Last year's vinyl record sales demonstrate that vinyl is "cementing its
role as a fixture of the modern music marketplace," RIAA Chairman and
CEO Mitch Glazier said in a post on Medium.
On 14/03/2023 10:44, Java Jive wrote:
Last year's vinyl record sales demonstrate that vinyl is "cementing its
role as a fixture of the modern music marketplace," RIAA Chairman and
CEO Mitch Glazier said in a post on Medium.
Is it not more that sales of CDs have dropped?
Vinyl records outsell CDs for first time in decades https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/64919126
"""
Last year's vinyl record sales demonstrate that vinyl is "cementing its
role as a fixture of the modern music marketplace," RIAA Chairman and CEO Mitch Glazier said in a post on Medium.
"Music lovers clearly can't get enough of the high-quality sound and
tangible connection to artists vinyl delivers," Glazier said, "and labels have squarely met that demand with a steady stream of exclusives, special reissues, and beautifully crafted packages and discs."
"""
<Raspberry>
High quality sound like this ... www.macfh.co.uk/Temp/MaryOHaraSpanishLady_Sample.mp3
I suppose it's only a matter of time before we all revert back to Logie Baird's first TV experiments claiming they are somehow truer to life than modern HD TV.
--
Fake news kills!
I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website: www.macfh.co.uk
Interesting. It might well, in the future be more useful buying the all sining all dancing versions on dvd than the cd or any other format.
Vinyl records outsell CDs for first time in decades https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/64919126
"""
Last year's vinyl record sales demonstrate that vinyl is "cementing its
role as a fixture of the modern music marketplace," RIAA Chairman and
CEO Mitch Glazier said in a post on Medium.
"Music lovers clearly can't get enough of the high-quality sound and
tangible connection to artists vinyl delivers," Glazier said, "and
labels have squarely met that demand with a steady stream of exclusives, special reissues, and beautifully crafted packages and discs."
"""
<Raspberry>
High quality sound like this ... www.macfh.co.uk/Temp/MaryOHaraSpanishLady_Sample.mp3
I suppose it's only a matter of time before we all revert back to Logie Baird's first TV experiments claiming they are somehow truer to life
than modern HD TV.
A few of my CDs now have scratches and marks on them probably my 'HiFi' sysetm held six CD and several of the 'magazines' that hold them are
broken.
I using MP3 copies in my Roberts radio but would rather like something
more 'user friendly' with a better display and controls, perhaps a SSD
to hold everything rather than a memory stick.
In article <tuv2d9$1dkkc$1@dont-email.me>, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
A few of my CDs now have scratches and marks on them probably my 'HiFi'
sysetm held six CD and several of the 'magazines' that hold them are
broken.
In article <tuv2d9$1dkkc$1@dont-email.me>, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
A few of my CDs now have scratches and marks on them probably my
'HiFi' sysetm held six CD and several of the 'magazines' that
hold them are broken.
I using MP3 copies in my Roberts radio but would rather like
something more 'user friendly' with a better display and
controls, perhaps a SSD to hold everything rather than a memory
stick.
I just convert CDs/Lps to flac files. Then play then using a
convenient 'computer' + DAC, or a DAP into a HiFi system. Makes
playing some combination of items in series convenient and easy.
"Jim Lesurf" <no...@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote in message news:5a8fbfa...@audiomisc.co.uk...
In article <tuv2d9$1dkkc$1...@dont-email.me>, MB <M...@nospam.net> wrote:
Yes, scratches and marks can affect CDs. But they'd affect vinyl a lot more. When CDs had first come out, in the early 80s, a group of us from university went to a local hifi shop to hear a demo of CD versus vinyl. The difference was fairly astounding, especially given that the demo vinyl record had probably been played many times and was a bit dirty and scratched.A few of my CDs now have scratches and marks on them probably my 'HiFi' >> sysetm held six CD and several of the 'magazines' that hold them are
broken.
The salesman concluded his sales pitch by pulling out a sewing needle and scratching his demo CD. There was no audible effect. My mate, who was a big burly guy, built like a brick shithouse, said "Give me that." And he gouged a trench in the CD. The salesman went pale. When the CD was played, there was a bit of noise and skipping. "*Now* I'm impressed," my mate said, "Do that to a record and you'd rip the f-ing needle off". In hindsight, a radial scratch is probably less of a problem then a circumferential one, because it probably makes a small, maskable error in many samples some distance apart, rather than totally obliterating a few consecutive samples.
I wonder if the reason that vinyl outsells CD is that most people are prepared to accept MP3 or FLAC downloads, as long as the bitrate is high enough. Only audiophiles will be buying physical media, because you can't download vinyl.
My verdict on CD versus LP is that CD wins hands down. The extra dynamic range and the almost complete lack of noise (mastering tape; dust, scratches on LP) is a big bonus. Yes, vinyl sounds slightly more mellow, but I imagine a lot of that is due to the RIAA compression and expansion stages involved in listening to vinyl. I wonder if some of the people who criticise CD for sounding cold and clinical would make the same comment about the master tape that was used to make an LP, or the live sound from the mixing desk (mic-amp-speakers, with no recording): is it the RIAA imperfections that they prefer?
I heard of a study which tested that: they got a band (out of earshot of the audience) to play live, with a given mike and mixing setup, then they played a CD with the same setup, an LP with that setup, and a CD with RIAA compression/decompression applied. The audience did not know what the different setups were; all they heard was the same music played several times. The live and CD scored similarly, the LP and CD-with-RIAA scored similarly, but differently to the live/CD. That suggests it is not the conversion to digital, the reproduction through a CD and the conversion back to analogue; it seems that people prefer RIAA limitations. Maybe there is a market for CD players to have a preset which mimics the slightly different gain/frequency characteristics of an LP, maybe even with some random dust crackle and the occasional scratch-ticks added electronically ;-)
PS if you want really bad media try listening to a pre-recored compact cassette!
The salesman concluded his sales pitch by pulling out a sewing needle
and scratching his demo CD. There was no audible effect. My mate, who
was a big burly guy, built like a brick shithouse, said "Give me that."
And he gouged a trench in the CD. The salesman went pale. When the CD
was played, there was a bit of noise and skipping. "*Now* I'm
impressed," my mate said, "Do that to a record and you'd rip the f-ing
needle off". In hindsight, a radial scratch is probably less of a
problem then a circumferential one, because it probably makes a small, maskable error in many samples some distance apart, rather than totally obliterating a few consecutive samples.
On 05/04/2023 10:27, NY wrote:
The salesman concluded his sales pitch by pulling out a sewing needle and
scratching his demo CD. There was no audible effect. My mate, who was a
big burly guy, built like a brick shithouse, said "Give me that." And he
gouged a trench in the CD. The salesman went pale. When the CD was
played, there was a bit of noise and skipping. "*Now* I'm impressed," my
mate said, "Do that to a record and you'd rip the f-ing needle off". In
hindsight, a radial scratch is probably less of a problem then a
circumferential one, because it probably makes a small, maskable error in
many samples some distance apart, rather than totally obliterating a few
consecutive samples.
And let us not forget ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYO6vm9PTsI&t=588s
"Jim Lesurf" <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote in message >news:5a8fbfaf46noise@audiomisc.co.uk...
In article <tuv2d9$1dkkc$1@dont-email.me>, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
A few of my CDs now have scratches and marks on them probably my 'HiFi'
sysetm held six CD and several of the 'magazines' that hold them are
broken.
Yes, scratches and marks can affect CDs. But they'd affect vinyl a lot more. >When CDs had first come out, in the early 80s, a group of us from university >went to a local hifi shop to hear a demo of CD versus vinyl. The difference >was fairly astounding, especially given that the demo vinyl record had >probably been played many times and was a bit dirty and scratched.
The salesman concluded his sales pitch by pulling out a sewing needle and >scratching his demo CD. There was no audible effect. My mate, who was a big >burly guy, built like a brick shithouse, said "Give me that." And he gouged
a trench in the CD. The salesman went pale. When the CD was played, there
was a bit of noise and skipping. "*Now* I'm impressed," my mate said, "Do >that to a record and you'd rip the f-ing needle off". In hindsight, a radial >scratch is probably less of a problem then a circumferential one, because it >probably makes a small, maskable error in many samples some distance apart, >rather than totally obliterating a few consecutive samples.
I wonder if the reason that vinyl outsells CD is that most people are >prepared to accept MP3 or FLAC downloads, as long as the bitrate is high >enough. Only audiophiles will be buying physical media, because you can't >download vinyl.
My verdict on CD versus LP is that CD wins hands down. The extra dynamic >range and the almost complete lack of noise (mastering tape; dust, scratches >on LP) is a big bonus. Yes, vinyl sounds slightly more mellow, but I imagine >a lot of that is due to the RIAA compression and expansion stages involved
in listening to vinyl. I wonder if some of the people who criticise CD for >sounding cold and clinical would make the same comment about the master tape >that was used to make an LP, or the live sound from the mixing desk >(mic-amp-speakers, with no recording): is it the RIAA imperfections that
they prefer?
I heard of a study which tested that: they got a band (out of earshot of the >audience) to play live, with a given mike and mixing setup, then they played >a CD with the same setup, an LP with that setup, and a CD with RIAA >compression/decompression applied. The audience did not know what the >different setups were; all they heard was the same music played several >times. The live and CD scored similarly, the LP and CD-with-RIAA scored >similarly, but differently to the live/CD. That suggests it is not the >conversion to digital, the reproduction through a CD and the conversion back >to analogue; it seems that people prefer RIAA limitations. Maybe there is a >market for CD players to have a preset which mimics the slightly different >gain/frequency characteristics of an LP, maybe even with some random dust >crackle and the occasional scratch-ticks added electronically ;-)
In article <u0jeul$3reag$1...@dont-email.me>, NY <m...@privacy.invalid> scribeth thus
"Jim Lesurf" <no...@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote in message >news:5a8fbfa...@audiomisc.co.uk...
In article <tuv2d9$1dkkc$1...@dont-email.me>, MB <M...@nospam.net> wrote: >>
A few of my CDs now have scratches and marks on them probably my 'HiFi' >>> sysetm held six CD and several of the 'magazines' that hold them are
broken.
Yes, scratches and marks can affect CDs. But they'd affect vinyl a lot more.
When CDs had first come out, in the early 80s, a group of us from university
went to a local hifi shop to hear a demo of CD versus vinyl. The difference >was fairly astounding, especially given that the demo vinyl record had >probably been played many times and was a bit dirty and scratched.
The salesman concluded his sales pitch by pulling out a sewing needle and >scratching his demo CD. There was no audible effect. My mate, who was a big >burly guy, built like a brick shithouse, said "Give me that." And he gouged >a trench in the CD. The salesman went pale. When the CD was played, there >was a bit of noise and skipping. "*Now* I'm impressed," my mate said, "Do >that to a record and you'd rip the f-ing needle off". In hindsight, a radial
scratch is probably less of a problem then a circumferential one, because it
probably makes a small, maskable error in many samples some distance apart, >rather than totally obliterating a few consecutive samples.
I wonder if the reason that vinyl outsells CD is that most people are >prepared to accept MP3 or FLAC downloads, as long as the bitrate is high >enough. Only audiophiles will be buying physical media, because you can't >download vinyl.
My verdict on CD versus LP is that CD wins hands down. The extra dynamic >range and the almost complete lack of noise (mastering tape; dust, scratches
on LP) is a big bonus. Yes, vinyl sounds slightly more mellow, but I imagine
a lot of that is due to the RIAA compression and expansion stages involved >in listening to vinyl. I wonder if some of the people who criticise CD for >sounding cold and clinical would make the same comment about the master tape
that was used to make an LP, or the live sound from the mixing desk >(mic-amp-speakers, with no recording): is it the RIAA imperfections that >they prefer?
I heard of a study which tested that: they got a band (out of earshot of the
audience) to play live, with a given mike and mixing setup, then they played
a CD with the same setup, an LP with that setup, and a CD with RIAA >compression/decompression applied. The audience did not know what the >different setups were; all they heard was the same music played several >times. The live and CD scored similarly, the LP and CD-with-RIAA scored >similarly, but differently to the live/CD. That suggests it is not the >conversion to digital, the reproduction through a CD and the conversion back
to analogue; it seems that people prefer RIAA limitations. Maybe there is a >market for CD players to have a preset which mimics the slightly different >gain/frequency characteristics of an LP, maybe even with some random dust >crackle and the occasional scratch-ticks added electronically ;-)
Yep you've got that about right playing a Vinyl is well, a procedure its
a ritual thing cleaning the disc and stylus and then that luvvery tone
it has that "sound" thats why peeps just lurve it!.
See the prices of those EMT turntables in the last Peaker-Patterson
auctions around 5 odd thousand quid!!
--
Tony Sayer
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person.
Give him a keyboard, and he will reveal himself.
On Wednesday, 5 April 2023 at 20:14:06 UTC+1, tony sayer wrote:
Yep you've got that about right playing a Vinyl is well, a
procedure its a ritual thing cleaning the disc and stylus and
then that luvvery tone it has that "sound" thats why peeps just
lurve it!.
See the prices of those EMT turntables in the last
Peaker-Patterson auctions around 5 odd thousand quid!!
Whereas a £20 CD / DVD player will do just fine.
Soon after CD's came out an electronic magazine compared the spec's of
CD v. vinyl. It was like comparing a Ferrari with a Ford Pinto -
dynamic range 96dB v 4?dB, immeasurable wow and flutter, no crosstalk
etc. etc. Then I could easily tell the difference between CD's and LP's played over FM radio while driving up the M6 (my old ears not so good
now).
Basically there is no contest only deaf faith that vinyl is better.
In article <5a8fbfaf46noise@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf
<noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
In article <tuv2d9$1dkkc$1@dont-email.me>, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
For what it's worth...
Get a NAS, second hand is fine with a new drive.
As Jim says, rip your music to flac not Mp3. Mp3 is not lossless and
throws away information and like the B&Q sale, when it's gone,
In article <145c2cd3-0443-4661-91d3-5d024c531827n@googlegroups.com>, R.
Mark Clayton <notyalckram@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, 5 April 2023 at 20:14:06 UTC+1, tony sayer wrote:
Yep you've got that about right playing a Vinyl is well, a procedure
its a ritual thing cleaning the disc and stylus and then that
luvvery tone it has that "sound" thats why peeps just lurve it!.
See the prices of those EMT turntables in the last Peaker-Patterson auctions around 5 odd thousand quid!!
Indeed true, it's a pain in the backside. But if you have a good system
and clean records it *can* sound absolutely marvellous.
Whereas a £20 CD / DVD player will do just fine.
A £20 CD player will work just fine but will sound like a £20 CD player.
Yes, it will read the disc properly and yes in the unlikely event it
sees an error, it will most likely correct it.
However, converting that digital information into analogue sound is
still improving both by measurement and by the sound reproduced. It has largely moved away now from CD players and into network streamers where
there are no noisy motors making a mess of the power rails.
I'm sorry but thinking a £20 CD is good enough shows complete lack of listening experience. A £20 CD player will sound awful. A good turntable system setup correctly with clean vinyl may have the odd tick and
crackle but will not sound awful.
Like most things in life, you get what you pay for.
In article <5a9143bdeebob@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
Indeed true, it's a pain in the backside. But if you have a good
system and clean records it *can* sound absolutely marvellous.
I'd agree. However almost all my LP playing in recent years has
been to make a digital capture. Then remove any bothersome clicks
from it. The LP then doesn't get played again. Do this with the few new-purchases as well as my old LPs.
Particularly useful for listening to LPs that I bought 2nd hand
cheap when I want to hear them when in the kitchen. :-)
In article <5a9156f128noise@audiomisc.co.uk>,
Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
I'd agree. However almost all my LP playing in recent years has
been to make a digital capture. Then remove any bothersome clicks
from it. The LP then doesn't get played again. Do this with the few
new-purchases as well as my old LPs.
Yes, very good idea, I have done a few myself but I've not had great
success with the click removal. I would like to know more how you do
that. (But I don't have a Linux PC).
On 07/04/2023 17:27, Bob Latham wrote:
Yes, very good idea, I have done a few myself but I've not had
great success with the click removal. I would like to know more
how you do that. (But I don't have a Linux PC).
I've done some instructions here which may or may not prove useful: https://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/AudioVisualTV/Vinyls/VinylRestoration.html
In article <62341b0e-3e50-4e40-ac0d-fcfa15dbe4a2n@googlegroups.com>, R.
Mark Clayton <notyalckram@gmail.com> wrote:
Soon after CD's came out an electronic magazine compared the spec's of
CD v. vinyl. It was like comparing a Ferrari with a Ford Pinto -
dynamic range 96dB v 4?dB, immeasurable wow and flutter, no crosstalk
etc. etc. Then I could easily tell the difference between CD's and LP's
played over FM radio while driving up the M6 (my old ears not so good
now).
Basically there is no contest only deaf faith that vinyl is better.
Well, I would suspect that some who prefer LP do so *because* of the way it often *alters* the music.
Also, just as I prefer having a CD to a download, it give you a real
physical object to own.
I've done some instructions here which may or may not prove useful: https://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/AudioVisualTV/Vinyls/VinylRestoration.html
I too like a physical object, whether it is truly physical (LP or CD) or
a downloaded file that resides on my disc(s). What I hate is music or
TV programmes which can only be accessed by live-streaming and which
cannot be transferred to my system, because then I lose control: even
if I have paid to access them, the right can be withdrawn at any time
In article <5a9156f128noise@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf
<noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
In article <5a9143bdeebob@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
Indeed true, it's a pain in the backside. But if you have a good
system and clean records it *can* sound absolutely marvellous.
I'd agree. However almost all my LP playing in recent years has been
to make a digital capture. Then remove any bothersome clicks from it.
The LP then doesn't get played again. Do this with the few
new-purchases as well as my old LPs.
Yes, very good idea, I have done a few myself but I've not had great
success with the click removal. I would like to know more how you do
that. (But I don't have a Linux PC).
In article <5a91741b3bbob@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
In article <5a9156f128noise@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf
<noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
In article <5a9143bdeebob@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
Indeed true, it's a pain in the backside. But if you have a good
system and clean records it *can* sound absolutely marvellous.
I'd agree. However almost all my LP playing in recent years has been
to make a digital capture. Then remove any bothersome clicks from it.
The LP then doesn't get played again. Do this with the few
new-purchases as well as my old LPs.
Yes, very good idea, I have done a few myself but I've not had great success with the click removal. I would like to know more how you do
that. (But I don't have a Linux PC).
Audacity. Audio editor. I think it is available cross-platform (but, alas, not on Linux).
Audacity. Audio editor. I think it is available cross-platform (but,
alas, not on Linux).
Huh?! Audacity is very much available on Linux,
In article <62341b0e-3e50-4e40...@googlegroups.com>, R.
Mark Clayton <notya...@gmail.com> wrote:
Soon after CD's came out an electronic magazine compared the spec's of
CD v. vinyl. It was like comparing a Ferrari with a Ford Pinto -
dynamic range 96dB v 4?dB, immeasurable wow and flutter, no crosstalk
etc. etc. Then I could easily tell the difference between CD's and LP's played over FM radio while driving up the M6 (my old ears not so good
now).
Basically there is no contest only deaf faith that vinyl is better.Well, I would suspect that some who prefer LP do so *because* of the way it often *alters* the music.
Also, just as I prefer having a CD to a download, it give you a real
physical object to own.
Jim
In article <5a9143...@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham <b...@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
In article <145c2cd3-0443-4661...@googlegroups.com>, R.
Mark Clayton <notya...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, 5 April 2023 at 20:14:06 UTC+1, tony sayer wrote:
Yep you've got that about right playing a Vinyl is well, a procedure its a ritual thing cleaning the disc and stylus and then that
luvvery tone it has that "sound" thats why peeps just lurve it!.
Indeed true, it's a pain in the backside. But if you have a good system and clean records it *can* sound absolutely marvellous.See the prices of those EMT turntables in the last Peaker-Patterson auctions around 5 odd thousand quid!!
I'd agree. However almost all my LP playing in recent years has been to
make a digital capture. Then remove any bothersome clicks from it. The LP then doesn't get played again. Do this with the few new-purchases as well
as my old LPs.
Particularly useful for listening to LPs that I bought 2nd hand cheap when
I want to hear them when in the kitchen. :-)
Whereas a £20 CD / DVD player will do just fine.A £20 CD player will work just fine but will sound like a £20 CD player. Yes, it will read the disc properly and yes in the unlikely event it
sees an error, it will most likely correct it.
However, converting that digital information into analogue sound is
still improving both by measurement and by the sound reproduced. It has largely moved away now from CD players and into network streamers where there are no noisy motors making a mess of the power rails.
If a CD player's output is audible affected by its own PSU I'd not use it. But these days when I play a CD I use a Pioneer CD recorder as I like the 'legato link' DACs they use. Files get played either via an old CA Dac
Magic or from a DAP feeding analogue. This is for the kitchen.
Main system uses a Benchmark DAC. Play out using a plain audio player app
on Linux via USB. Direct ALSA feed so the OS doesn't fiddle with the bits.
I'm sorry but thinking a £20 CD is good enough shows complete lack of listening experience. A £20 CD player will sound awful. A good turntable system setup correctly with clean vinyl may have the odd tick and
crackle but will not sound awful.
Like most things in life, you get what you pay for.
Erm... you may more often pay for what you get. But getting what you paid for isn't a synonym for that! :->
The problem is that so many LPs have been poorly made - at stages *after* the studio in many cases. Ye olde warps, off-centers, pressed-in pops+crackles, etc, etc. CDs are more 'reliable' in production terms.
When the modern 'return' to LP started the LPs were often more carefully made as a premium product, prestige, low pressing-run, high-priced. That held down the above snag. But I suspect as they became 'popular' the old "canna-be-bothered-so-press-em-quick" may have surfaced again. However the few "Dragon's Dream" LPs I've bought are superb... and I made 96k/24 transfers to use to keep them that way. 8-]
Jim
--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me. Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html
On Friday, 7 April 2023 at 16:08:16 UTC+1, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article <5a9143...@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham <b...@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
In article <145c2cd3-0443-4661...@googlegroups.com>, R.
Whereas a £20 CD / DVD player will do just fine.A £20 CD player will work just fine but will sound like a £20
CD player. Yes, it will read the disc properly and yes in the
unlikely event it sees an error, it will most likely correct
it.
So far so good.
However, converting that digital information into analogue
sound is still improving both by measurement and by the sound
reproduced. It has largely moved away now from CD players and
into network streamers where there are no noisy motors making
a mess of the power rails.
Why should this leak onto the output?
In my case I replaced my original [failed] CD player with a Blu-Ray
player. This did cost more the £20 and is connected to my AV amp
by digital optical [and HDMI]. Perhaps you can explain how noisy
motors would make a mess of either?
I'm sorry but thinking a £20 CD is good enough shows complete
lack of listening experience. A £20 CD player will sound
awful. A good turntable system setup correctly with clean
vinyl may have the odd tick and crackle but will not sound
awful.
Perhaps you should re-read my original post. When they came out CD
beat professional vinyl decks, as used by Signal Radio, hands down
even when listened to on my car radio driving up the M6 at ~70mph.
l.
Like most things in life, you get what you pay for.
Erm... you may more often pay for what you get. But getting what you paid
for isn't a synonym for that! :->
The problem is that so many LPs have been poorly made - at stages *after*
the studio in many cases. Ye olde warps, off-centers, pressed-in >pops+crackles, etc, etc. CDs are more 'reliable' in production terms.
When the modern 'return' to LP started the LPs were often more carefully
made as a premium product, prestige, low pressing-run, high-priced. That
held down the above snag. But I suspect as they became 'popular' the old >"canna-be-bothered-so-press-em-quick" may have surfaced again. However the >few "Dragon's Dream" LPs I've bought are superb... and I made 96k/24 >transfers to use to keep them that way. 8-]
Jim
In article <7825a761-846c-4eab-824d-c610809e9995n@googlegroups.com>,
R. Mark Clayton <notyalckram@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, 7 April 2023 at 16:08:16 UTC+1, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article <5a9143...@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham <b...@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
However, converting that digital information into analogue
sound is still improving both by measurement and by the sound reproduced. It has largely moved away now from CD players and
into network streamers where there are no noisy motors making
a mess of the power rails.
Why should this leak onto the output?
Cost!
To prevent noise from the motor and control electronics getting into
the dac and analogue components costs money.
This is the primary reason why back in the day, some CD sounded much
better than others despite using similar dac architecture.
I'm sorry but unless there was something significantly wrong with the
vinyl or the playback system you would only have the odd click or
crackle to reveal what what you were listening to.
Vinyl can and does sound great, it's just impractical.
I'm sorry but unless there was something significantly wrong with the
vinyl or the playback system you would only have the odd click or
crackle to reveal what what you were listening to.
You missed out rumble, wow, end-of-side distortion, etc.
In article <5a92ebc530bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>,
Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
In article <7825a761-846c-4eab-824d-c610809e9995n@googlegroups.com>,
R. Mark Clayton <notyalckram@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, 7 April 2023 at 16:08:16 UTC+1, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article <5a9143...@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham <b...@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
However, converting that digital information into analogue
sound is still improving both by measurement and by the
sound reproduced. It has largely moved away now from CD
players and into network streamers where there are no noisy
motors making a mess of the power rails.
Why should this leak onto the output?
Cost!
To prevent noise from the motor and control electronics getting
into the dac and analogue components costs money.
Not particularly difficult to do. Although I'd agree that some
players are poorer than others. No need to high expense.
This is the primary reason why back in the day, some CD sounded
much better than others despite using similar dac architecture.
I doubt that. More likely that many early players had no
oversamoling and a poor reconstruction filter, etc. Some 1st gen
ones also used one DAC for *both* channels, which exposed them to
snags like slew-rate effects as the DAC and filters tried to keep
the results clean. (And meant one channel was slighlly 'late'
relative to the other.)
I'm sorry but unless there was something significantly wrong with
the vinyl or the playback system you would only have the odd
click or crackle to reveal what what you were listening to.
You missed out rumble, wow, end-of-side distortion, etc.
EOS distortion was particularly anoying on some classical music as
it really affected loud massed strings, etc, on a musical climace
at end-of-side. Cutter problems as well, as many cutters struggled
to get such onto the laquer. Not just a replay problem.
Vinyl can and does sound great, it's just impractical.
LP is/was also very vulnerable to shoddy manufacture and handling
before you got it. I still recall that more often than not I had to
return my 'first try' at buying something on LP I had to take it
back for an obvious fault and get another copy. Stats reported by
HFN of the time also showed this up very clearly.
Whereas I've *very* rarely needed to take a new CD back for
replacement because it was flawed.
The remarkable thing is that LP - like FM - can sound great *IF*
well made and played and handled with care. Alas, that condition
often didn't last until the shop handed it to you.
So, yes I've got some excellent LPs. But not all are like that. And
pre-CD many were poorly made.
Rumble and wow/flutter are (in my experience) fairly small effects
compared with the surface noise of dust, scratches and engrained
dirt.
But your list supports my opinion that cheap transports are fine, the
sound differences come from the DAC and how it's used, power supply
and analogue circuits.
In article <u138g8$2itev$1@dont-email.me>,
NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
Rumble and wow/flutter are (in my experience) fairly small effects
compared with the surface noise of dust, scratches and engrained
dirt.
100% yes.
Getting and keeping them clean is a pita.
"Bob Latham" <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote in message news:5a9362c0fdbob@sick-of-spam.invalid...
In article <u138g8$2itev$1@dont-email.me>,
NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
Rumble and wow/flutter are (in my experience) fairly small effects
compared with the surface noise of dust, scratches and engrained
dirt.
100% yes.
Getting and keeping them clean is a pita.
For me, playing an LP which is free of impulsive "physical noise"
(dust, scratches, "sandpaper vinyl") is the biggest reason for
opting for CD instead.
Electronic noise, distortion, background hiss pale into
insignificance: you need expensive equipment and perfect hearing to
detect those, whereas dust-click/crackle and periodic ticking of
scratches are audible by anyone on any equipment.
In that respect, audio cassettes are better than LPs:
maybe the frequency response and tape-hiss is worse,
but that's far outweighed by the lack of dust/scratches.
I don't *think* I was clumsy with records or lax with cleaning
them: try as I might, I could never get a record to play cleanly
of dust.
In article <u13ivo$2k2ck$2@dont-email.me>,
NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
For me, playing an LP which is free of impulsive "physical noise"
(dust, scratches, "sandpaper vinyl") is the biggest reason for
opting for CD instead.
Back in the day where I worked, Hi-Fi was a must have item, almost
every male got himself a system. One colleague who had an unusual
philips turntable at the time came to our house and listened to my
system. He then went out and bought the same turntable arm and
cartridge that I had, I asked why. He said surface noise, your
turntable combination had significantly less noise than mine.
At the time, the story was that certain arms especially, got excited
by click energy coming from the stylus and appeared to resonate with
it, making things worse. I'm not claiming there's any truth in that
but it was a theory at the time.
Electronic noise, distortion, background hiss pale into
insignificance: you need expensive equipment and perfect hearing to
detect those, whereas dust-click/crackle and periodic ticking of
scratches are audible by anyone on any equipment.
Hiss can still be an issue with low output moving coil cartridges but
I suppose you may call those expensive anyway.
In that respect, audio cassettes are better than LPs:
maybe the frequency response and tape-hiss is worse,
Oh heavens's yes. I spent hours building audio companders at the time
and there was even a dolby box add on and this was for open real tape
at 7.5ips cassette was even worse. And of course no random access.
but that's far outweighed by the lack of dust/scratches.
I'm not sure I could go that far, the vinyl was usually better for me.
I don't *think* I was clumsy with records or lax with cleaning
them: try as I might, I could never get a record to play cleanly
of dust.
Most had the same issue.
It is because of the handling problems (dust/scratches) that I am
puzzled that vinyl is so popular these days. There will be some
purists who prefer the more mellow sound that RIAA companding
causes, but is this enough to persuade such large numbers of
people to prefer it to CD, given the much more significant problem
of very intrusive dust and scratch noise?
I wonder if the biggest take-home message from "Vinyl records
outsell CDs for first time in decades" is not that more and more
people are buying vinyl, but that fewer and fewer people are
buying digital sound in the form of CDs as opposed to downloads? I
can believe that of those who buying their music in digital form,
a dwindling proportion is buying physical media (CDs) rather than
downloads as MP3 or FLAC.
In other words: in the m/n ratio, it's n that is reducing rather
than m that is increasing ;-)
Oh indeed, early CD players sounded dreadful to my ears, they impressed
with their silence but their sound was unpleasant.
For us, it wasn't until the Meridian 207 came out that my wife and I
could tolerate CDs at all.
I think that was around 1987. I recall the
first time we heard a 207, my wife (better ears than me) was first to
comment in surprise she exclaimed "It's playing the same record as the
LP that's a first". The 208 came out a couple of years later and blew
the 207 away so rapid was the rate of improvement at the time. Prior to
that, CD was just unpleasant to listen to. I wasn't including early
horrors.
You missed out rumble, wow, end-of-side distortion, etc.
I cannot remember hearing rumble in the last 40 years and eos distortion
I'm not sure I've ever encountered that.
In reality the chances of hearing that at 70mph on a car radio.
Back in the day where I worked, Hi-Fi was a must have item, almost every
male got himself a system. One colleague who had an unusual philips
turntable at the time came to our house and listened to my system. He
then went out and bought the same turntable arm and cartridge that I
had, I asked why. He said surface noise, your turntable combination had significantly less noise than mine.
At the time, the story was that certain arms especially, got excited by
click energy coming from the stylus and appeared to resonate with it,
making things worse. I'm not claiming there's any truth in that but it
was a theory at the time.
There will be some purists who prefer the more mellow sound that RIAA companding causes,
In article <u13mug$2kh14$1@dont-email.me>, NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
There will be some purists who prefer the more mellow sound that RIAA
companding causes,
Do you mean "companding"? The usual reference to RIAA is to the applied EQ and its nominal correction curve. Companding is something else.
That said, yes, LPs may well have had their sound levels compressed to fit them into the range that can be coped with. Or to make the sound more impressive in the home.
It is because of the handling problems (dust/scratches) that I am
puzzled that vinyl is so popular these days. There will be some
purists who prefer the more mellow sound that RIAA companding causes,
but is this enough to persuade such large numbers of people to prefer
it to CD, given the much more significant problem of very intrusive
dust and scratch noise?
Nostalgia and the feeling of buying vinyl, a true album and of course
seeing the turntable working, I think they look great and very romantic,
if you like that kind of thing.
However, as you say, I wonder if there *is* any companding (in the sense
of time-varying gain) to fit wide dynamic range into the range of
groove deviations that are possible without sacrificing playing time.
If RIAA boosting and attenuation were perfectly matched and you ended up
with a flat frequency response, there'd be nothing for audiophiles to
prefer about vinyl compared with CD, so there must be more to it.
In article <5a92eb...@sick-of-spam.invalid>,
Bob Latham <b...@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
In article <7825a761-846c-4eab...@googlegroups.com>,
R. Mark Clayton <notya...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, 7 April 2023 at 16:08:16 UTC+1, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article <5a9143...@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham <b...@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
However, converting that digital information into analogue
sound is still improving both by measurement and by the sound reproduced. It has largely moved away now from CD players and
into network streamers where there are no noisy motors making
a mess of the power rails.
Why should this leak onto the output?Cost!
To prevent noise from the motor and control electronics getting into
the dac and analogue components costs money.
Not particularly difficult to do. Although I'd agree that some players are poorer than others. No need to high expense.
You missed out rumble, wow, end-of-side distortion, etc.
EOS distortion was particularly anoying on some classical music as
it really affected loud massed strings, etc, on a musical climace
at end-of-side. Cutter problems as well, as many cutters struggled
to get such onto the laquer. Not just a replay problem.
Vinyl can and does sound great, it's just impractical.
LP is/was also very vulnerable to shoddy manufacture and handling before
you got it. I still recall that more often than not I had to return my
'first try' at buying something on LP I had to take it back for an obvious fault and get another copy. Stats reported by HFN of the time also showed this up very clearly.
Whereas I've *very* rarely needed to take a new CD back for replacement because it was flawed.
The remarkable thing is that LP - like FM - can sound great *IF* well
made and played and handled with care. Alas, that condition often
didn't last until the shop handed it to you.
So, yes I've got some excellent LPs. But not all are like that.
And pre-CD many were poorly made.
Jim
Flutter, hiss (from the basic construction of LP's resulting in S/N of 45dB or worse.
Oh and pick-ups are very sensitive to loud noise.
Any comments about EMI in relation to the DAC applies even more strongly to few mV on the [phono] cable from the deck to the amp, although these days many decks incorporate an pre-amp to boost the output to line voltage or even direct to digital.
Soon after CD's came out an electronic magazine compared the spec's of CD v. vinyl. It was like comparing a Ferrari with a Ford Pinto - dynamic range 96dB v 4?dB, immeasurable wow and flutter, no crosstalk etc. etc. Then I could easily tell thedifference between CD's and LP's played over FM radio while driving up the M6 (my old ears not so good now).
Basically there is no contest only deaf faith that vinyl is better.
PS if you want really bad media try listening to a pre-recored compact cassette!
On 05/04/2023 11:26, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
Soon after CD's came out an electronic magazine compared the spec's of CD
v. vinyl. It was like comparing a Ferrari with a Ford Pinto - dynamic
range 96dB v 4?dB, immeasurable wow and flutter, no crosstalk etc. etc.
Then I could easily tell the difference between CD's and LP's played over
FM radio while driving up the M6 (my old ears not so good now).
Basically there is no contest only deaf faith that vinyl is better.
PS if you want really bad media try listening to a pre-recorded compact
cassette!
There is one area in which an LP is enormously superior to a CD.
The gatefold sleeve.
The artwork on some of mine is lovely.
CDs sound better to me, and are far easier to handle. Sadly these days the limiting factor is my ears. Poor HF response and a lousy SNR.
There is one area in which an LP is enormously superior to a CD.
The gatefold sleeve.
FWIW I'm quite happy with some of the new LPs I bought a few years ago.
Well made. But not all have been like that. And for safety I've made >transfers, which are also then more convenient to play, keeping the LPs
safe and stored.
"Vir Campestris" <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote in message news:u19pcb$149tl$1@dont-email.me...
On 05/04/2023 11:26, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
Soon after CD's came out an electronic magazine compared the spec's of
CD v. vinyl. It was like comparing a Ferrari with a Ford Pinto -
dynamic range 96dB v 4?dB, immeasurable wow and flutter, no crosstalk
etc. etc. Then I could easily tell the difference between CD's and
LP's played over FM radio while driving up the M6 (my old ears not so
good now).
I'd find it hard to tell the difference on a car radio because a) there's
a lot of background engine/road noise, and b) radio stations seem to
manage the impossible: playing records without getting any dust/scratch noise.
Basically there is no contest only deaf faith that vinyl is better.
PS if you want really bad media try listening to a pre-recorded
compact cassette!
The sound quality of a pre-recorded cassette may be worse (noise, wow, frequency response) than an LP, but all that pales into insignificance compared with the absence of dust/scratch noise which is the thing that I find objectionable with vinyl.
There is one area in which an LP is enormously superior to a CD.
The gatefold sleeve.
The artwork on some of mine is lovely.
Yes, that is one thing where CDs suffer. But as long as you can put up
with a much smaller album photo, you often get more detail in the
pull-out booklet than you would have got on a simple front-and-back LP sleeve, though maybe not as much as with a gatefold LP with inserts etc.
On the other hand, record labels can put some of the info on a web site
now and refer buyers of CD or LP to that.
CDs sound better to me, and are far easier to handle. Sadly these days
the limiting factor is my ears. Poor HF response and a lousy SNR.
My HF response is worse than it was. When I last had my hearing tested at
the age of about 45, I think they said it was "good" up to about 10 kHz.
I wonder if "good" means "within 3 dB of the flat response at medium frequencies", as you'd define for an amplifier. Now I'm 60, I wonder what
my hearing results would be. Maybe "good up to 8 kHz, and with
intermittent 10 kHz tinnitus whistle in one ear" ;-)
I've always found that very high frequencies set my teeth on edge (in the same way that some people don't like the noise of chalk on a
blackboard).
On Thu, 13 Apr 2023 21:40:43 +0100, Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
There is one area in which an LP is enormously superior to a CD.
The gatefold sleeve.
Agreed. They missed a marketing trick by assuming that because the
discs themselves were small they had to make the packaging as small as possible too. I would have used A4 size thick card (or maybe plastic)
with an inset to take the disc itself (or several discs if needed) and
a transparent front cover sheet to protect it. This would have fitted
well with with shelving and storage designed for other A4 size items,
it would have provided plenty of room for information on the back, it
would have been a comfortable size to handle, and it could easily have
been accompanied by more A4 printed material whenever needed.
But they didn't ask me.
On Wed, 12 Apr 2023 13:12:01 +0100, Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk>
wrote:
FWIW I'm quite happy with some of the new LPs I bought a few years ago. >Well made. But not all have been like that. And for safety I've made >transfers, which are also then more convenient to play, keeping the LPs >safe and stored.
If a published recording uses digital mastering, which I think they
generally do now, then think about what happens when you play one of
your digital safety transfers. The digital master recording will have
been converted to an analogue signal to be recorded mechanically on a gramophone lathe (with all its mechanical deficiencies and
distortions) so when it is later played back on another mechanical
system, the analogue output will then have been converted into digits
a second time to make the safety transfer that you actually play.
In other words, the signal has gone from digits to digits, but with a completely unneccessary mechanical analogue conversion in the middle.
Why not just buy the CD and have the digits without the distortions?
Your system seems as mad as having a motor vehicle towed by a horse.
Rod.
In article <3h4i3itpcob0gsfkicl7mfnvjdr54999vo@4ax.com>,
Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On Wed, 12 Apr 2023 13:12:01 +0100, Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk>
wrote:
FWIW I'm quite happy with some of the new LPs I bought a few years ago.
Well made. But not all have been like that. And for safety I've made
transfers, which are also then more convenient to play, keeping the LPs
safe and stored.
If a published recording uses digital mastering, which I think they
generally do now, then think about what happens when you play one of
your digital safety transfers. The digital master recording will have
been converted to an analogue signal to be recorded mechanically on a
gramophone lathe (with all its mechanical deficiencies and
distortions) so when it is later played back on another mechanical
system, the analogue output will then have been converted into digits
a second time to make the safety transfer that you actually play.
In other words, the signal has gone from digits to digits, but with a
completely unneccessary mechanical analogue conversion in the middle.
Why not just buy the CD and have the digits without the distortions?
Your system seems as mad as having a motor vehicle towed by a horse.
Rod.
But, you've forgotten the 'musicality' you get from LPs.
On 14/04/2023 09:40, Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Thu, 13 Apr 2023 21:40:43 +0100, Vir Campestris
<vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
There is one area in which an LP is enormously superior to a CD.
The gatefold sleeve.
Agreed. They missed a marketing trick by assuming that because the
discs themselves were small they had to make the packaging as small as
possible too. I would have used A4 size thick card (or maybe plastic)
with an inset to take the disc itself (or several discs if needed) and
a transparent front cover sheet to protect it. This would have fitted
well with with shelving and storage designed for other A4 size items,
it would have provided plenty of room for information on the back, it
would have been a comfortable size to handle, and it could easily have
been accompanied by more A4 printed material whenever needed.
But they didn't ask me.
They might have wondered how A4 fitted with the emphasis on "compact" - >mini-sized player and a pocket-sized disc. Portable and in-car use were
part of the marketing from the start, even though players came along later.
"Vir Campestris" <vir.cam...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message news:u19pcb$149tl$1...@dont-email.me...
On 05/04/2023 11:26, R. Mark Clayton wrote:I'd find it hard to tell the difference on a car radio because a) there's a lot of background engine/road noise, and b) radio stations seem to manage
Soon after CD's came out an electronic magazine compared the spec's of CD >> v. vinyl. It was like comparing a Ferrari with a Ford Pinto - dynamic
range 96dB v 4?dB, immeasurable wow and flutter, no crosstalk etc. etc.
Then I could easily tell the difference between CD's and LP's played over >> FM radio while driving up the M6 (my old ears not so good now).
the impossible: playing records without getting any dust/scratch noise.
Basically there is no contest only deaf faith that vinyl is better.
CDs sound better to me, and are far easier to handle. Sadly these days the limiting factor is my ears. Poor HF response and a lousy SNR.
My HF response is worse than it was. When I last had my hearing tested at
the age of about 45, I think they said it was "good" up to about 10 kHz. I wonder if "good" means "within 3 dB of the flat response at medium frequencies", as you'd define for an amplifier. Now I'm 60, I wonder what my hearing results would be. Maybe "good up to 8 kHz, and with intermittent 10 kHz tinnitus whistle in one ear" ;-)
On Fri, 14 Apr 2023 10:22:02 +0100, charles <charles@candehope.me.uk>
wrote:
In article <3h4i3itpcob0gsfkicl7mfnvjdr54999vo@4ax.com>,
Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On Wed, 12 Apr 2023 13:12:01 +0100, Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk>
wrote:
FWIW I'm quite happy with some of the new LPs I bought a few years ago. >>>> Well made. But not all have been like that. And for safety I've made
transfers, which are also then more convenient to play, keeping the LPs >>>> safe and stored.
If a published recording uses digital mastering, which I think they
generally do now, then think about what happens when you play one of
your digital safety transfers. The digital master recording will have
been converted to an analogue signal to be recorded mechanically on a
gramophone lathe (with all its mechanical deficiencies and
distortions) so when it is later played back on another mechanical
system, the analogue output will then have been converted into digits
a second time to make the safety transfer that you actually play.
In other words, the signal has gone from digits to digits, but with a
completely unneccessary mechanical analogue conversion in the middle.
Why not just buy the CD and have the digits without the distortions?
Your system seems as mad as having a motor vehicle towed by a horse.
Rod.
But, you've forgotten the 'musicality' you get from LPs.
Is that another word for distortion?
On 14/04/2023 09:40, Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Thu, 13 Apr 2023 21:40:43 +0100, Vir Campestris
<vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
There is one area in which an LP is enormously superior to a CD.
The gatefold sleeve.
Agreed. They missed a marketing trick by assuming that because the
discs themselves were small they had to make the packaging as small as
possible too. I would have used A4 size thick card (or maybe plastic)
with an inset to take the disc itself (or several discs if needed) and
a transparent front cover sheet to protect it. This would have fitted
well with with shelving and storage designed for other A4 size items,
it would have provided plenty of room for information on the back, it
would have been a comfortable size to handle, and it could easily have
been accompanied by more A4 printed material whenever needed.
They might have wondered how A4 fitted with the emphasis on "compact" - mini-sized player and a pocket-sized disc. Portable and in-car use were part of the marketing from the start, even though players came along later.
On Friday, 14 April 2023 at 09:18:36 UTC+1, NY wrote:
"Vir Campestris" <vir.cam...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
Sadly these days the
limiting factor is my ears. Poor HF response and a lousy SNR.
Me too, plus some attenuation...
My HF response is worse than it was. When I last had my hearing tested at
the age of about 45, I think they said it was "good" up to about 10 kHz. I >> wonder if "good" means "within 3 dB of the flat response at medium
frequencies", as you'd define for an amplifier. Now I'm 60, I wonder what my >> hearing results would be. Maybe "good up to 8 kHz, and with intermittent 10 >> kHz tinnitus whistle in one ear" ;-)
Well it was ~35Hz = ~20kHz when I was seventeen, and for a few years I could sometimes hear the 19kHz tone on stereo FM if the decoder was cheap.
Last year I topped out at ~4k5Hz, which was a bit of a shock...
Well I easily could then - over a third of a century ago, although
I was driving a BMW 735iSE with a Balupunkt radio and decent
speakers. Alas see below.
Last year I topped out at ~4k5Hz, which was a bit of a shock...
Scary! I wonder what mine is these days.
I used to be able to hear the 15625 Hz line frequency of 625-line TV.
Not so it was intrusive but I was aware of it, especially in a TV shop
where there were a lot of TVs close together. The 10125 Hz of 405-line
TV was very noticeable, though it was rare to find those TVs en-masse.
I used to be able to hear the 15625 Hz line frequency of 625-line TV.
Not so it was intrusive but I was aware of it, especially in a TV shop
where there were a lot of TVs close together. The 10125 Hz of 405-line
TV was very noticeable, though it was rare to find those TVs en-masse.
I don't think I could ever hear the 19 kHz pilot tone of stereo FM
radio. I could distinguish stereo FM from mono by the increased hiss,
but I wasn't aware of a single tone.
There is one area in which an LP is enormously superior to a CD.
The gatefold sleeve.
The artwork on some of mine is lovely.
I wonder whether CD player manufacturers have missed a trick by not
having a preset filter that can be switched in or out, to mimic the imperfections caused by the conversion to LP. Then audiophiles who
prefer the sound of LP can have it without needing to faff around with a
much large disc (12" as opposed to about 4" for a CD) which has to be
cleaned before playing and is not as portable or rugged, and which makes
it much harder to jump to specific tracks than with a CD.
On Wed, 12 Apr 2023 13:12:01 +0100, Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk>
wrote:
FWIW I'm quite happy with some of the new LPs I bought a few years ago. >Well made. But not all have been like that. And for safety I've made >transfers, which are also then more convenient to play, keeping the LPs >safe and stored.
If a published recording uses digital mastering,
In article <EyOdnXXKga6ZOKv5nZ2dnZfqnPgAAAAA@brightview.co.uk>, NY ><me@privacy.net> wrote:
However, as you say, I wonder if there *is* any companding (in the sense
of time-varying gain) to fit wide dynamic range into the range of
groove deviations that are possible without sacrificing playing time.
"Companding" in my mind implies that level compression at one stage of the >signal path is 'un-done' (Expanded) at another. The reality with LP is more >likely to be level compression deliberately applied. Indeed, 'popular',
music routinely uses this anyway as an 'effect'. Compare Classic FM with >Radio 3 via iPlayer and the changes are obvious. Can sound very pleasing
for many people/examples. But means you don't get out what was put in.
If RIAA boosting and attenuation were perfectly matched and you ended up
with a flat frequency response, there'd be nothing for audiophiles to
prefer about vinyl compared with CD, so there must be more to it.
The levels of intermod distortion with LP are much higher than on CD. >Particularly, again, near end-of-side. And in reality it is the norm for
both disc cutting and replay to not have flat responses. Traditional
'lathes' used tend(ed) to lose all their cutter feedback at HF frequencies >well below 20kHz, etc, etc.
FWIW I also recall seeing long ago a photo of a cutter in use to make a >laquer. It had a bit of string from the head to a pot. As the cutter
tracked inwards it rotated this pot, which was used to gradually wind down >'high treble'. This is because it gets harder to cut and play loud HF
nearer the disc center. i.e. more distortion. The idea was that people
don't notice the gradual change and acclimatise to it as they listen. One >reason why disc cutting was a skill, almost an artform.
The results *can* be superb. Dragon's Dream have done some super LPs via >direct cut, for example. And some other discs I've bought also are very
good. But doing this right tends to mean high cost discs and a lower limit
on how many can then be pressed as the chain of items deteriorate as they
are used. And *care* is needed at each stage.
When LP was the bulk medium, care was rarer because the companies made
more by using the public as their 'QC'... and many played on Dansette-grade >or lower kit, so never did hear what you could get on a good system.
Jim
Vinyl records outsell CDs for first time in decades https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/64919126
"""
Last year's vinyl record sales demonstrate that vinyl is "cementing its
role as a fixture of the modern music marketplace," RIAA Chairman and
CEO Mitch Glazier said in a post on Medium.
"Music lovers clearly can't get enough of the high-quality sound and
tangible connection to artists vinyl delivers," Glazier said, "and
labels have squarely met that demand with a steady stream of exclusives, special reissues, and beautifully crafted packages and discs."
"""
<Raspberry>
High quality sound like this ... www.macfh.co.uk/Temp/MaryOHaraSpanishLady_Sample.mp3
I suppose it's only a matter of time before we all revert back to Logie Baird's first TV experiments claiming they are somehow truer to life
than modern HD TV.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 02:00:26 |
| Calls: | 6,666 |
| Calls today: | 4 |
| Files: | 12,212 |
| Messages: | 5,335,600 |
