las <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Granted, you have to spend a LOT more money on a vinyl system, and
>>put a LOT more care into it, to get sound comparable to a CD system,
>>but that's another story.
>
>You would have to spend so much money that it would not be practical
>for all but the wealthiest people to afford it.
It costs a lot for a good vinyl system, but not that much. A few thousand
dollars will let you buy a CD-based system or a vinyl-based system that can
offer comparable sound.
>While she agrees that it is possible to make make a record that
>sounds as good or better than a CD, the equipment needed all the way
>through the chain and the care that would have to be take make it so
>impractical.
But that doesn't make any sense. What "equipment" and "care"? How is it so
different from a standard master?
>Also, she states that analog tape has so many inherent problems that
>adversely affect the final product.
I respect your daughter's opinion, but that sounds more like Sony/Phillips
marketing than reality. Take a look at the equipment many audiophile record
labels use -- the equipment they use to make CDs that sound much better than
CDs made elsewhere. I think you'd be surprised how much analog equipment
(and tape) is used. We're not talking about cassette. We're talking tape
masters -- the same ones used on the vast majority of CDs every produced.
It's only recently that some studios have gone all-digital.
>Your not really keeping the sound as sound. You are converting waves
>to magnetic signals and there in lies your first road block.
But those magnetic signals are analog signals -- there is no conversion
going on, which is the first roadblock to CD/digital sound being accurate.
The second being the D/A conversion that occurs later.
>> Vinyl is analog to analog.
>
>Yes but the storage used to store the "analog" signal is magnetic,
>not physical and converting vibrations to electricity causes a great
>deal of distortion.
Says who? Again, that sounds more like digital propaganda than reality.
>> CD is analog -> A/D processor -> CD.
>
>Yes but first of all, the high end converters that are used today are
>so good at doing what they do that they can make a very accurate
>copy. Better than most analog tapes.
Again, says who? If that was the case, people who care about sound wouldn't
buy new DACs all the time.
>> There is no objective evidence that CD is better,
>
>There is. There is loads of objective evidence. All of those
>specifications. But that doesn't mean that subjectively a CD will
>sound better.
What specifications? All you have to do is read the PR sheets for each new
wave of CD "format" to see why the previous was "inferior" and the current
one is one step closer to "the real thing." And all those specs don't mean
that *objectively* a CD will sound better. As I wrote in an earlier message,
I know what I've heard, and I know what a lot of other people have heard,
and it's not because of any particular love for the "sound" of vinyl.
> Also, today almost all studios use all digital storage.
You said this several times, but it's not necessarily true. In fact, many of
the audiophile records labels still do everything using analog equipment.
It's true that lots of the big labels (who put out mostly
pop/rock/country/R&B) use all-digital equipment, but even they will tell you
that it's more for convenience than because they did the comparisons and
found that they can produce better-sounding albums with digital. In fact,
one of the biggest advantages of digital-based studios is that they can
alter the recordings more easily -- something that happens a lot on
mass-market pop, etc., but that doesn't happen much on high-end recordings.
>You mentioned that older vinyl recordings sound better to you.
No I didn't.
>Even Lenny Kravits, who used to insist that everything be vintage and
>analog has given up. Someone must have convinced him that it wasn't
>worth the hassle.
LOL, maybe someone told Lenny that rock music generally isn't the kind of
music that really benefits from audiophile recording methods.
>My daughter said, as she was laughing about your statements of having
>to spend a lot of money to get the results, "That may be true in some
>analog utopia, but not in the real world".
Again, as I've said over and over, I challenge you to go to a high-end audio
shop that has a *good* vinyl system, and do your own blind tests. Then come
back and tell us truthfully that vinyl can't compete with CD.
>There are other things you said that are open for debate. Belts will
>wear and stretch over time, thus affecting the accuracy of speed.
>Haven't you ever had to retension a belt on your car because of this?
Again, belt wear and tear is part of the maintenance of a good vinyl system.
I've said from the beginning that such things are part of having a vinyl
system. That's not the issue here. The issue is whether or not vinyl can
sound as good as CD (actually, the issue was originally that MP3 sounds
better than vinyl, which is not true no matter how you look at it).
>Also, you did not mention the degradation of the vinyl.
As I've said before, if you actually take care of your vinyl, and have good
equipment, the "wear and tear" is inaudible even after hundreds of playings.
But, again, that's not the issue here. The issue is how vinyl sounds, not
how long it will last.
>The simplest way I can say it is, "a majority of CDs on the equipment
>available today that a majority of the people can afford will sound
>better than vinyl on the equipment that a majority of people can
>afford.
Which is a completely different thing than your original statement that MP3
sounds better than vinyl, and than your subsequent statements that CD is
always superior to vinyl.
I think a more accurate way of saying it is: "On the equipment that the
average consumer has/would buy, CD will sound better than vinyl." That's
accurate and fair.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word
"unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
