.

>
> Measured by recreating the emotional impact and sense of "realism" of the
> original performance, vinyl still has much to recommend it, given careful
> selection of the components reproducing it.

You get it all wrong. The creation of emotional impact and realism is in
the hands of the performers and the producers, and is certainly not
better done via the LP technology. It fact, LP technology is
demonstrably less accurate, by all measures of accuracy.

 

[Michael]

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

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> On 2 Apr 2005 15:57:53 GMT, Michael <newsoffthewire@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Anyone who doubts the truth of this matter is directed to Ken
>>>Kessler's article on the back page of this month's Hi-Fi News, just
>>>out.
>>
>>Hello, Stew.
>>
>>And, that is your opinion of the current situation, friend.
>
>
> The point was that it's also Ken Kessler's, and is shared by the
> high-end manufacturers, which is why the brighter ones are getting
> into 'home theater'.

Howdy, Stew.

As you just said, that's not the actual case. You claim that it's some
universal truth, then you rephrase that to the only bright ones.
Obviously, even you are quite unsure about your claims.

The bottom line is that while certain companies may be expanding their
horizons, they are not ditching their current stereo stuff in leu of
multichannel gear, and many new stereo-only companies are emerging.
And, according to many reports, stereo sales and media sales keep
increasing at a good pace. Again, this is in leu of internet file
sharing and the multichannel craze.

Yours truly,

Michael

 

[Michael]

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

Harry F Lavo wrote:
> You've had closure...or at least a closed mind to vinyl...for as long as
> you've been here.
>
> Measured by recreating the emotional impact and sense of "realism" of the
> original performance, vinyl still has much to recommend it, given careful
> selection of the components reproducing it.
>


Hello, Harry.

The funny thing about this debate is your can replace the word "vinyl"
with "CD" and it will still be applicable. Any format will sound
wonderful provided the following two circumstances: it was mastered well
and it is played upon competent hardware.

The real question of a better format becomes one of price to
performance. In terms of CD versus vinyl, CD sounds a lot better on
less than vinyl on less. Yet, this, of course, is a moot point if the
CD is from a terrible master, and likewise for vinyl.

Yours truly,

Michael

 

[Guest]

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

On 27 Mar 2005 05:43:58 GMT, Richard Dale
<Richard_Dale@tipitina.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>
>> At that time, vinyl was the
>> standard, and I heard not one single 'serious audiophile' suggest
>> that CD was not greatly superior in most respects.

>The definition of a 'serious audiophile' being someone who agrees with you.

Nope, as previously noted, they were hi-fi enthusiasts I had known
from the '70s, before CD existed. This has always struck me as a
pretty unintelligent argiment, since we're all well aware that
non-serious audiophiles *all* think that CD is vastly superior, which
is why vinyl is effectively dead.

This is to distinguish them from vinylphiles, who seem to take
themselves all too seriously!
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

 

[Guest]

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

On 2 Apr 2005 19:33:55 GMT, "Harry F Lavo" <hlavo@comcast.net> wrote:

>"Stewart Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:d2mfjl0266p@news4.newsguy.com...

<About Gabe Wiener of PGM>

>> He is truly a great loss the recorded music community, he was utterly
>> dedicated to the finest possible quality both of performance and of
>> recording - and he was a digital fan to his fingertips.
>
>As were many other early classical recording engineers, because the medium
>at the recording stage offered solutions to problems that bettered
>analog...but when turned into a commercial playback vehicle, all kinds of
>problems crept in and the final commerical results in the early years were
>pretty dismal, with a few exceptions. So vinyl continued to be the
>preferred solution for many audiophiles. Also, from the standpoint of pop
>recording, analog multitrack offered a "sound" and a comfortable medium that
>took a long time to overcome.

It's nice to see you acknowledge that digital done well betters
analogue, and that only poor workmanship prevents it being universally
superior. Regrettably, there is no technology that can't be screwed up
by bad workmanship.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

 

[Guest]

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

On 2 Apr 2005 19:36:56 GMT, <normanstrong@comcast.net> wrote:

>"Michael Mossey" <michaelmossey@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:d2kq7o02sd@news4.newsguy.com...
>
>> I'm sure you've done listening tests in which the result came back
>> null. Perhaps you've compared two amplifiers or inserted a digital
>> processor into a live feed. And very likely you reported hearing no
>> difference. Now, if I wanted to do the same thing you are doing, I
>> could say that you didn't hear a difference because you didn't want to
>> hear a difference. After all, it is far more comforting to live in a
>> world that's logical, predictable, and can be understood via
>> reductionism. To hear a difference would threaten this world.
>
>If what you say is true, then it should be possible to find at least one
>person who CAN hear the difference--and can prove it. This certainly would
>be embarrassing to Stewart and others that hold his point of view--including
>me.

It wouldn't embarrass me at all, and I suspect that this is the main
difference with the subjectivists - they won't accept any evidence
which disagrees with their faith.

I would take the evidence on board, and investigate *why* this audible
difference came about. That's how progress is made.

> Here would be a bunch of people who claimed to hear no difference in
>signals that believers conclusively proved could be heard. The shame would
>be unbearable. The non-believers would be shown up as not only wrong, but
>for the worst possible reason; they didn't even try. And add to this this
>the money they'd have to pay the believers!

Well, for a true Scot, this would make the teeth grind a bit!

>This scenario makes my blood run cold. I can't bear to think of it.

Care for a sidebet as to it happening this year? Decade? Century?
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering