isnt because the way old vinyl were pressed^ was from tape directly to vinyl: no conversion.
CDs used tape and convert to digital. then you need a DAC. you add conversion.
Modern music however, vinyl is often inferior as the music is recorded directly in digital. therefore you have to let teh original album go thru a dac in order to press the vinyl?
CDs used tape and convert to digital. then you need a DAC. you add conversion.
Modern music however, vinyl is often inferior as the music is recorded directly in digital. therefore you have to let teh original album go thru a dac in order to press the vinyl?
Last edited:
I thought so too.. I am glad you enjoyed it. Perhaps others might find it refreshing.... I am afraid that this thread is getting past its sell-by date.
The thing that amuses me is CD isn't very good and we all know it. Spend a fortune and the playing field becomes a little bit more level. There is nothing wonderful in the LP that makes it good. It's just it never promised so much and gave so little. Other digital sorcses seem so close to LP when that is required as to make this whole debate rather pointless. CD or rather the product called CD isn't very good. To invent a story of false ambiance seems clutching at strews. MP3 which promises very little seems nicer to listen to quite often.
A young friend of mine is studying to be a sound engineer. His test papers seem to leave out music. He is a musician so can put that right. He was talking about wanting a really good compressor and it would have to be from the past. I suggested we dig out a Revox I think I have and use that. I said he just needs to clean the heads and be careful not to ruin a recording by not planning ahead. We can make a safety copy and a copy via the third head back into digital, You know, that will work. He and I don't give a stuff what this strange version of Angels dancing on a pin head thinks in this thread and neither do perhaps 7000 000 000 others. We want the sound that can be sold and loved.
A young friend of mine is studying to be a sound engineer. His test papers seem to leave out music. He is a musician so can put that right. He was talking about wanting a really good compressor and it would have to be from the past. I suggested we dig out a Revox I think I have and use that. I said he just needs to clean the heads and be careful not to ruin a recording by not planning ahead. We can make a safety copy and a copy via the third head back into digital, You know, that will work. He and I don't give a stuff what this strange version of Angels dancing on a pin head thinks in this thread and neither do perhaps 7000 000 000 others. We want the sound that can be sold and loved.
So start a new thread for it. There is a SINGLE hypothesis being discussed on this thread. Sadly people seem driven to kill the S/N ratio of any thread as its too hard to hit the 'new thread' button.
Sorry Pano, I don't think I'm gonna listen to Barleywater's files ( nor anyone else's, to be equal ) so I'm going another time a little OT
I remember that the first times I did reverse CD to cassette (tape) the results were very disappointing.
Maybe it was later mitigated by the fact that I enjoyed using a 3-head cassette deck
No one ever participates to this vintage remembering ..!?
In another thread I was for a while thinking of what was the difference in sound in a system with an EQ activated but flat or without it. What if one had to to a step-behind to make an improvement or so..!?
The results would still suffer from the superimposed ( supposed low & bad ) SN ratio
I remember that the first times I did reverse CD to cassette (tape) the results were very disappointing.
Maybe it was later mitigated by the fact that I enjoyed using a 3-head cassette deck
No one ever participates to this vintage remembering ..!?
In another thread I was for a while thinking of what was the difference in sound in a system with an EQ activated but flat or without it. What if one had to to a step-behind to make an improvement or so..!?
The results would still suffer from the superimposed ( supposed low & bad ) SN ratio
Last edited:
I am interested in your objections to the topics being raised in this thread. Could you state clearly what you consider to be allowable and what is not? You seem to have some filter criteria that are not necessarily shared by others, so please let us know what they are. I hope you don't consider this question a divergence.
Read the first post in this thread. Then read it again. Then think about it. Then consider how many threads that start as really useful discussions on DIY descend into 100s of pages of meaningless drivel as people do not think before they type.
That is before some of the care in the community types turn up to just ramble on.
This is an open site so this cannot be stopped, but no one can stop me from grumbling either as long as I abide by the rules.
I think the key quote in Message #1 is "This is the first hypothesis I have come across that gives a plausible reason why vinyl, with its inescapable limitations, might be preferred to digital, and I would be glad to see some discussion of this on DIYaudio." from Doug Self. I suspect that if every contribution were rigorously filtered as to be 100% on-message then there would be many, valuable, contributions lost to the broader audience.
If you want a structured, top-down approach, then that is normally only possible after all the analysis has been considered and properly structured. En route to that happy state is the collection of points-of-view... some relevant to the main theme, others perhaps not so directly relevant, but all contributing. In olden times this might have been called brain-storming. My experience of this is that if you prematurely limit discussion to what you think is relevant, or create an environment where only approved views are heard then the outcome is often not of much value.
By their nature these sorts of threads are more of the brain-storming type. I would hate people to be put off contributing because of a backlash against their contributions. I note that Doug Self is sitting back probably having a good laugh at all of this. There endeth the lesson.....
If you want a structured, top-down approach, then that is normally only possible after all the analysis has been considered and properly structured. En route to that happy state is the collection of points-of-view... some relevant to the main theme, others perhaps not so directly relevant, but all contributing. In olden times this might have been called brain-storming. My experience of this is that if you prematurely limit discussion to what you think is relevant, or create an environment where only approved views are heard then the outcome is often not of much value.
By their nature these sorts of threads are more of the brain-storming type. I would hate people to be put off contributing because of a backlash against their contributions. I note that Doug Self is sitting back probably having a good laugh at all of this. There endeth the lesson.....
It can not be a single idea. Also as far as I am concerned this ship sank. Subsonic sounds should either cancel or blend in systems we own. As I am a two sub woofer advocate I have to be careful not to go too far by saying impossible. The effect of one subwoofer that crosses too high is to draw the image to that place. It is subtle and often quite nice. Regardless of LP or CD the sub woofer speaker crossing lower down seems to work better if we only use one. I think somewhere along the line we forgot the dB levels and frequencies. Most people living next to other houses might be hard pushed to have 100 Hz ( 85 dB listening levels and speaker 50 Hz - 3dB in a room 5 x 4 metres ). All the reasons they like LP don't go away.
After much thought I feel my digital sources are able to do anything my LP's do and possibly on rare occasions do it better. CD has died. It might be that many dislike it because it was oversold. Downloads are mostly better. Even easier to store and lower cost.
It isn't that people love LP. It is they strongly dislike CD. CD's cost about 30% to make compared with LP's. At first CD was 150 % the price of a LP. Back catalogue mastertapes were without a second thought rushed to production. Some even had LP EQ built in. People were told if they didn't like the sound they were doing something wrong. Much of that was true. Not to the extent claimed. Under £1000 a good CD player is hard to find. Rega do well. Terry their engineer has taught himself to my mind above some of the big players. It's no accident Terry from Rega has done this. Terry was a production engineer who repaired guitar amps. He is self taught and now an expert, he gets involved at the digital level. A friend who needed a cheap CD player settled on a DVD player by Sony. It produces bland sound that is pleasent. That is an advantage as no turntable I know of is as good if new and that price. Be very careful to listen if spending more.
CD is a building built on poor foundations. To my mind the digital is the bricks, it is the cement that was in question. To isolate abstract advantages a theoretical CD system should of had will not bring my awful CD's to life. That bus has left the depot 20 years ago. It's past crimes of mostly extreme greed can not be forgiven. " That's why people prefer LP's ". It's not a technical thing, it's anger. Phones work the other way. I hate to admit it, I need a phone. It is a fantastic CD type device that has modest claims. Texting was a test mode for engineers. It was retained as it was already available. Never oversell, the customer will do it for you.
After much thought I feel my digital sources are able to do anything my LP's do and possibly on rare occasions do it better. CD has died. It might be that many dislike it because it was oversold. Downloads are mostly better. Even easier to store and lower cost.
It isn't that people love LP. It is they strongly dislike CD. CD's cost about 30% to make compared with LP's. At first CD was 150 % the price of a LP. Back catalogue mastertapes were without a second thought rushed to production. Some even had LP EQ built in. People were told if they didn't like the sound they were doing something wrong. Much of that was true. Not to the extent claimed. Under £1000 a good CD player is hard to find. Rega do well. Terry their engineer has taught himself to my mind above some of the big players. It's no accident Terry from Rega has done this. Terry was a production engineer who repaired guitar amps. He is self taught and now an expert, he gets involved at the digital level. A friend who needed a cheap CD player settled on a DVD player by Sony. It produces bland sound that is pleasent. That is an advantage as no turntable I know of is as good if new and that price. Be very careful to listen if spending more.
CD is a building built on poor foundations. To my mind the digital is the bricks, it is the cement that was in question. To isolate abstract advantages a theoretical CD system should of had will not bring my awful CD's to life. That bus has left the depot 20 years ago. It's past crimes of mostly extreme greed can not be forgiven. " That's why people prefer LP's ". It's not a technical thing, it's anger. Phones work the other way. I hate to admit it, I need a phone. It is a fantastic CD type device that has modest claims. Texting was a test mode for engineers. It was retained as it was already available. Never oversell, the customer will do it for you.
You mean font found right in the front of your door, or aside, it depends...where the grbage is placed
Or even someone might bring it directly to you
I mean, those cheap, analog to the Audiotechnica in the turntable entry level USB TTs
Same as Audiotechnica bla bla
Oh, that should be the purpose of WWW 2.3
For the rest of your thinking, it seems a nice paragraph about "transmigration to a Terabyte memory from old disc data reading"
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.