| tryonziess |
| I am 56 years old and had not listened to a vinyl source record in perhaps 30 years -- until the other day. A nice gent at work still had some original Doors albums, plus a million others, and an old Garrard turntable. He is by no means an audiophile or music buff -- he just keeps stuff -- even long after it is broken. Anyway I was just wondering how many people remember the vinyl sound. I was very pleasantly surprised. The music was the way I had remembered it. I think we have lost something along the way with technology. Maybe Kudos must go to the tube folks. Just a thought. Tad |
|
|
| Conrad Hoffman |
| I'm about your age and have been listening to vinyl a lot lately. IMO, technically it's a very contaminated media due to turntable and arm resonances, and resonances within the records themselves. Not to mention surface noise and a pop and crackle here and there, in spite of careful cleaning. And don't forget pre-echo from the adjacent groove. (actually, an LP only has one groove per side, but who's counting) IMO again, the contamination is harmonically related to the music, and for whatever reasons, the resulting sound is far more pleasing than most CDs. The problem isn't CDs themselves, as I can transfer an LP to CD and lose nothing of the LP sound. I think most CDs are carelessly produced, or maybe there is too much reliance on the fact that everything has flat frequency response. When making an LP, there were all sorts of things that had to be compensated for, so it was no big deal to tweak the sound for the most pleasing result. I have a few very good CDs, but after listening to vinyl for a while, about 95% of my CDs could be labeled "severely lacking". (don't forget, there are also a lot of really bad LPs!) |
|
|
| despotic931 |
I'm only 22, and recently fell in love with the sound of vinyl, my collection is small, but growing. The only way I can describe cds now is sterile. Although I really do like the sound of my sony playstation cd player...
-Justin |
|
|
| GlidingDutchman |
| quote: | Originally posted by Conrad Hoffman
I'm about your age and have been listening to vinyl a lot lately. IMO, technically it's a very contaminated media due to turntable and arm resonances, and resonances within the records themselves. Not to mention surface noise and a pop and crackle here and there, in spite of careful cleaning. And don't forget pre-echo from the adjacent groove. (actually, an LP only has one groove per side, but who's counting) IMO again, the contamination is harmonically related to the music, and for whatever reasons, the resulting sound is far more pleasing than most CDs. The problem isn't CDs themselves, as I can transfer an LP to CD and lose nothing of the LP sound. I think most CDs are carelessly produced, or maybe there is too much reliance on the fact that everything has flat frequency response. When making an LP, there were all sorts of things that had to be compensated for, so it was no big deal to tweak the sound for the most pleasing result. I have a few very good CDs, but after listening to vinyl for a while, about 95% of my CDs could be labeled "severely lacking". (don't forget, there are also a lot of really bad LPs!) |
Conrad... bashing vinyl are you? It is certainly not that bad but yes, there is bad gear and records "out there".
With a good analogue setup it is rather hard to diffirentiate between a cd and lp of the same album - I have a few cd's and lp's of the same album and I love doing A/B's.
I take a different view on the "format war" - digital and analogue cant be compared!! Yes, it is both audio carriers but not in the same family.
I have a great passion for analogue. I develop my own turntable and now-and-then refurb a MC cartridge or two...
Vinyl is great!
D |
|
|
| tryonziess |
Maybe all of the tweaking is what was eventually called the Motown sound. The people in the business back in them days were not technical gurus but real honest to goodness music folks.
I like my amplifiers, speakers and projects ---- but---- I miss the crackle and distortion from vinyl. It was part of the experience.
Tad |
|
|
| Conrad Hoffman |
| Gliding, I'm not so much bashing as calling it what it is from a purely technical standpoint. By the numbers, the worst CD should blow away the best LP- if those numbers really meant anything. The reality is that LPs are usually far more pleasing to the ear. Since I admit that, and have been mostly listening to LPs, I'm not sure whether to call myself friend or foe to LPs or CDs. I was pretty happy with my CD system, though it's just a low end Marantz player, and in an A/B comparison I can often say the CD sounds cleaner. OTOH, longer term I'm not happy with what seems to be a thinner sound, and the sense of "being there" is much stronger with an LP. I really think much of this comes not from some mysterious thing that LPs do better, but is a direct result of the artifacts that get added to the signal. I don't expect that explanation to make anybody happy :whazzat: |
|
|
| stevodude |
yes, 'pleasing to the ear' is the quote for vinyl.. :-)
I am only 38, but have been listening to vinyl for a good 30 years now, and mainly from my 18-24 years in party mode, then I had everything boxed up while I traveled. Now that I have a house and family I got all my 'stuff' sent from the now 'grandparents' place ( shipping records and amps overseas is not cheap), and when I get time (about one day a month) I just LOVE putting on a clean vinyl record and cranking it up, makes me happy all week :-) |
|
|
| wakibaki |
Sterile - right, you'd rather have MRSA? It's like complaining about a lens being too sharp.
I can't keep CDs clean and scratch free. I'm putting everything on my HD. If I never see one of those black monstrosities again it'll be too soon...
w |
|
|
| Conrad Hoffman |
| IMO, a lens can certainly be too sharp. Maybe those uncoated Tessars from the 1930s please the eye in the same way an LP can please the ear. |
|
|
| gpapag |
Hi all
There are photos which are "context intensive" with no technical manipulations (Hansel Adams B&W photos filmed with a pin hole camera).
And there are photos which are "context indifferent" with a lot of technical manipulations in between (Colour landscape scene through Paint Shop manipulations).
Which one has the potential to steer some strong emotions to you as a viewer? A scratched, faint, aged copy of the former, or a shinny brand new copy of the later?
Further on, will a copy of the former, digitally reprocessed to enhance the aged and scratched image, be any bit better - in terms of emotion steering potential - than the original one ?
Regards
George |
|
|
| audio-kraut |
No doubt, cd is cleaner, less noisy, easier to handle. But I love playing LP.
By the same token - I use digital camera only for selling on ebay. Went back to film.
Nothing caresses the hand and eye like a 35mm slr, metal body. The digital stuff feels like **** compared to that. And no autofocus either.
I love my pentaxes.... |
|
|
| gpapag |
Hi audio-kraut
You would like to have a photo of a baby crying (say, your baby).
1. Home Film Photo with a Kodak instant camera from 70ies.
2. Home Film Photo with an expensive SLR.
3. Home Digital Photo with a dirty cheap Digital Camera
4. Home Digital Photo with an expensive SLR Digital Camera.
5. Bringing baby at a Photo Studio, having baby cry there and having a photo taken with the super Studio Camera.
A. Which one you may enjoy probably most after some years?
B. Which one your wife may enjoy probably most after some years?
Regards
George |
|
|
| analog_sa |
| quote: | Originally posted by gpapag
You would like to have a photo of a baby crying (say, your baby).
|
Is the baby crying after listening to poorly mastered cds? |
|
|
| wakibaki |
I like steam engines too, but not for going to work.
Every day I used to carry a screw-mount Leica. A beautiful, beautiful camera. I remember it with such nostalgia. It wore a hole in my pocket.
Now I have a Canon G9.
Old record decks are great, and should be preserved - in museums.
w |
|
|
| tryonziess |
To all, I only started this thread to pass on something that I noticed after 30 years. The LP records just seem to have something the CD's just left out. Granted the sound is quieter and has less distortion on a CD player it is just that the records seem to portray more of what the artist intended for you to hear.
Nelson Pass has been trying -- and succeeding -- to produce music through equipment with very minimal numbers of active devices. Maybe that is the key to this. Everyone is aware of how many active circuits are in a CD player as well as the studio recording equipment. A vinyl album is transferring directly from a mechanical groove. I do not presume to know the answer to this. Just my observation. Tad |
|
|
| audio-kraut |
| quote: | | Old record decks are great, and should be preserved |
In as many homes as possible.
I don't take pictures of ugly, crying babies...who wants 'em?
The best result is the quality from a studio camera. Thats not the point,
The endresult is most likeley equally enjoyable, no matter by what camera it is taken. I enjoy the act of creating a picture..
And creating a picture - thinking how to approach a scene, to decide what to show with it, the selection of the lenses, and the "feel" of a slr film camera when doing it - is for me more enjoyable with a old style camera.
For practical purposes - digital hotography is fine, as is playing cd.... |
|
|
| gpapag |
Hi all
In post #10 I tried to make a point on the fact that an artistically satisfying musical work is robust enough to withstand technical abuse of various kinds and intentions which are to intervene during the recording, mastering, re-mastering, reproduction steps.
A great such example would be Verdi’s “la Traviata” live performance May 28,1955 (opening at La Scala Milano: Visconti, Giulini, Callas, Di Stefano, Bastianini), a recording imprinted in a 2 CD set (EMI CLASSICS 724356645028, mono).
No other “la Traviata” recording , either Callas’s or other soprano’s that I have in my collection can excite me most. Yet, the sound quality is one of the worst that one can find in a commercial release.
I still search for a vinyl recording of this performance just to compare.
I have success with some Callas other performances, and the vinyl recordings always win over CD releases from a certain brand, but are par to par with other’s brand CD releases, as well as my amateur CD transfers from vinyl.
In post #12 I tried to touch the subject of “human-equipment” relationship that builds up over the years. This can alter our judgment of the equipment reproduction capabilities in various ways (that’s why there is the third person’s –wife- opinion to be asked).
There were also notes on the subject of equipment price, availability and ease of use.
I am with Conrad Hoffman on all he wrote in this thread.
It is my understanding too that it is the human manipulation during mastering/ remastering, rather than technological limitations that can make CDs sound uninspiring relative to PLs.
I do not think that gross generalization in the form “Vinyl is better than CD” can be of any credit.
If one is to draw any conclusion, he has to compare CDs and LPs of the same recording only, and then try his own CD transfers from vinyl.
What I do, is to use both “formats” to enjoy music. When I find what I want in second-hand vinyl, I buy it.
It is almost always 3-4 times cheaper than the new CD transfer.
If it is the other way round, I opt for the CD. (I miss the LP cover though!)
| quote: | | …That’s not the point, the end result is most likely equally enjoyable, no matter by what camera it is taken. I enjoy the act of creating a picture.. |
Yes for the photography and yes for the audio (enjoy the act of listening) :)
Regards
George |
|
|
| tryonziess |
I really like the comment you made concerning the album cover. The fact that many early performers spent countless hours and dollars on the covers was just another little piece of the experience offered by that period in time.
Even today some early lp covers are fetching large sums of money to collectors.
I am still very happy cd came along. I never was able to get my turntable to work right in the car. Tad
Do you ever consider what is next -- perhaps DVD format recordings the size of quarters. |
|
|
| gpapag |
tryonziess and all
Album cover design was part of the promotion campaign.
Drafters, photographers, graphic designers, art directors, writers, commenters, musicians themselves, all participated in the outcome.
Their work was printed on the cover, along with their names.
The album producer knew that cover would be an eye catcher at record stores, a source of information for the purchaser, as well as a piece of “consumer’s art”.
Packaging is a subject of Industrial Design (Product Gestaltung), and I find it hard to explain why today’s CDs producers are missing the point.
May be today’s customers just don’t need such things.
Current generation just Googles when in need for information and just watches a promotional video at music channels when in need for arts.
That’s it. Times are a changing and we have our share to that.
Regards
George |
|
|
| MisterTwister |
did comparison cd vs lp.
LP has bigger dynamic range (more bass. drums are louder than ones on a cd recording of the same album). no difference in quiet songs, except some background noise from LP.
When listening way off axis, or in another room, I prefer LP sound. |
|
|
| analog_sa |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterTwister
did comparison cd vs lp.
|
Sharing this comparison is rather pointless if you don't detail the CD and LP players. |
|
|
| MisterTwister |
sorry here it is: Audio Technica ATPL120 Pro DJ Turntable and sony cd player don't remember model (not es) with monica 2 dac.
I just thought it's not important which cd player it is. I've never been able to hear difference between cd players and dac's.
don't know about turntables though.
album is "Abbey Road" |
|
|
| GAgola |
| With a recent chance purchase of a working cheapo Technics TT from a yard, I managed to return to vinyl a few months back, after thirty something years of tape, cd and mp3 etc. All around agreed that it was simply stunning! Complete with all the pops and clicks and other artefacts of the medium! Sadly, shortly thereafter, along comes the in-house "Dance 360" representative, aka Junior, as inquisitive/destructive as ever, who proceeds to perform a few scratch-master moves on the record carelessly left on the TT, and... Well, I am now in the hunt for replacement TP4 stylus for the TT. All said and done, I prefer the TT sound over that from the other "sources" in the house, and due to the general scarcity of TTs, both new and otherwise, I am tooling up for the eventual construction of my own localized version of the "Teres" TT... well a man can dream... Hopefully it will sound even better than the Technics... |
|
|
| wakibaki |
| quote: | Originally posted by GAgola
...a few scratch-master moves on the record... |
My point exactly.
HD camcorders are moving to flash cards.
Flash cards are cheap, versatile and now offer more storage than a DVD in something small enough for a child or, with luck, even a teenager to choke on. The card will probably survive too.
What's not to like?
w |
|
|
| wakibaki |
| quote: | Originally posted by Aud1073cH
There is a German company... |
And they say the Germans have no sense of humour... |
|
|
| gareth |
I've got a nice Technics 1200 here with a retro-fitted Rega RB300 arm, Ortofon Rondo and modified pitch and it sounds pretty good
Gareth |
|
|
| GAgola |
I am having a really terrible time trying to get replacement TP4 stylus(es) for my SLQD33, should I just go ahead an buy one of the many Ortofon OMP 5E, Grado Prestige Blue or Stanton L680EL cartridges available online?...
Would it be possible to retrofit a REGA arm onto a technics SLQD33? If yes, this would allow me to say goodbye to TP4, or at least open up alternatives, but would it be worth the investment in time/cash?... |
|
|
|
