CA Readers Are, "clueless, equally bitter and uninformed"

[Daudio]

Please don't get me started with my nonsense.

 

Heavens, No !!!

[christopher3393]

OK, not tryin' to stir things up, but in my opinion, atman is brahman. Problem solved. Now I'll go back to Them, performing "Mystic Eyes". Sometimes, if you really love the music , it doesn't really matter what format it is in, even if it is mp3. The noteworthy exception is if listening to it actually hurts. If pain, no gain.

[Priaptor]

Heavens, No !!!

 

Ah poking the bear are you. Not taking the bait

[christopher3393]

Ah poking the bear are you. Not taking the bait

 

Sholem Aleichem.

[Jud]

Sholem Aleichem.

 

And to you.

[BobSherman]

Sholem Aleichem.

 

The audiophile lament...

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahAOU1HZXlc

[christopher3393]

Ha! I'm imagining the audiophile lyrics! May you all be well, regardless of format!

[TubeLover]

+1. We have a hard enough time on this forum keeping civil sometimes without bringing peoples' politics and or religions into the discussions. Lets just make those subjects taboo, OK? A gentleman's agreement?

 

Agreed!

 

JC

[bluesman]

if you really love the music , it doesn't really matter what format it is in, even if it is mp3.

[mayhem13]

It is even true in the USA among states. Those with quality of life, better income, education, and health are generally those that are politically liberal (and called socialist by those living in conservative states). I have asked several times people bad mouthing policies in those liberal states why it is so bad if they seem to continually be better off than the conservative ones. Never gotten an answer.

 

You mean the states/places with little to no industry and a small blue collar population comparatively? Generally the hand workers don't have much time to engage in liberal discussions......there's far more pressing matters that deserve their attentions.

 

Now socialist topics.....that's another completely unrelated discussion. Sweden has some very interesting going-ons as of late with the recent rise of an interesting party with some not so liberal views! It's not so sunny in the Nordic so the underlying issues don' get the attention they demand.

 

Socialist, Liberal and Free............choose any two as that's all that can coincide within a society.........unless of course you wanna tear it all down and start from scratch?

[bluesman]

You mean the states/places with little to no industry and a small blue collar population comparatively? Generally the hand workers don't have much time to engage in liberal discussions......there's far more pressing matters that deserve their attentions.

 

Now socialist topics.....that's another completely unrelated discussion. Sweden has some very interesting going-ons as of late with the recent rise of an interesting party with some not so liberal views! It's not so sunny in the Nordic so the underlying issues don' get the attention they demand.

 

Socialist, Liberal and Free............choose any two as that's all that can coincide within a society.........unless of course you wanna tear it all down and start from scratch?

Is no one going to say it? ENOUGH ALREADY!!!! We all have access to both The New Republic and The Christian Science Monitor if we want to explore the spectra of social, political and economic thought. This thread started to support Chris & ended up squabbling like the children of Allen Ginsberg and Sarah Palin.

 

 

"The masses need vinyl. It's cheap and durable for seatcovers, siding, frisbees and so many other necessities of life. Why is all the vinyl is going to left wing audiophiles? This is disgraceful!

 

What's that again?

 

Never mind."

[bdiament]

... It would be interesting to hear a comparison between one of Barry Diament's 24/192 recordings and the same microphone feed used to create a vinyl recording using standard vinyl recording methods.

Alex

 

Hi Alex,

 

Speaking only for myself (of course), using my criterion of the output sounding like the input (as opposed to the output sounding per anyone's particular preference, i.e., "detailed", "smooth," etc.), if I was to master one of my recordings for vinyl (yes, I have done vinyl mastering too), I would say the following of what would result:

 

1. To my ears, listening to the 24/192 version via converters that can actually achieve what this rate can do (some can), would reveal information captured by the mics that vinyl would not reveal. Played on many other converters, the 24/192 might (just maybe) find vinyl its superior -- again, all in terms of sounding not like what anyone might like or not like but in terms of sounding like the input signal.

 

2. Compared with the 24/96 digital version, the vinyl would either equal it, or perhaps each would do things the other does not. I would call it a tight race.

 

3. Compared with the finest 16/44 digital I can imagine, the vinyl would wipe the floor with the Redbook, revealing just how hobbled a format the latter is. (I have often said "If you want to make CD sound better, stop listening to vinyl." ;-})

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

http://www.soundkeeperrecordings.wordpress.com

Barry Diament Audio

[Daudio]

1. To my ears, listening to the 24/192 version via converters that can actually achieve what this rate can do (some can), would reveal information captured by the mics that vinyl would not reveal. Played on many other converters, the 24/192 might (just maybe) find vinyl its superior -- again, all in terms of sounding not like what anyone might like or not like but in terms of sounding like the input signal.

 

2. Compared with the 24/96 digital version, the vinyl would either equal it, or perhaps each would do things the other does not. I would call it a tight race.

 

3. Compared with the finest 16/44 digital I can imagine, the vinyl would wipe the floor with the Redbook, revealing just how hobbled a format the latter is. (I have often said "If you want to make CD sound better, stop listening to vinyl." ;-})

 

 

With this assessment by Barry, I think we can put a fork in this thread, because for all intents and purposes, it is done !

[orgel]

Is no one going to say it? ENOUGH ALREADY!!!! We all have access to both The New Republic and The Christian Science Monitor if we want to explore the spectra of social, political and economic thought. This thread started to support Chris & ended up squabbling like the children of Allen Ginsberg and Sarah Palin.

 

I agree completely (with the exception that it's unlikely that Ginsberg would've had any children).

 

--David

[bluesman]

...it's unlikely that Ginsberg would've had any children

It's a conceptual exercise, David - like imagining Sigmund Freud and Calpurnia dancing around a Maypole singing "You tell me your dream, I'll tell you mine".

 

 

Best regards -

 

David

[Jud]

It's a conceptual exercise, David - like imagining Sigmund Freud and Calpurnia dancing around a Maypole singing "You tell me your dream, I'll tell you mine".

 

 

Best regards -

 

David

 

Dancing around a pole; squirrels, associated with nuts; how very, um, Freudian.

[bluesman]

Dancing around a pole; squirrels, associated with nuts; how very, um, Freudian.

I'm aFreud not, Jud - this thread has made me Jung again with its true integration of opposites: analog and digital, radical and conservative, nice and not nice, gentle and scathing, dispassionate and fanatic.

 

Remember that many of the male members of this community spent much of their youth chasing tails around and around while not getting very far - so even your interpretation of my symbolism is but one of many equally reasonable alternatives. Rest assured, though, that no vinyl was harmed in pursuit of my pleasure (probably only because women didn't dress in it when I was young and single).

[orgel]

It's a conceptual exercise, David - like imagining Sigmund Freud and Calpurnia dancing around a Maypole singing "You tell me your dream, I'll tell you mine".

 

I really dig the Calpurnia reference, but somehow it's easier for me to imagine the Freud/C-purn scenario than it is to conceive of Ginsberg fathering (or otherwise acquiring) children. (I won't address Jud's Freudian analysis, since it's just too troubling in this context. Plus, I hate squirrels.)

 

--David

[Jud]

male members

 

There you go again....

[Paul R]

It's a conceptual exercise, David - like imagining Sigmund Freud and Calpurnia dancing around a Maypole singing "You tell me your dream, I'll tell you mine".

 

 

Best regards -

 

David

 

Oh my - squirrels...

(limbering up throwing arm...)

[DavidL]

Here’s a different perspective after 11 pages of this thread…………..

 

In April 2014 Michael Fremer spent several column inches of his Stereophile “Analog Corner” criticising Alan Shaw's contribution to the Harbeth Forum thread (An honest appraisal of vinyl v.digital... reality v. romance? - Page 15) but ignored the general balance of the thread. I wrote to Stereophile:

 

“In 281 posts a variety of views have been aired. Two hard facts emerged:

 

1) On specification alone CD measures better than vinyl, with the possible exception of high-frequency extension.

 

2) A large number of audiophiles prefer the sound of vinyl.

 

Trying to understand why the latter is true produced some useful discussion: in particular the possibility that some of the 'faults' associated with vinyl playback may actually be perceived as producing a better listening experience. Three psychoacoustics aspects were noted:

 

1) Dynamic compression that has to be introduced when the vinyl master is cut effectively raises the level of low-level signals by 5-10 dB, which can be heard as increased detail in the music at a given volume setting.

 

2) Cross-talk between stereo channels. The cross-talk present on vinyl is of a similar level to that deliberately introduced by some commercial signal-processing products. When Stereophile reviewed one (the Signal Completion Stage) both you (John Atkinson) and Michael Fremer preferred the sound of the adulterated signal; you thought it improved the perception of soundstage and ambience.

 

3) Surface noise on vinyl. While this can be low its level remains close to the limit of audibility, in contrast to CD where the noise is far too low to be heard. Posts refer to evidence that adding low-level noise improves the perceived sound quality.

 

Michael Fremer responded:

 

“As usual it is vinyl's "faults" that must be at the root of its being a more pleasurable listening experience. I suggest that the specs are limited. They tell an incomplete story.”

[Paul R]

How appropriate...

 

[esldude]

Here’s a different perspective after 11 pages of this thread…………..

 

In April 2014 Michael Fremer spent several column inches of his Stereophile “Analog Corner” criticising Alan Shaw's contribution to the Harbeth Forum thread (An honest appraisal of vinyl v.digital... reality v. romance? - Page 15) but ignored the general balance of the thread. I wrote to Stereophile:

 

“In 281 posts a variety of views have been aired. Two hard facts emerged:

 

1) On specification alone CD measures better than vinyl, with the possible exception of high-frequency extension.

 

2) A large number of audiophiles prefer the sound of vinyl.

 

Trying to understand why the latter is true produced some useful discussion: in particular the possibility that some of the 'faults' associated with vinyl playback may actually be perceived as producing a better listening experience. Three psychoacoustics aspects were noted:

 

1) Dynamic compression that has to be introduced when the vinyl master is cut effectively raises the level of low-level signals by 5-10 dB, which can be heard as increased detail in the music at a given volume setting.

 

2) Cross-talk between stereo channels. The cross-talk present on vinyl is of a similar level to that deliberately introduced by some commercial signal-processing products. When Stereophile reviewed one (the Signal Completion Stage) both you (John Atkinson) and Michael Fremer preferred the sound of the adulterated signal; you thought it improved the perception of soundstage and ambience.

 

3) Surface noise on vinyl. While this can be low its level remains close to the limit of audibility, in contrast to CD where the noise is far too low to be heard. Posts refer to evidence that adding low-level noise improves the perceived sound quality.

 

Michael Fremer responded:

 

“As usual it is vinyl's "faults" that must be at the root of its being a more pleasurable listening experience. I suggest that the specs are limited. They tell an incomplete story.”

 

Your three points make lots of sense to me. Fremer's response is of course meaningless drivel. Why can't he live with the idea certain colorations sweeten or enhance the subjectively perceived sound? We know the master tape signal has to be manipulated to put it on vinyl. Seems not much of as stretch to think that manipulation alters the sound. The fact it subjectively sweetened it was a bonus though not higher fidelity.

[gmgraves]

Here’s a different perspective after 11 pages of this thread…………..

 

In April 2014 Michael Fremer spent several column inches of his Stereophile “Analog Corner” criticising Alan Shaw's contribution to the Harbeth Forum thread (An honest appraisal of vinyl v.digital... reality v. romance? - Page 15) but ignored the general balance of the thread. I wrote to Stereophile:

 

“In 281 posts a variety of views have been aired. Two hard facts emerged:

 

1) On specification alone CD measures better than vinyl, with the possible exception of high-frequency extension.

 

2) A large number of audiophiles prefer the sound of vinyl.

 

Trying to understand why the latter is true produced some useful discussion: in particular the possibility that some of the 'faults' associated with vinyl playback may actually be perceived as producing a better listening experience. Three psychoacoustics aspects were noted:

 

1) Dynamic compression that has to be introduced when the vinyl master is cut effectively raises the level of low-level signals by 5-10 dB, which can be heard as increased detail in the music at a given volume setting.

 

2) Cross-talk between stereo channels. The cross-talk present on vinyl is of a similar level to that deliberately introduced by some commercial signal-processing products. When Stereophile reviewed one (the Signal Completion Stage) both you (John Atkinson) and Michael Fremer preferred the sound of the adulterated signal; you thought it improved the perception of soundstage and ambience.

 

3) Surface noise on vinyl. While this can be low its level remains close to the limit of audibility, in contrast to CD where the noise is far too low to be heard. Posts refer to evidence that adding low-level noise improves the perceived sound quality.

 

Michael Fremer responded:

 

“As usual it is vinyl's "faults" that must be at the root of its being a more pleasurable listening experience. I suggest that the specs are limited. They tell an incomplete story.”

 

 

An honest appraisal of vinyl? In spite of the fact that I have more than a thousand LPs, vinyl is yesterday's news. It's a viable and legitimate source of music and it can sound very good indeed. I have said here before that the best commercial recording that I have ever heard is the Classic records remastering of Stravinsky's 'Firebird" Ballet on Mercury Living Presence on single-sided 200 gram 45-RPM LPs, and mastered by Wilma Cozart Fine (the last thing she did before she died). I also have the CD of the same performance made from the same master tape, and also mastered by Mrs. Fine. It's hard to believe that they are made from the same master tape, but they are. The CD sounds flat and lifeless and the records sound jaw-dropingly alive and real! But this is the exception, not the rule and says more about Philips' Mercury CD reissue quality than it does about CD. Based on my experience with other titles, I'll go so far as to say, that I'd be willing to bet that if the Mercury CD reissues had been done by JVC in their XRCD process that the result would be that the XRCD of the "Firebird" would sound at least equal to, and probably better than the Classic Records reissue!

 

Fact of the matter is that CD is better than vinyl - or at least it should be technically better.

 

Most LPs were cut from analog magnetic tape. Tape has a limited dynamic range. Without some kind of com-panding noise reduction (Dolby or DBX or similar) you are looking at around 65 dB at 15ips (source: The Audio Cyclopedia, second edition, 1972 printing). With NR, you might see 72 dB. Of course, this figure is dependent upon such factors as tape formulation, tape base thickness, and linear tape speed. In the 60's and 70's tape formulations improved considerably which improved the S/N of tape significantly with gains of up to 5 dB and perhaps a bit more.

 

While a pristine vinyl LP can have frequency response that's marginally higher than RedBook CD (like it says above), the reality is that studios only maintained their analog tape recorders to only 15 KHz. These machines might actually have response to 20 KHz and perhaps a smidgen more, but, believe me, it isn't flat to that frequency, while CD is technically flat to 22.05KHz. It is possible that a direct-to-disc LP can have frequency response up into the 25 KHz region, but again, that is determined by a number of factors (such as the brand and model of cutter head employed). Then there's the matter of how many plays will that LP sustain before that information is worn away? I'd say about five; maybe more if the cartridge has a Shibata or similar stylus in a good arm. Then of course there's the dynamic range of vinyl.

 

Throughout the 50's, 60's and 70's it was "traditional" for record companies to press their classical records on virgin vinyl. Virgin vinyl is vinyl that, as the name suggests, has never been used before. Now, while this practice varied from company to company, it was also standard practice for pop records to be pressed with a vinyl mix called "regrind". They would take unsold stock, and records that came off the presses with manufacturing defects and punch out the label area and then grind the records up and mix the used vinyl with a certain percentage of virgin vinyl. The ratios varied with the record companies, and although they tried to keep detritus out of the mix, a rejected pressing with an off-center label might get some paper label into the regrind and this would end-up in somebody's Beach-Boys or Beatles album. Records made with regrind had a poorer signal to noise ratio than did LPs made with 100% virgin vinyl which at best were about 56-58 dB.

 

We can wax nostalgic about vinyl all we want to, but the fact is that this is the golden age of recording, not the halcyon days of analog. Today's high resolution digital recordings are light years ahead of the very best that analog could create, but with that undoubted technical superiority, comes the caveat that to get the best out of any recording medium, requires talent and dedication. An indifferently mastered high-res recording can still sound terrible, but the best sound more like real music than has ever been possible before. I like to make the analogy to photography. There are at least two types of photographer, the artist, like Ansel Adams, or Diane Arbus, and the average snapshooter. you can give both the finest equipment with the latest technology and one is going to make a beautiful photograph that's a work of art, and the other is going to take one that's poorly composed, out of focus, with a finger shadow over the lens.

[bdiament]

Hi David,

 

I'd like to address two points from your post where my experience says otherwise.

 

...On specification alone CD measures better than vinyl, with the possible exception of high-frequency extension...

 

In some areas, definitely, such as signal-to-noise ratio, interchannel separation, low frequency response, etc.

But in my opinion, there are some quite significant areas where vinyl exposes the weaknesses of CD. Prime among these for me, is dynamic range. All too often, the signal-to-noise ratio is taken to be synonymous with dynamic range. While it may be so theoretically (difference between the noise floor and maximum level being the dynamic range), in practice it doesn't work out that way.

 

What I'm referring to specifically is the steep rise in distortion with diminishing signal level. Low-level sounds on CD are effectively represented by considerably fewer than 16 bits and the loss of information is, to my ears, quite significant where such does not occur with decent vinyl. Instrumental harmonics that are rich on vinyl become threadbare and "bleached" at low levels on CD. Spatial cues too get lost at low levels. Reverb tails tend to curve steeply downward in level toward their ends.

Yes dither helps with all of this a little but in my experience it is very little indeed.

 

So while the CD may *appear* to be able to present music all the way down to -96 dbFS (or with dither, perhaps -91 or -92), in fact, the distortion starts to become audible (for some folks, turning cellos into kazoos) at much higher levels, in my opinion making CDs *real* dynamic range effectively only about half (or perhaps more realistically a third) of its signal-to-noise ratio.

 

...Dynamic compression that has to be introduced when the vinyl master is cut...

 

I don't know if you've cut any lacquers for vinyl. I have. And without compression. Just because a great many vinyl mastering engineers use dynamic compression (remember loudness pleases many of their clients), this should in no way whatsoever be confused with "has to be" because that is simply not true. If one accepts the playback volume control as the optimal way to adjust playback level (I do) then it is quite possible to cut lacquers for vinyl with no compression at all.

 

This is similar to what I've heard from a number of musicians and semi-pro recordists: that they *have* to EQ and they *have* to use compression in their recordings and mixes and mastering sessions. What I tell them all (and have shown to a great many) is that one must ask oneself what was done wrong in a prior step that they believe will be remedied by applying such a process and what they believe the application of the process will truly achieve (and at what sonic cost).

I know that many recordings *need* some EQ but they wouldn't if a better job was done earlier in the process.

 

***

 

All the talk about colorations of vinyl being what folks like about it misses the point that copying a master to vinyl will create results that sound orders of magnitude more like that master than even the finest CD transfer can. Folks may *like* the sound of one format or another and I'd never argue with that. But it sure seems like a lot of folks have not had the experience of fine vinyl playback, much less actually comparing a good transfer with one to CD.

 

Again, don't blame the format for what some mastering engineers do with it. And given the opportunity (granted a rare one), I suggest interested folks compare equivalent transfers to vinyl and CD with the source. I believe more folks having the chance to do so would eliminate a lot of the debate.

 

As always, just my perspective.

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

http://www.soundkeeperrecordings.wordpress.com

Barry Diament Audio