wrote:
wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
In article ,
wrote:
OK, now we've established that our opinions differ.
That was established long long agao. Sorry i didn't give you anything
to attack.
End of yet another
pointless exercise.
Pointless? Examining and trying to understand different POVs is
pointless? I suppose for those who believe they already know it all and
are right about everything.
What new thng did you actually learn?
That in moments of noncombativeness, some objectivists actually were
aware fo the real world shortcomings of so many commercial CDs
including failings in the digitization an manufacturing of them.
Others, such as yourself hava a completely unrealistic idealized
impression of CDs no matter how bad any number of them sound and some,
like yourself are willing to accept such bad sound under the mistaken
belief that because it is CD it is always more "accurate" to the master
tape and more true to the intentions of the people who made the
recording. The reasoning behind that belief is fataly flawed on so many
levels. 1. The presumption that the transfer was transparent 2. The
presumption that the right choices were made in picking and playing
"the" master tape 3 The presumption that the mastering engineer did a
good job 4. The presumption that the chosen master tape best represents
the artists' intentions despite the fact that LP test pressings were so
often the final arbitrator of artist intentions.5. The presumtion that
using a master tape as a reference is meaningful given the fact that
one cannot use a master tape as a reference without also using a
playback system as part of that reference thereby setting up playback
as a reference for playback. 6. The ignored fact that you have no
access to that original master or to the actual sound that the artists
used to judge their work given that they all listened to playback
systems you cannot access. Sorry, but I find your idea of master tapes
as a reference to be very unreasonable, very arbitrary, and very
impractical. I find the notion that we should accept commercial CDs as
definitive versions of any given recording because they are "supposed'
to be more accurate a very poorly reasoned premise for anyone genuinely
interested in the aestheic experience of listenng to music.
There was nothing that hadn't been covered endlessly before and the
truth is still the truth, LP is technically inferior to CD, in every
aspect.
It appears you missed much of the discussion.
It still remains the case that CD is *vastly* more
accurate than LP in technical terms,
Let's throw a parade in honor of all those that find this important
rather than what their CDs and LPs actually sound like.
They sound like they are supposed to, like the master tape, and like
the engineer intended.
You definitely missed most of the discussion. maybe if you wont listen
to me you will listen to some of the pros that actually compare the
master tapes to th final products be they CD or LP.
http://www.allaboutjazz.com/iviews/vangelder.htm
"AAJ: Please discuss your approach to the new Rudy Van Gelder Edition
Blue Notes in terms of working with the stereo and mono tapes and
deciding which format to use for the new master.
RVG: My approach was totally different from what I had heard in the
previous CDs. This was first time I had any opportunity to deal with
those tapes. Once or twice they sent to me both the mono and stereo
versions, which I described to you a minute ago, and the mono would
sound much better for obvious reasons, because no one who had been
involved in the creation of the original session had ever listened to
stereo, but everyone had listened to mono. So I tried to convince them
to release the mono version even though it had previously been issued
as stereo because I felt that the mono version sounded as if Alfred
would have wanted it to be that way. And that is really my goal here.
However, there are plenty of albums in this series that are in very
good stereo. Until now no one has heard my version of what these early
recordings should sound like on CD. "
OK here s a great recording engineer making it very clear that all
prevous CD releases of his famous and amazing Blue Note Jazz recordings
were not what they "should sound like." your presumpton that if it is
CD it is accurate and true to the artists' and engineers' intention
obviously doesn't hold water as a rule. OTOH Rudy Van Gelder not only
was there for the making of those much values original LPs he mastered
them. If intent is really an issue how could you possibly assume that
CDs are always or even often the better representation of that intent
now that you know this?
http://www.classicrecs.com/frames/be...s_frameset.htm
The first question to ask is, "Which master tape to use?" The answer is
somewhat involved and can vary, depending on the objectives of the
reissue project. If the goal is to recreate the sound of the original
release as closely as possible, then finding the so-called "production
master tape" makes sense. However, there are some caveats to consider.
The production master tape may have been generated from a previous
source, closer to the original performance. This earlier generation
tape is often referred to as the "session tape" or "edited work part."
In most cases, it is the same tape that was used during the recording
sessions. The differences between session tapes and production masters
can be slight. Or they may be significant. In any case, an increase in
noise level of at least three dbs can be expected in any analog tape
transfer.
In the early days of high fidelity, most major labels used production
master tapes to cut their original records. This was due in part to the
session tapes being "doctored" to correct recording problems in
post-production. It also simplified the engineer's task of cutting the
record. Since no further changes were made during this stage, the
cutter was simply referred to as a "transcription engineer." One has to
remember that this was years before the advent of so-called "mastering
engineers."
Obviously, the question of which tape to use is a complicated one. The
solutions can be equally problematic. For example, production masters
were often compressed dynamically during the transfer of the edited
work parts. Although this proved helpful during the cutting process, it
also negatively affected sound quality.
Furthermore, cutter heads during those first years contained all sorts
of anomalies. They peaked at certain levels instead of maintaining an
even response. As a result, certain unwanted frequencies were
unavoidably highlighted. In addition, most of the early cutter heads
were unable to effectively handle the entire dynamic range of the
original session tapes. Therefore, to avoid cutter head problems,
overall sound quality was often compromised to achieve a flat transfer
without equalization.
Do you have any idea how many Cds were mastered from tapes that were
specifically made for LP cutting and thereby are anything but more
accurate to the intentions?
http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache...&cd=2&ie=UTF-8
"As Mrs. Cozart Fine and I began our evaluation sessions in April 1989,
it becamevery clear to us that the A/D conversion process was a very
critical step in our produc-tion work. As the producer once described
it, the sounds from different converters wereall different "bowls of
soup".
So much for all CDs being transparent copies of the master tapes. How
many of these colored A/D converters were used to make any number of
the Cds you own and believe to be perfect copies.
" As we compared the various digital converters to the playback of
theactual analog source, we found that the soundstage of the orchestra
was alwaysreduced in width when listening to the digital chain. We also
found that many A/D con-verters exhibited a strident string sound,
unnatural sounding midrange, and a loss of airor ambience around the
instruments"
Funny. it was the subjectivists/"vinylphiles" that noticed this first
while guys like you asumed that this was how it was "supposed" to
sound.
".As a production team, we had a golden rule: In every step of the
productionprocess, always compare back to the original source to ensure
that it remains true"
Hmm. they follow your philosophy. How many of you r CDs do you really
think were made with this degree of care? The interesting thing here is
that these CDs were widely embrassed by "vinylfiles" as a desert Island
in a sea of crappy sounding CDs. But they were the one using their ears
and not their presumptions to pass judgement.
"After many listening sessions during which we evaluated A/D
converters, we finallyselected the DCS-900 as being most true to the
original source. Employing 128 timesoversampling technology, this
converter had a convincing solidity of sound and a bettersoundstage
presentation of the orchestra in comparison to its competition at the
time."
" It was quite evident that the tube playbacks had awarmer,
"golden" sound with better harmonic relationships to the musical
instruments.The transistorized playback electronics had a slightly
thinner sound, not as rich, with a slightly metallic, "silver"
sound. Even though the tubetape machine gave us a slightly higher noise
level, it was an easy choice to justify its usefor the project."
" Not only was the recreation of the soundfield superior to the
transistorelectronics, the tube equipment also gave us the exact
reciprocal of the original record-ing equalization curve for playback."
"In January 1990, we added a final improvement to the digital chain
which made asubstantial improvement. Thanks to Gotham Audio in New
York, we were able to demothe prototype Harmonia Mundi BW 102/49
Redithering Module. This unit uses anadvanced noise shaping algorithm
which significantly increased our low level signal res-olution and
detail."
oh yeah, all CDs are perfect copies of master tapes. NOT.
" After several experiments with digital cloning, wedecided that all
CD's manufactured would be made from first generation digital
masters.In order to preserve the depth and width of the soundstage, we
found that the less digi-tal processing, the better."
" As an additional quality check, werequested that the CD manufacturing
plant send us a test CD before full scale replicationwas accomplished.
This turned out to be an important decision. Once we received
thereference CD back from the plant, we carefully set up a listening
comparison between itand a 1630 digital clone of theDIGITAL MASTERING
OF THE MERCURY LIVING PRESENCE RECORDINGSPage 4master. Both of the
digital sources were switched at the input of the D/A converter
toeliminate any converter-induced differences. To our surprise, the CD
was harsher andmore "digital" sounding, with less depth in the low
frequencies, than the 1630.Upon further investigation, it turned out
that the plant had three different laserbeam recorders and that one of
them sounded different than the other two."
Now that you know what goes into the making of a really good CD how can
you presume that all commercial CDs are what they are supposed to be?
That they don' have the gobs of added noise and
distorton found on LP's is considered a benefit by most people.
and that virtually all of the
'magic' of LP can be retained by recording it to CD-R, rather proving
the point.
I don't believe in magic. Sorry to disappoint you.
I am currious to know which LPs you found to be better than their CD
counterparts. I have a hunch you can't name any.
Most likely because there are so few.
No, quite the opposite IME. But I don't assume that CDs are perfect and
must be accepted as definitive just because they are CDs. I just listen
and judge based on my goals for audio.
Tell you what I'll throw you a bone to chew on. LPs are superior
because they have infinite resolution since they are analog and have no
steps like digital. Now you can have fun.
What's fun about the same old misstatements and distortions.
It might make you feel better about your own beliefs no matter how
misguided and untrue they may be. You can pretend you know more than
the "vinylphiles."
Scott