help! i'm doing research for my degree

[jemmamartin]

HI! i'm in my final year at uni in brighton, uk. I'm studying digital music and for my final project i did an essay on Analog vs. digital technology, and for my practical work i'm trying to figure out what i'm going to do in relation to my essay. Basically what i would like is for people to give me their views on analog equipment, more in terms of listening to, rather than purely technical stuff. Why do you prefer vinyl and the 'analog' sound? is digital technology too rigid, lifeless, too 'perfect'? Feel free to express all your opinions, it's all good and will help me out a great deal. Thanks for your time

[skeptic]

It is hard to take you seriously since by the way you worded the question, you have already prejudged the answer. If that's the best you can do, your paper gets an F. Why don't you read the past postings on this board. It's been discussed here endlessly for years. Do you expect people to take the time to rehash the whole arguement all over again just for you?

[DMK]

HI! i'm in my final year at uni in brighton, uk. I'm studying digital music and for my final project i did an essay on Analog vs. digital technology, and for my practical work i'm trying to figure out what i'm going to do in relation to my essay. Basically what i would like is for people to give me their views on analog equipment, more in terms of listening to, rather than purely technical stuff. Why do you prefer vinyl and the 'analog' sound? is digital technology too rigid, lifeless, too 'perfect'? Feel free to express all your opinions, it's all good and will help me out a great deal. Thanks for your time

Hopefully, you're studying the high resolution forms of digital music rather than redbook CD. But if you are, some of the arguments won't hold nearly as much water as they do when rbcd is the comparison. In a nutshell, I find (these are my opinions):

1) RBCD is hopelessly distorted and compromised as a music format. This is, I'm told, not the fault of the storage medium but of the recording and/or mastering. The fact that the music is recorded and mastered properly on vinyl and also on SACD (in the cases where I have a direct comparison) doesn't seem to matter.

2) Vinyl more closely conveys the sound of live music with timbrally and tonally correct instrument reproduction. RBCD often makes instruments sound unnatural such as cymbals sounding like aerosol cans and guitars taking on thin tones, screechy massed strings, etc.

3) RBCD removes all the air from around the instruments and causes the music to sound confused and lacking focus i.e resolution.

4) RBCD's are usually grainy and glaring, with a noticeable lack of body. Using a visual analogy, with vinyl, you're holding an apple. With rbcd, you're holding a picture of an apple (and not a very clear one).

5) For a noncompressed format, the music sure sounds compressed (rbcd). Often there is a lack of instrument localization and the soundstage is usually collapsed.

5) The Biggie - comparisons of vinyl recordings with their counterpart rbcd's shows that the LP is more natural sounding, more "accurate" with less distortion. The LP can often make one believe (to some extent) that they are sitting in the venue, listening live. With CD, we are constantly aware that we are listening to a reproduction.

All of these are my opinions only. My hearing and attention span is no better than anyone else's. Those who disagree fall into one of four camps: first, those who only believe measurements instead of their ears, second those that use substandard gear and don't clean their LP's, third those who have no conception of live music and fourth those who truly prefer the sound of CD for reasons I can't imagine. I may have a vinyl bias but rest assured, it gets fed constantly! When I hear an excellent sounding CD, it's cause for rejoicing and I give it its due. The technology has the potential for great sound but it falls too far short too often.

Now you have a worthless batch of opinions for your paper. I do hope you're not trying to prove anything :)

[rb122]

Hopefully, you're studying the high resolution forms of digital music rather than redbook CD. But if you are, some of the arguments won't hold nearly as much water as they do when rbcd is the comparison. In a nutshell, I find (these are my opinions):

1) RBCD is hopelessly distorted and compromised as a music format. This is, I'm told, not the fault of the storage medium but of the recording and/or mastering. The fact that the music is recorded and mastered properly on vinyl and also on SACD (in the cases where I have a direct comparison) doesn't seem to matter.

2) Vinyl more closely conveys the sound of live music with timbrally and tonally correct instrument reproduction. RBCD often makes instruments sound unnatural such as cymbals sounding like aerosol cans and guitars taking on thin tones, screechy massed strings, etc.

3) RBCD removes all the air from around the instruments and causes the music to sound confused and lacking focus i.e resolution.

4) RBCD's are usually grainy and glaring, with a noticeable lack of body. Using a visual analogy, with vinyl, you're holding an apple. With rbcd, you're holding a picture of an apple (and not a very clear one).

5) For a noncompressed format, the music sure sounds compressed (rbcd). Often there is a lack of instrument localization and the soundstage is usually collapsed.

5) The Biggie - comparisons of vinyl recordings with their counterpart rbcd's shows that the LP is more natural sounding, more "accurate" with less distortion. The LP can often make one believe (to some extent) that they are sitting in the venue, listening live. With CD, we are constantly aware that we are listening to a reproduction.

All of these are my opinions only. My hearing and attention span is no better than anyone else's. Those who disagree fall into one of four camps: first, those who only believe measurements instead of their ears, second those that use substandard gear and don't clean their LP's, third those who have no conception of live music and fourth those who truly prefer the sound of CD for reasons I can't imagine. I may have a vinyl bias but rest assured, it gets fed constantly! When I hear an excellent sounding CD, it's cause for rejoicing and I give it its due. The technology has the potential for great sound but it falls too far short too often.

Now you have a worthless batch of opinions for your paper. I do hope you're not trying to prove anything :)

I have no vinyl bias or, at least, I didn't when I first started listening to it. I came to vinyl after the advent of the CD. With CD, I just took it as fact that reproduced music could not possibly approach the sound of live music. When I first heard a well cared for LP played on a good vinyl setup, I was absolutely astounded by the natural, "live" sound. The instruments sounded proper and there was no extraneous noise imbedded in the music. As a result, I buy vinyl whenever possible. I've bought a thousand or two LP's in the last few years and only perhaps three dozen CD's. In all but a few cases, the LP sounds accurate and the CD sounds distorted.

I know there are good CD's out there and that would presuppose that the medium is not at fault. I guess that matters. However, when the final products that I buy or hear sound sonically compromised, the fact that a few good CD's are in existence isn't a cure.

BTW, my hearing IS better than most people's my age - at least the HF is. Furthermore, I play and listen to live music about 250-300 nights a year. Therefore, I believe that I have at least some basis to support my preference, for what that's worth. On the other hand, people hear differently.

[jbangelfish]

I agree completely with rb122 and DMK. They've said it about as well as it can be said. If you are looking for the sound of live music, you'll find it most often with vinyl. For some reason, vinyl measures poor and sounds great, usually. Likewise, CD measures great and sounds poor, usually. Certainly not everyone agrees with this and it's not likely that anyone will change their mind on it unless they upgrade their vinyl system and find out what it's all about as rb did. Skeptic is a rare exception who has found a way to enjoy CD more than vinyl but he uses an equalizer and seems to have tuned his system to maximize their performance. Combine that with the fact that he listens to opera and classical almost exclusively which most of us do not and he seems to have a knack for seeking out the best CD recordings. Most of us don't have the choices in pop, rock or jazz. New music does not leave so many choices. You find your favorite artist playing your favorite music, buy the CD or vinyl if you can find it and hope they did a good job. With SACD and other new formats coming out, maybe things will improve.
Bill

[skeptic]

Hopefully, you're studying the high resolution forms of digital music rather than redbook CD. But if you are, some of the arguments won't hold nearly as much water as they do when rbcd is the comparison. In a nutshell, I find (these are my opinions):

1) RBCD is hopelessly distorted and compromised as a music format. This is, I'm told, not the fault of the storage medium but of the recording and/or mastering. The fact that the music is recorded and mastered properly on vinyl and also on SACD (in the cases where I have a direct comparison) doesn't seem to matter.

2) Vinyl more closely conveys the sound of live music with timbrally and tonally correct instrument reproduction. RBCD often makes instruments sound unnatural such as cymbals sounding like aerosol cans and guitars taking on thin tones, screechy massed strings, etc.

3) RBCD removes all the air from around the instruments and causes the music to sound confused and lacking focus i.e resolution.

4) RBCD's are usually grainy and glaring, with a noticeable lack of body. Using a visual analogy, with vinyl, you're holding an apple. With rbcd, you're holding a picture of an apple (and not a very clear one).

5) For a noncompressed format, the music sure sounds compressed (rbcd). Often there is a lack of instrument localization and the soundstage is usually collapsed.

5) The Biggie - comparisons of vinyl recordings with their counterpart rbcd's shows that the LP is more natural sounding, more "accurate" with less distortion. The LP can often make one believe (to some extent) that they are sitting in the venue, listening live. With CD, we are constantly aware that we are listening to a reproduction.

All of these are my opinions only. My hearing and attention span is no better than anyone else's. Those who disagree fall into one of four camps: first, those who only believe measurements instead of their ears, second those that use substandard gear and don't clean their LP's, third those who have no conception of live music and fourth those who truly prefer the sound of CD for reasons I can't imagine. I may have a vinyl bias but rest assured, it gets fed constantly! When I hear an excellent sounding CD, it's cause for rejoicing and I give it its due. The technology has the potential for great sound but it falls too far short too often.

Now you have a worthless batch of opinions for your paper. I do hope you're not trying to prove anything :)

I've got a few minutes to play. So for the umpeenth time although I don't know why.

Rubish, pure rubbish. (Like that English kid? For the rest of you, that's Brit lingo for; I think DMK's full of xxxx.) That's what I think of your posting.

OK one by one.

1. RBCD adds no audible distortion and makes no compromises. The listening confirms the measurements. No harmonic or intermodulation distortion. No hum or noise. No wow, flutter or rumble. No tape hiss or other random noise. No dynamic compression. Total channel separation.

2. Musical instruments sound clear and accurate. The entire audible range is covered. From the deepest bass of the largest pipe organs to the highest overtones of violins, piccolos, triangles. Piano notes and all percussions instruments have a clean sharp attack. Sibilant sounds of the human voice are clear and distinct even in mass choral works. The sound of massive orchestras are faithfully reproduced while small intimate ensembles like string quartets allow you to pick out every instrument and yet hear their integration. Dixieland jazz bands especially benefit when well recorded. The cd system mercilessly reveals the shortcomings of poor recordings and inferior sound systems, especially the shrill sound of so called audiophile speakers and the muted treble of vacuum tube amplifiers. On excellent equipment, massed violins sound sweet and silky while cymbals have a distinct metallic crash.

3.The lack of dynamic compression of cds is taken by some people to be some sort of compression in a confused and incorrect evaluation of what they are hearing. Since compression makes the softer parts of music louder, lack of compression restores them to their true relative loudness. As a result, softer parts are softer and reverberation at the end of each musical phrase is lower. CDs are a truer recording of a musical event usually lacking the tweaking and manipulation needed to compress vinyl into its restricted frequency and dynamic capabilities. CDs do not have the boomy muffled quality of vinyl records. There is no acoustic feedback, no pops and clicks, no distortion due to mistracking, no wear, and with reasonable care they last for a very long time sounding exactly like new after countless plays.

4. CDs can be poorly made just as vinyl. Careless remastering of pop vinyl recordings whose master tapes have deteriorated over the intervening decades since they were recorded and whose producers don't care about quality because they have a captive audience which buys these recordings out of nostalgia will surely sound awful. But even old classical recordings made in the 1960s and 1970s sound more brilliant and cleaner than they ever did on vinyl, especially when produced by people who care about quality such as Deutche Grammaphone.

5. I is a pleasure to be able to hear for the first time the full dynamic range of music. The quietest passages without background hiss or noise against a dead silent background and the loudest crecendos without distortion or compression and all on the same recording. Going back to analog playback after hearing music this way is unthinkable.

6. "The Biggie" purchasing the same recording on cd that I owned on vinyl brings new life to it. No recording can ever make one believe to any extent) that they are sitting in the venue, listening live. That is well beyond the current state of the art. What cds can do is make listening to fine recordings played over fine equipment much more enjoyable.

I use my ears to make my decisions, I have excellent equipment, I've heard lots of live music in my life, and DMK knows exactly why I like cds. Simply because they sound better. But I don't rule the world. The market decided who the winner was to be. And it made up its mind a long time ago that vinyl would become increasingly rare until it was all but extinct. The number of new vinyl discs being cut worldwide today is nearly zilch. In 50 years, we will look at vinyl phonograph records the same way we see shellac 78s and wax cylinders. An interesting historical artifact but laughable as a viable medium for recording and playback of high fidelity sound. Come to think of it, you don't have to wait 50 years. That's the way most people feel about it right now today.

[rb122]

I've got a few minutes to play. So for the umpeenth time although I don't know why.

Rubish, pure rubbish. (Like that English kid? For the rest of you, that's Brit lingo for; I think DMK's full of xxxx.) That's what I think of your posting.

OK one by one.

1. RBCD adds no audible distortion and makes no compromises. The listening confirms the measurements. No harmonic or intermodulation distortion. No hum or noise. No wow, flutter or rumble. No tape hiss or other random noise. No dynamic compression. Total channel separation.

2. Musical instruments sound clear and accurate. The entire audible range is covered. From the deepest bass of the largest pipe organs to the highest overtones of violins, piccolos, triangles. Piano notes and all percussions instruments have a clean sharp attack. Sibilant sounds of the human voice are clear and distinct even in mass choral works. The sound of massive orchestras are faithfully reproduced while small intimate ensembles like string quartets allow you to pick out every instrument and yet hear their integration. Dixieland jazz bands especially benefit when well recorded. The cd system mercilessly reveals the shortcomings of poor recordings and inferior sound systems, especially the shrill sound of so called audiophile speakers and the muted treble of vacuum tube amplifiers. On excellent equipment, massed violins sound sweet and silky while cymbals have a distinct metallic crash.

3.The lack of dynamic compression of cds is taken by some people to be some sort of compression in a confused and incorrect evaluation of what they are hearing. Since compression makes the softer parts of music louder, lack of compression restores them to their true relative loudness. As a result, softer parts are softer and reverberation at the end of each musical phrase is lower. CDs are a truer recording of a musical event usually lacking the tweaking and manipulation needed to compress vinyl into its restricted frequency and dynamic capabilities. CDs do not have the boomy muffled quality of vinyl records. There is no acoustic feedback, no pops and clicks, no distortion due to mistracking, no wear, and with reasonable care they last for a very long time sounding exactly like new after countless plays.

4. CDs can be poorly made just as vinyl. Careless remastering of pop vinyl recordings whose master tapes have deteriorated over the intervening decades since they were recorded and whose producers don't care about quality because they have a captive audience which buys these recordings out of nostalgia will surely sound awful. But even old classical recordings made in the 1960s and 1970s sound more brilliant and cleaner than they ever did on vinyl, especially when produced by people who care about quality such as Deutche Grammaphone.

5. I is a pleasure to be able to hear for the first time the full dynamic range of music. The quietest passages without background hiss or noise against a dead silent background and the loudest crecendos without distortion or compression and all on the same recording. Going back to analog playback after hearing music this way is unthinkable.

6. "The Biggie" purchasing the same recording on cd that I owned on vinyl brings new life to it. No recording can ever make one believe to any extent) that they are sitting in the venue, listening live. That is well beyond the current state of the art. What cds can do is make listening to fine recordings played over fine equipment much more enjoyable.

I use my ears to make my decisions, I have excellent equipment, I've heard lots of live music in my life, and DMK knows exactly why I like cds. Simply because they sound better. But I don't rule the world. The market decided who the winner was to be. And it made up its mind a long time ago that vinyl would become increasingly rare until it was all but extinct. The number of new vinyl discs being cut worldwide today is nearly zilch. In 50 years, we will look at vinyl phonograph records the same way we see shellac 78s and wax cylinders. An interesting historical artifact but laughable as a viable medium for recording and playback of high fidelity sound. Come to think of it, you don't have to wait 50 years. That's the way most people feel about it right now today.

Not worthless in the sense that these aren't your honest feelings but worthless in the spirit that DMK posted - all of this is opinion, at least as far as sound and our posts are not going to change anything. I won't go over your objections point by point - again, because it's simply my opinion against yours - but I do have a couple of points to make.

First, if you truly believe that no recording or system can transport you to the live venue to any extent, your equipment is far from "excellent" and it's time to trade it in. Or perhaps it's your music software. Try some vinyl. CD's don't do it for me very often, either. I find it interesting that the people that are never fooled into thinking they're hearing live music are always digiphiles.

The market, the market, the market - do you believe the market on everything or just on CD's? I've said it before - since the market has embraced fast food hamburgers, does that make them better than homemade? For a so called scientist to follow the polls or the whims of the marketplace would seem to me to be the antithesis of your education. I think you're attributing a sophistication to the market that just doesn't exist. I think it's pure laziness in not taking care of their vinyl that put CD's where they are - that and the convenience issue. Vinyl sounds better but requires care - cars run better when they have oil in them but gosh, what a pain!

In 50 years, we will still be playing LP's. On the other hand, CD's will be a historical artifact as we'll be getting all our new music downloaded to our computer hard drives. Since we've been moving away from good sound towards convenience, this is the next logical step. But those who appreciate good sound will still have and play their vinyl. Count on it!

[Feanor]

...Basically what i would like is for people to give me their views on analog equipment, more in terms of listening to, rather than purely technical stuff. Why do you prefer vinyl and the 'analog' sound? is digital technology too rigid, lifeless, too 'perfect'...
... on LPs, but my equipment -- including my ears -- inclines me to agree with skeptic. I'm tempted to believe it is at least partly a learned preference.

I have quite a few LPs that sound good on my modest playback equipment, and many CD that sound bad on my equally modest CD playback equimpment. But for the most part my CDs sound more detailed, more dynamic, and better balanced tonally than my LPs, and they don't have clicks & pops. I find SACDs a bit better still than CDs overall.

Granted, many CDs sound bright, harsh, and/or "grainy" -- but not all. I do find that CDs produced more recently sound better on average than those made decade or more ago -- at least that applies to classical music. I have pleasing and displeasing recordings on each medium, and my conclusion is that the actual recording and subsequent processing, (that is, balancing, mix-down, etc.), have a lot more to do with pleasing sound than the distribution medium. I suspect that recording engineers and produces got off on the wrong foot with CD when the technology was introduced, and are still in the process get themselves right. SACD production, for whatever reason, seems to be relatively free of the the aforementioned disagreable CD attributes.

Supporting my conclusion, vinylphile respondent, rb122, (for one), has recorded from LP onto CD-R and concluded that the copy is virtually indistinguishable from the original. Empirical evidence like this tends to vindicate CD as technology.

[skeptic]

"First, if you truly believe that no recording or system can transport you to the live venue to any extent, your equipment is far from "excellent" and it's time to trade it in. "

I have worked on this problem for over thirty years. In fact it was thirty years ago this month that I discovered the theoretical understanding of the problem. It may have been naive to try in the first place but I had just enough training in math, physics, and electrical engineering to solve it. Lucky shot? Seeing it for the first time was like a bolt from the blue. It will be 22 years in June since my patent for the solution was granted. And it will be 21 years in October since my unsuccessful attempts to market my solution to equipment manufacturers at the AES show in New York City.

When I developed this understanding, CDs and digital recording hadn't even been dreamt of yet. I have large collections of both vinyl and CDs, many of the CDs are reissues of vinyl I already owned. I've lived with and enjoyed vinyl phonograph records nearly all of my life. I know what live music sounds like. I also know the role the acoustics of a concert hall and a church play in the sound the audience hears and the enjoyment the listener gets from hearing music there. I've been surrounded by musicians most of my life and currently live with one. I used to play the piano and the clarinet when I was young. I own 3 pianos including a Steinway grand. I repeat, I like the sound of CDs better than vinyl because they sound more accurate to me on my sound systems. Not because they measure better. I have poor recordings and great recordings on vinyl. I have poor recordings and great recordings on CD. But the best recordings on vinyl are no match for the best recordings on cd. And the average recording on cd sounds much better to me than the average recording on vinyl. I am the first to assert that when the sound is more accurate and the measurements contradict experience, something is wrong with the meaurements.

I have also said before and I will say again that classical music is the only kind that reaches a level of art that justifies the expense and effort to develop the technology to reproduce it as accurately as possible. That does not mean that I don't enjoy and listen to other kinds of music. But high fidelity would not have interested me had I not also had an interest in classical music as well.

[rb122]

[QUOTE=Feanor
Supporting my conclusion, vinylphile respondent, rb122, (for one), has recorded from LP onto CD-R and concluded that the copy is virtually indistinguishable from the original. Empirical evidence like this tends to vindicate CD as technology.[/QUOTE]

Yes, that's great evidence of the viability of the format but I'm not arguing format, I'm arguing finished product. If you took the three CD-R's I made from vinyl and compared them to the commercial CD, the CD-R's are better sounding in almost all sonic categories.

[sofsoldier]

I am lucky enough to have several different forms of music. I own a few LP's, and lots of CD's. I also have SACD's and DVD-A's, and of course MP3's.

I love music, and I actually do not care which format they are on. I enjoy all of the formats. There are a few I prefer over others.

1. Vinyl: I reserve my favorite albums to vinyl. One reason is that I am old, and listening to records gives me a nostalgic feeling. Having some of my records on CD, and I have been able to "hear" some differences. The most notable is the lower frequencies. I have no idea how to describe it, or how to prove it, but the drums sound better on vinyl. As a drummer, I can appreciate this. Don't get me wrong, they sound just fine on CD, but it just sounds more "real" on vinyl. The best test for this is Buddy Rich's Class of '76. Good album!

2. CD's have been around forever, and I recall the main selling point for CD's was the portability and durability - that is it can be played over and over again without any wear to the disk itself. There is of course 16 bit and the 20 bit mastered versions, and HDCD. There are also players that have 1 bit DA's, or 24bit D/A's. That is just confusing to me. Scholastically, the higher the bit, the better. Peroid. That also goes for the players D/A converters as well. Sonically and measurably, CD's are more superior to vinyl, but I think the "air" or the "realism" or even the nostalgia all play a factor in choosing vinyl over digital sources. At least for me anyway!

2. SACD and DVD-A - I have just now begun to enjoy the benefits of SACD. So far, SACD and DVD-A sound alike. Measurably, SACD is more superior to DVD-A in that the range of SACD is higher - up to 100,000MHz (but who hears that high!!!!). The major complaint with SACD and DVD-A is the 5.1 surround mixes. There are two camps, as far as I can tell: those who hate surround music, and those who love it. The argument that music is heard and recorded in 2 channels (especially old music) is a valid argument. The new stuff may be recorded in surround, and that may benefit from the surround environment offered by SACD or DVD-A. Of course, I listen to them in 2-channel! Either way, sonically and measurably, SACD and DVD-A are more superior to CD. Again, the higher the bit depth, the better and the high resolution format is what it is defined as: high resolution.

3. MP3. That is a curse word to most audiophiles, but honestly I cannot hear a difference between MP3 and CD audio. What MP3 cannot do is offer high resolution recording like SACD or DVD-A. Why would one want to! MP3 is a convenience - nothing more. You can take it with you everywhere you go, and it sounds just fine.

What can be measured and what is heard can mean two different things. I prefer vinyl over digital based on what I hear. If I went by what is measured, I would obviously go for digital media. There are somethings that cannot be digitized like: air, emotion, tempo, words that cannot be proven of course! It is these descriptions that vinyl lovers (like myself) remain faithful to the source material.

I wonder if someone in the younger generation who has never seen or been exposed to a turntable or vinyl would agree? That would be interesting I think.

[rb122]

"First, if you truly believe that no recording or system can transport you to the live venue to any extent, your equipment is far from "excellent" and it's time to trade it in. "

I have worked on this problem for over thirty years. In fact it was thirty years ago this month that I discovered the theoretical understanding of the problem. It may have been naive to try in the first place but I had just enough training in math, physics, and electrical engineering to solve it. Lucky shot? Seeing it for the first time was like a bolt from the blue. It will be 22 years in June since my patent for the solution was granted. And it will be 21 years in October since my unsuccessful attempts to market my solution to equipment manufacturers at the AES show in New York City.

When I developed this understanding, CDs and digital recording hadn't even been dreamt of yet. I have large collections of both vinyl and CDs, many of the CDs are reissues of vinyl I already owned. I've lived with and enjoyed vinyl phonograph records nearly all of my life. I know what live music sounds like. I also know the role the acoustics of a concert hall and a church play in the sound the audience hears and the enjoyment the listener gets from hearing music there. I've been surrounded by musicians most of my life and currently live with one. I used to play the piano and the clarinet when I was young. I own 3 pianos including a Steinway grand. I repeat, I like the sound of CDs better than vinyl because they sound more accurate to me on my sound systems. Not because they measure better. I have poor recordings and great recordings on vinyl. I have poor recordings and great recordings on CD. But the best recordings on vinyl are no match for the best recordings on cd. And the average recording on cd sounds much better to me than the average recording on vinyl. I am the first to assert that when the sound is more accurate and the measurements contradict experience, something is wrong with the meaurements.

I have also said before and I will say again that classical music is the only kind that reaches a level of art that justifies the expense and effort to develop the technology to reproduce it as accurately as possible. That does not mean that I don't enjoy and listen to other kinds of music. But high fidelity would not have interested me had I not also had an interest in classical music as well.

I understand your opinions and your preference for CD and more power to you - I mean that sincerely. I'm glad you enjoy your CD's and I wish I felt the same way about them that you do. Life would certainly be easier. And as for this quote,
"I have also said before and I will say again that classical music is the only kind that reaches a level of art that justifies the expense and effort to develop the technology to reproduce it as accurately as possible" all I can say is that I'd have to steal another quote from you to fully describe this and the quote is "...you're as entitled as anyone to be 100% wrong." Thankfully, audio equipment manufacturers as well as musicologists and enthusiasts know it's wrong or the rest of us would have to do with boomboxes, I suppose.

[DMK]

I've got a few minutes to play. So for the umpeenth time although I don't know why.

Rubish, pure rubbish. (Like that English kid? For the rest of you, that's Brit lingo for; I think DMK's full of xxxx.) That's what I think of your posting..

The fact that you and I both feel that the other is full of sh** means to me that we're both comfortable with our opinions. Wouldn't have it any other way. We're polar opposites. You're a CD/solid state/classical guy and I'm LP/tubes/jazz. You believe that CD's will expose the flaws of equipment and I believe better equipment painfully exposes the flaws of CD's. You think Pavarotti is a great singer, I think he's a joke - the list could go on all day long. But I will say this for you - you've sold me on something: the need for EQ. If you've purchased an equalizer and it succeeds in masking all of CD's distortions and making it enjoyable for you, I'm definitely going to try it! I've tried a lot of the other tweaks and preparations that purport to make CD's sound more like actual music but they've failed me. An equalizer is next. Perhaps I can tweak and color the sound into something listenable. Accurate systems don't work well with CD's as a rule.

Skeptic: "I have also said before and I will say again that classical music is the only kind that reaches a level of art that justifies the expense and effort to develop the technology to reproduce it as accurately as possible."

Yes, you've said it before and we are just as embarrassed for you now as we've been all the other times. I'm positive that you didn't pick this nonsense up from a musician or, if you did, the school he went to owes him his tuition money back! Real musicians don't pooh-pooh forms of music they don't perform and even those they don't appreciate. The fact is that classical is but one of the kinds of music that deserves the technology to produce it accurately.

I'm happy that you're happy with CD's. But I have all the problems with them that I mentioned in my original post and then some. Suffice it to say that I find the distortions of CD's more objectionable than those of LP's and leave it at that.

[skeptic]

"You think Pavarotti is a great singer, I think he's a joke "

You know, I was just thinking the other day that I never understood why so many people raved about the voice of Pavarotti...that is until I it on CD. The power and purity of his voice is astonishing. I'll bet five pop singers put together could not sing as loud as he can if their voices were unamplified. It takes a lot of power to reach the last row of the last balcony at La Scala so that the patrons who bought the least expensive tickets can get their money's worth. This power is simply too much to contain on a medium as restricted as vinyl phonograph records.

"you've sold me on something: the need for EQ. If you've purchased an equalizer and it succeeds in masking all of CD's distortions and making it enjoyable for you, I'm definitely going to try it! I've tried a lot of the other tweaks and preparations that purport to make CD's sound more like actual music but they've failed me. An equalizer is next. Perhaps I can tweak and color the sound into something listenable. Accurate systems don't work well with CD's as a rule."

I hope you've got the patience of a saint because you are going to need it. It takes me about a year and a half to two years to adjust one to my satisfaction. And sadly, calibrated microphones, spectrum analyzers, and test discs don't seem to help. One word of advice, go slowly and adjust both channels the same. Why don't you try better speakers. I never heard Vandersteen Vs but from their design, I'll bet they are worth listening to. Ask PC Tower if they make cds sound accurate.

"Yes, you've said it before and we are just as embarrassed for you now as we've been all the other times. I'm positive that you didn't pick this nonsense up from a musician or, if you did, the school he went to owes him his tuition money back! Real musicians don't pooh-pooh forms of music they don't perform and even those they don't appreciate."

Then you don't know many "real" musicians. BTW, classical musicians do "gigs" recording all kinds of music from TV ads, to movie background, to pop. They consider these off days and usually sight read the stuff because there is so little challenge to it. They just do it for the money. And stop stealing my comedy lines. Get your own writers.

[DMK]

"I'll bet five pop singers put together could not sing as loud as he can if their voices were unamplified."

Agreed. If power and volume were all it took to be a great singer, Pavarotti would be awesome.

"power is simply too much to contain on a medium as restricted as vinyl phonograph records."

Agreed again. If I had to listen to him, I'd prefer it on CD. The colorations might make the experience palatable. Heh, heh!

"I hope you've got the patience of a saint"

Sadly, not. I do, however, have the motivation of drowning man.

"Why don't you try better speakers."

My speakers are the one mainstay in my system - the last component I would think of replacing. They are obnoxiously bad on bad recordings but on the best recordings they are a HUGE part of why I'm able to place myself into the recording venue on occasion. Vinyl helps but my speakers are the biggest part of the experience. Consequently, I've stopped auditioning speakers, although i do occasionally hear some that are almost as good in some ways. And I should ask PC Tower??? Since when do you discuss him in any light other than completely negative? Don't worry; I won't tell him you secretly think he's cool.

" Then you don't know many "real" musicians."

Couple hundred or so. All my friends are musicians. Lately I've found myself wondering if I'm a groupie.

Yep, the kinds of music you mention can be sight read, usually. That doesn't mean they don't need accurate reproduction. Granted, there are some styles that are best heard on a boombox.

"And stop stealing my comedy lines. Get your own writers"

Nobody writes comedy like you!

[skeptic]

Pavarotti isn't just about power. There's far more to him. It takes an intense lifelong effort and then only a handful in a generaton ever develop a voice like his. It not only has power, but purity. And it is always completely under control. He has an enormous knowledge of the music he sings and all of the different languages he sings them in. His voice has a distinctive sound of its own. Often though, it is the sheer power of it that impresses me and it comes through even when it isn't loud. He reminds me of a bellowing bull in the greatest sense. Strong and virile. And he also reminds me of Chateau Latour from a great year. Even Placido Domingo whose voice I also greatly enjoy doesn't seem to be in his league. Domingo is more like Chateau Margaux. I feel sorry for those who have not had the opportunity to experience and understand some of life's greatest pleasures. It was one of the fortuitous priveliges that were gifts from my parents. No amount of money would compensate for not having gotten them.

[rb122]

You used to play the clarinet? How long during this period did it take you to realize that it's not as good an instrument as the violin? I'm making an assumption that since the flute is not as good an instrument and the saxophone is a little "better" than the flute, that all woodwinds are beneath you. Or is the clarinet an exception? Perhaps there's a hierarchy within the woodwind family. It may go something like this: Oboe, English Horn, Clarinet, Bassoon, Saxophone, Flute. I'd guess the strings hierarchy to be Violin, Cello, Bass, Viola. But perhaps you could give us a complete list of which instruments are "best" and rank them down to the lowest. Would that be the Triangle? I'm just trying to understand which instruments are "better" than others. And I'm trying to understand what in the world motivated you to play the clarinet when there are "better" instruments out there.

Ah, I'm just teasing you, man. You do make it easy with all those bizarre opinions :)

[rb122]

Pavarotti isn't just about power. There's far more to him. It takes an intense lifelong effort and then only a handful in a generaton ever develop a voice like his. It not only has power, but purity. And it is always completely under control. He has an enormous knowledge of the music he sings and all of the different languages he sings them in. His voice has a distinctive sound of its own. Often though, it is the sheer power of it that impresses me and it comes through even when it isn't loud. He reminds me of a bellowing bull in the greatest sense. Strong and virile. And he also reminds me of Chateau Latour from a great year. Even Placido Domingo whose voice I also greatly enjoy doesn't seem to be in his league. Domingo is more like Chateau Margaux. I feel sorry for those who have not had the opportunity to experience and understand some of life's greatest pleasures. It was one of the fortuitous priveliges that were gifts from my parents. No amount of money would compensate for not having gotten them.

I'll concede the bellowing bull analogy. I was going with foghorn first but you've convinced me.

Sorry, but I don't consider any of those singers you mentioned "life's greatest pleasures". What I do consider life's greatest pleasure is something I sincerely hope you never got from your parents, at least in any form other than a "little talk" when you were in your early teens.

I must be in a goofy mood today!

[skeptic]

I said ONE of life's greatest pleasures. Not THE greatest pleasure.

[skeptic]

You are right. The clarinet is not as expressive an instrument as the violin. While the king of musical instruments is still the human voice when it is developed to its fullest potential, it's hard to say that violins are not just a notch below. The cello is a truely great instrument. Clearly much better than a clarinet. It's too bad that the greatest composers didn't write a lot more music exploiting its unique characer. While a violin may be like a lovely woman, the cello is more like a beloved uncle. The clarinet is maybe a fondly thought of cousin. The electric guitar is like a hobo sitting in the gutter. Clearly disagreeable enough for many to cross to the other side of the street to avoid its malodorous effluvia. As for heavy metal bands, they remind me of what I'd expect to see inside of an insane asylum, especially if the inmates took control and were off all medication.

[Feanor]

You are right. The clarinet is not as expressive an instrument as the violin. ...
... I love the analogies, similies & metaphors.

[rb122]

You are right. The clarinet is not as expressive an instrument as the violin. While the king of musical instruments is still the human voice when it is developed to its fullest potential, it's hard to say that violins are not just a notch below. The cello is a truely great instrument. Clearly much better than a clarinet. It's too bad that the greatest composers didn't write a lot more music exploiting its unique characer. While a violin may be like a lovely woman, the cello is more like a beloved uncle. The clarinet is maybe a fondly thought of cousin. The electric guitar is like a hobo sitting in the gutter. Clearly disagreeable enough for many to cross to the other side of the street to avoid its malodorous effluvia. As for heavy metal bands, they remind me of what I'd expect to see inside of an insane asylum, especially if the inmates took control and were off all medication.

Then the dulcimer must be like a drunken third cousin while the psaltery could be like a redheaded stepchild. I'm struggling with their place in the hierarchy and I'm curious also where to place the bandoneon, bouzouki, harmonica, sitar and sackbut. And is the viola a lovely but overweight woman? And we haven't even covered brass instruments! I'm sure the french horn is at the top of that list for you - perhaps it's your Aunt Betty?

Interesting analogy about heavy metal. Classical reminds me of old Uncle Joe after thanksgiving dinner - slow, heavy laden, those eyelids drooping, and zzzzzzzzzzzzz..... a nice 3 hour nap punctuated by flatulence.

[FLZapped]

HI! i'm in my final year at uni in brighton, uk. I'm studying digital music and for my final project i did an essay on Analog vs. digital technology, and for my practical work i'm trying to figure out what i'm going to do in relation to my essay. Basically what i would like is for people to give me their views on analog equipment, more in terms of listening to, rather than purely technical stuff. Why do you prefer vinyl and the 'analog' sound? is digital technology too rigid, lifeless, too 'perfect'? Feel free to express all your opinions, it's all good and will help me out a great deal. Thanks for your time


This has been argued about since the introduction of the CD.....a google search will turn up more material than you could possibly digest.

Oddly, the facts seem not to matter. Fact is, the CD format has less frequency responce variation, less distortion, less noise, no wow and flutter, and greater dynamic range. WIth reaonable care the playback characteristics do not change over time as with records, which are prone to scratches and increased surface noise as the medium wears. Needless to say, listening to records now is something that is tedious to do. I even find that cassettes are preferable to records. The only thing records are good for are hiding the flaws in poorly done recordings.

-Bruce

[FLZapped]

2. . . . The cd system mercilessly reveals the shortcomings of poor recordings . . .




I coiuldn't agree more, yesterday, I was listening to a song that was re-released on CD. It was horrible! The distortion from an improperly set compressor ruined it. Of course, on a record this was partially hidden and accepted as a limitation of the medium and as a result, overlooked. By todays standards, that would have never made it to a production facility for pressing.

-Bruce

[rb122]

Oddly, the facts seem not to matter. Fact is, the CD format has less frequency responce variation, less distortion, less noise, no wow and flutter, and greater dynamic range. WIth reaonable care the playback characteristics do not change over time as with records, which are prone to scratches and increased surface noise as the medium wears. Needless to say, listening to records now is something that is tedious to do. I even find that cassettes are preferable to records. The only thing records are good for are hiding the flaws in poorly done recordings.

-Bruce

Believe it or not, I have an internal struggle going on based on the facts you mentioned. I'm not sure where the irreconcilable differences lie between them and the final sound that I hear. The facts do matter but I hear more distortion and noise on CD than on LP and, of course, wow and flutter is a thing of the past as far as audibility unless you're using a turntable that is of very low quality. As I've said before, I find the distortions I hear on CD's more objectionable than the distortions I hear on LP. These CD distortions for some reason don't show up in measurements, yet they are quite apparent on listening.

I only own about 50 cassettes and, interestingly, they would also be my second medium of choice as they are preferable to most of my CD's, at least when it comes to the tonal balance of instruments. I've found that I can filter out the tape hiss as long as the music comes through. With CD, the music usually seems overlayed with noise rather than the noise being underneath the music.

[DMK]

Pavarotti isn't just about power. There's far more to him. It takes an intense lifelong effort and then only a handful in a generaton ever develop a voice like his. It not only has power, but purity. And it is always completely under control. He has an enormous knowledge of the music he sings and all of the different languages he sings them in. His voice has a distinctive sound of its own. Often though, it is the sheer power of it that impresses me and it comes through even when it isn't loud. He reminds me of a bellowing bull in the greatest sense. Strong and virile. And he also reminds me of Chateau Latour from a great year. Even Placido Domingo whose voice I also greatly enjoy doesn't seem to be in his league. Domingo is more like Chateau Margaux. I feel sorry for those who have not had the opportunity to experience and understand some of life's greatest pleasures. It was one of the fortuitous priveliges that were gifts from my parents. No amount of money would compensate for not having gotten them.

I have heard Pavarotti, and only on CD. Believe me, it was no pleasure - it was torture! To be perfectly honest, though, I do not care for classical or opera singing. Absolutely I can be wowed by their technical abilities but they all seem to be lacking in anything resembling emotive content. The only piece of music I can think of where I don't skip the vocal parts (or simply not purchase the disc) is Beethoven's Ninth. The voices are part and parcel of the work which is a phenomenal piece of composition.

[DMK]

The only thing records are good for are hiding the flaws in poorly done recordings.

-Bruce

On the flip side, CD's are good at hiding the good qualities in excellent recordings.

[DMK]

Then the dulcimer must be like a drunken third cousin while the psaltery could be like a redheaded stepchild. I'm struggling with their place in the hierarchy and I'm curious also where to place the bandoneon, bouzouki, harmonica, sitar and sackbut. And is the viola a lovely but overweight woman? And we haven't even covered brass instruments! I'm sure the french horn is at the top of that list for you - perhaps it's your Aunt Betty?

Interesting analogy about heavy metal. Classical reminds me of old Uncle Joe after thanksgiving dinner - slow, heavy laden, those eyelids drooping, and zzzzzzzzzzzzz..... a nice 3 hour nap punctuated by flatulence.

...what's a sackbut and a psaltery? Shoot, I had to look at the latter carefully before I was even sure I spelled it correctly!

Is Uncle Joe's flatulence at least in tune or on cadence? :)

[rb122]

...what's a sackbut and a psaltery? Shoot, I had to look at the latter carefully before I was even sure I spelled it correctly!

Is Uncle Joe's flatulence at least in tune or on cadence? :)

Actually, I don't know! I saw them mentioned on the back cover of John Mayall's "The Blues Alone" LP :)

Yes, Uncle Joe is in perfect harmony. We wouldn't want any creativity.

I'm working on my hierarchy of instruments and carefully ranking them from "Best" to "Worst". Being an objectivist can be cumbersome but it's very predictable. So far, I've ranked the first 50 instruments. Skeptic will be upset to learn that his beloved violin placed no better than 27th, between the trombone and the contrabass clarinet. The guitar, of course, is the "best" instrument by a long shot, a full 26 places ahead of the violin and 19 ahead of the cello. For simplicity, I placed the classical guitar in the same bracket as the electric even though it doesn't have the expressive quality and is not as "good" an instrument. But I didn't want to get into splitting electric from acoustic instruments. I'm trying to decide if I can place all percussion instruments together or if I have to break them down by snare drum, cymbals, glockenspiel, etc. Once I have all the instruments placed, I'll give the list one last careful recheck and then I'll proclaim it gospel and anyone who disagrees with me just doesn't know anything about music.

[rb122]

On the flip side, CD's are good at hiding the good qualities in excellent recordings.

They're good at changing timbre and tonality as well. CD's are the best at distortion. Must be the "Jitterbug Waltz".

[FLZapped]

On the flip side, CD's are good at hiding the good qualities in excellent recordings.


Are you basing this off of standard records? Or have you all the mixdown masters at your disposal?

If you are basing this off of a record, then you are hearing higher noise, less channel seperation, more distortion, loaer dynamic range, and more variation in frequency responce from the record. Hardly seems the kind of thing you'd want to make that proclimation from.

-Bruce

[FLZapped]

They're good at changing timbre and tonality as well. CD's are the best at distortion. Must be the "Jitterbug Waltz".


Really? Please show me the distortion numbers from a CD as compared to a recod and lets see which one is actually lower......

While were at it, we can also check wow and flutter, frequency responce variation, dynamic range, signal to noise ratio, and channel seperation - all various forms of distortion. I seriously doubt you'll find any vinyl system that can match the cheapest CD player.

So what do you base this claim off of? Were you there for the recording session, or are you just propagating another urban legend?

-Bruce

[rb122]

Are you basing this off of standard records? Or have you all the mixdown masters at your disposal?

If you are basing this off of a record, then you are hearing higher noise, less channel seperation, more distortion, loaer dynamic range, and more variation in frequency responce from the record. Hardly seems the kind of thing you'd want to make that proclimation from.

-Bruce

I would imagine that dmk will respond at some point but since I agree with him, I will answer as well. Certainly I'm basing this off a record some of the time and other times I'm basing it off either hearing the master tape (very rarely) or being at the live event during recording (more often but still rare) or simply comparing the sound of the instruments on CD to the sound of them live (VERY often).

Measurements may show us one side but listening shows that most CD's I've heard have much higher distortion, more noise, less frequency range, less dynamic range, jitter and other gross sonic anomalies. I can appreciate what's been measured but those specs must apply to the sound before I can give them as much credence as you seem to be able to do.

This is going to sound like boastfulness but what the heck. I play the guitar. I can tell within a few notes what kind of guitar is being played (electric models/brands) and I know the sound of most electric guitars intimately. When I know that Herb Ellis is playing a Gibson ES-175 and the sound from the CD is a Fender Stratocaster, that's a "gross sonic anomaly" in my book. That's just one example of many. BTW, I use a tubed amplifier for my stereo system mainly because of my experiences with tube and SS guitar amps. A tubed guitar amp allows the sound of the guitar to come through while the SS guitar amp often imposes its own sound, particularly when using an overdrive channel or driving the amp to clipping if there is no overdrive channel. I therefore reasoned, and careful listening has backed me up, that a tubed stereo system amp sounds more like music and less like amplification. The bottom line is that I use my ears to determine what sounds most like real music and that is vinyl and tubes. When I post that CD's sound distorted, I do so because that's what I hear.

"Give me distortion that simulates reality rather than reality that simulates distortion" i.e give me a undistorted final product and I'll accept the means - at least when it comes to audio!

[rb122]

Really? Please show me the distortion numbers from a CD as compared to a recod and lets see which one is actually lower......

While were at it, we can also check wow and flutter, frequency responce variation, dynamic range, signal to noise ratio, and channel seperation - all various forms of distortion. I seriously doubt you'll find any vinyl system that can match the cheapest CD player.

So what do you base this claim off of? Were you there for the recording session, or are you just propagating another urban legend?

-Bruce

Bruce,

See my last post - looks like we overlapped.

YOU go ahead and measure all you like. I prefer to listen. The "distortion numbers" from CD's all become painfully apparent upon listening.

[E-Stat]

The "distortion numbers" from CD's all become painfully apparent upon listening.
Hey guy, get with the plan ! Don't you know that the numbers prove RBCD is perfect and the only reason the high resolution formats are being developed is because the RB patents are running out? :)

rw

[E-Stat]

Why do you prefer vinyl and the 'analog' sound? is digital technology too rigid, lifeless, too 'perfect'?
Hi Jemma,

First off I wouldn't say that I prefer vinyl to redbook CD as I regularly listen to both. There is much to like about digitally recorded music. Vinyl is quite frankly a pain in the rear. Clean the disc every time with your vacuum record cleaner. Play one disc at a time. Manually skip over undesired bands. Cue the tonearm at the end. Don't replay bands immediately as it will damage grooves. Endure a range of surface noises not present with digital. So why put up with all that? I find the current RBCD standard lacking in two areas: low level resolution and complex high frequency harmonic capability. I see no inherent problem with digitally recording music per se. Look back at how the current 44.1 khz / 14 bit standard came to be. The engineers were initially given a hard limit on how much data could be put on the media: 640 MB. It was the marketing folks who proclamated that the initial high expense of digital would require at least one carrot for the mainstream audience : extended playing time. It was decreed that CDs needed to play at least 70 minutes. With those technical fences built around the concept, the resolution standard was pretty much determined long before the audio engineers even started. One of the first commercial digital recording processes was pioneered by Dr. Thomas Stockham (who recently passed away, BTW) and used by Telarc Recordings as early as 1977. Starting from a clean slate and no such limitations, his Soundstream process used both a higher sample rate (50 khz) and longer word length (16 bits).

Digital recording is essentially a connect-the-dots picture. For every sample in time, there are a fixed number of dots. The scheme works best at both high levels where all the bits are firing and at lower frequencies where the signal is simpler. There are plenty of dots to create the impression of an unbroken line. The worst case scenarios are soft passages where the number of bits firing is significantly lower than 14 and musical passages containing complex high frequencies with significant harmonic content. The result of the former is that digital goes deaf. It fails to quantizize or recognize material below a certain level and loses the faintest passages. Since most music is compressed, this factor is only evident on very high quality recordings, usually classical. Even through surface noise, analog resolves musical information below the noise floor. There is a natural "air" to live unamplified music due to unrestrained bandwidth and dynamic range. While most analog doesn't generally have the dynamic range of digital, it can possess a more open high frequency response. I have several high quality Telarc and Windham Hill recordings in both formats. The difference is clear.

As a computer engineer, I am confident that the current limitations are simply governed by computer storage standards... and those are constantly improving. The DVD disc on which the new high resolution standards are based contains as much as fifteen times as much data as the original CD format. There are experimental formats that greatly exceed that. I very much like the idea of having a central repository for all music devoid of even the concept of a disk where one can easily and quickly access any musical selection. I have ripped all my CDs to MP3 and store them on my computer. I enjoy having MusicMatch randomly pick music from my collection. I look forward to the day when I can have the best of both worlds.

rw

[rb122]

Hey guy, get with the plan ! Don't you know that the numbers prove RBCD is perfect and the only reason the high resolution formats are being developed is because the RB patents are running out? :)

rw

I just didn't know perfection had so many faults and limitations! :)

[DMK]

Are you basing this off of standard records? Or have you all the mixdown masters at your disposal?

If you are basing this off of a record, then you are hearing higher noise, less channel seperation, more distortion, loaer dynamic range, and more variation in frequency responce from the record. Hardly seems the kind of thing you'd want to make that proclimation from.

-Bruce

But with CD's, I'm hearing more grain, more etch, more glare, jitter, tonal imbalances, lack of low level resolution and more distortion. CD's generally make it a pretty simple task to make the statement I did. For all the measurable problems vinyl has, it's amazing that it's still the medium to beat for quality sonics. When and if I ever find anything that sounds better than the 45 RPM LP's I own, I'll be shocked but happy. But yes, standard records generally beat CD's in the sonics department as well. And at around $1-2 a pop at the used record stores, they're economical as well compared to $14-15 CD's (or even $8 used copies).

[DMK]

Hi Jemma,

First off I wouldn't say that I prefer vinyl to redbook CD as I regularly listen to both. There is much to like about digitally recorded music. Vinyl is quite frankly a pain in the rear. Clean the disc every time with your vacuum record cleaner. Play one disc at a time. Manually skip over undesired bands. Cue the tonearm at the end. Don't replay bands immediately as it will damage grooves. Endure a range of surface noises not present with digital. So why put up with all that? I find the current RBCD standard lacking in two areas: low level resolution and complex high frequency harmonic capability. I see no inherent problem with digitally recording music per se. Look back at how the current 44.1 khz / 14 bit standard came to be. The engineers were initially given a hard limit on how much data could be put on the media: 640 MB. It was the marketing folks who proclamated that the initial high expense of digital would require at least one carrot for the mainstream audience : extended playing time. It was decreed that CDs needed to play at least 70 minutes. With those technical fences built around the concept, the resolution standard was pretty much determined long before the audio engineers even started. One of the first commercial digital recording processes was pioneered by Dr. Thomas Stockham (who recently passed away, BTW) and used by Telarc Recordings as early as 1977. Starting from a clean slate and no such limitations, his Soundstream process used both a higher sample rate (50 khz) and longer word length (16 bits).

Digital recording is essentially a connect-the-dots picture. For every sample in time, there are a fixed number of dots. The scheme works best at both high levels where all the bits are firing and at lower frequencies where the signal is simpler. There are plenty of dots to create the impression of an unbroken line. The worst case scenarios are soft passages where the number of bits firing is significantly lower than 14 and musical passages containing complex high frequencies with significant harmonic content. The result of the former is that digital goes deaf. It fails to quantizize or recognize material below a certain level and loses the faintest passages. Since most music is compressed, this factor is only evident on very high quality recordings, usually classical. Even through surface noise, analog resolves musical information below the noise floor. There is a natural "air" to live unamplified music due to unrestrained bandwidth and dynamic range. While most analog doesn't generally have the dynamic range of digital, it can possess a more open high frequency response. I have several high quality Telarc and Windham Hill recordings in both formats. The difference is clear.

As a computer engineer, I am confident that the current limitations are simply governed by computer storage standards... and those are constantly improving. The DVD disc on which the new high resolution standards are based contains as much as fifteen times as much data as the original CD format. There are experimental formats that greatly exceed that. I very much like the idea of having a central repository for all music devoid of even the concept of a disk where one can easily and quickly access any musical selection. I have ripped all my CDs to MP3 and store them on my computer. I enjoy having MusicMatch randomly pick music from my collection. I look forward to the day when I can have the best of both worlds.

rw

DMK (holding a Budweiser and all choked up with emotion): I LOVE you, MAN!!!!!

Of course, I'm choked up mainly because it's a Bud instead of a Guiness Stout :)

I've often missed the posts of Dougman who used to post here about a year and a half ago. He was an engineer well schooled in both analog and digital and he was able to refute a lot of the digital measurement crowd's arguments. Me, I just listen. I'm not anti-digital; I simply find vinyl more sonically accurate and more listenable. In fact, I praise digital everytime I find a CD who's vinyl counterpart has been long OOP and that I thought I never find. Many jazz CD's have bonus tracks as well.

When a medium that is superior to vinyl catches on and takes off, I'll be one of the first vinyl advocates on board. I'll still listen to vinyl but I'll purchase much less of it. RBCD is NOT that medium.

[rb122]

DMK (holding a Budweiser and all choked up with emotion): I LOVE you, MAN!!!!!

Of course, I'm choked up mainly because it's a Bud instead of a Guiness Stout :)

I've often missed the posts of Dougman who used to post here about a year and a half ago. He was an engineer well schooled in both analog and digital and he was able to refute a lot of the digital measurement crowd's arguments. Me, I just listen. I'm not anti-digital; I simply find vinyl more sonically accurate and more listenable. In fact, I praise digital everytime I find a CD who's vinyl counterpart has been long OOP and that I thought I never find. Many jazz CD's have bonus tracks as well.

When a medium that is superior to vinyl catches on and takes off, I'll be one of the first vinyl advocates on board. I'll still listen to vinyl but I'll purchase much less of it. RBCD is NOT that medium.

What happened to Dougman?

I'm with you on your last paragraph. And it appears from E-stat's post that 16/44.1 is not sufficient to accurately reproduce music. There's a great thread about this at Digital Domain that Sir Terrence is involved with and you should check that out.

[DMK]

What happened to Dougman?

I'm with you on your last paragraph. And it appears from E-stat's post that 16/44.1 is not sufficient to accurately reproduce music. There's a great thread about this at Digital Domain that Sir Terrence is involved with and you should check that out.

I don't know - he just split and never came back. He was great to have around because he had the ears to recognize the superiority of vinyl and the knowledge to show the specs where CD fails and was able to use those specs to describe WHY CD's fail. This board is less well off because of his absence. He sold me an old Technics turntable for a bedroom system I used to have. I was dubious but I bought it ($50) and it is still good enough to beat the pants off most CD's, although not as good as my VPI. My kids now use it.

[mikkelbreiler]

...I've bought a thousand or two LP's in the last few years and only perhaps three dozen CD's. In all but a few cases, the LP sounds accurate and the CD sounds distorted.

I know there are good CD's out there and that would presuppose that the medium is not at fault. I guess that matters. However, when the final products that I buy or hear sound sonically compromised, the fact that a few good CD's are in existence isn't a cure.

The fact that so few cds sound great is just one symptom that something is wrong. Voices in ads sound extremely unnatural to me and the fact that commercial breaks are a dozen an hour on tv and all audio levels of those breaks are about 3 times louder than any sane listening level for the programme material I really hate just about every second person in the broadcast business, on radio at least the level is the same.

The problem is not that audio CDs can sound good, but that most of them do not. And I am seeing this trend in radio and tv as well. I am almost 38 I grew up listening to analog then digital and it took me until 1989 until I allowed a CD player into my setup, and not until 1994 did I buy CDs over vinyl, I was running out of places to buy the vinyl locally. In the last 4 years I am buying vinyl online, and I am finding it more easy to find new issues on vinyl and when I have the choice I choose the vinyl because I get to hear the CD versions whereever else I go, but at home I then have the choice of putting on an entirely different soundexperience.

I can't turn back time like Belinda Carlyle, but I do wish I could go between the times and pick the best of both digital and analog at any time. But with corporations it is always about controlling the masses and cheapening the product, never the art itself. Few companies still have heart behind what they do.

I often wonder what Berry Gordy felt when he sold out to RCA.....

Mikkel

[BRANDONH]

HI! i'm in my final year at uni in brighton, uk. I'm studying digital music and for my final project i did an essay on Analog vs. digital technology, and for my practical work i'm trying to figure out what i'm going to do in relation to my essay. Basically what i would like is for people to give me their views on analog equipment, more in terms of listening to, rather than purely technical stuff. Why do you prefer vinyl and the 'analog' sound? is digital technology too rigid, lifeless, too 'perfect'? Feel free to express all your opinions, it's all good and will help me out a great deal. Thanks for your time
Well I have them both CD & Vinyl from the same composer, orchestra band etc..
Sometimes the CD sounds better that the Vinyl and vis versa
This is an age old question with no definite answer and I have yet to see an argument posted with a clear winner.
My self I prefer Vinyl over CD but thats me.
But at this very moment I am playing 30 licks on CD.
You will have to let your ears aid you in your research.
I recommend this album because it comes in CD and Vinyl,
you should get them both and and see what you think.


http://store.acousticsounds.com/images/as201JPG/ASTR-104.jpg
http://store.acousticsounds.com/browse_detail.cfm?Title_ID=39987
http://store.acousticsounds.com/browse_detail.cfm?Title_ID=39979
We would love to hear your assessment.
Before you turn in the paper please see if you can post a PDF of it or something