You running a newspaper?Originally Posted by hsosdrum
You running a newspaper?
I don't know if the engineers who participated in that discussion are illustrious (or not). But there are mastering engineers who can do excellent work and the results are quite audible. This is equally true when mastering to vinyl also, as well as to any medium. Garbage in, ... , or the opposite.In my comment re master tapes, I should have explained that I was thinking of music originally recorded when vinyl as the predominant end product was the norm. I was really considering "re-mastering" to CD of those musical works. Which is a very large industry / market still as far as I know. Not thinking of more modern tech sans analog magnetic tape "in the loop ". There you have it, that's how far in the past my thinking is buried. So digital audio in itself is not the resident evil? Is music in some instances recorded, stored on hard disk or SS drive digital media, and then mastered to vinyl? Whoa, does that slightly boggle the mind? Seems somehow odd to me, but if done properly what's wrong with that? I'm not knocking vinyl or anything at all as long as the result is musicality. IMO that's the grail.
Sorry, my intention was not to be snarky, if that is how it came off. The digital age is always in my mind because, despite being born in 1947, a lot of my favorite music has been recorded in the last twenty years.I don't know if the engineers who participated in that discussion are illustrious (or not). But there are mastering engineers who can do excellent work and the results are quite audible. This is equally true when mastering to vinyl also, as well as to any medium. Garbage in, ... , or the opposite.
The mastering engineers featured in the article do happen to be an august group. They are looked up to by their peers.
As far as the grail, mine has evolved. My listening began with 1950s technology and indeed I was sucked into the tube and vinyl revival years - decades - later. As my system increased in resolution and presentation, I no longer enjoyed the limitations of vinyl. I returned to the original intent of modern sound reproduction. To reproduce the recording with as little distortion as possible. Gone are the tubes (except as high voltage sources for Stax headphones) and the deliberately euphonic methods and equipment. I have grown to completely prefer enjoying music as close to the recording as possible. It is not a theoretical quest, I like the presentation better. No "warming it up" for me these days. To each his own, certainly, but I personally grow tired of deliberate distortion. There is enough already without adding more by using older technology that had no choice in the matter. I crave music, not nostalgia.
So the digital era and current capabilities appeal to me. If all I have of a 1930s recording I like is a low rez mp3, I enjoy that. But is a better version is available I do seek it out. Since at least half of my listening is post 1990 recordings, it is not a difficult thing to do anymore.
Information is not Knowledge; Knowledge is not Wisdom
Too many audiophiles listen with their eyes instead of their ears
I, like the august group of engineers who were interviewed for the article take issue with this notion and again I quote the article:
"That said, every audio engineer we spoke to said it's not hard to find LPs that sound better than CDs. Mastering, production and manufacturing variables can drastically tilt the scale either way."
This is not a statement in defense of either format, but rather to point out that either format can achieve superior results and it isn't necessarily the format that is responsible for superior sound. Both formats have potential pitfalls that need to be contended with and in the right hands either can yield outstanding or unfortunate results.
Widget
I guess I'm one of the lucky ones that can enjoy albums or CDs, no need for either/or.
Good article Clark, I found it very informative and even learned some things about vinyl I did not know before, thanks for posting. There were some very good points all around and a lot of which we all seem to agree upon in one way or another.
Going to listen to some music now.
Just Play Music.
Since I have been accused of beating a dead horse, I might add that "Well done vinyl beats badly done CDs" and "Recording and mastering are more important then the media" are two more. Which are obvious and off topic, having nothing to do with the fact that "Properly done CDs and digital have greater fidelity than properly done vinyl. The potential is greater, and apples to apples there is no contest." To quote my own point and the reason I linked to the article in the first place.
Perhaps the article would have better been titled "Why CDs Can Actually Sound Better Than Vinyl." I'm done with this topic, becoming sorry I started it. Of course a well mastered vinyl can sound better than a badly mastered CD or digital file. Which has nothing to do with the greater capabilities of digital recording and media than tape or vinyl media. That is what I have been talking about. Sheesh!
And thanks, Fred, and a good idea.
Information is not Knowledge; Knowledge is not Wisdom
Too many audiophiles listen with their eyes instead of their ears
Well I think this goes without saying. Of course vinyl can sound better than a lousy CD but when eliminating the variables of mastering and comparing apples to apples it would appear that the 'bobs' quoted in the article were dismayed by the information lost when translated to vinyl. Isn't a large part of our hobby trying to replicate what was heard by the creators of the art initially? Isn't this why many of us pursue speakers/monitors with flat frequency response?
Since I'm not privy to the master tapes or their listening room I'll take their word for it.
DIY Array, 2242 sub, 4408, 4208, Control 8SR, E120 Guitar cab, Control 1, LSR305.
If "recording and mastering" are "off topic" in a thread comparing the sonic virtues of two different formats that arrive at their finished form via these two activities as part of the process, then what exactly constitutes a "properly done CD"?
And rather than your suggested title of "Why CDs Can Actually Sound Better Than Vinyl." just go for your true and original intent and title it "Why CDs DO Actually Sound Better Than Vinyl." and be done with it..............
...............because that's been your point all along anyway
I understand. It's always nice and reassuring to find one's own feelings on matters, whatever they may be, validated by others in "print", especially when those others are "experts" and even "illustrious" as you put it.
And that is FINE if you feel that way, I am happy you are happy.....................but that article?
It's a bull shit fluff piece written by some non-audio person for a kids' "alternative" rag and reflects nothing in large part but opinions, Bob Ludwig's included (there were a few points of fact such as who did what and where and who said what)
You and others have missed no opportunity to put some sort of qualification or condition on the playback quality of Lps and to point out it's limitations in areas such as "dynamic range" and how much "better" digital "measures" in any number of areas, with every remark and "observation" made............as if those who prefer the sound of vinyl are just "wrong" and won't acknowledge the "proof" that "science" has to offer OR maybe that they'll convert and beg redemption if only shown the error of their ways and ignorance..............just one more time?
The agenda is clear, and I'll say it again, that's fine. You need to drop the word "better" and possibly use the words "potentially more accurate representation" and even THEN the finished product, on any given one of millions of playback systems may still not "sound better" to a given pair of ears and a brain..............be it an Lp or a CD
The conversation is absurd; you (as in anyone) cannot "tell" another Human being what is "better", whether it's which barbecue place to go to, or burger or beer or cigar or Lp or CD..............or blonde or brunette.........or guys who like fat girls.................it's ALL subjective once the verb SOUNDS is followed by the adjective BETTER
SONY and Philips made EVERY POINT flailed at in that "article" and then some. The WORLD for the large part bought it. What else do you want?
The deal's been sealed since the early '80s, tired of hearing the damned sales pitch still; I think everyone on the planet, with the possible exception of some lost aboriginal tribe, heard it the first time. Even all the Sub-Saharan Africans heard it.
The marketing and the format both proved to be very successful, but interestingly, not successful enough to eclipse compact cassettes until well into the first half of the '90s
Now THAT'S a navel you can contemplate
It's funny how quickly and rabid this all became after the initial launch of the CD, and NOT just with audiophiles. What passion, what zeal! The "digital revolution" had begun; evolve or get out of the way! And that arrogance has persisted to this day.
CD eclipsed vinyl in unit sales DECADES ago and yet this insistence on touting it's technical virtues over that of the Lp persists to this very day, a day by the way that is seeing the CD sales on a rapid decline
What a crock of shit, telling someone what's "better" when it involves one of the Five Senses. I especially love it when it comes from folks who don't even own the one they're banging on, be it the CD player or the turntable camper, happens a lot.
Who gives a shit what Bob Ludwig says is better?
You come to the party with some cobbled together opinion piece (on a topic which remains "hot button", again I have no idea why), throw it out there and then get all huffy puffy when you don't get unanimous agreement on just how "right" it is? I mean what did you expect? You state you have been an audio enthusiast for decades, so you know the nature of this topic and the responses it elicits (ergo:) and yet you persist to whine that not everyone will agree with you and your article?!
You are either trolling or naive. And to make matters worse, I think nearly every post here has acknowledged the fact that we all own and enjoy numerous examples, both good and bad, of BOTH formats in our Music collections. A remarkable amount of restraint and maturity has been demonstrated here, especially if one were to make just a cursory comparison of how this one lights up on other forums..............
So, exactly what is the response you are looking for or need to hear?
For me the thread started with a hint without any special intentions.
Some answeres have been "suprising" for me and I am inclined to add another completely different contribution:
" It is impossible to describe the actual sublime sound produced by ... horn which can only be referred to as “holographic” to the extent that the artists and instruments appear to be in the same room as the listener---a totally magical and unique experience. The absolutely pure quality of the sound is unsurpassed. The playing of every record is an event. "
I have no reason to disagree with this subjective statement.
It has far more to do with vinyl than with CD.
it is not about an unrepeatable audiophile voodoo session,
it is not about the latest JBL studio monitor.
But read yourself (last paragraph in text):
http://forum.talkingmachine.info/vie...p?f=11&t=15076
___________
Peter
Interesting article Hoerninger, I for one would love to hear such a machine, just for the experience, the "event" as it were
Right now I am listening through a Pioneer SX-1080 with 4430s and I really like the sound the old receiver produces. It has some very unique characteristics which I find appealing, some people maybe would not, but thats fine.
I'll probably leave it in place for a few months and switch it out with something else, for me thats part of the fun of it all.
Yes, I think you are right there Ed. I think we all pursue these goals in our own way, like some of us here I also enjoy the "chase" of it all, but I think that is getting off topic.
Just Play Music.
Clearly a serious enthusiast!
I own two acoustic machines but nothing that ambitious
I am wondering how he is playing some records from the electric era using thorn and steel needles and not destroying them?
Do you know?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlWEvEUYqr4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m750qT1rhhc
I think this is the crux of the biscuit. Given a master recording unrestricted in dynamic range and containing unrestricted bass information, it is impossible for even the most skilled mastering engineer to transfer it to vinyl without compromise, whereas that same skilled mastering engineer could indeed transfer that master to CD with minimal (or no) compromise. The engineers quoted in the article are concerned with fidelity to a work of art (which the master recording is) and lamenting the compromises required to create a copy of that work in the vinyl medium.
The first time I was able to compare a master recording with its commercial vinyl transfer was back in 1974 at Westlake Audio. (The recording was "California 99", a concept album by Jimmie Haskell, with guest musicians like Joe Walsh and Denny Doherty.) Listening to the master recording on a set of top-of-the-line Westlake Monitors (all JBL components, BTW) was one of those goosebump-inducing experiences that I've carried with me ever since; the clarity, bass performance and dynamics were absolutely breathtaking. Listening to the vinyl pressing on the same playback system was hollow and extremely disappointing—the dynamic impact and bass performance had completely vanished, and we had to struggle to discern individual instruments and voices that had been crystal-clear on the master. The vinyl release doesn't even hint at how fabulous the master recording sounds.
Your anecdote proves nothing, absolutely nothing
Just moreopinion from the pro digital gallery; "well, I ate a red apple and that red apple was so good I had an orgasm and then I ate a green apple from the green apple tree next door and it didn't do jack for me, so, "the crux of the biscuit" is, those green apples from that green apple tree can't and never will be able to get me off like those red apples can, they are just not as good at producing orgasms and I know and I say so because that's what happened to me................and anyone else who claims that the green apples gave them an orgasm and that they like them even better than the red apples is either lying, in denial OR just doesn't know what they are talking about AND they don't know what an orgasm is"
Sounds pretty silly, huh?
That's all you've said dude. I wish those who want to beat a drum for either would look up three vocabulary words:
THEORETICALLY
OBJECTIVELY
SUBJECTIVELY
Keep in mind too that the aural memory is the shortest there is, so whatever it is that you've "carried" ever since has nothing to do (now) with anything you heard that day other than the emotional/physiological reaction you felt and enjoyed
I wonder how many people here, once they had a system of their dreams put on a beloved recording from their youth, a recording they had most likely first connected with via the "low-fi" experience................only to be very disappointed when the "hi-fi" rendering wasn't at all what they had remembered it to be
Back to your day in the studio, maybe the cut job sucked. Ever think of that before you make your meaningless proclamation to the world? Do you have any real idea of how much lathes and cutting have evolved/advanced since the '70s? Now, with the aid of powerful microscopes and computers?
The more some people talk the more they demonstrate to me that they know very little about today's state of the art mastering for Lps..................very little if anything at all (like the "article" which made at least one reference back to the '60s with it's comparisons)
For someone with such precious little time you sure waste a lot of it spewing your bias here in this otherwise civil thread.
DIY Array, 2242 sub, 4408, 4208, Control 8SR, E120 Guitar cab, Control 1, LSR305.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
