[jimdgoulding]

I need some help describing why analog is preferable to you over hi-rez and to me.  Or, vice versa tho this is probably not the place to ask that.  Said elsewhere, I listened to some hi-rez of the same album that I had previously heard played on a high end TT in mostly the same system with the same speakers and room placement.  While there was all the resolution I could imagine, something was missing, else I wouldn't be asking, right?  The word I came up with was pulse.  Or, maybe light or soul from within the music being played.  Pulse in the life sense, not timing or anything like that.  The music's life was flat.  It didn't sound like human organisms were playing, or something.  How do you describe the difference in what you hear?     

[Randy]

Any way, it's a shame Randy has to live in Wyoming, however, if you have high speed internet, you can look for those stations I listed.
And its not the dumbing down that created this problem. A party not to be named saw fit to lift the FCC regulation that limited the number of media outlets one entity could own. This resulted in a near monopoly by the odious and sterile Clear Channel. They are the reason commercial radio sucks so bad. Diversity good. Consolidation bad. It's in the Bible.
[/quote]

I found it amusing that somebody living in "western Colorado" would say it's a shame somebody has to live in Wyoming. Thanks, but overall, I love it here, despite the lack of a public cultural life. We do what we can to compensate for that.

Blaming Clear Channel doesn't explain what happened to NPR which, eight or nine years ago, made a conscious decision to drastically cut its classical music broadcasting. That led to Wyoming Public Radio to eliminate all of its classical programing save for "classics today," which actually may be gone now too. Instead, they began to play music I can't even categorize, a bland sort of  combination of folk rock, country, straight rock, a little (very little) jazz late Sunday nights. All in a pathetic attempt to be "popular." Whatever, it is hugely mind numbing stuff, not worth giving it five minutes of listening time.  It may reach its nadir every week on a program called "The Ranch Breakfast Show," on Saturday mornings, and, yes, it's as awful as its title indicates.

[jimdgoulding]

Richer and fuller, yes. More dynamic, how do you figure? Dynamic range is measurable.
CDs are capable of 90dB dynamic range, maybe more. Vinyl comes nowhere near that.

Could the author be refering to emotional dynamics?

[Rclark]

Any of you guys ever tried a reclocker on your cd transport? Thinking about including one (that syncro-mesh device in the empirical audio forum here) in my upcoming dac budget. Maybe I'll pair one of those with a good $500 dac.

anyone get their clocks upgraded?

[dB Cooper]

I found it amusing that somebody living in "western Colorado" would say it's a shame somebody has to live in Wyoming. Thanks, but overall, I love it here, despite the lack of a public cultural life. We do what we can to compensate for that.

Blaming Clear Channel doesn't explain what happened to NPR which, eight or nine years ago, made a conscious decision to drastically cut its classical music broadcasting. That led to Wyoming Public Radio to eliminate all of its classical programing save for "classics today," which actually may be gone now too. Instead, they began to play music I can't even categorize, a bland sort of  combination of folk rock, country, straight rock, a little (very little) jazz late Sunday nights. All in a pathetic attempt to be "popular." Whatever, it is hugely mind numbing stuff, not worth giving it five minutes of listening time.  It may reach its nadir every week on a program called "The Ranch Breakfast Show," on Saturday mornings, and, yes, it's as awful as its title indicates.

I found, thru iTunes, a station called KUWL-FM which has very high quality jazz programming out of Laramie 24/7. I listen all the time.... in Maryland. But if you're not in range you have to settle for 256K MP3 like I do.

[doug s.]

the best progressive/new music station i ever heard is radio naba, which i discovered when i was in latvia for almost a year.  definitely better in full analog, but still worth connecting your computer to your stereo to listen, if you don't happen to be living in riga.   

http://www.radionaba.lv/
http://www.radionaba.lv/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=41&Itemid=22
http://tunein.com/radio/Lat-R5-NABASaeima-931-s48034/

doug s.

[lazydays]

I have quite a few damn good sounding cd's as well.

@ Lazydays ...I have the 2009 Legacy edition of Kind of Blue, and it sounds real, breathtaking.

I liked it too, till I found out about what took plce in the recording studio. Now I know why the six eye mono is the best one of the bunch. The best version I've heard so far is the Classic 45 rpm version, and sooner or later will buy the mono version.
gary

[twitch54]

A rant:

I just got into vinyl a couple months ago at the age of 33. The more I listen to records, the more peeved I become that my generation was deprived of them.

incorrect......blame your parents !!  my son is your age, trust me he WAS NOT deprived !

 

People are 100% correct when they say vinyl is richer, fuller, and more dynamic than digital

100% ??? ....utter nonesense, the best of both formats excel....period !

Nobody had vinyl when I was a teenager in the 90's.

where did you live.........Mayberry RFD ???

seriously, glad you have discovered the joys of analog !
 

[jimdgoulding]

I liked it too, till I found out about what took plce in the recording studio. Now I know why the six eye mono is the best one of the bunch. The best version I've heard so far is the Classic 45 rpm version, and sooner or later will buy the mono version.
gary

That gives me hope.  I'd like to purchase one of those cause Kind of Blue cannot be too good for me, but surface noise is quite audible and regrettable on the two Classic Records' 33 and 1/3 rpm I have.  Please tell me it's all good.   

[neobop]

I liked it too, till I found out about what took plce in the recording studio. Now I know why the six eye mono is the best one of the bunch. The best version I've heard so far is the Classic 45 rpm version, and sooner or later will buy the mono version.
gary

Interesting, the original issues had the pitch slightly slow on side 1, due to a tape machine being off. This wasn't corrected until a remaster in 1992. I thought I read that the Classic versions were corrected?

Pitch not withstanding, you object to the original stereo recording? This was not electrically remixed for stereo, but many people prefer mono versions of some stereo recordings like those from Blue Note. I find the stereo Blue Notes fun to listen to and over analyzing the recording gets in the way of my enjoyment. The ones that sound weird to me are the mono recordings remixed for stereo.

[Russellc]

Sony's multi-million-dollar push of their new patented format was a big factor.

BINGO!  We have a winner...

Russellc

[Russellc]

Interesting, the original issues had the pitch slightly slow on side 1, due to a tape machine being off. This wasn't corrected until a remaster in 1992. I thought I read that the Classic versions were corrected?

Pitch not withstanding, you object to the original stereo recording? This was not electrically remixed for stereo, but many people prefer mono versions of some stereo recordings like those from Blue Note. I find the stereo Blue Notes fun to listen to and over analyzing the recording gets in the way of my enjoyment. The ones that sound weird to me are the mono recordings remixed for stereo.

I dont know if the classic re-do corrected or not.  I own 2 copies of it.  I seem to remember the advertising of I think one of the 45 rpm versions saying it included both versions of that side, or maybe both versions of a cut, something like that?

A lot of older recordings seem to sound better in mono, likely because that's the way they were recorded then "fudged" into "stereo".  Not all....like the Mercury Living Presence recordings for example.

Russellc

[Russellc]

Could the author be refering to emotional dynamics?

True, but not really in practice.  Many CDs are so dynamically flawed trying to get them "louder" with the net effect being they "turn up" the quiet parts destroying dynamic contrasts.  While the medium is capable of it, the product produced for it many times cant.

 That said, not ALL recording outfits employ this, but it is a growing concern in the industry.

Whoops, I may have mis tagged this one, it was directed at the comment about the "superior" dynamic range of CDs....

Russellc

[simoon]

True, but not really in practice.  Many CDs are so dynamically flawed trying to get them "louder" with the net effect being they "turn up" the quiet parts destroying dynamic contrasts.  While the medium is capable of it, the product produced for it many times cant.

 That said, not ALL recording outfits employ this, but it is a growing concern in the industry.

Whoops, I may have mis tagged this one, it was directed at the comment about the "superior" dynamic range of CDs....

Russellc

Ah, the "loudness wars".

It looks like this practice may be falling out of favor.

Wiki has a good article on it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war

[rbbert]

Ah, the "loudness wars".

It looks like this practice may be falling out of favor.

One can only hope, but there's no good evidence that is happening yet   

[jy3iix]

One can only hope, but there's no good evidence that is happening yet   

some recent reissues have been heartening - Stevie Wonder Innervisions (Hdtracks), Rolling Stones Exile On Main St (SHM SACD) - so called flat transfer remasters and both sound great.

back to the OP...
I loved vinyl but it definitely had its weaknesses. Others have mentioned surface noise, lower dynamic range - I'll add lower fidelity on the inner grooves, mono bass sometimes, sometimes even a sped up master to fit on 33 1/3 platter!

For me, a faithfully done hi res digital download is always going to be preferable to an LP.