las <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>As you stated, this debate could go on forever. But after your
>apparently derogatory statements about Rock, I realize it would be
>pointless because we don't just disagree about analog vs digital. We
>are on two different planets altogether!
Larry, I *never* made any derogatory statements about rock. The only thing I
said is that "rock music generally isn't the kind of music that really
benefits from audiophile recording methods" which is absolutely true.
Granted, there are a few rock recordings that will (which is why I said
"generally") but the fact remains that classical and jazz and vocals all
benefit from high-end recording and mastering techniques far more than rock
does. I'm a huge rock fan, and rock music compromises the vast majority of
my CD collection, but that doesn't make me blind to the fact that a MFSL
Gold version of U2's Unforgettable Fire doesn't really sound much better
than the standard release, or that a well-recorded rock album doesn't sound
much better on my "good" system than it does on my "2nd" system. That's not
a dig on rock at all -- it's simply looking at the instruments and styles of
the genre. As you yourself have said, rock has limited dynamic range.
>Here I stand corrected. I thought that your e mail was coming from
>the same person who started the vinyl vs CD debate.
No problem.
>That person was actually Gerry Morgan He stated:
>
>"My older (late 1950s and 1960s) LPs generally sound better than
>those from the 70s and 80s."
>
>I think there is room for a discussion between you and Gerry, if you
>disagree with his statement.
I neither agree nor disagree -- there are some older recordings that are
simply phenomenal. However, there are also a lot of really bad ones ;) I
think that a well-recorded vinyl album of today is better than a
well-recorded album from the 50s and 60s. The one advantage some of those
older recordings had is that they put a lot more care into recording them.
The big labels don't seem to do that anymore -- you often have to go to
smaller labels to get well-recorded stuff.
>Frequency range. THD. S/N ratio. Dynamic range. Channel separation.
>To name a few. These are objective specifications. Often they may not
>correlate with the subjective findings of your ears and brain. So
>subjectively to some people vinyl will sound better than digital.
That's the whole point -- specs are meaningless when it comes to actually
listening to music. You can't say that "CD is hands down better than vinyl"
based on specs alone. People (cough... Sony/Phillips... cough) can throw out
all the specs they want about vinyl, CD, MP3, MD, cassette, SACD, DVD-A,
etc., etc., etc. But if one sounds as good as the other, does it matter?
Larry, until you've taken me up on my suggestion to go to a high-end audio
shop and done a double-blind test of vinyl vs CD on a good system, all
you're doing is repeating propaganda from Sony and Phillips. Like I said
previously, in 1981, they claimed that CD was "perfect" sound... yet how
many "improvements" have the come out with in the past 20 years? Funny... I
didn't think perfection could be improved. Obviously it's not the "perfect"
format they claimed, despite the specs.
>You keep mentioning "analog to analog". But the analog sound that you
>hear live, is not the same analog sound that you hear on the
>recording. Because of the limitations of analog storage, frequency
>response must be cut off and the original sound must be compressed so
>that you do not over saturate the analog tape.
Again, I think you're incorrect about "frequency response must be cut off"
and "the original sound must be compressed" -- a good analog master is as
audibly "full-range" as any other medium and any alleged "compression" is
inaudible. I find this especially interesting considering that the vast
majority of all CDs ever produced have been pressed from analog masters. My
SACD versions of Miles Davis "Kind of Blue" and Isaac Stern's rendition of
Vivaldi were both pressed from analog masters recorded in 1959 and 1973, yet
they sound better than any other jazz or classical CD I have heard, even
those newer ones that were digital all the way through. One of the
best-recorded, most realistic rock/pop CDs I've ever heard is The Cowboy
Junkie's The Trinity Sessions, recorded and mastered in analog.
>You keep mentioning the on going improvements in things such as ADC
>and DACs. But that is just akin to all of the improvements that
>analog made over the years. In fact the improvements in analog sound
>are much greater than those from the first CDs to the present.
Which is irrelevant to our discussion, Larry. The potential of all mediums
have improved over time. My point about CD improvements is that CD "specs"
have remained constant since 1981 -- yet somehow there has been wave after
wave of "better" sound. If specs told the whole story, that would be
impossible.
>But research in the area of improving analog was abandoned once
>digital became the accepted means of storage and playback.
"Research in the area of improving analog was abandoned?" They how can
better turntables be produced each year? How can audiophile vinyl labels
improve the quality of the recordings they release each year? Mics are
analog. Most instruments are analog. Recording techniques are improving
every year, even in studios that are all analog. Any many vinyl users could
give you a long list of significant improvements in vinyl over the past 20
years.
>All the things that you mentioned about places like "Ambrosia Audio"
>are impractical in the real world.
Larry, I'm not sure what we're talking about anymore. First it was "MP3 is
better than vinyl." Then it was "CD is better than vinyl." Then it was "CD
is better than vinyl unless you're one of the very few people in the world
who can afford a good vinyl system." Now it's "Vinyl is just impractical in
the real world." Which are we debating now? ;)
As for the things in high-end audio shops, why are they "impractical?" Are
they expensive? Sure, but so are high-end CD-based systems. Do they take
more care and effort than CD? Sure but I know a lot of people who drive cars
that are a pain in the butt to care for, but they are still great cars and
they drive them because they have their own reasons. I don't try to tell
them that in the "real world" their car is impractical. They're driving down
the same street as I am, so it can't be that impractical.
>I have a feeling that our debate may actually have more to do with
>musical preferences than analog vs digital or vinyl vs MP3 or CDs.
Well, I respectfully disagree. I think that it's difficult to even talk
about "preferences" when you've never heard a modern-day high-end vinyl
system. You simply can't read a spec sheet and get the whole story.
Once again, I reiterate: I am a CD person. I don't even own a turntable. I
love classical and jazz, but I'm mainly a rock person. So I'm not simply
defending my preferences. I'm being objective about this, and I would
encourage others to do the same, starting with listening and doing your own
audible comparisons.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word
"unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
