OT: Retro radios

[Doug Chadduck]

In message <[email protected]>, Ed Cryer
I heard somebody say recently that digital radios weren't selling too
well because "people don't like them".

If in the UK, that's partly because the powers that be have decided to
pack too many stations into the available bitstream, with the result
that they are poor quality; digital encoding of sound is capable of
excellent fidelity (early CDs had it), but it is also capable of pretty
grotty quality. [In addition, the encoding used for digital radio in
the UK - mp2 - is less efficient than that common nowadays on
computers, such as mp3 or aac, so needs more bits. Nevertheless, the
available bandwidth/bitrate was capable of very high quality in the
early days of digital radio, because they gave enough bits to each
channel.]

And then, coincidentally, my barber was telling me about his vinyl
collection (he's not out of his 30s) and he said they have "a much
more wholesome sound to them". I argued; I told him what he was
hearing was vintageness, and that was affecting his perception.

He's used to the distortions imposed by the cartridge - and also may
have the system connected to a better amp. and speakers than his CD
player. (Also, the amount of [amplitude] compression - which in itself
isn't anything to do with whether digital or analogue, though of course
digital processing makes it easier - has increased steadily over the
years, so vinyl recordings of the same album are often less
compressed.)

Anyway, I have an old Grundig Yachtboy from the 70s. I've kept it
because I like the style of it; and sentimental value.
I have several DAB radios, so I tried them all out for a trial,
switching from one to the other. And I swear that the Yachtboy sounds
best; even though it's got only one speaker and is FM. I'd call the
sound "richer".

Doesn't rattle, good speaker, and see above re DAB bitrate limitation.

We've all become so attuned to the clear tones of digital hi-fi,
measuring noise and hiss reduction with electronic meters rather than
our ears, that we've lost something.

I don't need electronic meters to hear a reduction in noise and hiss.
(Though the distortions of low bit rate digital encoding are often more
disagreeable to my ears than a certain amount of tape/fm hiss.)

[]

Staying way OT

Digital = Sterilized Sound, crisp, clean, technical, free of
distortion etc.

When have your ever heard sterilized music live?
I never have.

Have you ever heard a symphony of non-electric instruments live?

I would call those sounds crisp and clean, technical and free of
distortion.

I've listened to many types of music in many types of venues. Perhaps
crisp and clean were a bad choice of words. It has always seemed to me
that digital, CDs are by far what I'm most familiar with, feels like
it's been cleaned up, sanitized, sterilized, lacking in ambiance. It's
subtle and I'm old school. I did, many years ago, have an opportunity to
listen to vinyl and cd versions of the same pieces of music. Not knowing
which was which I identified them correctly. Maybe I got lucky.
And like I said, my ears are no where near what they were.............

 

[Doug Chadduck]

On 11/4/2012 12:00 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message <[email protected]>, Ed Cryer
I heard somebody say recently that digital radios weren't selling too
well because "people don't like them".

If in the UK, that's partly because the powers that be have decided to
pack too many stations into the available bitstream, with the result
that they are poor quality; digital encoding of sound is capable of
excellent fidelity (early CDs had it), but it is also capable of pretty
grotty quality. [In addition, the encoding used for digital radio in
the UK - mp2 - is less efficient than that common nowadays on
computers, such as mp3 or aac, so needs more bits. Nevertheless, the
available bandwidth/bitrate was capable of very high quality in the
early days of digital radio, because they gave enough bits to each
channel.]

And then, coincidentally, my barber was telling me about his vinyl
collection (he's not out of his 30s) and he said they have "a much
more wholesome sound to them". I argued; I told him what he was
hearing was vintageness, and that was affecting his perception.

He's used to the distortions imposed by the cartridge - and also may
have the system connected to a better amp. and speakers than his CD
player. (Also, the amount of [amplitude] compression - which in itself
isn't anything to do with whether digital or analogue, though of course
digital processing makes it easier - has increased steadily over the
years, so vinyl recordings of the same album are often less
compressed.)

Anyway, I have an old Grundig Yachtboy from the 70s. I've kept it
because I like the style of it; and sentimental value.
I have several DAB radios, so I tried them all out for a trial,
switching from one to the other. And I swear that the Yachtboy sounds
best; even though it's got only one speaker and is FM. I'd call the
sound "richer".

Doesn't rattle, good speaker, and see above re DAB bitrate limitation.

We've all become so attuned to the clear tones of digital hi-fi,
measuring noise and hiss reduction with electronic meters rather than
our ears, that we've lost something.

I don't need electronic meters to hear a reduction in noise and hiss.
(Though the distortions of low bit rate digital encoding are often more
disagreeable to my ears than a certain amount of tape/fm hiss.)
[]


Staying way OT

Digital = Sterilized Sound, crisp, clean, technical, free of
distortion etc.

When have your ever heard sterilized music live?
I never have.

Have you ever heard a symphony of non-electric instruments live?

I would call those sounds crisp and clean, technical and free of
distortion.

No, he's only heard music and sounds on average speakers at best and
listened to live music through speakers in a large hall. That's how come
he is an expert on audiophile sound reproduction. )-: :-(

See my reply to DanS. There are no claims of any expertise.

 

[Mike Barnes]

On 11/4/2012 12:00 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message <[email protected]>, Ed Cryer
I heard somebody say recently that digital radios weren't selling too
well because "people don't like them".

If in the UK, that's partly because the powers that be have decided to
pack too many stations into the available bitstream, with the result
that they are poor quality; digital encoding of sound is capable of
excellent fidelity (early CDs had it), but it is also capable of pretty
grotty quality. [In addition, the encoding used for digital radio in
the UK - mp2 - is less efficient than that common nowadays on
computers, such as mp3 or aac, so needs more bits. Nevertheless, the
available bandwidth/bitrate was capable of very high quality in the
early days of digital radio, because they gave enough bits to each
channel.]

And then, coincidentally, my barber was telling me about his vinyl
collection (he's not out of his 30s) and he said they have "a much
more wholesome sound to them". I argued; I told him what he was
hearing was vintageness, and that was affecting his perception.

He's used to the distortions imposed by the cartridge - and also may
have the system connected to a better amp. and speakers than his CD
player. (Also, the amount of [amplitude] compression - which in itself
isn't anything to do with whether digital or analogue, though of course
digital processing makes it easier - has increased steadily over the
years, so vinyl recordings of the same album are often less
compressed.)

Anyway, I have an old Grundig Yachtboy from the 70s. I've kept it
because I like the style of it; and sentimental value.
I have several DAB radios, so I tried them all out for a trial,
switching from one to the other. And I swear that the Yachtboy sounds
best; even though it's got only one speaker and is FM. I'd call the
sound "richer".

Doesn't rattle, good speaker, and see above re DAB bitrate limitation.

We've all become so attuned to the clear tones of digital hi-fi,
measuring noise and hiss reduction with electronic meters rather than
our ears, that we've lost something.

I don't need electronic meters to hear a reduction in noise and hiss.
(Though the distortions of low bit rate digital encoding are often more
disagreeable to my ears than a certain amount of tape/fm hiss.)

[]


Staying way OT

Digital = Sterilized Sound, crisp, clean, technical, free of
distortion etc.

When have your ever heard sterilized music live?
I never have.

Have you ever heard a symphony of non-electric instruments live?

I would call those sounds crisp and clean, technical and free of
distortion.

I've listened to many types of music in many types of venues. Perhaps
crisp and clean were a bad choice of words. It has always seemed to me
that digital, CDs are by far what I'm most familiar with, feels like
it's been cleaned up, sanitized, sterilized, lacking in ambiance. It's
subtle and I'm old school. I did, many years ago, have an opportunity
to listen to vinyl and cd versions of the same pieces of music. Not
knowing which was which I identified them correctly. Maybe I got lucky.
And like I said, my ears are no where near what they were.............

Nobody's mentioned DACs yet. The quality of the DAC profoundly affects
the listening experience. The DACs in most consumer equipment are very
poor. When a digital source is blamed, it's often the DAC that's the
real culprit.

 

[choro]

And then, coincidentally, my barber was telling me about his vinyl
collection (he's not out of his 30s) and he said they have "a much
more wholesome sound to them". I argued; I told him what he was
hearing was vintageness, and that was affecting his perception.

He's used to the distortions imposed by the cartridge - and also may
have the system connected to a better amp. and speakers than his CD
player. (Also, the amount of [amplitude] compression - which in itself
isn't anything to do with whether digital or analogue, though of course
digital processing makes it easier - has increased steadily over the
years, so vinyl recordings of the same album are often less
compressed.)

I'd be interested to know whether people who say they prefer LPs can
distinguish between live reproduction of (for example) an orchestra
(microphones, amplifier, loudspeakers) and good CD-type digital
recording (ie identical performers, microphones, amplifiers, speakers,
but with an additional analogue-to-digital and digital-to-analogue stage
to simulate the recording to CD.

In other words, is it the fact that the sound has been converted to
digital and back that they hate or is it the fact that it's *not* been
through the various compression, equalisation and band-limiting stages
necessary to put the sound onto LP and then play it again?

Obviously doing a true double-blind test live/CD/LP would be difficult
because it is immediately possible to detect an LP by its hiss, crackle
and dust clicks.

Ah but those add up to the superiority of LPs. ;-)

I am sure these LP aficionados would choose a cheap violin as opposed to
a quality instrument which I dare say would not sound as "sweet" to
their ears! You see it is all those smothered harmonics that the cheap
instrument is NOT capable of producing that makes for the "sweet" sound.

To them a Guernarius or a Stradivarius instrument would be second rate
in a blind test. --
choro
*****

 

[choro]

On Sun, 04 Nov 2012 17:33:07 -0800, Doug Chadduck wrote:

On 11/4/2012 12:00 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message <[email protected]>, Ed Cryer
I heard somebody say recently that digital radios weren't selling too
well because "people don't like them".

If in the UK, that's partly because the powers that be have decided to
pack too many stations into the available bitstream, with the result
that they are poor quality; digital encoding of sound is capable of
excellent fidelity (early CDs had it), but it is also capable of pretty
grotty quality. [In addition, the encoding used for digital radio in
the UK - mp2 - is less efficient than that common nowadays on
computers, such as mp3 or aac, so needs more bits. Nevertheless, the
available bandwidth/bitrate was capable of very high quality in the
early days of digital radio, because they gave enough bits to each
channel.]

And then, coincidentally, my barber was telling me about his vinyl
collection (he's not out of his 30s) and he said they have "a much
more wholesome sound to them". I argued; I told him what he was
hearing was vintageness, and that was affecting his perception.

He's used to the distortions imposed by the cartridge - and also may
have the system connected to a better amp. and speakers than his CD
player. (Also, the amount of [amplitude] compression - which in itself
isn't anything to do with whether digital or analogue, though of course
digital processing makes it easier - has increased steadily over the
years, so vinyl recordings of the same album are often less
compressed.)

Anyway, I have an old Grundig Yachtboy from the 70s. I've kept it
because I like the style of it; and sentimental value.
I have several DAB radios, so I tried them all out for a trial,
switching from one to the other. And I swear that the Yachtboy sounds
best; even though it's got only one speaker and is FM. I'd call the
sound "richer".

Doesn't rattle, good speaker, and see above re DAB bitrate limitation.

We've all become so attuned to the clear tones of digital hi-fi,
measuring noise and hiss reduction with electronic meters rather than
our ears, that we've lost something.

I don't need electronic meters to hear a reduction in noise and hiss.
(Though the distortions of low bit rate digital encoding are often more
disagreeable to my ears than a certain amount of tape/fm hiss.)

[]


Staying way OT

Digital = Sterilized Sound, crisp, clean, technical, free of
distortion etc.

When have your ever heard sterilized music live?
I never have.

Have you ever heard a symphony of non-electric instruments live?

I would call those sounds crisp and clean, technical and free of
distortion.

I've listened to many types of music in many types of venues. Perhaps
crisp and clean were a bad choice of words. It has always seemed to me
that digital, CDs are by far what I'm most familiar with, feels like
it's been cleaned up, sanitized, sterilized, lacking in ambiance. It's
subtle and I'm old school. I did, many years ago, have an opportunity
to listen to vinyl and cd versions of the same pieces of music. Not
knowing which was which I identified them correctly. Maybe I got lucky.
And like I said, my ears are no where near what they were.............

Nobody's mentioned DACs yet. The quality of the DAC profoundly affects
the listening experience. The DACs in most consumer equipment are very
poor. When a digital source is blamed, it's often the DAC that's the
real culprit.

You've touched a sore point there. But people are mean when they buy a
CD player. To them a CD player is a CD player so they go for the
cheapest option whereas LP aficionados tend to spend good money on their
systems. --
choro
*****

 

[DanS]

On 11/4/2012 12:00 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message <[email protected]>, Ed Cryer
I heard somebody say recently that digital radios weren't selling
too well because "people don't like them".

If in the UK, that's partly because the powers that be have decided
to pack too many stations into the available bitstream, with the
result that they are poor quality; digital encoding of sound is
capable of excellent fidelity (early CDs had it), but it is also
capable of pretty grotty quality. [In addition, the encoding used for
digital radio in the UK - mp2 - is less efficient than that common
nowadays on computers, such as mp3 or aac, so needs more bits.
Nevertheless, the available bandwidth/bitrate was capable of very
high quality in the early days of digital radio, because they gave
enough bits to each channel.]

And then, coincidentally, my barber was telling me about his vinyl
collection (he's not out of his 30s) and he said they have "a much
more wholesome sound to them". I argued; I told him what he was
hearing was vintageness, and that was affecting his perception.

He's used to the distortions imposed by the cartridge - and also may
have the system connected to a better amp. and speakers than his CD
player. (Also, the amount of [amplitude] compression - which in
itself isn't anything to do with whether digital or analogue, though
of course digital processing makes it easier - has increased steadily
over the years, so vinyl recordings of the same album are often less
compressed.)

Anyway, I have an old Grundig Yachtboy from the 70s. I've kept it
because I like the style of it; and sentimental value.
I have several DAB radios, so I tried them all out for a trial,
switching from one to the other. And I swear that the Yachtboy
sounds best; even though it's got only one speaker and is FM. I'd
call the sound "richer".

Doesn't rattle, good speaker, and see above re DAB bitrate
limitation.

We've all become so attuned to the clear tones of digital hi-fi,
measuring noise and hiss reduction with electronic meters rather
than our ears, that we've lost something.

I don't need electronic meters to hear a reduction in noise and hiss.
(Though the distortions of low bit rate digital encoding are often
more disagreeable to my ears than a certain amount of tape/fm hiss.)

[]


Staying way OT

Digital = Sterilized Sound, crisp, clean, technical, free of
distortion etc.

When have your ever heard sterilized music live?
I never have.

Have you ever heard a symphony of non-electric instruments live?

I would call those sounds crisp and clean, technical and free of
distortion.

I've listened to many types of music in many types of venues. Perhaps
crisp and clean were a bad choice of words.
Yes.

It has always seemed to me
that digital, CDs are by far what I'm most familiar with, feels like
it's been cleaned up, sanitized, sterilized, lacking in ambiance.

Much of the sound is in the playback equipment. As someone else
said.....it's lacking in the distortion and noise you've become used to
hearing.

It's
subtle and I'm old school.

I'd call myself old-skool too. Hell, I specifically bought an under-dash
add-on 8-track player for my retro van project.

I did, many years ago, have an opportunity to
listen to vinyl and cd versions of the same pieces of music. Not knowing
which was which I identified them correctly. Maybe I got lucky.

Being able to identify a record vs CD is easy. If there's no perceivable
difference or if the sound was worse than vinyl, people wouldn't have
spent thousand's of dollars replacing all their vinyl with CDs.

 

[DanS]

And then, coincidentally, my barber was telling me about his vinyl
collection (he's not out of his 30s) and he said they have "a much
more wholesome sound to them". I argued; I told him what he was
hearing was vintageness, and that was affecting his perception.

He's used to the distortions imposed by the cartridge - and also may
have the system connected to a better amp. and speakers than his CD
player. (Also, the amount of [amplitude] compression - which in
itself isn't anything to do with whether digital or analogue, though
of course digital processing makes it easier - has increased
steadily over the years, so vinyl recordings of the same album are
often less compressed.)

I'd be interested to know whether people who say they prefer LPs can
distinguish between live reproduction of (for example) an orchestra
(microphones, amplifier, loudspeakers) and good CD-type digital
recording (ie identical performers, microphones, amplifiers, speakers,
but with an additional analogue-to-digital and digital-to-analogue
stage to simulate the recording to CD.

In other words, is it the fact that the sound has been converted to
digital and back that they hate or is it the fact that it's *not* been
through the various compression, equalisation and band-limiting stages
necessary to put the sound onto LP and then play it again?

Obviously doing a true double-blind test live/CD/LP would be difficult
because it is immediately possible to detect an LP by its hiss, crackle
and dust clicks.

Ah but those add up to the superiority of LPs. ;-)

I am sure these LP aficionados would choose a cheap violin as opposed to
a quality instrument which I dare say would not sound as "sweet" to
their ears! You see it is all those smothered harmonics that the cheap
instrument is NOT capable of producing that makes for the "sweet" sound.

To them a Guernarius or a Stradivarius instrument would be second rate
in a blind test. --
choro *****

Well see, that's what I don't understand. I always thought the purpose of
the recording and playback equipment was to reproduce the sound of the
instrument, or band, or voice as accurately as it was when heard live.
But, if the recording/playback equipment (or transport mechanism like
radio broadcast) itself alters the sound, you aren't getting the same
sound as it would live.

 

[Doug Chadduck]

On Sun, 04 Nov 2012 17:33:07 -0800, Doug Chadduck wrote:

On 11/4/2012 12:00 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message <[email protected]>, Ed Cryer
I heard somebody say recently that digital radios weren't selling
too well because "people don't like them".

If in the UK, that's partly because the powers that be have decided
to pack too many stations into the available bitstream, with the
result that they are poor quality; digital encoding of sound is
capable of excellent fidelity (early CDs had it), but it is also
capable of pretty grotty quality. [In addition, the encoding used for
digital radio in the UK - mp2 - is less efficient than that common
nowadays on computers, such as mp3 or aac, so needs more bits.
Nevertheless, the available bandwidth/bitrate was capable of very
high quality in the early days of digital radio, because they gave
enough bits to each channel.]

And then, coincidentally, my barber was telling me about his vinyl
collection (he's not out of his 30s) and he said they have "a much
more wholesome sound to them". I argued; I told him what he was
hearing was vintageness, and that was affecting his perception.

He's used to the distortions imposed by the cartridge - and also may
have the system connected to a better amp. and speakers than his CD
player. (Also, the amount of [amplitude] compression - which in
itself isn't anything to do with whether digital or analogue, though
of course digital processing makes it easier - has increased steadily
over the years, so vinyl recordings of the same album are often less
compressed.)

Anyway, I have an old Grundig Yachtboy from the 70s. I've kept it
because I like the style of it; and sentimental value.
I have several DAB radios, so I tried them all out for a trial,
switching from one to the other. And I swear that the Yachtboy
sounds best; even though it's got only one speaker and is FM. I'd
call the sound "richer".

Doesn't rattle, good speaker, and see above re DAB bitrate
limitation.

We've all become so attuned to the clear tones of digital hi-fi,
measuring noise and hiss reduction with electronic meters rather
than our ears, that we've lost something.

I don't need electronic meters to hear a reduction in noise and hiss.
(Though the distortions of low bit rate digital encoding are often
more disagreeable to my ears than a certain amount of tape/fm hiss.)

[]


Staying way OT

Digital = Sterilized Sound, crisp, clean, technical, free of
distortion etc.

When have your ever heard sterilized music live?
I never have.

Have you ever heard a symphony of non-electric instruments live?

I would call those sounds crisp and clean, technical and free of
distortion.

I've listened to many types of music in many types of venues. Perhaps
crisp and clean were a bad choice of words.
Yes.

It has always seemed to me
that digital, CDs are by far what I'm most familiar with, feels like
it's been cleaned up, sanitized, sterilized, lacking in ambiance.

Much of the sound is in the playback equipment. As someone else
said.....it's lacking in the distortion and noise you've become used to
hearing.

It's
subtle and I'm old school.

I'd call myself old-skool too. Hell, I specifically bought an under-dash
add-on 8-track player for my retro van project.

I've still got a good reel to reel and tons of cassette tapes. Never got
into the 8 track. Nobody I knew had cars, other than mom or dad's, when
those were popular. I've heard the quality was very good.

Being able to identify a record vs CD is easy.

True I guess.

If there's no perceivable

difference or if the sound was worse than vinyl, people wouldn't have
spent thousand's of dollars replacing all their vinyl with CDs.

I think the CD would have taken over regardless. Sold as the "Latest
and greatest technology" and the convenience factor. And record
companies told us they only cost a few cents each to make, and just
think of the money we'd be saving. I'm so glad they were thinking of us
poor consumers. LOL.

I've got a reel to reel tape with a couple of the Guess Who albums. Even
the 2 second spot where the tape stretched is not a negative. Quite the
opposite. It puts me right back to where I was when I recorded it. And
that was a pretty cool place. It's a great memory. I'd guess some of
those old noises that they've cleaned out of the CD versions are like
that for many people.

 

[Robin Bignall]

I've still got a good reel to reel and tons of cassette tapes.

Me, too, a Sony I bought in the late 1960s, together with Celestion
Ditton 25 speakers. The tape recorder didn't have Dolby so in the 1970s
I bought a kit based on the Wireless World DIY article.

 

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

Most of the BBC output is now digital at source, since they put the
majority of their music library onto hard disc. Radio 1, Radio 2 non
specialised, and all the local stations now play their music off that
digitised HD source. At least on FM you get only one level of
compression. Listening on DAB you get at least two levels. Compare to
re-saving a JPG image as a new JPG image. Horrible.

jim
[/QUOTE]
You're confusing compression with conversion (and possibly data
compression with dynamic range compression).

Conversion: analogue to digital, digital to analogue, and between
various forms of digital. If done at high enough bitrates, A-D-A is
barely if at all noticeable, and actually capable of more dynamic range
than (say) vinyl. If done with limits on bitrate, it can distort.
Conversion _between_ digital formats needs to be done by someone who
knows what they're doing, and - especially if one of the formats is
lossy, like mp2 or mp3 - can indeed introduce cumulative distortion.

Dynamic compression: making the quiet bits louder and the loud bits
quieter. Originally done because analogue systems had a noise floor
(surface noise or tape hiss), so very low level signals disappeared into
it. Digital systems have such a floor as well, though the dynamic range
(ratio of loudest to softest that can both be reproduced with an
acceptable level of distortion) is greater. However, compressed
recordings sound "louder" - more punchy, and more impressive than the
competition - in the first place, so people tended to choose them over
the competition (at the jukebox, or when tuning between radio stations),
so dynamic range compression became used for reasons other than just to
avoid the problems with low-level signals. Such recordings have less
variation, and can be tiring to listen to for long periods, but this
isn't of interest to the marketers, so it increases over the years. This
applies whether the recording method is digital or analogue; since
digital has tended to be the modern way of things, they tend to be more
compressed, or to put it the other way, old vinyl tend to be less so
(leaving aside the original reason for compression), so _can_ sound more
relaxed - but that's nothing to do with analogue versus digital (it is
perfectly possible to make uncompressed digital recordings). Most radio
stations apply at least some further level of dynamic range compression
to their output, regardless of whether they are using material that was
recorded with compression already - classical stations tending to add
the least compression.

Data compression: once a recording has been digitised, hopefully with
sufficient bits that it is a faithful copy of the original (and
certainly can be copied indefinitely without further degradation),
people decide they want to save space, and put it through conversions
that reduce the number of bits. Some of these are "lossy", relying on
psychological studies that show you can discard some of the information
without it being audible - for example, some quiet sounds are inaudible
in the presence of some loud ones. There are many ways this can go
wrong, though: if too low a bitrate is used in the first place the
assumptions fail, and/or if conversion between the different _types_ of
digital/data compression is done (especially if the signal is converted
back to analogue in between), undesirable effects can be produced.

DAB, in itself, doesn't _necessarily_ involve more stages of processing
than FM: the _conversion_ from the digitised recording to the different
form of digital encoding involved in the DAB doesn't _have_ to add any
distortion. It usually does, though, in UK at least, since the bitrate
allocated to most stations is inadequate: it is that, rather than DAB
itself, that makes them sound worse (than FM). You _can_ do some things
with .JPG images - crop and rotate, for example (if done properly, as in
Irfan's lossless) - with no loss.

 

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <[email protected]>, Doug Chadduck

All those terms, with the possible exception of the last, are
subjective, and emotive.
[]

I've listened to many types of music in many types of venues. Perhaps
crisp and clean were a bad choice of words. It has always seemed to me
that digital, CDs are by far what I'm most familiar with, feels like
it's been cleaned up, sanitized, sterilized, lacking in ambiance. It's

It may have been cleaned up, sanitised, or sterilized - but you can do
all those things at the mastering level - and then put the results on
either CD or vinyl.

subtle and I'm old school. I did, many years ago, have an opportunity
to listen to vinyl and cd versions of the same pieces of music. Not
knowing which was which I identified them correctly. Maybe I got lucky.

As another has said, it's not hard to identify vinyl.

And like I said, my ears are no where near what they were.............

You don't say which you _preferred_, though I think I can guess (-:.

It has been suggested that recordings be made that simulated the (quite
significant, but possibly pleasing) distortions made by a vinyl playback
system, and they be released on CD; for some reason no-one (AFAIK!) has
done it yet, though.

 

[Gene Wirchenko]

On Mon, 05 Nov 2012 16:03:12 -0800, Doug Chadduck

[snip]

I've got a reel to reel tape with a couple of the Guess Who albums. Even
the 2 second spot where the tape stretched is not a negative. Quite the
opposite. It puts me right back to where I was when I recorded it. And
that was a pretty cool place. It's a great memory. I'd guess some of
those old noises that they've cleaned out of the CD versions are like
that for many people.

Similarly, I associate some pleasant places and certain odours. I
like the smell of book paper.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

 

[Char Jackson]

I've still got a good reel to reel and tons of cassette tapes. Never got
into the 8 track. Nobody I knew had cars, other than mom or dad's, when
those were popular. I've heard the quality was very good.

If that last part refers to 8-track tapes, whoever said the audio
quality, or any other type of quality, of 8-track tapes was "very
good" was surely pulling your leg. There was nothing 'good' about
them, but they were the only mobile music game in town for a period of
time, so we had to make do.

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

If that last part refers to 8-track tapes, whoever said the audio
quality, or any other type of quality, of 8-track tapes was "very
good" was surely pulling your leg. There was nothing 'good' about
them, but they were the only mobile music game in town for a period of
time, so we had to make do.

Come on, Char, be fair: they have been good for years as the butt of
jokes.

 

[Char Jackson]

Come on, Char, be fair: they have been good for years as the butt of
jokes.

You've found a redeeming quality. Good job.

 

[Doug Chadduck]

You've found a redeeming quality. Good job.

LOL

 

[charlie]

LOL

At least the 4 and 8 track tape decks were an improvement over the 45rpm
car record players that preceded them. Many of the 12vdc tape players
sounded "bright", since they were intended to be used in vehicles.

 

[choro]

At least the 4 and 8 track tape decks were an improvement over the 45rpm
car record players that preceded them. Many of the 12vdc tape players
sounded "bright", since they were intended to be used in vehicles.

The 8-track (4 stereo tracks) *were* superior to the early cassette
decks which were running at 1 7/8 ips or half the 3.75 ips speed of the
4/8 tracks. As manufacturing tolerances for cassette and cassette
machines improved the 4/8 track system was doomed.

In fact towards the end cassette machines were so good as to more or
less rival CDs. I never had a Nakamichi Dragon but I had the top of the
range Pioneer which was absolutely superb. Actually it wasn't the top of
the range but a newer model to the top of the range which was probably
superior to the old top of the range which Pioneer continued marketing.

To my consternation, my sons messed it up eventually. I used to love
taping CDs on it and trying to tell the difference in the sound quality
listening to the sound through the top of the range Tannoy Buckinghams
which were about the creme de la creme of the speaker world. In fact the
Buckinghams were the speakers used to check the taped sound quality at
the famous Abbey Road Studios in London where a lot of classical LPs as
well as The Beatles were recorded on tape for pressing as LPs. --
choro
*****

 

[NY]

At least the 4 and 8 track tape decks were an improvement over the 45rpm
car record players that preceded them. Many of the 12vdc tape players
sounded "bright", since they were intended to be used in vehicles.

Were in-car record players ever feasible. I'd have thought that the very
light tracking weight needed by most pickups (around 1-2 grammes) would have
meant that the slightest jolt would have jogged the needle out of the
groove. Or was there a special mechanism that somehow avoided this? Mind
you, I've always been surprised that portable CD players (Walkman etc) were
feasible, given that the laser needs to follow very narrow tracks and so
powerful (ie power-consuming) servos would be needed to keep the beam
accurately on track as the mechanism was jolted while jogging or when
driving over bumps. In a car, power consumption is not too much of a problem
but in a portable device, battery consumption would be an issue.

The sound quality of 8-track cartridge was good if the cartridge was new,
but in my experience (listening to a friend's father's 8-track on the way to
school) quickly deteriorated due to wow caused by uneven winding of the
tape. 8-tracks also had a BIG usability problem in that you couldn't wind
the tape backwards to listen to the same track again. My dad had
conventional cassette and although the sound quality wasn't quite as good
due to the lower tape speed, this was more than made up for by the steadier
playback speed and the ability to wind backwards as well as forwards.

The only problem was on his Citroen GS where the radio/cassette was mounted
vertically between the seats (where the handbrake would be most cars)
instead of horizontally on the dashboard. Being vertical, the cassette slot
was prone to get all manner of crud in it. Of course the remedy was for dad
not to eat nuts and crisps in the car

 

[DanS]

Were in-car record players ever feasible.

Geeeeez........now I've *GOT* to get one of these for the van too!!!!!
(Although they look far more 50's than 60's.)

<http://www.google.com/search?q=car+record+player&hl=en&client=firefox-
a&hs=HlP&rls=org.mozilla:en-
USfficial&prmd=imvns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=SA-
ZULqqEOfW0gHEs4GIBw&ved=0CB8QsAQ&biw=1054&bih=656>

There seems to be only a couple on e-bay.....and possibly going for more
than I paid for the Supertuner 1.

I'm also wondering how to store vinyl in a hot car ?????