[memepool]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif When I digitize an LP to CD, it sounds *exactly* like the original record. Format isn't the issue. Also, there was considerable noodling required to get an LP to sound as good as its master tape. The vinyl format isn't responsible for good sound, the quality of the engineering back in the 50s and 60s was. Nowadays, anyone with a computer can record, mix and master a CD. And a lot of engineers just don't have the experience that they had back then.

It can often sound a lot different to a commercial release depending on how good your equipment is and for the reasons mentioned above, ie you want it to sound good on your hi-fi system whereas if it's pop music the guy mixing and mastering it is being told to "make it louder, give it more punch, more sparkle" and testing it on a load of different sized monitors to take the best overall mix which is usually to the lowest common denominator ...etc etc.

I don't think you can reasonably claim that engineers were better back in the 50's or 60's, that's just nostalgia. There are too many other variables involved.

There are talented people in every era, at least today the playing field is flatter so anyone with a computer can make a cd, as you say and also release it online. This is equality of opportunity, the downside of which is that there is so much music being made that the market has completely fragmented and the industry needs to change to reflect this new reality, something it is struggling to do.

Records made today can be every bit as good as any ever pressed, it's a boutique industry now which is increasingly about quality over quantity where a vast amount of stuff is being pressed on 180gm virgin vinyl.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tourmaline 18 bits sounds better then 16 bits, 20 bits sounds better then 18 bits and 24 bits sounds better then 20 bits, it's that simple...old and dew cd's the older one recorded with older equipment and the new cd with newer equipment, yeah of course i expect the new one to sound better, evolution of recording gear...

This seems to contradict what you said earlier and I am still not sure i agree. CD hasn't changed or evolved because the redbook format can't evolve it's set in stone in 1983.

Whereas a record from the 1950's can sound better today than it possibly could in the 1950's because record players have got better. Yes there were excellent record players made then like the Rek-O-Cuts and Garrards but tonearms and especially cartridges have developed and anyway most people were listening on a Jukebox or a Dansette back then.

Undoubtedly there has also been some progress in CD playback technology but because it's a digital system it is necessarily fixed in specification and therefore limited. The difference between a basic record playing system like a dansette and a modern good quality table like the VPI scout is far far greater than the difference between a Philips CD100 and a Meridian GO8 although the "software" remains the same.

What evolved in the "software" is that with CD being the major format, engineers stopped mastering for vinyl and adapted their methodology to reflect the different characteristics of CD.

Recording technology hasn't really got all that much better since the 80's. Yes higher resolution digital gives a better recording but as I said earlier there are not that many things actually being mastered beyond 16bit 48k DAT quality becuase that is still what the majority of Protools suites are running at.
Certainly Microphones havn't improved any and the latest trend as in Hi-Fi has been for Ribbons and Valve pre-amps, 50's technology.

 

[hciman77]

Quote:

Originally Posted by memepool /img/forum/go_quote.gif Whereas a record from the 1950's can sound better today than it possibly could in the 1950's because record players have got better. Yes there were excellent record players made then like the Rek-O-Cuts and Garrards but tonearms and especially cartridges have developed and anyway most people were listening on a Jukebox or a Dansette back then.

But these are incremental improvements, the fundamentals of LP production and playback have also not altered since Stereo was introduced commercially in the 1950s. What you have is improvements to maximise performance within certain physical rather than digital limitations.

Quote:

Undoubtedly there has also been some progress in CD playback technology but because it's a digital system it is necessarily fixed in specification and therefore limited. The difference between a basic record playing system like a dansette and a modern good quality table like the VPI scout is far far greater than the difference between a Philips CD100 and a Meridian GO8 although the "software" remains the same.

I tend to agree with this as far as it goes. I had some rank turntables in the 1970s and even my Rega was (or seemed to me to be) obviously superior. CD is a great leveller, it either works properly or it doesnt. However lets take the case of a mid-range TT vs a high end TT what is sorely lacking here is any kind of serious blind testing. The LP oriented end of the hifi arena just does not do unsighted listening tests, why not, if one TT is vastly superior to another it will be blindingly (pun intended) obvious, yet this just doesnt happen.

Quote:

What evolved in the "software" is that with CD being the major format, engineers stopped mastering for vinyl and adapted their methodology to reflect the different characteristics of CD.

Freedom from the tyranny of the RIAA curve

 

[memepool]

Quote:

Originally Posted by hciman77 /img/forum/go_quote.gif But these are incremental improvements,

They are improvemnts of a different order than is the case with upgrading a CD player.

For instance listening with a classic 70's MM like the Shure M95 (which is rolled off around 15khz) is a completely different experience to listening to the same record with a modern Ortofon Moving Coil with a flat frequncy response way beyond 20Khz all other things being equal, due to the amount of extra information you are extracting from the same medium.

This is simply not possible with CD. You can have a player which has better error correction but the nature of the original medium is binary so as you say it's either there or it isn't, quite literally.

With an LP you can dig into different parts of the groove wall with a different shaped stylus and extract more info or even scan it with a laser. With a CD you can reassemble all the bits with more pleasing sonic results perhaps but you won't find any more bits.


Quote:

Originally Posted by hciman77 /img/forum/go_quote.gif the fundamentals of LP production and playback have also not altered since Stereo was introduced commercially in the 1950s. What you have is improvements to maximise performance within certain physical rather than digital limitations.

I suppose they have altered a few times and then altered back again

(eg Quadraphonic, DMM)


Quote:

Originally Posted by hciman77 /img/forum/go_quote.gif However lets take the case of a mid-range TT vs a high end TT what is sorely lacking here is any kind of serious blind testing. The LP oriented end of the hifi arena just does not do unsighted listening tests, why not, if one TT is vastly superior to another it will be blindingly (pun intended) obvious, yet this just doesnt happen.

This is rarer in magazines I suppose because prospective purchasers are more likely to want to compare products with the same price range but it does happen from time to time in the UK Hi-Fi press. Any decent dealer will generally be happy to do vertical comparisons though

 

[hciman77]

Quote:

Originally Posted by memepool /img/forum/go_quote.gif This is rarer in magazines I suppose because prospective purchasers are more likely to want to compare products with the same price range but it does happen from time to time in the UK Hi-Fi press. Any decent dealer will generally be happy to do vertical comparisons though

Back in the 1980s I did quite a lot of auditioning of stereo kit back in London, my recollection is that apart from Laskys (who were by and large incompetent, i.e. demoing systems with only one speaker connected

) I rarely found a dealer who didnt try and (not so subtly) persuade me that one piece of kit was better than another, rather than let me make my own mind up, course that could be just London ?

 

[memepool]

Quote:

Originally Posted by hciman77 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Back in the 1980s I did quite a lot of auditioning of stereo kit back in London, my recollection is that apart from Laskys (who were by and large incompetent, i.e. demoing systems with only one speaker connected ) I rarely found a dealer who didnt try and (not so subtly) persuade me that one piece of kit was better than another, rather than let me make my own mind up, course that could be just London ?

Lasky's is long gone. I remember going into one when I was a kid to buy some headphones for my walkman and hearing an AR Legend playing Jean Michel Jarre. I was totally blown away by how good it sounded compared to the BSR type deck I had at the time.
These days things are a lot more specialised, all the mass market shops on Tottenham Court Road now sell just Computers and AV stuff. Brians is still there though. Richer Sounds is the only dealer at the lower end of the market and most of their shops don't have dem rooms either.
Generally most dealers are more into selling integrated AV systems than two channel but things are starting to shift back again as "home cinema" is now totally mainstream ( so therefore less profitable I imagine). Tesco's are selling a DVD player for 9.99 !
My favourite shop in London is definitely Walrus Systems near Marble Arch, which is run by two guys who used to work at KJ Leisuresound and is an Aladin's cave of classic and new stuff. You should check it out next time you are over.

 

[hciman77]

Quote:

Originally Posted by memepool /img/forum/go_quote.gif Lasky's is long gone. I remember going into one when I was a kid to buy some headphones for my walkman and hearing an AR Legend playing Jean Michel Jarre. I was totally blown away by how good it sounded compared to the BSR type deck I had at the time.

That takes me back I had a 4 speed BSR Phonogram (with ceramic cartridge no less) and two speakers connected via 2 pin din plugs (1976) this cost me nothing as my dad got it from redeeming cigarette coupons (40,000 iirc), probably explaining both his and my Mum's early deaths. Then I had a Garrard Sp25 Mk IV, then a Transcriptors Saturn, I auditioned the AR but went for the Rega Planar 3 instead, a decision I have often questioned. I remember that Laskys in Tottenham Court Road had some huge Kef 105.4 (?) , the ones that looked like Daleks, with incredible bass !, despite having deaf neighbours the WAF would not let me go that way again

 

[lini]

Quote:

Originally Posted by hciman77 /img/forum/go_quote.gif (...) I rarely found a dealer who didnt try and (not so subtly) persuade me that one piece of kit was better than another, rather than let me make my own mind up, course that could be just London ?

Apparently bad dealers, then - not exactly a rare experience, I gather, though I've made quite a few good experiences with the dealers here in Munich.

(warning: longer anecdotal part to follow

)

My dearest one (HiFi News, owned and also foremost run by Peter Seybold) was in fact opionionless to an almost unnerving degree: When one was auditioning components and asked him about what he'd prefer sonically, he'd answer something like: "That doesn't matter, because it's your taste that counts." However, he'd certainly come up with opinions and experiences about build quality, failure rate et cetera, when asked for.

And he also wouldn't shy from recommending stuff to compare he knew, but didn't carry, whenever he thought that one would be better served that way. And despite being willing and able to specially order practically anything on request, he'd usually rather hand one over to other good dealers, whenever he knew those would carry and sell the stuff for a better price than what he could achieve with a single order...

And he was also very consequent: For example, quite a few years ago he suddenly stopped offering Denon stuff completely - out of sheer disappointment, for Denon hadn't been able to come up with a replacement tranny for an expensive pre-amp, which failed just about a year after he'd sold it to one of his customers.

On top of that, his prices were usually very competitive - and, especially as a regular customer or a young and obviously limitedly funded customer (like myself back in the early 80s), would also include neat extras like speaker cable for free, turntable adjustment for free, replacement belt for free (even years after). And the repair mechanic he worked together with, Mr. Gerner, could repair practically everything (including the aforementioned Denon...) - a very nice guy, too, sometimes also working as a salesman in the shop and very humorous...

I guess, I'm not much of a fanboy for any brand or product, but if I ever was to suggest a really honest dealer, who has nothing but impressed me over many years, it would be Peter Seybold. Btw, I gather that the shop has moved a while ago from its old location in Frundsbergstraße to a new location in Bergmannstraße - right next to NF Laden/Joker HiFi, which is a recommendable dealer specialised in loudspeaker diy kits/parts/custom made enclosures...

Greetings from Munich!

Manfred / lini

 

[memepool]

Quote:

Originally Posted by hciman77 /img/forum/go_quote.gif That takes me back I had a 4 speed BSR Phonogram (with ceramic cartridge no less) and two speakers connected via 2 pin din plugs (1976) this cost me nothing as my dad got it from redeeming cigarette coupons (40,000 iirc), probably explaining both his and my Mum's early deaths. Then I had a Garrard Sp25 Mk IV, then a Transcriptors Saturn, I auditioned the AR but went for the Rega Planar 3 instead, a decision I have often questioned. I remember that Laskys in Tottenham Court Road had some huge Kef 105.4 (?) , the ones that looked like Daleks, with incredible bass !, despite having deaf neighbours the WAF would not let me go that way again

I went straight from the BSR to a Logic Tempo which was sold to me as being better than the Rega which was what I was going to get, and I am happy I did. Other options at the time were a Dual CS-505, AR Legend, Mission, Rotel RP850 or Thorens TD160. I presently have 5 Logic decks in various states of repair including 2 DM101's which was a Linn LP12 contender back in the 80's. Logic were bought by Manticore at some point in the early 90's. They had many orignal ideas which have found their way onto modern designs. I also had a Thorens TD160 but ditched it in favour of a TD125.

 

[bigshot]

It appears that I'm not stating myself clearly...

Hypothesis: LP is a better sounding format than CD

Experiment:
Play a record on your turntable
Capture the sound to a digital file using a good soundcard
Burn the track to a CD
Balance the line levels of the LP and the CD dub
Do a direct comparison

Result: I have done this test and there is absolutely no difference between the two.

Therefore: If a CD is capable of sounding exactly like an LP, the medium itself isn't inferior. The original hypothesis doesn't hold up.

Therefore: If a commercial LP sounds better than a commercial CD, there must be some other reason.

Hypothesis: The differences are due to engineering and mastering.

Got a better one?

See ya
Steve

 

[hciman77]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif Hypothesis: The differences are due to engineering and mastering. Got a better one? See ya Steve

Euphonic distortions ?

 

[tourmaline]

Quote:

Originally Posted by memepool /img/forum/go_quote.gif It can often sound a lot different to a commercial release depending on how good your equipment is and for the reasons mentioned above, ie you want it to sound good on your hi-fi system whereas if it's pop music the guy mixing and mastering it is being told to "make it louder, give it more punch, more sparkle" and testing it on a load of different sized monitors to take the best overall mix which is usually to the lowest common denominator ...etc etc. I don't think you can reasonably claim that engineers were better back in the 50's or 60's, that's just nostalgia. There are too many other variables involved. There are talented people in every era, at least today the playing field is flatter so anyone with a computer can make a cd, as you say and also release it online. This is equality of opportunity, the downside of which is that there is so much music being made that the market has completely fragmented and the industry needs to change to reflect this new reality, something it is struggling to do. Records made today can be every bit as good as any ever pressed, it's a boutique industry now which is increasingly about quality over quantity where a vast amount of stuff is being pressed on 180gm virgin vinyl. This seems to contradict what you said earlier and I am still not sure i agree. CD hasn't changed or evolved because the redbook format can't evolve it's set in stone in 1983. Whereas a record from the 1950's can sound better today than it possibly could in the 1950's because record players have got better. Yes there were excellent record players made then like the Rek-O-Cuts and Garrards but tonearms and especially cartridges have developed and anyway most people were listening on a Jukebox or a Dansette back then. Undoubtedly there has also been some progress in CD playback technology but because it's a digital system it is necessarily fixed in specification and therefore limited. The difference between a basic record playing system like a dansette and a modern good quality table like the VPI scout is far far greater than the difference between a Philips CD100 and a Meridian GO8 although the "software" remains the same. What evolved in the "software" is that with CD being the major format, engineers stopped mastering for vinyl and adapted their methodology to reflect the different characteristics of CD. Recording technology hasn't really got all that much better since the 80's. Yes higher resolution digital gives a better recording but as I said earlier there are not that many things actually being mastered beyond 16bit 48k DAT quality becuase that is still what the majority of Protools suites are running at. Certainly Microphones havn't improved any and the latest trend as in Hi-Fi has been for Ribbons and Valve pre-amps, 50's technology.

Of course some new recordings sound better then the same old one...some resampled high def cd's sound better then their normal cd counterpart...but i still think they mess up the recordings by crancking up the volume....no need to set the output at near max..0-12 db...so, they record near clipping...while some older ones are recorded as it should be...doesn't mean new high def cd's like xrcd's or sacd audio cd's sound better then their cd counterparts..this has nothing to do with evolution of recording gear but with a trend in general in the recording industry to make anyone deaf by setting the output near clipping.....

Contradiction is that the best tubes still are comming from the '40-'45 aria..especially the army type of tubes..tubes haven't evolved, they downgraded in the years!!! Every serious tube lover is looking for good NOS tubes...anything new is just crap...

 

[SkyloWyres]

I think it is as simple as this. Imagine there is an event in your life, like the birth of a new child. Digital is like someone describing it to another person in very great detail. Analog is like having been there to experience it.

 

[asebastian0]

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkyloWyres /img/forum/go_quote.gif I think it is as simple as this. Imagine there is an event in your life, like the birth of a new child. Digital is like someone describing it to another person in very great detail. Analog is like having been there to experience it.

Good stuff, I couldn't agree more.

 

[Davesrose]

Quote:

Originally Posted by asebastian0 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Good stuff, I couldn't agree more.

Well I'm missing the analogy

Analogue and Digital are both ways of reproducing a live event. You're saying that analogue is the live event.....which just doesn't make sense. Maybe I'm being too literal

Maybe one arguement is that even though both digital and analogue can have artifacts and imperfections, the imperfections of analogue can sound more euphonic.

 

[asebastian0]

I tried to edit a my post with a really long explanation but it vanished!

What I was saying is this: I grew up in the digital age and always assumed that recording/mastering/etc. grew better over time and that these new technologies benefited the listener. Around age 14 or 15 I noticed that many of the bands I listened to still released music on vinyl (in some cases ONLY) on vinyl. So I bought a few albums and took my Dad's old turntable out from the attic. I was taken aback by how amazing, how real the music sounded (some of which I already owned on CD). I think either you have an emotional response to vinyl and you are a vinyl person (technical merits of other source material be damned!) or you aren't. For me it is really night and day. I have a few poorly mastered albums which I prefer on CD, it just happens that way sometimes. But 9 times out of 10 I prefer vinyl because it brings the music to life on a level which digital mediums simply can not. It costs a lot more to make 1,000 records than it does to make 1,000 CDs, yet small, independent record labels still release tons of vinyl releases. Usually at a cheaper price point than their CD counterpart. Why? I could go on and make generalizations about why but who knows other's motivations. No need for speculation, I just love vinyl, even though its a pain in the ass sometimes!