On 14/04/2023 12:58 pm, NY wrote:
> On 14/04/2023 11:06, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>> 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?
>
> Yes, but it's "good" distortion which turns "clinical" CD into "musical"
> LP ;-)
>
> In practice, it is probably band-limiting and a bit of
> compression/expansion, and maybe a non-flat frequency response if the
> player's RIAA equalisation curve doesn't match the mastering RIAA curve.
> Plus some background noise: dirt-in-groove, dust, scratches, roughness
> of vinyl etc.
>
> It may well be that all this does subjectively "improve" the sound for
> some people. Everyone's different.
>
> 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.

You took the very words out of my mouth.

Image editors sometimes have the facility for adding "noise" to pictures
and video-editors sometimes have the ability to add scratches and
vertical defects to their output.

I even have a KPM library CD whose last track is entitled "Optical Noise
(effect)".

In article <kdekg5F4modU1@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
<jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:
> > 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...

> You took the very words out of my mouth.

It would be quite difficult to process the sound to add all the changes
made by/for LP cutting and replay! In addition the *actual* response - even
in basic linear terms - of the cartridge and arm would be complex and vary
from example to example.

e.g. Common for a stereo cart to have wildly different 'vertical' (diff)
and 'horizontal' (mono) responses that sort-of-average-closer-to having the
L and R seem flatter than that.

Non-linear changes make that even more of a minefield.

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 Sunday, 28 May 2023 at 15:45:05 UTC+1, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> In article <kdekg5...@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
> <jennin...@mail.com> wrote:
> > > 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...
> > You took the very words out of my mouth.
> It would be quite difficult to process the sound to add all the changes
> made by/for LP cutting and replay! In addition the *actual* response - even
> in basic linear terms - of the cartridge and arm would be complex and vary
> from example to example.
>
> e.g. Common for a stereo cart to have wildly different 'vertical' (diff)
> and 'horizontal' (mono) responses that sort-of-average-closer-to having the
> L and R seem flatter than that.
>
> Non-linear changes make that even more of a minefield.
> 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

You would need a something a bit like an equalizer, but with sliders for how much of which deleterious effects you wanted: -

Wow
Flutter
Rumble
Hiss
Scratches
Wear
Crosstalk
Acoustic feedback
EMI in the cable(s) (very few mV as opposed to line voltage)
Pre-amp noise
Limited frequency response
Poor pressing

optionally you could also simulate the noise from a valve amplifier
more hiss (aka pink noise)
non-linear frequency response

As previously stated anyone who believes vinyl and valve is better than CD and semiconductor is demonstrating deaf faith.

In article <3651b706-bc95-4bbc-a347-b28d07dd3d9en@googlegroups.com>, R.
Mark Clayton <notyalckram@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, 28 May 2023 at 15:45:05 UTC+1, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> > In article <kdekg5...@mid.individual.net>, JNugent <jennin...@mail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > 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...
> > > You took the very words out of my mouth.
> > It would be quite difficult to process the sound to add all the changes
> > made by/for LP cutting and replay! In addition the *actual* response -
> > even in basic linear terms - of the cartridge and arm would be complex
> > and vary from example to example.
> >
> > e.g. Common for a stereo cart to have wildly different 'vertical'
> > (diff) and 'horizontal' (mono) responses that
> > sort-of-average-closer-to having the L and R seem flatter than that.
> >
> > Non-linear changes make that even more of a minefield. 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

> You would need a something a bit like an equalizer, but with sliders for
> how much of which deleterious effects you wanted: -

> Wow Flutter Rumble Hiss Scratches Wear Crosstalk Acoustic feedback EMI in
> the cable(s) (very few mV as opposed to line voltage) Pre-amp noise
> Limited frequency response Poor pressing

> optionally you could also simulate the noise from a valve amplifier more
> hiss (aka pink noise) non-linear frequency response

> As previously stated anyone who believes vinyl and valve is better than
> CD and semiconductor is demonstrating deaf faith.

but they have "musicality". ;-)

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England - sent from my RISC OS 4té
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

In article <3651b706-bc95-4bbc-a347-b28d07dd3d9en@googlegroups.com>,
R. Mark Clayton <notyalckram@gmail.com> wrote:

I've changed the order a little...

> Wow
> Flutter
> Rumble
> Hiss
> Acoustic feedback
> Crosstalk
> EMI in the cable(s) (very few mV as opposed to line voltage)
> Pre-amp noise
> Limited frequency response

All of the above normally not audible on good systems. Only pre-amp
noise has raised it's head in my system in the last decade, that due
to changes in my system to get HDMI hi-res audio but a new RIAA pre
sorted that.

> Scratches
> Wear
> Poor pressing

That does happen.

[Snip]

> As previously stated anyone who believes vinyl and valve is better
> than CD and semiconductor is demonstrating deaf faith.

As it's written yes I agree with you. However, the word "better" is
the issue. Had you written "anyone who finds the sound of vinyl
preferable" then I wouldn't agree with you.

Digital audio has come a long way since the early 80s when to my ears
and many others, CD playback sounded not good at all. Today and for
decades I've no problem with digital playback and would not want to
go back to vinyl except for nostalgic moments.

Vinyl sounds very good on my system, excellent in fact but it is
woefully a right pain in practical terms but it's obvious you've not
been exposed to good vinyl playback.

Bob.

On Sun, 28 May 2023 09:09:34 -0700 (PDT), "R. Mark Clayton"
<notyalckram@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, 28 May 2023 at 15:45:05 UTC+1, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>> In article <kdekg5...@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
>> <jennin...@mail.com> wrote:
>> > > 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...
>> > You took the very words out of my mouth.
>> It would be quite difficult to process the sound to add all the changes
>> made by/for LP cutting and replay! In addition the *actual* response - even
>> in basic linear terms - of the cartridge and arm would be complex and vary
>> from example to example.
>>
>> e.g. Common for a stereo cart to have wildly different 'vertical' (diff)
>> and 'horizontal' (mono) responses that sort-of-average-closer-to having the
>> L and R seem flatter than that.
>>
>> Non-linear changes make that even more of a minefield.
>> 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
>
>You would need a something a bit like an equalizer, but with sliders for how much of which deleterious effects you wanted: -
>
>Wow
>Flutter
>Rumble
>Hiss
>Scratches
>Wear
>Crosstalk
>Acoustic feedback
>EMI in the cable(s) (very few mV as opposed to line voltage)
>Pre-amp noise
>Limited frequency response
>Poor pressing
>
>optionally you could also simulate the noise from a valve amplifier
>more hiss (aka pink noise)
>non-linear frequency response
>
>As previously stated anyone who believes vinyl and valve is better than CD and semiconductor is demonstrating deaf faith.

You would also have to simulate tracking distortion, making sure that
it was different for the sum and difference components, and you'd have
to ensure that like the other distortions with mechanical sources, it
would change slowly from the beginning to the end of the recording.

Rod.

On Monday, 29 May 2023 at 09:58:24 UTC+1, Roderick Stewart wrote:
SNIP
> >
> >You would need a something a bit like an equalizer, but with sliders for how much of which deleterious effects you wanted: -
> >
> >Wow
> >Flutter
> >Rumble
> >Hiss
> >Scratches
> >Wear
> >Crosstalk
> >Acoustic feedback
> >EMI in the cable(s) (very few mV as opposed to line voltage)
> >Pre-amp noise
> >Limited frequency response
> >Poor pressing
> >
> >optionally you could also simulate the noise from a valve amplifier
> >more hiss (aka pink noise)
> >non-linear frequency response
> >
> >As previously stated anyone who believes vinyl and valve is better than CD and semiconductor is demonstrating deaf faith.
> You would also have to simulate tracking distortion, making sure that
> it was different for the sum and difference components, and you'd have
> to ensure that like the other distortions with mechanical sources, it
> would change slowly from the beginning to the end of the recording.
>
> Rod.

It was not an exhaustive list, there is also the issue of the linear speed of the stylus varying substantially between the inner and outer track (like three times), which IME would affect the frequency response.

By contrast CD's are barely affected by any of these, except perhaps poor pressing, but then the data is error corrected.

On 28/05/2023 08:32 pm, Bob Latham wrote:

> R. Mark Clayton <notyalckram@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I've changed the order a little...
>
>> Wow
>> Flutter
>> Rumble
>> Hiss
>> Acoustic feedback
>> Crosstalk
>> EMI in the cable(s) (very few mV as opposed to line voltage)
>> Pre-amp noise
>> Limited frequency response
>
> All of the above normally not audible on good systems. Only pre-amp
> noise has raised it's head in my system in the last decade, that due
> to changes in my system to get HDMI hi-res audio but a new RIAA pre
> sorted that.
>
>> Scratches
>> Wear
>> Poor pressing
>
> That does happen.
>
> [Snip]
>
>> As previously stated anyone who believes vinyl and valve is better
>> than CD and semiconductor is demonstrating deaf faith.

+1.
>
> As it's written yes I agree with you. However, the word "better" is
> the issue. Had you written "anyone who finds the sound of vinyl
> preferable" then I wouldn't agree with you.
> Digital audio has come a long way since the early 80s when to my ears
> and many others, CD playback sounded not good at all. Today and for
> decades I've no problem with digital playback and would not want to
> go back to vinyl except for nostalgic moments.
> Vinyl sounds very good on my system, excellent in fact but it is
> woefully a right pain in practical terms but it's obvious you've not
> been exposed to good vinyl playback.

I have heard that claim frequently (though not as frequently today as in
the 1980s and early 1990s), usually from hi-fi shop staff.

I managed to extract the opinion that "good vinyl playback" was really
only available on a system that cost about the same as the price of a
nearly-new Mini.

On 29/05/2023 12:17 pm, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
> On Monday, 29 May 2023 at 09:58:24 UTC+1, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> SNIP
>>>
>>> You would need a something a bit like an equalizer, but with sliders for how much of which deleterious effects you wanted: -
>>>
>>> Wow
>>> Flutter
>>> Rumble
>>> Hiss
>>> Scratches
>>> Wear
>>> Crosstalk
>>> Acoustic feedback
>>> EMI in the cable(s) (very few mV as opposed to line voltage)
>>> Pre-amp noise
>>> Limited frequency response
>>> Poor pressing
>>>
>>> optionally you could also simulate the noise from a valve amplifier
>>> more hiss (aka pink noise)
>>> non-linear frequency response
>>>
>>> As previously stated anyone who believes vinyl and valve is better than CD and semiconductor is demonstrating deaf faith.
>> You would also have to simulate tracking distortion, making sure that
>> it was different for the sum and difference components, and you'd have
>> to ensure that like the other distortions with mechanical sources, it
>> would change slowly from the beginning to the end of the recording.
>>
>> Rod.
>
> It was not an exhaustive list, there is also the issue of the linear speed of the stylus varying substantially between the inner and outer track (like three times), which IME would affect the frequency response.
>
> By contrast CD's are barely affected by any of these, except perhaps poor pressing, but then the data is error corrected.

I do have a very few CDs (pressed by PDO in Blackburn, Lancashire) which
have "bronzed" and started mis-tracking (with a regular clicking/white
noise).

It took a few years, mind. And I managed to obtain the relevant tracks
on other pressings not subject to the fault, as well as ripping them to
*.wav when I first heard of the problem. Safely stored on a hard-drive.

In article <3651b706-bc95-4bbc-a347-b28d07dd3d9en@googlegroups.com>, R.
Mark Clayton <notyalckram@gmail.com> wrote:

> As previously stated anyone who believes vinyl and valve is better than
> CD and semiconductor is demonstrating deaf faith.

Not quite. More of a 'preference'... although often accompanied by
assertions that don't stack up.

Bit like sometimes finding Classic FM 'sounds better' than R3. When I'm in
the kitchen Classic FM often sounds better than R3 because it is given more
multibanded level compression and 'enhancement'. So is easier to hear and
enjoy some details, at the cost of being less like what I'd hear in a
concert hall... which is what I want when sitting down and just enjoying
the experience of 'live' classical music.

So depends on the definition of "better" used.

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

In article <5aabc8b745bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham
<bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
> > As previously stated anyone who believes vinyl and valve is better
> > than CD and semiconductor is demonstrating deaf faith.

> As it's written yes I agree with you. However, the word "better" is the
> issue. Had you written "anyone who finds the sound of vinyl preferable"
> then I wouldn't agree with you.

Yes.

> Digital audio has come a long way since the early 80s when to my ears
> and many others, CD playback sounded not good at all.

I found that some 1st gen players and CDs sounded superb. Philips were
ingenious in using 4x oversampling to get 16bit performance from their
initial 14bit DACs. Some of the other makers simply didn't get their
approaches right. Nor took care with the quality of the chips, etc, they
made/used.

Similarly, for many years some producers of CDs and studios used poor
digital equipment, or used it badly.

Pretty much my experience of LPs and the LP replay systems people got and
used. Key issue was production care, etc. Just as nowdays some things are
poor whilst others are excellent. Devil in the details of how and what is
done from mic to speakers.

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

In article <kdjh0hFri6qU1@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
<jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:

> I do have a very few CDs (pressed by PDO in Blackburn, Lancashire) which
> have "bronzed" and started mis-tracking (with a regular clicking/white
> noise).

I had some of those and PDO ran a free replacement scheme which I used.

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

In article <1230e286-4dfe-4ffd-927c-098ba100eda7n@googlegroups.com>, R.
Mark Clayton <notyalckram@gmail.com> wrote:

> It was not an exhaustive list, there is also the issue of the linear
> speed of the stylus varying substantially between the inner and outer
> track (like three times), which IME would affect the frequency response.

Bit more complex than that. *If* the signal modulation level is very low,
then it need not limit the frequency response. The problem is with louder
signals where the wall curvature may go below the contact radius of the
stylus used. More complex than this because the sheer pressures involved
can also distort the wall profile as the 'bottoms' of the wall curves are
where the accelleration is high.

FWIW I investigated this some years ago. cf

https://www.audiomisc.co.uk/HFN/LP3/aroundthebend.html
https://www.audiomisc.co.uk/HFN/LP1/KeepInContact.html
https://www.audiomisc.co.uk/HFN/LP2/OnTheRecord.html
https://www.audiomisc.co.uk/HFN/goodresolutions/page2.html

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

In article <kdjgqvFri6iU1@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
<jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:

> I managed to extract the opinion that "good vinyl playback" was really
> only available on a system that cost about the same as the price of a
> nearly-new Mini.

Well, in fairness if someone is willing to pay for a decent stereo based
on, say CD, the cost of a decent deck, etc, shouldn't be a bar to getting
decent results *from a good LP*. I doubt the cost of a small car is
needed. After that - as with cars - if you want something a bit better, the
cost racks up. But you don't need much for many LPs as they tended to be
cut to suit what people use, not to the best possible.

FWIW If you want examples of the 'best' LPs, I'd say try the "Dragon's
Dream" ones. They *are* expensive as they are direct cuts. But done with
great care, and very impressive on a good system.

That said, I tend to make a digital copy for 'safety and convenience' and
then play then instead! 8-] Keep the LPs.

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

In article <5aac12a5abnoise@audiomisc.co.uk>,
Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:

> I found that some 1st gen players and CDs sounded superb. Philips
> were ingenious in using 4x oversampling to get 16bit performance
> from their initial 14bit DACs.

I was fortunate that at the time I had a friend who worked in a hi-fi
in Birmingham shop and he would turn up on a Sunday afternoon with
the latest CD player. These were mostly the philips machines. We were
impressed with the hassle free usage but we didn't like the sound at
all.

The first player even my wife would tolerate was the Meridian 207.
Her words on hearing that was to say, "wow, it's playing the same
music as the turntable". That would be around 1987 and we got one.
The 207 was well bettered by the 208 just 2 or 3 years later and we
still have our 208, gathering dust now. The improvement in that short
time was very obvious.

I can see that as a classical fan the lower noise, end of side, etc.
would have a greater impact on your perception than mine. I did play
classical but most of my CD testing was Dire Straits as I recall.

So as we we'll have to disagree a bit on that one.

> Some of the other makers simply didn't get their approaches right.
> Nor took care with the quality of the chips, etc, they made/used.

Yes.

> Similarly, for many years some producers of CDs and studios used
> poor digital equipment, or used it badly.

Yes,

> Pretty much my experience of LPs and the LP replay systems people
> got and used. Key issue was production care, etc. Just as nowdays
> some things are poor whilst others are excellent. Devil in the
> details of how and what is done from mic to speakers.

Yes.

Bob.

On Monday, 29 May 2023 at 12:32:49 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
> On 28/05/2023 08:32 pm, Bob Latham wrote:
>
> > R. Mark Clayton <notya...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I've changed the order a little...
> >
> >> Wow
> >> Flutter
> >> Rumble
> >> Hiss
> >> Acoustic feedback
> >> Crosstalk
> >> EMI in the cable(s) (very few mV as opposed to line voltage)
> >> Pre-amp noise
> >> Limited frequency response
> >
> > All of the above normally not audible on good systems. Only pre-amp
> > noise has raised it's head in my system in the last decade, that due
> > to changes in my system to get HDMI hi-res audio but a new RIAA pre
> > sorted that.
> >
> >> Scratches
> >> Wear
> >> Poor pressing
> >
> > That does happen.
> >
> > [Snip]
> >
> >> As previously stated anyone who believes vinyl and valve is better
> >> than CD and semiconductor is demonstrating deaf faith.
> +1.
> >
> > As it's written yes I agree with you. However, the word "better" is
> > the issue. Had you written "anyone who finds the sound of vinyl
> > preferable" then I wouldn't agree with you.
> > Digital audio has come a long way since the early 80s when to my ears
> > and many others, CD playback sounded not good at all. Today and for
> > decades I've no problem with digital playback and would not want to
> > go back to vinyl except for nostalgic moments.
> > Vinyl sounds very good on my system, excellent in fact but it is
> > woefully a right pain in practical terms but it's obvious you've not
> > been exposed to good vinyl playback.

If you track back in this group, you will see how I recounted that when my hearing was still good in the mid 1980's I would easily tell the difference between CD's and Vinyl when played over FM and through my car stereo driving up the M6* as broadcast by Signal Radio. I don't know what professional vinyl decks they used, but IMO it would be fair to assume that they were "good".

Even now I can easily tell the difference between my vinyl Led Zep 4 and my CD version, although the former may be a little worn. OTOH I struggle to tell CD from a pirate MP3 LZ recording [legally bought in a public market between dawn and dusk decades ago] and CD.

In the early days of CD player's, tracking may have been a bit off, timing relying on the read stream, D to A conversion not all 16 bits and most importantly little or no look ahead buffer to allow for re-read and / error correction. Old CD's may become scratched, dirty, warped or been exposed to the sun, but unless severe they are much less affected than vinyl. No look ahead results in distortion when missed samples are dropped.

The main [valid] critique of vinyl lovers is the sampling rate on CD's which is pushing it for high frequencies, but Shannon tells us even they probably can't tell.

>
> I have heard that claim frequently (though not as frequently today as in
> the 1980s and early 1990s), usually from hi-fi shop staff.
>
> I managed to extract the opinion that "good vinyl playback" was really
> only available on a system that cost about the same as the price of a
> nearly-new Mini.

Not even then. The best I ever heard was about 1981/2, a visiting senior engineer boasted about his set up so I went to hear it. He had top deck and amp, big speakers (all in a small front room!) and had bought hugely expensive direct pressings of his favorite LP's that cost ££ even then.. Sure it was better than my then down-market set up, but even as good as CD - I very much doubt it.

* so fidelity loss in the FM segment, engine, road and wind noise etc.

In article <c0ca463f-11f4-4589-8ea0-220ce2d2175en@googlegroups.com>,
R. Mark Clayton <notyalckram@gmail.com> wrote:

> If you track back in this group, you will see how I recounted that
> when my hearing was still good in the mid 1980's I would easily
> tell the difference between CD's and Vinyl when played over FM and
> through my car stereo driving up the M6* as broadcast by Signal
> Radio. I don't know what professional vinyl decks they used, but
> IMO it would be fair to assume that they were "good".

I'll say it again.

Unless the equipment in the studio was faulty or the records were
faulty, had crackle or warped etc. then that is nonsense of the first
order.

I record some of my LPs using my PC and a 192KHz 24 bit ADC.
Admittedly I've have removed some clues like the stylus hitting the
groove but nothing much.

People just can't tell it's vinyl in my lounge without the visual
clues.

You appear to have no experience of good quality vinyl at all and
your hatred of the medium is out of all proportion and getting ever
more irrational.

Vinyl sounds very good, it has it's faults but nothing near your dire
description and your claim is false.

Bob.

In article <5aacbdb7eabob@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham
<bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <c0ca463f-11f4-4589-8ea0-220ce2d2175en@googlegroups.com>, R.
> Mark Clayton <notyalckram@gmail.com> wrote:

> > If you track back in this group, you will see how I recounted that
> > when my hearing was still good in the mid 1980's I would easily tell
> > the difference between CD's and Vinyl when played over FM and through
> > my car stereo driving up the M6* as broadcast by Signal Radio. I
> > don't know what professional vinyl decks they used, but IMO it would
> > be fair to assume that they were "good".

> I'll say it again.

> Unless the equipment in the studio was faulty or the records were
> faulty, had crackle or warped etc. then that is nonsense of the first
> order.

> I record some of my LPs using my PC and a 192KHz 24 bit ADC. Admittedly
> I've have removed some clues like the stylus hitting the groove but
> nothing much.

Big advantage of that is you can then clean up clicks, etc. Then listen in
situations where a lp and turntable would be problematic.

> People just can't tell it's vinyl in my lounge without the visual clues.

I've done similar on occasion. Indeed, I've been listening to a number of
old LP 'rips' in the kitchen of later. (Mostly old Jazz that *doesn't* have
had the LOUDNESS obsession applied by the LP makers.)

*However* wnat Mark describes is a different situation to that. And since
you weren't (I assume) with him at the time you can't tell what was
presented.

> Vinyl sounds very good, it has it's faults but nothing near your dire
> description and your claim is false.

More acurate to say that 'Vinyl' *can* sound very good. Just as CD can. But
not all examples of either will or do.

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

In article <c0ca463f-11f4-4589-8ea0-220ce2d2175en@googlegroups.com>, R.
Mark Clayton <notyalckram@gmail.com> wrote:
> Even now I can easily tell the difference between my vinyl Led Zep 4 and
> my CD version, although the former may be a little worn. OTOH I
> struggle to tell CD from a pirate MP3 LZ recording [legally bought in a
> public market between dawn and dusk decades ago] and CD.

May be mistaken, but IIRC LZ were one of the examples I used later on to
show that the LPs were level compressed rather differently to the CDs, and
that some of the CDs were clipped. So it should be expected that they sound
'different'. Clipping was more common than people realise - as studios
tended to go for LOUD on a lot of rock/pop due to the obsession they had
that LOUDNESS SELLS.

For LPs loud tends to generate a different sourt of distortion to the
flat-top clipping of early CD chipsets.

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

In article <5aaca026a6bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham
<bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <5aac12a5abnoise@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf
> <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:

> > I found that some 1st gen players and CDs sounded superb. Philips were
> > ingenious in using 4x oversampling to get 16bit performance from their
> > initial 14bit DACs.

> I was fortunate that at the time I had a friend who worked in a hi-fi in
> Birmingham shop and he would turn up on a Sunday afternoon with the
> latest CD player. These were mostly the philips machines. We were
> impressed with the hassle free usage but we didn't like the sound at all.

My 1st Player was the 'Marantz' version of the Philips mech+chipset. Found
that some discs sounded wonderful and others didn't. In that sense, just
like LPs. Given that some sounded good I concluded that the problem was
that the discs varied. Later info showed me this was due to problems with
the way early disc content was generated. One particular snag was that a
lot of early 'digital recordings' were NOT 44k1/16 but at other rates and
lower depths with unreliable clocks. And the ability to process rate
changes, etc, was pretty crude back then. Some cases the music co simply
played out the digital source via analogue into a 44k1/16 encoder. (Which
probably wasn;t reliable 16 bit!) Later re-issued of those early discs
often sound much better.

> The first player even my wife would tolerate was the Meridian 207. Her
> words on hearing that was to say, "wow, it's playing the same music as
> the turntable". That would be around 1987 and we got one. The 207 was
> well bettered by the 208 just 2 or 3 years later and we still have our
> 208, gathering dust now. The improvement in that short time was very
> obvious.

I got Meridian players and decks later, on and preferred their DACs. But
found their 200 range deck a PITA. It often struggled to start tracking a
disc before the music started! Some discs kept hitting the bottom of the
tray. After a while I sent it back and got a replacement. Still missed the
start of some discs, but didn't have the 'bump the bottom' problem. The
first player had a warped tray.

> I can see that as a classical fan the lower noise, end of side, etc.
> would have a greater impact on your perception than mine. I did play
> classical but most of my CD testing was Dire Straits as I recall.

> So as we we'll have to disagree a bit on that one.

Didn't buy that until a few years later.

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 Thu, 01 Jun 23 09:45:02 UTC, Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk>
wrote:

>> I record some of my LPs using my PC and a 192KHz 24 bit ADC. Admittedly
>> I've have removed some clues like the stylus hitting the groove but
>> nothing much.
>
>Big advantage of that is you can then clean up clicks, etc. Then listen in
>situations where a lp and turntable would be problematic.

There's an even bigger advantage in listening to a recording that
doesn't have any clicks etc in the first place, because the digital
recording process doesn't create them. Then you don't have to do
anything to it at all.

A lot of LPs are made from digital masters, and are thus effectively
copies made by an analogue process that is full of distortions. How
can these copies possibly sound better than the originals?

Rod.

On Thursday, 1 June 2023 at 10:45:04 UTC+1, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> In article <5aacbd...@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham
> <b...@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
> > In article <c0ca463f-11f4-4589...@googlegroups.com>, R.
> > Mark Clayton <notya...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > If you track back in this group, you will see how I recounted that
> > > when my hearing was still good in the mid 1980's I would easily tell
> > > the difference between CD's and Vinyl when played over FM and through
> > > my car stereo driving up the M6* as broadcast by Signal Radio. I
> > > don't know what professional vinyl decks they used, but IMO it would
> > > be fair to assume that they were "good".
> > I'll say it again.
>
> > Unless the equipment in the studio was faulty or the records were
> > faulty, had crackle or warped etc. then that is nonsense of the first
> > order.

Not nonsense at all - plain first-hand fact, I used to enjoy predicting whether a track was vinyl or CD before they announced it and was nearly always right.

IME the most likely reason is the HUGE difference in dynamic range IIRC 96dB on CD and about ~45dB on good vinyl.

>
> > I record some of my LPs using my PC and a 192KHz 24 bit ADC. Admittedly
> > I've have removed some clues like the stylus hitting the groove but
> > nothing much.
>
> Big advantage of that is you can then clean up clicks, etc. Then listen in
> situations where a lp and turntable would be problematic.
>
> > People just can't tell it's vinyl in my lounge without the visual clues.
>
> I've done similar on occasion. Indeed, I've been listening to a number of
> old LP 'rips' in the kitchen of later. (Mostly old Jazz that *doesn't* have
> had the LOUDNESS obsession applied by the LP makers.)
>
> *However* wnat Mark describes is a different situation to that. And since
> you weren't (I assume) with him at the time you can't tell what was
> presented.

Well obviously he wasn't. Simple matter to reproduce still being able to tell vinyl from CD now with the same track. Decent deck, Sony amp and some hulking speakers,

>
> > Vinyl sounds very good, it has it's faults but nothing near your dire
> > description and your claim is false.

I am not saying vinyl is not good, I even have more vinyl than CD's, what I am saying is CD is better and I can HEAR the difference in a blind audition.

It is people who say vinyl is better who are lying or at least deluding themselves.

>
> More accurate to say that 'Vinyl' *can* sound very good. Just as CD can. But
> not all examples of either will or do.
> 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

In article <5aad1b258cnoise@audiomisc.co.uk>,
Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <5aacbdb7eabob@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham
> <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
> > In article <c0ca463f-11f4-4589-8ea0-220ce2d2175en@googlegroups.com>, R.

> > I'll say it again.

> > Unless the equipment in the studio was faulty or the records were
> > faulty, had crackle or warped etc. then that is nonsense of the
> > first order.

> > I record some of my LPs using my PC and a 192KHz 24 bit ADC.
> > Admittedly I've have removed some clues like the stylus hitting
> > the groove but nothing much.

> Big advantage of that is you can then clean up clicks, etc. Then
> listen in situations where a lp and turntable would be problematic.

Yes, cleaning up the discs is possible and great idea but I've not
had a great deal of success doing it using Audacity. Yes I can remove
sections and therefore remove noise before/after music but not within
the music. I should read more about it possibly.

Unfortunately it's also very time consuming. I clean the disc for
best results, record it, edit it, save it as flac and then fill in
all the tag information. When you rip a CD, the tags get filled in
for you.

> > People just can't tell it's vinyl in my lounge without the visual
> > clues.

> I've done similar on occasion. Indeed, I've been listening to a
> number of old LP 'rips' in the kitchen of later. (Mostly old Jazz
> that *doesn't* have had the LOUDNESS obsession applied by the LP
> makers.)

> *However* wnat Mark describes is a different situation to that. And
> since you weren't (I assume) with him at the time you can't tell
> what was presented.

It is indeed, the car situation is far less revealing. If there is
any truth in the story at all, there must have been other clues that
have not yet been brought to light. It has been made clear that it
wasn't ticks, pops or crackle, we were told it was sound quality
alone.

> > Vinyl sounds very good, it has it's faults but nothing near your
> > dire description and your claim is false.

> More acurate to say that 'Vinyl' *can* sound very good. Just as CD
> can. But not all examples of either will or do.

I'll accept that.

Bob.

In article <4ce98745-9b1f-40d6-99c7-b02f571d1493n@googlegroups.com>,
R. Mark Clayton <notyalckram@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, 1 June 2023 at 10:45:04 UTC+1, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> > In article <5aacbd...@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham
> > <b...@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
> > > In article <c0ca463f-11f4-4589...@googlegroups.com>, R.
> > > Mark Clayton <notya...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I'll say it again.
> >
> > > Unless the equipment in the studio was faulty or the records
> > > were faulty, had crackle or warped etc. then that is nonsense
> > > of the first order.

> Not nonsense at all - plain first-hand fact, I used to enjoy
> predicting whether a track was vinyl or CD before they announced it
> and was nearly always right.

Oh NEARLY always right?

So this is where the clues were coming from, your guessed the order
and usually got it right.

> IME the most likely reason is the HUGE difference in dynamic range
> IIRC 96dB on CD and about ~45dB on good vinyl.

More tosh.

You're listening to pop/rock music and claim that the greater dynamic
range of CD is audible in the music not the noise floor.

How come them as an example, I have an original 1970s LP of Fleetwood
Mac's Rumours album and a CD of the same from the 80s. The CD is
absolutely flat and lifeless, very poor dynamics and vastly inferior
to the vinyl on *dynamic range*. I still have both.

Don't think that is a one off either because it isn't. CD transfers
were often awful.

A decade or so later a 3 disc set of Rumours was released. I got that
too. That does have the same dynamics as the LP but it's also clipped
to hell as it's recorded too loud. The vinyl betters them both.

Just because a recording medium has a greater dynamic range doesn't
mean the music has, not at all. It's all down to how it was produced.

Bob.

"Bob Latham" <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote in message
news:5aadacc905bob@sick-of-spam.invalid...
> In article <5aad1b258cnoise@audiomisc.co.uk>,
> Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:

>> More accurate to say that 'Vinyl' *can* sound very good. Just as CD
>> can. But not all examples of either will or do.

> I'll accept that.

Both *can* sound good, but CD will always win because it is not marred by
dust/scratch/surface-roughness noise. I have yet to hear any vinyl record
which even comes *close* to a CD for lack of background noise. A vinyl
record may have been mastered perfectly, but as soon as physical contact
between groove and needle is involved, very intrusive background noise
enters the frame.