[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message


Well, the whole interesting question to me is: why isn't
the compression (or lack thereof) part of the delivery
vehicle, rather than the medium itself. In other words,
if car audio requires compression for audibility, then
why hasn't that been a standard part of car electronics
for the last twenty years.....why did the music companies
take on that burden, rather than preparing the best
sounding music they could and letting it be "adjusted"
(or not) according to the listening circumstances.
Certainly blanket compression has always been relatively
simple to achieve (look at the "night mode" that has been
built into almost all tvs/dvd and blueray players, etc
for the last decade.

Seems to me that with a little foresight and cooperation
this mess could have been avoided. And still could be.

The problem is the very widespread perception (which may or may not be
correct) that only carefully hand-tuned compression custom-crafted by
skilled technicans AKA mastering engineers can do this as well as it needs
to be done.

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" wrote in message

On Tue, 1 Feb 2011 06:39:29 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Andrew Haley" wrote
in
message

But today we have (or rather, the studios have)
multi-band look-ahead digital compressors. This is kit
that they didn't have in the past. Would they have used
it if they had? You betcha!

Good point. What they did have is broadband and
multiband analog compressors and limiters, and they used
them.

Depends on what era you're talking about. Late sixties?

About then...

Oh, yeah. Late 50's -early sixties? No.

But they did have single-band analog compressers and limiters, and they used
those.

And before that, they had engineers with nimble fingers who did "gain
riding".

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" wrote in message

Well, even those "brown-goods" stuff would not be used
in a car, or while in public transport or even walking,
shopping, etc. That LP had to be played on some (even
bad) device standing still somewhere. That means that
listening in that times less frequently occured in noisy
environments. Thus the common denominator was different.

I don't think that matters. People did listen to their
car radios,

Not to be discounted is the playing, speaking and singing of the performers
themselves. Some dynamics control is natural and some of it is learned.

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott" wrote in message


Not at all. =A0Ipods can drive most commonly available
headphones, unless= one is looking for ear-splitting
volumes.

Who said anything about "commonly available" headphones?

You've missed the point which is that obtaining good-sounding headphones
that can be driven by iPods and the like is not difficult.

What headphones that are clearly better than the Grado SR
80s can an Ipod drive to it's maximum spl?

Given that most headphones can be easily driven to ear-shattering volumes,
the criteria of driving to maximum SPL is an unrealistic requirement.

If you are a true believer in the cult of Grado, then none. If you have an
open mind then one need only look at the marketplace to find dozens of
candidates.

I have listened to a
number of alleged contenders for best ear bud using
well mastered rips of excellent music.

You are unlikely to have listened to the IEMs that I
use.

Now how would you know the likelyhood of that Arny?

I've never told you exactly which ones they were, and
there are a lot of alternatives to choose from. If you
are guessing randomly, you are likely= to miss.

Yes there are a lot of alternatives in the A.L. line. But
when I was auditioning earbuds I was not bothering with
the lesser models. So if you have one of the lesser
models you may very well be right. I may not have
listened to them. And for good reason.

Mere puffery.

There is no mistaking one for the other. They are
miles apart.

Yeah, speaker sound contaminated by room acoustics can
be a strong detrimnt to good listening.
Yes it can. That is why it is a good idea to use plenty
of room treatment. but once you've done that (something
I did) then you can get a pretty extraordinary illusion
of live acoustic music played in a real soundspace
(something i get with a good many of my best sounding
LPs). Something you can't get with your Sansa clip, your
earbuds and your recordings.

Later on you admit that your reference for the sound of
the actual sound = of the recordings you listen to was
made in is at best speculative.

No Arny it is not speculative.

Prove it.

It is perceptual based on experience.

You've already given me the argument. Making the criteria perceptual means
that the truth of your claims is all in the mind of the claimant, namely
you.

If you can only prove your claim with your perceptions, you are turning this
into a mind-reading contest.

I admit it, I can't read your mind!

I have it on good authority that neither can anybody else. You're in your
own world with these claims.

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott" wrote in message


Tell you what Scott, you send me a CD with rips of LPs
and well-made DDD = CDs and I will tell you which are
which.

Not by ear you wont. The challenge is that you do it by
ear.

I guess that's it, then Scott. Since you say I can't I obviously can't, and
there is no purpose served by me trying.

End of discussion.

[Audio Empire]

On Thu, 3 Feb 2011 17:12:44 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message



The problem is the very widespread perception (which may or may not be
correct) that only carefully hand-tuned compression custom-crafted by
skilled technicans AKA mastering engineers can do this as well as it needs
to be done.



Yeah, that's why modern CDs sound so good (says he, his voice dripping with
sarcasm).

[Audio Empire]

On Thu, 3 Feb 2011 17:12:38 -0800, bob wrote
(in article ):

On Feb 2, 10:46=A0pm, Dave Cook wrote:

This has come up several times in the thread, and it's been bugging
me. =A0You can't make any such conclusion based on the relative numbers
of silver discs vs. black discs that a Music Direct or Acoustic Sounds
sells. =A0They're not trying to compete with Amazon, so they are only
going to offer a subset of silver discs they think will appeal to
their customers.

And who are their customers? Their customers are audiophiles. That's
who they market to. Which is why they only market "silver disks"
produced for the audiophile market--XRCDs and such. My question is, if
digital is the technical superior medium, why are there so many more
LPs than (for lack of a better term) audiophile CDs on offer?

I think I can shed some light on that, If you look at the analog titles,
these are mostly reprints/remasterings of LPs that have always been
celebrated as being good sounding LPs. But what's more to the point, they're
widely KNOWN to be good sounding LPs, so they get the high-quality
remastering treatment. There were millions of LP titles pressed between 1958
(the beginning of stereo records) and about 1980 (the beginning of the
digital audio era), most of which were pretty mediocre. But there was gold
amidst the dross and these stand out like beacons in the fog: RCA Red Seal
Shaded Dogs, Mercury Living Presence, Everest, some Vox Turnabout, some
Deccas (London), some DGGs, some EMI HMVs, Riversides, Verves, Blue Notes,
etc. These are the discs that are being remastered because the producers of
these "boutique" pressings know that they will sell. I suspect the same is
true of some famous rock LPs, like Fleetwood Mac, the Who, etc., but I won't
talk about those because I know nothing about rock music as I don't listen to
it.

[C. Leeds]

On 2/3/2011 8:12 PM, bob wrote (about Music Direct and Acoustic Sounds):


...Their customers are audiophiles. That's
who they market to. Which is why they only market "silver disks"
produced for the audiophile market--XRCDs and such. My question is, if
digital is the technical superior medium, why are there so many more
LPs than (for lack of a better term) audiophile CDs on offer? The
economics explanation is, because that's what the audiophile market
wants.

These specialist retailers tend not to stock standard CDs because the
CDs are so widely available elsewhere, such as at Amazon, and heavily
discounted. You're operating on the mistaken assumption that customers
of these specialist retailers buy all their music only from specialist
retailers. That's obviously flawed reasoning.

[bob]

On Feb 3, 11:29=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:

I think I can shed some light on that, If you look at the analog titles,
these are mostly reprints/remasterings of LPs that have always been
celebrated as being good sounding LPs. But what's more to the point, they=
're
widely KNOWN to be good sounding LPs, so they get the high-quality
remastering treatment.

Which only begs the question: Why aren't they all getting the same
*digital* remastering treatment? Is it cost-prohibitive? I doubt it.
Or is it that audiophiles don't want high-quality digital, just
highish-quality analog? And why would that be?

bob

[Audio Empire]

On Fri, 4 Feb 2011 07:50:39 -0800, bob wrote
(in article ):

On Feb 3, 11:29=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:

I think I can shed some light on that, If you look at the analog titles,
these are mostly reprints/remasterings of LPs that have always been
celebrated as being good sounding LPs. But what's more to the point, they=
're
widely KNOWN to be good sounding LPs, so they get the high-quality
remastering treatment.

Which only begs the question: Why aren't they all getting the same
*digital* remastering treatment? Is it cost-prohibitive? I doubt it.
Or is it that audiophiles don't want high-quality digital, just
highish-quality analog? And why would that be?

bob

Many of these "classic" analog recordings from the 'golden era' of stereo
(before recording got so complicated with multt-miking and multi-track and
ruined the sound) HAVE be digitized but with varying success. For instance,
many of the RCA Red Seal Shaded Dogs have been digitized several times by
BMG/RCA with varying success. Certainly, the most ambitious project was when
RCA/BMG released more than 100 titles as hybrid SACDs. None sound as good as
the LPs released by Classics records and, in fact, the SACDs don't even sound
as good as the JVC XRCD releases of the same titles, and XRCD is Red Book,
not SACD or DVD-A or Blu-Ray or any other high-resolution digital release
format. So, what it comes down to is what I said before. These LP titles have
a reputation for being good sounding LPs and it's what the dyed-in-the-wool
vinyl-phile wants. So that's what gets remastered (perhaps at 45 RPM) and
pressed on heavy 180 or 200 gram virgin vinyl sometimes as single -sided
records.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Feb 4, 7:50=A0am, bob wrote:
On Feb 3, 11:29=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:

I think I can shed some light on that, If you look at the analog titles=
,
these are mostly reprints/remasterings of LPs that have always been
celebrated as being good sounding LPs. But what's more to the point, th=
ey're
widely KNOWN to be good sounding LPs, so they get the high-quality
remastering treatment.

Which only begs the question: Why aren't they all getting the same
*digital* remastering treatment?


The answer is quite simple. Being a niche market, labels like Analog
Productions and Music Matters etc can obtain a licence at a reasonable
cost to remaster popular titles owned by the majors on vinyl and on
SACD. The majors retain the rights to make the CDs since that is where
the mass market is. So you get the tender loving care in the mastering
for the niche market and the crap mastering for the mainstream market.
The same labels that do audiophile reissues are constantly trying to
get the rights to do CDs and some times they do get them. Now if you
want a more meaningful measure of what the niche market wants I
suggets looking at sales of titles that are released on vinyl and on
duel layer SACD/CD.

[bob]

On Feb 4, 2:11=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:

Many of these "classic" analog recordings from the 'golden era' of stereo
(before recording got so complicated with multt-miking and multi-track an=
d
ruined the sound) HAVE be digitized but with varying success. For instanc=
e,
many of the RCA Red Seal Shaded Dogs have been digitized several times by
BMG/RCA with varying success. Certainly, the most ambitious project was w=
hen
RCA/BMG released more than 100 titles as hybrid SACDs. None sound as good=
as
the LPs released by Classics records

And is that because of better mastering, or the euphonic distortions
that the vinyl offers? The former maybe, the latter definitely.

and, in fact, the SACDs don't even sound
as good as the JVC XRCD releases of the same titles,

Not surprising. There quite a bit of evidence that the 2-channel
layers are often treated as an afterthought.

and XRCD is Red Book,
not SACD or DVD-A or Blu-Ray or any other high-resolution digital release
format.

Which, as we know, wouldn't make an audible difference anyway.

So, what it comes down to is what I said before. These LP titles have
a reputation for being good sounding LPs and it's what the dyed-in-the-wo=
ol
vinyl-phile wants. So that's what gets remastered (perhaps at 45 RPM) and
pressed on heavy 180 or 200 gram virgin vinyl sometimes as single -sided
records. =A0

I guess another way of asking the question I've been raising is, why
are there so many died-in-the-wool vinylphiles today? And would there
be so many if Stereophile and TAS had spent the last 25 years saying,
"Look, CD really is technically better. It's poor CD mastering plus
the euphonic distortions inherent in vinyl that make the vinyl sound
better"?

bob

[bob]

On Feb 4, 6:46=A0pm, Scott wrote:

The answer is quite simple. Being a niche market, labels like Analog
Productions and Music Matters etc can obtain a licence at a reasonable
cost to remaster popular titles owned by the majors on vinyl and on
SACD. The majors retain the rights to make the CDs since that is where
the mass market is.

Interesting, although there obviously are plenty of cases where the
companies with the rights *have* granted licenses for audiophile CD
releases. So while this may be a factor it clearly isn't a full
explanation.

So you get the tender loving care in the mastering
for the niche market and the crap mastering for the mainstream market.
The same labels that do audiophile reissues are constantly trying to
get the rights to do CDs and some times they do get them.

Are the companies releasing the vinyl the same companies producing
audiophile CDs? I haven't looked closely, but I didn't get the sense
there was a lot of overlap there.

And again, if there's unmet demand for audiophile CDs, then somebody
is making a stupid business decision somewhere in this chain. Not that
this can't happen, of course. But if whoever owns the Blue Note
catalogue (Sony, I think) can see a profit in licensing to an
audiophile vinyl label, why don't they see a profit in licensing to
(perhaps the same) audiophile CD label? The economist in me still
thinks this has to come back to demand. (Blue Note may be a bad
example, as there are a fair number of Blue Notes on audiophile CD.
But if not Blue Note, clearly there are other labels that have been
much freer with licenses for vinyl than for audiophile CD.)

Now if you
want a more meaningful measure of what the niche market wants I
suggets looking at sales of titles that are released on vinyl and on
duel layer SACD/CD.

Where the ratio is maybe 6:1 instead of 12:1, but we don't know what
share of the SACD market is 2-channel vs. multi-channel.

Obviously there are some complexities here, and I didn't want to claim
that the numbers I cited earlier were anything more than indicative.
But I still think audiophile demand is playing a substantial role
here. And that squares with my own observations of discussions on
audiophile-related fora. I see very, very little discussion of
audiophile CD releases there, even among people who obviously listen
primarily to digital.

bob

[Audio Empire]

On Fri, 4 Feb 2011 18:47:43 -0800, bob wrote
(in article ):

On Feb 4, 2:11=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:

Many of these "classic" analog recordings from the 'golden era' of stereo
(before recording got so complicated with multt-miking and multi-track an=
d
ruined the sound) HAVE be digitized but with varying success. For instanc=
e,
many of the RCA Red Seal Shaded Dogs have been digitized several times by
BMG/RCA with varying success. Certainly, the most ambitious project was w=
hen
RCA/BMG released more than 100 titles as hybrid SACDs. None sound as good=
as
the LPs released by Classics records

And is that because of better mastering, or the euphonic distortions
that the vinyl offers? The former maybe, the latter definitely.

Not having been present when either were mastered, I cannot say. I can tell
you that the LP (and the XRCD, if applicable) generally sound more lifelike,
with better bass, silkier, more "real" sounding highs. The LPs seem to have
more dynamic range and generally sound more like music. If that is because of
"euphonic" colorations, then so be it. It means that those colorations are
providing an emotional response in the listener that makes him or her feel
more connected to the music, and if that's true, then job done.

However, I think it's due to poor or incompetent mastering and production
techniques on the part of the CD/DSD mastering engineers.

and, in fact, the SACDs don't even sound
as good as the JVC XRCD releases of the same titles,

Not surprising. There quite a bit of evidence that the 2-channel
layers are often treated as an afterthought.

Except, in the case of the BMG/RCA SACDs, there is ONLY a 2-channel layer.
Most of these masters are more than 40 years old, some more than 50.

and XRCD is Red Book,
not SACD or DVD-A or Blu-Ray or any other high-resolution digital release
format.

Which, as we know, wouldn't make an audible difference anyway.

So say some. I can certainly hear the difference, I can't help it if others
can't (or, more likely, won't).

So, what it comes down to is what I said before. These LP titles have
a reputation for being good sounding LPs and it's what the dyed-in-the-wo=
ol
vinyl-phile wants. So that's what gets remastered (perhaps at 45 RPM) and
pressed on heavy 180 or 200 gram virgin vinyl sometimes as single -sided
records. =A0

I guess another way of asking the question I've been raising is, why
are there so many died-in-the-wool vinylphiles today?

I dunno, perhaps because commercial CDs sound lousy?

And would there
be so many if Stereophile and TAS had spent the last 25 years saying,
"Look, CD really is technically better. It's poor CD mastering plus
the euphonic distortions inherent in vinyl that make the vinyl sound
better"?


I think you give these rags too much credit,

[Audio Empire]

On Fri, 4 Feb 2011 20:36:28 -0800, bob wrote
(in article ):

On Feb 4, 6:46=A0pm, Scott wrote:

The answer is quite simple. Being a niche market, labels like Analog
Productions and Music Matters etc can obtain a licence at a reasonable
cost to remaster popular titles owned by the majors on vinyl and on
SACD. The majors retain the rights to make the CDs since that is where
the mass market is.

Interesting, although there obviously are plenty of cases where the
companies with the rights *have* granted licenses for audiophile CD
releases. So while this may be a factor it clearly isn't a full
explanation.

So you get the tender loving care in the mastering
for the niche market and the crap mastering for the mainstream market.
The same labels that do audiophile reissues are constantly trying to
get the rights to do CDs and some times they do get them.

Are the companies releasing the vinyl the same companies producing
audiophile CDs? I haven't looked closely, but I didn't get the sense
there was a lot of overlap there.

Not usually, no. An interesting case in point. When Philips hired the late
Wilma Cozart Fine to master the Mercury Living Presence catalog to CD, she
said that the resultant digital masters sounded exactly like the analog
masters (all of which she originally produced. She and her husband C. Robert
Fine WERE, essentially, Mercury Living Presence Records). Yet a year or so
later, Classic Records hired her to master the 45 RPM 4-disc, 200 gram LP of
one of those Philips CDs she mastered. The title was the "Firebird " ballet
by Stravinsky with the LSO/ Antal Dorati. I have both her CD and her LP of
that work. The Classic LP is absolutely breathtaking and the Philips/Mercury
CD sounds terrible. It's thin, and shrill, and lacking in any sense of
dynamics at all. Now the same person supervised the mastering of BOTH of
these transfers of this material. Now, if Fine said that the digital masters
sound so close to the analog masters that one cannot tell the difference,
then how come the CD she helped produce sounds so bad and the LP, which she
also helped to produce, sounds so unbelievably good?

And again, if there's unmet demand for audiophile CDs, then somebody
is making a stupid business decision somewhere in this chain. Not that
this can't happen, of course. But if whoever owns the Blue Note
catalogue (Sony, I think) can see a profit in licensing to an
audiophile vinyl label, why don't they see a profit in licensing to
(perhaps the same) audiophile CD label? The economist in me still
thinks this has to come back to demand. (Blue Note may be a bad
example, as there are a fair number of Blue Notes on audiophile CD.
But if not Blue Note, clearly there are other labels that have been
much freer with licenses for vinyl than for audiophile CD.)

Some do. Many record companies (RCA, British Decca, Riverside, etc.) do
license their stuff to JVC. and not just really old stuff from the 50's and
'60s either. I have an XRCD of Holst "Planets" with the LA Philharmonic
conducted by Zubin Metha and recorded in the late '70's. A lot of people
think that this was one of the best sound recordings ever made (I don't agree
with that assessment. Too many microphones, to many tracks to be a REAL
recording of anything. I'm sorry but 20 violins each picked-up by it's own
microphone and mixed electronically in a console simply does NOT sound like a
string section! It sounds like 20 individual violins playing, and believe me,
there IS a difference!)

[Scott[_6_]]

On Feb 4, 8:36=A0pm, bob wrote:
On Feb 4, 6:46=A0pm, Scott wrote:

The answer is quite simple. Being a niche market, labels like Analog
Productions and Music Matters etc can obtain a licence at a reasonable
cost to remaster popular titles owned by the majors on vinyl and on
SACD. The majors retain the rights to make the CDs since that is where
the mass market is.

Interesting, although there obviously are plenty of cases where the
companies with the rights *have* granted licenses for audiophile CD
releases. So while this may be a factor it clearly isn't a full
explanation.

So you get the tender loving care in the mastering
for the niche market and the crap mastering for the mainstream market.
The same labels that do audiophile reissues are constantly trying to
get the rights to do CDs and some times they do get them.

Are the companies releasing the vinyl the same companies producing
audiophile CDs?

Yes they are. Analog Productions Mobile Fidelity, Audio Fidelity all
produce audiophile LPs and CDs.

I haven't looked closely, but I didn't get the sense
there was a lot of overlap there.

The overlap is limited in so much as the licences for major titles is
limited to these niche companies.


And again, if there's unmet demand for audiophile CDs, then somebody
is making a stupid business decision somewhere in this chain. Not that
this can't happen, of course.

Audiophiles in the know would agree with you but really, when you look
at that market we are talking about limited releases of 1,000 to
10,000 units which is peanuts to the majors. The bottom line as has
been explained by a few in the business of licencing material for
audiophile reissues is that with the major labels there is little
awareness of the audiophile market and they have better things to do
than spend time and effort negotiating licencing deals with small
niche market companies that are a fiscal drop in their revenue bucket.
The vinyl and SACD licences are easier because they don't compete with
the label's own releases of CDs.


But if whoever owns the Blue Note
catalogue (Sony, I think) can see a profit in licensing to an
audiophile vinyl label, why don't they see a profit in licensing to
(perhaps the same) audiophile CD label?


Because there is no profit in allowing someone to licnence a product
that competes directly with a product that you have already put on the
market. Soney is already selling Blue Notes on CD. They were not
selling them on vinyl or SACD.


The economist in me still
thinks this has to come back to demand. (Blue Note may be a bad
example, as there are a fair number of Blue Notes on audiophile CD.
But if not Blue Note, clearly there are other labels that have been
much freer with licenses for vinyl than for audiophile CD.)



Yes for the reasons stated above.

want a more meaningful measure of what the niche market wants I
suggets looking at sales of titles that are released on vinyl and on
duel layer SACD/CD.

Where the ratio is maybe 6:1 instead of 12:1, but we don't know what
share of the SACD market is 2-channel vs. multi-channel.

No not what I meant. Not the number of titles. but the actual sales of
the titles released in both formats. That will tell you more about the
demand for the format. You want to get an idea of what the audiophile
market wants compare the sales of say The AP or Music Matters Blue
Note releases for the titles they have reissued on both formats. Or
compare the sales of say Yes Fragile on Analog Productions vinyl vs.
Mobile Fidelity CD. This will IMO tell you more about the demand since
licencing does not figure into the equation.

Obviously there are some complexities here, and I didn't want to claim
that the numbers I cited earlier were anything more than indicative.
But I still think audiophile demand is playing a substantial role
here. And that squares with my own observations of discussions on
audiophile-related fora. I see very, very little discussion of
audiophile CD releases there, even among people who obviously listen
primarily to digital.



It certainly plays a role. But it certainly is not the sole driving
factor in the supply side. Not even close. Case in point, The Beatles
catalog. Think there would be a demand for Beatles audiophile vinyl?
Yet we have nothing since the MoFi box released over 20 years ago. The
mono CD box sold pretty well and did have a specific appeal to
audiophiles.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Feb 4, 6:47=A0pm, bob wrote:
On Feb 4, 2:11=3DA0pm, Audio Empire wrote:



Many of these "classic" analog recordings from the 'golden era' of ster=
eo
(before recording got so complicated with multt-miking and multi-track =
an=3D
d
ruined the sound) HAVE be digitized but with varying success. For insta=
nc=3D
e,
many of the RCA Red Seal Shaded Dogs have been digitized several times =
by
BMG/RCA with varying success. Certainly, the most ambitious project was=
w=3D
hen
RCA/BMG released more than 100 titles as hybrid SACDs. None sound as go=
od=3D
=A0as
the LPs released by Classics records

And is that because of better mastering, or the euphonic distortions
that the vinyl offers? The former maybe, the latter definitely.

and, in fact, the SACDs don't even sound
as good as the JVC XRCD releases of the same titles,

Not surprising. There quite a bit of evidence that the 2-channel
layers are often treated as an afterthought.

and XRCD is Red Book,
not SACD or DVD-A or Blu-Ray or any other high-resolution digital relea=
se
format.

Which, as we know, wouldn't make an audible difference anyway.



So, what it comes down to is what I said before. These LP titles have
a reputation for being good sounding LPs and it's what the dyed-in-the-=
wo=3D
ol
vinyl-phile wants. So that's what gets remastered (perhaps at 45 RPM) a=
nd
pressed on heavy 180 or 200 gram virgin vinyl sometimes as single -side=
d
records. =3DA0

I guess another way of asking the question I've been raising is, why
are there so many died-in-the-wool vinylphiles today?

You've pretty much answered the question for yourself. " And is that
because of better mastering, and the euphonic distortions.


And would there
be so many if Stereophile and TAS had spent the last 25 years saying,
"Look, CD really is technically better. It's poor CD mastering plus
the euphonic distortions inherent in vinyl that make the vinyl sound
better"?


Why would that make a difference? The results are what they are
regardless of why. Better sound is better sound regardless of how you
get there. Would you avoid vinyl if it sounded better to you despite
CD being "technically superior" and vinyl's only advantages were
euphonic distortions and better mastering?

[Arny Krueger]

"bob" wrote in message

On Feb 4, 2:11=A0pm, Audio Empire
wrote:

Many of these "classic" analog recordings from the
'golden era' of stereo (before recording got so
complicated with multt-miking and multi-track an= d
ruined the sound) HAVE be digitized but with varying
success. For instanc= e, many of the RCA Red Seal Shaded
Dogs have been digitized several times by BMG/RCA with
varying success. Certainly, the most ambitious project
was w= hen RCA/BMG released more than 100 titles as
hybrid SACDs. None sound as good= as the LPs released by
Classics records

And is that because of better mastering, or the euphonic
distortions that the vinyl offers? The former maybe, the
latter definitely.

A more likely list of reasons:

(1) Often when big record companies do transfers from legacy masters,
they give the job to some junior engineer who would rather be
mastering Britany.

(2) To some degree "sounds better" is in the ear (and brain) of the
beholder. These aren't the results of blind preference tests that
we're talking about here.

and, in fact, the SACDs don't even sound
as good as the JVC XRCD releases of the same titles,]

Other than the possibility of doing surround on SACD, there is *no*
reason why the SACD should sound better than a well-made CD. In this
case the possiblity of suitable raw materials for a surround mix is
probably zero or close to it.

Not surprising. There quite a bit of evidence that the
2-channel layers are often treated as an afterthought.

And this is probably due to reason (1), above.

and XRCD is Red Book,
not SACD or DVD-A or Blu-Ray or any other
high-resolution digital release format.

Which, as we know, wouldn't make an audible difference
anyway.

Agreed.

So, what it comes down to is what I said before. These
LP titles have
a reputation for being good sounding LPs and it's what
the dyed-in-the-wo= ol vinyl-phile wants. So that's what
gets remastered (perhaps at 45 RPM) and pressed on heavy
180 or 200 gram virgin vinyl sometimes as single -sided
records.

I guess another way of asking the question I've been
raising is, why are there so many died-in-the-wool
vinylphiles today?

Are there that many? Or is the noise just hype?

And would there be so many if
Stereophile and TAS had spent the last 25 years saying,
"Look, CD really is technically better. It's poor CD
mastering plus the euphonic distortions inherent in vinyl
that make the vinyl sound better"?

The euphonic distortion argument IME pretty much falls flat.

[bob]

On Feb 5, 1:18=A0pm, Scott wrote:
On Feb 4, 6:47=A0pm, bob wrote:

=A0And would there
be so many if Stereophile and TAS had spent the last 25 years saying,
"Look, CD really is technically better. It's poor CD mastering plus
the euphonic distortions inherent in vinyl that make the vinyl sound
better"?

Why would that make a difference? The results are what they are
regardless of why. Better sound is better sound regardless of how you
get there. Would you avoid vinyl if it sounded better to you despite
CD being "technically superior" and vinyl's only advantages were
euphonic distortions and better mastering?

I would prefer to avoid any medium which introduced unnecessary levels
of distortion. If some distortion sounds better, then the listener
should control it: DSP, equalizers, etc. The idea of a fixed level and
form of distortion doesn't seem consistent with any coherent notion of
audiophilia. (Which is to say that I think many audiophiles' stated
preferences are incoherent. They seem to want distortion that sounds
like live music.)

bob

[Scott[_6_]]

On Feb 5, 10:34=A0am, ScottW wrote:

You didn't say she said the Classic reissues sounded exactly like the
original analog masters.

I am confident they didn't.

=A0I'm guessing some younger ears at Classic's
took some of that shrill edge off needed to create some sparkle for
aging ears.

Some younger ears? Bernie Grundman mastered the Classics Mercury 45rpm
reissues. He is one of the best in the business but I don't think we
can say he has "younger ears."

=A0Or maybe the original analog masters were dialed in for
ceramic cartridges just as todays CDs are mastered for cars and are
really bad to your ears.

They most certainly were not dialed in for ceramic cartridges. No
consideration was given to the playback equipment of the time when the
recordings were made. They remain some of the most amazingly realistic
recordings of orchestral music ever made.



It also doesn't surprise me that if your system is breathtaking on
vinyl, CD's don't measure up. =A0I've had a similar problem and have
concluded that =A0the best setup for either format is not the same
setup. =A0I briefly tinkered with some digital correction, which is now
a really inexpensive option, =A0and think it might be the answer but
haven't had time to really explore it.


Digital euphonic colorations. That makes perfect sense.

[bob]

On Feb 5, 1:22=A0pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

The euphonic distortion argument IME pretty much falls flat.

In what way? Are you saying that the distortions inherent in vinyl
reproduction are *not* euphonic? They sound quite pleasant, even to
me. I can even see why some might confuse those distortions with "the
sound of live music."

To state what I've been hinting at here, I suspect that for the vast
majority of vinylphiles the appeal is in fact these distortions,
rather than the supposedly superior mastering. And that's why
audiophile vinyl appears to be far more popular than audiophile
digital.

bob

[Arny Krueger]

"bob" wrote in message

On Feb 5, 1:22 pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

The euphonic distortion argument IME pretty much falls flat.

In what way?

I know of no kind of nonlinear distortion that make a reasonable selection
of music sound better to me.


Are you saying that the distortions inherent
in vinyl reproduction are *not* euphonic?

I don't find any of the kinds of nonlinear distortion that are inherent in
vinyl reproduction to be euphonic.

They sound quite pleasant, even to me. I can even see why some might
confuse those distortions with "the sound of live music."

I would have to be far less familiar with the sound of live music than I am
to slide down that slope.

To state what I've been hinting at here, I suspect that
for the vast majority of vinylphiles the appeal is in
fact these distortions, rather than the supposedly
superior mastering.

I think its mostly sentimentality. If someone could show me that people
preferred these spurious responses in blind tests, now that would be
interesting.

And that's why audiophile vinyl
appears to be far more popular than audiophile digital.

I suspect that most audiophile music libraries are dominated by
non-audiophile digital recordings, in terms of music that gets active play.
In this day and age many audiophiles completely lack the ability to play
vinyl.

[Audio Empire]

On Sat, 5 Feb 2011 11:42:31 -0800, bob wrote
(in article ):

On Feb 5, 1:18=A0pm, Scott wrote:
On Feb 4, 6:47=A0pm, bob wrote:

=A0And would there
be so many if Stereophile and TAS had spent the last 25 years saying,
"Look, CD really is technically better. It's poor CD mastering plus
the euphonic distortions inherent in vinyl that make the vinyl sound
better"?

Why would that make a difference? The results are what they are
regardless of why. Better sound is better sound regardless of how you
get there. Would you avoid vinyl if it sounded better to you despite
CD being "technically superior" and vinyl's only advantages were
euphonic distortions and better mastering?

I would prefer to avoid any medium which introduced unnecessary levels
of distortion. If some distortion sounds better, then the listener
should control it: DSP, equalizers, etc. The idea of a fixed level and
form of distortion doesn't seem consistent with any coherent notion of
audiophilia. (Which is to say that I think many audiophiles' stated
preferences are incoherent. They seem to want distortion that sounds
like live music.)

bob


Yet you seem to accept CD with it's deliberate high-levels of compression and
other artifacts of over-production. It would seem to me that if you don't
like the fact that LP's euphonic colorations cannot be controlled by the
listener, that you would likewise be unhappy with the current state of CD
production as well, but I've never seen you mention that.

In essence, I agree with your premise. The technology doesn't exist to
control analog records in that manner, but CDs can be. CD producers should
produce CDs with the full dynamic range (for those who want it) and
absolutely straight and let the playback equipment have the DSP built-in that
allows the listener to control how much compression, how much "sweetening",
how much distortion to add. But we don't generally have those choices, do we?
Seems to me that we're all in a place where we have to more-or-less accept
what's given us (unless we go out and "roll our own").

One of the things that we do have is a catalog of very good, very satisfying
LPs available these days. To express an interest in good quality playback and
to ignore or dismiss any source of music for any reason other than the
results, seems to me to be throwing the baby out with the bath water.

[Audio Empire]

On Sat, 5 Feb 2011 12:20:35 -0800, bob wrote
(in article ):

On Feb 5, 1:22=A0pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

The euphonic distortion argument IME pretty much falls flat.

In what way? Are you saying that the distortions inherent in vinyl
reproduction are *not* euphonic? They sound quite pleasant, even to
me. I can even see why some might confuse those distortions with "the
sound of live music."

To state what I've been hinting at here, I suspect that for the vast
majority of vinylphiles the appeal is in fact these distortions,
rather than the supposedly superior mastering. And that's why
audiophile vinyl appears to be far more popular than audiophile
digital.

bob

While I don't necessarily disagree, I think that in some cases the vinyl
mastering IS superior to the CD mastering of the same material. When the LP
has more presence, more bass, better dynamics, silkier, airier highs, with
more silken strings and more realistic-sounding percussion than does the CD
of the same material, there is more than just "euphonic coloration" going-on
here. Somebody, following some corporate agenda is purposely hobbling the CD
release because there is NO EXCUSE for the CD to sound that mediocre. After
all, if one can take that superior LP, transfer it to CD with all of the
virtues I just outlined intact, then it's clear that the CD is certainly
CAPABLE of being just as good as the LP, it just isn't.

[Audio Empire]

On Sat, 5 Feb 2011 12:19:42 -0800, Scott wrote
(in article ):

On Feb 5, 10:34=A0am, ScottW wrote:

You didn't say she said the Classic reissues sounded exactly like the
original analog masters.

I am confident they didn't.

Well, not having been there, I can only speculate. If the CD sounds "exactly
like the master tape" (which I strongly doubt), then the LP sounds BETTER, by
far than the master tape. But Ms. Fine "supervised" the cutting of the master
disc (Bernie Grundman did the actual disc cutting) and approved the test
pressings of the final release of the record.

=A0I'm guessing some younger ears at Classic's
took some of that shrill edge off needed to create some sparkle for
aging ears.

Some younger ears? Bernie Grundman mastered the Classics Mercury 45rpm
reissues. He is one of the best in the business but I don't think we
can say he has "younger ears."

Exactly!

=A0Or maybe the original analog masters were dialed in for
ceramic cartridges just as todays CDs are mastered for cars and are
really bad to your ears.

They most certainly were not dialed in for ceramic cartridges. No
consideration was given to the playback equipment of the time when the
recordings were made. They remain some of the most amazingly realistic
recordings of orchestral music ever made.

We're talking a 1-to-1 copy of the original analog master here, not some old
Mercury cutting master from the 1960's. And Scott is correct. The Mercury
recordings were and remain among the best orchestral recordings ever made.
Simply recorded in three channel spaced omnidirectional stereo (which
shouldn't work, BTW - but that's a story for another time) directly to a
tubed-electronics, three-track 1/2 " Ampex 300/350-3 deck (and later to a
35mm magnetic film recorder), these recordings are often startlingly
realistic.

[Audio Empire]

On Sat, 5 Feb 2011 10:18:24 -0800, Scott wrote
(in article ):

On Feb 4, 6:47=A0pm, bob wrote:
On Feb 4, 2:11=3DA0pm, Audio Empire wrote:



be so many if Stereophile and TAS had spent the last 25 years saying,
"Look, CD really is technically better. It's poor CD mastering plus
the euphonic distortions inherent in vinyl that make the vinyl sound
better"?


Why would that make a difference? The results are what they are
regardless of why. Better sound is better sound regardless of how you
get there. Would you avoid vinyl if it sounded better to you despite
CD being "technically superior" and vinyl's only advantages were
euphonic distortions and better mastering?

That's more-or-less the way I see it. But what we have here is a case where
there seem to be several very disparate points of view. View one is that it
doesn't matter what path leads to the illusion of live musicians playing in
real space, the illusion is what's important, not the methodology that got us
there. The second view says that to be considered high-fidelity a medium must
be, above all, accurate and that a euphonic representation of a musical
performance is no good because it doesn't sound exactly like the original
recording, no matter how bad that recording might be. Only the unvarnished
truth is important. To this camp, those euphonic colorations aren't even
listenable, much less enjoyable. The third view is held by what I call the
techno-obsessive. To this camp, vinyl simply cannot be listened to because it
is technically inferior to CD and they have the math and the specs to prove
it. Their view is why would anybody want to listen to an obsolete technology
when CD is "perfect"? They won't even entertain the notion that some LPs
might, indeed, sound better than the CD of the same material, and dismiss
anyone whose opinion differs from that. I think we all know who falls into
which category 8^)

There are some on this forum who continue to posture and make statements
which lead me to believe that in spite of their technical knowledge, they
simply cannot hear - or if they can, they go out of their way to make it seem
that they can't. Of course it could be just a case of having painted
themselves so tightly into a corner, that they can't get out without looking
very foolish, that does, after all, happen.

[Audio Empire]

On Sat, 5 Feb 2011 10:22:22 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"bob" wrote in message

On Feb 4, 2:11=A0pm, Audio Empire
wrote:

Many of these "classic" analog recordings from the
'golden era' of stereo (before recording got so
complicated with multt-miking and multi-track an= d
ruined the sound) HAVE be digitized but with varying
success. For instanc= e, many of the RCA Red Seal Shaded
Dogs have been digitized several times by BMG/RCA with
varying success. Certainly, the most ambitious project
was w= hen RCA/BMG released more than 100 titles as
hybrid SACDs. None sound as good= as the LPs released by
Classics records

And is that because of better mastering, or the euphonic
distortions that the vinyl offers? The former maybe, the
latter definitely.

A more likely list of reasons:

(1) Often when big record companies do transfers from legacy masters,
they give the job to some junior engineer who would rather be
mastering Britany.

(2) To some degree "sounds better" is in the ear (and brain) of the
beholder. These aren't the results of blind preference tests that
we're talking about here.

and, in fact, the SACDs don't even sound
as good as the JVC XRCD releases of the same titles,]

Other than the possibility of doing surround on SACD, there is *no*
reason why the SACD should sound better than a well-made CD. In this
case the possiblity of suitable raw materials for a surround mix is
probably zero or close to it.

These BMG/RCA SACDs don't have any "surround mix" they are strictly two or
three (left, right, center) channel recordings.

Not surprising. There quite a bit of evidence that the
2-channel layers are often treated as an afterthought.

And this is probably due to reason (1), above.

and XRCD is Red Book,
not SACD or DVD-A or Blu-Ray or any other
high-resolution digital release format.

Which, as we know, wouldn't make an audible difference
anyway.

Agreed.

So, what it comes down to is what I said before. These
LP titles have
a reputation for being good sounding LPs and it's what
the dyed-in-the-wo= ol vinyl-phile wants. So that's what
gets remastered (perhaps at 45 RPM) and pressed on heavy
180 or 200 gram virgin vinyl sometimes as single -sided
records.

I guess another way of asking the question I've been
raising is, why are there so many died-in-the-wool
vinylphiles today?

Are there that many? Or is the noise just hype?

There are that many. Like I told you last year, there are scores of companies
making turntables, arms, cartridges and phono head amps these days. In fact
there are more good quality record decks on the market now than there were at
the peak of the vinyl market with more showing up every month. Apparently,
you're not keeping up.

And would there be so many if
Stereophile and TAS had spent the last 25 years saying,
"Look, CD really is technically better. It's poor CD
mastering plus the euphonic distortions inherent in vinyl
that make the vinyl sound better"?

The euphonic distortion argument IME pretty much falls flat.

Something makes vinyl often sound better than the CD remasterings of the same
material.

[Audio Empire]

On Sat, 5 Feb 2011 10:34:47 -0800, ScottW wrote
(in article ):

On Feb 5, 7:13=A0am, Audio Empire wrote:
On Fri, 4 Feb 2011 20:36:28 -0800, bob wrote
(in article ):





On Feb 4, 6:46=3DA0pm, Scott wrote:

The answer is quite simple. Being a niche market, labels like Analog
Productions and Music Matters etc can obtain a licence at a reasonable
cost to remaster popular titles owned by the majors on vinyl and on
SACD. The majors retain the rights to make the CDs since that is where
the mass market is.

Interesting, although there obviously are plenty of cases where the
companies with the rights *have* granted licenses for audiophile CD
releases. So while this may be a factor it clearly isn't a full
explanation.

So you get the tender loving care in the mastering
for the niche market and the crap mastering for the mainstream market.
The same labels that do audiophile reissues are constantly trying to
get the rights to do CDs and some times they do get them.

Are the companies releasing the vinyl the same companies producing
audiophile CDs? I haven't looked closely, but I didn't get the sense
there was a lot of overlap there.

Not usually, no. An interesting case in point. When Philips hired the lat=
e
Wilma Cozart Fine to master the Mercury Living Presence catalog to CD, sh=
e
said that the resultant digital masters sounded exactly like the analog
masters (all of which she originally produced. She and her husband C. Rob=
ert
Fine WERE, essentially, Mercury Living Presence Records). Yet a year or s=
o
later, Classic Records hired her to master the 45 RPM 4-disc, 200 gram LP=
of
one of those Philips CDs she mastered. The title was the "Firebird " ball=
et
by Stravinsky with the LSO/ Antal Dorati. I have both her CD and her LP o=
f
that work. The Classic LP is absolutely breathtaking and the Philips/Merc=
ury
CD sounds terrible. It's thin, and shrill, and lacking in any sense of
dynamics at all. Now the same person supervised the mastering of BOTH of
these transfers of this material. Now, if Fine said that the digital mast=
ers
sound so close to the analog masters that one cannot tell the difference,
then how come the CD she helped produce sounds so bad and the LP, which s=
he
also helped to produce, sounds so unbelievably good?

You didn't say she said the Classic reissues sounded exactly like the
original analog masters. I'm guessing some younger ears at Classic's
took some of that shrill edge off needed to create some sparkle for
aging ears. Or maybe the original analog masters were dialed in for
ceramic cartridges just as todays CDs are mastered for cars and are
really bad to your ears



You're right, she didn't say that (not that I ever saw, anyway). She also
never said that the actual PRODUCTION CDs sounded anything like the digital
masters she produced from the original analog recordings either! In other
words, for the CDs, she produced a digital master. Period. I doubt seriously
if she had anything whatsoever to do with the consequent transfer of that
digital master to CD. Why would she? She had no expertise or experience in CD
production. She hadn't worked in recording since Mercury closed shop in the
late 1960's.

On the other hand, the article I read about her involvement in the Classic
recording project (the last thing she did before she died, I might add) said
that she supervised the transfer from the original analog master tape to the
actual vinyl cut and approved the master disc before plating and approved the
test pressings before production.

It also doesn't surprise me that if your system is breathtaking on
vinyl, CD's don't measure up.

Nonsense. My system is "breathtaking" on vinyl, well mastered CD, well
mastered SACDs, DVD-As, DATs, analog tape, and even Internet radio. The only
thing that is different about vinyl is that it requires a decent deck, a
decent arm - properly set-up, and a good cartridge. The rest is just
electronic amplification and that is either accurate to the RIAA curve and
quiet or it isn't.

I've had a similar problem and have
concluded that the best setup for either format is not the same
setup. I briefly tinkered with some digital correction, which is now
a really inexpensive option, and think it might be the answer but
haven't had time to really explore it.

If you find that to be true (I don't), then you're doing something wrong in
the front-end of your vinyl setup. Amplifiers, these days are flat from DC to
daylight, have extremely low distortion and low noise. They amplify what they
are fed, whether that is from digital or analog sources (let's face it, it
is, generally speaking, all analog by the time it hits the amplifier).
Speakers? They respond in the same way to every source. If they sound
different from one source to the next, then it's the source that's at fault
not the speakers, not the amplifiers.

So, if your vinyl setup always sounds better than digital, then it's
probably because the CDs you play simply don't sound very good and given
today's CD production practices, that's very possible. Another (extremely
slight and very unlikely) possibility is that there's something amiss with
your CD player. Either way, within the envelope of your system's capability,
all sources should sound the same, all else being equal. When I play one of
my old 15 ips half-track analog master tapes and the DAT I made from it and
the CD I made from the DAT, they all sound pretty much the same; I.E., they
might vary a bit in some small details, but their sonic character is the
same. I'm sure that if I had LPs of these tapes, I'd notice the same
similarity of overall sonic character.

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott" wrote in message

On Feb 4, 6:47 pm, bob wrote:
On Feb 4, 2:11=A0pm, Audio Empire
wrote:

And would there
be so many if Stereophile and TAS had spent the last 25
years saying, "Look, CD really is technically better.
It's poor CD mastering plus the euphonic distortions
inherent in vinyl that make the vinyl sound better"?

Why would that make a difference?

(1) They wouldn't look as silly as they do now.
(2) They would have the personal satisfaction of having told the truth all
along.
(3) Silly threads like this one, might not being wasting bandwidth.

The results are what they are regardless of why.

Only true if you argue that SP and TAS have no credibility with audiophiles.

Better sound is better sound regardless of how you get there.

Only true if time, effort and equipment have zero cost associated with
acquiring them.


Would you avoid vinyl if
it sounded better to you despite CD being "technically
superior" and vinyl's only advantages were euphonic
distortions and better mastering?

I would wonder why something so rife with audible colorations would sound
"better to me".

[Scott[_6_]]

On Feb 5, 11:42=A0am, bob wrote:
On Feb 5, 1:18=3DA0pm, Scott wrote:

On Feb 4, 6:47=3DA0pm, bob wrote:
=3DA0And would there
be so many if Stereophile and TAS had spent the last 25 years saying,
"Look, CD really is technically better. It's poor CD mastering plus
the euphonic distortions inherent in vinyl that make the vinyl sound
better"?

Why would that make a difference? The results are what they are
regardless of why. Better sound is better sound regardless of how you
get there. Would you avoid vinyl if it sounded better to you despite
CD being "technically superior" and vinyl's only advantages were
euphonic distortions and better mastering?

I would prefer to avoid any medium which introduced unnecessary levels
of distortion.

this reply avoids the question and adds a red herring.

If some distortion sounds better, then the listener
should control it: DSP, equalizers, etc.

Why? Do you think I could or you could replicate the unique euphonic
distortions of my vinyl playback equipment or the inherent euphonic
colorations of vinyl that seems to draw audiophiles to that medium by
using DSP and equalizers? I wouldn't begin to know how to do that much
less know how to do it without already having my vinyl playback
equipment as a reference.

The idea of a fixed level and
form of distortion doesn't seem consistent with any coherent notion of
audiophilia.

Sure it does, otherwise you might want to take Arny's route and stick
with a sansa clip and ear buds. what you get with speakers as opposed
to headphones or ear buds is a fixed level of distrotion that
consistantly offers a far more convincing aural illusion of live music
in a real space. Given that is a common goal of audiophilia it is
quite consistant with a coherent notion of audiopilia.

(Which is to say that I think many audiophiles' stated
preferences are incoherent. They seem to want distortion that sounds
like live music.)


there is nothing incoherent about wanting playback that sounds more
like live music and there is nothing incoherent about getting through
euphonic distortion. Actually chosing to avoid distortion despite it
offering a better illusion of live music because one simply finds it
philisophically distasteful strikes me as something that one might
call incoherent.

[bob]

On Feb 5, 7:53=A0pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"bob" wrote in message

=A0They sound quite pleasant, even to me. I can even see why some might
confuse those distortions with "the sound of live music."

I would have to be far less familiar with the sound of live music than I =
am
to slide down that slope.

Me too, but I think we have to acknowledge that a fair number of
people think otherwise.

To state what I've been hinting at here, I suspect that
for the vast majority of vinylphiles the appeal is in
fact these distortions, rather than the supposedly
superior mastering.

I think its mostly sentimentality. If someone could show me that people
preferred these spurious responses in blind tests, now that would be
interesting.

All I can say is that my wife, who was definitely a vinyl skeptic,
admitted to a preference for vinyl when I played her the same
recording in both formats. Not blind--but she heard it from the
kitchen! I wouldn't be surprised if blind tests did show such a
preference, at least among a substantial minority of listeners.

And that's why audiophile vinyl
appears to be far more popular than audiophile digital.

I suspect that most audiophile music libraries are dominated by
non-audiophile digital recordings, in terms of music that gets active pla=
y.

If you're a music lover, as opposed to a gear hound, this has to be
the case. There is far too much good music out there that's available
only on CD.

bob

[Scott[_6_]]

On Feb 5, 12:20=A0pm, bob wrote:
On Feb 5, 1:22=A0pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

The euphonic distortion argument IME pretty much falls flat.

In what way? Are you saying that the distortions inherent in vinyl
reproduction are *not* euphonic? They sound quite pleasant, even to
me. I can even see why some might confuse those distortions with "the
sound of live music."

To state what I've been hinting at here, I suspect that for the vast
majority of vinylphiles the appeal is in fact these distortions,
rather than the supposedly superior mastering. And that's why
audiophile vinyl appears to be far more popular than audiophile
digital.


Have you spent much time comparing masterings between LPs and CDs of
the same titles?
Have you done much research into what went into the mastering of
various CDs and LPs? You say "supposedly" superior mastering. Some of
us have spent a good deal of time and effort gaining hands on
experience with the variations in mastering of our favorite titles and
have concluded that the mastering is more often than not the primary
factor in a given LP or CD or SACD being the best sounding version of
a given title. Are you basing your opinion on the same sort of
experiences and research?

[Scott[_6_]]

On Feb 5, 7:14=A0pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message



On Feb 4, 6:47 pm, bob wrote:
And would there
be so many if Stereophile and TAS had spent the last 25
years saying, "Look, CD really is technically better.
It's poor CD mastering plus the euphonic distortions
inherent in vinyl that make the vinyl sound better"?

Why would that make a difference?

(1) They wouldn't look as silly as they do now.
(2) They would have the personal satisfaction of having told the
truth all along.
(3) Silly threads like this one, might not being wasting bandwidth.

Um not sure how to make sense of your response here Arny. How does it
matter to the audiophile enjoying the benefits of euphonic didtortions
and better mastering on vinyl how silly or not silly thw writers at
Stereophile or TAS look? How have the audiophiles that have enjoyed
the benefits of euphonic distortions and better mastering failed to
"tell the truth?" Clearly silly threads like this one will exist so
long as there are forums that will allow them.

The results are what they are regardless of why.

Only true if you argue that SP and TAS have no credibility with
audiophiles.

No it's always true. it is a basic truism.The results are what they
are period. One does not magically affect the sound of their playback
by arguing one way or the other over the credibility of SP and TAS
with audiophiles. This claim makes absolutely no sense.

Better sound is better sound regardless of how you get there.

Only true if time, effort and equipment have zero cost associated with
acquiring them.

No it is always true. Again it's a basic truism. better sound does not
become inferior sound if one has to spend time effort or money to get
it. Again your response makes zero sense. It is a really odd argument
actually.

Would you avoid vinyl if
it sounded better to you despite CD being "technically
superior" and vinyl's only advantages were euphonic
distortions and better mastering?

I would wonder why something so rife with audible colorations would
sound "better to me".

I wondered the same thing but then to a large degree it has been
explained by people who have researched euphonic colorations.

[Audio Empire]

On Sat, 5 Feb 2011 19:14:25 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Scott" wrote in message

On Feb 4, 6:47 pm, bob wrote:

And would there
be so many if Stereophile and TAS had spent the last 25
years saying, "Look, CD really is technically better.
It's poor CD mastering plus the euphonic distortions
inherent in vinyl that make the vinyl sound better"?

Why would that make a difference?

(1) They wouldn't look as silly as they do now.
(2) They would have the personal satisfaction of having told the
truth all along.
(3) Silly threads like this one, might not being wasting bandwidth.

The results are what they are regardless of why.

Only true if you argue that SP and TAS have no credibility with
audiophiles.

Better sound is better sound regardless of how you get there.

Only true if time, effort and equipment have zero cost associated
with acquiring them.

What does time, effort and cost have to do with it? If euphonic
colorations and careful mastering and production get the job done,
then what's wrong with that?

Would you avoid vinyl if
it sounded better to you despite CD being "technically
superior" and vinyl's only advantages were euphonic
distortions and better mastering?

I would wonder why something so rife with audible colorations
would sound "better to me".

"Ah", as Hamlet observes, "there's the rub".

[bob]

On Feb 5, 10:13=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:


There are some on this forum who continue to posture and make statements
which lead me to believe that in spite of their technical knowledge, they
simply cannot hear

By any objective standard, digital reproduction is more accurate to
the original sound than analog reproduction. I think a good case could
be made that people who hear it that way are better listeners than all
the vinylphiles who confuse phase distortion with ambient
reverberation. The latter don't hear at all; they merely imagine.

bob

[Scott[_6_]]

On Feb 5, 8:37=A0pm, bob wrote:
On Feb 5, 7:53=A0pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:


I suspect that most audiophile music libraries are dominated by
non-audiophile digital recordings, in terms of music that gets active p=
lay.

If you're a music lover, as opposed to a gear hound, this has to be
the case. There is far too much good music out there that's available
only on CD.


For real? You would put the vast catalog of music recorded in analog
(or even digital but cut on vinyl) from the begining of commercial
recordings to the present day a distant second over the body of
digital recordings that never appeared on vinyl? There certainly is
plenty of music only available on CD. but if we are talking great
music, the best throughout the many decades of recorded music, the
titles available on CD only IMO represent a pretty small fraction of
the pie.

[Audio Empire]

On Sat, 5 Feb 2011 16:53:36 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"bob" wrote in message

On Feb 5, 1:22 pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

The euphonic distortion argument IME pretty much falls flat.

In what way?

I know of no kind of nonlinear distortion that make a reasonable selection
of music sound better to me.

That's called bias. The specific type of bias is called prejudice.


Are you saying that the distortions inherent
in vinyl reproduction are *not* euphonic?

I don't find any of the kinds of nonlinear distortion that are inherent in
vinyl reproduction to be euphonic.

Bias again. Instead of making blanket statements of this type, perhaps you
should apply your ears on a record by record basis.

They sound quite pleasant, even to me. I can even see why some might
confuse those distortions with "the sound of live music."

I would have to be far less familiar with the sound of live music than I am
to slide down that slope.

I am probably at LEAST as familiar with the sound of live music as you are
and I say that many times LPs sound more like that live music than a CD of
the same material does. So where does that leave the debate?

[bob]

On Feb 5, 7:54=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:
On Sat, 5 Feb 2011 11:42:31 -0800, bob wrote
(in article ):

I would prefer to avoid any medium which introduced unnecessary levels
of distortion. If some distortion sounds better, then the listener
should control it: DSP, equalizers, etc. The idea of a fixed level and
form of distortion doesn't seem consistent with any coherent notion of
audiophilia. (Which is to say that I think many audiophiles' stated
preferences are incoherent. They seem to want distortion that sounds
like live music.)

bob

Yet you seem to accept CD with it's deliberate high-levels of compression=
and
other artifacts of over-production.

Let's be careful not to confuse deliberate with inherent. But in
practice I suppose I generally choose overcompressed (and conveniently
streamable) digital over heavily distorted analog, for a variety of
reasons.

It would seem to me that if you don't
like the fact that LP's euphonic colorations cannot be controlled by the
listener, that you would likewise be unhappy with the current state of CD
production as well, but I've never seen you mention that.

But that was my very point in complaining about the dearth of
"audiophile" CDs.

In essence, I agree with your premise. The technology doesn't exist to
control analog records in that manner, but CDs can be. CD producers shoul=
d
produce CDs with the full dynamic range (for those who want it) and
absolutely straight and let the playback equipment have the DSP built-in =
that
allows the listener to control how much compression, how much "sweetening=
",
how much distortion to add. But we don't generally have those choices, do=
we?
=A0Seems to me that we're all in a place where we have to more-or-less ac=
cept
what's given us (unless we go out and "roll our own").

Sadly true.

One of the things that we do have is a catalog of very good, very satisfy=
ing
LPs available these days. To express an interest in good quality playback=
and
to ignore or dismiss any source of music for any reason other than the
results, seems to me to be throwing the baby out with the bath water.

As I said, for a variety of reasons, I don't buy new vinyl. But I do
have a small collection of jazz LPs from the 50s and 60s. (Also a lot
of RnR left over from my youth.) I'm not interested in whether they
are the best-sounding releases--some are, some aren't. But I enjoy
listening to that music as it would have been heard by the jazz fans
of the time.

bob

[bob]

On Feb 5, 10:15=A0pm, Scott wrote:
On Feb 5, 11:42=3DA0am, bob wrote:

If some distortion sounds better, then the listener
should control it: DSP, equalizers, etc.

Why? Do you think I could or you could replicate the unique euphonic
distortions of my vinyl playback equipment or the inherent euphonic
colorations of vinyl that seems to draw audiophiles to that medium by
using DSP and equalizers?

No, I think I could do better. Much better, in fact. That's the whole
point of listener controls--one can tailor the sound any way one
likes, and almost certainly come closer to whatever your idea of good
sound is than any fixed set of distortion artifacts.

bob

[Scott[_6_]]

On Feb 6, 9:52=A0am, bob wrote:
On Feb 5, 10:13=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:



There are some on this forum who continue to posture and make statement=
s
which lead me to believe that in spite of their technical knowledge, th=
ey
simply cannot hear

By any objective standard, digital reproduction is more accurate to
the original sound than analog reproduction. I think a good case could
be made that people who hear it that way are better listeners than all
the vinylphiles who confuse phase distortion with ambient
reverberation. The latter don't hear at all; they merely imagine.


So do you have some results of any blind listening comparisons that
supports this assertion? I can cite two blind comparisons that wrought
contrary results to that which you would expect but it seems that when
certain people don't like the hearing such results they go into
personal attack mode. I'm not really interested in going down that
path again so lets just examine your assertion on the face of it.
Without the original tape how can one judge actual audible accuracy?
As for your case " that people who hear it that way are better
listeners than all the vinylphiles who confuse phase distortion with
ambient reverberation" How would you like to put it to a blind test?
Arny chose not to take my challenge on his assertions about the sound
of vinyl under blind conditions but would you like to? In this case
the challenge would be to identify actual recorded reverb (and I would
add accurate soundstaging) with the euphonic effects that vinyl has on
the sense of reverb and soundstaging. Of course you would have to do
this under the same circumstances as do the audiophiles whose hearing
you are calling into question. That would be without an original
master tape as a reference. I think I could design a test that would
be fair and would put the issue to the test. IMO you would find that
those who prefer digital would be just as hard pressed to make such
determinations under blind conditions as those who prefer vinyl.


Challenging the hearing of those who prefer vinyl really is a cheap
shot. You don't thinks so too? Put it to the test then.