dmmartindale@watcgl.UUCP (Dave Martindale) (09/01/84)
All of the comments I've seen regarding analogue recordings sounding better than CD's refer to particular analogue discs which sound much better than anything that person has heard on a CD. The point, of course, is to demonstrate that the analogue system is still superior in some fundamental way. I'd like to ask a different question: How do they perform on average? That is, do CD's generally sound better or worse than analogue counterparts? (This may be impossible to judge "objectively", since there is seldom a full-analogue and full-digital recording of the same thing available.) My point of view is this: I don't make recordings, and I don't have any influence on anyone who does. For me, proving that analogue methods are still capable of better sound than digital is pretty useless if, in fact, there are only a few analogue recordings good enough for there to be a difference. Particularly since I seldom listen to classical music. I would guess that, even if CD's were uniformly worse than the very best analogue recordings, that CD's could very well be almost always better than the usual vinyl pressing of a pop/rock/new-wave disc. But I don't have a CD player to make comparisons. Has anyone done this? What do you think? Are CD's usually better than vinyl, or usually worse? If better, is the price difference in the media worth it?
dave@rocksvax.UUCP (09/05/84)
I tried out a similar experiment to see how a LP fairs against a CD sound-wise.
I have the Yamaha CD-X1 machine, and got the LP and CD to be playing the
same song at the same place so a quick switch and change of volume would
get you to the same piece of music..
Police "Synchronicity":
LP sounded slightly better overall. The CD did a much
better job reproducing the bass notes. CD high end sounded
a bit tinny, I didn't try to change treble controls to fix.
Donald Fagen "The Nightfly":
CD sounded a bit better. Bass was cleaner and there was more
presence of the horns being played than the LP version.
I may note that Synchronicity is analog mastered, and "The Nightfly" is
digitally mastered (3M 32 track and some 4 track machine). So the score is
1 and 1, so I would beleive the CD is just as capable as any LP assuming
the recording gurus put the right bits on the CD. I think we are just
seeing old masterings with LP "compensation" built in being shoved into
CD format.
Dave
arpa: Sewhuk.HENR@Xerox.ARPA
uucp: {allegra,rochester,amd,sunybcs}!rocksvax!davefish@ihu1g.UUCP (Bob Fishell) (09/05/84)
Q: Why are analog vs. CD discussions in net.audio like records?
A: They both get strident and worn out with age.
--
Bob Fishell
ihnp4!ihu1g!fishrentsch@unc.UUCP (Tim Rentsch) (09/06/84)
(I admit it: I'm an audio fanatic.) Before I can answer "better or worse", even on the average, I have to know in what way betterness is being measured. (Subjective measurements are still measurements.) CDs have less, on the average, clicks and pops, than vinyl. But when measured by the important (admittedly subjective) measurement -- is it listenable -- vinyl is better, on the average, than CD. This is because no CD's are listenable, whereas some vinyl is. And that's all that matters. "From transducer to transducer, audio that's better than ears." Tim
emjej@uokvax.UUCP (09/06/84)
#R:watcgl:-305000:uokvax:1000014:000:1003 uokvax!emjej Sep 6 12:07:00 1984 /***** uokvax:net.audio / watcgl!dmmartindale / 11:47 pm Sep 1, 1984 */ But I don't have a CD player to make comparisons. Has anyone done this? What do you think? Are CD's usually better than vinyl, or usually worse? If better, is the price difference in the media worth it? /* ---------- */ I'm interested in hearing people's responses as well, but have this to point out also: consider how the relative merits vary over time, what with 1g turning into umpteen tons per square inch scraping away at that virgin vinyl. Even the best analog disks will turn to junk eventually (I typically dub to cassette and listen to that, and I'm heartbroken over the speck of grunge that seems to have gotten welded to my *Planets* LP while I wasn't looking: so even that practice isn't guaranteed to keep your records in reasonable shape). So, what difference does it make how much better, if any, that half-speed mastered virgin vinyl LP sounds the first time you play it with a new stylus? James Jones
rcd@opus.UUCP (Dick Dunn) (09/19/84)
> But when measured by the important (admittedly subjective) measurement -- is > it listenable -- vinyl is better, on the average, than CD. > > This is because no CD's are listenable, whereas some vinyl is. And that's > all that matters. Could we move this side of the discussion over to net.religion (from which I just recently unsubscribed:-) and get on with something substantive? -- Dick Dunn {hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd (303)444-5710 x3086 ...Never offend with style when you can offend with substance.
wmartin@brl-tgr.ARPA (Will Martin ) (09/20/84)
With regard to the continuing CD vs. analog vinyl discussion: Is it so
inconceivable that a purely analog yet non-contact laser playback
system could be devised for existing vinyl LP (and maybe other) discs?
Of course it isn't a trivial problem, but, then, neither was color TV
or integrated circuits. It's essentially an engineering problem --
detect the reflections from a groove of laser light, while tracking
the spiral, ignoring spurious signals from random reflections or
dirt and dust, etc. I would think that this could be done in a
totally analog manner (whether it WOULD be so done is another question,
though -- it would probably be easier/cheaper to do it by digital
conversion, and all the engineers are digital-mad these days; you can hardly
find an analog design article in the magazines anymore).
If it was done in pure analog, though, all the anti-digital arguments
are overcome, while all the reasons for digital are also achieved
(except for the minor one of the size of the storage medium; LPs
are still bigger than CDs).
However, this gives you the best of both worlds. The existing worldwide
inventory becomes playable on the new equipment, yet doesn't wear as
it is played. I would think that a sophisticated design would let the
user "tune" the position of the groove walls that is being "played"
(independently, too -- infinite channel separation) to track the
undamaged (or least-damaged) section. Media granularity could be
"tuned out" -- we could hear old 78's with no suface noise, yet
capture whatever acoustic signal that the shellac still holds, etc.
At first, such equipment would be expensive, of course, and would
be used for making tape copies of older recordings; it should drift
down in price like everything else, though, so that it would
eventually be something an individual could afford.
So let's see some engineers get into this -- people at various
installations on the net that read this: post this on your engineers'
bulletin boards. Let's get an "AD" system built ("Analog Disc")!
Will Martinkarn@mouton.UUCP (09/25/84)
I see very little point in trying to make a laser-read "analog disc" now that the digital disc is here. The whole point to digital recording is that it gives you an unprecedented ability to trade off bandwidth for signal-to-noise ratio (remember Shannon). The closest you can come with an analog technique is wideband FM, e.g., Beta Hi-Fi. The basic storage mechanism in a CD is highly unsuited for direct analog recording. It is noisy, has relatively high raw bit error rates that translate into rather poor S/N ratios, and the pickup mechanism is highly nonlinear. However, its big claim to fame is BANDWIDTH. It can spew out raw bits at a rate of several megabits for over an hour. Digital encoding and error correcting algorithms let you exchange this for a relatively narrowband (20 khz) signal with an extraordinarily wide signal to noise ratio. I doubt you could do this well with any analog recording scheme that would also have the capability to ride through bad spots on the disc. The only shortcomings of digital audio are in the minds of the golden ears. I see no need for new technology just to placate their ill-informed complaints. The only reason anybody even bothers to answer their wild ravings is concern that their visibility is all out of proportion to their numbers (and substance), and that anti-digital columns in trashy magazines (e.g., Absolute Sound) might inhibit the growth of digital audio and spoil it for the rest of us. Once the CD has taken hold (and I think it's just now doing that), we can just relax, sit back and be amused by the anti-digital "golden ears" as they take their rightful place among the creationists, astrologers and flat-earthers. Phil Karn
lutton@inmet.UUCP (09/25/84)
<> Didn't RCA come out with a record-player about 1948 that used an electric-eye mechanism instead of a needle? According to an ad I've got here, the record changer was called "Magic Brain" and featured a "Jewel-Lite Scanner" -- "Entirely eliminates use of needles." "Magic Tone Cell -- No Needles to Change -- Records Last Indefinitely." Does anyone remember this or know how it worked? It must have been a total failure.
brianp@shark.UUCP (Brian Peterson) (09/25/84)
LPCD If it was done in pure analog, though, all the anti-digital arguments
LPCD are overcome, while all the reasons for digital are also achieved
LPCD (except for the minor one of the size of the storage medium; LPs
LPCD are still bigger than CDs).
You are forgetting the bestest in the galaxy reason for digital music systems.
(Hint: look under your fingers)
For plain old >retrieval<, however, your idea (laser reading of vinyl) is
a great idea.
Brian Peterson {ucbvax, ihnp4, } !tektronix!shark!brianp
^ ^gino@voder.UUCP (Gino Bloch) (09/26/84)
The original posting: >>With regard to the continuing CD vs. analog vinyl discussion: Is it so >>inconceivable that a purely analog yet non-contact laser playback >>system could be devised for existing vinyl LP (and maybe other) discs? Your reply: >I see very little point in trying to make a laser-read "analog disc" now >that the digital disc is here. I submit that you missed the point. -- Gene E. Bloch (...!nsc!voder!gino)
ron@brl-tgr.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) (09/26/84)
The advantages of having non-contact reading of conventional LP's over CD's is that I can't stick my existing record collection into the CD player. -Ron
seifert@ihuxl.UUCP (D.A. Seifert) (09/27/84)
What I've read about the idea of laser-reading conventional
analog records is that it doesn't work well, because the
laser *doesn't* distort the groove while it plays it. A
conventional stylus distorts the groove while playing it,
so that the sound comes out 'right'.
--
_____
/_____\ "Sink the Lousia?"
/_______\
|___| Snoopy
____|___|_____ ihnp4!ihuxl!seifertrcd@opus.UUCP (Dick Dunn) (09/27/84)
> I see very little point in trying to make a laser-read "analog disc" now > that the digital disc is here. (One of the parent articles had asked whether it might be possible to create an optical pickup for analog (vinyl) discs.) It might be an interesting engineering exercise, but it does seem pretty doubtful that it would have enough use to make it a marketable idea... unless it could be made VERY cheaply, in which case people might like to have it just for existing collections. However: > The only shortcomings of digital audio are in the minds of the golden ears. > I see no need for new technology just to placate their ill-informed > complaints. The only reason anybody even bothers to answer their wild > ravings is concern that their visibility is all out of proportion > to their numbers (and substance), and that anti-digital columns in trashy > magazines (e.g., Absolute Sound) might inhibit the growth of digital > audio and spoil it for the rest of us. This adds nothing of substance to the analog vs digital discussion. What's the point of stirring up the flames? The "golden ears" are hardly likely to accept the above position (with all of the snide remarks). There are plenty of cogent arguments for digital technology, so why even bother with the non-substantive, emotional ones? > Once the CD has taken hold (and I think it's just now doing that), we can > just relax, sit back and be amused by the anti-digital "golden ears" as they > take their rightful place among the creationists, astrologers and > flat-earthers. A dream world, that. If you think creationism is dead, go read net.origins for a while. If you think astrology is silly child's play, go pick up some newspapers--what's the probability that they'll have an astrology column? (Probably > 95%.) Astrology is far sillier than analog audio and it's been around far longer--and it's nowhere near dead. -- Dick Dunn {hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd (303)444-5710 x3086 ...Cerebus for dictator!
rcd@opus.UUCP (Dick Dunn) (10/02/84)
Karn's made some comments about the idea of a laser-pickup analog turntable in (159@mouton) but then got rather testy about one side issue. In a previous posting (842@opus), I noted that the following wasn't likely to generate much informed comment... > The only shortcomings of digital audio are in the minds of the > golden ears. I see no need for new technology just to placate > their ill-informed complaints. The only reason anybody even bothers > to answer their wild ravings is ... Sure enough, we got a posting which, rather than ignoring the flame or putting it down as having no substance, responds in kind (and in fact stoops considerably lower)... > It doesn't bother me that the pro-CD people want to listen to that > trash. It doesn't bother me that their ears are full of muck. It > doesn't bother me that they mistakenly believe my distaste for CD to > be a distaste for them. It doesn't bother me that they don't think > any better than they hear. If you folks don't have anything substantive to say, either move your self- gratifying flames to net.flame or shut up and listen until you DO have something substantive to say. If you can't listen, just shut up; you're of no help to the rest of us. -- Dick Dunn {hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd (303)444-5710 x3086 ...Relax...don't worry...have a homebrew.
shauns@vice.UUCP (Shaun Simpkins) (10/02/84)
The trouble with laser playback of LPs is that it doesn't address the recording
end of the chain. Those grooves that will now be played back wear free still
exhibit the limitations of the cutter head and the medium in general. You're
still moving a big massy hunk of metal around to cut the grooves. Why not
move some electrons around instead? LOTS less massy. LOTS easier to get flat
response.
Laser LP readout sounds like RCA's audio/video disk fiasco in reverse. There
they had a neato digital encoding scheme that was read by a capacitive sled
stylus on a pivoted arm. Kludge City. They were laughed out of the market.
Why bother with a new transduction method if it
doesn't fundamentally improve both playback AND recording accuracy?
The wandering squash,
--
Shaun Simpkins
uucp: {ucbvax,decvax,chico,pur-ee,cbosg,ihnss}!teklabs!tekcad!vice!shauns
CSnet: shauns@tek
ARPAnet:shauns.tek@rand-relayemrath@uiucdcsb.UUCP (10/02/84)
From the replied-to article:
But it does bother me that, by the widespread acceptance of CD, I will
have no choice about whether I listen to it as well. You think about
that, you CD-ers; you can listen, with my blessing, to whatever you
want. But don't drag me in with you.
But right now I have a choice (though not in a majority of cases yet,
though), I can buy the LP or the CD. In the past I have been forced to
buy the LP (face it, pre-rec cassettes were a laugh, besides, I'd need a
second deck to dub them for the wheels).
Sorry, but if enough people are like me, and buy the CD instead of
the LP when given a choice, CDs could make LPs obsolete,
and then we'll be back to where we were, no choice.
Needless to say, my comments are not intended as directed against the
person of Tim or (Phil Karn).
Perry Emrath ...{decvax|inuxc}!pur-ee!uiucdcs!emrath
DCS, U of IL
"Life is a bitch, and then you die"rentsch@unc.UUCP (Tim Rentsch) (10/04/84)
From the replied-to article: The only shortcomings of digital audio are in the minds of the golden ears. I see no need for new technology just to placate their ill-informed complaints. The only reason anybody even bothers to answer their wild ravings is concern that their visibility is all out of proportion to their numbers (and substance), and that anti-digital columns in trashy magazines (e.g., Absolute Sound) might inhibit the growth of digital audio and spoil it for the rest of us. Once the CD has taken hold (and I think it's just now doing that), we can just relax, sit back and be amused by the anti-digital "golden ears" as they take their rightful place among the creationists, astrologers and flat-earthers. Phil Karn My comments: It doesn't bother me that the pro-CD people want to listen to that trash. It doesn't bother me that their ears are full of muck. It doesn't bother me that they mistakenly believe my distaste for CD to be a distaste for them. It doesn't bother me that they don't think any better than they hear. But it does bother me that, by the widespread acceptance of CD, I will have no choice about whether I listen to it as well. You think about that, you CD-ers; you can listen, with my blessing, to whatever you want. But don't drag me in with you. Needless to say, my comments are not intended as directed against the person of Phil Karn. cheers, Tim
paul@hp-lsd.UUCP (paul) (10/08/84)
A laser pickup cartridge was developed several years ago. I dimly recall reading about it in one of the Popular*-type magazines. I wish I could remember a reference. (or did they use focused LED's???) --Paul Bame hplabs!hp-lsd!paul
wmartin@brl-tgr.ARPA (Will Martin ) (10/17/84)
> A laser pickup cartridge was developed several years ago. I dimly recall > reading about it in one of the Popular*-type magazines. I wish I could > remember a reference. > > (or did they use focused LED's???) > > --Paul Bame > hplabs!hp-lsd!paul I am rather doubtful that an actual "laser" cartridge has yet been developed; however, there was a Japanese (I believe Panasonic/Matsushita) photoelectric or "light-beam" cartridge some years back. It came in a special spherical housing, like a big aluminum bubble on the end of the tonearm. I think the cantilever moved a mirror which modulated a light beam reflected on a photcell receptor of some form. The idea was to minimize the mass moved by the stylus, as usual. In any case, this (and any "laser cartridge") still is a needle-in-a-groove contact system; what I had posted a while ago about laser playback of existing vinyl discs was a postulate about a non-contact system, where only the laser light touched the disc. Will