Vinyl more exciting?

[oldtimer]

For clarity's sake, you might want to redo that math, md.

[Islander]

I like my vinyl! It seems to sound a little more "live", with the fine nuances of the music being played, the slight hesitations and corrections by the musicians, being audible. When I listen the the same performance on CD and LP, the CD sounds "canned" by comparison. If I have no LP for comparison, though, the CD may sound fine. Although the deep silence at some points may not be realistic, it seems impressive. However, as someone pointed out, there's never a real silence in any recording space, what with musicians having to breath and move, for example.

TIn addition, the availability of lots of used LPs in good condition at very low prices means being able to collect lots of good sound for not much money.

On the other hand, it's a nuisance having to get up every twenty minutes or less to change the record. When I have a friend sharing the couch with me, the CD is often the way to go. As well, if I'm not in the room with the stereo, knowing the CD will stop and the player will turn itself off after a while lets me concentrate on whatever else I'm doing.

Both formats have their place, and not all music is available on both formats, so I'll be listening to both for the foreseeable future.

Of course, there are also DVDs. Being able to watch a concert as well as hear it is something you can't do with vinyl.

[garymd]

Should I be emabarrassed to admit I've never heard of John Stewart? I occasionally watch The Daily Show.........[*-)]

[Klipsched with Yamahas]

That's John Stewart, Gary, not Jon Stewart......geez, you living in the dark ages of jazz again! Although, you've got stuff I've never heard of either.

touche!

I have (1) album, but not my cup of tea.............played maybe 4 times!

[pauln]

Mallette, if you are truly interested, as the other thread was locked, an explanation for gravity, and much more, for your consideration.

<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

I gave it my consideration. That video does not attempt to explain gravity at all. The fact is no one knows what gravity is - I'm surprised the video didn't try to explain it anyway. It tried to explan some other things with by using high production values but poor science content

The hubris of thinking that we do or are about to know everything shortly has been repeated in history, the last time was just over a hundred years ago right before Planck broke everything by finding quantization as a solution to the black body radiation crisis.

The video begins by revealing that particles don't have localization as an attribute, a la Heisenberg. Then it goes on to mention string theory. Now think about this for a moment. Sub atomic particles are small (and therefore subject to the uncertainty principle (Heisenberg), but the strings are much smaller. To get a sense of how small, the relationship in size between an atom and an apple is the same as between the apple and the Earth, but if a super string was 6 ft long, the diameter of a proton would be the distance to the Andromeda Galaxy (200,000 light years). So, if the strings "vibrate", what happens to the uncertainty of location (and energy, and time, and motentum, etc.)?!! If they do not have a location, neither do their parts that would need to have relative locations in order to define the structure of vibrate. Any mention of this issue in the video - no.

The same issue applies to the singularity, which the video does not define, but is well known to be defined as an infinitesimal point.

Same applies to the M theory with the branes - things this small do not have geometrical properties, yet geometrical hypotheses are what the folks in the video are relying on to give them ripples and waves and allow them to collide.

Gravity is not explaned at all, just offer an idea for why it might be so weak. But wait, if there are an infinite number of parallel universes then the minute gravitational leakage from them should result in a strong gravity, possibly infinite. Video mention this problem - no.

Folks, if you ever remember anything I ever wrote it should be this - the Big Bang is wrong. I know now adays all consider it to be "proved", but mark my words, there will come a time soon when - surprize! Turns out they were wrong about that... Steady State will come back and make sense of the mess cosmology is in today.

Apart from just moving the "ultimate physics question of the singularity/big bang origin" to the question of the origin of the membranes that collide to make the big bang, this is a geometrical argument, and therefore quite lame (see Heisenberg)

By the way, since the elements of M theory are so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, unbeleivably small, it can never be verified, just math models looking for consistency. Unfortunately, consistency is being promoted without looking at more fundamental issues and questions. I really despise physics shows that gloss over critical issues to present fluffy thinking as science.

[joshnich]

Should I be emabarrassed to admit I've never heard of John Stewart? I occasionally watch The Daily Show.........[*-)]

Hey Gary

Not sure you should be embarrassed. John Stewart is a somewhat folk singer who has recorded about 30 LPs. He was one of the members of the early Kingston Trio. Although not really a good indication of his songwriting skills, he wrote the Monkeys hit Daydream Believer. I am a little biased but I like his version better. ( no sh+t sherlock). IMHO he possess a very interesting style of guitar playing. Kind of a clawhammer style that he developed playing banjo. In the old days he played a big Guild 12 string and had a very distinctive sound. He was known for his live performance In fact one of his best selling lps is a live lp recorded in Phoenix. He produced a couple of his lps with Lindsay Buckingham and they have a distinctive mid 70sFleetwood mac. vibe with Stevie Nicks singing backup. I may have a few doubles on some of his lps. I think I have your address here somewhere and if I do Ill send some samples along.

Josh

Josh

[Mallette]

Thanks, Paul. I knew that. []

My respect for the sum of human knowledge will increase considerable as soon as some SHOWS me some gravity rather that theorizes about it.

Dave

[maxg]

OK - I might be missing something here - of couse I am - but I thought gravity was a curvature of space time in the presence of either mass or energy in large amounts. Space/time bends and things fall in - no? Isnt that what Einstein said? Wasnt this the reason light is affected by gravity without having demonstrable mass?

Of course I am about 70 years out of date on this.

[maxg]

Am I the only person on this forum that has a stack of unplayable CD's? Vinyl may deteriorate - but CD's simply seem to stop working. I have the same problem with DVD's now.

Am I doing something very wrong with these things?

[Mallette]

Max:

That's why I rip all my CD's I care about to a server and record my favorite LP's and other sources in high res digital as well. CD's DO deteriorate from a variety of causes. There are higher priced "archival" blanks that are supposedly good for 100 years or so, but even those are subject to damage. I transfer my home videos to DVD, then make a backup as well with a notation (to myself or the future) to make another backup should that one need to be called into service.

Dave

[maxg]

Cloudy - wow - not seen that.

Mine just stop working. If I am lucky some of the tracks play still but others just sort of hang. I wonder if my CD drive in my computer affects them. Too hot perhaps?

The funny thing is that some that look like they shouldnt play - when my daughter gets hold of them usually - dont seem to have a problem. I have a few that are seriously scratched up on the non-labelled side but play anyway. Others look fine but the CD player wont even recognise them as CD's.

My marrantz says helpfully "No disk in the drive" - when there is one. Great!

My TT never does that.

[jacksonbart]

Another thing that bothers me about CDs is having to position the needle right over the track I want to listen to. No wait that vinyl.

Truth be told, having a good music server with enough disk space to move your music collection to in an lossless or uncompressed formats beats both CD and Vinyl.

Anyone here record a record or two to a WAV file on a server? Can you tell the difference in sound easily?

[germerikan]

I'm in the process of digitalizing (sp?) all of my old tapes and have already done the few vinyl that I have. If I don't send it through an extra program to clean it up I hear no difference. If I do send it through Steinberg "Clean" I can take just about all of the pops and hisses out but have found out that I like them in there, just sounds more original.

I think one of the differences today is that the (hoping not to step on any toes here) the sound engineers go about mixing differently then the full Analog days. I myself have not heard any new music, say after 1987, on vinyl but on cd everything is digitaly enhanced trying to get the "best" quality and possibly filtering out things that were left in due to how hard it was to get rid of them.

...but then again as some one said "oppinions are like a** holes, everybody has one" that's just mine.

Randy

[Mike Lindsey]

I've had a $5k CD player w/PS for the last couple of months, and have played 2 CD's on it.

I think I'd be selling it then, and get 15,000 used LPs with the money.

I'm actually holding it for a friend until he gets back from Australia in about a year. It's a Naim CD5 with a separate Power Supply. It does sound good, just not as good as my vinyl rig.

Mike

[pauln]

OK - I might be missing something here - of couse I am - but I thought gravity was a curvature of space time in the presence of either mass or energy in large amounts. Space/time bends and things fall in - no? Isnt that what Einstein said? Wasnt this the reason light is affected by gravity without having demonstrable mass?

Of course I am about 70 years out of date on this.

Max, your are probably recalling the common graphic used to explain gravity by the use of a figure that represents space as a sheet that is deformed by mass. The curvature of the sheet makes it look like if you placed a marble on it, it would roll around the "gravity well" and show the appearent attractive aspect of the mass. I don't like this example because it assumes what it sets out to explain - the deformation of the sheet by the mass is caused by the mass pressing into the sheet - what makes it do that?

What makes the marble move and roll, and change direction? While it is true that if you set up a sheet of material and put an object in the center to deform it (because Earth's gravity would pull it down), and then placed a marble on the sheet and watched it roll and move around and toward the object (because Earth's gravity pulls it down)... well you see, the model only works if you already assume that there is a gravitational force present acting from under the sheet. This is a false model, a false analogy. It works at the Earth's surface because of the Earth's gravity, but if you take this model into space it will not work. The marble will just stay where ever it is placed.

To set up the model and see it work is nothing more than observing that the model at the Earth's surface behaves under the influence of Earth's gravity just as one would expect consistent with other gravitational observations. If you need the model to reside within a gravitational field in order to use it to explain gravity, it doesn't. It does not explain the source or nature of the gravity that is being assumed to have to be present in order for the model to work. If you start off without gravity, bending the sheet has no effect on the marble on the sheet unless you posit a separate gravitational force at right angles to the sheet external to the model.

We know a lot about how things happen and how different things are related, but we know nothing about the things themselves or the nature of what makes the relationships.

[Mallette]

Yes, I have.

At 24/176.4, only a golden ear will detect difference. I could only hear a slight difference from 24/88.2 when I switched back and forth.

Before going farther, you might ask "Why not 24/192 and 24/96?" Those are fine unless you want to make CD's, which will require downsampling to 16/44.1. Using an uneven multiple requires dithering and that will have an audible impact to the audiophile ear.

Once digitized, I'd recommend the following, depending on your tastes.

A good de-noiser, especially the nx reduction plugin for Soundforge, will eliminate the pops from any record in reasonable condition. It's defaults are fine for records with only a few clicks or pops. The user settings on this require some expertise and practise to produce optimum results...but properly set they are do a superb job. Bear in mind the signal is NOT processed or altered in any way except when the target noise signature is spotted.

A high quality dynamic range expander is also a good thing, at least for me. Many eschew this as "impure." Horse hockey, says I. LP's are dynamically compress by up to 30db so aren't natural to start with. If you wanna be REAL pure then get rid of that RIAA eq curve! In my case, I use a DBX 4BX before digitizing (and for playing the LPs as well). Properly set, it will restore a realistic dynamic range and virtually eliminate noise from unmodulated grooves. There are also settings for this in Soundforge, but I prefer the DBX.

BTW, if you are of the 78 pursuasion, DBX can also effectively alter the speed of the TT by changing the pitch digitally. Touch proposition, but it can work wonders on recordings made at non-standard speeds. I also used it to good effect to restore tapes made many years ago on the cheap battery RR machines of the 60's which were all over the place speed wise.

Once done, you can have REAL "perfect sound forever" if you store the result on a RAID 5 server and keep it backed up.

Dave

[Mallette]

Jeez, Paul. Let's put on some Shoenberg and discuss the Cosmological Anthropic Principles next time....

However, good point and what I was trying to say. I hear a LOT of DESCRIPTIONS of gravity, but no one seems to be able to describe "the thing itself."

I must continue to insist that any "science" that cannot accurately explain what holds the scientist in his chair is pretty crude.

Dave

[Mike Lindsey]

It's a Naim CD5

-----------------

It doesn't get much better than that. That is a highly regarded rig.

I agree, Mark. It's an outstanding CD player! It blows away my DVD-2900 for redbook cd's. But to be honest, I still prefer the Thorens. When I put on an lp I am compelled to listen to it in the sweetspot of my family room. When I put on a CD I am generally working around the house.

Mike

[garymd]

Should I be emabarrassed to admit I've never heard of John Stewart? I occasionally watch The Daily Show.........[*-)]

Hey Gary

Not sure you should be embarrassed. John Stewart is a somewhat folk singer who has recorded about 30 LPs. He was one of the members of the early Kingston Trio. Although not really a good indication of his songwriting skills, he wrote the Monkeys hit Daydream Believer. I am a little biased but I like his version better. ( no sh+t sherlock). IMHO he possess a very interesting style of guitar playing. Kind of a clawhammer style that he developed playing banjo. In the old days he played a big Guild 12 string and had a very distinctive sound. He was known for his live performance In fact one of his best selling lps is a live lp recorded in Phoenix. He produced a couple of his lps with Lindsay Buckingham and they have a distinctive mid 70sFleetwood mac. vibe with Stevie Nicks singing backup. I may have a few doubles on some of his lps. I think I have your address here somewhere and if I do Ill send some samples along.

Josh

Josh

Thanks Josh. That would be great. I'm always looking for something new (or old) and exciting!

[garymd]

I myself have not heard any new music, say after 1987, on vinyl but on cd everything is digitaly enhanced trying to get the "best" quality and possibly filtering out things that were left in due to how hard it was to get rid of them.

...but then again as some one said "oppinions are like a** holes, everybody has one" that's just mine.

Randy

You're missing out on some fantastic vinyl. The newer high quality pressings are great. Also, the latest reissues of older LPs from the likes of Classic Records, Analogue Productions and a few others are top notch. Some of the best I've heard.