Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#161
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
No Interconnect is the Best
"flipper" wrote in message
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 18:16:40 -0500, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "flipper" wrote in message news On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 08:46:29 +0200, "Iain Churches" wrote: "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... snips What really happened is that almost nobody has time any more for listening to music exclusively. They typically listen to music while they are doing something else. In that sort of environment, dynamic range is not always your friend. Talk to people, Arny. You will find that most think that compressed lossy formats and smiley EQ sound "quite OK" That's the crux of the matter. That may be debatable too. Like, if sliced, diced, mulched, and mashed is all there is then what's to compare against? People like to listen to music, but they often don't have the time to listen to it exclusively. That is a fact not an explanation. The levels of expectation have fallen dramatically. I wonder if that's really true. Its not true, if you expand your horizons. If you go back to the 50's and 60's the situation was not all that different with a rather small segment involved with 'hi-fi' and the rest getting most of their 'music' via TV, radio (home or in the car), the malt shop juke box, a home 'record player' (not to be confused with 'audiophile turntable'), portable radios or,.later, 8 track and cassette tape players. The discerning customer now has a complex HT system, and great-sounding audio in his car and portable on foot. That they shove a compressed to hell and back brick wall clipped CD into. That they also shove wide dynamic range CDs and DVDs into. But you can't sand to admit that, can you flip-off? But hey, that'll be 'fixed' by lossy MP3 (or the mangler of your choice) compression, right? MP3 compression is not necessarily the same thing as mangling. It is a means to an end, one that is fortunately less necessary than it has been in the past. If you think that MP3 is necessarily mangling, you ought to do some bias-controlled listening tests and compare what the LP format does along the lines of mangling music, as compared to a good high-bitrate MP3. It's not a pretty picture, and the LP loses. People ain't buying $300 IEMs because they can tolerate mediocre sound quality. I guess none of them buy CDs then. Contrary to your limited view of reality flip-off, not all CDs are compressed to Bagdahd and back again. In fact there is a large supply of CDs and DVDs with excellent, even lifelike dynamic range and over-all sound quality. The abilitiies of the CD format to accurately handle wide dynamic range contrasts with material recorded on LP, which was either played with restrained dynamics or recorded with gain-riding, or automated compression, because the LP format is at best marginally competent, and usually incompetent to handle the demands of music that naturally has a wide dynamic range. Ever seriously listen to an Ipod or equivalent with high quality IEMs? I didn't think so! :-( Back to your figments again. IOW flip-off, your answer is no. OK, you're ignorant of the full benefits of modern technology. I can live with that! ;-) |
#162
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
No Interconnect is the Best
"flipper" wrote in message
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 17:22:13 -0500, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "flipper" wrote in message On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 23:22:59 -0500, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "flipper" wrote in message On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 10:35:29 +0200, "Iain Churches" wrote: What the current situation shows is the total apathy of the public to a poor sounding product The usual sort of talking down the nose that we have come to expect from Iain. All he's doing is summarizing the results of various studies on the matter. Figments of your imagination, flip-off. No, Mr. Blarny, it's a matter of reading for the purpose of communication, as opposed to your purpose of picking the next insult to hurl. Thanks flip-off for describing yourself so well in the last phrase in that sentence. What really happened is that almost nobody has time any more for listening to music exclusively. They typically listen to music while they are doing something else. In that sort of environment, dynamic range is not always your friend. And all you've done is offer a possible reason for the apathy. The apathy comes from the business and priorities of modern life. Which, as I said, is simply a possible reason for the apathy. You're going around in circles, flip-off. People like to listen to music, but they often don't have the time to listen to it exclusively. That might explain why they don't 'notice' they're being sold an inferior product. Wrong again, flip-off. The product they are buying is the product that they desire for the listening environment in which they use it. Please show me the study showing that, given the choice, people 'desire' inferior quality. Why would what they want, be inferior to them? I'll give you one thing, though, it's a terrific sounding excuse for what the studios acknowledge is a 'loudness war' having not one thing to do with the 'listening environment, 'style', or sound quality. But it does have to do with the 'listening environment, 'style', and/or sound quality. When people make a CD or MP3 with reduced dynamics, they don't do it due to limitations of the medium. This contrasts with the LP format, due to its inherently limited dynamic range. The human mind has an incredible knack for 'adjusting' to whatever is available, especially when there's no comparison. That explains why we tolerated analog media, including the LP so long. No, the original reason we 'tolerated' analog and the LP for so long is they were the only choice for so long. Flip-off, I take that to mean that open reel tapes were never available to you in the days of the LP? Hate to ruin your fantasy but "open reel tapes... in the days of the LP" were "analog," The point being that they were free of many of the audible limitations of the LP. As a rule, open reel tapes had far more dynamic range than LPs. They were readily available consumer products during most of the heyday of the stereo LP. Therefore, the stereo LP was not the only choice when it was king. I didn't say LP was the 'only choice'. Yes you did. You mentioned no other medium than the LP. If you really wanted to know why LP was more popular than open reel tape I'd suggest you read my comments to Ian about "convenience" but, then, you don't really want to know anything, or have a rational discussion. You just want to hurl insults around. You started it, flip off. Your first post was a nasty attack. "No wonder there's a 'debate' about vinyl being better. You've got the digital CD folks arguing the quality of the medium but they put crap on it. Then say "but there's no hiss or pops." Yeah, but the music sounds like CRAP. But the CD has so much more dynamic range. Yeah, and then they compress it to 6dB and make it CRAP." Would it break your fingers to present a balanced view, flip-off? Now it's because the supposedly 'superior' media is crippled by intentionally mangling the material put on it. There is no supposedness to the superiority of the LP format I presume you meant audio CD format here. True either way you want it. The two formats are what they are. The CD format is not supposedly superior, it is actually and undenyably superior. The LP format is not supposedly superior, it is actually and undenyably and inferior. over the mostly long gone but not often lamented LP format. Not gone. That's why I said "mostly long gone". Talk about distorting what someone types for the purpose of making up a disagreement where there was none! It is a scientific fact. Sorry to hear flip-off that like awareness of the benefits of open reel tapes, you never learned about this. Another "figments of your imagination" and here's a surprise for you, Mr Blarny, I not only had a 7" open reel tape recorder/player, in addition to my Dual 1219 turntable, I still have it, and in perfect working condition. "Perfect working condition" as applied to any analog medium is an oxymoron. Yeah. The arguments about people listening mostly in cars and iPODs is interesting ´ Those who doubt obviously need to get out more. Guess what Mr. Blarny, I have an MP3 and car player too. So then why to you say the ignorant things that you say, flip-off? I didn't mean to argue with it because I haven't seen the data, just the 'conclusions' and arguments drawn. I mean, for example, did they ask people if they'd rather have a good sounding CD or a crap loud one? Or did they just ask if loud was 'good'? Excluded middle argument. Then go argue with the folks making the argument. I was into you butted-in, flip-off. Wrong, Mr Blarny. That was *my* conversation with Iain that *you* butted into. It went thusly Me: Yeah. The arguments about people listening mostly in cars and iPODs is interesting (plus what you snipped out) Iain: It's a bit more than an argument, it is the result of a study in which fairly large sections of the public were interviewed both in the EU and the States. Ant my reply above that you butted into, You both were talking trash, flip-off. What happens to the compressed music is that it is usually played at low levels. If it weren't compressed, it would not be heard much of the time. no response from either Iain or flip-off The truth went untrashed by them, this just once! Sounds like you're the one who needs to "get out more." Wrong, flip-off. I personally find highly compressed music so repulsive that I would prefer to not listen to music at all, rather than to listen to such a thing. Which just goes to prove your only purpose in any of this is to be an ass. If being an ass is a problem for you flip-off, why not cure yourself first? But that's my personal preference, and one that is not shared by everybody. I can live with that, and I don't need to write ignorant posts Then why do you spend so much time doing so? As the saying goes flip-off, if you don't like my posts, don't respond to them. That puts an end to them right quick! Sorry that you lack the intelligence to figure this out for yourself. :-( bemoaning it, or suggesting irrelevant solutions for the problem, or suggesting ideas as new innovations when they have already been sold on the market for some years. I couldn't care less what someone else's 'preferences' are, until they infringe on mine... like being unable to get a properly mastered CD. Fact is that getting properly mastered CDs is very possible. OK, you've been disappointed a few times lately. Did you complain to anybody that could actually make a difference? |
#163
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
No Interconnect is the Best
"Iain Churches" wrote in message
ti.fi "Arny Krueger" wrote in message . .. Flip-off, I take that to mean that open reel tapes were never available to you in the days of the LP? As a rule, open reel tapes had far more dynamic range than LPs. They were readily available consumer products during most of the heyday of the stereo LP. Therefore, the stereo LP was not the only choice when it was king. Arny. I cannot decide if you really are as poorly informed as you are trying to make Flipper believe, or if you are just arguing with him for the sake of argument. Open reel tapes were manufactured by high speed duplication, for playback at 19cms (71/2 ips) Yes. They had no NR, Dolby open reel tapes made an appearance. and the FR was typically -3dB at 12kHz. Not necessarily a problem. The SNR was 50dB. Simply false as a generality. This is greatly inferior to the LP. Wrong. Also, it is a cherry-picked set of parameters that ignore important dimensions of the listening experience. Perhaps you could not hear the difference? Perhaps I didn't like the crappy low frequency response, the inner groove and loud passage distortion, the tics and pops, etc., etc., etc. . There was some discussion within the industry about selling reel to reel tape copies at 15 ips made in real-time (as supplied to radio stations) But this would have meant the use of NAB reels, which most domestic machines cannot accommodate, That is all false. You can make 15 ips tapes with standard reels, been there, done that. and there was also fear about the possibility of these being used to make pirate audio cassettes. As if the absence of good masters stopped anybody from doing that. The cost too would have been much greater than the LP. Just goes to show that the major producers didn't think that there was a legitimate market for a product that good. Of course the first CD could do just about everything that much better than even 15 ips tape. So, the problems that they thought they would solve by not making good pre-recorded tapes were on top of them in spades once they had to start selling CDs. |
#164
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
No Interconnect is the Best
"Iain Churches" wrote in message
i.fi "Iain Churches" wrote in message ti.fi... Open reel tapes were manufactured by high speed duplication, for playback at 19cms (71/2 ips) They had no NR, and the FR was typically -3dB at 12kHz. The SNR was 50dB. This is greatly inferior to the LP. Perhaps you could not hear the difference? There was some discussion within the industry about selling reel to reel tape copies at 15 ips made in real-time (as supplied to radio stations) But this would have meant the use of NAB reels, which most domestic machines cannot accommodate, and there was also fear about the possibility of these being used to make pirate audio cassettes. The cost too would have been much greater than the LP. PS Just had an e-mail. It seems that open reel tape copies were also available in the US at 3 3/4 ips on 5" reels. Now they *must* have been better than the LP :-))) They tried 3 3/4 ips open reel tapes near the end, and that pretty well killed off the open reel as a consumer format. Been there, done that too. It was pretty grevious. |
#165
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
No Interconnect is the Best
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message . .. "Iain Churches" wrote in message ti.fi "Arny Krueger" wrote in message . .. Flip-off, I take that to mean that open reel tapes were never available to you in the days of the LP? As a rule, open reel tapes had far more dynamic range than LPs. They were readily available consumer products during most of the heyday of the stereo LP. Therefore, the stereo LP was not the only choice when it was king. Arny. I cannot decide if you really are as poorly informed as you are trying to make Flipper believe, or if you are just arguing with him for the sake of argument. Open reel tapes were manufactured by high speed duplication, for playback at 19cms (71/2 ips) Yes. They had no NR, Dolby open reel tapes made an appearance. Morning Arny. To be more specific: Dolby B in *very* limited quantity. The information I have states that there were no Dolby A or SR tapes made available retail to the general public. and the FR was typically -3dB at 12kHz. Not necessarily a problem. But still nowhere near as good as the performance of the LP, a format which you hold in such low regard. There is no logic in your reasoning Arny. The SNR was 50dB. Simply false as a generality. Spot on fact. I worked for two companies which produced such tapes at 19 cm/s They were nothing like as good as the LP, and never claimed to be, either. In addition domestic tape recorders could rarely do justice to the recording. There were of course exceptions, the Revox being the best known. This is greatly inferior to the LP. Wrong. Also, it is a cherry-picked set of parameters that ignore important dimensions of the listening experience. Right. These parameters are those that determine the technical quality of the product, and disprove your absurd claim that commercial open-reel releases where better than vinyl. Perhaps you could not hear the difference? Perhaps I didn't like the crappy low frequency response, the inner groove and loud passage distortion, the tics and pops, etc., etc., etc. Perhaps you have never had access to a good vinyl replay system. You have made it clear what a penny pincher you are, and so probably don't know what a Garrard 401, SME 3012 and Shure V15/III (or equivalent) can do. Spend some time with an EMT, SME 30/2 or Verdier turntable, and Shure V15, EMT or Ortofon MC cartridge. Get yourself a good vinyl system, a Radford tube amp, a pair of B+W 801D speakers, and start to live a little, Arny. Investigate your American musical heritage, Charles Ives, Ernest Bloch, ( Swiss born:-) Aaron Copland, Leonard Bernstein, Arnold Schoenberg (Austrian born:-) etc etc. A turntable is good for this because there is a great deal of interesting material that has never been released on CD. Hopefully this will give you some other purpose in life than heckling on R.A.T:-) There was some discussion within the industry about selling reel to reel tape copies at 15 ips made in real-time (as supplied to radio stations) But this would have meant the use of NAB reels, which most domestic machines cannot accommodate, That is all false. You can make 15 ips tapes with standard reels, been there, done that. Clearly you have been nowhere and done nothing:-) Surveys at the time indicated that the main market for high speed open-reel tape copies would have been to classical music listeners. A complete symphony cannot be accomodated on a 7" or even an 8 1/4inch reel using standard play tape at 38cm/s. That was the main reason no high-speed commercial releases were made. You appear to be woefully ignorant in these matters, Arny. The cost too would have been much greater than the LP. Just goes to show that the major producers didn't think that there was a legitimate market for a product that good. They were right. There wasn't:-) A study showed the production cost to be some twenty times that of a vinyl pressing in a gatefold sleeve. HS tape duplication was in its infancy then, and did not really mature until the arrival of the audio cassette. Of course the first CD could do just about everything that much better than even 15 ips tape. No one denies the potential of the CD. The current problem, as Flipper is so patiently trying to point out to you, is that people with low levels of expectation, and you appear to be one of them, seem to prefer heavily equalised, heavily compressed and drasticlly clipped CD production. As a result the full potential of CD is, in many cases, not being realised, and those of us with higher expectations are often sadly disappointed. This in turn is giving many others the impression that vinyl pressings (especially with the recent quantum leap in quality) are superior. I received the Sony German catalogue this morning. They have a weekly supplement of new 180gr vinyl releases. So there is still a demand for quality:-) Iain |
#166
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
No Interconnect is the Best
"Iain Churches" wrote in message
ti.fi "Arny Krueger" wrote in message . .. "Iain Churches" wrote in message ti.fi "Arny Krueger" wrote in message . .. Flip-off, I take that to mean that open reel tapes were never available to you in the days of the LP? As a rule, open reel tapes had far more dynamic range than LPs. They were readily available consumer products during most of the heyday of the stereo LP. Therefore, the stereo LP was not the only choice when it was king. Arny. I cannot decide if you really are as poorly informed as you are trying to make Flipper believe, or if you are just arguing with him for the sake of argument. Open reel tapes were manufactured by high speed duplication, for playback at 19cms (71/2 ips) Yes. They had no NR, Dolby open reel tapes made an appearance. To be more specific: Dolby B in *very* limited quantity. Not the same as *no NR*. So that makes you wrong again, Iain. The information I have states that there were no Dolby A or SR tapes made available retail to the general public. Neither of those formats is a consumer format. So naturally, they were not used in consumer products. and the FR was typically -3dB at 12kHz. Not necessarily a problem. But still nowhere near as good as the performance of the LP, a format which you hold in such low regard. Wrong again, Iain. The hook this time is the -3 dB, or if you will +/- 1.5 dB. Consumer LP playback systems rarely if ever went there, even in the midrange where a dB or two would matter quite a bit. There is no logic in your reasoning Arny. There is good logic you actually understand audio technology and know that -3 dB at 12 KHz is minor misunderstanding compared to what LP playback does to frequency response. There is if you actually ever saw a rack full of open reel tapes with Dolby B. The SNR was 50dB. Simply false as a generality. Spot on fact. I worked for two companies which produced such tapes at 19 cm/s They were nothing like as good as the LP, and never claimed to be, either. Well you worked for them Iain. What should we expect? In addition domestic tape recorders could rarely do justice to the recording. There were of course exceptions, the Revox being the best known. Again Iain, you're talking trash. There were tons of Sony and Teac open reel machines that would deliver 50 dB dynamic range. I personally sold dozens of them! And Revox was a top-selling brand in the U.S. This is greatly inferior to the LP. Wrong. Also, it is a cherry-picked set of parameters that ignore important dimensions of the listening experience. Right. These parameters are those that determine the technical quality of the product, Wrong again Iain. They are a subset of the parameters that determine the perceived sound quality of the product. And you got most of them wrong such as your false claim that there were no commercial open reel tapes that had NR. Being 3 dB down the top frequency extremes is not nearly as audible as the inherent trashing of the 500 Hz range in LPs. and disprove your absurd claim that commercial open-reel releases where better than vinyl. Only in your dreams, Iain. Sorry that open reel tape was such a POS in your neck of the woods. Perhaps you could not hear the difference? Perhaps I didn't like the crappy low frequency response, the inner groove and loud passage distortion, the tics and pops, etc., etc., etc. Perhaps you have never had access to a good vinyl replay system. Perhaps you are very full of yourself, Iain. If there was any doubt about my access to good vinyl replay systems, consider the two days I spent auditioning vinyl and tubes at HE2005. You have made it clear what a penny pincher you are, and so probably don't know what a Garrard 401, SME 3012 and Shure V15/III (or equivalent) can do. I always thought that the Garrard 401 was beneath the interest of a Thorens TD125 owner such as myself. I did own a SME arm and I did own Shure V15s II through IV. My current Rega-based system is not quite the same, but it gets the job done. Spend some time with an EMT, SME 30/2 or Verdier turntable, and Shure V15, EMT or Ortofon MC cartridge. Been there, done that. All of the above, I think. And more. And I also have a few new 180 gram vinyl pressings. Trouble is, vinyl just can't hack it in 2008, except as a legacy recording transcription object. However, this is only true if your hearing is still functional enough to hear the obvious flaws in vinyl playback. |
#167
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
No Interconnect is the Best
On Feb 1, 11:00*am, "Iain Churches" wrote:
Perhaps you have never had access to a good vinyl replay system. You have made it clear what a penny pincher you are, and so probably don't know what a Garrard 401, SME 3012 and Shure V15/III (or equivalent) can do. Spend some time with an EMT, SME 30/2 or Verdier turntable, and Shure V15, *EMT or Ortofon MC cartridge. Get yourself a good vinyl system, a Radford tube amp, a pair of B+W 801D speakers, and start to live a little, No need for tubes to get decent sound out of vinyl - and if one is attempting to educate a skeptic, adding additional parameters is a bad idea. Keep it simple and vary *only* one parameter at a time. So, to convince one of the potential of decent sound from vinyl, I would start with a linear-tracking tone-arm. Rabco and Revox come to mind as excellent examples of those species. I keep both, but the Rabco sees the most play. From there an MC cartridge with an active head-amp. Ortophon. If MM, Shure. The Ortophon is on the Rabco, the Shure on the Revox. Amplification should be something the listener understands and trusts. Similarly the speakers. This may require a separate phono-pre-amp, which would be unfortunate but necessary. Then, vary _ONLY_ the source. See what happens. Sadly, the sound of vinyl is unmistakable such that a listener with pre-conceived conclusions will be able to skew the test - unless one has the ability to add miscellaneous random clicks and pops every so often to another source to mask its nature. Put another way, this is an issue of true-believers and the invincibly ignorant. Never the twain shall meet. As to the quality of RtR tapes, with the exception of a relatively few machines (such as Revox, high-end Teac, some Tandbergs, and then those with built-in noise-reduction (Dolby B for Revox & Tandberg, DBX for Teac)) mass-produced 7" tapes at low speed did little to heighten the experience of the music. Further to this, I know of NO pre-recorded 10" RtR tapes with noise-reduction made for the general public. So, these wonderful machines (and I still have my Revox) were perfectly capable of making excellent recordings, and playing back such recordings - but there was no 'equivalent-of-vinyl' out there. So, they remained a very tiny component of the Audio market and the realm of the fanatical few. They have no place in any discussion comparing the relative qualities of an given source, comes to it. Along comes the CD, pretty much coincidental with the downward spiral of the mass audio market from specialty sellers (Sam Goody, Zounds, Silo, et. al.) to just another line in the big-box stores. And at about the same time, US makers of mass-items such as AR, Dynaco, Harmon-Kardon, Scott, Heath, Fisher, Marantz and many others either stopped making electronics entirely or sold their trade-marks to the Pacific Rim. Eventually they all went dark as dedicated specialists and all became parts of congomerates run by bean-counters. All this over a few years, of course *not* over night. Also coincidental to the rise of the Personal Audio Device, AKA Walkman. Meanwhile we trained an entire generation of TV-raised individuals that sound came from a 3" speaker with a laugh-track. And that discriminating listening was a waste of precious time when they could be indulging in recreational pharmaceuticals or having sex. And they trained their children that sounds come from ear-buds or 4-ounce computer speakers - both speakers, the wire and the power-supply. And you wonder where production music "professionals" got the idea that "good enough" was actually "too good"? Vinyl as it is "practiced" today is an esoteric medium and as such represents an effort where the actual costs-of-production (vinyl, lathes, packaging - NOT the musicians and such) are irrelevant to the cost of the product. People will LISTEN to something they have paid possibly-thousands to reproduce and serious bucks for the record. They will NOTICE faults and they will make VALID comparisons to other media. This does not require that their conclusions be valid, but it does mean that they are not the typical listener who is also multi- tasking on a Blackberry, driving a car or reading the newspaper, or all four. So, depending on one's peculiar point of view, the world is (pick one): a) in hell b) on its way to hell c) diving for the deeper reaches of hell e) has already achieved the greatest depth possible in hell f), g), h), i) Same list for heaven Against stupidity, the gods themselves contend in vain. Schiller Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA |
#168
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
No Interconnect is the Best
"Peter Wieck" wrote in message ... On Feb 1, 11:00 am, "Iain Churches" wrote: No need for tubes to get decent sound out of vinyl - and if one is attempting to educate a skeptic, adding additional parameters is a bad idea. Keep it simple and vary *only* one parameter at a time. Hello Peter. I enjoyed your post. I haven't a snowflake's chance in hell of convincing Arny of anything, particularly when he is in his "My-mind-is-made-up. Don't-confuse-me-with-facts" mode. And personally, I don't care either way, as long as people are listening to music, and enjoying the experience, they can use a wire recorder as far as I am concerned:-) The system I was suggesting was akin to something that was used to listen to vinyl in the 60s and 70s. I suggested modern speakers, the B+W 801s, as good vintage speakers are now often beyond the reach of most of us. So, to convince one of the potential of decent sound from vinyl, I would start with a linear-tracking tone-arm. Rabco and Revox come to mind as excellent examples of those species. I keep both, but the Rabco sees the most play. The Rabco is good. A colleague has one on a Technics SL1100. Like you, I have several turntables, including an EMT 948 - said by some to be the best turntable in the world - Americans pay huge sums of money for them. I also have a Garrard 401, SME/Shure V15 setup and Revox B790. Both the Garrard and the EMT are used for prof transcriptions. From there an MC cartridge with an active head-amp. Ortophon. If MM, Shure. The Ortophon is on the Rabco, the Shure on the Revox. The EMT has built in RIAA electronics, balanced output on XLR. I have a number of third party professionally built RIAA stages including a Decca studios original which I use with the 401. Sadly, the sound of vinyl is unmistakable such that a listener with pre-conceived conclusions will be able to skew the test - unless one has the ability to add miscellaneous random clicks and pops every so often to another source to mask its nature. Put another way, this is an issue of true-believers and the invincibly ignorant. Never the twain shall meet. Poor pressing quality was the Achilles' heel of the record industry for so many years. It was no surprise that the CD was made so welcome. It coiuld be produced at one tenth of the cost of an LP, and still retail at Euro 21 As to the quality of RtR tapes, with the exception of a relatively few machines (such as Revox, high-end Teac, some Tandbergs, and then those with built-in noise-reduction (Dolby B for Revox & Tandberg, DBX for Teac)) mass-produced 7" tapes at low speed did little to heighten the experience of the music. Indeed. They were offered as an option, but were never an improvement on the LP. HS tape duplication was in its infancy at that time, and 4:2 copying was pretty dire. Further to this, I know of NO pre-recorded 10" RtR tapes with noise-reduction made for the general public. That is correct. There were none as far as I know. The trend started with the record companies making such tapes available to radio stations. When the listeners got to know about this, there were requests from the public for them. The cost of production was too high to make this feasible, and there was also fear of piracy from cassette duplication. (Little did they know what was just around the corner......:-) So, these wonderful machines (and I still have my Revox) were perfectly capable of making excellent recordings, and playing back such recordings - but there was no 'equivalent-of-vinyl' out there. That was the point I was trying to make to Arny. Along comes the CD, pretty much coincidental with the downward spiral of the mass audio market from specialty sellers (Sam Goody, Zounds, Silo, et. al.) to just another line in the big-box stores. And at about the same time, US makers of mass-items such as AR, Dynaco, Harmon-Kardon, Scott, Heath, Fisher, Marantz and many others either stopped making electronics entirely or sold their trade-marks to the Pacific Rim. Eventually they all went dark as dedicated specialists and all became parts of congomerates run by bean-counters. All this over a few years, of course *not* over night. Also coincidental to the rise of the Personal Audio Device, AKA Walkman. We seem to have fared perhaps a little better here in Europe, although flagship firms like Quad and Leak are now in the hands of the Chinese. But there are many smaller bespoke equipment manufacturers supplying high end systems to a well-heeled discerning clientele. Meanwhile we trained an entire generation of TV-raised individuals that sound came from a 3" speaker with a laugh-track. And that discriminating listening was a waste of precious time when they could be indulging in recreational pharmaceuticals or having sex. And they trained their children that sounds come from ear-buds or 4-ounce computer speakers - both speakers, the wire and the power-supply. This is an area of considerable concern, and is directly linked to the levels of acceptance that people apply. Most people are happy with a dismally poor standard. And you wonder where production music "professionals" got the idea that "good enough" was actually "too good"? MI research has revealed that the vast majority of the CD buying public purchase chart material, which they play on portable systems and in their car. So, "loud is good". I know from talking to local record distributors and QC people that the number of "technical returns"are very small indeed. So the majority of the punters must be happy with their over-compressed clipped audio. The rest have to suffer on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. I tried to discuss with Arny the option that record companies could supply "clean" (uncompressed, unclipped) CDs which radio stations and also in car listeners could compress to their own liking, if there were audio compressors fitted to car players. Surely this would be a better option? But all this may change as the percentage of .mp3 download material has a greater and greater effect on CD sales. It may then be that pop CDs will disappear, and only specialised outlets selling classical and jazz CDs will be left, in the way that we now have vinyl only shops. We loive in interesting times. Vinyl as it is "practiced" today is an esoteric medium and as such represents an effort where the actual costs-of-production (vinyl, lathes, packaging - NOT the musicians and such) are irrelevant to the cost of the product. People will LISTEN to something they have paid possibly-thousands to reproduce and serious bucks for the record. A double LP from the US, Japan, Germany or the UK costs the equivalent of USD45 here in Europe. That is not a lot of money for something that will give so much pleasure for so many years. Besides sounding good, LPs are also terribly tactile. I have several Decca classical boxed sets of recordings on which I worked. These pressings are cleaned regularly, and in pristine condition. I put the first side on the turntable, open the four-colour booklet and the score on my knee, take a sip from my Irish coffee, press "Play" on the EMT and let the music begin. I am never disappointed. You may or may not have heard about this new Ray Charles/Count Basie double LP, Peter. I started a thread about it on this group which did not attract any interest. It is an intriguing project in that the vocals were peeled-off concert recordings from London and Berlin in the 1970s and the Count Basie Orchestra backing tracks were rercorded in 2006. This recording was released as a limited edition double LP, in a fine gatefold sleeve, with a multipage insert with colour pics etc. A vinyl presentation at its best. I played my copy (no 661) with great interest, and made a transcription straight from the EMT to CD There was not a click or pop on any of the four sides. It is a fantastic listening experience, bright, full and dynamic without a hint of compression. They will NOTICE faults and they will make VALID comparisons to other media. This does not require that their conclusions be valid, but it does mean that they are not the typical listener who is also multi- tasking on a Blackberry, driving a car or reading the newspaper, or all four. Happily the type of music with which I am involved is not subject to the "louder is better" syndrome, and so most CDs are mastered immaculately. So, depending on one's peculiar point of view, the world is (pick one): a) in hell b) on its way to hell c) diving for the deeper reaches of hell e) has already achieved the greatest depth possible in hell f), g), h), i) Same list for heaven :-)) Personally, I am pretty happy with the situation. I enjoy CDs if properly mastered and also good vinyl. Even after 25 years, there is still a huge amount of material not available on CD. I also play and enjoy shellac 78s for the same reason. Hi-Fi is not the hobby it was back in the 1970s. There are now a thousand other things competing for your time. Most people seem to want plug-and-play, instant gratification from music which is here today and gone tomorrow. Me? I'm happy on a carousel of Ellington, Charlie Parker, John Coltrane, Jean Sibelius, Dvorak, Shostakovich, Thomas Arne, Abba, Jethro Tull, Moody Blues etc etc. Best regards Iain |
#169
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
No Interconnect is the Best
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Iain Churches" wrote in message ti.fi "Arny Krueger" wrote in message . .. "Iain Churches" wrote in message i.fi "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "flipper" wrote in message On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 10:35:29 +0200, "Iain Churches" wrote: What the current situation shows is the total apathy of the public to a poor sounding product The usual sort of talking down the nose that we have come to expect from Iain. I am a recording professional, so is it not natural that quality should be a concern for me? That a truism, but one that is irrelevant to the context. No, it is a reinforcement of the standards and expectations which I as a recording professional hold. To me it has 100% relevance. To a person like yourself, who records and also probably listens to music of a poor standard, high expectations are not even something that can be considered. Your problem Iain is common to people like you who sit in ivory towers, only touch tiny parts of the overall process, and never ever see the big picture. It is clear from the discussion so far, that most people involved in professional recording have forgotten more than you know about "the big picture" as you call it. We see the project through from planning to fruition, often a period of several months. In contrast to a Jack of All Trades and Master of Mediocrity like yourself, most people recognise that many of the phases in producing a high-class product, such as photography, artwork, sleeve notes, translation, etc need special skills which are best left to experts in those fields. I wonder how "condensor" (sic) translates into Japanese:-) LOL! Why did not such a great recording talent as yourself, being from Motown Detroit, rise quickly upon the ladder of success with Tamla? In those days, with your Bachelor's you could perhaps have got a job as producers' assistant (which is not the same as Assistant Producer) if you could manage fill the Coke machine and put the empty bottles back into the crate the right way up:-) I can also appreciate your view point. Having neither the skill/dedication nor the patience to make a quality recording, your levels of expectation are rock bottom. Iain, that's libel, and very much worthy of person in your mental state. I wonder, Arny, if a computer repair man (especially a sanctimonious born-again Baptist who cannot manage without the crutch of religion to compensate for his considerable social inadequacy) is in a position to pass judgement on the mental state of others, while he himself oozes the insincere supercilious hypocrisy which so often turns good and upright people away from dubious offshoot religions. Luke 6:42. I am told that Baptists use a simplified translation. Were the words "mote" and "beam" (one syllable and four letters each) too difficult for you? :-) What a bitter, miserable, humourless, sad individual you have become, Arnold. Or were you always like that? Give me Buddhism or the Russian Orthodox any day:-) But actually my statement regarding your recording is a substantiated fact, an opinion agreed upon unanimously by all who have heard the tracks of yours which "leaked out" Without exception, even a class of first year RA students thought it was absolutely horrendous. As I told you, one young lady, a gifted cellist, burst into tears having heard your church choir recording. She thought it was some cruel, insidious, sacrilegious joke by the underground "666" label:-( I am sure Tynan will be interested to hear it. I've have a goodly number of recorded tracks out on the web, and they have been heard by tens of thousands of people. There are "admirers" of yours from RAO collecting these very tracks as we speak. Hopefully we may expect a compilation soon:-)) Iain |
#170
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
No Interconnect is the Best
"Peter Wieck" wrote in message
On Feb 1, 11:00 am, "Iain Churches" wrote: Perhaps you have never had access to a good vinyl replay system. You have made it clear what a penny pincher you are, and so probably don't know what a Garrard 401, SME 3012 and Shure V15/III (or equivalent) can do. Spend some time with an EMT, SME 30/2 or Verdier turntable, and Shure V15, EMT or Ortofon MC cartridge. Get yourself a good vinyl system, a Radford tube amp, a pair of B+W 801D speakers, and start to live a little, No need for tubes to get decent sound out of vinyl - and if one is attempting to educate a skeptic, adding additional parameters is a bad idea. Keep it simple and vary *only* one parameter at a time. Really? I've got that covered with the Conrad Johnson preamp that I often use with my LP system. So, to convince one of the potential of decent sound from vinyl, I would start with a linear-tracking tone-arm. Actually, linear-tracking is the *only* way to avoid a source of bass modulation distortion that is inherent in vinyl playback. Rabco and Revox come to mind as excellent examples of those species. I keep both, but the Rabco sees the most play. The last linear tracking tonearm I heard in a private vinyl system was by Eminent Technology. Sadly, the sound of vinyl is unmistakable such that a listener with pre-conceived conclusions will be able to skew the test - unless one has the ability to add miscellaneous random clicks and pops every so often to another source to mask its nature. Put another way, this is an issue of true-believers and the invincibly ignorant. Never the twain shall meet. In this case, the invincibly ignorant are the LP bigots. So, these wonderful machines (and I still have my Revox) were perfectly capable of making excellent recordings, and playing back such recordings - but there was no 'equivalent-of-vinyl' out there. So, they remained a very tiny component of the Audio market and the realm of the fanatical few. They have no place in any discussion comparing the relative qualities of an given source, comes to it. Actually, Revox and Tandburg tape machines hovered just around the edges of the mainstream. Sony and Teac chimed in with a number of excellent machines and were arguably mainstream. In the heyday of analog one didn't see a lot of Revox and Tandburgs in the newly-christened appliance store mid-fi salons, but one sure did see a lot of Sony and Teac. Along comes the CD, pretty much coincidental with the downward spiral of the mass audio market from specialty sellers (Sam Goody, Zounds, Silo, et. al.) to just another line in the big-box stores. A romantic, self-pitying thought, but one that is probably not exactly factual. Appliance store mid-fi was a breaking trend a very few years after I returned to the US from Germany as a guest of Uncle Sam. That was the early 1970s. The CD didn't hit the US market until 1983. It appears to me that the mass market for mid-fi was fully developed for the better part of a decade before the CD hit. And at about the same time, US makers of mass-items such as AR, Dynaco, Harmon-Kardon, Scott, Heath, Fisher, Marantz and many others either stopped making electronics entirely or sold their trade-marks to the Pacific Rim. I seriousy doubt that there was ever any Heath or Dynaco finished product that was made in the Pacific rim. They were kit brands, for the most part and assembly was completed in the customer's home. The trend towards pacific rim production was fully-fledged in the middle 1960s. First there were Japanese brands like Kenwood and Pioneer. The first mainstream american brand to slip into offshore production from your list was Marantz. Scott being among the weaker went broke and the brand name was recusitated as a made-in Pacific rim brand, followed by Fisher. Eventually they all went dark as dedicated specialists and all became parts of congomerates run by bean-counters. Heath simply disappeared as low cost off-shore assembly eliminated its reason to exist, and building it yourself ceased to be a thrill for most. Dyna followed a similar path, only to be resuscitated as a tubophile brand. All this over a few years, of course *not* over night. Also coincidental to the rise of the Personal Audio Device, AKA Walkman. Again, a slipping brain runs aground on the facts. The Walkman was introduced in 1979, while Heathkit was still fairly strong (they closed their audio products out later in the mid-1980s) and the original Dynaco were still introducting new products. Meanwhile we trained an entire generation of TV-raised individuals that sound came from a 3" speaker with a laugh-track. Peter, speak for yourself! And that discriminating listening was a waste of precious time when they could be indulging in recreational pharmaceuticals or having sex. I guess you are speaking autobiographically, Peter. And they trained their children that sounds come from ear-buds or 4-ounce computer speakers - both speakers, the wire and the power-supply. And you wonder where production music "professionals" got the idea that "good enough" was actually "too good"? That idea comes from something you probably never ever tried Peter - that idea comes from blind, level-matched, straight wire bypass tests. Vinyl as it is "practiced" today is an esoteric medium and as such represents an effort where the actual costs-of-production (vinyl, lathes, packaging - NOT the musicians and such) are irrelevant to the cost of the product. And the sound quality, barely failing at the best, is really not an issue. It is all about sentimentality. People will LISTEN to something they have paid possibly-thousands to reproduce and serious bucks for the record. This is belied by all the whoops and hollaring about vinyl bought in thrift stores for twenty-five cents or a dollar. |
#171
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
No Interconnect is the Best
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Iain Churches" wrote in message ti.fi "Arny Krueger" wrote in message . .. "Iain Churches" wrote in message ti.fi "Arny Krueger" wrote in message . .. Flip-off, I take that to mean that open reel tapes were never available to you in the days of the LP? As a rule, open reel tapes had far more dynamic range than LPs. They were readily available consumer products during most of the heyday of the stereo LP. Therefore, the stereo LP was not the only choice when it was king. Arny. I cannot decide if you really are as poorly informed as you are trying to make Flipper believe, or if you are just arguing with him for the sake of argument. Open reel tapes were manufactured by high speed duplication, for playback at 19cms (71/2 ips) Yes. They had no NR, Dolby open reel tapes made an appearance. To be more specific: Dolby B in *very* limited quantity. Not the same as *no NR*. So that makes you wrong again, Iain. Some 2.5 percent of total tape sales. Not enough to even consider in this context. But still nowhere near as good as the performance of the LP, a format which you hold in such low regard. Wrong again, Iain. The hook this time is the -3 dB, or if you will +/- 1.5 dB. There is no "hook"Arny. -3dB is *not* the same as +/- 1.5dB. Consumer LP playback systems rarely if ever went there, even in the midrange where a dB or two would matter quite a bit. The implementation of the RIAA replay curve was not a problem for any manufacturer here in the EU. Most managed it well, particularly midrange. There is no logic in your reasoning Arny. There is good logic you actually understand audio technology and know that -3 dB at 12 KHz is minor misunderstanding compared to what LP playback does to frequency response. Please make the effort to get the terminology correct, even if you fumble with the facts. The abbreviation is "kHz" with a lower-case "k" I have test discs, cut at Decca with glide tones 20Hz to 25kHz using the Neumann cutter. I have every reason to think that both the Lyrec and the Westrex can perform to this standard also. If there is something wrong with your LP "playback" as you state above, then the fault is with your equipment not the format. Spot on fact. I worked for two companies which produced such tapes at 19 cm/s They were nothing like as good as the LP, and never claimed to be, either. Well you worked for them Iain. What should we expect? They were as good as HD duplicating could make them at the time. Both Decca and RCA were better than most. These tapes were an alternative not a substitute for vinyl just like the HS duplicated audio cassettes which followed them. justice to the recording. There were of course exceptions, the Revox being the best known. Wrong again Iain. They are a subset of the parameters that determine the perceived sound quality of the product. Arny. You cannot "perceive" it to be any better than the manufacturer has made it, how ever much you may wish to do so. And you got most of them wrong such as your false claim that there were no commercial open reel tapes that had NR. The MTA report states 2.5%. Being 3 dB down the top frequency extremes is not nearly as audible as the inherent trashing of the 500 Hz range in LPs. Nothing wrong with vinyl midband, and if an ageing Detroit car factory worker cannot hear the HF tape losses, then that doesn't matter either:-) Only in your dreams, Iain. Sorry that open reel tape was such a POS in your neck of the woods. European machines were actually good. We had Studer, Ferrograph, Revox,Vortexion, Telefunken, Lyrec, with fewer imports from Japan than you seem to have had in the USA. The ex BBC Leevers Rich E200 in my music room is 20Hz to 18kHz +0/-1dB. http://www.kolumbus.fi/iain.churches...LR/LRE200.html Perhaps you have never had access to a good vinyl replay system. Perhaps you are very full of yourself, Iain. If there was any doubt about my access to good vinyl replay systems, consider the two days I spent auditioning vinyl and tubes at HE2005. But you don't own a quality system for every day use? Listening at audio fairs like HE2005 is almost worthless, unless the equipment is set up in proper listening rooms, acoustically isolated from each other. You need to listen for several hours over many days. You have made it clear what a penny pincher you are, and so probably don't know what a Garrard 401, SME 3012 and Shure V15/III (or equivalent) can do. I always thought that the Garrard 401 was beneath the interest of a Thorens Thorens were much cheaper. Garrard 301 and 401 were the BBC/EBU and record company turntable of choice, together with EMT and Telefunken. Try to buy any of these today, You will find yourself spending some very serious money, particularly following the demise of the USD. TD125 owner such as myself. I did own a SME arm and I did own Shure V15s II through IV. My current Rega-based system is not quite the same, but it gets the job done. You were foolish to part with them. A good turntable in addition to a vintage amp, is one of the few pieces of equipment that goes up in value, and so offers both enjoyment and investment value. With the exception of the Studer, no-one wants an old CD player:-) Now you are left with no option to compressed, poorly mastered CDs or a Rega:-) Spend some time with an EMT, SME 30/2 or Verdier turntable, and Shure V15, EMT or Ortofon MC cartridge. Been there, done that. All of the above, I think. And more. The chances that you have ever seen let alone heard an SME 30/2 orVerdier turntable are slim to none:-) Now put your hand on your Bible, and repeat after me.........:-)) And I also have a few new 180 gram vinyl pressings. And you still think that current CD production is superior? Iain Hey Arny. I am getting e-mails from people who think I should not "be seen publicly discussing anything with Kruborg". So I think I will give your posts a miss in the future, and let George answer your questions. George, are you the-) ?? |
#172
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
No Interconnect is the Best
Arny:
Two small things to add into your largely circular reasoning - leaping to conclusions -false premises bit of obfuscation: I did not have or own a television in my house until I got married. But when I got married, the audio system-in-place was worth almost as much as the house I owned. Of course, long-gone are the days when one could purchase a 2900 s.f. Victorian in decent condition in University City (West Philadelphia) for well under $20,000. And, since I have been making my living since I was 19, I had no time for the pharmaceuticals - still don't and really never missed them. Other than that, you are spot-on ;-b Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA |
#173
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
No Interconnect is the Best
"Iain Churches" wrote in message
ti.fi "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Iain Churches" wrote in message ti.fi "Arny Krueger" wrote in message . .. "Iain Churches" wrote in message ti.fi "Arny Krueger" wrote in message . .. Flip-off, I take that to mean that open reel tapes were never available to you in the days of the LP? As a rule, open reel tapes had far more dynamic range than LPs. They were readily available consumer products during most of the heyday of the stereo LP. Therefore, the stereo LP was not the only choice when it was king. Arny. I cannot decide if you really are as poorly informed as you are trying to make Flipper believe, or if you are just arguing with him for the sake of argument. Open reel tapes were manufactured by high speed duplication, for playback at 19cms (71/2 ips) Yes. They had no NR, Dolby open reel tapes made an appearance. To be more specific: Dolby B in *very* limited quantity. Not the same as *no NR*. So that makes you wrong again, Iain. Some 2.5 percent of total tape sales. Let's put that in context - open reel was not killed off by the high quality of the LP, it was killed off by the convenience of the cassette. Compared to everything since, the cassette sucked for convenience and sound quality, but compared to the LP, it wasn't all that intolerable. Not enough to even consider in this context. You're just embarassed to be proven wrong, Iain. Whine, whine, whine. But still nowhere near as good as the performance of the LP, a format which you hold in such low regard. Wrong again, Iain. The hook this time is the -3 dB, or if you will +/- 1.5 dB. There is no "hook"Arny. -3dB is *not* the same as +/- 1.5dB. Obviously it is different in detail, but both represent the same amount of deviation. More to the point, -3dB at 12 KHz is sonically trivial compared to what LPs do below 500 Hz. Consumer LP playback systems rarely if ever went there, even in the midrange where a dB or two would matter quite a bit. The implementation of the RIAA replay curve was not a problem for any manufacturer here in the EU. Most managed it well, particularly midrange. Your error here Iain is that you seem to think that good RIAA eq is all that matters for frequency response. Slight matter of cartridge mechanical morass and the deep waters of tone arms. There is no logic in your reasoning Arny. There is good logic you actually understand audio technology and know that -3 dB at 12 KHz is minor misunderstanding compared to what LP playback does to frequency response. Please make the effort to get the terminology correct, even if you fumble with the facts. The abbreviation is "kHz" with a lower-case "k" Nahh Iain, I get it right elsewhere but I do that here so that you can show yourself to be the pedantic snob that you are. Doesn't change the argument, which is obviously over your head. I have test discs, cut at Decca with glide tones 20Hz to 25kHz using the Neumann cutter. Obviously Iain you've never done any measurements over that range with them, or you wouldn't be talking this trash! Oh, I get it, your microscopic fragment of the record production cycle at Decca didn't include such menial tasks as even reviewing the results of playback tests with these discs, were such a thing to ever be done. I have every reason to think that both the Lyrec and the Westrex can perform to this standard also. Cutting test records is only half the job, Iain. You need to play them back accurately! If there is something wrong with your LP "playback" as you state above, then the fault is with your equipment not the format. LOL! |
#174
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
No Interconnect is the Best
"Iain Churches" wrote in message
ti.fi Being 3 dB down the top frequency extremes is not nearly as audible as the inherent trashing of the 500 Hz range in LPs. Nothing wrong with vinyl midband, and if an ageing Detroit car factory worker cannot hear the HF tape losses, then that doesn't matter either:-) Who are you talking to Iain, some imaginary person? Only in your dreams, Iain. Sorry that open reel tape was such a POS in your neck of the woods. European machines were actually good. We had Studer, Ferrograph, Revox,Vortexion, Telefunken, Lyrec, with fewer imports from Japan than you seem to have had in the USA. The ex BBC Leevers Rich E200 in my music room is 20Hz to 18kHz +0/-1dB. http://www.kolumbus.fi/iain.churches...LR/LRE200.html No FR curves there, so we know that you are lying, Iain. Perhaps you have never had access to a good vinyl replay system. Perhaps you are very full of yourself, Iain. If there was any doubt about my access to good vinyl replay systems, consider the two days I spent auditioning vinyl and tubes at HE2005. But you don't own a quality system for every day use? Quality vinyl system is an oxymoron, Iain. Listening at audio fairs like HE2005 is almost worthless, unless the equipment is set up in proper listening rooms, acoustically isolated from each other. You need to listen for several hours over many days. You have made it clear what a penny pincher you are, and so probably don't know what a Garrard 401, SME 3012 and Shure V15/III (or equivalent) can do. I always thought that the Garrard 401 was beneath the interest of a Thorens Thorens were much cheaper. Really? Garrard 301 and 401 were the BBC/EBU and record company turntable of choice, together with EMT and Telefunken. Not in the US. Oh there were some about, but not exclusively. Try to buy any of these today, You will find yourself spending some very serious money, particularly following the demise of the USD. Demise means death. The dollar is hardly dead. Learn your English word definitions, Iain. You were foolish to part with them. Cashing them out bought lots of CDs. good turntable in addition to a vintage amp, is one of the few pieces of equipment that goes up in value, and so offers both enjoyment and investment value. Audio gear is among the poorer antiques to invest in. I prefer stocks. With the exception of the Studer, no-one wants an old CD player:-) Why should they? This is about today, Iain just to mention a land that you have yet to enter... Now you are left with no option to compressed, poorly mastered CDs or a Rega:-) As if poorly-mastered CDs are the only kinds of CDs. Perhaps they are all you ever heard at Decca. Spend some time with an EMT, SME 30/2 or Verdier turntable, and Shure V15, EMT or Ortofon MC cartridge. Been there, done that. All of the above, I think. And more. The chances that you have ever seen let alone heard an SME 30/2 orVerdier turntable are slim to none:-) So what? And I also have a few new 180 gram vinyl pressings. And you still think that current CD production is superior? Absolutely. |
#175
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
No Interconnect is the Best
"flipper" wrote in message . .. On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 10:35:29 +0200, "Iain Churches" wrote: It is interesting to note the re-appearance of VUs added to the existing meter overbridge, particularly in mastering suites. Well, you'd know more about the mastering studios than I would. All know is how they work I do find it interesting that people will jump onto a 'new way' and then, maybe, 'rediscover' there was a 'useful reason' for the other way after all. Perhaps it is due to commercial pressure, who knows, but there has been a tendency to switch to new technology while still not taking advantage of all it has to offer. Well, I think people generally accept new technology because it almost invariably is 'better' with, perhaps, a few bumps in the road and some wiggle room depending on how one defines 'better'. Morning Flipper. I enjoyed your post. Yeah, and that's what makes it so egregious. It's certainly understandable when limitations force a compromise but not so understandable when it's simply thrown away. Agreed. The medium does not seem to be used anywhere close to its full potential. The artist is not to blame. There seems to be some debate on that matter. I have never heard the artist blamed. How can it be his/her fault? The artist usually has nothing to say about production or marketing. Just going by what I've heard, that sometimes it is the artist themselves, but I get the impression that, most of the time, it's the producers. Most artists have little or no say in the technical aspects of the recording. Their area of influence becomes less and less after mixing and presentation decisions (sleeve pics, notes etc) have been made. Indeed. It would be quite easy now that music is available for download, to make a compressed .mp3 available for those who seem to want that kind of sound, and an uncompressed .wav file for those that don't. We shall see. Wouldn't; that take two masters though? I mean, if your mastering with the intent of scrunching it to hell and back you might not necessarily do it the same as when going for best fidelity, right? The final production master is made from a studio master (or pre-master) which is usually blameless. Making a precise clone of this, without the "improvements" is quite straightforward. As I think I alluded to before, maybe that's a natural result of 'consumerism', as viewed by 'aficionados' who, often, were 'the first'. Their priorities are different than the 'mass market'. Yes. Agreed. The problem is that the ratio is about 100:1 :-) with the "louder is better" brigade in the vast majority. But, if the user had a player with compressor and EQ built in, (simple- low cost) he/she could be given a clean product to mangle or not as he/she wished. That would solve the problem at a stroke. But what percentage of the public are interested do you think? Well, that's the million dollar question, isn't it? I don't know but I'd bet not the 'majority', because that isn't the top of their priority list. Those are my feelings too. Most people have never had the luxury of choice or comparison, and don't realise what CD is capable of. However, if they knew they could have 'better' music for free and that the primary reason it isn't is for a supercilious 'loudness war' their opinion might change... even whether they could 'tell' or not. People don't generally like being ripped off and "well, you can't tell anyway" sounds like a charlatan's excuse for doing so. I get the impression that most people are satisfied, and so don't feel they are being "ripped off" Those who lament the poor quality do feel they are being offered a deliberately mangled product. I didn't mean to argue with it because I haven't seen the data, just the 'conclusions' and arguments drawn. I mean, for example, did they ask people if they'd rather have a good sounding CD or a crap loud one? Or did they just ask if loud was 'good'? It is very easy to influence the outcome of a poll by asking "leading questions", so some care must be taken in this. I think the opening question has been "Are you satisfied with the quality of CD production" (Most people said that they were indeed satisfied) The second question was "Where do you listen to music mainly." (To which the majority replied "in the car" or "in-ear, while walking jogging etc etc" I get the feeling that few people make time for listening to music except as a background activity. This is perhaps why there is no longer an accent on quality. They talked to people in the process of buying a record at a store, and asked "Are you satisfied with the sound of CDs as currently produced" Most were totally satisfied. Studies are always interesting because data is data but conclusions are not always as obvious as they might seem. Like, are people 'satisfied' because they have a 'standard of comparison', and the CDs meet it, or because they've been told 'digital audio' is 'the best' you can get and so, it 'must be'.? Yes. Even if they have a 'standard of comparison', what is it and how did they arrive at it? It might be interesting to ask people why they spend 'big bucks' on 'high quality' audio equipment when the CDs are mangled crap and I imagine you might get a lot of "huh?" Most systems see to be very low cost (albeit remarkably good for the money - with the exception of speakers) The numbers of "technical returns" are very small indeed. If it plays the music then what 'reason' would there be for a return and what's the alternative if you did? An even worse MP3 of it or a 'perfect' FLAC copy of what you rejected? The term "technical return" encompasses product that has technical shortcomings, which strictly-speaking a compressed of clipped CD has. But a lawyer would be hard-pressed to convince a court that this was so. The problem is that the customer returns his/her CD to the shop, and the assistant compares it with another, identical, CD from stock, and shows there is nothing wrong with it. If the customer then says, "They are all bad" the sales assistant is likely to call security. I'm just suggesting that 'technical returns' might not be indicative. The problem really is that people are pretty lethargic. I know from talking to my local record shop owner, that many people buy eight or ten CDs at a time, and so if one or two of them are a little compressed, well "Hey. So what!" It is interesting too that there is a very clear double standard here. Most classical and jazz CDs are immaculately mastered. I guess they figure those listeners are more discerning.... and have cars with 'quieter' interiors Or maybe, being 'perfectionists', they've mastered the use of a volume knob. I think it is because the manufacturers know they are dealing with a more discerning audience, who don't listen to the recording a couple of times, and by something else next Saturday, but add to their collections and listejn to the music on a regular basis. It is interesting also that in the EBU area at least, radio stations playing classical music and jazz do not compress the music to death as their popular counterpart stations are so keen to do. Regards Iain |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Optical interconnect | Pro Audio | |||
Interconnect "Directionality" | High End Audio | |||
DIY Interconnect questions | Tech | |||
SymbiLink Interconnect | Car Audio | |||
FS: XLO LIMITED 2m Interconnect | Marketplace |