Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#81
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Quote without comment
On Aug 30, 12:19 pm, Andrew Barss wrote:
But a Ferrari, Lamborghini, etc. goes faster and handles differently than a Toyota. If SACD indeed doesn't produce audible differences from regular CD, then it's like paying a premium for a car engine that has exactly the same performance properties as a regular Toyota engine. Which even an extreme gearhead wouldn't do. But Audiophools... whoops... -philes do this all the time and with even less discernable results. Often enough even those who actually know better, sadly. Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA |
#82
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Quote without comment
On Aug 30, 11:59 am, Jenn wrote:
In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: Jenn does not deny that she has hearing damage. I don't feel the need to counter every ridiculous claim that is made. Arny just can't forgive you, Jenn, for a) being a woman, b) knowing more than he does about music, c) expressing your preference for something he has _proved_ can't be preferred, and d) there's that woman thing again. :-) John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile |
#83
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Quote without comment
In article . com,
John Atkinson wrote: On Aug 30, 11:59 am, Jenn wrote: In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: Jenn does not deny that she has hearing damage. I don't feel the need to counter every ridiculous claim that is made. Arny just can't forgive you, Jenn, for a) being a woman, b) knowing more than he does about music, c) expressing your preference for something he has _proved_ can't be preferred, and d) there's that woman thing again. :-) John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile Well, yeah... ;-) |
#84
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Quote without comment
"John Atkinson" wrote
in message ups.com On Aug 30, 11:59 am, Jenn wrote: In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: Jenn does not deny that she has hearing damage. I don't feel the need to counter every ridiculous claim that is made. Arny just can't forgive you, Jenn, for a) being a woman, b) knowing more than he does about music, c) expressing your preference for something he has _proved_ can't be preferred, and d) there's that woman thing again. :-) John, I'd like to read your rationale for your fan.. I mean hypothesis that I can't forgive Jenn for being a woman. If there is none, then I'll attribute it to your well-known lack of sufficience rationality. |
#85
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Quote without comment
"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
ups.com I still remember the days when people were serious about distributing pre-recorded open reel tapes. Compared to vinyl, a 7.5 ips half or quarter track tape could be quite a treat. Especially the half tracks. But, compared to the CD format, 7.5 ips quarter track is a very sonically limited medium. Frankly, it sometimes has a tendency to take some of the life out of LPs transcribed with it. Consumo quarter inch open reel was usually not terribly good, sadly. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking Revox A77 in a prime state of adjustment by a factory rep. |
#86
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Quote without comment
Arny Krueger wrote:
Consumo quarter inch open reel was usually not terribly good, sadly. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking Revox A77 in a prime state of adjustment by a factory rep. Ah well, their were usually broken, or at least off compared to testtapes, ex works because they playback amp was not modified to fit the requirementes of the actual head (my understanding of something that was explained to me) .... an A77 in a prime state of adjustment for something other than Scotch 207 (Revox tape reportedly was just that), that is something quite different. Mine was 3.5 dB down in replay of 18 kHz, ref a BASF test tape, with the factory fitted replay amp components and consequently had that much less headroom than it should have had when aligned for best record-playback performance. Kind regards Peter Larsen |
#87
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Quote without comment
On Aug 30, 5:09 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
John, I'd like to read your rationale for your fan.. I mean hypothesis that I can't forgive Jenn for being a woman. If there is none, then I'll attribute it to your well-known lack of sufficience rationality. There's no arguing with _that_ sentence! John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile |
#88
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Quote without comment
"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message ups.com... Most consumo tape machines were poor too. But now it's possible to find and refurbish vintage studio machines at hobbyist prices. And even if you could actually afford the tape, the performance will still be far below a cheap computer and sound card, let alone a good one! But nostalgia still aint what it used to be :-) MrT. |
#89
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Quote without comment
Arny Krueger wrote: "Robert Orban" wrote in message news Through hard experience I've found that with recordings of this vintage, it really pays to find sealed, unplayed copies even if one has to wait for them to show up on eBay and even if one has to pay more. There were a *lot* of bad phono playback systems in the late 60s, and even one play through some of them could audibly damage the vinyl. Finally, after doing this a hundred times or so I have to observe that the audio quality of the run of the mill vinyl from that era was pretty bad. It got a lot better starting in mid-1969, probably because a new generation of disc cutters was just coming on line. I find incomprehensible the affection that some people evidently have for the audio quality of vinyl from that era. Bob Orban I feel a bit nervous entering this debate. However I think my comments are worthwhile as I have been listening to recorded music for 50 years on a huge variety of equipment. Vinyl varied enormously. I can remember trekking back to HMV in Oxford Street many times before I got a decent pressing of a particular album. Contrary to some other postings I think that DG was amongst the best. Then, despite having a Shure V15 that tracked at 0.8g, wear inevitably set in and the noise levels crept up. Always of course most on the ones that I liked most. Despite the greatest care, fingers got onto the surface and other accidents added the pops and sizzles. Yes I recorded all new records onto an A77 after an initial few listens. The tape type wasn't so much of a problem because of the adjustable dolby level. However there was loss. There is a sound (!) argument that the analogue nature of vinyl should have some advantages. The main one is that, subject to the stylus being small and stable enough to track and to differentiate the information, the result surely must be smoother. This should mean less distortion. The buffs used to call this 'musicality'. Despite the various tricks used by CD players to fill the in the steps, digital has steps between adjacent samples. At 16 bit these can be quite large in power terms at the highest audio levels. After all, 16 bit was chosen only because it was the maximum you could use to fit one hour onto a standard CD. It never was the optimum technical specification. When we start hearing 20 bit or better on DVD type disks the step issue should go. What I like about CD is the silence. Oh, and the dynamic range. Oh, and the resistance to minor damage. Oh, and being able to play it in my car. I still listen to vinyl. Once my brain blots out the background noise, I really do enjoy it. Now that I have a sound system that can reproduce the whole audio range at a realistic level, I find that the dynamic range, particularly low frequencies, is much better than I used to hear on lesser systems. And it is ... er... musical!! One last point. Just as people have forgotten what good live acting is because of the crap they watch on TV, so MP3 has degraded people's idea of what fidelity is. I exclude this ng of course. It is fine on headphones and tweaked mini systems, but having got used to MP3, people regard CD as wonderful. Music is now designed so that it sounds good on such systems, just as Berry Gordy mixed motown to sound good on 6 x 4 car speakers. It's only when you listen to acoustic instruments with a complex waveform and set of overtones, particularly orchestral ones like the violin, or a grand piano, that you realise the limitations of CD and MP3. So I reckon all this discussion will stop when disk capacity is enough to move to higher digital resolutions. Peter Scott |
#90
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Quote without comment
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "John Byrns" wrote in message I would be happier with a basically straight transfer from LP to digital, with the only special processing applied being some modest declicking. I'd like to get away with that more often in the work I do. Trouble is, most if not all of the LPs I end uptranscribing seem to need more processing than that. C'mon Arny. Stop the BS:-)) Recording engineer, acoustics consultant, architect, recording engineer (!!!) and now transcription engineer. Whatever next? :-))) "Facts about Krooborg" states that you're a second-hand computer repair man from Michigan! Iain |
#91
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Quote without comment
"John Atkinson" wrote in message ups.com... On Aug 30, 11:59 am, Jenn wrote: In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: Jenn does not deny that she has hearing damage. I don't feel the need to counter every ridiculous claim that is made. Arny just can't forgive you, Jenn, for a) being a woman, b) knowing more than he does about music, c) expressing your preference for something he has _proved_ can't be preferred, and d) there's that woman thing again. :-) John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile Though I admire her perseverance, Jenn's argument with Arny is futile. I get the impression Jenn is a gifted musician with a high level of audio perception. Arny, on the other hand, doesn't know a French horn from a frying pan:-) Technically he is not a lot better either. Ask him for a link to one of his choir "recordings" of the Born Again Tambournine Bashers. Quite horrific! The last time one of Arny's "recordings" escaped, I sent it to a colleague who lectures in Recording Arts at conservatory level. At the end of his lecture, he played it to his students. There was a long embarrassed silence. Most students had sickly grins on their faces - they did not know whether to laugh or cry. Then one, a very gifted young cellist, ran out from the auditorium in tears. She told her fellow students later that she thought the whole thing was a cruel sacrilegious hoax. Iain |
#92
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Quote without comment
"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message ... "Jenn" wrote in message news:jennconductsREMOVETHIS- And that debate was finished a decade or two ago for *intelligent* people. If by "quality audio" you mean technical superiority, then I would go with that. Past that, we're talking preference, Which is what I said. Anyone may still PREFER to listen to anything they like, the problem they have is accepting that they may PREFER something that is actually INFERIOR to the original sound. Hence their continued need to convince themselves. No, it's very simple: if a person likes the sound of some recording, based on his/her experience of that music, "inferior" has nothing to do with it. By definition, for that person, it is "superior". And that's the problem, you still can't seperate PREFERENCE from reality. The recording that most closely matches the original input signal is technically "superior" no matter what YOU might PREFER. In that case, Mr T, vinyl is, at least as far as most pop recordings are concerned, the winner. You clearly have no experience in CD mastering of pop material on a professional level or you would know that rarely does the pre-production CD bear a close resemblance to the studio master (or "input signal" as you seem to prefer to call it) Here we have the crux of the matter. Analaogue disc cutting is incredibly skilled, with the object of the excercise being to cut a lacquer as close as possible to the studio master. Any fool can make it different (that is, if he has the courage to lower the cutting stylus to the lacquer:-)) Now, due the commercial pressures, and "louder is better" school of thought, a thriving industry in CD mastering has emerged. Mastering is regarded as another step in the production chain, where sometimes horrificdecisions are taken in the attempt to give the public what they (think they) want. Iain |
#93
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Quote without comment
"MiNe 109" wrote in message ... In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "MiNe 109" wrote in message In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "MiNe 109" wrote in message In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Robert Orban" wrote in message news Through hard experience I've found that with recordings of this vintage, it really pays to find sealed, unplayed copies even if one has to wait for them to show up on eBay and even if one has to pay more. There were a *lot* of bad phono playback systems in the late 60s, and even one play through some of them could audibly damage the vinyl. Finally, after doing this a hundred times or so I have to observe that the audio quality of the run of the mill vinyl from that era was pretty bad. It got a lot better starting in mid-1969, probably because a new generation of disc cutters was just coming on line. I find incomprehensible the affection that some people evidently have for the audio quality of vinyl from that era. Bob Orban Who is Robert Orban? Nice appeal to authority. If you and Jen promise to never appeal to authority, personal or otherwise, I'll do the same. ;-) Appeals to authority are usually in service of an argument. Was someone arguing in favor of damaged, poor-quality vinyl? Nice job of missing the point of the second paragraph, Stephen. "Distractions R U", right? ;-) Most lps were junk. Who was saying otherwise? Come on Stephen, the truth is that compared to a well-made digital recording, the very best LP ever made was still, noisy, colored, and distorted junk. That's an opinion. As for "still," one spins vinyl. It should be pretty obvious to an unbiased reader (not Stephen or Jen for example) that the second paragraph refers to undamaged, even completely virgin LPs. The point of the first paragraph is that Orban has very high standards for choosing and preparing LPs for digitizing. But even given that, the LP format still falls way short of modern standards for quality audio. The first paragraph doesn't mention digitizing at all. Come on Stephen, I posted a link to the whole post. The original post on RAO could be linked to the OP I quoted on RAP in two clicks. Can you possibly bring yourself to judge a statement in its proper context? That brings up the question of why you crossposted while suppressing the group in which it originated. Still, in cases of deteriorated or missing original master tapes, an LP transfer might be the best way to hear a specific recording. In the absence of superior options which often abound, we sometimes must get desperate and dab some makeup on LP's sonic piggishness, in order to just enjoy the music. Straight transfers, a little de-clicking, and there you are. Indeed. A little *manual* declicking - I might add. Don't be taken in by Arny's BS. He's a computer repair man:-) Iain |
#94
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Quote without comment
"MiNe 109" wrote in message ... Still, in cases of deteriorated or missing original master tapes, an lp transfer might be the best way to hear a specific recording. From tape to vinyl is a three, four, or five step process. Any of the "negatives" from these intermediate steps can be used for transcription in CD mastering. This is often done. Transfer from a pressing is the least desirable option. Iain |
#95
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Quote without comment
Iain Churches wrote: "MiNe 109" wrote Still, in cases of deteriorated or missing original master tapes, an lp transfer might be the best way to hear a specific recording. From tape to vinyl is a three, four, or five step process. Any of the "negatives" from these intermediate steps can be used for transcription in CD mastering. This is often done. Transfer from a pressing is the least desirable option. Maybe you should explain how the stampers are generated ? Graham |
#96
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Quote without comment
On Sep 3, 5:02 am, "Iain Churches" wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "John Byrns" wrote in message I would be happier with a basically straight transfer from LP to digital, with the only special processing applied being some modest declicking. I'd like to get away with that more often in the work I do. Trouble is, most if not all of the LPs I end uptranscribing seem to need more processing than that. C'mon Arny. Stop the BS:-)) Recording engineer, acoustics consultant, architect, recording engineer (!!!) and now transcription engineer. Whatever next? :-))) "Facts about Krooborg" states that you're a second-hand computer repair man from Michigan! Iain he is a retired man from an automaker time and ambition is his to claim. |
#97
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Quote without comment
Iain Churches said: "Facts about Krooborg" states that you're a second-hand computer repair man from Michigan! Also Chrysler Ashtray Designer Emeritus. (It says so on his toilet paper.) |
#98
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Quote without comment
Robert Orban wrote:
In article , says... Itchykoo Park used to be famous for the really, really deep kick drum, which sounded like cardboard on small speakers. It was the lowest I had ever seen anyone cut on a 45, and there was no way that record could be played on a typical record player of the sixties. The CD reissue turns it into a modern-style kick drum. It's a totally different song when you do this. I understand your point, but I would ask you this -- *what* sound was in the head of the producer? Was it as heard on Altec A7's? UREI's? JBL's? All of those speakers were significantly colored and all sounded different from each other, so the sound "in the producer's head" might be quite different than the sound we hear on modern, well-engineered loudspeakers and might have been different if the producer had mixed in a different control room with different acoustics and/or a different model of loudspeaker. Absolutely! This is completely true, and it's something you can't ever really deal with. On one side of the line we have the folks in Japan paying huge amounts of money for old Altec studio monitors in an attempt to recreate the sound heard on the original playback. On the other side of the line we have mastering engineers with presets in their head... I know folks who would listen to something, say instantly, "Wow, that was mixed on NS-10s" and instantly dial in an NS-10 correction curve to compensate, so that folks listening on fairly flat systems would get something approaching the effect the original production folks did. Lots of stuff in the seventies was screechy to the point of being hard to cut on vinyl, because of the aggressive use of narrowband monitors and cocaine in that era. I have trouble listening to that stuff without grabbing the tone controls. You could argue I am doing the recording integrity a disservice by doing that, and I would probably agree, but I'll keep doing it anyway. As I stated in my post, I prefer to try to "correct" spectral balances that I believe were probably caused by colored loudspeakers in the original mixdown room or in the mastering room. I can only justify this by (1) my personal preference (I'm not getting paid for my restoration work :-) and (2) experiments done by Sean Olive and Floyd Toole on consumer loudspeaker preference. With reference to the "remastering" controversy, what I take away from Olive and Toole's work is that people seem to have a pretty well-defined model in their brains of what a natural spectral balance should sound like and they consistently prefer loudspeakers that supply this to them. Thanks largely to O&T's work, today's popular loudspeakers are not only less colored than any time in the past but also sound closer to each other regarding spectral balance. It's amazing what you can get in a $250 loudspeaker today (from companies like PSB, Mirage, Energy, etc., not to mention the speaker manufacturers under the Harman banner) compared to what you could get even 10 years ago. I am not familiar with the Toole work you're referring to, but it sounds very interesting. I'd love to see a citation. I've always attributed the different sonic character of various nation's loudspeaker designs to local sonic preferences (ie. the propensity of American home speakers to have flabby out of control bass, of British speakers to have restricted but tight bass, of Japanese speakers to be smiley filtered). Maybe that's not true. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#99
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Quote without comment
"Eeyore" wrote in message ... Iain Churches wrote: "MiNe 109" wrote Still, in cases of deteriorated or missing original master tapes, an lp transfer might be the best way to hear a specific recording. From tape to vinyl is a three, four, or five step process. Any of the "negatives" from these intermediate steps can be used for transcription in CD mastering. This is often done. Transfer from a pressing is the least desirable option. Maybe you should explain how the stampers are generated ? I am referring to original metalwork. You cannot use a stamper - it's a positive:-) Iain PS. The world is still waiting for your improved definition of the term "dBm", Graham |
#100
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Quote without comment
"George M. Middius" cmndr _ george @ comcast . net wrote in message ... Iain Churches said: "Facts about Krooborg" states that you're a second-hand computer repair man from Michigan! Also Chrysler Ashtray Designer Emeritus. (It says so on his toilet paper.) How could someone so cruelly mis-inform me on such an important matter? :-) |
#101
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Quote without comment
On 3 Sep, 18:13, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
Lots of stuff in the seventies was screechy to the point of being hard to cut on vinyl, because of the aggressive use of narrowband monitors and cocaine in that era. It's almost impossible to cut cocaine on vinyl. CD's do better for that, though they are way to small. But the smooth frequency response makes it possible. |
#102
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Quote without comment
In article i,
"Iain Churches" wrote: "Eeyore" wrote in message ... Iain Churches wrote: "MiNe 109" wrote Still, in cases of deteriorated or missing original master tapes, an lp transfer might be the best way to hear a specific recording. From tape to vinyl is a three, four, or five step process. Any of the "negatives" from these intermediate steps can be used for transcription in CD mastering. This is often done. Transfer from a pressing is the least desirable option. Maybe you should explain how the stampers are generated ? I am referring to original metalwork. You cannot use a stamper - it's a positive:-) I am confused by your use of the term "positive", can you define the meaning of the word "positive" in disk cutting? Are you saying that the final LP the consumer buys is a "negative"? Regards, John Byrns -- Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/ |
#103
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Quote without comment
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message ups.com... On 3 Sep, 18:13, (Scott Dorsey) wrote: Lots of stuff in the seventies was screechy to the point of being hard to cut on vinyl, because of the aggressive use of narrowband monitors and cocaine in that era. It's almost impossible to cut cocaine on vinyl. CD's do better for that, though they are way to small. But the smooth frequency response makes it possible. I've seen DJs pour lines on to decks while they are spinning and snort it off them before the stylus gets to that point. Phildo |
#104
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Quote without comment
Iain Churches said: "Facts about Krooborg" states that you're a second-hand computer repair man from Michigan! Also Chrysler Ashtray Designer Emeritus. (It says so on his toilet paper.) How could someone so cruelly mis-inform me on such an important matter? :-) That's what you get for relying on underground reference books. The Resistance's official handbook on audio 'borgism is quite comprehensive. |
#105
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Quote without comment
In article , Phildo wrote:
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message On 3 Sep, 18:13, (Scott Dorsey) wrote: Lots of stuff in the seventies was screechy to the point of being hard to cut on vinyl, because of the aggressive use of narrowband monitors and cocaine in that era. It's almost impossible to cut cocaine on vinyl. CD's do better for that, though they are way to small. But the smooth frequency response makes it possible. I've seen DJs pour lines on to decks while they are spinning and snort it off them before the stylus gets to that point. Well, it least it's readily soluble so the vacuum machine can get the residue out, unlike with the candle wax.... --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#106
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Quote without comment
"George M. Middius" cmndr _ george @ comcast . net wrote in message news Iain Churches said: "Facts about Krooborg" states that you're a second-hand computer repair man from Michigan! Also Chrysler Ashtray Designer Emeritus. (It says so on his toilet paper.) How could someone so cruelly mis-inform me on such an important matter? :-) That's what you get for relying on underground reference books. The Resistance's official handbook on audio 'borgism is quite comprehensive. ´ I received an e-mail circular some years ago, when I first began "discussions" with Arny on UKRA. This was prior to his being born again. At that time he had quite the foulest mouth of anyone on Usenet) The e-mail was entitled "Facts About Krooborg". I gave it only a cursory glance, but the "computer repair man" stuck in my mind for some reason. I exchange an e-mail now and again with a second generation Danish American. He calls Arny "Kruborg" Good Danish humour:-) |
#107
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Quote without comment
"John Byrns" wrote in message ... In article i, "Iain Churches" wrote: "Eeyore" wrote in message ... Iain Churches wrote: "MiNe 109" wrote Still, in cases of deteriorated or missing original master tapes, an lp transfer might be the best way to hear a specific recording. From tape to vinyl is a three, four, or five step process. Any of the "negatives" from these intermediate steps can be used for transcription in CD mastering. This is often done. Transfer from a pressing is the least desirable option. Maybe you should explain how the stampers are generated ? I am referring to original metalwork. You cannot use a stamper - it's a positive:-) I am confused by your use of the term "positive", can you define the meaning of the word "positive" in disk cutting? Are you saying that the final LP the consumer buys is a "negative"? Once again I cannot vouch for the terminology that may be used in the US. I can only tell you what we used in the UK when I was there. The first link in the chain is the lacquer, cut from the master tape. It could be played like any other disc, if you had an arm that could accomodate its 14 inch diameter. Yes, you are correct. It can be regarded as a negative, (the logic being that the grooves are below the surface of the disc) Try not to think in photographic terms. Lacquers going for production were carefully inspected with a microscope, but *never* played. The next step is the silver deposit into the grooves of this lacquer to make a positive. What were grooves on the lacquer are raised "moraine" type lines. This we called the stamper. One can make a further negative from this by the same plating process. This was called the "matrix" and needs to be carefully "peeled" away from the stamper. The number which you will see on the vinyl (in the case of Decca cuts always besides the lock point in the scroll out) is the matrix number, which tells you who the cutting engineer was, and how many times this particular side has been cut. The factory ask for a recut in the event that stampers are worn or damaged and new ones cannot be grown. On a very short run, just one positive stamper would suffice. For medium runs, new stampers can be grown from the matrix (which being a negative, i.e. having grooves, can also be played) This is the metal which is used for transcription if required for CD pre-mastering. They have an incredibly quiet surface. One could go even a step further and make a "mother" from which multiple "matrices"are made, where metal was required for local pressing work by overseas agents. Many record companies that still have metalwork from the 78rpm days, use a metal matrix for CD transfer. These too sound quite remarkable. I have ben involved in several such projects of early jazz material. Metalwork must never be cleaned or polished. It has an adverse effect on the background noise. A stained matrix sounds a lot better than its cosmetic appearance would lead you to believe. I have some ABBA neg metals from my days at RCA. I play them now and again. Quite remarkable. Iain |
#108
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Quote without comment
"Iain Churches" wrote in message ti.fi... "Eeyore" wrote in message ... Iain Churches wrote: "MiNe 109" wrote Still, in cases of deteriorated or missing original master tapes, an lp transfer might be the best way to hear a specific recording. From tape to vinyl is a three, four, or five step process. Any of the "negatives" from these intermediate steps can be used for transcription in CD mastering. This is often done. Transfer from a pressing is the least desirable option. Maybe you should explain how the stampers are generated ? I am referring to original metalwork. You cannot use a stamper - it's a positive:-) Iain has apparently never heard of those special styli ground to ride on the top of the raised groove of a stamper. |
#109
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Quote without comment
The Krooborg takes heart from Queenie Catie's mindless flailing on behalf of scientism. I am referring to original metalwork. You cannot use a stamper - it's a positive:-) Iain has apparently never heard Trite "debating trade" ploy by the Krooborg. Point to Mr. Churches. |
#110
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Quote without comment
"John Byrns" wrote in message ... In article i, "Iain Churches" wrote: "Eeyore" wrote in message ... Iain Churches wrote: "MiNe 109" wrote Still, in cases of deteriorated or missing original master tapes, an lp transfer might be the best way to hear a specific recording. From tape to vinyl is a three, four, or five step process. Any of the "negatives" from these intermediate steps can be used for transcription in CD mastering. This is often done. Transfer from a pressing is the least desirable option. Maybe you should explain how the stampers are generated ? I am referring to original metalwork. You cannot use a stamper - it's a positive:-) I am confused by your use of the term "positive", can you define the meaning of the word "positive" in disk cutting? Postive does not relate to cutting, it relates to preparing the dies for stamping. A positive has a groove configuration that is similar to the original lacquer and the final LP. The stamper, and the father are negatives. There are a number of different processes that are used, depending on the size of the production run. The simplest is where the lacquer plated to create a mother, and the mother is plated to create a stamper. For longer runs, the process is: lacquer plated to create a mother, the mother plated to make a father, the father plated to create stamper. & etc. Plating steps can be repeated to make more copies of the next step at the cost of some wear and tear on the master. For example, a mother can be plated several times to make several fathers, and so on. Are you saying that the final LP the consumer buys is a "negative"? No, he gets a positive. |
#111
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Quote without comment
"Iain Churches" wrote in message i.fi... "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "John Byrns" wrote in message I would be happier with a basically straight transfer from LP to digital, with the only special processing applied being some modest declicking. I'd like to get away with that more often in the work I do. Trouble is, most if not all of the LPs I end uptranscribing seem to need more processing than that. C'mon Arny. Stop the BS:-)) Recording engineer, acoustics consultant, architect, recording engineer (!!!) and now transcription engineer. Whatever next? :-))) Whatever next? I perform all the corresponding tasks for lighting and video as well. PAR cans, DMX, RGBVH, DLP, HDTV, MPEG, all spoken and performed here. |
#112
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Quote without comment
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ... I am not familiar with the Toole work you're referring to, but it sounds very interesting. I'd love to see a citation. ADAIK, its one of the white papers on the Harmon web site. I've always attributed the different sonic character of various nation's loudspeaker designs to local sonic preferences (ie. the propensity of American home speakers to have flabby out of control bass, of British speakers to have restricted but tight bass, of Japanese speakers to be smiley filtered). Probably true at one time. Maybe that's not true. IME speaker sound has become more internationalized. |
#113
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Quote without comment
"Iain Churches" wrote in message i.fi... "Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message ... "Jenn" wrote in message news:jennconductsREMOVETHIS- And that debate was finished a decade or two ago for *intelligent* people. If by "quality audio" you mean technical superiority, then I would go with that. Past that, we're talking preference, Which is what I said. Anyone may still PREFER to listen to anything they like, the problem they have is accepting that they may PREFER something that is actually INFERIOR to the original sound. Hence their continued need to convince themselves. No, it's very simple: if a person likes the sound of some recording, based on his/her experience of that music, "inferior" has nothing to do with it. By definition, for that person, it is "superior". And that's the problem, you still can't seperate PREFERENCE from reality. The recording that most closely matches the original input signal is technically "superior" no matter what YOU might PREFER. In that case, Mr T, vinyl is, at least as far as most pop recordings are concerned, the winner. True 30 years ago. But, the market has evolved. You clearly have no experience in CD mastering of pop material on a professional level or you would know that rarely does the pre-production CD bear a close resemblance to the studio master (or "input signal" as you seem to prefer to call it) YMMV, but that is often true. However this was even more the case with vinyl. You can put anything on a CD that you can put on any digital master - only with a possible slight inaudble loss of resolution. In contrast, it is quite east to make a digital master that can never be cut on a practically usable LP. Therefore, LPs are of necessity further removed from the master. Here we have the crux of the matter. Analaogue disc cutting is incredibly skilled, with the object of the excercise being to cut a lacquer as close as possible to the studio master. Again, it is a trivial matter to create a digital master that will never be able to be cut on a practically usable LP. The same master can often be bit-for-bit reproduced on a CD. |
#114
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Quote without comment
"Peter Scott" wrote in message ... Despite the various tricks used by CD players to fill the in the steps, digital has steps between adjacent samples. Not when dithered, a necessary part of the process. At 16 bit these can be quite large in power terms at the highest audio levels. After all, 16 bit was chosen only because it was the maximum you could use to fit one hour onto a standard CD. It never was the optimum technical specification. When we start hearing 20 bit or better on DVD type disks the step issue should go. So please name ONE single CD that uses over 90dB DNR, and may actually benefit from having more than 96dB? Now tell me where you propose to listen to it? :-) What I like about CD is the silence. Oh, and the dynamic range. And yet you still claim 16 bits is inadequate, despite no commercial disks using the full potential of standard CD performance. So I reckon all this discussion will stop when disk capacity is enough to move to higher digital resolutions. So why hasn't SACD done it already then? MrT. |
#115
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Quote without comment
"Iain Churches" wrote in message i.fi... And that's the problem, you still can't seperate PREFERENCE from reality. The recording that most closely matches the original input signal is technically "superior" no matter what YOU might PREFER. In that case, Mr T, vinyl is, at least as far as most pop recordings are concerned, the winner. Thanks for pointing out you have no idea of the difference between the possible system performance and an actual musical performance. You clearly have no experience in CD mastering of pop material on a professional level or you would know that rarely does the pre-production CD bear a close resemblance to the studio master (or "input signal" as you seem to prefer to call it) And you would clearly be both wrong and irrelevant. Now, due the commercial pressures, and "louder is better" school of thought, a thriving industry in CD mastering has emerged. Mastering is regarded as another step in the production chain, where sometimes horrificdecisions are taken in the attempt to give the public what they (think they) want. Which was often the case with vinyl as well, and has NOTHING to do with the format. But thanks for pointing out the limits of your understanding. MrT. |
#116
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Quote without comment
"Iain Churches" wrote in message i.fi... Don't be taken in by Arny's BS. He's a computer repair man:-) At least he can do something useful then, not just make stupid insults! MrT. |
#117
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Quote without comment
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote: "John Byrns" wrote in message ... In article i, "Iain Churches" wrote: "Eeyore" wrote in message ... Iain Churches wrote: "MiNe 109" wrote Still, in cases of deteriorated or missing original master tapes, an lp transfer might be the best way to hear a specific recording. From tape to vinyl is a three, four, or five step process. Any of the "negatives" from these intermediate steps can be used for transcription in CD mastering. This is often done. Transfer from a pressing is the least desirable option. Maybe you should explain how the stampers are generated ? I am referring to original metalwork. You cannot use a stamper - it's a positive:-) I am confused by your use of the term "positive", can you define the meaning of the word "positive" in disk cutting? Postive does not relate to cutting, it relates to preparing the dies for stamping. A positive has a groove configuration that is similar to the original lacquer and the final LP. The stamper, and the father are negatives. There are a number of different processes that are used, depending on the size of the production run. The simplest is where the lacquer plated to create a mother, and the mother is plated to create a stamper. For longer runs, the process is: lacquer plated to create a mother, the mother plated to make a father, the father plated to create stamper. & etc. Plating steps can be repeated to make more copies of the next step at the cost of some wear and tear on the master. For example, a mother can be plated several times to make several fathers, and so on. Are you saying that the final LP the consumer buys is a "negative"? No, he gets a positive. But Iain said "You cannot use a stamper - it's a positive", how can both the stamper and the LP both be "positive"? I think Iain has another definition for "positive". Regards, John Byrns -- Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/ |
#118
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Quote without comment
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message . .. "Iain Churches" wrote in message ti.fi... "Eeyore" wrote in message ... Iain Churches wrote: "MiNe 109" wrote Still, in cases of deteriorated or missing original master tapes, an lp transfer might be the best way to hear a specific recording. From tape to vinyl is a three, four, or five step process. Any of the "negatives" from these intermediate steps can be used for transcription in CD mastering. This is often done. Transfer from a pressing is the least desirable option. Maybe you should explain how the stampers are generated ? I am referring to original metalwork. You cannot use a stamper - it's a positive:-) Iain has apparently never heard of those special styli ground to ride on the top of the raised groove of a stamper. Indeed I have. Decca used to make them for studio use. AFAIK they were not available to the public. |
#119
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Quote without comment
"John Byrns" wrote in message ... But Iain said "You cannot use a stamper - it's a positive", how can both the stamper and the LP both be "positive"? I think Iain has another definition for "positive". Hello John. I described the process in the terminology we we used at Decca to you in a post yesterday. Afer this I received a message from a guy who works as the Swedish mint in Stockholm. He told me that the stamper used to strike coins and medals, which has the raised surface, is also called a "positiv" Similarly, he pointed out, in map making, countours above sea level are termed positive contours, so this logic is not un-common. I would not be at all surprised if you use opposite/different terms in the US. In Europe we have a history of seeing things differently:-) Some of these have been discussed on RAT: Plate/anode, common cathode/cathode coupled, tube/valve etc etc. Many of the German and UK equipment makers and studios used at one time what seemed a much more sensible convention for wiring XLR connectors. 1-Ground, 2.Cld, 3 Hot. But, call it what you will, the fact still remains, that, without the use of the inverted stylus which Arny mentioned, one cannot normally transcribe from a stamper. Best regards Iain |
#120
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Quote without comment
Mr.T wrote: "Peter Scott" wrote in message ... Despite the various tricks used by CD players to fill the in the steps, digital has steps between adjacent samples. Not when dithered, a necessary part of the process. Doesn't alter the argument that there are steps that have to be filled in by some technique. The real in-fill information is not there. And yet you still claim 16 bits is inadequate, despite no commercial disks using the full potential of standard CD performance. If 16 bits is adequate why are recordings made at, and broadcast data links use, higher resolutions? -- __________________________________________________ _______________________ Composed using Mozilla Thunderbird and virus checked using Grisoft AVG Peter Scott __________________________________________________ _______________________ |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Quote without comment | Audio Opinions | |||
Quote without comment | Tech | |||
quote | Car Audio | |||
A quote | Audio Opinions | |||
Quote: Wikpedia | Audio Opinions |