 sj |
||
|
||
Rick F.-CD vs Vinyl
|
|
|
Subject: Rick F.-CD vs Vinyl From: John Hindsill Date: 31 May 99 - 09:59 PM Am listening to your show as I type this...Greeeeat! Unlike you, I guess, I much prefer clean vinyl recordings to CDs; they have a warmer sound and more ambient information, although the CD is probabably sonicly more pure. I do have a number of CD reissues and compilations. Where there is duplication, I will go to the big, (mostly) black disk, rather than the silvery little disk. John |
|
Subject: RE: Rick F.-CD vs Vinyl From: Frank McGrath Date: 01 Jun 99 - 10:10 AM I haven't been Mudcatting for a long time. Far too long. I agree with you John. CD's are excellent - robust, convenient, good acoustic quality and clarity etc. But they don't compare to the real thing... vinyl. The audio on CD's is SAMPLED at little over double the maximum theoretical range of the human ear. That highlighted word is important. When you sample something, by definition, you do not record the totality, just a portion is captured. Even though the sample rate is high, information is lost and worse, spurious harmonics will be introduced. Leaving aside the nostalgic aspects of vinyl (which are important) analogue recordings attempt to capture all the audio data, even the ultrasonic stuff we can't "hear" but which we can feel or "percieve". Even on an old crackle, pop and rumble vinyl recording, there is a authenticity to the sound which is absent from a supposedly crystal clear CD. So, if you want music as you drive to work or as you potter around the house then CD's are the most practical solution. If you want to be in the presence of Pete Seeger then listen carefully to his old vinly recordings. Frank McGrath |
|
Subject: RE: Rick F.-CD vs Vinyl From: Big Mick Date: 01 Jun 99 - 10:27 AM Well said, Frank. And what the hell is the deal?........being away so long? We have missed you around here. BTW.....I am going to have dinner with George and his Missus tomorrow evening in Windsor. I agree with your comments completely on the musical parts of the recording. You get a much fuller sound out of vinyl. But one advantage I have noticed with regard to CD's is that you hear things in the recording that you didn't before. If you put a CD of the Chieftains "Another Country" on and listen, you will hear the small comments and laughs that you would never have heard on vinyl. One of my very favorite albums when I was young was "Retrospective" by Buffalo Springfield. I literally wore out several albums and would have sworn that I knew every sound on that album. The first time I listened to it on CD, I heard instrumentation and vocal separation I had never heard before. Having said all that,..........I prefer the sound of the vinyl. It has a fuller, warmer feel to it. But I play the CD or the tape I made for the car more often. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: Rick F.-CD vs Vinyl From: Rick Fielding Date: 01 Jun 99 - 12:15 PM John, you got it wrong! I MUCH prefer vinyl, for the same reasons as given here. The problem is that most of my 2 or 3 thousand records have been played so much that the scratchiness really comes across on radio. My absolute all-time favourite recording "Un Bel Dia, from Madama Butterfly" sung by Lucretia Bori, and recorded in the 20s was scratchy and full of hisses to begin with - but I still cry when I listen to it. Other recordings that still knock me out, but are almost un-listenable are: Vess Ossman playing "Brilliancy Medley" on 5 string banjo, recorded in 1906(!) and several by Appalaichan balladeer Buell Kazee. If I played any of these on the radio, I'd get fired. We're supposed to keep up with modern tastes in fidelity. rick |
|
Subject: RE: Rick F.-CD vs Vinyl From: John Hindsill Date: 01 Jun 99 - 09:43 PM Well now, Rick, I certainly don't want you to lose the radio gig just when I have found you; in fact, I wish you were on more or longer...or both.
You are right about playing old vinyl on the radio. The ticky pops and scratches are definitely amplified. I notice this on tapes I make for car listening, even to the point that I sometimes can't listen to the tape.
I feel like a piker compared to your record collection; I thought my collection of 400 or so was pretty good. Throw in my classical, rock and pop and it becomes a munificent five-and-a-half hundred licorice pizzas.
Question, who coined the term 'Licorice Pizza'? I first heard it about 1960/61. We had a record store chain in southern California with that name in the 1970s, and one of their executives told me they got it from the same source. John Hindsill |
|
Subject: RE: Rick F.-CD vs Vinyl From: katlaughing Date: 01 Jun 99 - 11:58 PM Rick! Another thing in common....Puccini, though La Boheme is my favourite. I used to have an old 78 of Kirsten Flagstad....can't remember what piece she sang, bit think it was Wagner, what a voice, though! kat |
|
Subject: RE: Rick F.-CD vs Vinyl From: Art Thieme Date: 02 Jun 99 - 11:03 AM I agree about Vinyl--it is much warmer. And the liner notes, using the entire back of the album, always did allow for more info. Books aren't meant to be microscopic--as they are with CDs. I still love the large booklets that Sandy & Caroline issued with every LP on Folk Legacy. Also, the Folkways booklets were great. That said, I love listening to old 78s. The cracks & pops, to me, are the actual sounds of TIME PASSING. Carol and I own fourteen vinyl LPs of the incomparable John McCormack--the turn of the century tenor from Ireland. No other "3 tenors" even come close to him for warmth and feeling. The LPs preserve that quality! And for some reason only one CD has been issued of his music. That is a travesty whuich deprives this brave new generation from hearing him. Art Thieme |
|
Subject: RE: Rick F.-CD vs Vinyl From: Bonedaddy Date: 02 Jun 99 - 12:23 PM I can't help but compare this issue to two musicians discussing the differences between solid state and tube amplifiers. Clean vs warmth... I think beauty is in the ear of the beholder.. |
|
Subject: RE: Rick F.-CD vs Vinyl From: Alan of Australia Date: 02 Jun 99 - 12:36 PM G'day, Well I can't really agree with the idea that LPs sound better than CDs - even brand new LPs have too much surface noise, a dynamic range of 60 dB maybe. CDs have a dynamic range of well over 90dB - no comparison. I agree that CDs don't sound completely natural - when was the last time you heard live music with NO background noise? For the same reason our digital phone system at work doesn't sound "right" but there's no doubt it's better. But what I really need to correct is the idea that sampling causes loss of information "by definition". It's a scientific fact that if you adhere to the rules (Nyquist's sampling theorem) absolutely nothing is lost. To quote the theorem for the CD case: an audio signal extending to 20kHz can be "completely characterised" by sampling at 44.1kHz. The maths proving this are not very difficult and they DO PROVE it, as do measurements with a spectrum analyser. There are harmonics generated and these can lead to aliasing distortion if your CD player does not have a good filter. Oversampling helps here.
Cheers, |
|
Subject: RE: Rick F.-CD vs Vinyl From: Alan of Australia Date: 02 Jun 99 - 12:45 PM And by the way, you do realize that an FM stereo broadcast uses sampling to enable transmission of separate left and right channels on a single RF carrier? The sampling rate is 38kHz, significantly lower than the CD sampling rate. Have you ever noticed lack of warmth in this case?
Cheers, |
|
Subject: RE: Rick F.-CD vs Vinyl From: Bonedaddy Date: 02 Jun 99 - 01:02 PM Yea, what he said |
|
Subject: RE: Rick F.-CD vs Vinyl From: Frank McGrath Date: 02 Jun 99 - 01:09 PM Hi guys and gals, I like this debate. Two of the reasons you can hear "stuff" on a CD that you cannot hear on Vinyl are due to normalisation and dynamic range. CD's have a more limited dynamic range than vinyl. Dynamic range is the differance between the quietest and loudest sounds. To overcome this limitation most digitally mastered or remastered recordings are "normalised" before being put onto CD. When normalising, the difference between the lowest and highest volumes is measured and and all intervening levels are compressed maintaining a relationship between each. Basicially, low volumes are boosted. So, therefore, quiet sounds on vinyl are amplified to sound louder on CD's. Regarding radio, the apparent amplification of noise on LP's is due to similar compression that sometimes occurs in broadcast as well as the effects of limited bandwidth which even VHF FM suffers from particularly at the reciever end. Because you are effectively listening to less audio information, the LP noise has a proportionally greater value that if the "full" audio range was included, so therefore the noise sounds louder. Hey Big Mick, It's great you are meeting George and the missus. Tell them - we don't miss 'em at all (but we do). Tell George that we are organised with "Music Network" and that G. Slevin would be delighted to accept an invitation to join the Arts and Culture Committee if you are prepared to make one. Sorry I've missed so much Mudcat activity but I'll do my best to keep in touch more often. Frank The answer is to listen to your LP's in a |
|
Subject: RE: Rick F.-CD vs Vinyl From: LEJ Date: 02 Jun 99 - 05:26 PM I think that fidelity to the original performance is the essential determining factor in judging any recording. The argument that pops and scratches lend "character" to a recording is novel, but doesn't give an argument for fidelity. I have also heard the reasoning that analog recording processes reproduce sound at or beyond the limit of human audial perception, creating an undefinable but real response on the part of the listener. This smacks of hoo doo to me. I would agree that analog recording has the potential to record a wider frequency range, but it is certainly limited by the performance of the play-back equipment. Unless you are willing to fork out the necessary 2000-3000 smackers for a top-line turntable and tube amplifier, the fidelity found in a 200 dollar CD player will give far better frequency range, dynamics and clarity. So count me in on Alan's side in this debate. This thread has the potential for the same kind of polarity and passion of the guns threads! LEJ |
|
Subject: RE: Rick F.-CD vs Vinyl From: Frank McGrath Date: 02 Jun 99 - 08:44 PM This debate will never end. I agree that CD's are excellent. I also believe that LP's are excellent, but in differing ways. Both should be treasured and not trashed. But just to be an annoying smartass, I cannot resist making the following points; There is no doubt that Mr. Nyquist was a clever man but if sampling is so great why is the process of OVERsampling used? The reason is - to retain some of the LOST quality. AND if (as admitted) harmonics are produced which lead to a requirement for filtering is this not yet another exanple of the innacuracy of digital processes in an analogue environment? Regarding math proof of theory. Try this test. Take a sheet of graph paper (the ones with all the little squares) and draw a line with a simple wavey line across it. Now try to replicate the line by drawing only up, down and across the groph paper lines. You will find that you can only approximate the original and a very little child will see the obvious difference between the two. The difference of course is the "jagginess" which contains harmonics of the original waveform. The original wavey line is analogue and the jaggy thing is a digital approximation. Einstien proved that Newton's laws of physics were not perfect. But for day to day rule of thumb Newton's stuff is still pretty cool. You see I still love CD's - it's just that I love LP's too. A 200 buck turntable hooked up to a modest midi system is all you need to enjoy the best of both worlds. Frank |
|
Subject: RE: Rick F.-CD vs Vinyl From: John Hindsill Date: 02 Jun 99 - 09:06 PM Since I started this 'mishegas', I'll weigh in again. Alan and others may be right about digital music being truer or purer when scoped and analyzed. I, myself, do not watch scopes to appreciate music; I listen with 60 year old ears. I have many CDs, but where there is a choice to use vinyl, I will.--John |
|
Subject: RE: Rick F.-CD vs Vinyl From: campfire Date: 02 Jun 99 - 09:44 PM I remember when CDs first came out, and everybody was clamoring about how much "better" they sounded. I felt technologically impaired, because I really couldn't hear it. Most of my favorite old LPs have not been reissued on vinyl, and I'm not sure I'd want to pay for all the duplication anyway. The one thing I do like about CDs over vinyl is being able to jump exactly to the track you want, even from across the room. Helps alot when I'm trying to learn something by playing with the recording, and I can start over with the push of a button, without even putting my instrument down. Most of my vinyl and CDs I have copied onto cassette for listening in the car. That's probably where I do most of my listening, anyway - a function of my life right now. campfire (hearing impaired??) |
|
Subject: RE: Rick F.-CD vs Vinyl From: Lonesome EJ Date: 03 Jun 99 - 12:45 AM OK, I'll admit that part of my consternation with vinyl is attributable to the fact that I can't find a replacement needle for my Technics SL-3200 Phonograph. And I quite like the word "phonograph", it conjures up images of old white-haired Thomas Edison squawking "Mary had a little lamb" into a speaking horn.It's also true that tears come to my eyes when the scratch comes scraping up during Jimi Hendrix's solo on All Along the Watchtower , thinking of my buddy Paul passing out into the stereo in 1969.However... Take a look at High Definition TV. That waterfall is breathtakingly real! Now take a real close look...wow! Little squares! Almost like on graph paper! Perception is certainly reality to the viewer OR the listener, and I have a hunch that Frank's jagged digital line is indistinguishable at distance from his nicely smooth analog one. In Graphic Arts, the same objections have been raised- that pixillated images can never approach the real quality of continuous-tone images. But as they say, technology marches on, and the tools for creating and rendering images improve daily. I still contend that the digital rendering tools hold exponentially greater promise than the old method, a piece of metal in a plastic groove. Of course, IF I could just find a new needle... EFJ |
|
Subject: RE: Rick F.-CD vs Vinyl From: Date: 03 Jun 99 - 08:00 AM G'day, Sorry Frank, it's simply not true that CDs have a more limited dynamic range than LPs look at my figures above, 60 dB plus vs 90 dB plus. Don't take my word for it look up some measured results. CDs win by a long way. As for compression, that's been around for at least as long as rock'n'roll and there's absolutely no reason to apply more for CDs than LPs. BTW your definition of dynamic range is correct, but normalisation has nothing to do with compression. It simply means raising the level of a piece to the loudest it can be without distortion, while leaving the dynamic range unchanged. Compression reduces the dynamic range of the piece resulting in a louder average sound. Oversampling is used to help the low pass filter prevent the ADDITION of aliasing distortion due to the harmonics*. It does not put back lost quality. None of the harmonics are in the audio range and therefore do not represent distortion of the original signal. If you take the same sheet of graph paper and plot the line you would get from an LP (not the original analogue recording) USING THE SAME SCALE, the line would be much lumpier than the digital line. The jagginess of the digital line is not harmonics of the original signal; it's called "quantisation noise", yes, its due to the digital approximation and is 97.8 dB below the maximum level. The equivalent for LPs, surface noise is about 60 (maybe 70) dB below the max. level. The fact that a system uses filters is no problem if they do their job. If a process has some unwanted side effects which are then completely removed there is no problem. Many other systems use filters: AM & FM radio, even the highest quality, TV, and even the circuit you use to listen to your LPs - the RIAA curve.
Cheers, * These harmonics are modulated harmonics of 44.1kHz and the modulation components (sidebands) go from 24.1 kHz upward for a 20 kHz audio signal. So they are inaudible, they just need to be removed to avoid intermodulating the audio causing aliasing distortion. Oversampling effectively pushes these sidebands further away from the audible range, making the low pass filter design much easier. |
|
Subject: RE: Rick F.-CD vs Vinyl From: Alan of Australia Date: 03 Jun 99 - 08:07 AM Whoops, my new setup didn't have my cookie set. The previous post was me (obviously). Having said all the above, there are many examples of CDs that are inferior because of bad production. I have several where the levels were too high, resulting in gross clipping (distortion) of the signal. That's just careless. I have others where the mix is completely different from the LP release. None of those sound as good as the original to me. Probably just what I'm used to.
Cheers, |
|
Subject: RE: Rick F.-CD vs Vinyl From: Roger in Baltimore Date: 03 Jun 99 - 09:42 AM LEJ, Last time I went needle hunting I went to Radio Shack. They had a substantial collection. It is a bit counterintuitive to look there since they don't sell (never sold?) turntables, but someone else pointed me in their direction. Good luck! Roger in Baltimore |
|
Subject: RE: Rick F.-CD vs Vinyl From: LEJ Date: 03 Jun 99 - 01:05 PM Roger..you probably aren't going to believe this, but I own a Radio Shack. I still can't get the right needle. |
|
Subject: RE: Rick F.-CD vs Vinyl From: Mark Roffe Date: 04 Jun 99 - 01:51 AM Ok, you guys have me worried now. You mean I'm probably gonna have trouble finding a new cartridge for my Technics SL-D3 someday soon? I did notice that the "Turntables Unlimited" store closed down. Uh-oh. Mark |
|
Subject: RE: Rick F.-CD vs Vinyl From: John Hindsill Date: 04 Jun 99 - 10:57 AM If you can't find a stylus, and sometimes it is very hard to, change the whole cartridge. I did that. I know that MarVac Electronics in Pasadena, CA, USA offers a very large selection. I don't know if they do mail order, though. [This is not an advert; I have no connection with them except as a consummer.]--John |
|
Subject: RE: Rick F.-CD vs Vinyl From: GUEST,Judy Date: 01 Feb 05 - 05:54 PM Did you ever find a needle replacement? I'm trying to find a needle for my technics sl-d3. Thanks |
|
Subject: RE: Rick F.-CD vs Vinyl From: Big Mick Date: 01 Feb 05 - 06:23 PM Judy, go to Needle Depot and search by turntable and put Technics in the search engine. I tried to search by the model number you gave and didn't get any hits. But when I put Technics w/o the model there were a number of hits. My guess is that if you don't find it, you could email them and they would be able to help. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: Rick F.-CD vs Vinyl From: Jeri Date: 01 Feb 05 - 06:39 PM Mick, thanks for posting that link. I have a decent turntable with an ancient needle. One of these days, I'll figure out what needle to buy, and get one. It looks suspisciously like a $120 one...yeesh! |
|
Subject: RE: Rick F.-CD vs Vinyl From: Big Mick Date: 01 Feb 05 - 06:44 PM Jeri, if you put "stereo needles" into Google, you will find a number of outlets. Talk to you soon, Mick |
|
Subject: RE: Rick F.-CD vs Vinyl From: Goose Gander Date: 02 Feb 05 - 01:04 AM I prefer vinyl over CDs because I've always been able to find lots of good stuff at swap meets, flea markets, garage sales, thrift shops, etc. for $1 to $5. Because I am basically poor, that is a very acceptable price range. I can take chances on weird, old stuff. Anything I don't like goes into the trade pile, which I always manage to get rid of. |
|
Subject: RE: Rick F.-CD vs Vinyl From: s&r Date: 02 Feb 05 - 03:59 AM Hi Fi to me is as much about not introducing what wasn't there (hiss, scratches) as retaining what was. CD and DAB radio are great. Stu |
| Share Thread: |