[linuxworks]

Quote:

Originally Posted by fzman /img/forum/go_quote.gif those of you who grew up in the cd era, or who's experience with vinyl is limited to $100 tables, with $20 carts, and whose vinyl was never cleaned or handled properly-- YOU HAVE NO IDEA what vinyl is capable of.....

what a bunch of tripe.

we know PERFECTLY WELL what the surface scratches, noise, distortion, uneven frequ response, pops and clicks sound like, thankyouverymuch. let me say that there is more going on in the mind than on the turntable. you see what you want to see and synthesize explanations of the world that fit your belief system. but not everyone is so fooled by this and at least some of us here don't buy this 'reasoning' at all.

Quote:

cd can sound very good, sometimes even excellent.

no bias there, huh?

Quote:

the best vinyl achieves a level of realism and coherence that the best possible cd playback has yet to achieve.

uhhh, no. but thanks for playing.

Quote:

when it comes to determining whether the playback is musically authentic!

I love emotional content-free terms. just not in my science, thank you very much.

I think you have missed all of what music is about if you are at the minutia level of trying to argue that your 'sound' (as done by a mechanical reproduction system) is more true to life or 'authentic'. that's a laugh and you should KNOW that technology has nothing to do wtih music and emotion. you can feel 100% the same level of emotion while listening to a mid end or high end system. its the MUSIC and somehow, the music COMES THRU even on low-fi devices.

if you really believe its the music and not the minutia then you'd not be chasing ever-elusive dragons.

recorded sound will never sound like live sound. the best you can do is approximate and BOTH systems (a and d) have their innacuracies. neither is really a 'true life' experience for me even if you spent $100k on gear.

its a futile search that can't ever succeed. but have fun draining your wallet all the while.

 

[jsaliga]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nick_charles /img/forum/go_quote.gif This is really not true , CD has it all in terms of dynamic range, flat response, low noise and low distortion , LP (not Turntables themselves) is fatally flawed as a physical medium and no high end TT can fundamentally change that. How can something be more realistic if it has so much added noise, crosstalk and distortion and has such a limited dynamic range ? and where it gets worse as you get to the center of the record ?

More theory. Been there, done that. It's a safe bet that most people on this forum already know the theory. It means absolutely nothing when it comes to how a specific recording will sound. You can only use it for broad generalizations, but you cannot reason to the specific from it.

Quote:

Over the last few years I read so much about how great vinyl really was that I even bought a TT and some records as an experiment, this lasted about 3 months while I tried all sorts of ways to get rid of all the inherent noise, finally I gave up.

And right you were to have given up. But you cannot honestly believe that droves of vinylphiles live with the kind of experience you describe every day...do you? Do you really think they are any less demanding of quality than you are? I don't think so. Depending on your musical tastes, having a vinyl setup requires more than just a monetary investment. It requires an investment in time as well. I know that when I got re-acquainted with vinyl about 18 months ago (I'm pushing 50, and grew up with records in the 60s and 70s), I got off to shaky start. Some were great and others were horrible. And it took me more than a mere 3 months to learn where to obtain great vintage vinyl, the problems with some new 200g pressings from Classic Records (won't buy them anymore), and sources for jazz reissues from OJC and Blue Note.

Over time I had a lot of help from Head-Fiers such as Big Shot (Steve) and memepool. I have a record cleaning machine for speed and convenience and a music buying strategy that works very well for me. I still have record buying disappointments from time to time, but I can say the same for CD buys as well. To me, hot mastered CDs and bad sounding records are two sides of the same coin, and no self-respecting music lover would want either.

Sorry to hear that your vinyl experience wasn't a good one.

--Jerome

 

[linuxworks]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jsaliga /img/forum/go_quote.gif No, it isn't. But the mastering wankery that goes on these days does seem to be endemic to the CD format. Most contemporary vinyl releases don't seem to suffer from these problems.

again, I don't know; I listen to older music and even the more modern music I might listen to is NOT the overly compressed stuff that some are complaining about here. so this seems to go with the KIND of material you listen to but its 100% not at all related to the format the audio takes on the recording. that is my point. blame bad musicians or producers but the format is just fine and is taking a very unfair beating over something that is JUST not its fault.

Quote:

Arguing theory and technical specs is fine but that will only get you so far. At some point, however, you have to start talking about what the music sounds like, and to do that you have to get into specific examples and leave the theory on the shelf.

I'll agree with that, as well. and my point (in my last post) was that once you start listening to the music and not the tech details, the brain has an UNCANNY ability to 'fill in the cracks' and make a more complete experience than the simple act of hearing recorded music play in your ears.

for the brain to create an enjoyable listening experience you don't need anything near 'high end' and you certainly don't NEED vinyl to do this.


Quote:

It doesn't matter, for example, if CD has the potential for more dynamic range if the music put on it sounds like crap.

you are going offtopic again - we are talking about whether vinyl is INHERENTLY better (as you and most others seem to imply) than cd and also some kind of bizarre link between the music ON the cd (the material itself) and the ability of the media to capture and store it. I can only assume that your argument is somewhat weak (along with other vinylphiles) since the notion of 'its crummy program material!' comes up again and again. its simply irrelevant to the discussion at hand and it shows you are running out of argument when you invoke this.

Quote:

And it makes even less sense to take a music carrier that is capable of great dynamic range, and then compress the hell out of the music so it actually has less dynamic range than the typical LP. It doesn't matter about vinyl dymanic range limits, groove width, and the RIAA EQ curve if the record sounds better. We've heard all these arguments before. So please, give it a rest for a minute and focus on the music.

you have completely missed the point since you continue to harp on the program material and then throw in this 'but you have forgotton about the music!'. I am still waiting for some kind of real reason other than the 2 you stated. the program material is irrelevant here and technically ALL aspects of vinyl and stylus theory fall behind digital playback methods. all. not one single spec is better in the vinyl world.

as a younger person I did spend enormous amounts of time and money chasing dragons. I'm SO glad I got better and left that phase in my life. each person has to satisfy themselves in their quest. I guess I did this early enough and learned the lessons I needed so that I'm now free to get beyond this never-ending escalation of 'high end'.

 

[jsaliga]

Quote:

Originally Posted by linuxworks /img/forum/go_quote.gif again, I don't know; I listen to older music and even the more modern music I might listen to is NOT the overly compressed stuff that some are complaining about here. so this seems to go with the KIND of material you listen to but its 100% not at all related to the format the audio takes on the recording. that is my point.

I never said anything contrary to this. I've said it before, but perhaps I need to say it again because it doesn't seem to be registering with some folks who merely want to argue. I own about 2,700 CDs. I am happy with the vast majority of them. Got that? Let me repeat myself again. I am happy with the majority of CDs that I own. If I wasn't happy with them, then chances are good that they would be gone.

Quote:

{snip}...for the brain to create an enjoyable listening experience you don't need anything near 'high end' and you certainly don't NEED vinyl to do this.

I never said or implied that high-end gear or vinyl were requirements for enjoyable music listening.

Quote:

you are going offtopic again - we are talking about whether vinyl is INHERENTLY better (as you and most others seem to imply) than cd and also some kind of bizarre link between the music ON the cd (the material itself) and the ability of the media to capture and store it. I can only assume that your argument is somewhat weak (along with other vinylphiles) since the notion of 'its crummy program material!' comes up again and again. its simply irrelevant to the discussion at hand and it shows you are running out of argument when you invoke this.

Not quite. You and a few others are arguing over whether or not vinyl is inherenty superior. Please, find a post where I claim that vinyl is a universally superior format and I will take back what I said and edit my post to correct it. These pissing contests invariably happen every single time someone on this forum starts a thread about their newfound love for vinyl or starts a thead about how they loathe records and couldn't run away fast enough. People just don't know how to leave well enough alone and constantly want to piss in each others corn flakes. Someone expresses a preference and their detractors get into a big huff about it.

What I have been arguing for is the benefit of having options. I own a vinyl rig and a reel-to-reel tape deck because I like to have greater choice where my music buying is concerned. I think if you go back and check my posts I have also said that at least three or four times. I don't know how many more times I have to repeat it before it begins to sink in. Here's a shock: I own a couple of digitial sources as well and use them regularly.

Quote:

you have completely missed the point since you continue to harp on the program material and then throw in this 'but you have forgotton about the music!'. I am still waiting for some kind of real reason other than the 2 you stated. the program material is irrelevant here and technically ALL aspects of vinyl and stylus theory fall behind digital playback methods. all. not one single spec is better in the vinyl world.

I don't give a crap about specifications. I have said that, let's see...at least three friggin times in this thread. I care about both the performance and how the music sounds. If you don't think the latter is important then you are welcome to your opinion. BUT I DISAGREE WITH YOU...GET OVER IT!!

--Jerome

 

[nick_charles]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jsaliga /img/forum/go_quote.gif More theory. Been there, done that. It's a safe bet that most people on this forum already know the theory. It means absolutely nothing when it comes to how a specific recording will sound. You can only use it for broad generalizations, but you cannot reason to the specific from it.

I was addressing the question about how LP is (or is not) more realistic, this is not a just a matter of theory but also measurable criteria.

Of course some LPs/CDs are better/worse than others, but LP starts with such a technical disadvantage that to make an LP more accurate than a CD version of the same recording requires the CD rendering to be, well frankly crap.

Since I listen to predominantly classical music where in general more care is taken by both houses I have (relatively) few rubbish recordings compared to my smaller rock catalog which is admittedly patchy. Remember that when CD came out it was the classical market that really adopted it most strongly for technical reasons mentioned elsewhere.


Quote:

And right you were to have given up. But you cannot honestly believe that droves of vinylphiles live with the kind of experience you describe every day...do you? Do you really think they are any less demanding of quality than you are?

I think they assess quality in a somewhat different way from non vinylphiles, and that is all fair and good.

Quote:

I don't think so. Depending on your musical tastes, having a vinyl setup requires more than just a monetary investment. It requires an investment in time as well. I know that when I got re-acquainted with vinyl about 18 months ago (I'm pushing 50, and grew up with records in the 60s and 70s), I got off to shaky start.

I am 50 and I grew up with vinyl and all its arcane rituals as well. If I had thought in 1984 that LP was better I would have lived with the extra inconvenience happily, I was very careful with my LPs and spent hours setting up my system, for me the convenience of CD was a bonus not a fundamental part of the decision, heck going digital was a big expensive decision, CDs were really expensive back then and my first CD player was 100 quid more than my Rega.

Quote:

Sorry to hear that your vinyl experience wasn't a good one.

No biggy, we live and learn, it was worth a try but is isnt for me any more.

 

[sean3089]

Most manufacturers use turntables to demonstrate the merits of their equipment at the Consumer Electronics Show. The next one is January for all you digital apologists out there

 

[linuxworks]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sean3089 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Most manufacturers use turntables to demonstrate the merits of their equipment at the Consumer Electronics Show.

so, what are you saying? that marketing somehow defines quality???

did you just essentially say that? some dog and pony show (trade show, marketing events, etc) and this means *what* again?

 

[LFF]

WOW. This has become an awesome thread.

I always find it interesting how people still argue over formats and how everyone has their own interesting take on each format, be it LP, CD, SACD etc. I also find it interesting how each person presents what they hear and what they know to be fact.

Linuxworks pointed out something very important - "the brain has an UNCANNY ability to 'fill in the cracks' and make a more complete experience than the simple act of hearing recorded music play in your ears."

This is certainly true and it is the basis of many technologies out there. Some that work quite well and others that fall far too short of good.

A modern LP, like those cut by Kevin Gray, are sonic marvels but this is only due to Gray's skill in cutting a record and the machinery involved in the production. Lord knows that there are many LP's that aren't cut as well as others. I know of a lot of CD's that kill their LP counterparts and vice versa.

Regardless, I feel that what really matters regardless of format is the way in which the music is mastered. If the mastering is the exact same for every format, I'd probably pick the SACD first, followed by CD then the LP.

Some fell that each format is flawed and we have yet to find a perfect, universal format. Some, like Steve Hoffman, feel that the closest thing to a master tape is the lacquer followed by an LP then a CD then SACD. Another famous engineer felt LP's sounded better because of the noise they produce. Another engineer felt CD's were better because of the low noise floor. Another engineer I know prefers SACD's because of the huge headroom.

In the end, for me, it's all about the music. If it sounds good to me, then that is all that matters.

 

[jsaliga]

Quote:

Originally Posted by LFF /img/forum/go_quote.gif Linuxworks pointed out something very important - "the brain has an UNCANNY ability to 'fill in the cracks' and make a more complete experience than the simple act of hearing recorded music play in your ears." This is certainly true and it is the basis of many technologies out there. Some that work quite well and others that fall far too short of good.

But this would be more appropriate in a discussion about psycho acoustic modeling and audio compression algorithms. This is not the same thing as making terrible mastering sound good. If that were the case, then no one would ever complain about a bad recording or bad mastering because their brains would "trick" them into believing it sounded just fine. And that doesn't happen to people who are experienced music listeners. Otherwise, people would think the ZZ Top CD clip I posted sounded great, and anyone who was walking the planet when it was originally released in 1973 knows better.

Quote:

Regardless, I feel that what really matters regardless of format is the way in which the music is mastered. If the mastering is the exact same for every format, I'd probably pick the SACD first, followed by CD then the LP.

I agree with you completely about the mastering. But it has been my experience that mastering is seldom the same. Some remasters on CD have been actual improvements (The Band remasters, for example) and some have been not so good (Dire Straits) and others have been damned abysmal (ZZ Top).

Quote:

In the end, for me, it's all about the music. If it sounds good to me, then that is all that matters.

Me too.

--Jerome

 

[LFF]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jsaliga /img/forum/go_quote.gif But this would be more appropriate in a discussion about psycho acoustic modeling and audio compression algorithms. This is not the same thing as making terrible mastering sound good.

I agree and that was what I was referring to. Bad mastering also has to do with this as most people will perceive the loud mastering to be better - their brains do indeed "trick" them into believing that a loud mastering sounded "better". However, this is not ALWAYS the case as you pointed out. Experienced music listeners know better.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jsaliga /img/forum/go_quote.gif But it has been my experience that mastering is seldom the same. Some remasters on CD have been actual improvements (The Band remasters, for example) and some have been not so good (Dire Straits) and others have been damned abysmal (ZZ Top).

Your completely right. There are seldom the same. My point of view was when the mastering is the same (ie, Californication, some Hoffman releases, etc).

 

[ozz]

At 50 I have had the pleasure of owning most of the playback equipment
offered over the years and if mastered correctly sacd to my ears is my
preferred source with a well mastered cd in second place vinyl is for
music that was never available on either of the first two formats.The
minute I heard the low bass and quick transients of a cd I was hooked.
A vinyl rig is a thing of beauty and expensive or at least for me. As for
trade shows they don't hold to much merit with me when things like if
you don't use these 5000.00 silver cables your soundstage and depth
will be crippled. Someone already said in the end its what pleases the
listener that counts.

 

[sean3089]

I can't understand how an analog recording would sound better on a CD, or vice-versa. It seems as if you would be getting all of the flaws of both formats in one.

 

[ozz]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sean3089 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I can't understand how an analog recording would sound better on a CD, or vice-versa. It seems as if you would be getting all of the flaws of both formats in one.

If done correctly from the master tapes there would be better stereo seperation,dynamic range and lower bass things vinyl plays hell with.

 

[jsaliga]

If done correctly music on any format can dazzle a listener with it's brilliance and rich sonic palette. One of the most stunning recordings I ever heard in my life wasn't on a vinyl record nor was it on a CD, SACD, or DVD-A. It was a 1/4" stereo reel-to-reel tape. Great music is where you find it.

Sadly, that particular recording of Brahms Symphony No. 3 is not available on CD, and you would have a much better chance at buying a winning lotto ticket than you would of finding it on an LP.

Music done right transcends formats, and makes their limitations entirely irrelevant. That has been the message I have been trying to promote in this thread, and apparently without much success. That is why specifications and theory doesn't mean a thing to me. The more people tell me about the downside of whatever format they happen to deride, the more great music I find on it. And for that reason, nothing that anyone can say will deter me from buying music on vinyl, 1/4" reel-to-reel tape, CD, SACD or whatever. I value access to music I want, not formats. As long as I can find great music and acquire it on my own terms, I will keep buying. Think records or reel-to-reel tape is a hassle? Think they don't spec out as good as CD? That's your loss and my gain. It's fewer people that I have to compete with in the marketplace for music that I value and want.

--Jerome

 

[Dres]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jsaliga /img/forum/go_quote.gif If done correctly music on any format can dazzle a listener with it's brilliance and rich sonic palette. --Jerome

This

(Ironically I don't run analogue sources as I use I digital crossover.)