Klipsch RF7 Posted November 28, 2003 Share Posted November 28, 2003 Hi Guys, I dont understand why there are people that say an LP is superior in sound quality to a CD? Thanks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marvel Posted November 28, 2003 Share Posted November 28, 2003 On a most basic level, an LP is a continuous waveform, where a CD is a sample of that same waveform, and reconstructed on playback. In the same way that a movie is 24 individual pictures per second, data is just not all there. Downside - LPs don't have the dynamic range that CDs can have, so much of the music is compressed (ratio of high volume to low volume), to get the music onto vinyl. Dust and dirt get in the way, and cause noisy playback. Newer CDs often can and do sound very, very good. I like vinyl, but I'm not dumping all my CDs. I'm sure others here can chime in with other technical reasons. Marvel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnA Posted November 28, 2003 Share Posted November 28, 2003 you are just going to have to hear it yourself to believe, but it is true. Both formats have advantages. The CD has a black silence between notes that an LP can't have, plus few clicks and easy direct access to a song. The LP is lacking in a brittleness or harshness. The notes and overtones have a pureness or smoothness a CD lacks. DVD-A at 24/96 is getting really close. 24/192 DVD-A might be essentially indistinguishable. Since I have not been able to buy 24/192 in a store, I'm not sure. As the quality of the turntable and cartridge and the CD transport and electronics climb higher, the differences get smaller. I still listen to CDs more than LPs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mobile homeless Posted November 28, 2003 Share Posted November 28, 2003 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
formica Posted November 28, 2003 Share Posted November 28, 2003 ---------------- On 11/28/2003 11:17:41 AM Marvel wrote: I'm sure others here can chime in with other technical reasons. Marvel ---------------- I think you said it pretty well yourself... that is basically the fact of the matter. It then comes down to which quality a person finds more important to them. There are non technical reasons like the LP's have a "touch and feel" as well as larger "sleeve" advantage. CD's have a storage, durability, portability, and robustness advantage. I actually prefer the CDs especially for their durability and portability, esp on my drive to work. Later... Rob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IB Slammin Posted November 28, 2003 Share Posted November 28, 2003 ---------------- On 11/28/2003 10:59:59 AM Georg Friedrich Handel wrote: Hi Guys, I dont understand why there are people that say an LP is superior in sound quality to a CD? Thanks ---------------- Georg, Having lived with dust, static,warps that produced large diaphragm excursions, feedback,TT's in other rooms,replacing cartraidges every year and not being able to buy flat LP's.............. I will never look back. TC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marvel Posted November 28, 2003 Share Posted November 28, 2003 Mark, We recently got a CD of a Mercury Living Presence recording, originally done in the '50s. A single microphone was used. The dynamics are real, the sense of being there is so real. Multi mic'ing techniques don't ncessarily mean a weak recording. There is a vast difference between mic'ing all the instruments and doing overdubs. The first certainly can allow for the mix process to be done later, at a more leisurely pace, instead of mixing it live to tape (or digital media). The latter, while not intending to kill the performance, can easily end up doing so. Someone had mentioned in another thread, the band Chicago. I have one of their albums (vinyl) that was given to me. It is absolutely awful. The dynamics have been squeezed out of it. The levels are the same from track to track for the whole album. I think most newer recordings are beyond that, or would at least hope so. I have read of many artists today, only going through the song a couple of times in the studio. If it doesn't click, they put it aside for a few days and try it later. Othewise, they are doing the song but it has no life. Some of this could be a problem with so many musicians having their own studios, so they can record until it it right, but with no life left. Marvel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garymd Posted November 28, 2003 Share Posted November 28, 2003 ---------------- On 11/28/2003 1:47:22 PM Marvel wrote: Mark, We recently got a CD of a Mercury Living Presence recording, originally done in the '50s. A single microphone was used. The dynamics are real, the sense of being there is so real. Multi mic'ing techniques don't ncessarily mean a weak recording. There is a vast difference between mic'ing all the instruments and doing overdubs. The first certainly can allow for the mix process to be done later, at a more leisurely pace, instead of mixing it live to tape (or digital media). The latter, while not intending to kill the performance, can easily end up doing so. Someone had mentioned in another thread, the band Chicago. I have one of their albums (vinyl) that was given to me. It is absolutely awful. The dynamics have been squeezed out of it. The levels are the same from track to track for the whole album. I think most newer recordings are beyond that, or would at least hope so. I have read of many artists today, only going through the song a couple of times in the studio. If it doesn't click, they put it aside for a few days and try it later. Othewise, they are doing the song but it has no life. Some of this could be a problem with so many musicians having their own studios, so they can record until it it right, but with no life left. Marvel ---------------- Marvel, I don't recall which lp it was but I have a Chicago lp that may be the worst recording I've ever heard. My first cd purchase was Terrapin Station by The Grateful Dead which may be the worst CD recording I've ever heard. I tend to prefer the original lp for all the reasons stated above over the remake onto cd. When a new band comes out with a totally digitally recorded cd (DDD), I tend to prefer that over many crackly lps. They sound different. My SACD player is closer but not all the way there. I doubt I'll ever give up my lps but I drive 3 hrs/day to and from work so cds are very convenient. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coda Posted November 28, 2003 Share Posted November 28, 2003 We recently got a CD of a Mercury Living Presence recording, originally done in the '50s. A single microphone was used. Marvel, would that be Tchaikovsky's 1812 Overture? Still looking for the t-shirt, meantime the SACD legion is holding out for the planned Mercury Living Presence re-issues beginning in January. There's indeed something to be said for mono recordings, check out Wilma Cozart Fine is Mercury for more info on the various techniques used during that era. Also passing along the Audiophile Audition site as one more online reference for music reviews which seems to do a good job touching on the audible differences between various mediums available for a particular title. Simply stated, because the recording process used at a particular time may fall short of reaching the full potential for the medium used, it's problematic to state in absolute sonic terms that any medium in practice is consistently superior. And that's just on the software end, without factoring in the quality of the player or turntable used with the rest of the equipment downstream.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reel 2 reel Posted November 28, 2003 Share Posted November 28, 2003 I know this is gettin away from the original question...but ...back in the mid 80s I did some recordings of the band I was playin in at the time...with My Teac X1000rbl..(using DBX noise reduction and EE tape and two mics )...and the playback of the tape sounds Just like the place we were playin'..If you Close your eyes ..you could swear you were there...(klipsch speakers help) Sa far as I'm concerned ..that is the goal of music reproduction... to sound like the original performance... There are vinyl discs that can sound like the original...and there are CDs that can do the same thing... I guess its a matter of preference... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neo33 Posted November 28, 2003 Share Posted November 28, 2003 " " I can't seem to capture your "invisible" thought, Kelly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marvel Posted November 28, 2003 Share Posted November 28, 2003 Mark, I understand exactly what you mean. As an acoustic guitarist, I even find it hard to record my own guitar the way I think it should sound. What you have detailed is a problem I will be facing this week. Our college does a madrigals program every year. Sells out, makes big money on it. Our A/V dept. has always handled the audio before, and will again this year. However, A/V now resides under the department I work for, so I have been pulled into the mix (pun intended). We have a consort that performs, with harpsichord, violin, cello, recorder, flute, guitar, dumbek. The ideal way to mic them would be a single mic some distance away, so that all the instruments blend and control their own dynamics. Unfortunately, I will be the engineer, mixing the noises as you say, because the room acoustics won't allow for a more natural mix to take place. I have been working with the music director to make sure it is also what he wants, and he and I both are of the same mindset. It isn't ideal, but we have to make sure that everyone in the room can hear those soft instruments over small talk, dishes rattling and so on. Electric, The Mecury disc (CD), is Frederick Fennel at the Eastman School of Music -- Holst suites 1 & 2; Vaughan WIlliams Folk Song Suite and Toccata Marziale; Mennin Canzona; Persichetti Psalm; Reed La Fiesta Mexicana.. I have another Mercury Living Presence disk of Antal Dorati conducting the Philharmonia Hungarica -- Respighi Ancient Dances and Airs for Lute Suites 1, 2 & 3. It is a 1958 recording done on a three track, and they found the original machine and had it aligned to use to tranfer to digital. Both of these are outstanding. RtR, You know what you sounded like in the room. As Mark has stated, almost all recordings are but a representation of someone else's idea of the song. This is, again the problem with the individual mic'ing technique. The normal listener doesn't have his head six inches away from the kick drum, cello, violin, cymbal, snare. Everything is a creation. Marvel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marvel Posted November 28, 2003 Share Posted November 28, 2003 Yes, I should have said that -- mic'ing for PA. If it were for recording, I would use fewer mics and pull them back a lot. The important thing will be to get a reasonable sound and leave it alone. That is something so many live PA mixers refuse to do. Nothing worse than the sound constantly changing. What kind of 8 track do you have. I'm still trying to make use and justify having an ADAT sitting here in my house. Marvel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben. Posted November 28, 2003 Share Posted November 28, 2003 Yes, there is a lot of nonsensical, nonmusical engineering going on out there. There is also a hell of a lot of very creative and shiver-down-the-spine music being created that cannot be produced by "a band in a room". Maybe it doesn't pull your wagon, but making it a philosophical issue of right or wrong seem a bit reactionary. Technology at an engineer's fingertips doesn't prevent great music, it just makes it easier to make mediocre recordings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben. Posted November 28, 2003 Share Posted November 28, 2003 BTW, Marvel- Overmixing acoustic music is a big peeve of mine as well. I used to love doing jazz gigs live in my live sound days. It was the easiest job if they were any good. Get levels and position mics. Sit down and enjoy yourself. Pack up and go home. None of that "More me in monitors!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clipped and Shorn Posted November 28, 2003 Share Posted November 28, 2003 Much has already been said here most elequently. In addition, there might also be the "hobby involvement" factor and the "historical artifact" aspect. Hobby involvement has to do with things like the endless pursuit (and financing) involvement of continually upgrading a piece of vinyl in search of the holy grail early pressing in the rare form of a nearly mint example in hopes of being able to experience some finer points of fidelity. Hobby involvement might have to do with the continual search (and component upgrading) for the right turntable, stylus, pre-amp, amp, speakers, and cables etc. to make the vinyl sound best to ones ears. If nothing else the ritual of all of this is an "involvement", we like the sense of involvement and the dream that we can somehow re-capture something, that may or may not really exist. The "historical artifact" aspect is related, by analogy, to the thrill one might get out of digging up a rusty axe head and cleaning it up with a wire brush, tracking down or making a wooden handle for it, fixing it all together, and then pretending that it is more fun to use it than having your firewood delivered. The "historical artifact" aspect has to do with the mental process which allows that surface noise is an essential part of the experience with some vintage piece of vinyl. The other evening I was trying to dramatize this to guests by putting on a 78 rpm disc from the 40s that in spite of that inevitable surface noise sounded really spectacular and alive. That faster speed (78 rpm compared to 33 rpm, or even 45 rpm) contains denser information and the sound can be really amazing. Then, when I put on an old 78 from the 20s (one that I carefully hand-carried back from Cuba a few years ago), the sound was even more antiquated, with even more surface presence, but the thrill of going back into history, the historical artifact aspect, was really engaging. Most of the time, when I do not have time to engage in the hobby with so much extra involvement, and I want music without so much ritual, I put on a CD, and because of the state of mind I am in, the context at that moment, the CD always sounds fantastic and I can go about other things while listening to the music. Rarely do I encounter a CD that is so bad that I need to go into the stacks and find the vinyl if I have it, although this does sometimes happen. Another thing that happens is I will play a piece of vinyl, not dig the sound, not feel like tracking down some better or more original pressing for mucho dollars, and simply order a clean fresh CD and be done with it. Other times a recording will be so important to me that I might actually enjoy tracking down a more perfect specimen, an earlier pressing, and then bite the bullet and invest the $$$s, but I am tending to phase this part of the hobby out because I already have plenty of things to enjoy listening to and question the nature of obsession. Sometimes the ease of CD playing sways the decision. Sometimes laziness rules. They sound just fine. When I want to give my little music lecture to guests, showing the history of some music, or some high points of musical accomplishment from the past, I enjoy pulling them into this other ritual in which I have to sometimes "apologize" for the surface noise or the specific flaws of the particular historical example I have on hand, be it a vinyl LP or a rare old 78. The ritual of cleaning this thing and then deciding which turntable is best, etc. adds to their (and my) experience. It is a new experience for them to dig the "better" sound through the "veil" of these other "compromises". Its like going on a trip down memory lane in your vintage car. It is like a PBS historical documentary with old photographs. There is nothing like those old lenses, those old cameras with the big negative,those old photographic materials, those old ways the environment actually looked before malls were on every corner, before the corporate takeover of everything, back in the days when people still believed that endangered species might really be saved, as if there were still someplace left on the planet where they could survive..... Quasi at the Quackadero with the "roll back time" device....you remember Quasi, right.....? c&s an afterthought: "Hyper Sound Stage" A really essential and important recording for me is one that I picked up in the 60s when I wanted to know more about the music of Charlie Parker. The LP was some kind of bootleg on the LeJazz Cool label and it contained a recording, argualbly from about 1950 and certainly no later) of the tune Round Midnight which I have played countless times over the years since then, having memorized every little aspect of this recording. What I hear in this strange sounding recording from one night in jazz club more than 50 years ago is someone moving around the little microphone in order to better catch the amazing solo by Bud Powell, what I hear are some enthusiastic voices of a hip crowd tuned into every line of bebop phraseology as if it were a second language speaking to them, what I hear is the smoke filled space of this club and a moment in jazz history that did not take place in a recording studio. This is not High Fidelity by any means, but every aspect of the "compromised" sound adds to a sense of the original space in which this took place from the vantage point of whoever it was that captured this on some relatively newly developed (at the time) recording device, eg. not an awkward and not very portable disc cutter. What results is "hyper sound stage", I can recreate in my mind's ear exactly what it might have been like to have been there. There is no other recording which can take its place. Parker is only on record three other times with this great Monk tune (even though he does not really solo on this particular version), and only one of his recordings of this tune is a studio recording (in which he does solo with a borrowed tenor sax), a recording at the end of his short life when he was showing signs of final exhaustion (as distinct from the sound of a nervous breakdown as on "Lover Man" (Dial) just prior to his internment at the Camarillo State Hospital in earlier years. There certainly are no other recordings of Bud Powell like this one, even though they say it was one of his favorite tunes, he loved Monk. Powell is on one of the very first recordings of this tune. I sense that here is a tune that was played many times in that era, it was the anthem of that era, but unfortunately not recorded much during that era. The tune was played at his legendary funeral in NY. Bud Powell had relatively few recorded moments in which his great genius was captured and this is one of those glimpses (there are others as well from this same set of recordings). My point about these recordings is that in spite of the bad quallity , what is created is a musical reality surpassing most studio recordings. It is as if you can enter that world from this sonic photograph. This recording has reappeared in numerous other forms since the bootleg I picked up in the early 60s. Eventually CBS bought the rights to these and has issued it in many forms usually calling it something like Charlie Parker: "One Night At Birdland". So what difference does it make if you have an original pressing on some early bootleg, or one of the many vinyl reissues over the years, or a new CD? It is not about what it sounds like, it is about what the sound likens it to be. In any form, it will put you there, when. For an amazing glimpse of Monk inventing a masterpiece of his most famous masterpiece, check out the 21+ minutes of a "work in progress" prior to the final take which appears on the Complete Riverside recordings of Monk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
formica Posted November 28, 2003 Share Posted November 28, 2003 ---------------- On 11/28/2003 5:54:25 PM bclarke421 wrote: Yes, there is a lot of nonsensical, nonmusical engineering going on out there. There is also a hell of a lot of very creative and shiver-down-the-spine music being created that cannot be produced by "a band in a room". Maybe it doesn't pull your wagon, but making it a philosophical issue of right or wrong seem a bit reactionary. ---------------- So very true... actually a lot of what I listen to falls into that category, and there are some truly great recordings available. I'm often one to criticise recordings, but contrary to some other posts I find the average quality has improved. There still are the very pour and other outstanding recordings, but I'm actually referring to the average ones of today which are better than the average ones of 20yrs ago. Just my feeling though... Rob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marvel Posted November 28, 2003 Share Posted November 28, 2003 Lest someone gets the impression that I don't like newer recordings and mixes, I'll pass this on as well. Most of the CDs I own, LPs included, have been mixed. Multi-tracked in a studio. They have been a creation from start to finish. I wasn't there to hear them recorded, so I have to enjoy them for the way they sound, assuming that is what they wanted. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. But it is no different than watching an old grainy movie. A few minutes into it and you are just enjoying the film, and don't even see the grain. Music is the same way. Those are still performances, and whether a concert violinist, a mando player like Sam Bush, or whatever, I love the music. Marvel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manuel Delaflor Posted November 29, 2003 Share Posted November 29, 2003 mdeneen You are right. The "secret" is the recording, not that much the equipment nor the recording media. I love both LPs and CDs (heresy! )but ONLY (and this is a big ONLY) if the recording is top of the line. I listen almost only classical music, mostly "audiophile labels" and old stuff like "Mercury Living Presence" where the recording method is as minimalist as possible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klipsch RF7 Posted November 29, 2003 Author Share Posted November 29, 2003 I listen to classical only, what is an audiophile CD label? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.