"Jenn" wrote in message


What I'm getting to is that the
violin sound is much more unlike the sound of real
violins on CD than it is on the best LPs. I can still
tell that it's supposed to be violin. It's a matter of
degree and subtlety.

Yup all violins sound the same, or Jenn has some magical ESP power that
enables her to accurately know what a violin she's never seen or heard is
supposed to sound like.

If you believe this - I've got some creationist books for you read... ;-)

"MD" wrote in message


I use LP and CD. Until recently I thought the remastered
CD or well recorded CDs sounded as good or in some cases
better than their LP counter part - so I played the CD. Recently I
upgraded my cartridge from a Grado Prestige
Silver to a Goldring 1012GX. The GX has a much smaller
stylus. Now when I compare the LP to the CD the LP is
clearly better - especially in the highs. (Sony
remastered version of Kind of Blue compared to the
original 6 eye pressing and the Kansas Leftoveture
remastered CD compared to the half speed mastered LP) System - AMC Int
tube Amp, Systemdek IIX, Triangle Celius
speakers, Denon CD with Audio Alchemy D/A and Jitter box

Yet another amazing individual with the power to accurately know what a
violin they've never seen, heard or in many cases even say what make and
model it is, should sound like.

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...
From: Jenn - view profile
Date: Mon, Feb 20 2006 2:05 am
Email: Jenn

Cool. The Soviets generally did NOT follow the RIAA equalization curve.

Well, then they should sound, um, interesting. LOL!

Oh well. $4 down the ****er...:-)


For a truly Russian one

Some Melodiya's were made in the west for the Western market and
were RIAA. The jackets were printed in English.

I don't know which ones Jenn was talking about.





--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

"vlad" wrote in message
ups.com...

Jenn wrote:
In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

MINe 109 wrote:
In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

Jenn wrote:
And yet, to my ears, the best LPs surpass CDs in their
reproduction of
acoustic music.


That's too bad for you, given how much easier it is to find works
on CD
than
LP these days.
But in any case, you do realize that this is all you'll ever be
able to
say,
right? IT's the
answer you always end up giving, no matter how much about digital
to
analog
is explained to
you. It's no sort of *rejoinder*, it's simply a statement of
preference
that
says as much, or
more, about YOU as it does about the formats. If you think LPs
sound
better
than their CD
counterparts, but still want to hear 'LP sound' on CD, I suggest
you
carefully record your LPs
to CD. That way the euphonic distortions you're enjoying so much,a
nd
which
are missing on
well-made digital recordings, will be rendered in an exremely
faithful,
yet
far more
convenient and damage-proof, format.

I hope you sneered as you wrote that. I don't remember you being such
a
bully-boy. Maybe there's something about Jenn that encourages your
brutal propensities.

*You* hope I sneered, but *I'm* the brutal one? Amazing. It's like
you guys
don't
even read what you write sometimes.

As for Jenn, she's been posting her 'it doesn't matter what you say, I
HEAR
IT' non-argument
for months on rahe.

OK, you win. I now "know" that CDs sound better, so I'll just ignore
what my ears tell me, since that's a "non-argument". I'm sure that my
ears will now agree that CDs sound better, since I have been told that
they do. My enjoyment of hi-fi in my home will no doubt now increase.


Jenn,

People are trying to explain to you one simple thing - your
preference for LP's is not a fact proving that LP's are more
accurate, superior, etc. It is just your preference. You are entitled
to any opinions and preferences that you want. If you will say "In my
humble opinion LP's are better then CD" nobody will have an
argument with you. You have a right for an opinion. You attempts to use
your subjective feelings as a proof of LP's superiority are pathetic.

Now if you want to claim a fact "LP's are better then CD'c in ..." then
people have a right to question your reasoning. And because you use you
'ears' as a proof you must be ready to critique of your ears. :-)

Are we still friends? :-)

Vlad


it all depends on what one considers 'better'.
That, itself, is subjective.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

snippy snip snip

Too bad you snipped out the substantive points, too.

Nonsense. If we're going to discuss whether the sound of
a violin as reproduced matches or does not match that of
a live violin, then we need a good reference.

If one has experience with violins, one has a reference.

Yup, all violins sound enough the same that they can provide a reliable,
absolute reference for making far-reaching decisions about major advances in
technology like the digital audio CD. ;-)

At this point I've made about 50 digital recordings of from 1 to 8 violins
and like instruments (cellos, violas, etc.). I can easily tell them all
apart. I doubt that they would be as readilby distinguishable if recorded
and played back from a LP.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...


If you believe this - I've got some creationist books for you read... ;-)


is that as large as your sound card collection?



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

"vlad" wrote in message
ups.com...

Jenn wrote:
In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

MINe 109 wrote:
In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

Jenn wrote:
And yet, to my ears, the best LPs surpass CDs in their
reproduction of
acoustic music.


That's too bad for you, given how much easier it is to find works
on CD
than
LP these days.
But in any case, you do realize that this is all you'll ever be
able to
say,
right? IT's the
answer you always end up giving, no matter how much about digital
to
analog
is explained to
you. It's no sort of *rejoinder*, it's simply a statement of
preference
that
says as much, or
more, about YOU as it does about the formats. If you think LPs
sound
better
than their CD
counterparts, but still want to hear 'LP sound' on CD, I suggest
you
carefully record your LPs
to CD. That way the euphonic distortions you're enjoying so much,a
nd
which
are missing on
well-made digital recordings, will be rendered in an exremely
faithful,
yet
far more
convenient and damage-proof, format.

I hope you sneered as you wrote that. I don't remember you being such
a
bully-boy. Maybe there's something about Jenn that encourages your
brutal propensities.

*You* hope I sneered, but *I'm* the brutal one? Amazing. It's like
you guys
don't
even read what you write sometimes.

As for Jenn, she's been posting her 'it doesn't matter what you say, I
HEAR
IT' non-argument
for months on rahe.

OK, you win. I now "know" that CDs sound better, so I'll just ignore
what my ears tell me, since that's a "non-argument". I'm sure that my
ears will now agree that CDs sound better, since I have been told that
they do. My enjoyment of hi-fi in my home will no doubt now increase.


Jenn,

People are trying to explain to you one simple thing - your
preference for LP's is not a fact proving that LP's are more
accurate, superior, etc. It is just your preference. You are entitled
to any opinions and preferences that you want. If you will say "In my
humble opinion LP's are better then CD" nobody will have an
argument with you. You have a right for an opinion. You attempts to use
your subjective feelings as a proof of LP's superiority are pathetic.

Now if you want to claim a fact "LP's are better then CD'c in ..." then
people have a right to question your reasoning. And because you use you
'ears' as a proof you must be ready to critique of your ears. :-)

Are we still friends? :-)


Vlad -

She said "To the my ears, the best LP's .....". That's no different than
saying IMO.

Harry

In article .com,
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote:

From: George M. Middius
Date: Sun, Feb 19 2006 10:10 am
Email: George M. Middius cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast
[dot] net

Oops! This is where duh-Mikey will start squawking about "level matching"
and "DBT" and "aBx". Then he'll claim you hate science, and from there it's
just a short leap to "Clinton-loving liberal".

I must be off nob's scale. According to him, I want American soldiers
to die.

That's worse than 'Clinton-loving liberal,' isn't it?

Depends, I suppose.

In article ,
"Clyde Slick" wrote:

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...
From: Jenn - view profile
Date: Mon, Feb 20 2006 2:05 am
Email: Jenn

Cool. The Soviets generally did NOT follow the RIAA equalization curve.

Well, then they should sound, um, interesting. LOL!

Oh well. $4 down the ****er...:-)


For a truly Russian one

Some Melodiya's were made in the west for the Western market and
were RIAA. The jackets were printed in English.

Yup.

I don't know which ones Jenn was talking about.

The ones made in the SU with Russian language covers.

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...

As for 'overtones' beyond 20 kHz -- 1) what evidence have you that you
can *hear* them 2) what evidence have you LP would reproduce them
*accurately* and without
significant distortion and 3) what
makes you think they'd remain that way after one or two passes of a
stylus?

Don't you remember CD-4 technology? You guys need to accept that
frequencies upto 50 kHz can be imprinted on and extracted from vinyl.
My Signet cart with Shibata stylus is has a spec'd FR to 55 kHz.

Now I'm not saying that this any bearing on the harmonic content of vinyl
recordings...but you do need to get your technology information straight.
High frequency response is one area where vinyl can technically exceed CD...
and not by just a little.

ScottW

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

snippy snip snip

Too bad you snipped out the substantive points, too.

Nonsense. If we're going to discuss whether the sound of
a violin as reproduced matches or does not match that of
a live violin, then we need a good reference.

If one has experience with violins, one has a reference.

Yup, all violins sound enough the same that they can provide a reliable,
absolute reference for making far-reaching decisions about major advances in
technology like the digital audio CD. ;-)

No, the sound of violins is distinctive enough to provide a strong
reference for generating a personal preference, unlike, say, electric
bass guitar.

At this point I've made about 50 digital recordings of from 1 to 8 violins
and like instruments (cellos, violas, etc.). I can easily tell them all
apart. I doubt that they would be as readilby distinguishable if recorded
and played back from a LP.

Give it a try and get back to us.

Stephen

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message


What I'm getting to is that the
violin sound is much more unlike the sound of real
violins on CD than it is on the best LPs. I can still
tell that it's supposed to be violin. It's a matter of
degree and subtlety.

Yup all violins sound the same, or Jenn has some magical ESP power that
enables her to accurately know what a violin she's never seen or heard is
supposed to sound like.

Better than that: her "ESP" can tell what a violin *doesn't* sound like.

If you believe this - I've got some creationist books for you read... ;-)

What you have in your library is your business.

Stephen

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message


What I'm getting to is that the
violin sound is much more unlike the sound of real
violins on CD than it is on the best LPs. I can still
tell that it's supposed to be violin. It's a matter of
degree and subtlety.

Yup all violins sound the same,

A statement that no one has made.

or Jenn has some magical ESP power that
enables her to accurately know what a violin she's never seen or heard is
supposed to sound like.

Another statement that no one has made. My point is (again) that the
sound of violins on CD is unlike ANY violin that actually exists.

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article
,
wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article
,
wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

wrote in message
oups.com

In order to try to get at home the "natural"
sound of violins one must know what violins do
sound like.

This statement is missing so much relevant info that
it is worthless.

Contrary to golden ear dogma, all violins do not
sound the same. The identical same violin does not
sound the same with different strings. The
identical same violin with the same strings does not
sound the same when
played by a different person. No player plays the
same every time they play.
No violin sounds the same in different places.

A violin sounds substantiatlly different depending
on where you sit in the
room, whether that room is a room with poor
acoustics or whether that room
is Detroit's Orchestra hall. The same is true of
entire orchestras, as I
found out when I was a member of a study group that
did a comparison of
Orchestra Hall and the Detroit Symphony's former
location, at the request
of
the Symphony's Board of Directors.

To paraphrase Mirabel's grotesque error into far
better truth, let me write:

In order to try to get at home the "natural" sound
of specific violins
one
must know what those specific violins sound like
when played by specific
players, playing a specific piece of music, on a
specific occasion, and
playing in a specific place.

While what you write here is obvious and true, you
leave out one important consideration. That is,
there are common traits to the sound of, in this
case, all violins in all performance spaces, heard
from each
of the seats. As an example, you could listen to a
person speaking in a
variety of rooms, etc. and still know that it is THAT
person speaking. In my experience, this is what is
missing from the upper frequency string sound on CDs;
it is as though it is a different "voice".

I obtain that knowlege on the average three times a
week, and have recordings that match that particular
knowlege.

AFAIK nobody else who posts on this newssgroup or
RAHE can come close.

Can come close to what; your level of experience with
live acoustic music? I would beg to differ.

Be that as it may, it is still impossible for LPs to
be as accurate at playing back the sound of a violin.
Here's another lesson on how limited LP's a
http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~jcgl/Sc...t12/page2.html

It would be possible to go on considering various
other factors which alter
the detailed performance of Long Playing records. For
example, any serious
comparison of 'LP versus CD' would have to take into
account the relatively
high levels of signal distortion which commercial
cartridges produce when recovering signals louder than
the 0 dB level. Typically, signals of +10 dB
or above are accompanied by harmonic distortion levels
of 10% or more - not
a very high fidelity performance! Even at the 0 dB
level, many cartridges produce around 1% (or more!)
harmonic distortion. The frequency response of
signals recorded on LP are also modified - the high
frequency level boosted
and the low frequency level reduced - to obtain better
S/N and distortion performance. This means that an LP
replay system must include a De-Emphasis
network to Correct the recovered signal's frequency
response. Here, however,
we are only interested in considering those physical
factors which make the
LP less than an ideally 'analog' way to communicate
information. These extra
factors affect the performance of an LP but they don't
change the basic nature of the system.

And yet, to my ears, the best LPs surpass CDs in their
reproduction of acoustic music.

That's nothing to do with which IS more accurate.

I didn't say that it did.

No LP can reproduce
anything better than a CD. Unless it's click and pops.

And to my ears, timbres of instruments.

The fact still remains that whatver sound you hear from
a CD is the sound that was on the master tape.

Your prefernce for the sound of violin from LP simply
means that you have a preference for something other
that the sound of real violins.

Says you; not my ears.

Thanks for admitting that you are brainless, Jenn.

Of course you're not brainless - you just say that you are.

Another non sequitur from the King of the same.

"ScottW" wrote in message
news:f5nKf.13356$2c4.3927@dukeread11
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...

As for 'overtones' beyond 20 kHz -- 1) what evidence
have you that you can *hear* them 2) what evidence have
you LP would reproduce them *accurately* and without
significant distortion and 3) what
makes you think they'd remain that way after one or two
passes of a stylus?

Don't you remember CD-4 technology? You guys need to
accept that frequencies upto 50 kHz can be imprinted on
and extracted from vinyl. My Signet cart with Shibata stylus is has a
spec'd FR to
55 kHz.

You need to read the fine print in Steven's post, Scott:

1. "that you can *hear* them"

Hint: You can't.

2. "LP would reproduce them *accurately* and without
significant distortion"

Hint: "it can't"
It's not just a matter of materials, but basic geometry.

LP grooves are cut with a chisel-shaped cutter, but played with eliptical or
spherical styli. The difference between the cutting element and the tracing
element adds significant amounts of distortion above 8 KHz or so.

3. "they'd remain that way after one or two passes of a stylus"

Here I disagree with Steven. I have a number of friends who dabble in
classic audio including CD-4. They tell me that one might get upwards of
10-20 passes under ideal conditions, until the CD-4 carrier is undetectable
with the better CD-4 decoders.

Now I'm not saying that this any bearing on the harmonic
content of vinyl recordings...but you do need to get your
technology information straight.

The designers of CD-4 needed in the worst way to encode information 15 KHz
on their LPs. In the end they accomplished this, but in the worst way. This
system was never sucessful, and not for trying.

High frequency response
is one area where vinyl can technically exceed CD... and
not by just a little.

The inverse is true to a far more significant degree. CD's have full power
bandwith above 10 KHz or so, and LPs don't. The audibility of LP-induced
noise and distortion in the 10-20 KHz is inarguable.

In article . com,
"vlad" wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

MINe 109 wrote:
In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

Jenn wrote:
And yet, to my ears, the best LPs surpass CDs in their reproduction
of
acoustic music.


That's too bad for you, given how much easier it is to find works on
CD
than
LP these days.
But in any case, you do realize that this is all you'll ever be able
to
say,
right? IT's the
answer you always end up giving, no matter how much about digital to
analog
is explained to
you. It's no sort of *rejoinder*, it's simply a statement of
preference
that
says as much, or
more, about YOU as it does about the formats. If you think LPs sound
better
than their CD
counterparts, but still want to hear 'LP sound' on CD, I suggest you
carefully record your LPs
to CD. That way the euphonic distortions you're enjoying so much,a
nd
which
are missing on
well-made digital recordings, will be rendered in an exremely
faithful,
yet
far more
convenient and damage-proof, format.

I hope you sneered as you wrote that. I don't remember you being such a
bully-boy. Maybe there's something about Jenn that encourages your
brutal propensities.

*You* hope I sneered, but *I'm* the brutal one? Amazing. It's like you
guys
don't
even read what you write sometimes.

As for Jenn, she's been posting her 'it doesn't matter what you say, I
HEAR
IT' non-argument
for months on rahe.

OK, you win. I now "know" that CDs sound better, so I'll just ignore
what my ears tell me, since that's a "non-argument". I'm sure that my
ears will now agree that CDs sound better, since I have been told that
they do. My enjoyment of hi-fi in my home will no doubt now increase.


Jenn,

People are trying to explain to you one simple thing - your
preference for LP's is not a fact proving that LP's are more
accurate, superior, etc.

I've never stated that LPs are more accurate. The fact that some LPs
are, in some aspects, more superior in sound is simply my opinion, based
on what my ears tell me.

It is just your preference. You are entitled
to any opinions and preferences that you want. If you will say "In my
humble opinion LP's are better then CD" nobody will have an
argument with you.

If others will say, "In my humble opinion CDs sound better than LPs" I
won't have an argument with them either.

You have a right for an opinion. You attempts to use
your subjective feelings as a proof of LP's superiority are pathetic.

The contortions performed by others to claim that my ears should hear
something different than they do hear are pathetic.

Now if you want to claim a fact "LP's are better then CD'c in ..." then
people have a right to question your reasoning.

I agree.

And because you use you
'ears' as a proof you must be ready to critique of your ears. :-)

I agree. When someone has a legitimate critique of my ears, let me know.

Are we still friends? :-)

Sure, as long as you don't perform lame attempts at insults simply
because we disagree on this, as others do. :-)

"MINe 109" wrote in message


In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message


What I'm getting to is that the
violin sound is much more unlike the sound of real
violins on CD than it is on the best LPs. I can still
tell that it's supposed to be violin. It's a matter of
degree and subtlety.

Yup all violins sound the same, or Jenn has some magical
ESP power that enables her to accurately know what a
violin she's never seen or heard is supposed to sound
like.

Better than that: her "ESP" can tell what a violin
*doesn't* sound like.

If so, why is she so sold on LPs?

I've never heard a LP handle solo, ensemble and massed violins as well as
good digital.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"ScottW" wrote in message
news:f5nKf.13356$2c4.3927@dukeread11
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...

As for 'overtones' beyond 20 kHz -- 1) what evidence
have you that you can *hear* them 2) what evidence have
you LP would reproduce them *accurately* and without
significant distortion and 3) what
makes you think they'd remain that way after one or two
passes of a stylus?

Don't you remember CD-4 technology? You guys need to
accept that frequencies upto 50 kHz can be imprinted on
and extracted from vinyl. My Signet cart with Shibata stylus is has a
spec'd FR to
55 kHz.

You need to read the fine print in Steven's post, Scott:

1. "that you can *hear* them"

Hint: You can't.

2. "LP would reproduce them *accurately* and without
significant distortion"

Hint: "it can't"
It's not just a matter of materials, but basic geometry.

You're going to argue its not accurate and without significant
distortion but when using CD as the standard for HF (20 kHz) reproduction
LP is significantly more accurate and less distorted.


LP grooves are cut with a chisel-shaped cutter, but played with eliptical
or spherical styli. The difference between the cutting element and the
tracing element adds significant amounts of distortion above 8 KHz or so.

3. "they'd remain that way after one or two passes of a stylus"

Here I disagree with Steven. I have a number of friends who dabble in
classic audio including CD-4. They tell me that one might get upwards of
10-20 passes under ideal conditions, until the CD-4 carrier is
undetectable with the better CD-4 decoders.

I knew people with CD-4 systems and they didn't seemt to have
a huge problem with surround channel degradation.
Try a decent stylus.


Now I'm not saying that this any bearing on the harmonic
content of vinyl recordings...but you do need to get your
technology information straight.

The designers of CD-4 needed in the worst way to encode information 15
KHz on their LPs. In the end they accomplished this, but in the worst way.
This system was never sucessful, and not for trying.

High frequency response
is one area where vinyl can technically exceed CD... and
not by just a little.

The inverse is true to a far more significant degree. CD's have full power
bandwith above 10 KHz or so, and LPs don't. The audibility of LP-induced
noise and distortion in the 10-20 KHz is inarguable.

and the complete lack of any output above 20 kHz is also inarguable.

ScottW

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message


In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message


What I'm getting to is that the
violin sound is much more unlike the sound of real
violins on CD than it is on the best LPs. I can still
tell that it's supposed to be violin. It's a matter of
degree and subtlety.

Yup all violins sound the same, or Jenn has some magical
ESP power that enables her to accurately know what a
violin she's never seen or heard is supposed to sound
like.

Better than that: her "ESP" can tell what a violin
*doesn't* sound like.

If so, why is she so sold on LPs?

Some lps preserve some aspect of the sound that cds don't. Or so-called
"euphonic distortions" play a part.

If we had a specific recording in mind we could discuss the individual
elements: hall; mics; recording medium; mastering; etc.

I've never heard a LP handle solo, ensemble and massed violins as well as
good digital.

That's too bad. Perhaps you'd like to recommend a cd with a good
representation of massed violins.

Stephen

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

snippy snip snip

Too bad you snipped out the substantive points, too.

Nonsense. If we're going to discuss whether the sound
of a violin as reproduced matches or does not match
that of a live violin, then we need a good reference.

If one has experience with violins, one has a reference.

Yup, all violins sound enough the same that they can
provide a reliable, absolute reference for making
far-reaching decisions about major advances in
technology like the digital audio CD. ;-)

No, the sound of violins is distinctive enough to provide
a strong reference for generating a personal preference,
unlike, say, electric bass guitar.

Prove it.

At this point I've made about 50 digital recordings of
from 1 to 8 violins and like instruments (cellos,
violas, etc.). I can easily tell them all apart. I doubt
that they would be as readilby distinguishable if
recorded and played back from a LP.

Give it a try and get back to us.

Been there, done that.

One thing about being my age is that I had to suffer from about 1953 to 1983
with little more than LPs to listen to in the way of recorded music. The bad
news is that I was also getting a pretty steady diet of live music. The
immense gulf was readily apparent.

During that time all I had to listen to is LPs, live music and occasional
way-to-short sessions of listening to high speed analog tape masters.

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message


And yet, to my ears, the best LPs surpass CDs in
their reproduction of acoustic music.

How do you avoid the involvement of your brain in the
listening process, Jenn?

In what way do you believe the brain should be
involved in the listening process, Arny?

That's a long story that is way over your head, Jenn.

I see.

No you don't Jenn. You perceive.

I see.

More evidence that with Jenn, there's no brain involved. ;-)

"ScottW" wrote in message
news:8JnKf.13503$2c4.2070@dukeread11
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"ScottW" wrote in message
news:f5nKf.13356$2c4.3927@dukeread11
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...

As for 'overtones' beyond 20 kHz -- 1) what evidence
have you that you can *hear* them 2) what evidence have
you LP would reproduce them *accurately* and without
significant distortion and 3) what
makes you think they'd remain that way after one or two
passes of a stylus?

Don't you remember CD-4 technology? You guys need to
accept that frequencies upto 50 kHz can be imprinted on
and extracted from vinyl. My Signet cart with Shibata
stylus is has a spec'd FR to
55 kHz.

You need to read the fine print in Steven's post, Scott:

1. "that you can *hear* them"

Hint: You can't.

2. "LP would reproduce them *accurately* and without
significant distortion"

Hint: "it can't"
It's not just a matter of materials, but basic geometry.

You're going to argue its not accurate and without
significant distortion but when using CD as the standard
for HF (20 kHz) reproduction LP is significantly more
accurate and less distorted.

LP grooves are cut with a chisel-shaped cutter, but
played with eliptical or spherical styli. The difference
between the cutting element and the tracing element adds
significant amounts of distortion above 8 KHz or so. 3. "they'd remain
that way after one or two passes of a
stylus" Here I disagree with Steven. I have a number of friends
who dabble in classic audio including CD-4. They tell me
that one might get upwards of 10-20 passes under ideal
conditions, until the CD-4 carrier is undetectable with
the better CD-4 decoders.

I knew people with CD-4 systems and they didn't seemt to
have a huge problem with surround channel degradation.
Try a decent stylus.


Now I'm not saying that this any bearing on the harmonic
content of vinyl recordings...but you do need to get
your technology information straight.

The designers of CD-4 needed in the worst way to encode
information 15 KHz on their LPs. In the end they
accomplished this, but in the worst way. This system was
never sucessful, and not for trying.
High frequency response
is one area where vinyl can technically exceed CD... and
not by just a little.

The inverse is true to a far more significant degree.
CD's have full power bandwith above 10 KHz or so, and
LPs don't. The audibility of LP-induced noise and
distortion in the 10-20 KHz is inarguable.

and the complete lack of any output above 20 kHz is also
inarguable.

Show me a listener who can reliably detect the absence of content above 20
KHz with regular music and I'll be more concerned than I am.

In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

Btw, you don't need an Alesis Masterlink to do excellent recording at higher
sampling rates
and bit depths than Redbook. A $150 M-Audio soundcard will do. Higher
bitdepths are useful
to prevent audible errors if you plan to do digital cleanup of the messy LP,
while higher
sampling rates are simply pointless for this application, though they can be
useful if you
suspect that antialiasing filters of your Redbook chain are introducing
audible artifacts.

Pointless? Not if you've got a jones for close-miked trumpets with
Harmon mutes...

But then you'll need something that can play back at the higher sampling
rate..

Like a Masterlink? Why are you comparing apples and oranges? The Alesis
is a self-contained unit; a soundcard is an add-on to a computer.

Stephen

In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

*You* hope I sneered, but *I'm* the brutal one? Amazing. It's like you guys
don't
even read what you write sometimes

Right back atcha. You were totally sneering.

Stephen

"vlad" wrote in message
oups.com

In reality, what she is saying in her posts here and on
RAHE - "LP's are better, more accurate, lively, etc., and
the proof of this fact is that I hear it with my well trained ears."

Right. In fact, the inability to hear what's wrong with LP reproduction is a
simple failure to hear that which is pretty obvious.

Part of the arguing on her part goes to prove that her
ears are much better then ours of simple mortals.

Exactly.

My take on newer members of the Vinyl uber alles gang is that they've been
through some kind of traumatic stress where some other vinyl bigot(s) like
we've got many of around here, really put them under duress about listening
to CDs.

It's known that traumatic stress can make changes to the brain that show up
in medical scans. These changes can have the effect of dulling their senses
to all the things that are wrong with vinyl's sound.

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

Btw, you don't need an Alesis Masterlink to do excellent
recording at higher sampling rates
and bit depths than Redbook. A $150 M-Audio soundcard
will do. Higher bitdepths are useful
to prevent audible errors if you plan to do digital
cleanup of the messy LP, while higher
sampling rates are simply pointless for this
application, though they can be useful if you
suspect that antialiasing filters of your Redbook chain
are introducing audible artifacts.

Pointless? Not if you've got a jones for close-miked
trumpets with Harmon mutes...

Only if you are a bat or batty.

The world is full of natural sounds that have considerable energy 20 KHz.
In test after test reproducing that energy or not reproducing that energy
produces indistinguishable results in listeners.

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:

snippy snip snip

Too bad you snipped out the substantive points, too.

Nonsense. If we're going to discuss whether the sound
of a violin as reproduced matches or does not match
that of a live violin, then we need a good reference.

If one has experience with violins, one has a reference.

Yup, all violins sound enough the same that they can
provide a reliable, absolute reference for making
far-reaching decisions about major advances in
technology like the digital audio CD. ;-)

No, the sound of violins is distinctive enough to provide
a strong reference for generating a personal preference,
unlike, say, electric bass guitar.

Prove it.

Okay, bass guitar can work, too.

I think the concept that violins have a distinct sound is sufficiently
obvious as to be taken as given for this discussion.

At this point I've made about 50 digital recordings of
from 1 to 8 violins and like instruments (cellos,
violas, etc.). I can easily tell them all apart. I doubt
that they would be as readilby distinguishable if
recorded and played back from a LP.

Give it a try and get back to us.

Been there, done that.

You made fifty lps of "1 to 8 violins and like instruments "?

One thing about being my age is that I had to suffer from about 1953 to 1983
with little more than LPs to listen to in the way of recorded music. The bad
news is that I was also getting a pretty steady diet of live music. The
immense gulf was readily apparent.

Yes, the vast majority are pretty vile. Still, we are speaking of the
best examples.

During that time all I had to listen to is LPs, live music and occasional
way-to-short sessions of listening to high speed analog tape masters.

Why didn't a picky listener such as yourself pursue commercial
reel-to-reel?

Stephen

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message


In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message


What I'm getting to is that the
violin sound is much more unlike the sound of real
violins on CD than it is on the best LPs. I can still
tell that it's supposed to be violin. It's a matter
of degree and subtlety.

Yup all violins sound the same, or Jenn has some
magical ESP power that enables her to accurately know
what a violin she's never seen or heard is supposed to
sound like.

Better than that: her "ESP" can tell what a violin
*doesn't* sound like.

If so, why is she so sold on LPs?

Some lps preserve some aspect of the sound that cds
don't. Or so-called "euphonic distortions" play a part.

Wrong, totally wrong. LP's can't preserve anything well - they are like the
fuzz boxes that some people use with their guitars.

If we had a specific recording in mind we could discuss
the individual elements: hall; mics; recording medium;
mastering; etc.

All pointless because the LP format is well-known for adding audible trash.

I've never heard a LP handle solo, ensemble and massed
violins as well as good digital.

That's too bad. Perhaps you'd like to recommend a cd with
a good representation of massed violins.

I can't think any CD that fail to do a better job on massed violins than the
best LPs I've ever heard.

"Jenn" wrote in message


My point is
(again) that the sound of violins on CD is unlike ANY
violin that actually exists.

My point is that while CD recordings aren't perfect, they are far more
perfect reproducers of the signals that come out of microphones and
reocrding consoles than LPs.

If you don't like the sound of the violins on some CD recording, blame the
guys who made the recording. They had an entirely adequate medium at their
disposal and they blew it.

you don't like the sound of the violins on some LP recording its completely
fair to blame the medium given that unlike the CD format, it is and always
has been incapable of being sonically transparent.

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

During that time all I had to listen to is LPs, live
music and occasional way-to-short sessions of listening
to high speed analog tape masters.

Why didn't a picky listener such as yourself pursue
commercial reel-to-reel?

I did, Revox A77, right?

vladborg impales himself on the splintery spike of BorgLogic.

She said "To the my ears, the best LP's .....". That's no different than
saying IMO.

If she means "in my opinion ..." then why did not she say it clear?
She can always reformulate it and post again.

There's something wrong with you. Probably caused by nanites.

BTW, which newsgroup are we posting in? Maybe I'm reading the name
differently from how you are.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"MINe 109" wrote in message


In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message


What I'm getting to is that the
violin sound is much more unlike the sound of real
violins on CD than it is on the best LPs. I can still
tell that it's supposed to be violin. It's a matter of
degree and subtlety.

Yup all violins sound the same, or Jenn has some magical
ESP power that enables her to accurately know what a
violin she's never seen or heard is supposed to sound
like.

Better than that: her "ESP" can tell what a violin
*doesn't* sound like.

If so, why is she so sold on LPs?

I've never heard a LP handle solo, ensemble and massed violins as well as
good digital.

Every single time compared double blind abx, no doubt, right Arny? Not a
hint of a priori prejudice here, right?

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Jenn" wrote in message


My point is
(again) that the sound of violins on CD is unlike ANY
violin that actually exists.

My point is that while CD recordings aren't perfect, they are far more
perfect reproducers of the signals that come out of microphones and
reocrding consoles than LPs.

If you don't like the sound of the violins on some CD recording, blame the
guys who made the recording. They had an entirely adequate medium at their
disposal and they blew it.

you don't like the sound of the violins on some LP recording its completely
fair to blame the medium given that unlike the CD format, it is and always
has been incapable of being sonically transparent.

I'd like to make two observations here after reading this group and
RAHE.

Point One:

There is a thing as 'generic violin sound' (GVS) that is used for
recognizing not particular violin but to distinguish it from say,
trombone, piano, cello, etc.

Anyone can get GVS from LP, there is no doubt about it. I also claim
that GVS from CD is also unmistakable. I remember somebody like Jenn
claiming that you cannot recognize GVS from CD but I can be wrong about
it.

Now, is GVS-LP different from GVS-CD? I would guess they are. What is
better or close to GVS-real-life? I don't know, but my personal
opinion after long expose to USSR-Melodia LP's, Western made LP's,
20+ years of CD's is that CD does this job better.

That is all about generic violin sound.

Point Two:

There are tons of badly mastered/printed LP's.
There are also tons of badly mastered/printed CD's.

However, I never observed or heard defects in any LP attributed to the
media itself.

At the same time any blemish in produced CD (that can be very well
screw up of mastering engineer) is immediately attributed to
'digitalness' of the media.

I rest my case.

Now ladies and gents you can start you insults.

vlad

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

Btw, you don't need an Alesis Masterlink to do excellent
recording at higher sampling rates
and bit depths than Redbook. A $150 M-Audio soundcard
will do. Higher bitdepths are useful
to prevent audible errors if you plan to do digital
cleanup of the messy LP, while higher
sampling rates are simply pointless for this
application, though they can be useful if you
suspect that antialiasing filters of your Redbook chain
are introducing audible artifacts.

Pointless? Not if you've got a jones for close-miked
trumpets with Harmon mutes...

Only if you are a bat or batty.

The world is full of natural sounds that have considerable energy 20
KHz. In test after test reproducing that energy or not reproducing that
energy produces indistinguishable results in listeners.


Not quite all of them Arny. Not Oohashi's very sophisticated testing which
showed that was true when doing short snippet testing, but not when doing
longer sampled proto-monadic testing in a relaxed environment. Then
ultrasonic sound led to statistically significant preferrence (in musical
terms...scalar) for the reproduction that included the ultrasonic. And this
was statistically correclated to differences in brain response to the two
variables. The testing also showed that there was a difference when testing
ultrasonic sound alone (no difference, couldn't hear) and when it was part
of the natural reproduction of an instrument (gamelan) rich in harmonic
overtones above 20khz.

Of course you know all this, Arny, and have belittled it repeatedly. And I
certainly will acknowledge that until it is corraborated via follow-on
research it is stil ultimately unproven. But it certainly is provacative,
both as to the importance of overtones in music and to the flaws in
conventional short snippet and audiometric testing.

Others who have not yet seen the study are referred to:
http://jn.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/83/6/3548.

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:

"Jenn" wrote in message


What I'm getting to is that the
violin sound is much more unlike the sound of real
violins on CD than it is on the best LPs. I can still
tell that it's supposed to be violin. It's a matter
of degree and subtlety.

Yup all violins sound the same, or Jenn has some
magical ESP power that enables her to accurately know
what a violin she's never seen or heard is supposed to
sound like.

Better than that: her "ESP" can tell what a violin
*doesn't* sound like.

If so, why is she so sold on LPs?

Some lps preserve some aspect of the sound that cds
don't. Or so-called "euphonic distortions" play a part.

Wrong, totally wrong. LP's can't preserve anything well - they are like the
fuzz boxes that some people use with their guitars.

They can preserve enough well enough. Your fuzz box comparison is off by
an order of magnitude.

If we had a specific recording in mind we could discuss
the individual elements: hall; mics; recording medium;
mastering; etc.

All pointless because the LP format is well-known for adding audible trash.

Exactly to the point: the end medium is a result of all previous steps.

I've never heard a LP handle solo, ensemble and massed
violins as well as good digital.

That's too bad. Perhaps you'd like to recommend a cd with
a good representation of massed violins.

I can't think any CD that fail to do a better job on massed violins than the
best LPs I've ever heard.

Can't recommend a cd that represents massed violins well? Your cd
collection must be extraordinarily well-chosen because most orchestral
cds aren't so great, just as in lp days.

Stephen

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

During that time all I had to listen to is LPs, live
music and occasional way-to-short sessions of listening
to high speed analog tape masters.

Why didn't a picky listener such as yourself pursue
commercial reel-to-reel?

I did, Revox A77, right?

How would I know? Good for you, though. Did you find the extra effort
worth the trouble compared to just slapping on a record?

Stephen

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

Btw, you don't need an Alesis Masterlink to do excellent
recording at higher sampling rates
and bit depths than Redbook. A $150 M-Audio soundcard
will do. Higher bitdepths are useful
to prevent audible errors if you plan to do digital
cleanup of the messy LP, while higher
sampling rates are simply pointless for this
application, though they can be useful if you
suspect that antialiasing filters of your Redbook chain
are introducing audible artifacts.

Pointless? Not if you've got a jones for close-miked
trumpets with Harmon mutes...

Only if you are a bat or batty.

The world is full of natural sounds that have considerable energy 20 KHz.
In test after test reproducing that energy or not reproducing that energy
produces indistinguishable results in listeners.

Except for gamelan orchestras, eh?

Stephen

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"ScottW" wrote in message
news:8JnKf.13503$2c4.2070@dukeread11
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"ScottW" wrote in message
news:f5nKf.13356$2c4.3927@dukeread11
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...

As for 'overtones' beyond 20 kHz -- 1) what evidence
have you that you can *hear* them 2) what evidence have
you LP would reproduce them *accurately* and without
significant distortion and 3) what
makes you think they'd remain that way after one or two
passes of a stylus?

Don't you remember CD-4 technology? You guys need to
accept that frequencies upto 50 kHz can be imprinted on
and extracted from vinyl. My Signet cart with Shibata
stylus is has a spec'd FR to
55 kHz.

You need to read the fine print in Steven's post, Scott:

1. "that you can *hear* them"

Hint: You can't.

2. "LP would reproduce them *accurately* and without
significant distortion"

Hint: "it can't"
It's not just a matter of materials, but basic geometry.

You're going to argue its not accurate and without
significant distortion but when using CD as the standard
for HF (20 kHz) reproduction LP is significantly more
accurate and less distorted.

LP grooves are cut with a chisel-shaped cutter, but
played with eliptical or spherical styli. The difference
between the cutting element and the tracing element adds
significant amounts of distortion above 8 KHz or so. 3. "they'd remain
that way after one or two passes of a
stylus" Here I disagree with Steven. I have a number of friends
who dabble in classic audio including CD-4. They tell me
that one might get upwards of 10-20 passes under ideal
conditions, until the CD-4 carrier is undetectable with
the better CD-4 decoders.

I knew people with CD-4 systems and they didn't seemt to
have a huge problem with surround channel degradation.
Try a decent stylus.


Now I'm not saying that this any bearing on the harmonic
content of vinyl recordings...but you do need to get
your technology information straight.

The designers of CD-4 needed in the worst way to encode
information 15 KHz on their LPs. In the end they
accomplished this, but in the worst way. This system was
never sucessful, and not for trying.
High frequency response
is one area where vinyl can technically exceed CD... and
not by just a little.

The inverse is true to a far more significant degree.
CD's have full power bandwith above 10 KHz or so, and
LPs don't. The audibility of LP-induced noise and
distortion in the 10-20 KHz is inarguable.

and the complete lack of any output above 20 kHz is also
inarguable.

Show me a listener who can reliably detect the absence of content above 20
KHz with regular music and I'll be more concerned than I am.

No evidence that people can consciously detect this but there is
evidence of a physiological response in the brain.

http://www.sowter.co.uk/pdf/ultrasonichearing.pdf

ScottW

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article ,

No, the sound of violins is distinctive enough to provide a strong
reference for generating a personal preference, unlike, say, electric
bass guitar.


Well, I have enough basses and bass amps to hear differences and
form preferences. Certainly an SVT is a favorite, and I haven't heard
anything else quite like it. But I also like the more subtle tones of a
Showman.
As far as basses, PBasses sound a lot different than JBasses, except for my
Frankenbass, more or less a JBass concoction with a Seymour Duncan PBass
pick up at the bridge. But my favorite sounding one is an American PBass,
with through the neck stringing, which sounds better than the Jap or the 62
reissue, without.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...


One thing about being my age is that I had to suffer from about 1953 to
1983 with little more than LPs to listen to in the way of recorded music.
The bad news is that I was also getting a pretty steady diet of live
music. The immense gulf was readily apparent.



Congrats!
You finally got rid of that Garrard changer.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access