|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 82 responses total. |
lumen
|
|
response 21 of 82:
| 
Aug 6 07:06 UTC 1997 |
A *greater* dynamic range? I don't know about that..sub-bass frequencies
weren't really available in recordings (as far as I can remember) when it was
limited to vinyl. I'd need to have some sort of proof of that. I read the
specs for one of the stereos in my house, and the sound parameters (on output)
for the phonograph was described as being on an RIAA curve, as opposed to a
frequency range for the CD and auxilary/video outputs. (Now-- is there anyone
out there who is a sound engineer that can explain this?) At the very least,
I would say that vinyl does not have a superior capacity to reproduce
extremely high and extremely low frequencies cleanly.
I'm not sure now if vinyl recordings are brighter or warmer, but what
the _Stereo Review_ article said was that certain frequencies at mid- to
treble range were boosted by a couple of +db. It is definitely distortion--
accuracy has nothing to do with it. The vinyl recording *will not* sound like
it was originally hear din the studio. Most recordings that have been
rereleased as CDs have the following statement:
"The music on this Compact Disc was originally recorded on analog equipment.
We have attempted to preserve, as closely as possible, the sound of the
original recording. Because of its high resolution, however, the Compact Disc
can reveal limitations of the source tape."
Let me also explain the recording code on most CDs where A= analog, D=
digital.
The first letter is the source tape. An A or a D will indicate whether it
was recorded digitally, or on analog tape.
The second is the mastering process (transcription).
The third, of course, is the copying process.
As to the "accuracy" of digital vs. analog, it's more about acoustical
properties of the sounds reproduced. Digital processes tend to refine
frequencies and reduce distortion. However, some sounds are characteristic
for their distortion. This is whybrass, string, and saxophone sounds don't
sound quite as true to life on digital synthesizers, as compared to analog
ones. However, analog synths have a tendency to hum. To circumvent this,
engineers either remastered analog recordings especially for CD, or designed
CD players with digital/analog (D/A) converters, or filters. However, this
still resulted in a loss of sound, so most newer CD players have a
digital/analog oscillator (instead of converting analog to digital, the player
moves between the two, at a speed that sounds blended to the human ear).
Oversampling technologies are also used in players.
|
scott
|
|
response 22 of 82:
|
Aug 6 13:34 UTC 1997 |
The RIAA curve is EQ applied to the recording on vinyl to reduce bass to
something that won't make huge wide grooves. The phono preamp on your stereo
reverses the effect.
Some vinyl freaks cite the lack of an explicit low-pass filter as proof that
records must have better high frequency range than digital. The digital
process requires a filter to limit (a hard limit) frequencies more than 1/2
the sample rate, which is about 21kHz for CD. Vinyl has no such filter, but
precious little response at that frequency range anyway.
|
omni
|
|
response 23 of 82:
|
Aug 6 20:19 UTC 1997 |
I have a record that was cut from 35mm film, and it sounds just like a CD
in response.
What I mean is that the audio was not recorded on tape, rather 35mm film,
and somehow that makes the recording more brilliant, and a lot clearer
than the rest of my records (vinyl). The recording is Doc Severnson's
greatest hits. It did translate to audiotape very well, and is almost CD
quality sound.
You can hear the difference when you play a ordinary record of the same
genre, such as Herb Alpert's "Rise".
The label that records from film is Command Records. There is also TelArc
Recording, who uses bizarre recording techniques when recording a CD, but they
do come out sounding a lot better than some of my other CD's do.
|
krj
|
|
response 24 of 82:
|
Aug 7 07:04 UTC 1997 |
Ken's empirical observations about digital vs. analog:
1) LPs, under optimal conditions, can sound more pleasing than CD on their
outer grooves. Usually the sound quality of the LP has degraded badly
by the inner grooves.
2) Avoid classical CDs recorded digitally before about 1987-1988.
3) There is a certain kind of bad sound on some CDs which, if I'm
listening through headphones, makes me want to throw the headphones
across the room. The only new release where I have heard this
in the last five years is Emmylou Harris' WRECKING BALL.
4) Many of my friends hated cleaning LPs and their stylii, and they
were eager to flee the LP.
5) Loaning and borrowing CDs is as much fun as loaning and borrowing
LPs was back in junior high, back before we became paranoid about
LP care.
6) I used to lose sleep worrying over LP wear.
7) These days, the hardest part of playing LPs is cleaning the piles
of CDs off the turntable.
|
tpryan
|
|
response 25 of 82:
|
Aug 8 00:01 UTC 1997 |
Oh, so true on 7). The turntable cover seems to be the
place to put the CD cases when the CD is in the CD changer.
Worst parts of LPs: Life lived in 18-22 minute segments.
That and the "Narp" made when the tone arm lifted from the disk;
particularly by an automatic.
Ever listen to a good, fresh pressing of Ann Murray's
"Snowbird" on vinyl? You might not "hear" the third overtone
of the triangle, but it seems to be perceived--that tone up there
in the 36k-44k range.
Somehow, my 45 of The Beatles "Please, Please Me" on the
original Vee Jay label seems so much more sonicly enjoyable than
the same track from a CD.
I am quite thankful to the CD boon in makeing old albums
available new again, thanks to it being collected for this new
medium. Where else would be be able to find "There Are Fairies
At The Bottom Of My Garden" by Beatrice Lilley but on a CD collection?
|
orinoco
|
|
response 26 of 82:
|
Aug 9 03:06 UTC 1997 |
Two more issues in the CD/vinyl debate.
Cover art: I am a fanatic of good cover art. Ever noticed how much better
an LP of Axis: Bold as Love or Sergeant Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band looks
than the equivalent CD? Bigger art, and none of them damn jewel boxes.
"Feel": Somehow, listening to The Beatles or other 'oldies' on CD just
seems like blasphemy. I was introduced to them on vinyl, and for me taking
good care of the records, dropping the stylus in the right place, etcetera,
are just as much a part of the 'experience' as the music is.
|
scott
|
|
response 27 of 82:
|
Aug 9 12:54 UTC 1997 |
What about innovative CD packaging? I have CD's that look great, and
would not work as vinyl.
|
orinoco
|
|
response 28 of 82:
|
Aug 9 15:59 UTC 1997 |
True, true. My complaint is not really with CD packaging in general, but with
the jewel boxes that have become almost universal.
|
omni
|
|
response 29 of 82:
|
Aug 10 04:18 UTC 1997 |
I like jewel boxes, since they stack easy, they keep the disc dust free, but
the downside is when you drop them on the floor, they can break easily.
|
scott
|
|
response 30 of 82:
|
Aug 10 13:22 UTC 1997 |
Seems kind of dumb that the protective case is so delicate.
|
bruin
|
|
response 31 of 82:
|
Aug 10 14:06 UTC 1997 |
Both Schoolkids Records and Border's Books & Music sell empty CD jewel
cases for 50 cents to a dollar apiece.
|
lumen
|
|
response 32 of 82:
|
Aug 12 07:05 UTC 1997 |
I think Jim and Ken made strong cases and presentations. Ken made a point
that I'd like to add to. If it is true that LPs have a preferred sound over
CDs on their outer grooves, then one must also consider that LPs have a
shorter shelf life. A CD may have minor scratches and still sound fine.
However, you'll hear this in an LP.
I realize that there are high-tech phonograph arms, stylus heads, and better
stylii; but in general, it is cheaper and easier to get good sound quality
from a CD. The entire idea behind CDs was that if a laser replaced the
stylii, it could read the recorded sound more precisely (and on tighter
grooves-- thus making the disc smaller), there would be no parts to wear out
(well, you don't have to replace a laser, but you do eventually have to
replace a stylus), and you would have a disc that would be easier to take care
of.
Concerning the LP cover art, I realize that the art is much smaller on a CD.
But you generally get more photos, artwork, and sometimes lyrics in CD liner
notes than you do LPs. I bought the CD release of Depeche Mode's 1982 album
_A Broken Frame_ and got far more than I would have if I ever managed to get
the LP (I found it at a student radio station).
tpyran also made a good point that LPs have short playing time on each side.
I would also add that they have a short playing time overall (33 1/3 compared
to CD). If the Super CD is ever introduced to audio recording, the gap will
be even bigger.
You also can't play an LP in a car stereo-- it's just not feasible (of
course). The advantages of CD in car audio apply to home stereo as well.
CDs have a higher output than LPs or tapes, so the sound is generally
supported better, especially at low volume levels. So CDs have great sound
potential even on an amp with a low wattage rating. Of course, a high-powered
amp will bring out the sound quality even better of any medium.
So, in short, while LPs may have higher sonic ranges, and are big enough to
have more visible cover art, they are not consistent in sound quality
thoughout its length, the output is low, and they are more subject to wear.
CDs generally produce cleaner sound, especially at sub-bass frequencies,
feature more extensive liner notes with more content than a fold-out LP
jacket, their output is high, their recording length is longer, and they are
usually easier to take care of.
Speaking of jewel boxes, there are a couple of alternatives. There is the
Digipak CD package, invented by AGI Inc., which is generally used with CD
singles (or was, for a time, anyway). The UK and Europe use a much slimmer
jewel box than our standard for CD singles. It's really nice and I find it's
not so easy to drop it.
|
bmoran
|
|
response 33 of 82:
|
Aug 12 13:06 UTC 1997 |
In order for more information to be packed into a cd case, the printing
has been reduced quite a bit. As I get older, I sometimes wish my
magnifying glass were nearby. The printing is getting really tiny!
|
orinoco
|
|
response 34 of 82:
|
Aug 12 15:49 UTC 1997 |
I've seen those thin jewel boxes, both for singles and occasionally for full
length albums. But they still don't solve the main problem, which is that
they break, crack, etcetera, very easily. Just recently a favorite CD of mine
had two tracks rendered unplayable when I dropped it in the closed jewel box,
which broke and scratched the disk. Not fun.
|
krj
|
|
response 35 of 82:
|
Aug 13 00:27 UTC 1997 |
That surprises me; usually my experience, with CDs shipped from Europe,
is that the CD box gives its life protecting the disk.
|
orinoco
|
|
response 36 of 82:
|
Aug 13 02:54 UTC 1997 |
Well, this was a domestic jewel box. I've never bashed any of the skinny ones
too hard.
|
senna
|
|
response 37 of 82:
|
Aug 14 20:38 UTC 1997 |
The skinny ones are a bloody inconvenience, if you ask me. I prefer the
specialized cases you occasionally get with some CDs, such as Vitalogy and
No Code by Pearl Jam (the rest of the liners got kind of annoying, but the
packaging was convenient).
|
orinoco
|
|
response 38 of 82:
|
Aug 15 01:34 UTC 1997 |
The box for No Code is the same style as Vitalogy's, or different?
|
senna
|
|
response 39 of 82:
|
Aug 17 04:53 UTC 1997 |
It's not really a book, but it's not Jewl.
|
orinoco
|
|
response 40 of 82:
|
Aug 17 17:12 UTC 1997 |
Oh...arr...
|
kewy
|
|
response 41 of 82:
|
Sep 16 19:15 UTC 1997 |
and a lot of cd singles have different casing than the skinny jewel cases,
i have quite a few neet ones:)
|
lumen
|
|
response 42 of 82:
|
Sep 17 05:44 UTC 1997 |
Yep-- a lot of companies are using those funky slide-out cases, you know what
I mean?
|
kewy
|
|
response 43 of 82:
|
Sep 28 18:06 UTC 1997 |
yeah, i have some of those, and some cool fold up ones too
|
orinoco
|
|
response 44 of 82:
|
Sep 28 20:13 UTC 1997 |
I just ran across a really funny 2-cd case. It has the middle piece that
holds a cd on it's front and it's back, just like the normal one. But unlike
the normal one, that piece is attatched to the right edge of the back, instead
of the middle hinge. So, it folds out to the right, rather than just being
like a page in a book
|
lumen
|
|
response 45 of 82:
|
Sep 29 04:22 UTC 1997 |
I think I know what kind you're talking about, Dan.
|