lauck@bergil.DEC (09/26/84)
[!} >Goodness gracious, heavens to betsy! The last thing I would ever want >to do is get into a dispute with a golden ear. Please, take your monster >record cleaner and go in peace. I don't want to argue the merits of >different flavors of hiss, scrathes and gouges. >... > By the way, if your cleaner is as good as >you say it is, its worth a million! No one else I have heard of has >claimed a cleaner so good records never wear out. I will personally >look into that one, cause I want one too if the're <that good>! Before I bought my CD player last December, I certainly didn't consider myself a "golden ear", just a music lover. But perhaps in my youth I was tainted, since I did go to school with J. Peter Moncrieff. The record cleaner is not a monster, it is about twice as tall as the typical turntable and the same width and depth. It is, alas, a bit noisy. I have already reclaimed dozens of records which had become unlistenable, so I consider it has already "paid for itself". Further use will be needed to determine how many times records have to be played before noticable wear sets in, but some I've cleaned had been played dozens of times and after cleaning sound better than they ever did before. I doubt that I will ever wear out any of my records by listening to them. I am not inclined to perform wear testing, given the cost of the Alpha-1 cartridge. On an operating cost basis lasers are cheaper than styli! I realize that few people have the interest or finances to buy a high end system, which can be as costly as an automobile. My point was rather that the current digital technology does not measure up to what is currently possible with analog records, in some cases analog records made 20 years ago, played on today's equipment. A young person investing in analog records and a modest system can expect to play them better tomorrow as his budget improves. I am not so confident that there is much room for improving playback of CDs. I am critizing digital sound not to kill it but to improve it. The only way this will happen is if many people learn to hear its limitations. A fair comparison of LP and CD is now possible. Yesterday I bought the digitally mastered CD and the direct disk analog LP of Sheffield lab's "West of Oz". My wife and I listened to the CD first than began the LP. We got as far as "Somewhere" before my wife stopped me and suggested there was no further need for comparison. We didn't need to go "over the rainbow", the LP was so obviously superior. It was an order of magnitude difference, not the subtle differences we listened for while trying amplifiers, step up devices, wires, etc. My wife is a musician, not a golden ear. Tony Lauck ...decvax!decwrl!rhea!bergil!lauck
prk@charm.UUCP (Paul Kolodner) (05/27/85)
(In case there are a few aborted version of this posting on the net, it's because I'm having a quarrel with my editor. Sorry.) I own about 1000 LP's which I consider some of my most prized possesions. I treat them with loving care, including vacuum cleaning. I have never let anyone else touch any of my records. I recently bought a CD payer and about 25 CD's. So how do I feel about CD vs LP? Answer: I think CD's are great. The sound is spectacular, especially the dynamic range and lack of distortion. Imaging? It could be better with both, but other issues tear at my heart more. The real issue, as far as I'm concerned, is ease of handling. After 5 or 10 plays, my most treasured records sound like they've been dipped in ivory liquid, despite my anal care. If I touch their surface by accident, I get a guilty feeling. When people come to visit, they sometimes ask to hear some music. I put on a record. They begin to talk about politics while Mozart is struggling to be heard in the background and I'm visualizing the chips of plastic being shredded from my favorite disc. Do I need this? CD's are the perfect solution. My ears have been demonstrated to be golden enough to perceive some of the subtler differences between CD's and LP's, but the convenience of the CD means that I now spend more time actually listening to music rather than cleaning records and worrying. I'm sold. Now, if they'd only clean up all of my records and put them on CD's...
john@moncol.UUCP (John Ruschmeyer) (05/29/85)
>From: prk@charm.UUCP (Paul Kolodner) >Organization: Physics Research @ AT&T Bell Labs Murray Hill NJ > >I own about 1000 LP's which I consider some of my most prized >possesions. I treat them with loving care, including vacuum >cleaning. I have never let anyone else touch any of my records. > > ......After 5 or 10 plays, my most treasured records >sound like they've been dipped in ivory liquid, despite my >anal care. Anal care??? What does your personal hygene have to do with high-fidelity? (And I'm not too sure I'd want to touch your records.) -- Name: John Ruschmeyer US Mail: Monmouth College, W. Long Branch, NJ 07764 Phone: (201) 222-6600 x366 UUCP: ...!vax135!petsd!moncol!john ...!princeton!moncol!john ...!pesnta!moncol!john Silly Quote: I never wanted to be a barber. I wanted to be... a LUMBERJACK!
wjm@lcuxc.UUCP (B. Mitchell) (06/04/85)
There are several things to consider in the CD vs LP discussion, and for
that matter, the larger digital vs analog discussion.
1) There are advantages to storing audio performances in digital form,
such as the ability to edit without physically splicing the tape, the ability
to create copies that are exact duplicates of the master, without adding
noise, and increased immunity to tape defects (error-correcting codes can
compensate for some problems).
2) However, there is no such thing as a free lunch. One of my main concerns
about digital recording is that today's standards may NOT be adequate for
the demands of the future. What happens to today's digital recordings and
equipment, if we decide that we want a higher performance digital standard
tomorrow??
3) Today, the best LP playing equipment can perform as well as CD players,
but budget and moderate priced CD equipment runs rings around equivalently
priced LP equipment. $300 to 500 CD equipment certainly outperforms $300 to
500 turntables and cartridges. Also, the high end CD players are generally
cheaper than high end turntable systems.
4) The CD also has the advantage of not degrading with each play, and not
being vunerable to scratches, spilled coffee, etc.
5) Is the CD the wave of the future? Yes, in some form, but I'm not sure
if the present CD standard will be the ultimate one, nor am I sure if the
ultimate CD will be compatible with today's model
6) Is the LP obsolete? Yes.
7) Is the LP dead? Far from it - there are many performances that will never
be re-released on CD, and right now CD pressing plants are severely backlogged.
There is an enormous number of LP players out there, and a large number of
people (not serious audiophiles) who are content to just buy an LP once in
a while - sure if they had a CD player, they'd get CD's but they're not the
types to spend $500 or so on a CD player.
Also, with the CD plant backlog, small runs of disks will probably not get
produced for a while - so much for classical, jazz, and small record labels.
8) Does digital sound worse than analog? Not if the digital equipment is
properly designed with digital anti-aliasing filters.
Regards,
Bill Mitchell ({ihnp4!}lcuxc!wjm)karn@petrus.UUCP (06/05/85)
I've just been sitting here, taking in all the ruckus from my last posting, and generally enjoying myself. Recently, a colleague purchased a copy of The Absolute Sound (I wouldn't even *think* of wasting money on that rag myself) and in thumbing through the pages I believe I've gathered some more insights into the golden ear philosophy. My friend pointed out a letter to the editor that, as far as I could tell, was a serious attempt to persuade everyone that digital audio was the work of Satan, and quoted the Bible passages to prove it. Ah, for the First Amendment! Then there was a picture of an ad from one of the consumer audio shows that apparently showed a portable CD player, floating on a swimming pool in a watertight case. The caption read: "And we all know what ELSE floats..." But the most telling tidbit was the constant association of CD players with "the masses". One could almost hear the haughty sniffles. Funny, from my own experience, I thought CD players were still perceived as top-end luxury items, although fortunately this is changing rapidly. But this certainly says something about how The Absolute Sound views itself and its readership, doesn't it? Phil
caf@omen.UUCP (Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX) (06/06/85)
The only LP's I've heard that can match a good CD were the DBX
series of a few years ago.
I have yet to hear a !DBX LP of classical music that didn't have its share
of surface noise. (Most Jazz and Pop music tends to cover up the surface
noise is the surfaces are good.)
Why oh why didn't you digiphobes get behind DBX when you had a chance?
DBX LP's sound almost as good as CD's and they didn't have the high
front end costs associated with CD's. If DBX had caught on, you'd be able
to have a great selection of music without most of the infernal noise and
distortion that separate LP's from CD's.
As far as the presence of lousy CD's in the catalog being an excuse for
digiphobes to avoid CD's in general: I have some really rotten or worn out
LP's I'd like to see remastered in CD.
Speaking of which, has anyone heard the new Toscanini CD's? How do they
sound?
--
Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX ...!tektronix!reed!omen!caf
Omen Technology Inc 17505-V NW Sauvie Island Road Portland OR 97231
Voice: 503-621-3406 Modem: 503-621-3746 (Hit CR's for speed detect)
Home of Professional-YAM, the most powerful COMM program for the IBM PC