quote:

---

After reading your article "The Dead End," it appears that you may think that vinyl records are superior to CD's. How can you support this claim? Can you cite references to other articles in other audio industry magazines that support this way of thinking with something more than subjectivist impressions or highly unreliable open-loop listening tests. It would be difficult or impossible to perform double-blind A-B testing of the two mediums, as the first tick or pop of the vinyl would reveal the source. Are you familiar with the article that appeared in the January issue of Stereo Review, titled "The Romance of the Record", by E. Brad Meyer? In it is some explanation for the coloration, top end brightness, etc. that accounts for the apparent superiority of the sonics of vinyl.

If we can't compare vinyl with CD's with blind A-B testing for the reason stated above, we can at least compare a CD with the original analog master tape. And, I understand TDK (a leader in the manufacture of analog and digital tape) did just that at a recent Consumer Electronics Show. The company would give one-million dollars to anyone who could correctly identify the source, tape or CD copy, for 10 successive trials in double blind A-B testing. I assume that the test included closely matched levels--say within 0.1 dB. No one could do it.

So, would you say that the vinyl copy is superior to the analog tape, since, of course it must be superior to the CD, the latter of which is indistinguishable from the analog master tape? So, I guess when you vinyl buffs talk about sonic superiority of vinyl over CD, you are referring to something that must be added to what was not present at the microphone or mixing board, and that is coloration due to frequency response errors (RIAAresponse errors in the playback equipment, or "tweeks" by the cutting studio engineers to compensate for the deficiencies of the vinyl medium, and the physics of the cantilever mechanism), and distortion of phase information, especially at the high frequencies, and of course surface noise, which, I guess, some people, like you, prefer.

If I want coloration somewhere in the music reproduction chain, I would like some choice in the matter. I would like to turn it on or off at will, like a tone-defeat switch. The same is true for lovers of "tube sound". If you own a tube amplifier, most likely it is adding a touch of coloration ("warmth", etc.) which you can't disable or turn off at will. There is a product known as the "Tube Head" that adds tube "warmth"--it may be connected to a preamp at the "external processor" connections and inserted into the signal chain at will. Passing the signal through a pair of voltage-starved triode stages, the Tube Head can add that desirable amount of even-order harmonic distortion so popular with lovers of the tube sound, and without spending big bucks for a vacuum tube power amplifier with sufficient power to drive today's power-demanding speaker systems.

A digital standard has already been developed which "sonically meets or exceeds the capabilities of the humble vinyl record", it's the equally humble 44.1 Khz. 16 bit CD. I love listening to music, and with the current CD market, there is a lot to choose from. The introduction of some new standard (such as a 96 Khz. 24 bit DVD), besides being unnecessary--unless it were for multi-channel surround-sound purposes, would either fail or destroy selection. Unless, if it were introduced very gradually, an only in an experimental way. CD sales are having enough difficulty as it is (especially classical). A lot of this, I think is because of its high markups along the distribution path. The confusion created by the current retrograde interest in vinyl is probably not helping the situation.

With new noise-shaping techniques, the CD's dynamic range is now exceeding 96 dB, especially on the newer CD playback equipment. Only the very best cartridge-turntable-phono preamp combinations with brand new records can meet this degree of dynamic range. What happens to that vinyl after 25 or 50 plays? The CD will sound identical on its 200th play as with its first. And, as for the extended frequency response of the vinyl. Most adults can't even hear the horizontal oscillator of their TV set--that's 15,750 Hz., let alone the guaranteed top end of 20.05 KHz. for the CD. Even the most expensive phono cartridges roll off pretty significanly above 20Khz. If you think there's something else missing with CD's, you better go back and read a good introduction to sampled-data theory, the Nyquist equation, etc.

The vinyl-analog-tube enthusiasts have now dominated the audiophile and high-end press and high-end manufacturing industry. The main reason for this is because of the misleading information touted by manufacturers who are too uncreative or don't have enough knowledge of acoustics and electrical engineering to actually improve the state of music reproduction. They instead manufacture impressive looking and expensive knickknacks for gullible audiophiles to buy to impress their neighbors. They want to convince those with money to burn that audio equipment built with unnecessarily expensive components, oxygen-free copper wire, chrome plated chassis, gold plated knobs, etc. sound better. This brainwashing is rampant in the High-end audio industry, and slowing down real progress.

Much of this merchandise does nothing to improve the sound, in fact, if anything it actually contributes to adding non-linearities, etc., such as the absurd claims by manufacturers of insanely expensive interconnect cables. Just look at the advertisements in Stereophile magazine, the king of the tweako, voodoo, audio high-end cultist magazines, with the very influental and yet least qualified Robert Harley and his cadre of reviewers who report on tests that are generally flawed. Controlled listening tests will show every time that well designed less expensive components sound the same as rudely expensive ones, but these sort of listening tests are difficult to set up and are very time consuming--the kinds of test that the advertizers don't want to see. If you don't like fast A-B switching, then take a week with A and then a week with B. But just make sure you are not peeking behind the curtain that would reveal the manufacturer's label or price tag!

It's funny, because the electronic engineers, recording engineers, musicians, conductors, and producers of music (except for the cultists) are all keeping pretty quiet (or have gone to other careers because they could not stand the lunatic tweako ghetto). I guess they just don't think it's worth debating with people who only know the buzzwords but are ignorant of the science and mathematics behind them. It is interesting to note, no other area of electrical engineering has been subjected to such a blatant degree of backsliding fanaticism.

---

Hur många kan ens höra skillnad på en Stratocaster & en Telecaster.
Eller en akustisk Washburn & en akustiskt Takamine.

quote:

---

Ja, jag håller med om att hans tester är intressanta. Men nu är det så att jag har inte hört något (tror jag iaf) som han ligger bakom men jag har hört en väldigt massa som Hoffman och andra erkänt bra producenter/masterings killar gjort och säger. Jag betvivlar inte John's kunskap eller hur bra han är på sina saker men jag tycker det är lite som att jämföra div 2 fotboll med italienska liga. "Bara" för man är en studio tekniker eller sånt så anser jag man inte sitter inne med vad som är rätt och vad som är fel. Men har man kommit till en viss punkt, och fått erkännade för det man gjort, och att man själv gillar det så kan jag ta till mig det mer. Jag vet en polare som gick en seriös studio teknik kurs och påstod att musik idag är inspelad FÖR att man ska använda ton-kontrollerna! Något som jag avfärdade direkt. Men eftersom han hade lärt sig av en "kunnig studio tekniker" så var det ju sant.

---

quote:

---

Jo, detta eviga tjat om tester. Hur skulle detta testet gå till? Ska vi testa om vilken musik som är mest rätt också? Jag tror ju såklart att alla bra masterings killar försöka på alla sätt att få CD/LP/SACD/DVD-A låta så bra och nära originalet som möjligt, så jag TROR dom jämför ganska väl, fast dom gör nog det med öronen, samma som producenten gör, och artisten.

---

quote:

---

Men då anser du alltså att CD'ns 16 bitar och 44.1 sampling är ohörbart lika som ett analogt band? Och att då behöver vi inte bättre format? Och att det är onödigt att spela in musik på 24/96, som vad jag förstår dom flesta digitala studios använder idag?

---

quote:

---

Ja, och det kan vara du som har fel år ut och år in eller hur? Och ingen av oss här kan ju veta, för vi lär inte få våra vantar på original masterbanden till våra audiofil klassiker. Men jag vet iaf vilka killar bakom skivorna som jag tycker låter bäst är, och det räcker för mig.

---

quote:

---

If we can't compare vinyl with CD's with blind A-B testing for the reason stated above, we can at least compare a CD with the original analog master tape. And, I understand TDK (a leader in the manufacture of analog and digital tape) did just that at a recent Consumer Electronics Show. The company would give one-million dollars to anyone who could correctly identify the source, tape or CD copy, for 10 successive trials in double blind A-B testing. I assume that the test included closely matched levels--say within 0.1 dB. No one could do it.

---

quote:

---

Hur många kan ens höra skillnad på en Stratocaster & en Telecaster.
Eller en akustisk Washburn & en akustiskt Takamine.

---

quote:

---

John, Ja, jag tycker vi har tagit detta så långt vi kan. Vi har olika uppfattningar och det är väl inget mer med det. Det viktigaste är ju att både du och jag njuter av god musik via det formaten som passar oss bäst. Skulle vara kul om du berätta några skivor du varit med på, skulle kul att lyssna. Ha det!

---

quote:

---

känns lite som att testa raketbränsle i en volvo 240 =)

---