[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

dynamic modifications of vinyl playback

Arny, what do you mean by "dynamic modifications"?

Quoting from my post.

"dynamic alterations of disc media playback (AKA
scratching)"

Yes, I know that you were writing about scratching. My
question is, what is meant by "dynamic alterations"?
What does that mean?

Dynamic means changing. IOW, the alterations to the sound of the LP are
changing throughout the performance.

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" wrote in message

On Tue, 9 Feb 2010 06:02:27 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in
message
On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 16:21:01 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):


I just got a flyer from an audio retailer who is at
least courting business in the dance club sector. The
flyer has several pages of turntables and other digital
players. I notice that the pages devoted to turntables
are being scaled back, and that digital players that
simulate turntable-like dynamic alterations of disc
media playback (AKA scratching) are now about half of
the listings of this kind.

Possibly, but that flyer is catering to the dance-club
sector, not to music lovers. I get flyers from places
like "Audio Advisor" and they sell belt-drive turntables
from around $350 (Rega, Pro-Ject, and Music Hall) all
the way up to many thousands of dollars (VPI, Thorens,
SME, to name a few). They all sell phono preamps,
cartridges and arms. What I see is MORE of this stuff
with new models being added all the time, rather than
less.

Just because more people are crowding in to the market
to sell, doesn't mean that more equipment is being sold.

Actually, it sort of does mean JUST that if you think
about it. Entrepreneurs don't jump-in to shrinking
markets.

Nobody can accurately and reliably predict the future. While the market is
growing, of course it is attractive to entrepreneurs. However, they can't
tell what turns the market will take in the future.

Business plans are based on growing markets,
otherwise, what's the point?

The point is that vinyl has been a generally shrinking market for the past
30 years. It was shrinking even before the CD was introduced.

Manufacturers often pay a fee to have their equipment
listed in dealer flyers.

At one time there were 100's of car manufacturers in
just the US. Then there was a shake out and we ended up
with just a few survivors.

That "shakeout" was called the Great Depression but it's
pretty irrelevant to this scenario if you ask me.

Look, your opinon is your opinion and as long as we are talking about the
future, its as accurate as mine.

Obviously, many people feel that vinyl is either a
growing market, or it has growth potential. Otherwise,
there wouldn't be so many new players.

The majority of the new players are bottom-buck, low quality devices.

It was always about the art, not the means to the art.
Turntables were just a means to the art. Provide people
with a modern alternative with practical advantages at
a reasonable price, and that's the way that the market
is likely to go.

While your market sense is spot-on, it is by no means
the case that everything the market goes after is
necessarily an improvement over what went before or
better than something else similar that the market
ignores almost completely.

I see no reliable evidence of improved performance of
vinyl recording or playback equipment in the past 30
years.

I suspect that's because of your oft-stated, anti-vinyl bias.

Is it bias or is it realism?

IOW, you really aren't looking very hard. There are
some really nice turntables, arms and cartridges out
there at all price points.

The new low end stuff that is flooding the marketplace is pretty nasty.
Ceramic cartrdiges, tracking forces of 5 grams or more.

Materials technology such as rare-earth magnets,

Not new technology. Neodynium magnets were developed in 1982, which is 28
years ago. Shure has been using neodynium in their phono cartrdiges since
no later than 1998, which is 12 years ago. There is no evidence that there
was any actual significant advance in smoothness of frequency response,
tracking, or distortion at that time.

better stylus suspension materials

Name them if you can. I won't try to address phantoms.

improvement in the wire used to wind coils.

Something better than copper? Humans have been using copper for at least
11,000 years! Its been used for wire as long as long as electricity has been
known?

Not to mention low resonance, low mass arm materials such as
carbon fiber and Kevlar,

The use of carbon fiber to make tone arms is described in United States
Patent 4390382, granted in 1982.

improved manufacturing
techniques resulting in better bearings at cheaper
prices, etc.

The biggest cost cutting technology for bearings has been "Made In China".

On the turntable front, there are new low
resonance materials for platters.

Yet another vague claim - I feel like I'm reading a sales blurb, not a
techical paper.

Again, bearing
technology has lowered noise floors both in the
rotational mass of the platter and in the motors.
Materials like sorbothane improve suspensions and record
support, etc.

Sorbothane was also invented in 1982, and is now a realtively cheap
commodity. I have sorbothane feet on my laptop because they really grip the
table top and help prevent it slipping off.

I could go on debunking any number of vague optimistic claims, but the proof
is in the performance. The performance of vinyl playback equipment is
eminently measurable, but I see no evidence of improved measured response
anywhere. I see no evidence of measured performance that is even within 2
orders of magnitude of what can be easily achieved with a $69 optical disk
player.

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message


Yes, I know that you were writing about scratching. My
question is, what is meant by "dynamic alterations"?
What does that mean?

Dynamic means changing. IOW, the alterations to the sound of the LP are
changing throughout the performance.

I see, thanks. I thought that perhaps that was somehow "dynamic" in the
musical sense, and I was trying to figure out how that applied.

[Audio Empire]

On Tue, 9 Feb 2010 17:34:53 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in message



[ extra context snipped -- dsr ]


improvement in the wire used to wind coils.

Something better than copper?


No. the way that the copper is formed.

Humans have been using copper for at least
11,000 years! Its been used for wire as long as long as electricity has been
known?



Not to mention low resonance, low mass arm materials such as
carbon fiber and Kevlar,

The use of carbon fiber to make tone arms is described in United States
Patent 4390382, granted in 1982.

improved manufacturing
techniques resulting in better bearings at cheaper
prices, etc.

The biggest cost cutting technology for bearings has been "Made In China".

Whatever. Good ones are now cheaper and have made their way into "budget"
players.

On the turntable front, there are new low
resonance materials for platters.

Yet another vague claim - I feel like I'm reading a sales blurb, not a
techical paper.

It has to do with the impedance of the record and the platter as a system.

Again, bearing
technology has lowered noise floors both in the
rotational mass of the platter and in the motors.
Materials like sorbothane improve suspensions and record
support, etc.

Sorbothane was also invented in 1982, and is now a realtively cheap
commodity.

Just as I said. Earlier 'tables didn't incorporate it. Many modern ones do.


I have sorbothane feet on my laptop because they really grip the
table top and help prevent it slipping off.

Good for you.

I could go on debunking any number of vague optimistic claims, but the proof
is in the performance. The performance of vinyl playback equipment is
eminently measurable, but I see no evidence of improved measured response
anywhere. I see no evidence of measured performance that is even within 2
orders of magnitude of what can be easily achieved with a $69 optical disk
player.



It's simple. Everything I have mentioned have made their way into record
playing apparatus in the last 20 years, Just because something was "invented"
in 1982, doesn't mean that it made its way into commercial turntables until
later. The point is that many small improvements make for better overall
performance at lower price points.

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" wrote in message

On Tue, 9 Feb 2010 17:34:53 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in
message


[ extra context snipped -- dsr ]


improvement in the wire used to wind coils.

Something better than copper?


No. the way that the copper is formed.

Is there a story here?

Drawing wire and annealing it are very old technologies.

Single crystal copper wire is a decades-old technology.

Not to mention low resonance, low mass arm materials
such as carbon fiber and Kevlar,

The use of carbon fiber to make tone arms is described
in United States Patent 4390382, granted in 1982.

improved manufacturing
techniques resulting in better bearings at cheaper
prices, etc.

The biggest cost cutting technology for bearings has
been "Made In China".

Whatever. Good ones are now cheaper and have made their
way into "budget" players.

Hardly an advance of the state of the art.

On the turntable front, there are new low
resonance materials for platters.

Yet another vague claim - I feel like I'm reading a
sales blurb, not a techical paper.

It has to do with the impedance of the record and the
platter as a system.

Is there a story here?

If there is, a story needs to say when, where, who, and how. Seeing none, I
surmise that there is in fact no story to tell.

Again, bearing
technology has lowered noise floors both in the
rotational mass of the platter and in the motors.
Materials like sorbothane improve suspensions and record
support, etc.

Sorbothane was also invented in 1982, and is now a
realtively cheap commodity.

Just as I said. Earlier 'tables didn't incorporate it.
Many modern ones do.

Simply not true. Sorbothane record mats were available just a few years
after the material was invented.

I have sorbothane feet on my laptop because they really
grip the table top and help prevent it slipping off.

Good for you.

The point is, sorbothane is old tech for LP playback. There were no trumpets
from heaven when it was first available to audiophiles back in the 1980s.
There appear to be no reliable scientific studies showing signficiant
improvements in dynamic range, frequency response, or nonlinear distortion.

I could go on debunking any number of vague optimistic
claims, but the proof is in the performance. The
performance of vinyl playback equipment is eminently
measurable, but I see no evidence of improved measured
response anywhere. I see no evidence of measured
performance that is even within 2 orders of magnitude of
what can be easily achieved with a $69 optical disk
player.


It's simple. Everything I have mentioned have made their
way into record playing apparatus in the last 20 years,

But there are no documented signficant benefits from it that you appear to
be able to cite.

Just because something was "invented" in 1982, doesn't
mean that it made its way into commercial turntables
until later.

In the case of Sorbothane and single crystal copper wire, the later was just
a few years, and you have provided no reliable evidence that it addressed
the major problems related to LP playback.

The point is that many small improvements
make for better overall performance at lower price points.

Equal or near quality at a lower price is laudable, but in fact much of this
benefit has been lost to inflation. A $125 LP player of today can't hold a
candle to a $125 LP player from back in the day. I'm thinking a Dual 1209,
and AR turntable, any number of mainstream Japanese brands, or some such.

[Audio Empire]

On Wed, 10 Feb 2010 08:12:52 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in message

On Tue, 9 Feb 2010 17:34:53 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in
message


[ extra context snipped -- dsr ]


improvement in the wire used to wind coils.

Something better than copper?


No. the way that the copper is formed.

Is there a story here?

Drawing wire and annealing it are very old technologies.

Single crystal copper wire is a decades-old technology.

Not to mention low resonance, low mass arm materials
such as carbon fiber and Kevlar,

The use of carbon fiber to make tone arms is described
in United States Patent 4390382, granted in 1982.

improved manufacturing
techniques resulting in better bearings at cheaper
prices, etc.

The biggest cost cutting technology for bearings has
been "Made In China".

Whatever. Good ones are now cheaper and have made their
way into "budget" players.

Hardly an advance of the state of the art.

On the turntable front, there are new low
resonance materials for platters.

Yet another vague claim - I feel like I'm reading a
sales blurb, not a techical paper.

It has to do with the impedance of the record and the
platter as a system.

Is there a story here?

If there is, a story needs to say when, where, who, and how. Seeing none, I
surmise that there is in fact no story to tell.

Again, bearing
technology has lowered noise floors both in the
rotational mass of the platter and in the motors.
Materials like sorbothane improve suspensions and record
support, etc.

Sorbothane was also invented in 1982, and is now a
realtively cheap commodity.

Just as I said. Earlier 'tables didn't incorporate it.
Many modern ones do.

Simply not true. Sorbothane record mats were available just a few years
after the material was invented.

I have sorbothane feet on my laptop because they really
grip the table top and help prevent it slipping off.

Good for you.

The point is, sorbothane is old tech for LP playback. There were no trumpets
from heaven when it was first available to audiophiles back in the 1980s.
There appear to be no reliable scientific studies showing signficiant
improvements in dynamic range, frequency response, or nonlinear distortion.

I could go on debunking any number of vague optimistic
claims, but the proof is in the performance. The
performance of vinyl playback equipment is eminently
measurable, but I see no evidence of improved measured
response anywhere. I see no evidence of measured
performance that is even within 2 orders of magnitude of
what can be easily achieved with a $69 optical disk
player.


It's simple. Everything I have mentioned have made their
way into record playing apparatus in the last 20 years,

But there are no documented signficant benefits from it that you appear to
be able to cite.

Just because something was "invented" in 1982, doesn't
mean that it made its way into commercial turntables
until later.

In the case of Sorbothane and single crystal copper wire, the later was just
a few years, and you have provided no reliable evidence that it addressed
the major problems related to LP playback.

The point is that many small improvements
make for better overall performance at lower price points.

Equal or near quality at a lower price is laudable, but in fact much of this
benefit has been lost to inflation. A $125 LP player of today can't hold a
candle to a $125 LP player from back in the day. I'm thinking a Dual 1209,
and AR turntable, any number of mainstream Japanese brands, or some such.



Were talking about today's "budget players". Today's $350 player is better
than yesterday's $125 player or, going even further back, the original AR's
$70 (actually, all else being equal, Seventy 1963 dollars would be more like
875 of 2010's worthless greenbacks - by the fact that 1 US dollar today buys
about what 8 cents bought in the early 1960's). That being the case, I'll
guarantee you that for ~$900 you can get a MUCH better 'table, with arm and
cartridge than was the original AR (which had a lousy arm, though better than
that found on a record changer, the head shells weren't very stiff and the
contacts failed often). As far as a Dual 1209 is concerned, that was a record
changer (I actually have one for transcribing 78's) and was rim drive and had
a high lateral-mass arm (due to the record changing bits it carried with it
under the chassis as it traversed the record). It's fine for 78's but I
wouldn't want to play a good stereo LP on it (it rumbles badly in the
vertical plane, not so badly in the horizontal plane. Luckily, 78's are mono
and the Shure 78 cartridge that I use has no vertical movement element to
it.)

Most aluminum platter turntables ring like bells, and have poor bass
response, probably due to the interaction with the resonance of the aluminum
platter and a peak at the natural ringing frequency of the platter. Some
experts used to recommend that serious audiophiles press "ropes" of
automotive body dampening putty to the underside edge of their aluminum
platters to damp out this ringing. I used a heavy lead-filled rubber mat from
a Japanese company called Nagaoka (not sure about the spelling here).

Using the CBS Labs test record, with and without the aforementioned mat, I
measured much flatter frequency response with the mat in place. In fact,
without the mat, my Thorens TD 160/Signet TK-7E (at the time) showed 30 Hz to
be almost 5 dB down with respect to 1KHz and a narrow peak of about 4 dB at
around 450 Hz, again with respect to 1KHz (using an HP-400 audio voltmeter).
With the Nagaoka mat in place, the setup was less than 1 dB down at 30 Hz and
the peak at 450 Hz was gone. One could easily hear the difference, but it's
always best to measure lest expectations play tricks on one's ears. The bass
reinforcement made my then Infinity speakers set up and do tricks and the
funny "ih" coloration was gone from the midrange. So I know that ringing
aluminum platters are detrimental to turntable performance. Today, of course,
platters on even the cheapest of audiophile grade belt-drive turntables are
made of non-resonant or low-resonance or matched-resonance materials such as
MDF, or acrylics. Strangely, VPI has just introduced a table with what
appears to be an aluminum platter. It's pretty, but unless the aluminum is
just a thin "beauty ring" over one of their massive acrylic platters, I see
it as a step backwards.

Looks-wise, I've always liked the Empire "Troubadour" turntables (301, 401,
501, 601) "Great Gold Idols" we used to call them. Good, relatively high mass
arms with good bearings coupled with thick, heavy machined platters and cast
chassis plates simply oozed build quality. I'd have one today with a (alas,
no longer available) Nagaoka mat and the proper cartridge (designed for
high-mass arms). But I'll bet my JA Michelle Orb and SME Series IV arm will
outperform it seven ways to sundown!

[Robert Peirce]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

I could go on debunking any number of vague optimistic claims, but the proof
is in the performance. The performance of vinyl playback equipment is
eminently measurable, but I see no evidence of improved measured response
anywhere. I see no evidence of measured performance that is even within 2
orders of magnitude of what can be easily achieved with a $69 optical disk
player.

A lot depends on what you are playing. Some of the early CDs sounded
just plain awful and none of the modern equipment I have heard has been
able to cure that. A lot of LPs were awful as well. I play both LPs
and CDs and among the best of each it is impossible for me to say one is
better than the other.

The biggest complaint I have heard about LPs is they can be noisy. In
my experience this stems from two sources.

First, many people never really took good care of their LPS (and don't
seem to be taking good care of their CDs either) and they could get
pretty dusty. Once a flick of dust is ground in it is there forever.

Second, poor equipment can damage LPs and emphasize any noise issues.

Keeping records clean is a pain and playing them on good equipment is a
necessity. I have LPs dating back to 1958 that are still tick free.
CDs seem to be less sensitive to either issue and I like that.

[Audio Empire]

On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 17:18:10 -0800, Robert Peirce wrote
(in article ):

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

I could go on debunking any number of vague optimistic claims, but the
proof
is in the performance. The performance of vinyl playback equipment is
eminently measurable, but I see no evidence of improved measured response
anywhere. I see no evidence of measured performance that is even within 2
orders of magnitude of what can be easily achieved with a $69 optical disk
player.

A lot depends on what you are playing. Some of the early CDs sounded
just plain awful and none of the modern equipment I have heard has been
able to cure that. A lot of LPs were awful as well. I play both LPs
and CDs and among the best of each it is impossible for me to say one is
better than the other.

Agreed. I have lots of CDs and LPs that I do not want to hear - ever again,
because they sound so lousy. The bad LPs all seem to come from the late '60's
and '70's when the recording industry embraced multi-track for classical and
jazz and replaced their tubed electronics with early transistor stuff (just
terrible). As far a CDs were concerned, many of the early ones are
ear-bleedingly bright, overproduced and distorted.

The biggest complaint I have heard about LPs is they can be noisy. In
my experience this stems from two sources.

First, many people never really took good care of their LPS (and don't
seem to be taking good care of their CDs either) and they could get
pretty dusty. Once a flick of dust is ground in it is there forever.

Yep. I have records that are 50 years old and because I took care of them,
they still sound clean and relatively quiet.

Second, poor equipment can damage LPs and emphasize any noise issues.

Agreed I have some earlier LPs that I bought as a pre-teen that are virtually
unplayable now because of the BSR "Monarch" record changer and the Astatic
Ceramic cartridge that I owned then.

Keeping records clean is a pain and playing them on good equipment is a
necessity. I have LPs dating back to 1958 that are still tick free.
CDs seem to be less sensitive to either issue and I like that.

I too have 50 year old + recordings that are likewise in the same condition.
Ultimately, though I find that the best LPs sound more like music than the
best CDs even though the CD is obviously more accurate. How do I reconcile
this seeming contradiction? I have a theory.

As a "recordist", I get to hear and record a lot of live music. I capture
everything from full symphony orchestras, symphonic bands, string quartets,
to big band jazz to small jazz groups playing in local night spots. I use
digital recording equipment, of course, and most of my recording, I do at
24-bit/96KHz (although I'm awaiting delivery of a Korg M-1000 DSD recording
setup). What I have found is that the recording chain is simply not very kind
to music. Under even the best of circumstances, microphones, mixers and A/D
converters "remove" something palpable from the music. The result is a
recording that is extremely accurate to the electrical signal that is being
recorded, but that squeeky clean electrical signal is not very accurate to
the music.

Now, keep in mind that this is just a theory (actually calling it a theory is
a conceit. It's really more of a "notion" as I do not have enough real data
for it to be a theory). I suspect that whatever distortion that the cutting
and playback of vinyl introduces into the chain actually and inadvertently
"synthesizes" some of the feeling of real music that the recording capture
process strips away. It's artificial, of course. It's distortion, of course,
but somehow, on the best LPs it produces an emotional response that is closer
to the sound of the real event than is the (for all intent and purposes)
perfect waveform reproduction we get from the best digital.

[Arny Krueger]

"Robert Peirce" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

I could go on debunking any number of vague optimistic
claims, but the proof is in the performance. The
performance of vinyl playback equipment is eminently
measurable, but I see no evidence of improved measured
response anywhere. I see no evidence of measured
performance that is even within 2 orders of magnitude of
what can be easily achieved with a $69 optical disk
player.

A lot depends on what you are playing. Some of the early
CDs sounded just plain awful and none of the modern
equipment I have heard has been able to cure that. A lot
of LPs were awful as well.

The idea that different players would, could, or should somehow correct bad
mastering is a pretty novel thought.

The CD format is an sonically accurate medium. Do things right and the good
results accurately show up at the output terminals of the player. Do things
wrong, and the bad results show up in the same place.

I play both LPs and CDs and
among the best of each it is impossible for me to say one
is better than the other.

The best CDs don't have the audible noise and distortion that is inherent in
the LP format.

The biggest complaint I have heard about LPs is they can
be noisy. In my experience this stems from two sources.

Neither of which can be adequately addressed.

First, many people never really took good care of their
LPS (and don't seem to be taking good care of their CDs
either) and they could get pretty dusty. Once a flick of
dust is ground in it is there forever.

Dust is always a fact of life unless you want to turn your listening room
into a certifiable clean room. I'm kinda surprised that someone hasn't tried
that approach.

Second, poor equipment can damage LPs and emphasize any
noise issues.

Even the best equipment takes its toll on LPs over many playings.

Keeping records clean is a pain and playing them on good
equipment is a necessity. I have LPs dating back to 1958
that are still tick free.

I seriously doubt that. I've never heard a LP that was tick free, even on
the first playing. The only way to eliminate audible tics from LPs involves
digitizing them and digitally processing the tics out of existence.

CDs seem to be less sensitive to either issue and I like that.

Unlike LPs, CDs simply don't have any tics that are due to the format. The
CD format is a noise and distortion free format. Any noise and distortion
that you hear (highly unlikely) or measure on a CD came from the analog
domain, or the transition from and/or to it.

[Audio Empire]

On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 07:25:10 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Robert Peirce" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

I could go on debunking any number of vague optimistic
claims, but the proof is in the performance. The
performance of vinyl playback equipment is eminently
measurable, but I see no evidence of improved measured
response anywhere. I see no evidence of measured
performance that is even within 2 orders of magnitude of
what can be easily achieved with a $69 optical disk
player.

A lot depends on what you are playing. Some of the early
CDs sounded just plain awful and none of the modern
equipment I have heard has been able to cure that. A lot
of LPs were awful as well.

The idea that different players would, could, or should somehow correct bad
mastering is a pretty novel thought.

The CD format is an sonically accurate medium. Do things right and the good
results accurately show up at the output terminals of the player. Do things
wrong, and the bad results show up in the same place.

I disagree. Strongly. The CD format is a WAVEFORM-ACCURATE format. Hook a
cheap crystal microphone to an A/D converter and you won't get anything that
even remotely resembles sonic accuracy.

I play both LPs and CDs and
among the best of each it is impossible for me to say one
is better than the other.

The best CDs don't have the audible noise and distortion that is inherent in
the LP format.

and the best CDs don't sound as much like real music as does a good LP.

The biggest complaint I have heard about LPs is they can
be noisy. In my experience this stems from two sources.

Neither of which can be adequately addressed.

First, many people never really took good care of their
LPS (and don't seem to be taking good care of their CDs
either) and they could get pretty dusty. Once a flick of
dust is ground in it is there forever.

Dust is always a fact of life unless you want to turn your listening room
into a certifiable clean room. I'm kinda surprised that someone hasn't tried
that approach.

It wouldn't surprise me to find that someone HAS.

Second, poor equipment can damage LPs and emphasize any
noise issues.

Even the best equipment takes its toll on LPs over many playings.

Yet I have 50 year-old records that are perfect.

Keeping records clean is a pain and playing them on good
equipment is a necessity. I have LPs dating back to 1958
that are still tick free.

I seriously doubt that.

Since I have some that old which are "virtually" tick free, I don't doubt it.

I've never heard a LP that was tick free, even on
the first playing.

Don't get around much do you? No, you're right, there's a difference between
completely tick free and virtually tick free. I have lots of the latter, none
of the former.

The only way to eliminate audible tics from LPs involves
digitizing them and digitally processing the tics out of existence.

CDs seem to be less sensitive to either issue and I like that.

Unlike LPs, CDs simply don't have any tics that are due to the format. The
CD format is a noise and distortion free format. Any noise and distortion
that you hear (highly unlikely) or measure on a CD came from the analog
domain, or the transition from and/or to it.

And this analog distortion makes canned music sound more lifelike.

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" wrote in message

On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 07:25:10 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

The CD format is an sonically accurate medium. Do things
right and the good results accurately show up at the
output terminals of the player. Do things wrong, and the
bad results show up in the same place.

I disagree. Strongly. The CD format is a
WAVEFORM-ACCURATE format.

While waveform-accurate is not standard terminology, the meaning of the
words seems clear enough. Waveform-accurate implies sonic accuracy.
Therefore, your terminology would seem to agree with what I said.

Hook a cheap crystal microphone
to an A/D converter and you won't get anything that even
remotely resembles sonic accuracy.

This while a true statement, seems very strange indeed. Of course hooking a
poor microphone to an accurate recorder will not provide a good recording,
but that says everything about the poor microphone and little about the
accurate recorder. It seems ludicrous that anybody would use a poor
microphone with a good recorder. ? What can you prove about the recorder if
you do something this illogical? Would the poor microphone sound better
with a poor recorder? What is the point?

I play both LPs and CDs and
among the best of each it is impossible for me to say
one is better than the other.

The best CDs don't have the audible noise and distortion
that is inherent in the LP format.

and the best CDs don't sound as much like real music as
does a good LP.

Yet another illogical statement. How can intentionally adding audible noise
and distortion to a good quality recording make it sound better? If you put
a fine recording on a CD, you hear a fine recording when you play it back
because the CD format is sonically accurate. If you put a fine recording
onto a LP, its going to come back with added audible noise and distoriton.
How can adding audible noise and distortion make it sound better.

Note that the noise and distortion that the LP format adds was not designed
to be euphonic. The noise and distortion is something undesirable that great
expense and effort was made to reduce as much as possible, and these efforts
ulitmately failed to the extent that it became necessary to invent digital
recording. The noise and distortion that is inherent in the LP format is the
result of any number of technical deficiencies and compromises that were
forced by the basic technology. Inherent problems with the LP format such as
innner groove distortion were not tuned by great symphony conductors in
order to produce a euphonic result. They are the results of things like poor
geometry and problems with plastic materials.

The biggest complaint I have heard about LPs is they can
be noisy. In my experience this stems from two sources.

Neither of which can be adequately addressed.

First, many people never really took good care of their
LPS (and don't seem to be taking good care of their CDs
either) and they could get pretty dusty. Once a flick
of dust is ground in it is there forever.

Dust is always a fact of life unless you want to turn
your listening room into a certifiable clean room. I'm
kinda surprised that someone hasn't tried that approach.

It wouldn't surprise me to find that someone HAS.



Second, poor equipment can damage LPs and emphasize any
noise issues.

Even the best equipment takes its toll on LPs over many
playings.

Yet I have 50 year-old records that are perfect.

This is impossible since the LPs were obviously imperfect when they were
first made.

Keeping records clean is a pain and playing them on good
equipment is a necessity. I have LPs dating back to
1958 that are still tick free.

I seriously doubt that.

Since I have some that old which are "virtually" tick
free, I don't doubt it.

By using the word "virtually", you actually concede my point.

I've never heard a LP that was tick free, even on
the first playing.

Don't get around much do you?

Why be unecessarily insulting? We are not talking about the honor of a
family member of yours,we're talking about some obsolete medium that has
fallen into disuse for about 99% of all music lovers because of exactly the
problems that you seem to want to deny the existance of.

No, you're right, there's a
difference between completely tick free and virtually
tick free. I have lots of the latter, none of the former.

CDs are tic free. Always have been, always will be. Its an inherent part of
their technology.

The only way to eliminate audible tics from LPs involves
digitizing them and digitally processing the tics out of
existence.

CDs seem to be less sensitive to either issue and I
like that.

Unlike LPs, CDs simply don't have any tics that are due
to the format. The CD format is a noise and distortion
free format. Any noise and distortion that you hear
(highly unlikely) or measure on a CD came from the
analog domain, or the transition from and/or to it.

And this analog distortion makes canned music sound more
lifelike.

Since analog noise and distortion is randomly chosen and was never designed
to be euphonic, how can it make music sound more lifelike?

[KH]

On 2/12/2010 12:57 PM, Audio Empire wrote:
On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 07:25:10 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in ):

"Robert wrote in message

snip

The CD format is an sonically accurate medium. Do things right and the good
results accurately show up at the output terminals of the player. Do things
wrong, and the bad results show up in the same place.

I disagree. Strongly. The CD format is a WAVEFORM-ACCURATE format.

I believe that is exactly what he was saying.

Hook a
cheap crystal microphone to an A/D converter and you won't get anything that
even remotely resembles sonic accuracy.

Quite the contrary. Given an accurate amp and speaker (which, although
that is an impossibility, it's a limitation that applies equally no
matter the source material), that CD will give a sonically accurate
reproduction of the acoustic event *as recorded by the mic*. That is
the only accuracy that is available to be had, by any recording medium.

LP doesn't do that. You like the LP sound irrespective of (or because
of) its lack of waveform-accuracy. Fine, your choice.

And this analog distortion makes canned music sound more lifelike.

Only to some.

Keith Hughes

[Audio Empire]

On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 03:30:32 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in message

On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 07:25:10 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

The CD format is an sonically accurate medium. Do things
right and the good results accurately show up at the
output terminals of the player. Do things wrong, and the
bad results show up in the same place.

I disagree. Strongly. The CD format is a
WAVEFORM-ACCURATE format.

While waveform-accurate is not standard terminology, the meaning of the
words seems clear enough. Waveform-accurate implies sonic accuracy.
Therefore, your terminology would seem to agree with what I said.

No, I don't. Nyquist's theory states that an accurate WAVEFORM can be
reconstructed using from digital quantization. Any waveform can be accurately
digitized, given the required number of bits and the proper sampling
frequency to represent that waveform. But nothing in digital theory states
that the resulting analog reconstruction - at the end of the process- is an
accurate picture OF ANYTHING. If you digitize a poor audio or video signal,
for instance, the other end of the process will not magically make that
reconstructed waveform accurate to the original picture or sound.

Hook a cheap crystal microphone
to an A/D converter and you won't get anything that even
remotely resembles sonic accuracy.

This while a true statement, seems very strange indeed. Of course hooking a
poor microphone to an accurate recorder will not provide a good recording,
but that says everything about the poor microphone and little about the
accurate recorder. It seems ludicrous that anybody would use a poor
microphone with a good recorder. ? What can you prove about the recorder if
you do something this illogical? Would the poor microphone sound better
with a poor recorder? What is the point?

The point is that "SOUND" doesn't exist in the digital domain at all. You
said that CD was sonically accurate, Digital quantization doesn't deal with
sound, it deals with an electrical AC signal that represents sound in the
form of an audio waveform. That waveform can be a fairly accurate "snapshot"
of the sonic event, or, perhaps not.

I play both LPs and CDs and
among the best of each it is impossible for me to say
one is better than the other.

The best CDs don't have the audible noise and distortion
that is inherent in the LP format.

and the best CDs don't sound as much like real music as
does a good LP.

Yet another illogical statement. How can intentionally adding audible noise
and distortion to a good quality recording make it sound better? If you put
a fine recording on a CD, you hear a fine recording when you play it back
because the CD format is sonically accurate. If you put a fine recording
onto a LP, its going to come back with added audible noise and distoriton.
How can adding audible noise and distortion make it sound better.

My "theory" is that the process of recording removes something from the music
making it threadbare and sterile. The distortion in LP inadvertantly
"synthesizes" something akin to what recording strips away and people who
know the sound of live music respond to that added distortion in a positive
way. I started thinking about this when I began recording the Stanford
University Jazz Orchestra a couple of years ago. Their leader, Dr. Fred
Berry, came over to where I was setting up to look at my recording equipment.
"Digital huh?" He asked. Then he followed with, " Nice setup, but you know,
Analog from LPs sounds more real than digital from CDs."

"Yes," said I. "It does, but it is impractical to record that way these
days."

But it got me thinking. Here is a man who has a doctorate in music, plays a
number of instruments well and who HEARS live music almost every day. He also
thinks that LPs sound more realistic that do CDs. So I made it a point to ask
every musician I encountered which sounded better, LP or CD. Well, it turns
out that most musicians have no opinion, and don't care (they don't really
listen to the same things in a musical performance that most lay-listeners do
and can, essentially, hear what they are listening for on a table radio), but
those that do, universally opine that LP sounds more real to them than does
digital (CD).

I have other indicators that this is the case as well. I have a number of
recordings that were made digitally and released, initially, on LP. When CD
came around, these digital recordings were, naturally, again released in
their native 16-bit digital format. In every case, the LP version sounds far
superior to the CD - even though the MASTER was 16-bit digital to begin with!

One really prime example of this phenomenon is a jazz recording made in 1979
with a Nashville musician named Farrell Morris and called "Bits of percussion
and Jazz". This recording featured no less than Stan Getz on tenor sax and
Ron Carter on bass with a bunch of great Nashville studio musicians filling
in the rest of the 12-piece ensemble. It was recorded, according to the liner
notes, using a Sony 1600, 16-bit/44.1 KHz converter to a BetaMax video
recorder. The album was first released on LP (CD didn't exist then) and
later, briefly, on CD by a small Nashville-based record company called Audio
Directions. The LP is one of the best sounding and most delightful jazz
recordings I've ever heard. It's so palpable that if you take away the (very)
occasional tick and pop, you can close your eyes and the musicians are in the
room with you. The CD is a wholly different experience. It's difficult to
reconcile the knowledge that this is the SAME performance as the LP with what
emanates from one's speakers! The LP is vibrant, alive, images well, has
great bass, the high-frequency percussion sounds are clean and "airy" . The
CD, OTOH, is dull sounding, dead, lacking in presence with wimpy bass, a
flat, 2-dimensional image and is, in no way, anything that anyone would think
twice about upon hearing it. I have other examples of the same phenomenon.
Compare the Charles Dutoit/Montreal Symphony's "DDD" CD recording of Ravel's
"Daphnis and Chloe" with the earlier LP of the same digital master. The LP is
GORGEOUS, the CD is, again, lifeless and ordinary by comparison, with overly
bright, screeching highs, and weak, flaccid bass. I have enough "dual
inventory" like this to know that the LP is doing something to make these
digital recordings sound MORE like music than their CD counterparts. Since I
agree with you that digital is far more ACCURATE than analog, I must conclude
from the above and other things that some of the non-linearities that LP
introduces must be highly euphonic and obviously cause one's musical
perceptions to respond in a much more positive way than they do to straight
digital.

Note that the noise and distortion that the LP format adds was not designed
to be euphonic.

It's called serendipity, Arnie

The noise and distortion is something undesirable that great
expense and effort was made to reduce as much as possible, and these efforts
ulitmately failed to the extent that it became necessary to invent digital
recording.

Now, there's a revisionist view of history, if ever I saw one. I know that
historical revisionism is politically correct in this day and age, Arnie, but
really: "(LP) ultimately failed to the extent that it became necessary to
invent digital recording."? Digital recording was invented for two reasons:
(1) The technology had come of age to allow it and more importantly, (2) due
primarily to the youth market, and their desire for portability, the compact
cassette was eating vinyl's lunch in the record stores. The CD was seen as a
natural progression in that it PROMISED better sound in a portable format.
Record stores liked CD because there were fewer defective discs to deal with
and being smaller, the CD took up less floor space. Kids liked it because
they could easily take their CDs with them and they didn't end up wrapped
around the capstan in their car players like cassettes did. There was NO
thought at the time that vinyl had "failed" only that priorities in the
marketing of music had changed.

From the very beginning critical listeners (and producers) found CD wanting.

The noise and distortion that is inherent in the LP format is the
result of any number of technical deficiencies and compromises that were
forced by the basic technology. Inherent problems with the LP format such as
innner groove distortion were not tuned by great symphony conductors in
order to produce a euphonic result. They are the results of things like poor
geometry and problems with plastic materials.

Innergrove distortion has been largely banished in more modern LPs, and this
distortion that speak so vehemently against just MIGHT be what makes LP (at
it's best) sound more lifelike and musical.

The biggest complaint I have heard about LPs is they can
be noisy. In my experience this stems from two sources.

Neither of which can be adequately addressed.

First, many people never really took good care of their
LPS (and don't seem to be taking good care of their CDs
either) and they could get pretty dusty. Once a flick
of dust is ground in it is there forever.

Dust is always a fact of life unless you want to turn
your listening room into a certifiable clean room. I'm
kinda surprised that someone hasn't tried that approach.

It wouldn't surprise me to find that someone HAS.

Second, poor equipment can damage LPs and emphasize any
noise issues.

Even the best equipment takes its toll on LPs over many
playings.

Yet I have 50 year-old records that are perfect.

This is impossible since the LPs were obviously imperfect when they were
first made.

Keeping records clean is a pain and playing them on good
equipment is a necessity. I have LPs dating back to
1958 that are still tick free.

I seriously doubt that.

Since I have some that old which are "virtually" tick
free, I don't doubt it.

By using the word "virtually", you actually concede my point.

I've never heard a LP that was tick free, even on
the first playing.

Don't get around much do you?

Why be unecessarily insulting?

I didn't mean it as an insult, but rather as a prelude to my next comment, in
which, I essentially, agree with you.

We are not talking about the honor of a
family member of yours,we're talking about some obsolete medium that has
fallen into disuse for about 99% of all music lovers because of exactly the
problems that you seem to want to deny the existance of.

Bringing up public taste as a defense for anything is a poor debating tactic.
The taste of the hoi poloi is notoriously AWFUL. After all, many millions
more people watch "American Idol" on Fox than watch "Evening at the Met" on
PBS. I wouldn't go there were I you.

No, you're right, there's a
difference between completely tick free and virtually
tick free. I have lots of the latter, none of the former.

CDs are tic free. Always have been, always will be. Its an inherent part of
their technology.

You are a champion of the obvious, aren't you? No one is denying CD/digital's
strengths. They're convenient, quiet (and usually stay that way) and, for the
average listener, completely satisfactory as a musical source. Records are,
on the other hand, fragile, require a lot of care, require a stringent
playback ritual if the records are to remain in decent shape. They are
inherently noisy, and get noisier with age regardless of how well one cares
for them. Yet, for many, those who CARE about the SOUND of music in their
lives, it's all worth it. Putting up with the ticks and pops, the swishing
sounds, the occasional off-center or warped record, are all rewarded when a
certain LP takes the listener to a place that says "Here is a glimpse of a
live musical performance. Here is what you got into the audio hobby about in
the first place." In my audio life, I live for those moments, those
glimpses. I get them mostly from LPs rather than CDs and even though I'm a
very good recording engineer and a purist (real stereo, only. No multi-miked
8, 16, or 32 track "mono" for me), none of my digital recordings sound as
good as the best LPs.

The only way to eliminate audible tics from LPs involves
digitizing them and digitally processing the tics out of
existence.

CDs seem to be less sensitive to either issue and I
like that.

Unlike LPs, CDs simply don't have any tics that are due
to the format. The CD format is a noise and distortion
free format. Any noise and distortion that you hear
(highly unlikely) or measure on a CD came from the
analog domain, or the transition from and/or to it.

And this analog distortion makes canned music sound more
lifelike.

Since analog noise and distortion is randomly chosen and was never designed
to be euphonic, how can it make music sound more lifelike?

Like I said, earlier. Serendipity, Arnie, serendipity.

[Audio Empire]

On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 03:30:41 -0800, KH wrote
(in article ):

On 2/12/2010 12:57 PM, Audio Empire wrote:
On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 07:25:10 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in ):

"Robert wrote in message

snip

The CD format is an sonically accurate medium. Do things right and the good
results accurately show up at the output terminals of the player. Do things
wrong, and the bad results show up in the same place.

I disagree. Strongly. The CD format is a WAVEFORM-ACCURATE format.

I believe that is exactly what he was saying.

No. he said that it was sonically accurate. Digital doesn't record sound, it
records ones-and-zeros. Those ones-and-zeros can represent sound (or video,
or computer data, or anything else that's quantifiable), but it's the analog
equipment BEFORE the quantization that "decides" the sonic accuracy of a
digital recording . IE. the microphones (and the competence of the recordist
using them) , the electronics of the mixing board, the analog section of the
A/D converter that can ensure sonic accuracy (to the extent that this
equipment and it's use IS sonically accurate).

Hook a
cheap crystal microphone to an A/D converter and you won't get anything that
even remotely resembles sonic accuracy.

Quite the contrary. Given an accurate amp and speaker (which, although
that is an impossibility, it's a limitation that applies equally no
matter the source material), that CD will give a sonically accurate
reproduction of the acoustic event *as recorded by the mic*. That is
the only accuracy that is available to be had, by any recording medium.

NO. It will give an electrically accurate reproduction of the signal fed to
it. The moment the microphone turns the sound field into an electrical
signal, we're no longer dealing with sound, we're dealing with an AC waveform
that represents that sonic event ONLY to the capability of the transducer
(microphone).

LP doesn't do that. You like the LP sound irrespective of (or because
of) its lack of waveform-accuracy. Fine, your choice.

I like LP sound because it sounds* (for whatever reason) more like REAL
music. and I hear more of that than most people.

And this analog distortion makes canned music sound more lifelike.

Only to some.

Keith Hughes

* Let me be clear about the statement that LP "SOUNDS more like real music".
As humans, we interpret what we hear. That interpretation is naturally
colored by a combination of experience and knowledge and perhaps a little
instinct mixed in for good measure. There are things that make me want to
experience live music, it's an entirely emotional response. I obviously
became an audiophile because I LIKE that emotional experience and I want it
at my fingertips. Now, all this talk and theorizing about accuracy is all
fine and good, But we don't listen TO technology (OK, some do, I guess), we
listen to the music by way of the technology. As we all know, the technology
is far from perfect. Were it perfect, we would have no need of concert halls
and live performances because our stereo systems would provide that emotional
response we get from listening to live music every time we turn it on. It
doesn't. The most expensive and elaborate stereo system in the world will
fool no one for very long. Yet we can walk down the street past a night spot
with open doors and IMMEDIATELY tell that "there's live music in there".
Because there is something about that sound that is unmistakable. We all
recognize it when we hear it, we all want it, yet, we cannot capture it and
we cannot reproduce it in our homes. It doesn't matter what we use; analog
tape, digital at 32- bits and high sampling rates, it doesn't matter. We
simply cannot get that emotional involvement with music that we get from
hearing it live from listening to recordings.

But, having said that, I will also say that I get glimpses of that emotional
response from some LPs. There is a warmth, an inexplicable feeling of well
being that washes over me when I listen to an LP that I simply don't get with
CDs. This is very similar to the response I have to real, live music. I like
that. I want that. If music listening were purely an intellectual exercise,
I'd agree with you and Arny that since CD is more accurate (and it is) it's
better. But listening to music is NOT in and of itself, a purely intellectual
exercise. It is an emotional experience. It's SUPPOSED to be an emotional
experience. LP elicits, from me (and many music lovers like me) an emotional
response that reminds me of the emotional involvement and response I feel at
a concert. I don't care that it's vinyl's inherent limitations and
distortions that cause that emotional response from me. I don't even care if
that response is caused, in large part by sheer nostalgia for the way
listening to music via records USED TO BE when I was a kid (and this is very
great possibility). It gives me something that causes the same endorphins to
be released in my brain as does the sound of live music played in a real
space. As far as I'm concerned, that's what hi-fi is all about and to hell
with accuracy if accuracy cannot provide that emotional response.

[Audio Empire]

On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 17:43:42 -0800, Dick Pierce wrote
(in article ):

Audio Empire wrote:
On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 07:25:10 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):
The CD format is an sonically accurate medium.
Do things right and the good results accurately
show up at the output terminals of the player.
Do things wrong, and the bad results show up in
the same place.

I disagree. Strongly. The CD format is a WAVEFORM-
ACCURATE format. Hook a cheap crystal microphone to an
A/D converter and you won't get anything that
even remotely resembles sonic accuracy.

Last time you or me or anyone else actually checked, a crystal
microphone is NOT part of the CD format, thus the microphone
and, in fact ANY source device is irrelevant as to whether
the medium causes significant losses or changes in the signal.

Neither is sound a part of the CD format. I have CDs with computer programs,
computer files, photographs and even video on them. You are either being
purposely argumentative or....???

If I take a good microphone and poke holes in the diaphragm
and spray salt water into it, and hook it to an A/D converter,
why does that have ANY relevance on the sonic accuracy capabilities
of the CD medium? Sure, it will sound like crap, but if you were
to connect that same busted microphone through the very best
mic preamp and power amplifier to the very best (by your standards)
of ooudspeakers, would it not ALSO sound like crap? Is it therefore,
by your logic, thus true that your choice of speakers is thus crap
only because the entire chani is crap.

That's not the point and you know it. Again, the amplifier doesn't carry
music, it carries an analog (usually) electrical signal. Same with speakers.
They respond to the electrical signal fed to them. I certainly see your
point, but you are being needlessly argumentative. It's a simple point. CD is
a very accurate digital data medium. That data may be an accurately captured
musical performance, or not.

Some of us might take a more restrictive view by saying that
if the microphone is crap, therefore the microphone is crap.

The microphone is irrelevant. The source material is irrelevant. The CD
doesn't care what intelligence the one-and-zeros it holds represents.

By your same argument, a crystal microphone hooked to an LP
cutting lathe would also result in something that doesn't
even remotely resemble xsonic accuracy, therefore you would
have to agree, by your argument, that the LP medium is not
sonically accurate.

It isn't. these media carry a signal. That signal may or may not be an
accurate representation of some musical performance.

Blaming the medium for the result of deliberately
picking a faulty source is simply nonsensical.

And no one has done that. I merely made the distinction between signal
accuracy and sonic accuracy.

and the best CDs don't sound as much like real music
as does a good LP.

To you that is: an opinion you get to have.

Unlike LPs, CDs simply don't have any tics that are due to the format. The
CD format is a noise and distortion free format. Any noise and distortion
that you hear (highly unlikely) or measure on a CD came from the analog
domain, or the transition from and/or to it.

And this analog distortion makes canned music sound more lifelike.

To you that is: an opinion you get to have.

And it seems to be shared by many people who actually know how real, live
music affects listeners.

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" wrote in message

On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 03:30:41 -0800, KH wrote
(in article ):

On 2/12/2010 12:57 PM, Audio Empire wrote:
On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 07:25:10 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in ):

"Robert wrote in
message

snip

The CD format is an sonically accurate medium. Do
things right and the good results accurately show up
at the output terminals of the player. Do things
wrong, and the bad results show up in the same place.

I disagree. Strongly. The CD format is a
WAVEFORM-ACCURATE format.

I believe that is exactly what he was saying.

No. he said that it was sonically accurate.

This is as much of a proven fact as such facts exist in audio. In many
experiments, some even documented in august journals such as the JAES, it
has been shown that the interposition of a good digital link, is not
detectable by human ears, even the ears of experienced listeners listening
to the best modern recordings that they can find, using high quality
associated compoents such as high end and also professional grade amplifiers
and speakers.

Digital doesn't record sound, it records ones-and-zeros.

This excludes two well-known components of a working digital link, namely
the ADC and DAC. Therefore it is a entirely incomplete statement, and no
theory, hypothesis or experimental result based on it is valid.

The discussion awaits a proper and relevant recitation of how digital audio
works.

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" wrote in message

On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 03:30:32 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in
message
On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 07:25:10 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

The CD format is an sonically accurate medium. Do
things right and the good results accurately show up
at the output terminals of the player. Do things
wrong, and the bad results show up in the same place.

I disagree. Strongly. The CD format is a
WAVEFORM-ACCURATE format.

While waveform-accurate is not standard terminology, the
meaning of the words seems clear enough.
Waveform-accurate implies sonic accuracy. Therefore,
your terminology would seem to agree with what I said.

No, I don't. Nyquist's theory states that an accurate
WAVEFORM can be reconstructed using from digital
quantization. Any waveform can be accurately digitized,
given the required number of bits and the proper sampling
frequency to represent that waveform.

So far so good.

But nothing in
digital theory states that the resulting analog
reconstruction - at the end of the process- is an
accurate picture OF ANYTHING.

This is highly incorrect, and misses much of digital theory. Digital theory
also includes Shannon's information theory which provides a means for
evaluating the accuracy of a reproduction of an origional waveform.

If you digitize a poor
audio or video signal, for instance, the other end of the
process will not magically make that reconstructed
waveform accurate to the original picture or sound.

As others have also pointed out in other words, this statement confuses the
messeger with the message. A digital link acts as a messenger, and as a
reliable messenger (whose reliability can be judged using Information
Theory) a good digital link will provide an excellent replica of the
original waveform. If the message is of poor quality, no good analog or
digital link will improve the basic quality of the message. The better the
link is, the better job it will do of reproducing the imperfections.

Bringing in the quality of the message is on the face of it, a red herring
argument. We're discussing the quality of data links, not the quality of the
data being linked!



The best CDs don't have the audible noise and
distortion that is inherent in the LP format.

and the best CDs don't sound as much like real music as
does a good LP.

Yet another illogical statement. How can intentionally
adding audible noise and distortion to a good quality
recording make it sound better? If you put a fine
recording on a CD, you hear a fine recording when you
play it back because the CD format is sonically
accurate. If you put a fine recording onto a LP, its
going to come back with added audible noise and
distoriton. How can adding audible noise and distortion
make it sound better.

My "theory" is that the process of recording removes
something from the music making it threadbare and
sterile.

This is an interesting assertion, but I see no evidence to support it.

Since we have only an unfounded assertion before us, there is no need to
take it seriously and discuss it any further. If it were supported it might
be intresting, but there is no support for it at all. No discussions or
conclusions based on this unfounded assertion can possibly gain any
relevance from being based on this unfounded assertion.

We see two fatal flaws in the above discussion. One is the lack of
application of a relatively old, well known and generally accepted
technology, namely Shannon's Information Theory. The second is the the
assertion of a questionable theory, with no supporting evidence or
discussion whatsoever.

There is third fatal flaw in the volumnous text that I deleted which is
that some random collection of noises and distortions, each of which have
thwarted decades of human effort to reduce to inaudibility, none of which
were designed to be euphonic or musical, would somehow restore this
hypothetical missing component of music. Together, we have a sand castle
built on top of a sand castle. The wind of logic blows, the sand dries out
and collapses. All we have is a beach. ;-)

[Scott[_6_]]

On Feb 13, 3:30=A0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Audio Empire" wrote in message



and the best CDs don't sound as much like real music as
does a good LP.

Yet another illogical statement.

It is an observation. logic is not at issue.

How can intentionally adding audible noise
and distortion to a good quality recording make it sound better?

Now that is a logical fallacy. Argument by incredulty. One need not
have an explanation for an aesthetic opinion of a perceptual
experience for the aesthetic opinion to hold true.

=A0If you put
a fine recording on a CD, you hear a fine recording when you play it back
because the CD format is sonically accurate.

In practice this simply has all too often not been the case. there are
many many real world examples of fine recordings being sonically
degraded quite severely when released on commercial CD. Even some of
the best efforts done with all due diligence have wrought inferior
results.

If you put a fine recording
onto a LP, its going to come back with added audible noise and distoriton=
..


There have been some informal blind comparisons that showed otherwise.


How can adding audible noise and distortion make it sound better.


It's called a euphonic distortion. a phenomenon that is well known in
many various media.


Note that the noise and distortion that the LP format adds was not design=
ed
to be euphonic.


This is far too broad and simplistic an assertion to hold water. There
certainly have been euphonic distortions designed into some vinyl
playback equipment. There also does seem to be some euphonic
distortion that happens by happy accident. I would think anyone
involved in any aesthetic endevour on any meaningful level would know
that happy accidents are actually pretty common place and the smart
designer/artisan takes those happy accidents and turns them into
another tool in their palette. It would seem that designers such as Y
Sugano and Dr. Peter Forsell have been bright enough to do just that.


The noise and distortion is something undesirable that great
expense and effort was made to reduce as much as possible,

Actually it has been my experience that such efforts when taken to
their extreme have wrought less than ideal results. There are
certainly ugly colorations that can be found in less than excellent
vinyl playback equipment. But IMO one has to be careful not to throw
the proverbial baby out with the bath water. The key to ultimate
success is to preserve and engage euphonic distortions that improve
the aesthetic experience over a broad range of recordings while
reducing the ugly colorations to the point of insignificance. IME this
has been achieved to an extraordinary degree by a number of vinyl
playback setups.


and these efforts
ulitmately failed to the extent that it became necessary to invent digita=
l
recording.

That is an illogical argument because it is based on the plainly
untrue axiom that digital was invented out of necessity.


The noise and distortion that is inherent in the LP format is the
result of any number of technical deficiencies and compromises that were
forced by the basic technology. Inherent problems with the LP format such=
as
innner groove distortion were not tuned by great symphony conductors in
order to produce a euphonic result.


I would suggest you limit your comments about the inherent audible
distortions of the media to the *actual* inherent audible distortions
of the media. Innergroove distortion is the result of correctable
problems in geometry and velocity. It is not an inherent audible
distortion.


They are the results of things like poor
geometry and problems with plastic materials.

Poor geometry is correctable and so is not an inherent problem.
Plastic materials have what to do with inner groove distortion?

Yet I have 50 year-old records that are perfect.

This is impossible since the LPs were obviously imperfect when they were
first made.

Given the fact that a tick or pop is a defect it clearly is not
impossible to make a defect free LP.

And this analog distortion makes canned music sound more
lifelike.

Since analog noise and distortion is randomly chosen and was never design=
ed
to be euphonic, how can it make music sound more lifelike?

one need not know how to observe it. It has been observed whether it
fits your belief system or not. If you want to know how I suggest
asking JJ. He has done some actual research on the issue and is not in
denial about euphonic distortions.

[Audio Empire]

On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 06:46:05 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in message

On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 03:30:41 -0800, KH wrote
(in article ):

On 2/12/2010 12:57 PM, Audio Empire wrote:
On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 07:25:10 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in ):

"Robert wrote in
message

snip

The CD format is an sonically accurate medium. Do
things right and the good results accurately show up
at the output terminals of the player. Do things
wrong, and the bad results show up in the same place.

I disagree. Strongly. The CD format is a
WAVEFORM-ACCURATE format.

I believe that is exactly what he was saying.

No. he said that it was sonically accurate.

This is as much of a proven fact as such facts exist in audio. In many
experiments, some even documented in august journals such as the JAES, it
has been shown that the interposition of a good digital link, is not
detectable by human ears, even the ears of experienced listeners listening
to the best modern recordings that they can find, using high quality
associated compoents such as high end and also professional grade amplifiers
and speakers.

Digital doesn't record sound, it records ones-and-zeros.

This excludes two well-known components of a working digital link, namely
the ADC and DAC. Therefore it is a entirely incomplete statement, and no
theory, hypothesis or experimental result based on it is valid.

The discussion awaits a proper and relevant recitation of how digital audio
works.


I know how digital audio works, and it is irrelevant to my point which is
about semantics, not about the capabilities of digital quantization and/or
it's transmission or storage.

[Audio Empire]

On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 07:41:56 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in message

On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 03:30:32 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in
message
On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 07:25:10 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

The CD format is an sonically accurate medium. Do
things right and the good results accurately show up
at the output terminals of the player. Do things
wrong, and the bad results show up in the same place.

I disagree. Strongly. The CD format is a
WAVEFORM-ACCURATE format.

While waveform-accurate is not standard terminology, the
meaning of the words seems clear enough.
Waveform-accurate implies sonic accuracy. Therefore,
your terminology would seem to agree with what I said.

No, I don't. Nyquist's theory states that an accurate
WAVEFORM can be reconstructed using from digital
quantization. Any waveform can be accurately digitized,
given the required number of bits and the proper sampling
frequency to represent that waveform.

So far so good.

But nothing in
digital theory states that the resulting analog
reconstruction - at the end of the process- is an
accurate picture OF ANYTHING.

This is highly incorrect, and misses much of digital theory. Digital theory
also includes Shannon's information theory which provides a means for
evaluating the accuracy of a reproduction of an origional waveform.

If you digitize a poor
audio or video signal, for instance, the other end of the
process will not magically make that reconstructed
waveform accurate to the original picture or sound.

As others have also pointed out in other words, this statement confuses the
messeger with the message. A digital link acts as a messenger, and as a
reliable messenger (whose reliability can be judged using Information
Theory) a good digital link will provide an excellent replica of the
original waveform. If the message is of poor quality, no good analog or
digital link will improve the basic quality of the message. The better the
link is, the better job it will do of reproducing the imperfections.

Bringing in the quality of the message is on the face of it, a red herring
argument. We're discussing the quality of data links, not the quality of the
data being linked!



The best CDs don't have the audible noise and
distortion that is inherent in the LP format.

and the best CDs don't sound as much like real music as
does a good LP.

Yet another illogical statement. How can intentionally
adding audible noise and distortion to a good quality
recording make it sound better? If you put a fine
recording on a CD, you hear a fine recording when you
play it back because the CD format is sonically
accurate. If you put a fine recording onto a LP, its
going to come back with added audible noise and
distoriton. How can adding audible noise and distortion
make it sound better.

My "theory" is that the process of recording removes
something from the music making it threadbare and
sterile.

This is an interesting assertion, but I see no evidence to support it.

Since we have only an unfounded assertion before us, there is no need to
take it seriously and discuss it any further. If it were supported it might
be intresting, but there is no support for it at all. No discussions or
conclusions based on this unfounded assertion can possibly gain any
relevance from being based on this unfounded assertion.

We see two fatal flaws in the above discussion. One is the lack of
application of a relatively old, well known and generally accepted
technology, namely Shannon's Information Theory. The second is the the
assertion of a questionable theory, with no supporting evidence or
discussion whatsoever.

There is third fatal flaw in the volumnous text that I deleted which is
that some random collection of noises and distortions, each of which have
thwarted decades of human effort to reduce to inaudibility, none of which
were designed to be euphonic or musical, would somehow restore this
hypothetical missing component of music. Together, we have a sand castle
built on top of a sand castle. The wind of logic blows, the sand dries out
and collapses. All we have is a beach. ;-)



You ignore my overall point, however. My reaction to the sound of vinyl is
that, at it's best, it evokes similar emotional responses from me (and
obviously others) as does the sound of real music played in real space and
CDs mostly do not. Even when they don't leave me completely cold, they don't
evoke in me the feeling of well being and joy that I get from the very best
vinyl. Now, there has to be a reason for this. I am perfectly willing to put
it down to euphonic colorations in the vinyl playback process OR, even to put
it down to something much simpler, like nostalgia (as in playing records
harkens me back to my youth, when playing records was the primary source of
recorded music and that causes the emotional response). I don't pretend to
know the answer. However, I do know that it's a fairly common response among
many audiophiles and music lovers. Either way, it exists and that's pretty
much all that's important. IOW, records, for whatever reason, INVOLVE and
ENGAGE me in the musical performance in ways that CDs, do not. Since that's
what I'm in the hobby for in the first place (to get emotional satisfaction
from listening to reproduced music), it is really a sufficient reason for
preferring Vinyl over CD.

[KH]

On 2/13/2010 6:44 PM, Audio Empire wrote:
On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 03:30:41 -0800, KH wrote
(in ):

On 2/12/2010 12:57 PM, Audio Empire wrote:
On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 07:25:10 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in ):

"Robert wrote in message

snip

The CD format is an sonically accurate medium. Do things right and the good
results accurately show up at the output terminals of the player. Do things
wrong, and the bad results show up in the same place.

I disagree. Strongly. The CD format is a WAVEFORM-ACCURATE format.

I believe that is exactly what he was saying.

No. he said that it was sonically accurate.

And so it is. It seems pure pedantry to ignore the ADC/DAC portion of
the digital audio medium in an effort to get to your "ones-and-zeros"
interpretation of digital *audio*. If a sonic waveform, irrespective of
quality, presented at the ADC input is then accurately stored,
accurately retrieved, and accurately presented in analog format at the
output of the DAC, that process is *sonically* accurate. To suggest
otherwise ignores the basic fact that the waveform in question is merely
an electrical (or digitized) representation of an analog wave, the two
being readily and accurately transformable (were perfect speakers
available of course) from one to the other.


Digital doesn't record sound, it
records ones-and-zeros. Those ones-and-zeros can represent sound (or video,
or computer data, or anything else that's quantifiable), but it's the analog
equipment BEFORE the quantization that "decides" the sonic accuracy of a
digital recording . IE. the microphones (and the competence of the recordist
using them) , the electronics of the mixing board, the analog section of the
A/D converter that can ensure sonic accuracy (to the extent that this
equipment and it's use IS sonically accurate).

Conflating the storage medium with the recording process. All these
caveats about "deciding" the sonic accuracy apply at least equally to
LP, so how does this morph into an albatross solely around digitals' neck?

snip

I like LP sound because it sounds* (for whatever reason) more like REAL
music. and I hear more of that than most people.

Good for you. No one is arguing that LP doesn't sound more like live
music *to you*. My argument is with the often seen "LP sounds more like
live music to those who really know what that is" and the "people who
care about *quality* over convenience prefer LP" crowd. Both are simply
untrue in my case.

snip
* Let me be clear about the statement that LP "SOUNDS more like real music".
As humans, we interpret what we hear. That interpretation is naturally
colored by a combination of experience and knowledge and perhaps a little
instinct mixed in for good measure. There are things that make me want to
experience live music, it's an entirely emotional response. I obviously
became an audiophile because I LIKE that emotional experience and I want it
at my fingertips. Now, all this talk and theorizing about accuracy is all
fine and good, But we don't listen TO technology (OK, some do, I guess), we
listen to the music by way of the technology. As we all know, the technology
is far from perfect. Were it perfect, we would have no need of concert halls
and live performances because our stereo systems would provide that emotional
response we get from listening to live music every time we turn it on. It
doesn't. The most expensive and elaborate stereo system in the world will
fool no one for very long. Yet we can walk down the street past a night spot
with open doors and IMMEDIATELY tell that "there's live music in there".
Because there is something about that sound that is unmistakable. We all
recognize it when we hear it, we all want it, yet, we cannot capture it and
we cannot reproduce it in our homes. It doesn't matter what we use; analog
tape, digital at 32- bits and high sampling rates, it doesn't matter.

OK, I can agree with that so far...

We
simply cannot get that emotional involvement with music that we get from
hearing it live from listening to recordings.

Here, however, you are incorrectly using "we". Some, if not many, of
"us" can, on occasion, get the same emotional response from listening to
recordings as from listening to live music. I'd listen to a lot less
recorded music were that not the case.


But, having said that, I will also say that I get glimpses of that emotional
response from some LPs. There is a warmth, an inexplicable feeling of well
being that washes over me when I listen to an LP that I simply don't get with
CDs. This is very similar to the response I have to real, live music. I like
that. I want that. If music listening were purely an intellectual exercise,
I'd agree with you and Arny that since CD is more accurate (and it is) it's
better. But listening to music is NOT in and of itself, a purely intellectual
exercise. It is an emotional experience. It's SUPPOSED to be an emotional
experience. LP elicits, from me (and many music lovers like me) an emotional
response that reminds me of the emotional involvement and response I feel at
a concert. I don't care that it's vinyl's inherent limitations and
distortions that cause that emotional response from me. I don't even care if
that response is caused, in large part by sheer nostalgia for the way
listening to music via records USED TO BE when I was a kid (and this is very
great possibility). It gives me something that causes the same endorphins to
be released in my brain as does the sound of live music played in a real
space. As far as I'm concerned, that's what hi-fi is all about and to hell
with accuracy if accuracy cannot provide that emotional response.

Well, I feel for you then. Honestly. While you can't beat (good) live
music, I can recreate that emotional involvement with a great recording
and good playback equipment (depending upon a number of other factors as
well, such as mood, etc.). It's precisely that emotional involvement
that is destroyed for me by the tics and pops of LP. Especially when I
know it's coming up - just ruins it. I still have LP's I listen to, but
as time goes on, the surface noise between tracks becomes much more
discordant to me as well.

LP works magic for you - great. I'm glad you can get that enjoyment from
music on LP. Just allow that while this is true for you, it is simply
the opposite case for many of us.

Keith Hughes

[---MIKE---]

This has been suggested a number of times before. Take a "super" LP and
copy it onto a CD. Then see if the "magic" is still there. If it is
then that proves the CD system is accurate and that the "magic" is from
euphonic distortions from the LP.


---MIKE---
In the White Mountains of New Hampshire
(44=B0 15' N - Elevation 1580')

[Audio Empire]

On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 13:00:24 -0800, MIKE--- wrote
(in article ):

This has been suggested a number of times before. Take a "super" LP and
copy it onto a CD. Then see if the "magic" is still there. If it is
then that proves the CD system is accurate and that the "magic" is from
euphonic distortions from the LP.

Yes. I have done this and yes, the resultant CD sounds pretty much exactly
like the LP, as far as I can tell. I qualify that statement only to the point
that I haven't actually performed a double blind test between a level-matched
playback of the LP vs a CD copy of itself.

[Audio Empire]

On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 11:02:22 -0800, KH wrote
(in article ):

On 2/13/2010 6:44 PM, Audio Empire wrote:
On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 03:30:41 -0800, KH wrote
(in ):



[ Excessive quotation snipped by moderator -- dsr ]


I like LP sound because it sounds* (for whatever reason) more like REAL
music. and I hear more of that than most people.

Good for you. No one is arguing that LP doesn't sound more like live
music *to you*. My argument is with the often seen "LP sounds more like
live music to those who really know what that is" and the "people who
care about *quality* over convenience prefer LP" crowd. Both are simply
untrue in my case.

Well, I can't help it if you can't hear, Arny 8^). But really, it's not that
important. Records involve me (as they do many people) in the music in ways
that CDs do not. You and others react differently to the same two stimuli.
And that's really the bottom line in this debate.

snip
* Let me be clear about the statement that LP "SOUNDS more like real music".
As humans, we interpret what we hear. That interpretation is naturally
colored by a combination of experience and knowledge and perhaps a little
instinct mixed in for good measure. There are things that make me want to
experience live music, it's an entirely emotional response. I obviously
became an audiophile because I LIKE that emotional experience and I want it
at my fingertips. Now, all this talk and theorizing about accuracy is all
fine and good, But we don't listen TO technology (OK, some do, I guess), we
listen to the music by way of the technology. As we all know, the technology
is far from perfect. Were it perfect, we would have no need of concert halls
and live performances because our stereo systems would provide that
emotional
response we get from listening to live music every time we turn it on. It
doesn't. The most expensive and elaborate stereo system in the world will
fool no one for very long. Yet we can walk down the street past a night spot
with open doors and IMMEDIATELY tell that "there's live music in there".
Because there is something about that sound that is unmistakable. We all
recognize it when we hear it, we all want it, yet, we cannot capture it and
we cannot reproduce it in our homes. It doesn't matter what we use; analog
tape, digital at 32- bits and high sampling rates, it doesn't matter.

OK, I can agree with that so far...

We
simply cannot get that emotional involvement with music that we get from
hearing it live from listening to recordings.

Here, however, you are incorrectly using "we". Some, if not many, of
"us" can, on occasion, get the same emotional response from listening to
recordings as from listening to live music. I'd listen to a lot less
recorded music were that not the case.


But, having said that, I will also say that I get glimpses of that emotional
response from some LPs. There is a warmth, an inexplicable feeling of well
being that washes over me when I listen to an LP that I simply don't get
with
CDs. This is very similar to the response I have to real, live music. I like
that. I want that. If music listening were purely an intellectual exercise,
I'd agree with you and Arny that since CD is more accurate (and it is) it's
better. But listening to music is NOT in and of itself, a purely
intellectual
exercise. It is an emotional experience. It's SUPPOSED to be an emotional
experience. LP elicits, from me (and many music lovers like me) an emotional
response that reminds me of the emotional involvement and response I feel at
a concert. I don't care that it's vinyl's inherent limitations and
distortions that cause that emotional response from me. I don't even care if
that response is caused, in large part by sheer nostalgia for the way
listening to music via records USED TO BE when I was a kid (and this is very
great possibility). It gives me something that causes the same endorphins to
be released in my brain as does the sound of live music played in a real
space. As far as I'm concerned, that's what hi-fi is all about and to hell
with accuracy if accuracy cannot provide that emotional response.

Well, I feel for you then.

Why? Is that a bad thing? Do you feel for people who prefer spinach over,
say, broccoli? Because feeling sorry for someone who's taste differs from
yours is a pretty empty procedure (and I'm pretty sure it's an arrogant one
too).

Honestly. While you can't beat (good) live
music, I can recreate that emotional involvement with a great recording
and good playback equipment (depending upon a number of other factors as
well, such as mood, etc.). It's precisely that emotional involvement
that is destroyed for me by the tics and pops of LP.


They don't bother me any more than do coughs and program rustling at a live
concert (which don't bother me much, either).

Especially when I
know it's coming up - just ruins it.

You reaction is not unusual, I have heard others make the same statement.
Luckily, for me, that prior knowledge doesn't really bother me unless its a
REALLY BAD scratch. Then, it bothers me. I don't have many of those and I
tend to not listen to any records that have really bad scratches on them.


I still have LP's I listen to, but
as time goes on, the surface noise between tracks becomes much more
discordant to me as well.

And I still collect CDs because it's what WE HAVE. But I usually wish that a
new CD acquisition was an LP instead.

LP works magic for you - great. I'm glad you can get that enjoyment from
music on LP. Just allow that while this is true for you, it is simply
the opposite case for many of us.

I do allow for that. Heck, I RECORD for CD.

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott" wrote in message

On Feb 13, 3:30=A0am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Audio Empire" wrote in
message



and the best CDs don't sound as much like real music as
does a good LP.

Yet another illogical statement.

It is an observation.

Actually, it is an unfounded and unsupported assertion. There is no need to
argue against it.

[KH]

On 2/14/2010 5:59 PM, Audio Empire wrote:
On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 11:02:22 -0800, KH wrote
(in ):

On 2/13/2010 6:44 PM, Audio Empire wrote:
On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 03:30:41 -0800, KH wrote
(in ):



Well, I can't help it if you can't hear, Arny 8^).

Sorry, I'm not Arny (well...maybe not that sorry ;-)

snip

Well, I feel for you then.

Why? Is that a bad thing?

Yes, IMO it is. That you can't get the "magic" of musical enjoyment
from the predominantly availble recording medium strikes me as
unfortunate. If it doesn't bother you then fine.

Do you feel for people who prefer spinach over,
say, broccoli? Because feeling sorry for someone who's taste differs from
yours is a pretty empty procedure (and I'm pretty sure it's an arrogant one
too).

If one could only rarely get spinach, and only at high cost (while
having heretofore enjoyed spinach cheaply and in abundance), while
broccoli was ubiquitous and cheap, then yes I would consider that
equally unfortunate. It's not an issue of taste, it's an issue of
availability and access to ones' items of preference. And if you
believe commiseration equals arrogance, then clearly we are at a
communication impasse.

I'll feel equally sorry for myself when CDs die and downloaded digital
(and predominantly lower bitrate MP3's were I hazard a guess) formats
become the only readily accessible format for recorded music.

Keith Hughes

[Arny Krueger]

"---MIKE---" wrote in message


This has been suggested a number of times before. Take a
"super" LP and copy it onto a CD. Then see if the
"magic" is still there. If it is then that proves the CD
system is accurate and that the "magic" is from euphonic
distortions from the LP.

If one does a level-matched, time-synched, blind test then no listener has
ever reliably detected a difference between LP playback, and LP playback
digitized with good 16/44 digital gear.

If one does a level-matched, time-synched, sighted test then just about any
person, even a deaf person can ever reliably detect a difference between LP
playback, and LP playback digitized with good 16/44 digital gear.

It is therefore safe to assume that sighted bias would be the explanation
for any audible difference that might be perceived under sighted conditions.

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" wrote in message


You ignore my overall point, however.

No, I buried with good logic.

My reaction to the
sound of vinyl is that, at it's best, it evokes similar
emotional responses from me (and obviously others) as
does the sound of real music played in real space and CDs
mostly do not.

That's all fine and good, but that reaction is yours to hold and enjoy and
for many of the rest of us to marvel at its improbability.

Even when they don't leave me completely
cold, they don't evoke in me the feeling of well being
and joy that I get from the very best vinyl. Now, there
has to be a reason for this.

The reason for this is described in great detail and with a goodly number of
footnotes in a recent book entitled "This Is Your Brain on Music" by Daniel
J. Levitin.

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" wrote in message

On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 06:46:05 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in
message
On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 03:30:41 -0800, KH wrote
(in article ):

On 2/12/2010 12:57 PM, Audio Empire wrote:
On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 07:25:10 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in ):

"Robert wrote in
message

snip

The CD format is an sonically accurate medium. Do
things right and the good results accurately show up
at the output terminals of the player. Do things
wrong, and the bad results show up in the same place.

I disagree. Strongly. The CD format is a
WAVEFORM-ACCURATE format.

I believe that is exactly what he was saying.

No. he said that it was sonically accurate.

This is as much of a proven fact as such facts exist in
audio. In many experiments, some even documented in
august journals such as the JAES, it has been shown that
the interposition of a good digital link, is not
detectable by human ears, even the ears of experienced
listeners listening to the best modern recordings that
they can find, using high quality associated compoents
such as high end and also professional grade amplifiers
and speakers.

Digital doesn't record sound, it records
ones-and-zeros.

This excludes two well-known components of a working
digital link, namely the ADC and DAC. Therefore it is a
entirely incomplete statement, and no theory, hypothesis
or experimental result based on it is valid.

The discussion awaits a proper and relevant recitation
of how digital audio works.

I know how digital audio works,

Then please provide a proper and relevant recitiation of how digital works,
or a well-supported explanation of why it does not work.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Feb 14, 7:43=A0pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"---MIKE---" wrote in message



This has been suggested a number of times before. =A0Take a
"super" LP and copy it onto a CD. =A0Then see if the
"magic" is still there. =A0If it is then that proves the CD
system is accurate and that the "magic" is from euphonic
distortions from the LP.

If one does a level-matched, time-synched, blind test then no listener ha=
s
ever reliably detected a difference between LP playback, and LP playback
digitized with good 16/44 digital gear.



Not true. Steve Hoffman ,amd Kevin Gray did just that and did detect
differences.


If one does a level-matched, time-synched, sighted test then just about a=
ny
person, even a deaf person can ever reliably detect a difference between =
LP
playback, and LP playback digitized with good 16/44 digital gear.



And yet at the same session both Steve Hoffman and Kevin Gray could
not detect a difference between a laquer played back on the cutting
lathe and the master tape. If they were deaf they would not have heard
the difference between the master tape and the 16/44 copy they had
just mastered so easily.


It is therefore safe to assume that sighted bias would be the explanation
for any audible difference that might be perceived under sighted conditio=
ns.


It is never safe to draw such strong conclusions on data that is so
shakey.

[Audio Empire]

On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 19:43:58 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"---MIKE---" wrote in message


This has been suggested a number of times before. Take a
"super" LP and copy it onto a CD. Then see if the
"magic" is still there. If it is then that proves the CD
system is accurate and that the "magic" is from euphonic
distortions from the LP.

If one does a level-matched, time-synched, blind test then no listener has
ever reliably detected a difference between LP playback, and LP playback
digitized with good 16/44 digital gear.

My experience certainly tells me this is true. I can't even tell the
difference when the levels aren't any more carefully matched than an aural
approximation.

If one does a level-matched, time-synched, sighted test then just about any
person, even a deaf person can ever reliably detect a difference between LP
playback, and LP playback digitized with good 16/44 digital gear.

???? This seems to contradict your first statement above.

It is therefore safe to assume that sighted bias would be the explanation
for any audible difference that might be perceived under sighted conditions.

I've never detected any. A CD copy of an LP sounds so close to identical to
the LP itself that even without it being carefully level adjusted and double
blind, I doubt seriously if ANYONE could tell any difference (hint: there
shouldn't be any).

[Audio Empire]

On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 19:43:48 -0800, KH wrote
(in article ):

On 2/14/2010 5:59 PM, Audio Empire wrote:
On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 11:02:22 -0800, KH wrote
(in ):

On 2/13/2010 6:44 PM, Audio Empire wrote:
On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 03:30:41 -0800, KH wrote
(in ):



Well, I can't help it if you can't hear, Arny 8^).

Sorry, I'm not Arny (well...maybe not that sorry ;-)

snip

Well, I feel for you then.

Why? Is that a bad thing?

Yes, IMO it is. That you can't get the "magic" of musical enjoyment
from the predominantly availble recording medium strikes me as
unfortunate. If it doesn't bother you then fine.

Do you feel for people who prefer spinach over,
say, broccoli? Because feeling sorry for someone who's taste differs from
yours is a pretty empty procedure (and I'm pretty sure it's an arrogant one
too).

If one could only rarely get spinach, and only at high cost (while
having heretofore enjoyed spinach cheaply and in abundance), while
broccoli was ubiquitous and cheap, then yes I would consider that
equally unfortunate. It's not an issue of taste, it's an issue of
availability and access to ones' items of preference. And if you
believe commiseration equals arrogance, then clearly we are at a
communication impasse.

In this case, your commiseration is unwarranted. I have thousands of LPs. The
kind of music to which I predominately listen (classical), has largely been
recorded in the past in renditions that are considered definitive. For
instance, Bruno Walter's stereo recordings with the NY Philharmonic of
Beethoven's symphonies are not improved upon by "modern" renditions overseen
by any 21st century conductors. Post Glenn Gould performances of Bach's
Brandenburg Concertos, for instance, really add nothing that Mssr. Gould
didn't already say in his readings of the works. So modern recordings don't
really mean that much when those works on LP are already considered the
finest ever recorded.

I'll feel equally sorry for myself when CDs die and downloaded digital
(and predominantly lower bitrate MP3's were I hazard a guess) formats
become the only readily accessible format for recorded music.

But the techno-freaks who post here will tell you that MP3s are
indistinguishable from your beloved CDs because they are "newer technology"
and newer technology simply MUST be better than old, and uncompressed digital
music is OLD technology and is therefore inferior. And as CD displaced LP, so
must MP3 supplant CD - or something like that 8^)

Look at it this way, it seems like you will be able to download 24-bit, 88 or
96 Khz (and maybe a smattering of 192 KHz as well) for a while to come. I
record at 24-bit (32-bit floating, actually) 96 and 192 Khz and I can
certainly hear the improvement over 16-bit 44.1 Khz.

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott" wrote in message

On Feb 14, 7:43=A0pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"---MIKE---" wrote in message



This has been suggested a number of times before.
=A0Take a "super" LP and copy it onto a CD. =A0Then see
if the "magic" is still there. =A0If it is then that
proves the CD system is accurate and that the "magic"
is from euphonic distortions from the LP.

If one does a level-matched, time-synched, blind test
then no listener ha= s ever reliably detected a
difference between LP playback, and LP playback
digitized with good 16/44 digital gear.

Not true. Steve Hoffman ,amd Kevin Gray did just that
and did detect differences.

Reliable documentation of any kind?

Documentation for what I say can be found in the JAES. Got a source with
comparable peer reviews and industry acceptance?

"
Audibility of a CD-Standard A/DA/A Loop Inserted into High-Resolution Audio
Playback


"Claims both published and anecdotal are regularly made for audibly superior
sound quality for two-channel audio encoded with longer word lengths and/or
at higher sampling rates than the 16-bit/44.1-kHz CD standard. The authors
report on a series of double-blind tests comparing the analog output of
high-resolution players playing high-resolution recordings with the same
signal passed through a 16-bit/44.1-kHz “bottleneck.” The tests were
conducted for over a year using different systems and a variety of subjects.
The systems included expensive professional monitors and one high-end system
with electrostatic loudspeakers and expensive components and cables. The
subjects included professional recording engineers, students in a university
recording program, and dedicated audiophiles. The test results show that the
CD-quality A/D/A loop was undetectable at normal-to-loud listening levels,
by any of the subjects, on any of the playback systems. The noise of the
CD-quality loop was audible only at very elevated levels.

Authors: Meyer, E. Brad; Moran, David R.
Affiliation: Boston Audio Society, Lincoln, MA, USA
JAES Volume 55 Issue 9 pp. 775-779; September 2007

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" wrote in message


But the techno-freaks who post here will tell you that
MP3s are indistinguishable from your beloved CDs because
they are "newer technology" and newer technology simply
MUST be better than old, and uncompressed digital music
is OLD technology and is therefore inferior.


First off, I don't see the point of the name-calling. Let's be fair - if
someone calls out "techno freak" we are all arguably guilty! ;-)

Secondly, the reason why *I* will tell you that a good MP3 is
indistingushable from the CD used to make it because I have extensively and
scientifically tested that situation on many varied occasions and am in both
personal and online contact with 100s of others who have done the same.

And for the record, not all MP3s sound like the CDs used to make them.
You've got to use some good judgement about choice of encoding software and
the parameters used to control the encoding process.


Look at it this way, it seems like you will be able to
download 24-bit, 88 or 96 Khz (and maybe a smattering of
192 KHz as well) for a while to come. I record at 24-bit
(32-bit floating, actually) 96 and 192 Khz and I can
certainly hear the improvement over 16-bit 44.1 Khz.

Level-matched, time-synched, bias-controlled tests?

[---MIKE---]

Audio Empire wrote:

Bruno Walter's stereo recordings with
the NY Philharmonic of Beethoven's
symphonies

????? I don't think Bruno Walter made any STEREO recordings of Beethoven
symphonies with the NY Philharmonic.
He re-recorded these symphonies in California with the Columbia
symphony.


---MIKE---
In the White Mountains of New Hampshire
(44=B0 15' N - Elevation 1580')

[Audio Empire]

On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 09:10:09 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Scott" wrote in message

On Feb 14, 7:43=3DA0pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"---MIKE---" wrote in message
=20

=20
This has been suggested a number of times before.
=3DA0Take a "super" LP and copy it onto a CD. =3DA0Then see
if the "magic" is still there. =3DA0If it is then that
proves the CD system is accurate and that the "magic"
is from euphonic distortions from the LP.
=20
If one does a level-matched, time-synched, blind test
then no listener ha=3D s ever reliably detected a
difference between LP playback, and LP playback
digitized with good 16/44 digital gear.
=20
Not true. Steve Hoffman ,amd Kevin Gray did just that
and did detect differences.
=20
Reliable documentation of any kind?
=20
Documentation for what I say can be found in the JAES. Got a source wi=
th=20
comparable peer reviews and industry acceptance?
=20
"
Audibility of a CD-Standard A/DA/A Loop Inserted into High-Resolution A=
udio=20
Playback
=20
=20
"Claims both published and anecdotal are regularly made for audibly sup=
erior=20
sound quality for two-channel audio encoded with longer word lengths an=
d/or=20
at higher sampling rates than the 16-bit/44.1-kHz CD standard. The auth=
ors=20
report on a series of double-blind tests comparing the analog output of=
=20
high-resolution players playing high-resolution recordings with the sam=
e=20
signal passed through a 16-bit/44.1-kHz =93bottleneck.=94 The tests wer=
e=20
conducted for over a year using different systems and a variety of subj=
ects.=20
The systems included expensive professional monitors and one high-end s=
ystem=20
with electrostatic loudspeakers and expensive components and cables. Th=
e=20
subjects included professional recording engineers, students in a unive=
rsity=20
recording program, and dedicated audiophiles. The test results show tha=
t the=20
CD-quality A/D/A loop was undetectable at normal-to-loud listening leve=
ls,=20
by any of the subjects, on any of the playback systems. The noise of th=
e=20
CD-quality loop was audible only at very elevated levels.
=20
Authors: Meyer, E. Brad; Moran, David R.
Affiliation: Boston Audio Society, Lincoln, MA, USA
JAES Volume 55 Issue 9 pp. 775-779; September 2007=20
=20
=20

I see a reference to an A/D/A loop above, but none to vinyl. Did they use=
=20
records for the "A" or master analog tapes? This paper proves nothing abo=
ut=20
whether the "magic" (as the OP called it) of LP can be captured by CD so =
that=20
one cannot tell whether the CD is playing or the LP from which it was mad=
e IF=20
an LP wasn't used in the test. The test also seems to concentrate on 16/4=
4.1=20
vs higher resolution formats rather than vinyl to CD, so I'm not sure wha=
t=20
relevance it has to the questions (above) that the OP asked.=20

[Audio Empire]

On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 13:04:18 -0800, MIKE--- wrote
(in article ):

Audio Empire wrote:

Bruno Walter's stereo recordings with
the NY Philharmonic of Beethoven's
symphonies

????? I don't think Bruno Walter made any STEREO recordings of Beethoven
symphonies with the NY Philharmonic.
He re-recorded these symphonies in California with the Columbia
symphony.


---MIKE---
In the White Mountains of New Hampshire
(44=B0 15' N - Elevation 1580')


You're right. Mea Culpa. I was thinking of the Mahler cycle with the NYP. The
Beethoven was with the Columbia Symphony Orchestra.

[cjt]

Audio Empire wrote:
On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 11:02:22 -0800, KH wrote
(in article ):

On 2/13/2010 6:44 PM, Audio Empire wrote:
On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 03:30:41 -0800, KH wrote
(in ):



[ Excessive quotation snipped by moderator -- dsr ]


I like LP sound because it sounds* (for whatever reason) more like REAL
music. and I hear more of that than most people.
Good for you. No one is arguing that LP doesn't sound more like live
music *to you*. My argument is with the often seen "LP sounds more like
live music to those who really know what that is" and the "people who
care about *quality* over convenience prefer LP" crowd. Both are simply
untrue in my case.


snip

I think one big difference between LPs and CDs is that CDs have
considerably more usable dynamic range (due to LP noise levels).
That SHOULD allow a much more realistic experience. Unfortunately,
recording engineers throw much of the value away by over-use of
compression, in order to deliver more "punch" for radio audiences.

While compression was used (of necessity) in creating LPs, my
impression is that it was less pronounced than in modern CD recordings.

I thus contend that CDs have more potential for realistic delivery,
but that LPs, for all their faults, in some instances deliver more
compelling experiences.

[KH]

On 2/15/2010 9:05 AM, Audio Empire wrote:
On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 19:43:48 -0800, KH wrote
(in ):

snip

I'll feel equally sorry for myself when CDs die and downloaded digital
(and predominantly lower bitrate MP3's were I hazard a guess) formats
become the only readily accessible format for recorded music.

But the techno-freaks who post here will tell you that MP3s are
indistinguishable from your beloved CDs because they are "newer technology"
and newer technology simply MUST be better than old, and uncompressed digital
music is OLD technology and is therefore inferior.

I don't believe I've seen that claim posted here. New technology
*tends* to be better, but sometimes the "better" is related to being
cheaper/easier/more reliable to produce.

And as CD displaced LP, so
must MP3 supplant CD - or something like that 8^)

I don't say "must", but it sure seems likely. But similar to my
aversion to the idea of a Kindle-type product, I have issues with the
download distribution and control models irrespective of the sound
quality. I like having CD's that I can physically own and do with as I
please (without having to download, then burn them myself) and books
that I can actually hold in my hands with real turnable pages. And
neither Amazon nor Google can E-snatch my CD's from their cases, or my
books from their shelves.

Keith Hughes

[Audio Empire]

On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 09:10:18 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in message


But the techno-freaks who post here will tell you that
MP3s are indistinguishable from your beloved CDs because
they are "newer technology" and newer technology simply
MUST be better than old, and uncompressed digital music
is OLD technology and is therefore inferior.


First off, I don't see the point of the name-calling. Let's be fair - if
someone calls out "techno freak" we are all arguably guilty! ;-)

It's no more name-calling than the word "geek" or "Computer-Nerd", but it is
a label. It refers to someone involved in the audio hobby who is more in love
with technology than they are with the music. I didn't invent the term, and I
aimed it at no person in particular (although that doesn't mean that I don't
have several candidates in mind).

Secondly, the reason why *I* will tell you that a good MP3 is
indistingushable from the CD used to make it because I have extensively and
scientifically tested that situation on many varied occasions and am in both
personal and online contact with 100s of others who have done the same.

Like I said.....

And for the record, not all MP3s sound like the CDs used to make them.
You've got to use some good judgement about choice of encoding software and
the parameters used to control the encoding process.

Look at it this way, it seems like you will be able to
download 24-bit, 88 or 96 Khz (and maybe a smattering of
192 KHz as well) for a while to come. I record at 24-bit
(32-bit floating, actually) 96 and 192 Khz and I can
certainly hear the improvement over 16-bit 44.1 Khz.

Level-matched, time-synched, bias-controlled tests?

Well, only sort of, accidentally. How about inadvertently recording a live
event using 16/44.1 when one meant to use 24/96 and not noticing the settings
on the recording device (so many things to think about when recording live).
When playing back the recording at home directly off of the recording device,
I noticed that something didn't sound exactly right (this is an ensemble that
I have recorded many times in the same venue using the same setup). Checking,
the settings on the recording device (a ZOOM H4N) I see that it had been
accidently reset to it's default, 16-bit/44.1 KHz. I'm not saying that this
is strictly controlled, but it certainly was double-blind in that I didn't
know it was recorded at the wrong bit-depth and sample rate nor did I know it
when I was listening to the recording the next day. So *I* was certainly
"double-blind" even if the test wasn't!