Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Mike Rivers[_2_] Mike Rivers[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,190
Default No One Ever Did Any Research on Vinyl Records vs Audio CD

On 2/9/2017 9:28 AM, wrote:
Mike Rivers wrote: "
You could certainly do an experiment today if you had the facilities,
and a CD and phonograph disk playback would certainly sound different,
but which one sounds best would be subjective. "

They would sound different if the chain to
either the lacquer or the CD contained
superfluous processing, such as an EQ,
compressor, etc. RIAA curve on the
vinyl side does not count as superfluous.


The use of EQ, compression, etc. are "conscious" processing. You don't
have to use them. If you wanted to conduct the experiment, you could
feed the same signal to the inputs of the CD recorder and the disk
cutting amplifier. But because both of those hardware devices have a
signal path that isn't identical, the signal would be changed in
different ways before reaching the final medium that you're testing.

The CD recorder has a D/A converter that may have some non-linearity.
The disk cutting system has all sorts of stuff to get in the way. Some
you can turn off, like a limiter, if you leave enough headroom so one
groove won't cut into the next one. You can used fixed pitch and
eliminate what's involved in the variable pitch converter - like, for
example, the input signal drives the variable pitch smarts and the
signal that goes to the cutter head actually (these days) goes through a
digital delay to delay it by one revolution of the disk.

So you can't just compare the CD with the lacquer without considering
what's between the source and the delivered media and its effect on the
sound. And we're talking about the raw, first generation recording here.
If you add in anomalies caused by the vinyl pressing and CD molding
processes, that's something else.

You can compare the sound resulting from each one of the recording
_processes_ and decide which one you think is best. If you're a warm,
fuzzy, analog kind of a guy you might like the lacquer better than the
CD. And if you're a "I don't care that it sounds so clean and sterile, I
just want to hear everything" kind of a guy, you'd likely prefer the CD.

My point is, processing applied, during
the mix and/or mastering stages, makes
more of an audible difference than differences
between playback formats.


Well, sheeeeyuttttt! Mix and process a recording so it will sound like
people expect a CD to sound and mix and process it again so that it will
sound like people expect a phonograph record to sound and of course
they'll be different. But it's not because of the medium, it's because
of the people getting paid to make the best product they can ("best" is
of course subjective) for the medium that they're working with.





--

For a good time, call
http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com
  #42   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
[email protected] thekmanrocks@gmail.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,742
Default No One Ever Did Any Research on Vinyl Records vs Audio CD

Mike Rivers wrote: "
Well, sheeeeyuttttt! Mix and process a recording so it will sound like
people expect a CD to sound and mix and process it again so that it will
sound like people expect a phonograph record to sound and of course
they'll be different. But it's not because of the medium, it's because
of the people getting paid to make the best product they can ("best" is
of course subjective) for the medium that they're working with. "


Exactly the point I was trying to make. It's not
the medium.
  #45   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
[email protected] thekmanrocks@gmail.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,742
Default No One Ever Did Any Research on Vinyl Records vs Audio CD

geoff wrote: "Can you drop the 'Direct-To-Disc CD' thingh you've imagined up and
just call it an unprocessed digital recording. That is apart from whatever
processing is in the signal chain for the vinyl version, presumably
minimal if we are talking purists. "

What issues do you have with unprocessed
recordings, analog or digital?


  #49   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Mike Rivers[_2_] Mike Rivers[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,190
Default No One Ever Did Any Research on Vinyl Records vs Audio CD

On 2/9/2017 4:52 PM, geoff wrote:
FWIW I have an Direct Cut LP 'Blues Had A Baby' by Kevin Borich and
Dutch Tilders. A great album. I transcribed it to CD and I cannot
discern any difference between the two media versions (level-matching
and all that).


Welcome to the world of digital audio. If your hardware is bad enough,
you'll be able to hear a slight difference between playing the record
and playing the CD made by recording that record.

Of course the CD will never be better than your turntable/preamp is
capable of playing the record - there's no such thing as "ripping" a
phonograph record. But even the audio hardware built into most newer
computers is remarkably good for the purpose of digitizing a record as
long as you're careful that you don't have any clipping in the transfer
process.


--

For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com
  #50   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Trevor Trevor is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,820
Default No One Ever Did Any Research on Vinyl Records vs Audio CD

On 8/02/2017 9:15 PM, Phil Allison wrote:
JackA wrote:
It's pretty obvious,


** Famous last words from a fool ....

mechanical apparatus that had to "cut" and "play" vinyl records
was not capable of reproducing the large amplitude peaks of
recorded audio.


** That IS fascinating.


Only in that he seems to neglect the limitations of the then audio
recorders were even greater.


I expect you have never heard a "direct cut" LP from the 70s and
early 80s. Made prior to CDs and were the highest quality recordings
available to the public.


At that time. Of course many developments in audio over the previous
century could make similar claims.


The dynamic range was huge, background noise negligible


If only! But certainly less than many other LP's of course.


and sound quality a revelation - mainly because there was no ****ing

tape
involved.
Sheffield Labs were one of the main players and this LP was big hit
for them:

https://vinyl-west.de/catalog/49865/...es-version.jpg


Yep, mainly because every audiophile and HiFi shop bought one just to
prove record quality could be better than most of the crap available at
the time. Still have a few Sheffield Labs LP's, plus a few direct cut
and/or virgin vinyl, metal mastered, 45RPM, 12" disks. One of which was
actually recorded digitally and was used by many HiFi shops for demo's
before CD's were available. Would be considered *WELL below* state of
the art these days though :-) Just as the most expensive
turntable/cartridge combinations available would be, other than by
nostalgia freaks of course! :-)

Trevor.





  #51   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Trevor Trevor is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,820
Default No One Ever Did Any Research on Vinyl Records vs Audio CD

On 9/02/2017 3:31 PM, John Williamson wrote:
On 09/02/2017 00:01, Phil Allison wrote:
wrote:

A direct cut CD is *capable* of sounding even BETTER -
provided there is nothing between the microphones and
the CD recorder.


** Do they even exist - I doubt it.

All digital recording renders the idea moot.

So a massive RED HERRING .

I've done it for things like open mic or karaoke nights, so the
performer can take a CD home with them. Usually now, the performer gets
a USB stick with the original files on it, and a quick and dirty mix to
play back at home on their portable player.



So not actually direct to CD, but a CDR burned from a recorded digital
file. Of course the difference is irrelevant to anything other than
thekma who thinks "direct to CD" actually means anything in a digital
age! :-)

Trevor.

  #52   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Trevor Trevor is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,820
Default No One Ever Did Any Research on Vinyl Records vs Audio CD

On 10/02/2017 1:50 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Note that if you wanted to, you could build the emphasis and
de-emphasis mechanically into the cutting head and phono cartridge.
It would have all manner of mechanical issues because physical
materials are imperfect, but folks did it back in the early days.


Of course, the RIAA curve was designed to approximate the natural slope
of crystal/ceramic cartridges, using simple EQ networks. As often
happens, things are chosen as much for compatibility reasons than for
ultimate performance.

Trevor.

  #54   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Mike Rivers[_2_] Mike Rivers[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,190
Default No One Ever Did Any Research on Vinyl Records vs Audio CD

On 2/9/2017 10:32 PM, Trevor wrote:
So not actually direct to CD, but a CDR burned from a recorded digital
file. Of course the difference is irrelevant to anything other than
thekma who thinks "direct to CD" actually means anything in a digital
age! :-)


Actually, I think that he may have been describing a CD made with a
stand-alone CD writer, not a recording to a computer disk drive and then
burned to a CD - though really there should be no difference. Before
people started toting laptop computers to live shows, we used to use a
CD recorder with analog inputs that were fed from the PA console. I
don't think it's unfair to call that "direct to CD." It's about as
direct as "direct to disk" for lacquer.

Here's one, still available from TASCAM:

http://tascam.com/product/cd-rw901mkii/



--

For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com
  #55   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Trevor Trevor is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,820
Default No One Ever Did Any Research on Vinyl Records vs Audio CD

On 10/02/2017 8:52 AM, geoff wrote:
FWIW I have an Direct Cut LP 'Blues Had A Baby' by Kevin Borich and
Dutch Tilders. A great album. I transcribed it to CD and I cannot
discern any difference between the two media versions (level-matching
and all that).


Have been demo'ing that for decades by simply switching between any
chosen turntable/disk output and the output of it fed to an A/D-D/A
converter. None of those who claimed vinyl superiority were able to
reliably tell the difference even when I was using converters not as
good as those available today.


Prior to my final transcription (this time with no live speakers
playing) I perceived a slight lack of 'solidity' in the bass despite my
very solid turntable cabinet being totally isolated from the floor by
separate piles through the lounge floor into the ground. But that might
have been my imagination....


Possibly, but I've always used headphones for vinyl transcription, I
can't see why you'd even want to take the risk with having speakers
playing at the same time?

Trevor.




  #56   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Phil Allison[_4_] Phil Allison[_4_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 499
Default No One Ever Did Any Research on Vinyl Records vs Audio CD

Trevor wrote:


I expect you have never heard a "direct cut" LP from the 70s and
early 80s. Made prior to CDs and were the highest quality recordings
available to the public.


At that time.


** Redundant comment.


Of course many developments in audio over the previous
century could make similar claims.


** None of them could make the claim of being only beaten by the arrival of CDs.



The dynamic range was huge, background noise negligible


If only!



** Smartarse comment.

Wot a ****wit TROLL.


..... Phil


  #57   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Trevor Trevor is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,820
Default No One Ever Did Any Research on Vinyl Records vs Audio CD

On 10/02/2017 4:24 PM, Phil Allison wrote:
Trevor wrote:
I expect you have never heard a "direct cut" LP from the 70s and
early 80s. Made prior to CDs and were the highest quality recordings
available to the public.


At that time.


** Redundant comment.


Of course many developments in audio over the previous
century could make similar claims.


** None of them could make the claim of being only beaten by the arrival of CDs.


Redundant comment!



The dynamic range was huge, background noise negligible


If only!



** Smartarse comment.

Wot a ****wit TROLL.


Off your meds again then Phil?

Trevor.



  #58   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
PStamler PStamler is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 882
Default No One Ever Did Any Research on Vinyl Records vs Audio CD

Actually, there was at least one commercial "direct to disc" CD issued, in the late 1980s or early 1990s. They got around the problem of the musician(s) having to play perfectly for 74 or so minutes by using a Yamaha MIDI Grand piano. They miked it simply, used very little processing, and converted to digital onsite; they then sent the digital signal via a digital connection to the CD manufacturing plant, which cut a glass master from it. The theory behind all this was that a recording cut that way would contain less jitter than a conventionally recorded CD. Which is horsefeathers, but someone spent a lot of money and time doing this. I have no idea what the music was or how the disc sounded.

Peace,
The Other Paul (Stamler)
  #59   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Phil Allison[_4_] Phil Allison[_4_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 499
Default No One Ever Did Any Research on Vinyl Records vs Audio CD

Trevor wrote:


I expect you have never heard a "direct cut" LP from the 70s and
early 80s. Made prior to CDs and were the highest quality recordings
available to the public.

At that time.


** Redundant comment.


Of course many developments in audio over the previous
century could make similar claims.


** None of them could make the claim of being only beaten by the arrival of CDs.


Redundant comment!


** ******** - you flatly contradicts your crapology.



The dynamic range was huge, background noise negligible

If only!



** Smartarse comment.

Wot a ****wit TROLL.


Off your meds again then Phil?


** Usual ****wit troll reply.

Yawwnnnnnnnnnnn.................


The "Trevor" austistic retard has been making a ASS of himself all over usenet and the PLANET for as long as the bull****ting prick has been alive.

Lets all pray for his imminent, painful death.




..... Phil




  #60   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Peter Larsen[_3_] Peter Larsen[_3_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,295
Default No One Ever Did Any Research on Vinyl Records vs Audio CD

On 07-02-2017 19:03, JackA wrote:

It's pretty obvious, mechanical apparatus that had to "cut" and "play" vinyl records was not capable of reproducing the large amplitude peaks of recorded audio. You might say they naturally trimmed the peaks resulting in greater loudness...


Does not relate to the topic in the topic header. But I did a lot of
research on that issue in 1999 and posted it on the usenet.

Jack


Kind regards

Peter Larsen




  #61   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
John Williamson John Williamson is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,753
Default No One Ever Did Any Research on Vinyl Records vs Audio CD

On 10/02/2017 03:32, Trevor wrote:
On 9/02/2017 3:31 PM, John Williamson wrote:
On 09/02/2017 00:01, Phil Allison wrote:
wrote:

A direct cut CD is *capable* of sounding even BETTER -
provided there is nothing between the microphones and
the CD recorder.


** Do they even exist - I doubt it.

All digital recording renders the idea moot.

So a massive RED HERRING .

I've done it for things like open mic or karaoke nights, so the
performer can take a CD home with them. Usually now, the performer gets
a USB stick with the original files on it, and a quick and dirty mix to
play back at home on their portable player.



So not actually direct to CD, but a CDR burned from a recorded digital
file. Of course the difference is irrelevant to anything other than
thekma who thinks "direct to CD" actually means anything in a digital
age! :-)

The CD they took home was burned to CD-R on the CD drive in the computer
in real time during the performance, using the FOH feed as a source. I
suppose if you want to be pedantic, it's not made using a CD recorder
and a pair of microphones near the front row, but that's the only way
it could get to be more direct.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.
  #62   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
geoff geoff is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,812
Default No One Ever Did Any Research on Vinyl Records vs Audio CD

On 10/02/2017 4:54 PM, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 2/9/2017 10:32 PM, Trevor wrote:
So not actually direct to CD, but a CDR burned from a recorded digital
file. Of course the difference is irrelevant to anything other than
thekma who thinks "direct to CD" actually means anything in a digital
age! :-)


Actually, I think that he may have been describing a CD made with a
stand-alone CD writer, not a recording to a computer disk drive and then
burned to a CD - though really there should be no difference. Before
people started toting laptop computers to live shows, we used to use a
CD recorder with analog inputs that were fed from the PA console. I
don't think it's unfair to call that "direct to CD." It's about as
direct as "direct to disk" for lacquer.

Here's one, still available from TASCAM:

http://tascam.com/product/cd-rw901mkii/




A stand-alone CD recorder surely has some degree of internal buffering
involved, so is actually not different to any other unprocessed digital
recording however many generations old, stored, moved, delayed,
uploaded, downloaded, whatever, where the data remains 100% identical.

Maybe he meant the process of playing live a whole CD-worth of music in
one take ? But that is a musical performance issue, rather than an
achievable sound-quality issue.

geoff
  #63   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Mike Rivers[_2_] Mike Rivers[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,190
Default No One Ever Did Any Research on Vinyl Records vs Audio CD

On 2/10/2017 4:25 AM, John Williamson wrote:
The CD they took home was burned to CD-R on the CD drive in the computer
in real time during the performance, using the FOH feed as a source.


I'd never trust a computer to do that reliably, but then I have nothing
but old and cranky computers. I like dedicated hardware for recording,
and I still much prefer using my Mackie hard disk recorder for sessions
than using a computer. It's a computer at heart, of course, but it
doesn't get "upgrades" that make it crash, and it has big buttons on it
so I don't have to find a little button with a mouse in order to arm a
track or start rolling.

--

For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com
  #64   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
[email protected] thekmanrocks@gmail.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,742
Default No One Ever Did Any Research on Vinyl Records vs Audio CD

Mike Rivers wrote: "
Actually, I think that he may have been describing a CD made with a
stand-alone CD writer, not a recording to a computer disk drive and then
burned to a CD - though really there should be no difference. Before
people started toting laptop computers to live shows, we used to use a
CD recorder with analog inputs that were fed from the PA console. I
don't think it's unfair to call that "direct to CD." It's about as
direct as "direct to disk" for lacquer"


THANK YOU! Finally! Not all that difficult to understand.
That is what I do every Sunday in church: Yamaha outs
to a Tascam CD recorder. As long as proper gain
principles are applied through the board, and keep an
eye on the Tascam meters, one can capture a good
recording of worship and sermons.

  #65   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
[email protected] thekmanrocks@gmail.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,742
Default No One Ever Did Any Research on Vinyl Records vs Audio CD

Trevor wrote: "Have been demo'ing that for decades by simply switching between any
chosen turntable/disk output and the output of it fed to an A/D-D/A
converter. None of those who claimed vinyl superiority were able to
reliably tell the difference even when I was using converters not as
good as those available today. "


Hmmmm...

You, geoff, and I agree on a lot more than
we may think! Only if we could impart what
you said in simple terms to the ignorant "VINYL
SOUNDS BETTER THAN CD" public! When the CD
version gets the heavy over-processing, squashed
to death, of course the vinyl version sound better
than THAT! sheez..


  #67   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default No One Ever Did Any Research on Vinyl Records vs Audio CD

In article , Trevor wrote:
On 10/02/2017 1:50 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Note that if you wanted to, you could build the emphasis and
de-emphasis mechanically into the cutting head and phono cartridge.
It would have all manner of mechanical issues because physical
materials are imperfect, but folks did it back in the early days.


Of course, the RIAA curve was designed to approximate the natural slope
of crystal/ceramic cartridges, using simple EQ networks. As often
happens, things are chosen as much for compatibility reasons than for
ultimate performance.


Sort of, but not exactly. The idea is that you want constant displacement
(like with a piezo element) at low frequencies but you want constant velocity
(like with an electromagnetic transducer) at high frequencies.

On playback, you can deal with this using a constant displacement piezo
transducer, combined with high frequency rolloff from an RC network.
It's not _just_ the natural slope of the cartridge, although that's one
big part of it.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  #69   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
[email protected] thekmanrocks@gmail.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,742
Default No One Ever Did Any Research on Vinyl Records vs Audio CD

Mike Rivers wrote: "But . . . but . . . but . . This isn't a difference between CD and
vinyl technology. It's a difference between decisions, other than the
choice of the medium of publication, that are made by people, not
electrons or light beams"

I keep repeating myself: I KNOW THAT. 90% of
the general music-consuming public doesn't!
That's been my point since about 15-20 replies
ago.
  #70   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
JackA JackA is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,052
Default No One Ever Did Any Research on Vinyl Records vs Audio CD

On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 2:33:59 AM UTC-5, Phil Allison wrote:
JackA wrote:



One of the worst factors in recorded music is human. Some have the knowledge what sounds impressive, other don't. I'm sure 35mm film audio rivals direct to disc. But since so few actually appreciated, nor did they care paying extra cost, both died quickly.



** Direct to Disc recordings cost less to make than ones using tape machines - and they cost no more to produce copies of.

Wot a crock of ****.



I see, YOU people claim better sound quality (disc), I claim people don't really care for HQ sound, yet you claim it's less expensive to produce direct to disc. But, you have absolutely little control what is recorded, such as a sneeze that can be removed from tape, but the ENTIRE session has to be rerecorded with disc. How much do session musicians make per hour? How about that entire orchestra?
Come on Phil.

Jack


.... Phil




  #71   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
JackA JackA is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,052
Default No One Ever Did Any Research on Vinyl Records vs Audio CD

On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 7:49:03 AM UTC-5, wrote:
Trevor wrote: "Have been demo'ing that for decades by simply switching between any
chosen turntable/disk output and the output of it fed to an A/D-D/A
converter. None of those who claimed vinyl superiority were able to
reliably tell the difference even when I was using converters not as
good as those available today. "


Hmmmm...

You, geoff, and I agree on a lot more than
we may think! Only if we could impart what
you said in simple terms to the ignorant "VINYL
SOUNDS BETTER THAN CD" public! When the CD
version gets the heavy over-processing, squashed
to death, of course the vinyl version sound better
than THAT! sheez..


It DEPENDS on the era of music. Later material, say year 2000+, may be heavily processed. But, I have yet to hear Frank Sinatra heavily processed. See, listen, there is no "proper" way to master music, so you get what you get.

Jack
  #72   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
JackA JackA is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,052
Default No One Ever Did Any Research on Vinyl Records vs Audio CD

On Tuesday, February 7, 2017 at 1:03:15 PM UTC-5, JackA wrote:
It's pretty obvious, mechanical apparatus that had to "cut" and "play" vinyl records was not capable of reproducing the large amplitude peaks of recorded audio. You might say they naturally trimmed the peaks resulting in greater loudness...

From a 2010 CD, but digitally enhanced, but no peak trimming or brick-walling, save that for the amateur Remasterers...

http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abps.../keemosabe.mp3

Jack


I'd like to add, look at these studios where people master, tons of electronic gadgets to "enhance" sound.

Jack
  #73   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Tatonik Tatonik is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 23
Default No One Ever Did Any Research on Vinyl Records vs Audio CD

PStamler wrote:

Actually, there was at least one commercial "direct to disc" CD issued, in
the late 1980s or early 1990s. They got around the problem of the
musician(s) having to play perfectly for 74 or so minutes by using a
Yamaha MIDI Grand piano. They miked it simply, used very little
processing, and converted to digital onsite; they then sent the digital
signal via a digital connection to the CD manufacturing plant, which cut a
glass master from it. The theory behind all this was that a recording cut
that way would contain less jitter than a conventionally recorded CD.
Which is horsefeathers, but someone spent a lot of money and time doing
this. I have no idea what the music was or how the disc sounded.

Peace,
The Other Paul (Stamler)


I think I have an album that was done that way: Dick Hyman Plays Fats
Waller on Reference Recordings. It was made on a Bosendorfer
Reproducing Piano. The sound is good, though I doubt it has anything to
do with the unusual way in which the album was made. The sound might be
even better if I could just download a copy of the MIDI file and wedge
that 9-foot Bosendorfer into my living room.

  #74   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Phil Allison[_4_] Phil Allison[_4_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 499
Default No One Ever Did Any Research on Vinyl Records vs Audio CD

JackAss wrote:


I'm sure 35mm film audio rivals direct to disc. But since so few
actually appreciated, nor did they care paying extra cost,
both died quickly.



** Direct to Disc recordings cost less to make than ones using
tape machines - and they cost no more to produce copies of.

Wot a crock of ****.



I see, YOU people claim better sound quality (disc), I claim people don't
really care for HQ sound,


** They are two entirely separate matters.

Rest of your schizoid crapology best forgotten.


..... Phil
  #75   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
JackA JackA is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,052
Default No One Ever Did Any Research on Vinyl Records vs Audio CD

On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 3:42:59 PM UTC-5, Tatonik wrote:
PStamler wrote:

Actually, there was at least one commercial "direct to disc" CD issued, in
the late 1980s or early 1990s. They got around the problem of the
musician(s) having to play perfectly for 74 or so minutes by using a
Yamaha MIDI Grand piano. They miked it simply, used very little
processing, and converted to digital onsite; they then sent the digital
signal via a digital connection to the CD manufacturing plant, which cut a
glass master from it. The theory behind all this was that a recording cut
that way would contain less jitter than a conventionally recorded CD.
Which is horsefeathers, but someone spent a lot of money and time doing
this. I have no idea what the music was or how the disc sounded.

Peace,
The Other Paul (Stamler)


I think I have an album that was done that way: Dick Hyman Plays Fats
Waller on Reference Recordings. It was made on a Bosendorfer
Reproducing Piano. The sound is good, though I doubt it has anything to
do with the unusual way in which the album was made. The sound might be
even better if I could just download a copy of the MIDI file and wedge
that 9-foot Bosendorfer into my living room.


Wiki:

Interesting:

"According to Robert Auld of the Audio Engineering Society: "It was a notoriously difficult way to record (ed: Direct to Disc); the musicians and all concerned had to record a complete LP side without any serious musical or technical mistakes".

Jack


  #76   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
JackA JackA is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,052
Default No One Ever Did Any Research on Vinyl Records vs Audio CD

On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 5:40:31 PM UTC-5, Phil Allison wrote:
JackAss wrote:


I'm sure 35mm film audio rivals direct to disc. But since so few
actually appreciated, nor did they care paying extra cost,
both died quickly.



** Direct to Disc recordings cost less to make than ones using
tape machines - and they cost no more to produce copies of.

Wot a crock of ****.



I see, YOU people claim better sound quality (disc), I claim people don't
really care for HQ sound,


** They are two entirely separate matters.

Rest of your schizoid crapology best forgotten.


.... Phil


Phil, you are just Pushin' Too Hard!!

http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abps...hin2hard-1.mp3

Jack
  #78   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Trevor Trevor is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,820
Default No One Ever Did Any Research on Vinyl Records vs Audio CD

On 10/02/2017 7:19 PM, Phil Allison wrote:
Trevor wrote:
I expect you have never heard a "direct cut" LP from the 70s
and early 80s. Made prior to CDs and were the highest quality
recordings available to the public.

At that time.


** Redundant comment.


Of course many developments in audio over the previous century
could make similar claims.


** None of them could make the claim of being only beaten by the
arrival of CDs.


Redundant comment!


** ******** - you flatly contradicts your crapology.


Oh the ironing! :-)



The dynamic range was huge, background noise negligible

If only!


** Smartarse comment.

Wot a ****wit TROLL.


Off your meds again then Phil?


** Usual ****wit troll reply.

Yawwnnnnnnnnnnn.................


The "Trevor" austistic retard has been making a ASS of himself all
over usenet and the PLANET for as long as the bull****ting prick has
been alive.


You have ALWAYS proven who is the biggest ASS on usenet Phil. Just too
stupid to realise it is you.



Lets all pray for his imminent, painful death.


And being off your meds again seem to have forgotten there are now laws
against making threats on the internet in Aus.

Trevor.
  #79   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Trevor Trevor is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,820
Default No One Ever Did Any Research on Vinyl Records vs Audio CD

On 10/02/2017 8:25 PM, John Williamson wrote:
On 10/02/2017 03:32, Trevor wrote:
On 9/02/2017 3:31 PM, John Williamson wrote:
I've done it for things like open mic or karaoke nights, so the
performer can take a CD home with them. Usually now, the performer gets
a USB stick with the original files on it, and a quick and dirty mix to
play back at home on their portable player.



So not actually direct to CD, but a CDR burned from a recorded digital
file. Of course the difference is irrelevant to anything other than
thekma who thinks "direct to CD" actually means anything in a digital
age! :-)

The CD they took home was burned to CD-R on the CD drive in the computer
in real time during the performance, using the FOH feed as a source. I
suppose if you want to be pedantic, it's not made using a CD recorder
and a pair of microphones near the front row, but that's the only way
it could get to be more direct.


OK, thought you burned to a normal CDR drive after the show like I used
to do. No benefit in burning real time to a CDR drive, likely to cause
more problems with buffer under-run glitches than burning the file
later. And no benefit at all that I can see.

Trevor.


  #80   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Trevor Trevor is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,820
Default No One Ever Did Any Research on Vinyl Records vs Audio CD

On 10/02/2017 11:08 PM, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 2/10/2017 4:25 AM, John Williamson wrote:
The CD they took home was burned to CD-R on the CD drive in the computer
in real time during the performance, using the FOH feed as a source.


I'd never trust a computer to do that reliably, but then I have nothing
but old and cranky computers. I like dedicated hardware for recording,
and I still much prefer using my Mackie hard disk recorder for sessions
than using a computer. It's a computer at heart, of course, but it
doesn't get "upgrades" that make it crash, and it has big buttons on it
so I don't have to find a little button with a mouse in order to arm a
track or start rolling.


Each to their own. I've used a laptop and 2 cascaded USB interfaces to
record 16 tracks at over 200 gigs with only one mishap. Entirely user
error in that I forgot to hit record for the second set. :-(
Outcome would have been no different whatever hardware I had.
One day the computer will fail of course, but so can ANY hardware! You
simply need two redundant systems for mission critical work.

Trevor.


Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Updated Vinyl Catalog-30,555 Vinyl Records FS finylvinyl Marketplace 0 February 21st 08 04:28 PM
Canadian Vinyl Store-29,930 Vinyl Records FS finylvinyl Marketplace 0 September 13th 07 10:58 PM
29,157 Vinyl Records FS finylvinyl Marketplace 0 June 7th 07 04:22 PM
27,738 Vinyl Records FS finylvinyl Pro Audio 0 November 10th 06 06:30 PM
Digitizing vinyl records Michael Tech 7 November 25th 04 12:49 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:06 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"