[Hershon2000]

"You mean to tell us that you are not capable of changing a track without causing damage Unless you have a tremor, or are extremely intoxicated while playing records, there should be no reason for that. (Even if you are, there's a thing called a "Cueing Mechanism" look into it)"

I think you're totally delusional in regards to that. It is virtually impossible to repeatedly change a track on a record without causing eventual damage to it.

 

[Geoff Rymer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ehlarson /img/forum/go_quote.gif I agree that a very large percentage of popular music today is mastered in a most barbaric fashion. The Ipod plus the habit of listening to music as a background noise source precludes the use of a realistic dynamic range, and of course everyone knows the louder the music the more it will cut through competing environment and actually attract some attention, and get a person to actually buy the song. Since the record companies don't control the volume knob they compress the hell out of the dynamic range to increase the average loudness. Recording engineers realize the crimes they are commiting but it is either that or the unemployment line.

I hadn't thought about the 'listening as background noise' thing, but what you say makes sense.

As for the second bit, I was watching a documentary on SBS the other night about Oasis recording their first album, and was so depressed to hear Owen Morris (who remixed the whole album prior to release) delightedly telling us that: "I was the first one who did that thing on CDs where it's basically in the red the whole time. For the first year or so, in every jukebox across the country Oasis came on louder than anybody else. It was ****ing great! Course, then everybody else started doing it too."

Well thanks a lot, buddy, now everybody DOES do it and it hurts my ears and sounds like crap!

 

[memepool]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hershon2000 /img/forum/go_quote.gif "You mean to tell us that you are not capable of changing a track without causing damage Unless you have a tremor, or are extremely intoxicated while playing records, there should be no reason for that. (Even if you are, there's a thing called a "Cueing Mechanism" look into it)" I think you're totally delusional in regards to that. It is virtually impossible to repeatedly change a track on a record without causing eventual damage to it.

From your other posts it sounds like you had a pretty average turntable and you didn't treat your records all that well which would sadly be the common experience of vinyl back in the day .

The main benefit of CD over Vinyl is undeniably convenience as you say and yes records require your full attention to sit and listen patiently to the music rather than skipping around on to different tracks the whole time.

Another huge benefit is that the most basic CD player sounds much better than a basic record player which makes CD much more suited to mass production and dissemination of music. High quality engineering is usually not cheap and so as with any analogue playback technology, only people with deeper pockets or the skills to upgrade their own equipment would be able to enjoy it's full potential.

You basically need to put some effort into listening to records and the whole regimen of setting up and meticulously caring for your music if you want to get good results.

This just doesn't suit everyone. But if you have time and money and are prepared to do this you are repayed with potential sonic rewards which many people find far outweigh the hastle.

It is simply not true to say that playing your records a few times wears them out. Well maintained records can (and have) lasted longer than any digital media. The only people who need to buy multiple copies of records are generally DJ's.

As far as needing to skip tracks goes, one of the more dubious benefits of digital, in popular music anyway, is the extended playing times which means that the extra space is far more likely to be made up with filler.


A lot of this comes down to artists contracts and what constitutes an "album". You only need to notice the number of skits these days on the average Hip Hop release to see the subtle ways in which contractual obligations about the length of the content is effected by medium.
A classic example is Lou Reed's Metal Machine Music, a double LP of feedback which sounds almost the same at any given point over 4 sides.

On the whole though the fact a single had to be under 5 mins and an album under 40 defined most of popular music in the last 50 years and when it was pressed on vinyl there was a lot less filler by necessity so many classic LP's are more focused artistically and eminently more satisfying to listen to without recourse to programming playlists....

 

[lowmagnet]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eagle_Driver /img/forum/go_quote.gif Nope. I have heard the excessive brightness even with the very best DACs - which indicates that the mastering job itself is to blame.

It's all in the final mastering stage where the idiot record companies compress the audio and raise it to within one dB of the medium's maximum loudness. Those engineers can burn in hell.

 

[Todd R]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hershon2000 /img/forum/go_quote.gif "You mean to tell us that you are not capable of changing a track without causing damage Unless you have a tremor, or are extremely intoxicated while playing records, there should be no reason for that. (Even if you are, there's a thing called a "Cueing Mechanism" look into it)" I think you're totally delusional in regards to that. It is virtually impossible to repeatedly change a track on a record without causing eventual damage to it.

Totally delusional?
No, the problem is you are incapable of handling and using LP’s correctly.
You’ve already admitted to this in an earlier post, so why say I’m “delusional” when I don’t have the same problems that you had?

You also seem unable to use the nice big “quote” button at the bottom of each post.

 

[Todd R]

Quote:

Originally Posted by memepool /img/forum/go_quote.gif The main benefit of CD over Vinyl is undeniably convenience as you say and yes records require your full attention to sit and listen patiently to the music rather than skipping around on to different tracks the whole time. As far as needing to skip tracks goes, one of the more dubious benefits of digital, in popular music anyway, is the extended playing times which means that the extra space is far more likely to be made up with filler. On the whole though the fact a single had to be under 5 mins and an album under 40 defined most of popular music in the last 50 years and when it was pressed on vinyl there was a lot less filler by necessity so many classic LP's are more focused artistically and eminently more satisfying to listen to without recourse to programming playlists....

Exactly!

I think the excess of filler and the ability to skip around so easily has encouraged short attention spans.

We were at a friend's house recently and their daughter was showing me her song collection on the computer. When I walked away and she began playing her music, I noticed she would only play about 45 seconds of a song, then skip to something else. After about 5 min of this I asked why.
"I dunno, I get bored and want to hear something else" was her reply.

Even though a lot of today's popuar music sucks, it's still pretty sad.

 

[proglife]

Hershon, if the albums you are buying have *that* many bad tracks on it, maybe you should consider looking around at artists who you'd like better? I can't think of any albums I own where I despise a track so much that I don't want to listen to it.

 

[hciman77]

Quote:

Originally Posted by memepool /img/forum/go_quote.gif The main benefit of CD over Vinyl is undeniably convenience as you say and yes records require your full attention to sit and listen patiently to the music rather than skipping around on to different tracks the whole time.

Well, to me it would be the vanishingly low noise, the ruler flat FR response, and the extended dynamic range, would I live with CD if it were just as fiddly as LP, yes I would. But since it isnt that is a bonus too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by memepool /img/forum/go_quote.gif Another huge benefit is that the most basic CD player sounds much better than a basic record player which makes CD much more suited to mass production and dissemination of music. High quality engineering is usually not cheap and so as with any analogue playback technology, only people with deeper pockets or the skills to upgrade their own equipment would be able to enjoy it's full potential.

I beg to differ here. A TT is basically a motor, (a belt) , a spindle, a platter, some kind of base or supsended chassis (springs) and a metal tube.

A CD player has a highly speed accurate motor and a high precision tracking mechanism plus an advanced laser assembly then a complex buffer, clock and DAC mechanism plus an amplification circuit and logic controls, the precision on these elements is extremely high or it just would not work. All this can be achieved for very little. TTs are expensive because they can be, not because the engineering is anything extraordinary, compared to CD the engineering on turntables is pretty basic stuff. No offense to turntables but lets keep this real.

Quote:

Originally Posted by memepool /img/forum/go_quote.gif It is simply not true to say that playing your records a few times wears them out. Well maintained records can (and have) lasted longer than any digital media. The only people who need to buy multiple copies of records are generally DJ's.

The RIAA standards for FR decline with plays imply that a distinct loss is expected after 10 or more plays. I have 23 year old CDs that play perfectly to this day with no more noise or other artifacts than the day I bought them.


Quote:

Originally Posted by memepool /img/forum/go_quote.gif On the whole though the fact a single had to be under 5 mins and an album under 40 defined most of popular music in the last 50 years and when it was pressed on vinyl there was a lot less filler by necessity so many classic LP's are more focused artistically and eminently more satisfying to listen to without recourse to programming playlists....

Er, that would be a matter of opinion. My recollection of popular music of the LP age was that filler was just as much of a problem then in the 40 minute LP as in the 50 - 70 minute CD. Why do you think there were so many best of LPs ?, because you often got only 5 or 6 decent tracks per LP.

 

[Davesrose]

Quote:

Originally Posted by hciman77 /img/forum/go_quote.gif The RIAA standards for FR decline with plays imply that a distinct loss is expected after 10 or more plays. I have 23 year old CDs that play perfectly to this day with no more noise or other artifacts than the day I bought them.

Could you provide your evidence of this implication? I thought the RIAA FR equalizations were mainly for the nature of distortions from the cutting of the vinyl.

I would think that durability is highly variable considering that there are so many types of vinyl records. A dynoflex record made of recycled vinyl won't last as long as a 200 gram virgin vinyl record for example.

For me, I see merits in both CD and vinyl. When taken from a good master, I do think that the SQ of CD is really great....SACD even better. I'm mainly keeping up a vinyl rig for old recordings. At this moment, I'm listening to some used LPs I bought yesterday. Even though they're used and worn, after a cleaning, they do seem as good as LPs I've bought new. Right now I'm listening to a $3 Police LP. You know, it's sounding as good as a Police SACD I bought recently (except for the quiet passages when you can hear the vinyl hiss). There are subtle differences: dynamics are slightly different: vinyl seems to be giving more soundstage over the SACD counterpart. The SACD might have more transparency. Just goes to show that a new hi-def medium is limited to the source recording. Remastering doesn't ever seem to do a whole lot IMHO.

 

[memepool]

Quote:

Originally Posted by hciman77 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Well, to me it would be the vanishingly low noise, the ruler flat FR response, and the extended dynamic range, would I live with CD if it were just as fiddly as LP, yes I would. But since it isnt that is a bonus too.

Yes but all these things are possible (to a degree where it becomes purely accademic) with Vinyl too if your system is good enough quality. What isn't possible with vinyl is the non linear level of instant track access. Although programmable track selection was and is possible with vinyl it's the exception rather than a basic function of even the most rudimentary player.



Quote:

Originally Posted by hciman77 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I beg to differ here. A TT is basically a motor, (a belt) , a spindle, a platter, some kind of base or supsended chassis (springs) and a metal tube. A CD player has a highly speed accurate motor and a high precision tracking mechanism plus an advanced laser assembly then a complex buffer, clock and DAC mechanism plus an amplification circuit and logic controls, the precision on these elements is extremely high or it just would not work. All this can be achieved for very little. TTs are expensive because they can be, not because the engineering is anything extraordinary, compared to CD the engineering on turntables is pretty basic stuff. No offense to turntables but lets keep this real.

A CD player and the associated media are products, as you say, of advanced mass production and precision engineering on a huge scale which allows the end product to be assembled by robots very cheaply.

While perhaps nowadays it would be possible for a company like Sony to mass produce cheap record players from acrylic or another such space age plastic, apply the tolerances required for bearings in harddrives to tonearms and record platters, use the very high quality LC-OFC wiring now mass produced for the computer industry etc etc this is anachronistic because these technologies have ony come about in the last few decades after vinyl ceased to be a mass market product.

The closest thing to a mass produced high end turntable today is the Technics SL1200 which is only ecconomically viable because the design hasn't changed in 30 years.

The fact is that the best Turntables, even the Japanese ones have always been more or less hand built in low volumes by highly skilled engineers and you could say the same for Tape Recorders.

Analogue audio equipment belongs to the period of historical technological development where this was the norm and as in many things like high performance cars or wrist watches this still represents the pinnacle of engineering achievement to this day.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hciman77 /img/forum/go_quote.gif The RIAA standards for FR decline with plays imply that a distinct loss is expected after 10 or more plays. I have 23 year old CDs that play perfectly to this day with no more noise or other artifacts than the day I bought them.

I have CDs which are rotting and have holes in them and won't play at all, big deal. Everything decays but Vinyl will (and has) outlasted any digital hardcopy media. What are the RIAA figures you are quoting?

 

[memepool]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davesrose /img/forum/go_quote.gif At this moment, I'm listening to some used LPs I bought yesterday. Even though they're used and worn, after a cleaning, they do seem as good as LPs I've bought new. Right now I'm listening to a $3 Police LP. You know, it's sounding as good as a Police SACD I bought recently (except for the quiet passages when you can hear the vinyl hiss). There are subtle differences: dynamics are slightly different: vinyl seems to be giving more soundstage over the SACD counterpart. The SACD might have more transparency. Just goes to show that a new hi-def medium is limited to the source recording. Remastering doesn't ever seem to do a whole lot IMHO.

Interesting. I've not heard the Police on SACD but I'd say it's the tape hiss from the original master you are hearing on the vinyl but this has been filtered out on the SACD which would also make it sound flatter. Certainly the first releases of the Police on CD sounded awful as I remember.

 

[hciman77]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davesrose /img/forum/go_quote.gif Could you provide your evidence of this implication? I thought the RIAA FR equalizations were mainly for the nature of distortions from the cutting of the vinyl. I would think that durability is highly variable considering that there are so many types of vinyl records. A dynoflex record made of recycled vinyl won't last as long as a 200 gram virgin vinyl record for example.

From Wikpedia

The RIAA has suggested the following acceptable losses: down to 20 kHz after one play, 18 kHz after three plays, 17 kHz after five, 16 kHz after eight, 14 kHz after fifteen, 13 kHz after twenty five, 10 kHz after thirty five, and 8 kHz after eighty plays.

 

[Davesrose]

Quote:

Originally Posted by memepool /img/forum/go_quote.gif Interesting. I've not heard the Police on SACD but I'd say it's the tape hiss from the original master you are hearing on the vinyl but this has been filtered out on the SACD which would also make it sound flatter. Certainly the first releases of the Police on CD sounded awful as I remember.

I've always been a Police fan....so I had to get an original LP to check out its SQ

I don't know much about their recording sessions, but on the CD issues I have, they don't have much of any tape hiss (except their early underground tracks) and they do sound as good as the LP I'm listening to now. Actually, the CDs do sound exactly like the SACD. The CD set I have is probably the best as far as digital mediums go for their recordings. It maintains that difference of vinyl having more soundstage/CD offering more detail in a given set. Just to generalize about the differences I hear in my vinyl setup vs digital: vinyl seems to be just like tubes: adding some warmth and giving a feeling of soundstage. Also, since it's more forgiving, it seems really well suited for old recordings that might sound bad on SACD.

*edit* also, the "hiss" isn't tape hiss, but is the equalization hiss from my pre-amp. I hear it all the time, for every record. I'm not sure if I should get a another pre-amp that's better: this one had good reviews for not having hiss, so I just assumed it normal to have hiss in quiet passages with vinyl.

http://www.amazon.com/Message-Box-Co...3115522&sr=1-8

 

[memepool]

Quote:

Originally Posted by hciman77 /img/forum/go_quote.gif From Wikpedia The RIAA has suggested the following acceptable losses: down to 20 kHz after one play, 18 kHz after three plays, 17 kHz after five, 16 kHz after eight, 14 kHz after fifteen, 13 kHz after twenty five, 10 kHz after thirty five, and 8 kHz after eighty plays.

yes and the next sentence from the above Wikipedia quotation reads

While this degradation is possible if the record is played on improperly set up equipment, many collectors of LPs report excellent sound quality on LPs played many more times when using care and high quality equipment.

they are probably talking about steel needles or something....

I have captured records I've played hundreds of times to HD and there is still HF information into the high 20s (kHz) on the Spectograph in Cool Edit.

 

[Davesrose]

Quote:

Originally Posted by hciman77 /img/forum/go_quote.gif From Wikpedia The RIAA has suggested the following acceptable losses: down to 20 kHz after one play, 18 kHz after three plays, 17 kHz after five, 16 kHz after eight, 14 kHz after fifteen, 13 kHz after twenty five, 10 kHz after thirty five, and 8 kHz after eighty plays.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramoph...onse_and_noise

That seems to be taking it out of context:
Quote:

The frequency response of vinyl records may be degraded by frequent playback if the cartridge is set to track too heavily, or the stylus is not compliant enough to trace the high frequency grooves accurately, or the cartridge/tonearm is not properly aligned. The RIAA has suggested the following acceptable losses: down to 20 kHz after one play, 18 kHz after three plays, 17 kHz after five, 16 kHz after eight, 14 kHz after fifteen, 13 kHz after twenty five, 10 kHz after thirty five, and 8 kHz after eighty plays. While this degradation is possible if the record is played on improperly set up equipment, many collectors of LPs report excellent sound quality on LPs played many more times when using care and high quality equipment. Gramophone sound suffers from rumble, low-frequency (below about 30 Hz) mechanical noise generated by the motor bearings and picked up by the stylus. Equipment of modest quality is relatively unaffected by these issues, as the amplifier and speaker will not reproduce such low frequencies, but high-fidelity turntable assemblies need careful design to minimise audible rumble.

So who knows what their source was for this, but they're really saying record life is greatly diminshed if tracking force is set too high and the TT isn't set up properly. That's the worst case scenario that only after 8 plays the FR degrades down to 10khz.

The main fact of the matter is that an album will last the test of time if it's well cared for: not how many times it gets played. Doesn't matter if it's CD or vinyl. I'm digging up 30 year old records that are sounding pretty good: who knows how many times they were played and on what equipment. I have some CDs from my childhood that don't play anymore because I abused them so much. Now that I'm an audiophile, though, I take good care of all my vinyl, CDs, and SACDs.