Conference hips::uk_audioo

    Thanks Andy, we could all use a laugh.....
    
    >>>    
    Vinyl is old technology, trusted, tried and found lacking in most part.
    It is nowhere near as robust as CD, and frankly belongs ina  museum
    somewhere, prefeably a long way away.
                                         <<<
    Found lacking in what part ? Not sound quality is it ? no, I didn't
    think so......
    
    I bet you use a graphic equaliser too dont you.... :-)
    
    JUju
    xxxx
    

    
    Lacking in eveness of production quality and deteriorating over time,
    not to mention playing time.
    
    As to a graphic equaliser, not me, chum.
    
    	- Andy

    
    Personally I have to agree but only to an extent...
    
    CD's will last a lot long than vinyl given the same conditions
    throughout its life span, I dont' think we'll disagree on...
    
    If no compromises are made in the production of vinyl then the sound
    quality is easily as good as CD quality, the trouble being is that in
    vinyl pressings compromises are made which don't have to be made in
    CD's. e.g. the top and bottom end.
    
    							Neil

What is this about "deteriorating standards in Vinyl"?

Have you all got magic ears, or am I just deaf?

The latest records sound fine to me. I certainly dont get the problems I used
to get with taking records back all the time (late '70s early '80s)

I think that the areas Vinyl is lacking in are by and large created by the
Marketing Departments of Record Companies. As Ben Elton was saying last night,
We didn't know that our clothes smelt like a pub toilet til Radion came out!

One thing that Vinyl is lacking ~ �5.00 in Retail price!. That's why I very
rarely buy CD's I need a pretty good excuse to fork out an extra �5 when I 
could buy an LP instead.

Mark.

    I've got magic ears - and vinyl deterirates, as it has to, given that
    the stylus wears it away!
    
    Now if the laser record player ever gets into big numbers of production
    and small numbers of dosh, it may change.
    
    <Just trying to live up to the conference notice>
    
    	- Andy

Go for it Andy.  Convince everyone.  Then the only convincing I'll have to do
is to get them all to chuck out that useless vinyl in my direction...

Nick (slowing down on record & cd buying to save up for a serious record deck)
     (nick's first law of hi-fi: don't go and listen to anything you can't
      afford to buy there and then)

My point is that before 1983, I (and I assume most of the general public) were
not dissatisfied with records. No one found the fragility a real problem.

People who treated their records badly have them last a shorter time than people
who treat them well. That's not so bad, because by definition, these people
don't care so much.

After the launch of Compact Disc, the general public had to be convinced that
they should buy one. It was only with the death of the classical LP, and
sponsorship (& extra music) with things like Dire Straits 'Brothers in Arms'.

I still don't find scratches a problem. I don't have any records that are
scratched all over, and I don't listen to occasional scratches.

The real plus of CD is the convenience. The packaging protects the CD well, so
they are less prone to mis-use. Random access to tracks is a bonus for those
with little time, who can't listen to a whole side.

I think that in the end, CD is better reviewed not as an item of Hi Fi Equipment,
but more like a TV, Video Recorder, Washing Machine or Cooker.

Mark.

    
    Bull! I've had records since the early 60's and the amount of times I
    had to replace old, worn out vinyl is beyond the capacity of my fingers
    and toes. I was among MANY people that simply bought vinyl and taped it
    asap.
    
    In particular I remember Electric Ladyland getting replaced after
    getting played until you coulkd see through it!
    
    Also, in classical mode, quiet recordings like Trois Gymnipodaes were
    simply unplayable after 100 times or so because of the crap that
    obscured the nuances...
    
    Vinyl record decks should be reviewed as artefacts and relics, pretty,
    but unsuited to the task.
    
    	- Andy

    Well, who cares as long as you're satisfied with the sound.
    
    Some of the latest records sound fine, but will obviously deteriorate more
    quickly than a CD (physical erosion).  
    If the record companies realise a higher profit margin on CD, you
    can bet they'll be pushing that medium at the expense of L.P's.
    
    I must admit that some of the CD's I've got do sound a bit "sterile",
    but that may be something to do with the system configuration.
    Anyone else agree ?
    
    Tim

    Just as a brief postscript to this note,
    
    In this months What Hi-Fi, they compare Turntables to C'D's at 3
    levels, Budget, mid price and High end, and in each case, They rank
    Turntables as giving better sound quality. 
    
    The CD players were the latest Bit streams ect at each price level.
    
    Interesting that Phillips still cannot better a 12-14 year old
    turntable design, even at the budget level, where CD's are closest
    to toppling Turntables for sound quality.
    
    Juju
    xxxx
    
    

    re: .10
    
    I too read the CD vs Vinyl article, I was rather surprised they
    omitted to test an LP12/Akito/K9 against my favourite player in that
    price band - the Meridian 206, the LP12 would probably win, but I
    suspect the 206 would have given it a run for it's money.  
    
    There did seem to be a gap in the equipment tested that the above would
    have filled.

    It still seems sad to me that music is going backwards. and more
    expensive.
    
    Juju
    xxxx
    
    
    I have a question that perhaps one of you infinatly more informed
    could answer for me.
    
    A friend of mine told me that after you play a disk, you do in fact
    get less information than the last time of it. 
    
    He also said that this is why CD's no longer have a light to show
    when the error correction circuitry comes on. This he say's, is
    because first time you play a disk, it hardly comes on, but by say
    the 10th play, it is illuminated far more, showing that disk
    information retrieval rates do drop from a CD.
    
    Any enlightenment ?
    
    Juju
    xxxx
    

    re .12
    
    Could it be dust?  I added an error indicator to my old CD104, cleaning
    the CD does reduce the correctable errors.  I only have 1 CD with a
    non-correctable error.
    
    The error light flashing doesn't mean less information, just that the
    error correction circuitry is working harder a bit like CRCs on BACKUP.  
    This can mean a reduction in quality if the CD player doesn't have well 
    isolated power supplies with plenty of capacity to spare.
                                                   
    Treating CDs similarly to Vinyl should maintain their quality. 

I borrowed some CD's from a friend who is a manager for a Restaurant. He uses
a Pioneer Multiplay, and so I wouldn't think that the treatment is much of
an issue.

Anyway, a couple of CD's actually jump and skip uncontrollably!

I've got no records that do that.

The surprising thing with these CD's is that there is no apparent damage
on the playing side. Apparently CD's are susceptible to damage on the label
side.

Mark.

Re .14:

If your friend had a multiplay record deck (remember them?  with the stack of
records on the long spindle?) his records might start jumping and skipping
uncontrollably too...

Maybe the increased errors after ten plays is because of handling damage. 
Playing a CD won't make a difference, but scuffing it when taking it out of the
box will.  And yes, the 'active' surface (with all the pits in) is very close
to the label side, even though the laser shines through the other side.

Nick

Well, the whole point of the multiplay player was that he rarely handled his
CD's, and was therefore unlikely to damage them.

Mark.