On 9/06/2023 11:57 pm, Whisky-dave wrote:
> On Thursday, 8 June 2023 at 17:07:43 UTC+1, nospam wrote:
>> In article <4e4c7e37-2167-4d33...@googlegroups.com>,
>> Whisky-dave <whisk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> "'digital downloads' listened to by most people" are essentially mp3.
>>>> mp3 or aac, and they're indistinguishable from lossless.
>>>
>>> Depends who's doing the distinguishing.
>>
>> lab scientists with test equipment might be able to distinguish it.
>> meanwhile, everyone else can't, using their ears.
>
> Most people listen to music via some for or amplifer , connected to earbuds or similar
> they will. NOT be able to tell the differnce but those with high end especailly those that
> listen to clasical music rather than boy bands came.
>
> In the same way someone looking at a photo taken on a smartphone might not be able to tell the differnce between that and a professional
> photographer using a high end camera.
>
>
> But if you are right then how can you claim that a CD is better than vinyl.
>
> Those that buy vinyl aren't the same sort of people that are happy listening to music through shitty earbuds or through other low quality
> equipment.

No but they are more likely re-living nostalgia, or newly duped into
living an apparent marketing coupe.

I repeat - record any vinyl onto CD and the resulting playback will
sound identical to the vinyl. Record a good recording from CD onto vinyl
and the vinyl replay will be far lesser than the CD. In frequency
response (and linearity), distortion (a minute fraction of a percent
versus 1% or more), dynamic range achievable (by about 30dB !), not to
mention actual tracking difficulty on demanding passages, and mechanical
feedback effects on all of the above.

Not folklore or religion - but verifiable demonstrable fact.

geoff

On 2023-06-09 07:57, Whisky-dave wrote:

> Most people listen to music via some for or amplifer , connected to earbuds or similar
> they will. NOT be able to tell the differnce but those with high end especailly those that
> listen to clasical music rather than boy bands came.
>
> In the same way someone looking at a photo taken on a smartphone might not be able to tell the differnce between that and a professional
> photographer using a high end camera.
>
>
> But if you are right then how can you claim that a CD is better than vinyl.
>
> Those that buy vinyl aren't the same sort of people that are happy listening to music through shitty earbuds or through other low quality
> equipment.

I have an early digitally recorded album by Dire Straights on vinyl
(Brothers in Arms) and a nice B&O turntable. [effectively DDA]

I have the same album on CD. [DDD]

It would take somebody with pretty poor hearing to not know the
difference on a blind hearing - just from the bandwidth and/or dynamic
range - there is not much hiss on the vinyl, but at higher volumes it is
there - as is some rumble.

I also have a Honeydrippers vinyl that is near impeccable - even in the
digital version I made from it, you would swear it was not from vinyl.
Until you hear the CD version - then the bandwidth and dynamic range are
just so much better. (But some people wouldn't be able to tell).

A pragmatic look at "how" a vinyl record is made and how the stylus
picks up the sound and modulates a terrifically weak analog of the
"groove" flying by the stylus makes me wonder how vinyl's sound is as
good as it is!

But compared to a DDD or ADD or even AAD CD ... can't come close.

(Never mind physical realities like wear and scratches ...)

--
“If you torture the data long enough, it will confess to anything."
-Ronald Coase

On Saturday, 10 June 2023 at 10:32:48 UTC+1, geoff wrote:
> On 9/06/2023 11:57 pm, Whisky-dave wrote:
> > On Thursday, 8 June 2023 at 17:07:43 UTC+1, nospam wrote:
> >> In article <4e4c7e37-2167-4d33...@googlegroups.com>,
> >> Whisky-dave <whisk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>>> "'digital downloads' listened to by most people" are essentially mp3.
> >>>> mp3 or aac, and they're indistinguishable from lossless.
> >>>
> >>> Depends who's doing the distinguishing.
> >>
> >> lab scientists with test equipment might be able to distinguish it.
> >> meanwhile, everyone else can't, using their ears.
> >
> > Most people listen to music via some for or amplifer , connected to earbuds or similar
> > they will. NOT be able to tell the differnce but those with high end especailly those that
> > listen to clasical music rather than boy bands came.
> >
> > In the same way someone looking at a photo taken on a smartphone might not be able to tell the differnce between that and a professional
> > photographer using a high end camera.
> >
> >
> > But if you are right then how can you claim that a CD is better than vinyl.
> >
> > Those that buy vinyl aren't the same sort of people that are happy listening to music through shitty earbuds or through other low quality
> > equipment.
> No but they are more likely re-living nostalgia, or newly duped into
> living an apparent marketing coupe.

For some maybe but I doubt many remmeber the days when they first mozart and beethoven, or even led zepplin, or pink floyd etc..

>
> I repeat - record any vinyl onto CD and the resulting playback will
> sound identical to the vinyl.

Put dog shit on a silver plate and it won't smell or taste any better either.

>Record a good recording from CD onto vinyl
> and the vinyl replay will be far lesser than the CD. In frequency
> response (and linearity), distortion (a minute fraction of a percent
> versus 1% or more), dynamic range achievable (by about 30dB !), not to
> mention actual tracking difficulty on demanding passages, and mechanical
> feedback effects on all of the above.

But that's not what happens when recording to modern vinyl more care is taken.
Of course more care can be taken with CD's or but generally it isn;t.
For the same reason film scores like star wars use proper orchestras and musians in well equipt studios
rather than bedrooms with CD writers.

>
> Not folklore or religion - but verifiable demonstrable fact.
>
> geoff

On 12/06/2023 11:37 pm, Whisky-dave wrote:
> On Saturday, 10 June 2023 at 10:32:48 UTC+1, geoff wrote:

>
>> Record a good recording from CD onto vinyl
>> and the vinyl replay will be far lesser than the CD. In frequency
>> response (and linearity), distortion (a minute fraction of a percent
>> versus 1% or more), dynamic range achievable (by about 30dB !), not to
>> mention actual tracking difficulty on demanding passages, and mechanical
>> feedback effects on all of the above.
>
> But that's not what happens when recording to modern vinyl more care is taken.

Not a matter of 'care' so much as the laws of physics.

> Of course more care can be taken with CD's or but generally it isn;t.

I can assure you it is. But granted, easier to achieve better results
without the extreme skill and care require to achieve still far inferior
results with vinyl.

> For the same reason film scores like star wars use proper orchestras and musians in well equipt studios
> rather than bedrooms with CD writers.

Um, getting a bit confused between musical performance/recording rather
than domestic replay technology.

geoff

On 2023-06-12 07:37, Whisky-dave wrote:
> On Saturday, 10 June 2023 at 10:32:48 UTC+1, geoff wrote:

>> No but they are more likely re-living nostalgia, or newly duped into
>> living an apparent marketing coupe.
>
> For some maybe but I doubt many remmeber the days when they first mozart and beethoven, or even led zepplin, or pink floyd etc..

See my other post comparing high quality vinyl to the same album on CD.

>
>>
>> I repeat - record any vinyl onto CD and the resulting playback will
>> sound identical to the vinyl.
>
> Put dog shit on a silver plate and it won't smell or taste any better either.
>
>> Record a good recording from CD onto vinyl
>> and the vinyl replay will be far lesser than the CD. In frequency
>> response (and linearity), distortion (a minute fraction of a percent
>> versus 1% or more), dynamic range achievable (by about 30dB !), not to
>> mention actual tracking difficulty on demanding passages, and mechanical
>> feedback effects on all of the above.
>
> But that's not what happens when recording to modern vinyl more care is taken.
> Of course more care can be taken with CD's or but generally it isn;t.

See my Dire Straits example in my other post.

> For the same reason film scores like star wars use proper orchestras and musians in well equipt studios
> rather than bedrooms with CD writers.

When they record that orchestra it is straight to digital - each
microphone and transducer having it's own "track" in the file.
Minimizing the analog portion as much as possible. Then the editing
possibilities are endless - and with no noise or distortion added.

--
“If you torture the data long enough, it will confess to anything."
-Ronald Coase

On 13/06/2023 12:41 pm, Alan Browne wrote:

>
> When they record that orchestra it is straight to digital - each
> microphone and transducer having it's own "track" in the file.
> Minimizing the analog portion as much as possible.  Then the editing
> possibilities are endless - and with no noise or distortion added.
>

Recording an orchestra is more often done with the likes of a Decca Tree
mic system, as opposed to many multiple mics and tracks. And dicking
around with things in post for serious classical recordings is generally
extremely minimal.

As opposed to (most) pop or rock recordings where generally each
instrumental and vocal parts are recorded to discreet tracks, more often
not at the same time, and the resulting 'song' is constructed in the
mixing of those tracks with many effects, EQ, dynamics, and level
balances being applied.

Still noting to do with consumer replay systems per se, though for vinyl
far more compromises must be made in the mastering stage.

geoff

On Monday, 12 June 2023 at 23:33:23 UTC+1, geoff wrote:
> On 12/06/2023 11:37 pm, Whisky-dave wrote:
> > On Saturday, 10 June 2023 at 10:32:48 UTC+1, geoff wrote:
>
> >
> >> Record a good recording from CD onto vinyl
> >> and the vinyl replay will be far lesser than the CD. In frequency
> >> response (and linearity), distortion (a minute fraction of a percent
> >> versus 1% or more), dynamic range achievable (by about 30dB !), not to
> >> mention actual tracking difficulty on demanding passages, and mechanical
> >> feedback effects on all of the above.
> >
> > But that's not what happens when recording to modern vinyl more care is taken.
> Not a matter of 'care' so much as the laws of physics.

But the laws of physics don't really apply to music or any art form come to think of it.

https://electronics.howstuffworks.com/is-the-sound-on-vinyl-records-better-than-on-cds-or-dvds.htm

> > Of course more care can be taken with CD's or but generally it isn;t.
> I can assure you it is. But granted, easier to achieve better results
> without the extreme skill and care require to achieve still far inferior
> results with vinyl.

Again depends who's doing it and who they are aiming it at.
Not forgetting of course how much money you have to throw at the production of it.

> > For the same reason film scores like star wars use proper orchestras and musians in well equipt studios
> > rather than bedrooms with CD writers.
> Um, getting a bit confused between musical performance/recording rather
> than domestic replay technology.

They are linked the majority of music is listened to via streaming rather than being purchased on media, and that's part of the problem.
There's not many people buying vinyl becaus ethat's how they originally bought the stones or beatles.
The CD generation has pretty much ended, the promise that it's last forever and couldn't be damaged did seem like a good point.

>
> geoff

On 2023-06-12 21:52, geoff wrote:
> On 13/06/2023 12:41 pm, Alan Browne wrote:
>
>>
>> When they record that orchestra it is straight to digital - each
>> microphone and transducer having it's own "track" in the file.
>> Minimizing the analog portion as much as possible.  Then the editing
>> possibilities are endless - and with no noise or distortion added.
>>
>
>
> Recording an orchestra is more often done with the likes of a Decca Tree
> mic system, as opposed to many multiple mics and tracks. And dicking
> around with things in post for serious classical recordings is generally
> extremely minimal.

The prior poster was referring to film scores. If you stumble across a
studio session for such you will see many microphones all over the
studio. So a violin section has a mic, the piano has a mic, etc. and so on.

Orchestral _performance_ recordings (which may or may not include an
audience) are another beast.

--
“If you torture the data long enough, it will confess to anything."
-Ronald Coase

On 14/06/2023 12:24 am, Whisky-dave wrote:

>
> They are linked the majority of music is listened to via streaming rather than being purchased on media, and that's part of the problem.
> There's not many people buying vinyl becaus ethat's how they originally bought the stones or beatles.
> The CD generation has pretty much ended, the promise that it's last forever and couldn't be damaged did seem like a good point.

And sadly sounding better than the alternatives doesn't seem to be a
factor for most. And acceptance of bullshit does seem to be a factor.

geoff