or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › CD Players & Dedicated Music Transports › Vinyl May Be Final Nail in CD's Coffin
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Vinyl May Be Final Nail in CD's Coffin - Page 3  

post #61 of 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoney99 View Post

I love all music formats, I prefer Frank Zappa on vinyl.

I don't have any Zappa on vinyl, but I will say his CD's are some of the best mastered CD's I own.
post #62 of 234
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoney99 View Post

I love all music formats, I prefer Frank Zappa on vinyl.

The irony here is that Zappa HATED analog. He was a pioneer in his use of digital equipment, as it became available, and frequently spoke out about his hatred of analog. There are several biographies as well as an autobiography on Zappa and all of them provide many direct quotes where he scathes analog and yearns for digital. A hiss, a pop, a click, ANY sound in the playback that was not actually part of the music reportedly drove him insane and his tantrums were well documented. As well as the number of takes he would put his bands through to "get it right" with the recording equipment of the day. When technology finally caught up to his dream/desire, nothing he produced in his later years used any analog in the creation or processing, unless absolutly neccessary. Some say he was ahead of his time. Some say he was a pig. Some love him, and some hate him. I first saw him live in Atlantic City in 1969 and was captivated by the depth of what he and his band could do musically.

If you are a Zappa fan, try: "The Real Frank Zappa Book" by Frank Zappa or "Dangerous Kitchen, The Subversive World of Zappa" by Kevin Courrier
post #63 of 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by zombywoof View Post

I always find these threads to be interesting. Vinyl may sound warmer, seems to sound better to some ears, but the fact is that it is a major step backwards from a longevity and convenience standpoint.


You forgot the most important part, vinyl can sound better because of better mastering.



Quote:
Originally Posted by zombywoof View Post

But the suggestion that vinyl is the threat to CD's does not make sense to me.


I would say that some people want MP3/Flac and instead of a boring CD as the physical format, they want a nice looking vinyl instead.
post #64 of 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by ruadmaa View Post

Vinyl audio is compressed.


Do you mean automatic compressed by the medium, or that one must compressed the music before cutting?
post #65 of 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlesJ View Post

I guess the composers and other pros who partook in this testing are also deaf too as they coudn't tell their own out takes they didn't like

Gould, Glenn, "The Grass is Always Greener in the Outtakes," High Fidelity, Aug 75, pg 54-59.


Did you read what I wrote?
post #66 of 234
Switching to vinyl because some CDs are poorly mastered is like switching to Spam because real ham has bones in it. (In other words, it is giving up more than you gain.)
As I have said before, the solution is to find a way to force the recording industry to stop the loudness wars, not to switch to an inherently inferior medium.
post #67 of 234
[quote=krabapple;12752371]Yes

No. That simply has never been proved. The supposed AUDIBLE improvement in two-channel sound by virtue of increasing playback sample rate and bitdepth, or by switching to DSD, has no firm scientific validation.

No, that's not 'certain', that's an anecdote. There's much more evidence that if you made a good mp3 from that LP, it would likely sound the same to you.

------------------
Are you sure there is NO difference between hi rez. and CD. You say "No firm scientific validation." I have read and went to lectures on the difference, as well as heard it myself.

Can you see the differece between low color and high color on your PC monitor?? It's the same with sound. More bits mean more steps between different colors or different sounds... thus smoother sound and less fatigue.

CD's and MP3 also have high frequency cutoff which sound unnatural to our brains. So I guess this proof is not "firm" enough for you to believe.. that's your choice.

Analog LP's sound good because they have natural rolloffs and are inherently smooth.
post #68 of 234
Quote:


Are you sure there is NO difference between hi rez. and CD. You say "No firm scientific validation." I have read and went to lectures on the difference, as well as heard it myself.

The JAES, which is the leading peer-reviewed journal in the field, recently published a study that conducted hundreds of trials, using different systems and many listeners, and concluded that a 16/44.1 (i.e., CD-quality) copy of a hi-rez recording was indistinguishable from the hi-rez original. Unless and until someone produces a better study with a different result, that article stands as the definitive word on the subject.

As for what you heard, depending on how you did the comparisons there are several possible explanations. Real sound quality difference is not one of them.
post #69 of 234
Yes, but random people can't tell the difference if they don't know what to look....I mean, hear for.

Also long listening session were, I assume, not conducted.

Listener fatigue and harshness does not show up as a frequency response or sound change... They will sound the same. Just like a picture that is missing something. You often can't see it untill you either looks for it or spend some amount of time with the picuture and get to know it. I would alway like an exact copy of the original 24-bit master or DSD master, as a lower rez. copy will ALWAYS loose something... COPIES ALWAY DO. This is why you photgraphers use bitmap images not JPEG.

A TV show was trying to see if musician, music professional, and normal people could hear a difference between an LP record, a CD recording of the LP, and MP3 recording of the CD. I could tell the difference on the my system via DD.
post #70 of 234
Yes, training, when it comes to differences that are subtle in nature, is of an enormous benefit. But consider that people never talk about 'being told what to listen for' when it comes to sighted comparisons. That is unless you consider either the willful or innocent misdirection they receive from others.

BTW, what was the TV show and do you recall how the participants made out? Were they sighted evaluations?
post #71 of 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chu Gai View Post

Yes, training, when it comes to differences that are subtle in nature, is of an enormous benefit.

Learning to percieve flaws in equipment with which one was previously satisfied seems less like a "benefit" than a source of disappointment, to me.
post #72 of 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by PULLIAMM View Post

Learning to percieve flaws in equipment with which one was previously satisfied seems less like a "benefit" than a source of disappointment, to me.

In fewer words, ignorance is bliss.
post #73 of 234
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonomega View Post

In fewer words, ignorance is bliss.

Ignorance is scary, not bliss.

I guess it depends on whether you want to live in la la land or reality.
post #74 of 234
atdamico - very much true. In keeping with being totally nostalgic, all of my Zappa records have long since been transferred over to open reel tape and I play it back on my Teac A2300SD to the amusement of my ol' buddies.
post #75 of 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by PULLIAMM View Post

Learning to percieve flaws in equipment with which one was previously satisfied seems less like a "benefit" than a source of disappointment, to me.

Yes, I agree, but I have always disliked the sound I get from CD's and even worse MP3. One I started buying DVD-A and SACD's I started to really like my system. So it helped me enjoy my low to mid-end system even more. The mid to high frequencys are not as harsh as CD's.. I'm sure. My wife picked out the 2-channel CD layer from the SACD 2-ch layer on more than one disk. Both layers were Re-mastered.

Low priced equipment used:
Denon universal player using analog into low-end 5.1 receiver, Infinity Interlude 40 towers, IL100 10" room optimized sub.
post #76 of 234
Quote:


One I started buying DVD-A and SACD's I started to really like my system. So it helped me enjoy my low to mid-end system even more. The mid to high frequencys are not as harsh as CD's.. I'm sure.

But that's because you were now listening to remastered versions. (You might also be dazzled by the newer technology, but we'll leave that aside.) Copy those disks to CD, do a level-matched comparison, and you won't be able to tell them apart. That's what the JAES article demonstrated.

Quote:


My wife picked out the 2-channel CD layer from the SACD 2-ch layer on more than one disk. Both layers were Re-mastered.

But not remastered identically, most likely. And I'll bet you didn't match output levels, either.

Look, there's nothing implausible about preferring hi-rez releases to CD releases. But that preference tells you nothing about the sound quality of the respective formats, because you're comparing apples to oranges. The JAES-published study did a proper comparison of the formats themselves.
post #77 of 234
Quote:


Listener fatigue and harshness does not show up as a frequency response or sound change.

Of couorse they do, if they exist at all. Every effect has a cause, and the cause has to be a physical difference in the output of the players. If harshness isn't caused by frequency response anomalies or distortion, what causes it?
post #78 of 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregmp View Post

[
Are you sure there is NO difference between hi rez. and CD. You say "No firm scientific validation." I have read and went to lectures on the difference, as well as heard it myself.

Sighted, no doubt.


Quote:


Can you see the differece between low color and high color on your PC monitor?? It's the same with sound. More bits mean more steps between different colors or different sounds... thus smoother sound and less fatigue.

The analogy is inept, because it ignores where 'low color' and 'high color' fall on the scale of perceptibility, versus 'standard bit depth' and 'hi rez'. Put simply, there is A LOT more room for perceptible improvement in video, than in audio.


Quote:


CD's and MP3 also have high frequency cutoff which sound unnatural to our brains. So I guess this proof is not "firm" enough for you to believe.. that's your choice.

ALL real-world media and record/playback chains , including 'hi rez', have limited bandwidth. So do your ears.


Quote:


Analog LP's sound good because they have natural rolloffs and are inherently smooth.

Vinylphiles spout nonsense like this because it 'sounds right' to them, not because it's necessarily true.
post #79 of 234
[quote=gregmp;12778618]
Quote:
Originally Posted by krabapple View Post

Analog LP's sound good because they have natural rolloffs and are inherently smooth.

But the real performance doesn't suffer from that natural roll off, so vinyl is a preference issue.
post #80 of 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregmp View Post

Yes, I agree, but I have always disliked the sound I get from CD's and even worse MP3. One I started buying DVD-A and SACD's I started to really like my system. So it helped me enjoy my low to mid-end system even more. The mid to high frequencys are not as harsh as CD's.. I'm sure. My wife picked out the 2-channel CD layer from the SACD 2-ch layer on more than one disk. Both layers were Re-mastered.

Low priced equipment used:
Denon universal player using analog into low-end 5.1 receiver, Infinity Interlude 40 towers, IL100 10" room optimized sub.

Greg, since you are in Boston, you should attend some of the Boston Audio Society's meeting up there. They have done a lot of component comparisons, format comparisons. But, you may not like the answers you will find or get.
post #81 of 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by PULLIAMM View Post

Switching to vinyl because some CDs are poorly mastered is like switching to Spam because real ham has bones in it. (In other words, it is giving up more than you gain.)
As I have said before, the solution is to find a way to force the recording industry to stop the loudness wars, not to switch to an inherently inferior medium.


Giving up? No, I prefer good sound over bad sound. I understand that you prefer bad sound, because of your praise over remastered CDs.
post #82 of 234
Hey, Nin74, instead of insulting other people's taste, why don't you answer the question I asked you yesterday: You said my numbers for vinyl's market share were wrong. So where are the right numbers?
post #83 of 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlesJ View Post

But the real performance doesn't suffer from that natural roll off, so vinyl is a preference issue.


Gregmp is highly confused. On the one hand he complains about the ~20kHz bandwidth limit of CD and MP, and on the other hand he touts a 'rolloff' of LP...which acts like a 'bandwidth limiter' from a listener's perspective.

LP can 'encode' higher frequencies than CD, but has a poorer frequency response at high frequencies than CD -- i.e., the ACCURACY of the 'encoding' is worse. CD frequency response is FLAT to 20 kHz. In fact LPs are commonly 'rolled off' because they distort high frequencies, not because it's 'natural'.

Also, human hearing extends to 20 kHz (somewhat more in children and rare adults). It has its own 'roll off' (documented in the Fletcher-Munson curves). You don't want to add another irreversible 'roll off' on top of that, in the response of the playback medium, you want to present the full frequency spectrum of the recorded sound, and let your ears 'roll it off'...just as happens with a 'live' sound. In other words, you want the best frequency response from your MEDIUM and RECORDING CHAIN that you can get, in the 20hz-20Khz range.
post #84 of 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by NIN74 View Post

Do you mean automatic compressed by the medium, or that one must compressed the music before cutting?

The music is compressed via the RIAA curb equalization system before it is cut onto a record groove. If it were not, the needle would mistrack when loud amplitude sounds were encountered.
post #85 of 234
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnarus View Post

Hey, Nin74, instead of insulting other people's taste, why don't you answer the question I asked you yesterday: You said my numbers for vinyl's market share were wrong. So where are the right numbers?

At the risk of posting something that you will take out of context for the sake of starting an argument, you probably don't realize that Nin and Pulliamm have history. If you look further down this area you will find a few vinyl threads that went for quite a while where the two of them, and others, went head to head and never got anywhere. So before you spout off against someone perhaps you might have done a little investigation first to find the history. It would go a long way towards explaining, what you perceive, as insults.

FYI, Pulliamm's position on the difference in sound between vinyl and CD is based on what he remembers vinyl to sound like from over 25 years ago. His position is that on the introduction of CD, he immediatly realized the huge sound difference and either sold or threw out every LP he had at once. And he has never, once, in the last 25+ years ever listened to an LP again. But as his memory is perfect he remembers exacly how every single LP he ever owned sounded so can post as "fact" that in comparrison to CD vinyl sucks. His posts here are to tempt Nin, and others, to reengage with him in a pointless argument about the difference in SQ between the two regardless of the fact that he hasn't heard an LP in over 25 years.

I actually find most of Pulliamm's posts funny as hell and he seems to get that this is not only a forum for enthusiasts, but for entertainment as well.

I may not agree with all of what he says, but he makes me laugh, in a good way.

Did I get any of this wrong Pulliamm?

post #86 of 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by krabapple View Post

Gregmp is highly confused. On the one hand he complains about the ~20kHz bandwidth limit of CD and MP, and on the other hand he touts a 'rolloff' of LP...which acts like a 'bandwidth limiter' from a listener's perspective.

LP can 'encode' higher frequencies than CD, but has a poorer frequency response at high frequencies than CD -- i.e., the ACCURACY of the 'encoding' is worse. CD frequency response is FLAT to 20 kHz. In fact LPs are commonly 'rolled off' because they distort high frequencies, not because it's 'natural'.

Also, human hearing extends to 20 kHz (somewhat more in children and rare adults). It has its own 'roll off' (documented in the Fletcher-Munson curves). You don't want to add another irreversible 'roll off' on top of that, in the response of the playback medium, you want to present the full frequency spectrum of the recorded sound, and let your ears 'roll it off'...just as happens with a 'live' sound. In other words, you want the best frequency response from your MEDIUM and RECORDING CHAIN that you can get, in the 20hz-20Khz range.


When the facts are not on one's side, excuses and plenty of them keep coming, and bad logic
post #87 of 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by ruadmaa View Post

The music is compressed via the RIAA curb equalization system before it is cut onto a record groove. If it were not, the needle would mistrack when loud amplitude sounds were encountered.

No, that's EQ, not compression.
post #88 of 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by krabapple View Post

No, that's EQ, not compression.

Call it whatever you want, the signal is altered before it is cut into the record. Doesn't really matter much though. With vinyl if you play the same recording with 10 different phono cartridges, you get 10 different sounding playbacks. Nothing consistent about it.
post #89 of 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by ruadmaa View Post

The music is compressed via the RIAA curb equalization system before it is cut onto a record groove. If it were not, the needle would mistrack when loud amplitude sounds were encountered.


This is NOT compression at all. You use a phonostage to get the SAME signal before the riaa stage, so maybe you should look this up before you say something like this.
post #90 of 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnarus View Post

Hey, Nin74, instead of insulting other people's taste, why don't you answer the question I asked you yesterday: You said my numbers for vinyl's market share were wrong. So where are the right numbers?


Insulting? You should read more what he have wrote before. Yes, some people can prefer undynamic sound, that is ok.
As far as I know there is no correct nr available

I read that Warner had a 30% increase sale on vinyl last year and a chain of independent music retailers, Newbury Comics, vinyl sales were up 37% last year.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
This thread is locked  
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › CD Players & Dedicated Music Transports › Vinyl May Be Final Nail in CD's Coffin