I've heard of this endless debate and am not trying to start another one. I
just finished reading lots of info and graphs on why analog is better than
digital since it has 'higher resolution', etc.

My simple question is that the analog vs digital signal comparison does
make sense to me and analog technically should have much better dynamic
range, then why is it when I listen to a turntable, it sounds the
opposite? Especially the highs always seem cut off where as I throw in any
CD and the extreme high/low range sound much fuller. It's funny because I
know the whole argument is that vinyl is supposed to sound fuller. Is it
because I have to listen to vinyl on some $10k turntable? I've only
listened on some high-end Technics and Stanton tables.

Also the fact that there's pops and clicks on vinyl from dust is extremely
annoying to me even when you clean it ever 2 seconds.

dasmodul wrote:
I've heard of this endless debate and am not trying to start another
one. I
just finished reading lots of info and graphs on why analog is better
than
digital since it has 'higher resolution', etc.

What you read was drivel.

My simple question is that the analog vs digital signal comparison
does
make sense to me and analog technically should have much better
dynamic
range,

Not to repeat myself, but what you read was drivel. CD probably has a
good 20 dB on vinyl.

then why is it when I listen to a turntable, it sounds the
opposite? Especially the highs always seem cut off where as I throw
in any
CD and the extreme high/low range sound much fuller. It's funny
because I
know the whole argument is that vinyl is supposed to sound fuller. Is
it
because I have to listen to vinyl on some $10k turntable? I've only
listened on some high-end Technics and Stanton tables.

Also the fact that there's pops and clicks on vinyl from dust is
extremely
annoying to me even when you clean it ever 2 seconds.

Yeah, there's that, too.

To explain: Vinyl has limited dynamic range and a whole host of
distortions besides, but some of those distortions give it a wonderful,
resonant sound. Some audiophiles mistake this resonance for "accuracy,"
which is a technical term referring to the relationship between the
recording and the output. But many people who love vinyl don't want to
admit that what they love about it is, technically speaking,
distortion. So they invent all sorts of pseudoscientific theories about
how vinyl must somehow be technically superior to CD. I'm surprised you
found someone making the argument that vinyl offers higher dynamic
range, because that is so obviously wrong, but it gives you some idea
of the lengths to which some vinylphiles will go to avoid facing up to
the fact that what appeals to them about vinyl is a technical weakness
of the medium.

bob

dasmodul wrote:
I've heard of this endless debate and am not trying to start another one. I
just finished reading lots of info and graphs on why analog is better than
digital since it has 'higher resolution', etc.

All analog media are not alike. An LP is *extremely* unlikely to have
higher resolution than a CD of the same recording, unless the CD mastering
has been done very poorly indeed!

My simple question is that the analog vs digital signal comparison does
make sense to me and analog technically should have much better dynamic
range, then why is it when I listen to a turntable, it sounds the
opposite? Especially the highs always seem cut off where as I throw in any
CD and the extreme high/low range sound much fuller.

Well, CDs are capable of reproducing the audible frequency range -- 20 Hz
to 20,000 Hz, more or less -- with the same excellnet fidelity from lowest
to highest. LPs simply can't do that.

It's funny because I
know the whole argument is that vinyl is supposed to sound fuller. Is it
because I have to listen to vinyl on some $10k turntable? I've only
listened on some high-end Technics and Stanton tables.

Well, you'll be told you need an expensive turntable to reap the full
benefits of vinyl...but you'll still be limited by the medium itself.

Also the fact that there's pops and clicks on vinyl from dust is extremely
annoying to me even when you clean it ever 2 seconds.

Indeed. You'll be told that careful -- read: obsessive -- devotion to
record cleaning rituals will 'all but' eliminate clicks and pops. But
they always seem to creep in anyway, don't they?

Btw, if you like the way a record sounds, you can always transfer it to
CD, and eliminate the clicks and pops digitally. That way you' will
completely preserve whatever good the LP has to offer, and none of the
bad.


--

-S
It's not my business to do intelligent work. -- D. Rumsfeld, testifying
before the House Armed Services Committee

dasmodul wrote:

I've heard of this endless debate and am not trying to start another one. I
just finished reading lots of info and graphs on why analog is better than
digital since it has 'higher resolution', etc.


Perhaps you still have not read enough?

Vinyl simply has less resolution, because of noise and distortion.
Resolution is determined by the loudest and softest that the medium can
reproduce. Vinyl has at best 70 dB or so of dynamic range (i.e. the
difference between the loudest signal it can reproduce without
significant distortion and the noise floor), and that is equivalent to
only 12 bits or 13 bits of resolution. Most vinyl LP's have even less
resolution because of excessive surface noise.

Whether one likes analog or digital is a matter of preference, and there
are factors like the quality of the mastering that can be most important
in determining the resulting quality of a record, but there is really no
argument that digital is the *measureably* more accurate medium than vinyl.

My simple question is that the analog vs digital signal comparison does
make sense to me and analog technically should have much better dynamic
range, then why is it when I listen to a turntable, it sounds the
opposite?

Vinyl has inferior dynamic range compared to CD. Measurements clearly
reveal that. Most of us also are able to observe that fact by listening.

Especially the highs always seem cut off where as I throw in any
CD and the extreme high/low range sound much fuller. It's funny because I
know the whole argument is that vinyl is supposed to sound fuller. Is it
because I have to listen to vinyl on some $10k turntable? I've only
listened on some high-end Technics and Stanton tables.

The CD standard is flat up to 20 KHz, whereas it is rare to find an LP
with significant signal power above 15 KHz. If you do not have optimal
cartridge/phono preamp combinations, you may get significant droop (or
ripples) below 15 KHz.


Also the fact that there's pops and clicks on vinyl from dust is extremely
annoying to me even when you clean it ever 2 seconds.

That's one of the reasons why CD's have totally taken over.

Regarding content, if you compare a vinyl LP made with the *same source*
Master tape copied to HD or DAT (or direct) to make a Master CD, the eq at
the disc-cutter i/p was often adjusted (and maybe the path's dynamic range
too) as it progressed, whereas the CD transfer is deemed linear.

"dasmodul" wrote in message
...
I've heard of this endless debate and am not trying to start another one.
I
just finished reading lots of info and graphs on why analog is better than
digital since it has 'higher resolution', etc.

My simple question is that the analog vs digital signal comparison does
make sense to me and analog technically should have much better dynamic
range, then why is it when I listen to a turntable, it sounds the
opposite? Especially the highs always seem cut off where as I throw in any
CD and the extreme high/low range sound much fuller. It's funny because I
know the whole argument is that vinyl is supposed to sound fuller. Is it
because I have to listen to vinyl on some $10k turntable? I've only
listened on some high-end Technics and Stanton tables.

Also the fact that there's pops and clicks on vinyl from dust is extremely
annoying to me even when you clean it ever 2 seconds.

On 22 Apr 2005 00:02:43 GMT, "dasmodul"
wrote:

I've heard of this endless debate and am not trying to start another one. I
just finished reading lots of info and graphs on why analog is better than
digital since it has 'higher resolution', etc.

I'm not sure where you read this, but it is incorrect. Vinyl has an
absolute maximum possible dynamic range of around 70-75 dB, whereas
any old CD, even the ones you burn in your PC, has a dynamic range of
93dB. Of course, no music *master tape* exists with a dynamic range of
more than 80dB, so that's the range you'll really get on a CD, but the
medium is not the limitation.

My simple question is that the analog vs digital signal comparison does
make sense to me and analog technically should have much better dynamic
range,

Why does it make sense to you? It's not true, and there are perfectly
good technical reasons why this is the case.

then why is it when I listen to a turntable, it sounds the
opposite? Especially the highs always seem cut off where as I throw in any
CD and the extreme high/low range sound much fuller. It's funny because I
know the whole argument is that vinyl is supposed to sound fuller. Is it
because I have to listen to vinyl on some $10k turntable? I've only
listened on some high-end Technics and Stanton tables.

Vinyl apologists commonly trot out the argument that anyone who
doesn't find vinyl superior to CD has 'never heard a high-end vinyl
rig', but this is sheer obfuscation. I own a Michell GyroDec/RB300/A-T
OC9 combination with a SOTA phono preamp, and vinyl still sounds
exactly as you describe. I've also heard the legendary $80,000 Sirius
Rockport III with Clearaudio Insider cartridge, set up by Andy Payor
himself - and vinyl sounded exactly as you describe. Once you get
above the most basic replay gear, the limitation is the vinyl itself,
not the equipment.

Also the fact that there's pops and clicks on vinyl from dust is extremely
annoying to me even when you clean it ever 2 seconds.

Quite so. Stick with CD and ignore the screaming from the vinyl fans.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"dasmodul" wrote in message
...

It's funny because I
know the whole argument is that vinyl is supposed to sound fuller. Is it
because I have to listen to vinyl on some $10k turntable? I've only
listened on some high-end Technics and Stanton tables.

A $500 cartridge/tonearm combo should be more than is required.
You forgot to tell us your age. Regardless, when your hearing goes, perhaps
a little CD pre-emphasis :-) is not a bad thing. Additionally in your
CD/vinyl comparison your pre-amp's phono section and its RIAA equalization
comes into the picture. (I purposely avoided introducing your speakers into
the matter.) In any event try to get yourself one of those old commercial
Telarc (digital) LPs and its CD counterpart, and repeat your comparisons. I
believe this will really tell you something about (your) vinyl playback. I
only have modest vinyl and CD playback equipment and to my aged ears there
is not a big difference in the two formats (of course, excepting surface
noise, and tracking problems should those arise in your system.)

http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/question487.htm

Is one of the main visual sites I was reading about Vinyl vs. CD.

Well, thank goodness most of you hear the same 'problems' with vinyl as I.
I was hearing so much hoopla by vinyl enthusiasts, I thought maybe I was
the one with the bad ear or equipment. For me personally, even if vinyl
did have a wider dynamic range, etc. I wouldn't prefer it for the
dust/static magnet that it is. Yikes.

dasmodul wrote:
http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/question487.htm

Is one of the main visual sites I was reading about Vinyl vs. CD.

I am speechless.

All right, now I'm over it. What a fine example of why you shouldn't
trust anything you read on the Web. (That includes Usenet posts, BTW.)
That page looks professional and sounds authoritative, and yet it is
jaw-droppingly wrong in practically every sentence.

Others here can parse its flaws better than I, but you should have been
skeptical from the start: First and foremost, no one's name is attached
to the information. For a lay person such as yourself (or me), faced
with some technical explanation far beyond one's own level of
expertise, the first clue to whether the information can be trusted is
the credentials of the person providing it. That's not perfect,
obviously. People can lie about their background, and even "experts"
can be wrong, so you should never rely on a single source of
information. But at least it gives you some basis for believing that
this is somewhat more authoritative than if you had made it up
yourself.

bob

wrote:
dasmodul wrote:
http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/question487.htm

Is one of the main visual sites I was reading about Vinyl vs. CD.

I am speechless.

All right, now I'm over it. What a fine example of why you shouldn't
trust anything you read on the Web. (That includes Usenet posts, BTW.)
That page looks professional and sounds authoritative, and yet it is
jaw-droppingly wrong in practically every sentence.

It's the familiar and apparently deathless 'sampling means
missing information' canard about CD vs. LP. One of audiophile
culture's 'greatest hits' as it were.


Others here can parse its flaws better than I, but you should have been
skeptical from the start: First and foremost, no one's name is attached
to the information. For a lay person such as yourself (or me), faced
with some technical explanation far beyond one's own level of
expertise, the first clue to whether the information can be trusted is
the credentials of the person providing it. That's not perfect,
obviously. People can lie about their background, and even "experts"
can be wrong, so you should never rely on a single source of
information. But at least it gives you some basis for believing that
this is somewhat more authoritative than if you had made it up
yourself.


Here's the URL for emailing HowStuffWorks the correct information:

http://electronics.howstuffworks.com...&ct=correction



--

-S
It's not my business to do intelligent work. -- D. Rumsfeld, testifying
before the House Armed Services Committee

wrote:

dasmodul wrote:

http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/question487.htm

Is one of the main visual sites I was reading about Vinyl vs. CD.


I am speechless.

All right, now I'm over it. What a fine example of why you shouldn't
trust anything you read on the Web. (That includes Usenet posts, BTW.)
That page looks professional and sounds authoritative, and yet it is
jaw-droppingly wrong in practically every sentence.



"From the graph above you can see that CD quality audio does not do a
very good job of replicating the original signal. The main ways to
improve the quality of a digital recording are to increase the sampling
rate and to increase the accuracy of the sampling."



The above is taken from the site, along with a simplistic graph showing
a "sampled stepped" waveform. There is nothing I found in the "article"
explaining the niceties of the Shannon-Nyquist theorem, nor are there
any explanations of why, when one looks at a waveform on a 'scope taken
from a CD, one does not observe these irregular steps. All this
nonsense was a common and prevalent misunderstanding in the early days
of digital audio. Today, it is an embarrassment.



The problem with understanding sampling is that it requires a degree of
specialized knowledge not available to the average audiophile-someone
who knows how to, maybe, align a cartridge using a protractor, but is
uninitiated in higher mathematics and engineering. Thus, people get
away with offering simplistic and naive explanations, like those found
on the site mentioned above. To understand sampling theory one must
understand higher math. But anyone can look at a simple diagram on a
simple Web site and then wonder how a stepped and truncated waveform can
ever be representative of music? Without a technical background they
will never be able to understand, and are, therefore, open to all kinds
of obfuscation from people who don't know what they are talking about.



While the following may be a bit technical, the original poster may want
to dig up: Clock Jitter, D/A Converters, and Sample-Rate Conversion by
Robert Adams of Analog Devices, in The Audio Critic Issue 21. For
more technical discussions there is plenty of free material out there.
Some examples:


http://www.datasheetarchive.com/data...f/23/2326.html

http://www.datasheetarchive.com/data...70/709988.html


Also, googling "Nyquist" will turn up many sites that explain, in
varying degrees of sophistication, the principles behind digital sampling.



michael

On 23 Apr 2005 01:57:32 GMT, "dasmodul"
wrote:

http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/question487.htm

Is one of the main visual sites I was reading about Vinyl vs. CD.

That article is one of the most appalingly ignorant misrepresentations
I have ever seen. To include it in a series called 'how stuff works'
is an absolute travesty. It is obvious that the author has absoliutely
*no* idea how digital audio works, and as a result, his statements
regarding CD vs vinyl are just plain wrong.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

dasmodul wrote:
http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/question487.htm

Is one of the main visual sites I was reading about Vinyl vs. CD.

For a good explanation about how a DAC really works, see this paper:

http://www.lavryengineering.com/docu...ing_Theory.pdf

--
http://www.mat.uc.pt/~rps/

..pt is Portugal| `Whom the gods love die young'-Menander (342-292 BC)
Europe | Villeneuve 50-82, Toivonen 56-86, Senna 60-94

dasmodul wrote:
http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/question487.htm

Is one of the main visual sites I was reading about Vinyl vs. CD.

Well, thank goodness most of you hear the same 'problems' with vinyl
as I.
I was hearing so much hoopla by vinyl enthusiasts, I thought maybe I
was
the one with the bad ear or equipment. For me personally, even if
vinyl
did have a wider dynamic range, etc. I wouldn't prefer it for the
dust/static magnet that it is. Yikes.

Here is a suggestion. Instead of asking for opinions go out and find
someone or some stereo shop that has a legitimate high end rig set up
for you to compare for yourself. Form your own opinion then. Why
speculate when you can go by an actual comparison?



Scott Wheeler

wrote:
dasmodul wrote:
http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/question487.htm

Is one of the main visual sites I was reading about Vinyl vs. CD.

Well, thank goodness most of you hear the same 'problems' with vinyl
as I.
I was hearing so much hoopla by vinyl enthusiasts, I thought maybe I
was
the one with the bad ear or equipment. For me personally, even if
vinyl
did have a wider dynamic range, etc. I wouldn't prefer it for the
dust/static magnet that it is. Yikes.

Here is a suggestion. Instead of asking for opinions go out and find
someone or some stereo shop that has a legitimate high end rig set up
for you to compare for yourself. Form your own opinion then. Why
speculate when you can go by an actual comparison?

Sure , it'll give you an answer that satisfies, but that might not be
true. That seems to suffice in audiophilia.


--

-S
It's not my business to do intelligent work. -- D. Rumsfeld, testifying
before the House Armed Services Committee

Steven Sullivan wrote:
wrote:
dasmodul wrote:
http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/question487.htm

Is one of the main visual sites I was reading about Vinyl vs. CD.

Well, thank goodness most of you hear the same 'problems' with
vinyl
as I.
I was hearing so much hoopla by vinyl enthusiasts, I thought
maybe I
was
the one with the bad ear or equipment. For me personally, even if
vinyl
did have a wider dynamic range, etc. I wouldn't prefer it for the
dust/static magnet that it is. Yikes.

Here is a suggestion. Instead of asking for opinions go out and
find
someone or some stereo shop that has a legitimate high end rig set
up
for you to compare for yourself. Form your own opinion then. Why
speculate when you can go by an actual comparison?

Sure , it'll give you an answer that satisfies, but that might not be
true. That seems to suffice in audiophilia.



I think this is quite ironic. The satisfying answer might not be the
"true" answer. Heaven forbid anyone else might actually end up
prefering high end vinyl playback to CD playback. Steve, do you think
maybe people shouldn't make such comparisons in that they risk finding
satisfaction in the high end vinyl playback and this isn't the "true"
choice to make?



Scott Wheeler

CD is a convenience thing. They can both sound very good, but yes you
do need to have some pretty nice anaolg gear to get the best from
vinyl. You also have to have the vinyl in good condition and clean as
you have noticed. For the average Joe, CD is fine and is certainly
easier. Many people have collections of Lp's that make keeping a nice
analog rig very desirable. You can also find Lp's for peanuts Vs CD
prices and so even a first time analog system will pay for itself in
music savings.
-Bill
www.uptownaudio.com
Roanoke VA
(540) 343-1250

"dasmodul" wrote in message
...
I've heard of this endless debate and am not trying to start another
one. I
just finished reading lots of info and graphs on why analog is
better than
digital since it has 'higher resolution', etc.

My simple question is that the analog vs digital signal comparison
does
make sense to me and analog technically should have much better
dynamic
range, then why is it when I listen to a turntable, it sounds the
opposite? Especially the highs always seem cut off where as I throw
in any
CD and the extreme high/low range sound much fuller. It's funny
because I
know the whole argument is that vinyl is supposed to sound fuller.
Is it
because I have to listen to vinyl on some $10k turntable? I've only
listened on some high-end Technics and Stanton tables.

Also the fact that there's pops and clicks on vinyl from dust is
extremely
annoying to me even when you clean it ever 2 seconds.

On 23 Apr 2005 22:48:00 GMT, Uptown Audio wrote:

CD is a convenience thing.

It's also a sound quality thing.

They can both sound very good, but yes you
do need to have some pretty nice anaolg gear to get the best from
vinyl. You also have to have the vinyl in good condition and clean as
you have noticed. For the average Joe, CD is fine and is certainly
easier.

It is also much closer to the master tape than vinyl can ever be.
Hence, it's just fine for the really serious audiophile, not only 'the
average Joe'.

Many people have collections of Lp's that make keeping a nice
analog rig very desirable. You can also find Lp's for peanuts Vs CD
prices and so even a first time analog system will pay for itself in
music savings.

This is certainly true, although the quality of most of this vinyl is
somewhat less than pristine..........

And of course, if vinyl quality is adequate for you, there's always
MP3 and the Internet, where even greater savings can be made with no
'wear' concerns.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

You don't do anyone any service by attempting to compare MP3 to vinyl
as equals. Vinyl is noticably superior to MP3 by even the most novice
of listeners. The only difference is the requirements for quality
playback systems for vinyl. MP3 sounds terrible, no matter what
quality system it is played back on.
-Bill
www.uptownaudio.com
Roanoke VA
(540) 343-1250

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 23 Apr 2005 22:48:00 GMT, Uptown Audio
wrote:

CD is a convenience thing.

It's also a sound quality thing.

They can both sound very good, but yes you
do need to have some pretty nice anaolg gear to get the best from
vinyl. You also have to have the vinyl in good condition and clean
as
you have noticed. For the average Joe, CD is fine and is certainly
easier.

It is also much closer to the master tape than vinyl can ever be.
Hence, it's just fine for the really serious audiophile, not only
'the
average Joe'.

Many people have collections of Lp's that make keeping a nice
analog rig very desirable. You can also find Lp's for peanuts Vs CD
prices and so even a first time analog system will pay for itself in
music savings.

This is certainly true, although the quality of most of this vinyl
is
somewhat less than pristine..........

And of course, if vinyl quality is adequate for you, there's always
MP3 and the Internet, where even greater savings can be made with no
'wear' concerns.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Uptown Audio wrote:
You don't do anyone any service by attempting to compare MP3 to vinyl
as equals. Vinyl is noticably superior to MP3 by even the most novice
of listeners. The only difference is the requirements for quality
playback systems for vinyl. MP3 sounds terrible, no matter what
quality system it is played back on.
-Bill
www.uptownaudio.com
Roanoke VA
(540) 343-1250

Just out of curiosity, have you listened to mp3's or aac's encoded at
320 Kbps?

Yes. It's true that the higher the rate, the better the sound, but I
only burn CD's uncompressed. I don't do that very often as I have
enough to just carry the ones I want about without worry for copies. I
actually own two copies of many. I don't know, i suppose I like the
artwork as much as the disc itself, so I would rather have a complete
set than a stack of discs or a hard drive full of MP3s. Many kids
(young and old!) like to store music files but I just say gimme an Lp,
gimme a CD, or get outta here! It is amazing to me how people can
spend hours at a computer making their music sound worse for
convenience, yet they can't get off the couch to plop on another disc!
Get some excercise, - get up and grab a beer!
-Bill
www.uptownaudio.com
Roanoke VA
(540) 343-1250

"chung" wrote in message
...
Uptown Audio wrote:
You don't do anyone any service by attempting to compare MP3 to
vinyl as equals. Vinyl is noticably superior to MP3 by even the
most novice of listeners. The only difference is the requirements
for quality playback systems for vinyl. MP3 sounds terrible, no
matter what quality system it is played back on.
-Bill
www.uptownaudio.com
Roanoke VA
(540) 343-1250

Just out of curiosity, have you listened to mp3's or aac's encoded
at 320 Kbps?

On 29 Apr 2005 18:35:34 GMT, Uptown Audio wrote:

You don't do anyone any service by attempting to compare MP3 to vinyl
as equals. Vinyl is noticably superior to MP3 by even the most novice
of listeners. The only difference is the requirements for quality
playback systems for vinyl. MP3 sounds terrible, no matter what
quality system it is played back on.

This is arrant nonsense. Once above say 192 kbits/sec, very few people
can tell an MP3 from the original - even if that original is vinyl.
OTOH, *everyone* can tell vinyl apart from CD or the master tape from
which the vinyl was made - even on the best vinyl rigs.

To any rational being, it should be obvious that when all vinyl rigs
sound diffrent from each other, none of them can be objectively
accurate. OTOH, most CD players sound the same, despite massively
different internal electronics, which is a pretty good indicator of
transparency.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

No doubt that many digital devices sound similar as they operate with
similar principals to a standard. Lp's are not cut to that standard
and can sound better or worse depending upon a lot of variables. So if
consistency is what you are after, then stick with your CD player. It
may be consistently bad, but that's just fine with me as it is your
decision and does not effect mine.
Not all analog systems nor CD playback systems sound alike. It is
still easy to find many examples of players that have differing sound,
not to mention function and design.
Just so that we remember, this forum has been dedicated to the
discussion of high end audio. I don't mean to say that we all should
should find that everything gets rosier as prices increase, but
several people here are almost never coming in defense of a product
that has merit, yet is expensive. It is disruptive of this forum and
the persistent badgering by a few of all others who might have another
viewpoint has created a situation that has been going on for at least
a year and that is preventing others who have interest and questions
from participating for fear of ridicule and ostracism. I am sure that
you do have valuable contributions that you could make, but it is very
important to the group to feel free to post their questions and
beliefs without detroying the sense of community here.
I support your right to listen to and express your thoughts about your
system to anyone, but being intentionally disruptive by repeating the
same views, regardless of the original questions is not helpful. You
certainly realize that I and others also like vinyl playback and as
such, you should not jump at every opportunity to talk about digital.
I remember years ago when you had some helpful posts about analog
set-up to help others who asked. Many people still use turntables and
have extensive Lp collections which they would like to get the most
enjoyment out of. Just because a form of digital compression is
available, does not make it practical for everyone to use it. Perhaps
assisting those who have questions about digital compression with
answers about digital compression and likewise assisting those who
like analog with helpful tips about Lp playback would be more
productive. Reading the same posts by the same people everytime that
the "CD Vs Vinyl" issue comes up has become tiresome and makes this
group static. I know that you have also noticed fewer posts in the
last year or so and even fewer from "new faces".
"Can't we all just get along?!" ;-)
-Bill
www.uptownaudio.com
Roanoke VA
(540) 343-1250

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 29 Apr 2005 18:35:34 GMT, Uptown Audio
wrote:

You don't do anyone any service by attempting to compare MP3 to
vinyl
as equals. Vinyl is noticably superior to MP3 by even the most
novice
of listeners. The only difference is the requirements for quality
playback systems for vinyl. MP3 sounds terrible, no matter what
quality system it is played back on.

This is arrant nonsense. Once above say 192 kbits/sec, very few
people
can tell an MP3 from the original - even if that original is vinyl.
OTOH, *everyone* can tell vinyl apart from CD or the master tape
from
which the vinyl was made - even on the best vinyl rigs.

To any rational being, it should be obvious that when all vinyl rigs
sound diffrent from each other, none of them can be objectively
accurate. OTOH, most CD players sound the same, despite massively
different internal electronics, which is a pretty good indicator of
transparency.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Here's my $0.02 based on my experience and my ears:

In my life, I've owned very high-end analogue and digital front ends.
Today, I have a more modest system (Denon/Grado for analogue, Rotel for
digital, with Rotel electronics, Vandersteen speakers.) I know the
sound of live, acoustic classical and guitar VERY well. RIght now, I
listening to an old Philips disk of the Netherlands Wind Ensemble
playing wind chamber music. The sound that I am listening to is more
life-like and ANYTHING I've ever heard on CD. The instruments sound
more like the real thing. Again, just my opinion.

Jenn wrote:
Here's my $0.02 based on my experience and my ears:

In my life, I've owned very high-end analogue and digital front ends.
Today, I have a more modest system (Denon/Grado for analogue, Rotel
for
digital, with Rotel electronics, Vandersteen speakers.) I know the
sound of live, acoustic classical and guitar VERY well. RIght now, I
listening to an old Philips disk of the Netherlands Wind Ensemble
playing wind chamber music. The sound that I am listening to is more
life-like and ANYTHING I've ever heard on CD. The instruments sound
more like the real thing.

Which may have everything to do with the quality of that particular
recording, and nothing to do with the merits of the respective media.
Or it may have to do with the euphonic effects of distortion inherent
in vinyl. Or a combination of the two. And maybe there's a dram of
nostalgia mixed in.

bob

wrote:
Jenn wrote:

Here's my $0.02 based on my experience and my ears:

In my life, I've owned very high-end analogue and digital front ends.
Today, I have a more modest system (Denon/Grado for analogue, Rotel

for

digital, with Rotel electronics, Vandersteen speakers.) I know the
sound of live, acoustic classical and guitar VERY well. RIght now, I
listening to an old Philips disk of the Netherlands Wind Ensemble
playing wind chamber music. The sound that I am listening to is more
life-like and ANYTHING I've ever heard on CD. The instruments sound
more like the real thing.


Which may have everything to do with the quality of that particular
recording, and nothing to do with the merits of the respective media.
Or it may have to do with the euphonic effects of distortion inherent
in vinyl. Or a combination of the two. And maybe there's a dram of
nostalgia mixed in.

bob

Nostalgia can certainly play a major role. I remember when I was in
college I played the Carole King album "Tapestry" so much that I
memorized every click and pop, and got used to all that surface noise.
Much later, when I played the CD, it did not sound the same to me.
Someone else may may say that the LP was more life-like or accurate, but
the fact is that the higher sound quality of the CD did not create the
same effects on me, as the vinyl LP still does. And that has nothing to
do with technical merits of the media or the gear.

Bob: Which may have everything to do with the quality of that
particular
recording, and nothing to do with the merits of the respective media.

Or it may have to do with the euphonic effects of distortion inherent

in vinyl. Or a combination of the two. And maybe there's a dram of
nostalgia mixed in.


bob

Chung: Nostalgia can certainly play a major role. I remember when I
was in
college I played the Carole King album "Tapestry" so much that I
memorized every click and pop, and got used to all that surface noise.
Much later, when I played the CD, it did not sound the same to me.
Someone else may may say that the LP was more life-like or accurate,
but
the fact is that the higher sound quality of the CD did not create the
same effects on me, as the vinyl LP still does. And that has nothing to

do with technical merits of the media or the gear.

You are correct that nostalgia can play an important role in listening.
I've had those same kind of experiences. All is know is that FOR ME,
analogue generally provides me with a more true to life listening
experience, especially in the realm of instrument timbres. There are
some CDs that I like, and the timbres are true enough that they don't
distract too much from the experience. But on average, I'll take
analogue because it best matches my daily listening to live acoustic
instruments, including an excellent Steinway D that I hear daily. It's
great that we have a variety of opinions, huh? Oh, and just for the
record, I don't give a rat's patoey which is has the greater technical
merits.

Jenn wrote:
Bob: Which may have everything to do with the quality of that
particular
recording, and nothing to do with the merits of the respective media.

Or it may have to do with the euphonic effects of distortion inherent

in vinyl. Or a combination of the two. And maybe there's a dram of
nostalgia mixed in.


bob

Chung: Nostalgia can certainly play a major role. I remember when I
was in
college I played the Carole King album "Tapestry" so much that I
memorized every click and pop, and got used to all that surface noise.
Much later, when I played the CD, it did not sound the same to me.
Someone else may may say that the LP was more life-like or accurate,
but
the fact is that the higher sound quality of the CD did not create the
same effects on me, as the vinyl LP still does. And that has nothing to

do with technical merits of the media or the gear.

You are correct that nostalgia can play an important role in listening.
I've had those same kind of experiences. All is know is that FOR ME,
analogue generally provides me with a more true to life listening
experience, especially in the realm of instrument timbres. There are
some CDs that I like, and the timbres are true enough that they don't
distract too much from the experience. But on average, I'll take
analogue because it best matches my daily listening to live acoustic
instruments, including an excellent Steinway D that I hear daily. It's
great that we have a variety of opinions, huh? Oh, and just for the
record, I don't give a rat's patoey which is has the greater technical
merits.

Of course, we should care which has the greater technical merit, because
the one with higher technical merit will produce better results when
other factors are equal. And technical merits include reliability,
repeatability, convenience, etc., and all those are important to us.

If you have not noticed already, a lot of discussions on CD vs vinyl
actually are about which format has the higher technical accuracy. Like
the ability to reproduce a piano's sounds.

In article ,
"Jenn" wrote:

All is know is that FOR ME,
analogue generally provides me with a more true to life listening
experience,

Well if the recording is done with a crackling fire in the
background, I can see it. Otherwise the pops, cracks, and general
vinly background noise tend to get in the way for me.

wrote in message ...

Or it may have to do with the euphonic effects of distortion inherent
in vinyl. Or a combination of the two. And maybe there's a dram of
nostalgia mixed in.

That's why I so greatly prefer LP's by the Beatles to the reissue CDs,
it reminds me of when I was a teenager listening to them on AM
radio at the beach with static and everything :^).

- Gary Rosen

On 24 Apr 2005 14:53:16 GMT, "Jenn" wrote:

Here's my $0.02 based on my experience and my ears:

In my life, I've owned very high-end analogue and digital front ends.
Today, I have a more modest system (Denon/Grado for analogue, Rotel for
digital, with Rotel electronics, Vandersteen speakers.) I know the
sound of live, acoustic classical and guitar VERY well. RIght now, I
listening to an old Philips disk of the Netherlands Wind Ensemble
playing wind chamber music. The sound that I am listening to is more
life-like and ANYTHING I've ever heard on CD. The instruments sound
more like the real thing. Again, just my opinion.

I own a pretty high-end vinyl system, and my CD player sounds as good
as anything I've ever heard. You can see pictures of it here :
http://www.lurcher.org/ukra/

Right now, I'm listening to an old DG recording of Emil Gilels playing
Beethoven sonatas. The sound that I am listening to is more lifelike
than *anything* I've ever heard on LP. The piano sounds much more like
the real thing. Again, just my opinion.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

the answer to your dilema is simple - just stick with CDs!

Vinyl is far better than some here give it credit for (if you read between
the lines you can tell that some folks like it better than they let on) but
it does comes with warts and even the mutli-thousand dollar analog front
ends don't sound radically superior (if at all) to cd/dvd units costing less
than I plan on spending on a new cartridge (about $200 US - my Pioneer d575
DVD unit was lower than that).

Ralph Heidecke wrote:

the answer to your dilema is simple - just stick with CDs!

Vinyl is far better than some here give it credit for (if you read between
the lines you can tell that some folks like it better than they let on) but
it does comes with warts and even the mutli-thousand dollar analog front
ends don't sound radically superior (if at all) to cd/dvd units costing less
than I plan on spending on a new cartridge (about $200 US - my Pioneer d575
DVD unit was lower than that).


Vinyl isn't bad, you're right. Here's a good analogy:

Vinly is like a car. Drive it right and it works well, quite well. Drive
it wrong and it crashes. The car gets totalled etc.

Digital audio is like the space shuttle. Drive it right and it will do
wonders; deploy space stations, take you to the moon etc. Drive it
wrong, it crashes, HARD, and SPECTACULARLY.

So, when people say that vinyl sounds better than CD, it is usually due
to some bad process on the digital medium, be bad DA converters,
in-correct mastering process etc. These mistakes show up and really make
the digital audio sound a whole lot worse, compared to mistakes with
vinyl. For example, because a CD is so quiet, you could proably hear the
mastering engineer sneezing outside the sound booth Of cousre, that
small exxageration is and example of how digital audio's capabilties
show up small flaws more readily. But then, If I heard something like
that, I'd be even more impressed with CD.

Vinyl can sound worse, but we're already numbed by the surface noise,
the wow and flutter, that any more imperfections don't degrade the
overall sound experience that much more.

CD

You've raised issues that lead to a lot of other questions, which I won't
attempt to answer.

So far as I know, except for frequency response, a well recorded CD (and
very many are not!) bests vinyl in every one of the parameters that are
usually measured: dynamic range, distortion, s/n ratio, etc.

But I don't think that's why people who like or prefer vinyl say it sounds
good.

In theory, CD is a digital approximation of the original analogue signal.
It's something to do with the idea that the original analogue signal, even
if reproduced less than ideally, has audible qualities that the digital
source doesn't. I don't know if anyone has done any scientific research on
what this might be. SACD and DVD-A, again if well-recorded, are supposed to
close this gap or even close it completely, but there's so few SACDs or
DVD-A discs that are recorded that way from the beginning of the recording
chain that few of us have really listened to these media as they're really
meant to be. But that's another story.

As far as the cost of a vinyl rig that would compete with a decent CD
player, vinyl will always cost more, other things being equal, because four
components, not one, are involved: turntable, tonearm, cartridge, and phono
preamplifier. Also, it takes a minimum degree of skill to properly set up a
turntable system, and setting one up wrong can really sabatoge the quality
of the playback.

I think for $2K you can put together a vinyl system that will give CD a run
for its money (in terms listening pleasure, not necessarily measurements).
This goes double if you buy used.

For example, in my main system I use a Technics SP-10MKII table bolted to a
20 kg DIY base made of baltic birch plywood, MDF and Corian that sits on 1.5
inch brass cones. The arm is a Stax UA-9. The cartridge, an Ortofon Super
OM40, is the only one of the four I bought new. Phono preamplifier is either
the built-in phono stage in my Meitner PA6+ preamp or a rebuilt and upgraded
New York Audio Labs "Super It". The table, arm and Super It are from the
early 1980s.

I have another SP-10MKII with a Rega/Origin Live arm and Resa Recon
cartridge.

When I compare, to take a random disc which I happen to have in both LP and
CD, the digital Police "Regatta Deblanc" to the vinyl original, well the
vinyl sounds better. The CD has lower background noise (including no pops
and clicks) and in some sense is "clearer", but the vinyl is, for want of a
better description, more musically exciting, richer.

Having said that, I mostly have turntables to play the 350 LPs that I still
have and that I can't expect to ever find in a digital format. In a number
of cases, however, when a CD reissue has become available, I've bought it,
but in most cases the CD doesn't get listened to a lot...

No real explanations, but hope this helps.

Cheers,

Joel.


On 4/21/05 8:02 PM, in article , "dasmodul"
wrote:

I've heard of this endless debate and am not trying to start another one. I
just finished reading lots of info and graphs on why analog is better than
digital since it has 'higher resolution', etc.

My simple question is that the analog vs digital signal comparison does
make sense to me and analog technically should have much better dynamic
range, then why is it when I listen to a turntable, it sounds the
opposite? Especially the highs always seem cut off where as I throw in any
CD and the extreme high/low range sound much fuller. It's funny because I
know the whole argument is that vinyl is supposed to sound fuller. Is it
because I have to listen to vinyl on some $10k turntable? I've only
listened on some high-end Technics and Stanton tables.

Also the fact that there's pops and clicks on vinyl from dust is extremely
annoying to me even when you clean it ever 2 seconds.

In article ,
Joel Tatelman wrote:

Phono preamplifier is either
the built-in phono stage in my Meitner PA6+ preamp or a rebuilt and upgraded
New York Audio Labs "Super It". The table, arm and Super It are from the
early 1980s.

The NYAL stuff sure sounded good. I used to have their larger preamp
and an amp. I really liked their sound. Whatever happened to Harry?

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Joel Tatelman wrote:

Phono preamplifier is either
the built-in phono stage in my Meitner PA6+ preamp or a rebuilt and
upgraded
New York Audio Labs "Super It". The table, arm and Super It are from the
early 1980s.

The NYAL stuff sure sounded good. I used to have their larger preamp
and an amp. I really liked their sound. Whatever happened to Harry?

He passed away prematurely. Don't remember the cause. NYAL went out of
business for awhile....good to see them back.

Joel Tatelman wrote:
You've raised issues that lead to a lot of other questions, which I won't
attempt to answer.

So far as I know, except for frequency response, a well recorded CD (and
very many are not!) bests vinyl in every one of the parameters that are
usually measured: dynamic range, distortion, s/n ratio, etc.

Except for frequency response? Try again.

But I don't think that's why people who like or prefer vinyl say it sounds
good.

In theory, CD is a digital approximation of the original analogue signal.

In fact, both CD and vinyl are approximations of the original sound.
There is no question about which is the closer approximation, though it
is certainly true that some listeners prefer the less accurate medium.

It's something to do with the idea that the original analogue signal, even
if reproduced less than ideally, has audible qualities that the digital
source doesn't. I don't know if anyone has done any scientific research on
what this might be.

Yes. Those would be forms of distortion.

bob

On 5 Aug 2005 00:36:47 GMT, wrote:

Joel Tatelman wrote:
You've raised issues that lead to a lot of other questions, which I won't
attempt to answer.

So far as I know, except for frequency response, a well recorded CD (and
very many are not!) bests vinyl in every one of the parameters that are
usually measured: dynamic range, distortion, s/n ratio, etc.

Except for frequency response? Try again.

If we're talking about the physical limitations of the medium, then
it's certainly *possible* for vinyl to have a frequency response more
extended than CD. Think half-speed mastered LPs, or direct-cut 45rpm
vinyl for examples, both of which I have in my collection. OTOH, it's
certainly true that the *vast* majority of commercial vinyl (well in
excess of 99%) rolls off above 12-15kHz to prevent overheating of the
cutter head during mastering.

But I don't think that's why people who like or prefer vinyl say it sounds
good.

In theory, CD is a digital approximation of the original analogue signal.

In fact, both CD and vinyl are approximations of the original sound.
There is no question about which is the closer approximation, though it
is certainly true that some listeners prefer the less accurate medium.

That is certainly true.

It's something to do with the idea that the original analogue signal, even
if reproduced less than ideally, has audible qualities that the digital
source doesn't. I don't know if anyone has done any scientific research on
what this might be.

Yes. Those would be forms of distortion.

It is readily demonstrable that 'vinyl magic' does not involve
anything mysteriously lost in digitising, but is *added* artifacts.
Just transcribe some vinyl to CD-R, and voila, all that 'vinyl magic'
is still there - aside from the cleaning and cueing ritual, of course!
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 5 Aug 2005 00:36:47 GMT, wrote:

Joel Tatelman wrote:
You've raised issues that lead to a lot of other questions, which I won't
attempt to answer.

So far as I know, except for frequency response, a well recorded CD (and
very many are not!) bests vinyl in every one of the parameters that are
usually measured: dynamic range, distortion, s/n ratio, etc.

Except for frequency response? Try again.

If we're talking about the physical limitations of the medium, then
it's certainly *possible* for vinyl to have a frequency response more
extended than CD.

I usually think of frequency response as modified by the word "flat,"
at which CD excels. Granted, vinyl is capable of somewhat greater
frequency *extension* than CD, but given that this extension occurs in
a range not normally accessible to human ears, its kinda beside the
point.

bob

wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 5 Aug 2005 00:36:47 GMT, wrote:

Joel Tatelman wrote:
You've raised issues that lead to a lot of other questions, which I won't
attempt to answer.

So far as I know, except for frequency response, a well recorded CD (and
very many are not!) bests vinyl in every one of the parameters that are
usually measured: dynamic range, distortion, s/n ratio, etc.

Except for frequency response? Try again.

If we're talking about the physical limitations of the medium, then
it's certainly *possible* for vinyl to have a frequency response more
extended than CD.

I usually think of frequency response as modified by the word "flat,"
at which CD excels. Granted, vinyl is capable of somewhat greater
frequency *extension* than CD, but given that this extension occurs in
a range not normally accessible to human ears, its kinda beside the
point.

It should be pointed out that this so-called 'extension' (if it is cut onto
a particular record at all) is always shelved down from reference level to
guard against burning out the cutter head.