molnar@utflis.UUCP (Tom Molnar) (05/30/85)
Keywords:
Summary: LP easier to listen to at concert levels
In article <358@petrus.UUCP> karn@petrus.UUCP writes:
# Sorry. The best LP player may sound a little better than your average
# run-of-the-mill turntable, but it is still a far cry from even the
# cheapest CD player (assuming the CDs aren't too dirty...early cheap
# models had lousy error correction.)
#
# It's a simple, provable, measurable fact.
#
# Phil
There is no question that CD players have a lot of advantages over LP players.
But musicality is not one of them. The first time I heard a CD player
I was as impressed as hell. The dynamic range, the lack of surface noise,
the deep bass -- all contributed to an impressive sound.
But try listening to a CD player at concert levels. Not to Van Halen, but
to music played on strings, or brass, or piano. Will you turn the volume
down after a half hour? You sure will. The CD sound causes fatigue.
Then listen to a good LP on a high quality turntable at concert level.
I think you notice the difference.
I had the opportunity this week to attend a Soiree. I sat in a living room
and listened to Mozart (violin and medium grande piano), Brahms (viola
and organ) and other pieces *live*.
Comparing my Oracle Delphi and my Yamaha CD to live music indicates to my
ears that a high quality LP (well recorded and mastered) sounds more
realistic than CD. In fact, you can tell in an instant. I have Telarc LPs
and CD as well as from ANGEL etc. I have tried to listen to both pure
digital recordings and digitally remastered analogue recordings. In each case
the LP came out on top.
(You don't need to take my word for this, I can refer questions to others
who had attended the live performance and listened to my system afterwards).
Don't get me wrong though, I have all the respect in the world for CD players.
In fact, if you can't afford a high quality turntable, then a CD will is
an excellent alternative. I like the fact that my CDs will sound
the same (no scratches etc) 5 years from now. Nor do I need to replace
a stylus, belt, or whatever. CD is here to stay. But do not be deceived by
hardware specifications. The real test is your ears and taste in music.
Tom Molnar
..{ihnp4,watmath,allegra}!utzoo!utflis!molnarthomas@utah-gr.UUCP (Spencer W. Thomas) (06/04/85)
In article <148@utflis.UUCP> molnar@utflis.UUCP (Tom Molnar) writes: >Comparing my Oracle Delphi and my Yamaha CD to live music indicates to my >ears that a high quality LP (well recorded and mastered) sounds more >realistic than CD. In fact, you can tell in an instant. I have Telarc LPs >and CD as well as from ANGEL etc. I have tried to listen to both pure >digital recordings and digitally remastered analogue recordings. In each case >the LP came out on top. This is an interesting comment, since all the Telarc recordings (at least in the last several years) are digitally recorded. This implies that somehow putting digital information onto an LP in the recording studio and then playing the LP gives a more listenable result than playing that SAME digital information directly. As a friend of mine likes to say, "What's wrong with this picture?" -- =Spencer ({ihnp4,decvax}!utah-cs!thomas, thomas@utah-cs.ARPA) "A pupil from whom nothing is ever demanded which he cannot do never does all he can." -- John Stuart Mill
karn@petrus.UUCP (06/07/85)
> There is no question that CD players have a lot of advantages over LP players. > But musicality is not one of them. OK, so now we understand what "imaging" and "dimensionality" mean, although I remain convinced it depends far more on concert hall accoustics, microphone placement and speaker characteristics than on minute differences between digital recording systems. But now we have a new term: "musicality". Care to explain what it means? > I was as impressed as hell. The dynamic range, the lack of surface noise, > the deep bass -- all contributed to an impressive sound. How true. My first experience with a CD player on good headphones brought tears to my eyes. Certain pieces still occasionally do. > But try listening to a CD player at concert levels. Not to Van Halen, but > to music played on strings, or brass, or piano. Will you turn the volume > down after a half hour? You sure will. The CD sound causes fatigue. > Then listen to a good LP on a high quality turntable at concert level. > I think you notice the difference. What can I say? I attribute my current obsession with classical music to my having acquired a compact disk player; before, I just couldn't stand to listen to classical music on LPs. Now, almost a year later, I still listen to symphonic CDs almost constantly when I'm home, awake and not watching TV. In particular, I've developed a real liking for piano concertos. Since the piano is a particularly "fragile" instrument (i.e., even more susceptible than most instruments to the distortions of LPs) concertos and sonatas are excellent demonstrations of the vast superiority of CDs. On those rare occasions when I do listen to a classical LP (because I don't have a CD copy) I find I can't listen to it at anything approaching the volume that I could listen to a CD, and headphones are out of the question. With CDs, I've had to calibrate my amplifier VU meters in order to protect my hearing. Phil
herbie@watdcsu.UUCP (Herb Chong [DCS]) (06/08/85)
In article <371@petrus.UUCP> karn@petrus.UUCP writes: >> There is no question that CD players have a lot of advantages over LP players. >> But musicality is not one of them. > >OK, so now we understand what "imaging" and "dimensionality" mean, although >I remain convinced it depends far more on concert hall accoustics, microphone >placement and speaker characteristics than on minute differences between >digital recording systems. But now we have a new term: "musicality". Care >to explain what it means? "musicality" means i like what i hear ;-). actually, true in almost all cases if you try to get people to pin down what they mean. Herb Chong... I'm user-friendly -- I don't byte, I nybble.... UUCP: {decvax|utzoo|ihnp4|allegra|clyde}!watmath!water!watdcsu!herbie CSNET: herbie%watdcsu@waterloo.csnet ARPA: herbie%watdcsu%waterloo.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa NETNORTH, BITNET, EARN: herbie@watdcs, herbie@watdcsu
ben@moncol.UUCP (Bennett Broder) (06/10/85)
>>Comparing my Oracle Delphi and my Yamaha CD to live music indicates to my >>ears that a high quality LP (well recorded and mastered) sounds more >>realistic than CD. In fact, you can tell in an instant. I have Telarc LPs >>and CD as well as from ANGEL etc. I have tried to listen to both pure >>digital recordings and digitally remastered analogue recordings. In each case >>the LP came out on top. > >This is an interesting comment, since all the Telarc recordings (at >least in the last several years) are digitally recorded. This implies >that somehow putting digital information onto an LP in the recording >studio and then playing the LP gives a more listenable result than >playing that SAME digital information directly. As a friend of mine >likes to say, "What's wrong with this picture?" What is wrong with this picture? Probably the misconception that playing a Telarc CD is the same as playing the digital recording. Most Telarc digital recordings are made on the Soundstream digital recorder, a machine with a substantially higher sampling rate than the compact disc standard. Before the CD can be mastered, the original Soundstream digital recording has to go through a conversion process to change to the 44.1k sampling rate, then it is re-recorded on a Sony PCM 1610 (A reputedly inferior digital machine, but the only one compatible with CDs). The analog records are mastered directly from the Soundstream recording. Ben Broder ..ihnp4!princeton!moncol!ben ..vax135!petsd!moncol!ben
ed@mtxinu.UUCP (Ed Gould) (06/17/85)
In article <1472@utah-gr.UUCP> thomas@utah-gr.UUCP (Spencer W. Thomas) writes: > >This is an interesting comment, since all the Telarc recordings (at >least in the last several years) are digitally recorded. This implies >that somehow putting digital information onto an LP in the recording >studio and then playing the LP gives a more listenable result than >playing that SAME digital information directly. As a friend of mine >likes to say, "What's wrong with this picture?" At least one of the things wrong is that the Soundstream recording system that Telarc uses for (at least) their analog disks records at 50k samples/second, while CDs play back at 44k. I don't really want to reopen the religious battles about whether 44k is "enough", but that's at least one difference between the analog and CD releases. -- Ed Gould mt Xinu, 2910 Seventh St., Berkeley, CA 94710 USA {ucbvax,decvax}!mtxinu!ed +1 415 644 0146