Conference marvin::uk_music

Re. 228.11 EUCLID::OWEN "In a Locst wind coms a RATTLE AND HUM" 

It depends how you define good: if you mean less snap, crackle, pop
and hiss, then CD's win. But if you mean more life, image, musicality
(whatever that is!) then vinyl wins (if you've got a better than
average player).

My tame HiFi dealer spent two hours showing me that even my old,
decrepit �110 Dual turntable (that I've since got rid of) was better
than his new, �900 Marantz CD player in several respects (though not all).

For further details I recommend the UK_AUDIO conference:
LARVAE::DISK$USER2:[JEFFERY]UK_AUDIO

Steve.

    
    Yes -- I've bought gear from three different hi-fi dealers,
    and each one said that they personally preferred vinyl. I think
    vinyl wins by far, even on any a-b comparison. If 'balls' weren't
    a sexist term, I'd use it here; as it is, I'll stick to .1's 
    'musicality'.
    
    Richard.

    Well, I'm a die-hard CD user.

    I believe the reason most people like CDs is because they've never
    owned a decent record player in their lives.   CDs v. good record
    players are *very* close in quality.   Anyway here in France the
    word "disque" has been removed from the national language to be
    replaced by "CD".   The marketing men have won again ...

    Sound quality is only one aspect of the argument. I have 350 LPs
    but in the last 18months have totally switched to CD. Here are some
    reasons...
    
    Regardless of the deck you can get some abysmal vinyl pressings.
    OK some CD recordings may be of differing quality (like vinyl) but
    at least their can be no issue about the pressing. Ie, its digital,
    it works perfectly or not at all!
    
    I really look after my LPs. BUT why is it I can get a record out
    I havn't played in two years and find it has mysteriously developed
    hisses and crackles? CDs (hopefully) will not degenerate at all.
    
    And the BIGGEST benefit? To sit down with 75 minutes of someones
    greatest hits armed with a remote control and pick and choose the half
    dozen or so tracks you want to hear at that particular time and if
    necessary repeat ad nauseum. Ie, the random access ability. 
    
    Richard

Re. Note 277.5 by LARVAE::BRIGGS "They use computers don't they?"

�                            -< CDs are the future >-

I don't think so. Digital may be the future, but CD's are a flawed
medium. 14 bits just isn't enough. I've heard it said that for digital
sound to approach analogue, there's got to be *at least* 24 bits. I'm
no techie, but it stands to reason that if you've got a low signal on
one of the quiet bits, particularly at high frequencies, the signal's
only going to be covered by a couple of the 14 bits. This could lead
to getting on for 50% distortion. OK, so it's a quiet bit, where's the
problem? It all adds up, if your source reproduces the bits which are
too quiet for you to hear, it will actually sound better than a source
which doesn't reproduce them.

Granted you can get some abysmal pressings, but one of the great
advantages of a high-end record deck is that it will play them and
they will still sound good. Similarly, clicks and scratches will not
be half as noticeable because the arm and cartridge will track the
grooves so much better and will not be put off by a glich. One of
the disadvantages of a good record deck is that it can highlight
bad *recordings* (not pressings) which will sound wierder than on
CD e.g. 'Bridge of Spies' by T'pau and most of the Simple Minds albums.

�   Regardless of the deck you can get some abysmal vinyl pressings.
�   OK some CD recordings may be of differing quality (like vinyl) but
�   at least their can be no issue about the pressing. Ie, its digital,
�   it works perfectly or not at all!
    
Didn't you miss the smiley off this? What about CD's that jump? I've
got several. My CD player isn't one of the best and sometimes can be
temperamental, but they still jump on my second player. It's a flawed
medium mechanically, too. Just suppose the central hole isn't quite.
The servo will be working overtime to keep that laser in the right
place. This will be draining the power supply, the error correction
will be scrambling, sorry reconstructing, the signal. Is it still
going to sound good? And wouldn't it sound better on the earlier
tracks when the laser's in the middle and the eccentricity wouldn't
be so pronounced?

�    I really look after my LPs. BUT why is it I can get a record out
�    I havn't played in two years and find it has mysteriously developed
�    hisses and crackles? CDs (hopefully) will not degenerate at all.

I can't really answer that, except to say that paper sleeves can
scratch records. I use and recommend Nagaoka anti-static sleeves.
I gave up listening to a lot of my records because they were all
crackly. I've listened to them again since I bought my new deck
and have been very pleasantly surprised by the fact that the scratches
aren't nearly as noticeable as they used to be. Even the clicks and
pops that are there aren't nearly so disturbing when the quality of
sound coming through is so good.

The other thing is that CD's are nowhere near as durable as it
was said when they first came out. Ever tried drilling a hole in
one of yours or covering it in tomato ketchup to see if it still
plays. No? Well neither have I, but I bet it wouldn't.

�    And the BIGGEST benefit? To sit down with 75 minutes of someones
�    greatest hits armed with a remote control and pick and choose...
    
Can't argue with that.

If you've got an average priced amp and speakers, then a CD source
will sound very similar, and possibly better, than a high-end record
deck. But with a high-end amp and speakers, the failings of the CD
become all too obvious. I've compared a few recordings on both CD
and vinyl and the CD's are flat, dull and lifeless compared with vinyl.

FWIW here's my summary:

CD				Vinyl on good deck
-----------------------------------------------------------------
14 bit digital			Infinitely varying
43kHz (?) sampling		Infinitely sampling
Slightly better dynamics
Less hiss on quiet bits
				Lower distortion
				Better imaging
				More accurate and controlled bass
				Music 'flows' more
				Sounds 'better'
Nicer packaging
More convenient
Easier to look after
Less susceptible to damage
				Cheaper
More 'impressive' sound
-----------------------------------------------------------------

I.e. in nearly all respects to do with the sound, the vinyl is
better. In nearly all other respects the CD is better.

I spent a fair amount of time making comparisons and have decided
that the vinyl medium is better in terms of 'sound' quality *for me*.
And after all, that's what it's all about isn't it? However, if you're
content to stick with a low-price (comparatively) midi or stacking
system, a CD player is probably the best upgrade you could make.

Happy listening,
Steve.

P.S.   I've got over a hundred CD's. I'm not going to buy any more, but
       I'm not selling them either.

P.P.S. Anybody from UK_AUDIO want to back me up / disagree?

(flame quiescent throughout)

    Well, I dont own a CD player (lack of funds to buy player and enough
    discs to make it worthwhile 8^)), but I'm perfectly happy with my
    record deck, and something else which no-one has mentioned yet,
    the humble cassette. I tend to tape lp's as I buy them , so the
    records are reasonably well looked after....
    
    Personally, I can see the advantage of the random access argument,
    but for myself, I like to listen to something as an entity, i.e.
    as the artist intended it should be heard
    
    Bob

         
    I too have no problem with ordinary records and/or tape.
         
    As -1 said, as long as you take care of your records there is no
    reason why you shouldn't have a very good quality sound.
                                             
    Although I have a small collection of CD's (I get given them from
    R210), I have no immediate plans of rushing out and pawning my 
    step-monster to finance one of these expensive toys.
         
    As always, in my humble opinion.
         
    -Tony

.6�           but it stands to reason that if you've got a low signal on
.6�one of the quiet bits, particularly at high frequencies, the signal's
.6�only going to be covered by a couple of the 14 bits. 
    
    I think you misunderstand how the bits are used. As I'm sure you are
    aware, the sound from a piece of music is a complex waveform. What the
    CD recording has done is measure that waveform at an instant in time,
    and represent that measurement as a 16 bit binary number. It isn't just
    a case of setting more or less of the bits. In addition, because
    low level sounds are more critical than high level sounds, the
    "graduations" which the music is measured against are closer together
    near the zero (midpoint) of the waveform than they are towards the
    peak maximum.
    
    I realise that this still means a certain amount of distortion (called
    "quantisation distortion"), but it isn't quite as bad as you implied.
    
    Your comparison between CDs and records is largely subjective, but
    the statement that CDs have "slightly better dynamics" is misleading:
    the dynamic range of CDs is around 20dB greater.
    
    The whole CD versus records issue is subjective, and I accept that.
    I am only seeking to correct what I perceive as misleading information.
    
    Keith 

>>  < Note 277.9 by RDGENG::KEDMUNDS "But I haven't got an fm2r..." >
>>
>>
>>.6�           but it stands to reason that if you've got a low signal on
>>.6�one of the quiet bits, particularly at high frequencies, the signal's
>>.6�only going to be covered by a couple of the 14 bits. 
>>    
>>    I think you misunderstand how the bits are used. As I'm sure you are
  
    I think he understands it quite well. Imagine a sound source starting
    at zero volume and gradually getting louder. An analogue recording
    device will track this increase in volume constantly and record
    it as accurately as the hardware allows.
    
    A digital recording will sample it once, find it doesn't even make a
    single 'quantum' and thus record a value of zero amplitude at this
    point. It then samples it again, finds this time the sound is loud
    enough to register a 'quantum' and thus records a '1' in the low order
    bit. Next sample it finds the amplitude has reached two quanta and thus
    records '10' in the low order bits. In reality the amplitude could have
    been anywhere between 1 and 2 quanta between the samples and thus this
    represents very severe distortion of the signal. ie the signal could
    really be 1.999 but is recorded as 1. The distortion is then
    (1.999-1)/1.999 or roughly 50%. 

    As the total amplitude rises the effect is reduced - ie when it passes
    from 9999 quanta to 10000 the theoretical distortion will be
    (10000-9999)/10000 or roughly .01% 
                                                                   
    
    As to whether this leads to a noticeable degradation in quiet passages
    I won't comment as I don't have a cd. As far as I'm concerned the
    quality of the *music* comes before quality of recording.
    
    Tony 

>    As the total amplitude rises the effect is reduced - ie when it passes
>    from 9999 quanta to 10000 the theoretical distortion will be
>    (10000-9999)/10000 or roughly .01% 

	That is why the "quanta" (is that the right word?) are closer
    together towards the midpoint. If you would like to hear some
    CD-sourced music, mail me - I don't mind showing off mine, and nor will
    I be offended if you tell me records sound better! (Open offer to
    anyone who can get to my house!).

    Keith

    >> as far as I'm concerned the quality of *music* comes before quality
    >> of recording.
    
    Right on Tony!!
    
    Which is why I love my early Velvets, Beefheart, be-bop, live tapes,
    noisy punk rock records as much as any of my Peter Gabriel, Kate
    Bush and LLoyd Cole, to name but three artists whose method of
    recording I enjoy as part of the whole. Sometimes I find music can
    be almost *too* well produced and it knocks the guts out of it.
    An example of this would be Elvis Costello's Punch The Clock lp.
    Normally I love the man's records, but this one is just *too* smooth...
    
    Bob
    

.12�    An example of this would be Elvis Costello's Punch The Clock lp.
.12�    Normally I love the man's records, but this one is just *too* smooth...

    Quick Fix: A quick rub with a 'Brillo Pad' should do the trick ;-)
    		

    I think the type of music you listen to may also come into this
    argument. For instance....
    
    
    I have a wide interest in music and my lp collection of 18 years
    reflects this. However, one form of music I enjoy is Military Marches
    (I used to play trombone in such a band at school). Now I have NEVER
    NEVER heard a decent rendition of such music from vinyl. Possibly
    its to do with the dynamic range available etc I don't know. However,
    I now own two fully digital CDs of such music and it really blows
    your mind! I waited nearly 18 years for such sound! Also, I quite
    like Welsh Male Voice Choirs. Once again, I have never found vinyl
    provides the quality for this music. I have yet to see fully digital
    CDs of same but I'm waiting!
    
    I would also say the same applies to classical music in general
    although this is one music form that does in fact generally turn
    me off so I won't comment on this.
    
    Richard

    This could run and run.
    
    I've steered clear of CD ever since I heard an early model at the
    Harrogate hifi show (now defunct) in 1982. It sounded hard and
    fatiguing, not pleasant at all. 
    
    I decided to go for a new arm on my turntable a few weeks back, amid 
    much ribbing from she-who-must-be-obeyed about being old-fashioned,
    etc. I can see her point; we both stopped buying singles yonks ago
    so we've bought several "Greatest Hits of.....", and with 10+ tracks
    per side, the laws of physics are against producing the sort of
    sound I know vinyl's capable of. So whilst waiting for the latest
    piece of flat-earth hifi to be fitted, I asked if I could hear one
    of the lowest priced but best regarded players the shop had. So
    they sat me down with a handful of CDs and a Denon DCD610, regularly
    well reviewed.
    
    Frankly it was horrible. The onset of listening fatigue and boredom
    took only about 15 seconds to appear, the only exception being an
    old AAD Stan Getz recording of The Girl from Ipanema, but even this
    sounded wierd and out of time. In almost all tracks the distortion
    was unacceptable. All in all the performance came nowhere near a
    good record player, even a similarly (199 pounds) player sounded
    better. To be honest, I prefer my Sony Walkman and a home produced
    tape. To sum up, my reaction was "So this is *progress*?".
    
    Now we're not all the same, we all hear differently and we all have
    different priorities. But I would rather invest in a good cassette
    player any day than a CD player. CD seems a hopelessly cost-ineffective
    way of getting music into one's life (well, mine anway), compared
    to LP or cassette, and in the end it's the music that's important, not 
    dynamic range, signal/noise ratios or whatever.
    
    What I'll do when there's no vinyl, I don't know; but I'll worry
    about that then.
    
    Dave
    
    
    

    Maybe this discussion is a bit out of place here. Anyway, suffice
    it to say that I use my "House-mates" CD-players, bought all of
    2 CD's (as of today), and can't see the point in buying any more.
    
    My �150 record deck seems to sound better than his �270 CD player.
    Just my opinion.
    
    Press KP7 or SELECT and have a look at the UK_AUDIO notes file.
    
    Cheers.
    
    Mark.

    
    W H Smith today announced that they will not sell LP's after a
    three-month phase out period so, stock up before April, folks!

    re -1
    
    Well..I reckon it had to come!
    
    The Virgin Megastore in Glasgow had a pitiful amount of Vinyl in stock
    in its Rock Section (Tower had far more, but even that was small in
    comparison to its CD stock).
    
    A sad day.
    
    H.
    
    PS..Since Our Price are owned by WHS I reckon they'll soon adopt the
    same policy
    
    PPS..I suppose Record Tokens are now obsolete too!

    Our Price are well on the way to not stocking vinyl already.
    
    Sad news indeed.  And they will still overcharge for CDs.
    
    Mikef

    re .17
    
    Yes OP now sell gift vouchers/tokens, they've dropped any mention of
    records.
    
    Mike Webster
    

I've heard that OP accept WHS gift tokens - they're all part of the same 
group anyway.  Has anyone tried this ?

Phasing out of vinyl had to come.  The retailers are fed up with everyone 
complaining about the price differential between LPs and CDs - stopping 
these complaints by scrapping vinyl is the obvious solution, much better 
than reducing CD prices ;-)

Mike

Excuse me, we're supposed to live in democracies, the consumer is supposed
to be king, so how come crappy changes like this can just happen? This
really stinks. Vinyl is still a good format, and a 12" single has got
more guts in it than any other format I've heard, including antiseptic
sounding digital audio like CD and DAT. It's just a total ripoff 
[contd p94]

    
    But does anybody really bother with vinyl nowadays ? It is a bit naff
    isn't it ?

    Theres always one trying to start an arguement, isn't there?
    
    Mind you, even Achtung Baby sounds good on CD.
    
    Mikef

    8^)

   There was a thing on breakfast TV this morning about the demise of
   the LP... they talked a bit about the next consumer thing, Phillips
   digital cassette versus Sony writable CDs. 

   The problem is that vast numbers of people have made the transition
   from vinyl to CD over the past 7 years or so.. its a lot to ask
   for them to change to yet another format.

   However the thing that Phillips have in their favour is that the
   equipment needed to use the new cassettes will also be compatible
   with old analogue "compact cassettes". 

    Course it's not a lot to ask. I mean how else is the
    <home-taping-is-killing-the> music industry going to sell us yet more
    copies of things we already own, when deep, deep down, we'd really 
    rather buy the great great records of our youth over and over again, and 
    just tape the new stuff?
    
    Piers.

       I think that albums on vinyl have finally met their death, but I
    can't see CD or cassette replacing the single very quickly, in particular
    the 12" single. Another point about the inevitable end of vinyl is :
    Will cover art suffer? It would be a shame to see this art fade away,
    since you wouldn't exactly consider putting a CD inlay on your wall, or
    in a prominent shelf position... Perhaps posters may become more
    common...
    
    Paul.
    

Cover art already has suffered. The 12cm square of a CD means the cover has
to be quite simple, thus most covers these days just feature some kind
of full-face portrait of the artist. 


Rod

    Hmm, who reads the Guardian leader then?

    re.29
    
    Not true.
    
    Most CD's nowadays contain a reduced version of the 'album' art.

    
    He's right though, most NEW album (and CD) covers are very simple.
    Since Cassettes (spit) and CDs outsell LPs, it's hardly suprising to
    hear that the cover design is biased towards the smaller boxes.
    
    Mark

    Spoke to OurPrice staff in Bracknell this a.m. and found that they will
    be stocking records for the foreseeable future, unlike W H Smith, their
    parent company. However, they have a woefully small shelf for vinyl.
    They will take orders though.
    
    	- andy

    
    	Just for a second I thought an Our Price store had opened in the
    	states, specifically Boston.  But it turns out the name was Our
    	Place and it was a music instrument store - the sign did look a 
    	lot like the same red sign though.  Interesting as it maybe in the 
    	same block of stores is a small cafe called Soft Rock that supposedley
    	the Hard Rock Cafe folks didn't care too much for the name choice.
    
    	- Jim

    If anyone has ever sought record-buying inspiration by browsing in WHS
    they will know what a depressing experience it was, given the
    miserable selection they had on offer. They stopped trying to sell
    records years ago any way, so what's new? Having browsed their CD
    collection a few times, nothing seems to have changed very much. Boots
    are about the same.
    
    As far as Our Price, and to an extent HMV also, they are really only
    interested in the mass market or yoof culture, selling T-shirts and Viz
    and sometimes condoms, alongside their miserable uninspiring music
    selections.
    
    If you really want a choice these days, be it format, music, or both,
    you need to support the independent retailer.
    
    Dave

    
    I had a WH Smith voucher for Xmas and couldn't find a single CD that I
    really wanted. I think WH Smith are purposely not even *trying* to
    compete with HMVs not two doors away here in Reading.
    
    Richard

    You can use your WHS voucher in OurPrice, I believe. SLightly better
    selection.

    
    Really? This must be investigated.
    
    Richard