| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#1
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The truth about accuracy of CD v. LP
Perhaps a beaten horse but still a hot topic. Before going into my
views on the subject v. the views of objectivists I would like to pose some of my impressions about objectivist views to objectivists. Just to get a fair representation of those views I would like to hear from objectivists on the accuracy of my impressions . It is my impression that 1. objectivists believe that commerical CDs from thier intorduction to the market place to the present are audibly transparent transfers of the signal used to make them. 2. Objectivists blame any faults of commercial CD sound to the poor quality of the original recordings or bad choices made by mastering engineers but never blame the actual digital conversion or manugfacturing of those CDs. 3. Objectivists believe that CDs in the cases that no tweaking has been done by the mastering engineers always present a more accurate sounding version of that master than any LP played back on any TT rig and thus will offer a more accurate representation of the artists/producer/ engineer's intentions as well as a more accurate reproduction of the master. 4. Objectivists believe the often cited preference for LPs to CDs when not a result of mastering differences is often the result of euphonic colorations inherent in LPs as a medium and that while some may like them they are never more accurate to the master tape or even the original sound of a live recording. 5. Objectivists believe the primary source of preferences for LPs over CDs by vinyl enthusiasts is mostly a result of biases. Let me know if I am making any misrepresentations of objectivists beliefs on this subject. |
|
#2
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
The truth about accuracy of CD v. LP
I think the objectivist position is not that CDs are perfect, but that they
are uniformly good. |
|
#3
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
The truth about accuracy of CD v. LP
MC wrote:
I think the objectivist position is not that CDs are perfect, but that they are uniformly good. Or rather, capable of more objectively *accurate* reproduction of the source, than LP. -- -S "If men were angels, no government would be necessary." - James Madison (1788) |
|
#4
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
The truth about accuracy of CD v. LP
|
|
#5
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
The truth about accuracy of CD v. LP
bob wrote:
wrote: Perhaps a beaten horse but still a hot topic. Before going into my views on the subject v. the views of objectivists I would like to pose some of my impressions about objectivist views to objectivists. Just to get a fair representation of those views I would like to hear from objectivists on the accuracy of my impressions . It is my impression that 1. objectivists believe that commerical CDs from thier intorduction to the market place to the present are audibly transparent transfers of the signal used to make them. No. They are audibly transparent transfers of the "master tapes" (by which I mean, the very last stage of processing) used to make them--assuming no manufacturing screw-ups. or other incompetence. OK. i meant the same thing by signal. but if you wish to refer to the master tape that is fine. so you agree with that statement so long as we refer to the master tape itslef rather than the signal. Fine with me. 2. Objectivists blame any faults of commercial CD sound to the poor quality of the original recordings or bad choices made by mastering engineers but never blame the actual digital conversion or manugfacturing of those CDs. OK, assuming no manufacturing screw-ups. or other incompetence. Which begs the question how many commercial CDs are out there that suffer from " manufacturing screw-ups or other incompetence?" So what say you on this question? Common problem, rare problem not a problem? 3. Objectivists believe that CDs in the cases that no tweaking has been done by the mastering engineers always present a more accurate sounding version of that master than any LP played back on any TT rig and thus will offer a more accurate representation of the artists/producer/ engineer's intentions as well as a more accurate reproduction of the master. No, because the phrase "a more accurate representation of the artists/producer/engineer's intentions" has no meaning here. Sure it does. It means exacty what it says. Are you suggesting that the artists/producer/engineer's intentions were and are a nonexistant entity? I think it's hard to argue that they never had any intentions as to how their releases will sound. The "artists/producer/engineer's intentions" are presumably to put out a recording that sounds like what the recording sounds like. They don't put out "recordings" they put out CDs and LPs of recordings. So the statement that there intentions are to put out "recording that sounds lik what the recording sounds like" has no meaning in this context. If it doesn't, If what doesn't? The CD the LP? then they screwed up. Who screwed up? So intentions aside would you agree with the first part of #3 Objectivists believe that CDs in the cases that no tweaking has been done by the mastering engineers always present a more accurate sounding version of that master than any LP played back on any TT rig. 4. Objectivists believe the often cited preference for LPs to CDs when not a result of mastering differences is often the result of euphonic colorations inherent in LPs as a medium and that while some may like them they are never more accurate to the master tape or even the original sound of a live recording. LPs are never more accurate to the master tape. But "accurate to . . the original sound of a live recording" has no meaning here. My bad. I sould have said *the* original sound of *the* live event that was recorded. "There are an infinite number of "sounds of a live recording." I'm not going to nit pick hyperbole. 5. Objectivists believe the primary source of preferences for LPs over CDs by vinyl enthusiasts is mostly a result of biases. No. They are simply preferences. I know that preferences are preferences. The question I ask is do you believe those preferences are more commonly the result of biases rather than actual sound? Thank you for your response. |
|
#7
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
The truth about accuracy of CD v. LP
bob wrote:
wrote: bob wrote: 3. Objectivists believe that CDs in the cases that no tweaking has been done by the mastering engineers always present a more accurate sounding version of that master than any LP played back on any TT rig and thus will offer a more accurate representation of the artists/producer/ engineer's intentions as well as a more accurate reproduction of the master. No, because the phrase "a more accurate representation of the artists/producer/engineer's intentions" has no meaning here. Sure it does. It means exacty what it says. Are you suggesting that the artists/producer/engineer's intentions were and are a nonexistant entity? I think it's hard to argue that they never had any intentions as to how their releases will sound. But you're using code words that often mean something very different. No. there is nothing ambiguous about the word "intentions." The "artists' intentions" often refers to the choices they make in their musical performance, rather than the choices they (or the engineers they entrust with the task) make at the mixing/mastering stage. But we aren't talking about that we are talking about sound. We are talking about which one would the artists/producer/engineers say 'yeah that one sounds more like what we were trying to do than that other one." There is no trickery going on here. The "artists/producer/engineer's intentions" are presumably to put out a recording that sounds like what the recording sounds like. They don't put out "recordings" they put out CDs and LPs of recordings. So the statement that there intentions are to put out "recording that sounds lik what the recording sounds like" has no meaning in this context. What I had in mind was the idea that the "artists/producer/engineer's intentions" are whatever's on the master tape. Then we can ask which medium more accurately reproduces that. That question was addressed seperately. If you don't feel comfortable saying that commerical CDs that have not ben tampered with by the mastering engineer are a better epresentation than the artists/producer/engineer's intentions then feel free to say so. You can say yes, no sometimes yes somethims no, or I don't really know or have an opinion. I just want to get an understanding of what *you* believe. If it doesn't, If what doesn't? The CD the LP? then they screwed up. Who screwed up? So intentions aside would you agree with the first part of #3 Objectivists believe that CDs in the cases that no tweaking has been done by the mastering engineers always present a more accurate sounding version of that master than any LP played back on any TT rig. I'd put it this way: If we have a common 15ips analog "master tape," a CD made from that tape will sound closer to the tape than an LP made from that tape. Part of the reason for that, however, is that in order to make an LP you do have to do some further tweaking first. OK that clarifies your belief. thank you. 4. Objectivists believe the often cited preference for LPs to CDs when not a result of mastering differences is often the result of euphonic colorations inherent in LPs as a medium and that while some may like them they are never more accurate to the master tape or even the original sound of a live recording. LPs are never more accurate to the master tape. But "accurate to . . the original sound of a live recording" has no meaning here. My bad. I sould have said *the* original sound of *the* live event that was recorded. That's what I thought you meant. But which original sound? The sound at the point where the mike(s) are, or at some other point in the room? What if the mikes are more than 6 inches apart? Then they are picking up a "sound" that no human being could possibly hear. True but a recording engineer does step into the room and listen and then goes back and listens to the monitors. so I would say from the reference perspective of the recording engineers. "There are an infinite number of "sounds of a live recording." I'm not going to nit pick hyperbole. This may be unnecessary nitpicking. I was just laying the basis for an objection to an argument I suspect you'll make at some point. But we can put this aside for now. 5. Objectivists believe the primary source of preferences for LPs over CDs by vinyl enthusiasts is mostly a result of biases. No. They are simply preferences. I know that preferences are preferences. The question I ask is do you believe those preferences are more commonly the result of biases rather than actual sound? Like Stewart, I suspect there's a combination of factors, and trying to disaggregate and assign weights to them seems rather pointless. That's why I said they are simply preferences. OK so you offer no opinion on the source of vinyl enthusiasts' preference. Fair enough and thanks for your clarifications. Scott |
|
#8
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
The truth about accuracy of CD v. LP
wrote:
bob wrote: wrote: bob wrote: 3. Objectivists believe that CDs in the cases that no tweaking has been done by the mastering engineers always present a more accurate sounding version of that master than any LP played back on any TT rig and thus will offer a more accurate representation of the artists/producer/ engineer's intentions as well as a more accurate reproduction of the master. No, because the phrase "a more accurate representation of the artists/producer/engineer's intentions" has no meaning here. Sure it does. It means exacty what it says. Are you suggesting that the artists/producer/engineer's intentions were and are a nonexistant entity? I think it's hard to argue that they never had any intentions as to how their releases will sound. But you're using code words that often mean something very different. No. there is nothing ambiguous about the word "intentions." Google phrases like "musicians' intentions" on audio sites and you will see plenty of ambiguity--all from the subjectivist side, of course. If you mean something specific by it, you are going to have to tell us what that is. The "artists' intentions" often refers to the choices they make in their musical performance, rather than the choices they (or the engineers they entrust with the task) make at the mixing/mastering stage. But we aren't talking about that we are talking about sound. We are talking about which one would the artists/producer/engineers say 'yeah that one sounds more like what we were trying to do than that other one." There is no trickery going on here. Well, that's what I'm talking about. Glad to hear it's what you're talking about, too. So we can agree that the master tape represents the true intentions of the artists/producer/engineers, right? And the only remaining question is, which medium better preserves the sound of that master tape. The "artists/producer/engineer's intentions" are presumably to put out a recording that sounds like what the recording sounds like. They don't put out "recordings" they put out CDs and LPs of recordings. So the statement that there intentions are to put out "recording that sounds lik what the recording sounds like" has no meaning in this context. What I had in mind was the idea that the "artists/producer/engineer's intentions" are whatever's on the master tape. Then we can ask which medium more accurately reproduces that. That question was addressed seperately. I hadn't seen you address it previously. If you agree with it, say so. If not, explain. If you don't feel comfortable saying that commerical CDs that have not ben tampered with by the mastering engineer are a better epresentation than the artists/producer/engineer's intentions then feel free to say so. You can say yes, no sometimes yes somethims no, or I don't really know or have an opinion. I just want to get an understanding of what *you* believe. I believe that the master tape represents the intentions of its producers, and that CD better preserves the sound of that master tape than LP. What more do you want? If it doesn't, If what doesn't? The CD the LP? then they screwed up. Who screwed up? So intentions aside would you agree with the first part of #3 Objectivists believe that CDs in the cases that no tweaking has been done by the mastering engineers always present a more accurate sounding version of that master than any LP played back on any TT rig. I'd put it this way: If we have a common 15ips analog "master tape," a CD made from that tape will sound closer to the tape than an LP made from that tape. Part of the reason for that, however, is that in order to make an LP you do have to do some further tweaking first. OK that clarifies your belief. thank you. 4. Objectivists believe the often cited preference for LPs to CDs when not a result of mastering differences is often the result of euphonic colorations inherent in LPs as a medium and that while some may like them they are never more accurate to the master tape or even the original sound of a live recording. LPs are never more accurate to the master tape. But "accurate to . . the original sound of a live recording" has no meaning here. My bad. I sould have said *the* original sound of *the* live event that was recorded. That's what I thought you meant. But which original sound? The sound at the point where the mike(s) are, or at some other point in the room? What if the mikes are more than 6 inches apart? Then they are picking up a "sound" that no human being could possibly hear. True but a recording engineer does step into the room and listen and then goes back and listens to the monitors. so I would say from the reference perspective of the recording engineers. "Reference perspective" is an oxymoron. A personal perspective cannot be a reference, because it isn't fixed. What we heard yesterday and what we now think we heard yesterday are two different things. (That aside, do you not care what the performers themselves think?) The only clear indication we have of anyone's perspective is what winds up on that master tape. bob |
|
#9
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
The truth about accuracy of CD v. LP
Let me know if I am making any misrepresentations of objectivists
beliefs on this subject. Just one. Some people prefer beer to burgundy, some people prefer rye to Napoleon brandy, and some people prefer Twinkies to mousse. Without reference to which is which, the attempt to disguse what amount to simple preferences within a bunch of folderol and fancy labels is akin to elevating preference to some sort of deeply meaningful and important issue of "right" and "wrong". Actually, it is of no more significance than the difference between Cherry-Vanilla and Rocky Road. One picks what one likes.... without the need to preclude enjoyment of other flavors as well. If the choice of one flavor excludes all others, it is no longer a preference but a religion. And religion cannot be discussed with any meaning amongst non-aligned true-believers. War, sure. Discussion... not hardly. Are you a Big Ender or a Little Ender? (and I have written all of this before) Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA |
|
#11
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
The truth about accuracy of CD v. LP
wrote:
wrote: 3. Objectivists believe that CDs in the cases that no tweaking has been done by the mastering engineers always present a more accurate sounding version of that master than any LP played back on any TT rig and thus will offer a more accurate representation of the artists/producer/ engineer's intentions as well as a more accurate reproduction of the master. I doubt that you can find such a thing as a recording that has not been tweaked. but the end result with a CD is that what is on the master tape is what is on the CD. Well, the digital master derived from an analog master tape can actually end up being rather different from the original master, if it has been tweaked during remastering. I doubt today's crop of highly compressed, low-dynamic-range remasters sound the same as their original master tapes. To the extent a remaster has been 'tweaked' it represents some remastering engineer's or producer's idea of how the recording *should* sound. This might be with reference to an LP, or to modern fads (e.g. louder than loud), or to the engineer's personal conception of 'good sound'. They may justify this by saying they are only 'trying to be faithful to the master' but that's a bit of malarkey unless the master's actually *damaged*. Let us know if you will ever concede that LP is iherently inferior to CD. Depending on how terms are defined, that may not be necessary, or could even be wrong. If part of what gives you pleasure about LP is the process of using a turntable, a CD will never be superior. -- -S "If men were angels, no government would be necessary." - James Madison (1788) |
|
#12
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
The truth about accuracy of CD v. LP
Steven Sullivan wrote:
wrote: wrote: 3. Objectivists believe that CDs in the cases that no tweaking has been done by the mastering engineers always present a more accurate sounding version of that master than any LP played back on any TT rig and thus will offer a more accurate representation of the artists/producer/ engineer's intentions as well as a more accurate reproduction of the master. I doubt that you can find such a thing as a recording that has not been tweaked. but the end result with a CD is that what is on the master tape is what is on the CD. Well, the digital master derived from an analog master tape can actually end up being rather different from the original master, if it has been tweaked during remastering. I doubt today's crop of highly compressed, low-dynamic-range remasters sound the same as their original master tapes. If it's remastered and tweaked, then we now have a new master that is used to make CD's from and the CD will be an exact clone of that master. Given the limitations of LP such an outcome is almost impossible unless the album being made is very short. Assuming no changes to the master to make an LP that would be 15 minutes or less per side, you still have something that is a generation removed from the master. You also have the added noise from the stylus tracking the grooves. To the extent a remaster has been 'tweaked' it represents some remastering engineer's or producer's idea of how the recording *should* sound. This might be with reference to an LP, or to modern fads (e.g. louder than loud), or to the engineer's personal conception of 'good sound'. Which is true for either LP or CD. They may justify this by saying they are only 'trying to be faithful to the master' but that's a bit of malarkey unless the master's actually *damaged*. Let us know if you will ever concede that LP is iherently inferior to CD. Depending on how terms are defined, that may not be necessary, or could even be wrong. I don't see how something that is at least one generation away from the source, unless it's a D2D can ever be equal to a CD which is an exact clone of the material that it is derived from. If part of what gives you pleasure about LP is the process of using a turntable, a CD will never be superior. But then we're no longer talking about the accuracy of the 2 media and all bets are off. |
|
#13
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
The truth about accuracy of CD v. LP
|
|
#14
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
The truth about accuracy of CD v. LP
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 24 Feb 2006 00:43:03 GMT, wrote: Perhaps a beaten horse but still a hot topic. Before going into my views on the subject v. the views of objectivists I would like to pose some of my impressions about objectivist views to objectivists. Just to get a fair representation of those views I would like to hear from objectivists on the accuracy of my impressions . It is my impression that 1. objectivists believe that commerical CDs from thier intorduction to the market place to the present are audibly transparent transfers of the signal used to make them. Certainly, they *can* be, and I have some examples from 1983. There will of course always be plenty of badly-produced CDs - just as with vinyl in the '70s! So are you saying that there are some unkown number of commercial CDs that have been soncially degraded during the digitaztion/ manufacturing part of production? 2. Objectivists blame any faults of commercial CD sound to the poor quality of the original recordings or bad choices made by mastering engineers but never blame the actual digital conversion or manugfacturing of those CDs. Manufacturing *can* be at fault, but I'd hope that's a rare occurrence after 23 years of manufacturing experience. Similarly with modern A/D converters. OK so it seems you are saying there is some unknown number of commercial CDs that have been sonically degraded by the A/D conversion or manufacturing? 3. Objectivists believe that CDs in the cases that no tweaking has been done by the mastering engineers always present a more accurate sounding version of that master than any LP played back on any TT rig and thus will offer a more accurate representation of the artists/producer/ engineer's intentions as well as a more accurate reproduction of the master. Yes, that's true. 4. Objectivists believe the often cited preference for LPs to CDs when not a result of mastering differences is often the result of euphonic colorations inherent in LPs as a medium and that while some may like them they are never more accurate to the master tape or even the original sound of a live recording. Yes, that's true. 5. Objectivists believe the primary source of preferences for LPs over CDs by vinyl enthusiasts is mostly a result of biases. Can't speak for the others, but I believe that the very real audible differences generate a preference which is based on a combination of euphonic distortions, mastering differences, and a feeling of involvement with the mechanical complexity of the medium which is missing with 'load and press play' CD. Let me know if I am making any misrepresentations of objectivists beliefs on this subject. Seems a reasonable analysis, with the caveats given above. Thank you. Scott |
|
#15
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
The truth about accuracy of CD v. LP
On 25 Feb 2006 17:40:25 GMT, wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 24 Feb 2006 00:43:03 GMT, wrote: Perhaps a beaten horse but still a hot topic. Before going into my views on the subject v. the views of objectivists I would like to pose some of my impressions about objectivist views to objectivists. Just to get a fair representation of those views I would like to hear from objectivists on the accuracy of my impressions . It is my impression that 1. objectivists believe that commerical CDs from thier intorduction to the market place to the present are audibly transparent transfers of the signal used to make them. Certainly, they *can* be, and I have some examples from 1983. There will of course always be plenty of badly-produced CDs - just as with vinyl in the '70s! So are you saying that there are some unkown number of commercial CDs that have been soncially degraded during the digitaztion/ manufacturing part of production? Sure, just as there were lots of rubbish LPs issued in the '70s, likely still ongoing in the current 'DJ' market. One might of course have known that your questions lacked a certain impartiality......... 2. Objectivists blame any faults of commercial CD sound to the poor quality of the original recordings or bad choices made by mastering engineers but never blame the actual digital conversion or manugfacturing of those CDs. Manufacturing *can* be at fault, but I'd hope that's a rare occurrence after 23 years of manufacturing experience. Similarly with modern A/D converters. OK so it seems you are saying there is some unknown number of commercial CDs that have been sonically degraded by the A/D conversion or manufacturing? Sure, just as there were lots of rubbish LPs issued in the '70s, likely still ongoing in the current 'DJ' market. One might of course have known that your questions lacked a certain impartiality......... The essential point is that a well-made CD will be *much* closer to the sound of the master tape than will a well-made LP. Check out the JVC XRCD issues of Miles Davis' music for examples. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#16
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
The truth about accuracy of CD v. LP
|
|
#17
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
The truth about accuracy of CD v. LP
Ok. I have spent enough time getting feedback from objectivists
regarding their views on the accuracy of CDs in the real word. So it's high time to state my case. 1. Live music in a goo acoustic space is my genereal reference. james Boyk says it better than I can. "What interest me in audio is perception, not technology. One perception often lost in all the getting and spending is that live sound is beautiful, while reproduced sound rarely is." http://www.its.caltech.edu/~boyk/ear.htm It is the *intrinsic* beauty of live music that I seek when I listen to recordings of acoustic music. I know what it is. It is easily recognizable when I hear live music and it is recognizably missing in most playback. When it is there it is amazing. It is a matter of degree not a black and white issue though. OK my views on CDs vs.LPs as they help me achieve my goals in audio. 1. All else being equal IME LPs offer more of the intrinsic beauty than CDs. I base this on comparisons of CDs and LPs made from the same source by the same team of mastering enginees and producers. One example I cited was the James Boyk recording of Pictures at an Exhibition. i have also made the comparison with a number of oferings fom Classics and APO. The diffeences were not huge but I did favor the LPs. 2. The best sounding LPs sound better to me than the best sounding CDs I have heard. Granted there is a limited sampling to sure and one can claim I am comparing apples to oranges here but I am comparing the best of the best on both sides. All in all it seems fair if one wants to know which is providing the very best. 3. By and large when I compare the many CDs and LPs of a given title an LP will usually sound the best. It used to be almost all of the time but now it is about 70 to 80 percent of the time. As for accuracy. Well I have a number of opinions on that but lets start with the asertions below. wrote: Perhaps a beaten horse but still a hot topic. Before going into my views on the subject v. the views of objectivists I would like to pose some of my impressions about objectivist views to objectivists. Just to get a fair representation of those views I would like to hear from objectivists on the accuracy of my impressions . It is my impression that 1. objectivists believe that commerical CDs from thier intorduction to the market place to the present are audibly transparent transfers of the signal used to make them. Some objectivists agree with this some acknowledged that in some cases AD/converters and manufacturing can muk up the sound. IMO this is a very very common problem with CDs. Cds have often been considered harsh and strident and lacking in dimensionality and lower level harmonic detail by many who prefer LPs. It has been my experience as well. The claims that A/D converters are audibly transparent seems to me to be n eroneous one. "As Mrs. Cozart Fine and I began our evaluation sessions in April 1989, it becamevery clear to us that the A/D conversion process was a very critical step in our produc-tion work. As the producer once described it, the sounds from different converters wereall different "bowls of soup"." http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache...&cd=2&ie=UTF-8 2. Objectivists blame any faults of commercial CD sound to the poor quality of the original recordings or bad choices made by mastering engineers but never blame the actual digital conversion or manugfacturing of those CDs. Some objectivists agreed with this assertion as well. While I agree it is a common cause of some serious problems, especially in the past 10 years i don't agree that it is the only problem as claimed above. 3. Objectivists believe that CDs in the cases that no tweaking has been done by the mastering engineers always present a more accurate sounding version of that master than any LP played back on any TT rig and thus will offer a more accurate representation of the artists/producer/ engineer's intentions as well as a more accurate reproduction of the master. Again It seems that the objectivists largely agreed with this. Up to the intent of the artist/engineers/producers. And while I suspect it is often true I think there is ample reason to believe it is often not true. of course i am not speaking in terms of measured performance but of subjective compaisons. many noted mastering engineers such as Doug Sax and Bernie Grundman have claimed as much. They, unlike the rest of us , actually have made direct comparisons to draw their conclusions. 4. Objectivists believe the often cited preference for LPs to CDs when not a result of mastering differences is often the result of euphonic colorations inherent in LPs as a medium and that while some may like them they are never more accurate to the master tape or even the original sound of a live recording. Again I disagree based on cliams made by actual mastering and recording engineers of the very LPs and CDs I have often compared of the same titles. Audible acuracy is subjective and if an added distortion seems to comensate for something that is lost then that add distortion will make something more accurate to the original as far as our perceptions go. And that is what interests me. 5. Objectivists believe the primary source of preferences for LPs over CDs by vinyl enthusiasts is mostly a result of biases. Let me know if I am making any misrepresentations of objectivists beliefs on this subject. ok not a big issue really. But lets talk about accuracy It seems to me that a number of objectivists seem to think a master recording is the proper reference for audio. Aside from my position that the common belief that if it isi on CD and hasn't been mukked with that CDs will be more accurate to the master than LPs is often eroneous and that many many CDs are inroducing very ugly colorations that make their distortions more problematic in many many cases, setting up a master tape as a reference can be a very misguided idea. Why set it up as a reference/ Because it represents the artists intentions? How? 1. You are setting up playback as a reference for playback. master tapes have no sound of their own. They have to be played back. The artists recorded over mics (transducers) and listened back over another set of transducers. It is a troublesome reference. here is yet another problem. Many artists/enginees/ producers did not use the master tape to judge the product. In popular music final judgement was largly based on test pressings of the LP. IOW the LP was the reference. Matser tapes were tweaked to get the "artists/engineers/producers intentions" for the actual final product. One can easily go to a master tape, depending on what tape is chosen and get nothing like what the artists intended. The fact is mastering old mateil is not simple. choosing the right master tape is essential and having the artists/engineers present to guide the reissue is also very important if one is so worried about intent of artsists and the like. Most, almost all CDs were not made this way. OTOH just about all LPs form the advent of the medum to the 80s were. Ironically, if intent matters to you then many many LPs are more accuratce. Consider what Rudy Van Gelder says about the subject for a moment. But is accuracy to the master tape the be all end all? Obviously not in many cases. Is accuracy to the artists/engineers/producers intent always the be all end all? in many cases I' say no. Have any of you heard the Led Zeppelin reissues supervised by Jimi Page? Ear bleeding trebble to say the least. should I like that better cause Jimi Page does? Bottom line. There are too many variables that havegone into the making of LPs and CDs to make any reasonableblanket claims about accuracy to the master. We do not have access to masters and so it is difficult for us to make our own comparisons. This along with the fact that when one uses a master as a reference one has to use playback as a reference amkes master tapes an unvarifiable, some what arbitrary and inherently compramised reference. The bottom line is my goal is to get as much of the intrinsic beauty of live music in my playback. The way I make this call is by simply listening and comparing. My conclusions were based on that. Thsoe conclusions being... 1. All else being equal IME LPs offer more of the intrinsic beauty than CDs. I base this on comparisons of CDs and LPs made from the same source by the same team of mastering enginees and producers. One example I cited was the James Boyk recording of Pictures at an Exhibition. i have also made the comparison with a number of oferings fom Classics and APO. The diffeences were not huge but I did favor the LPs. 2. The best sounding LPs sound better to me than the best sounding CDs I have heard. Granted there is a limited sampling to sure and one can claim I am comparing apples to oranges here but I am comparing the best of the best on both sides. All in all it seems fair if one wants to know which is providing the very best. 3. By and large when I compare the many CDs and LPs of a given title an LP will usually sound the best. It used to be almost all of the time but now it is about 70 to 80 percent of the time. I think it is odd to adjust one's preferences to one's expectations. I think many objectivists have done so by wrongly expecting CDs to be accurate to the master, believing that the master is always a reasonable and meaningful reference to begin with and thinking all problems one hears from Cds should be accepted becasue the technology is "superior" and that it is right even if it is not pretty. It makes more sense to simply evaluate the playback on the merits of the sound. Scott |
|
#18
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
The truth about accuracy of CD v. LP
|
|
#19
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
The truth about accuracy of CD v. LP
bob wrote:
wrote: snip all Shorter Scott: 1. To me, the euphonic distortions of digital are beautiful. 2. Lots of recordings are badly made. 3. It's all digital's fault. Wow, you managed to get everything wrong. Extremely wrong. (And no, I am not talking about you mistakenly saying digital when you obviously meant analog) At least you were brief. Given how well I represented the views of objectists and how badly you represented mine it ought to give you cause to take another look with the blinders removed. I have always believed in any debate or disagreement that the ability to accurately present the opposing position says so much about one's overall understanding of the issue. If you can't even come close to getting my views right even when they are put right in front of you how can you begin to form a meaningful opinion about them? Scott |
|
#20
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
The truth about accuracy of CD v. LP
On 4 Mar 2006 19:20:14 GMT, "bob" wrote:
wrote: snip all Shorter Scott: 1. To me, the euphonic distortions of digital are beautiful. 2. Lots of recordings are badly made. 3. It's all digital's fault. I presume that 1. above should have been "To me, the euphonic distortions of analog are beautiful." I think Scott actually thinks that the euphonic distortions of analogue somehow make the sound more 'realistic', to him at least. However, 2 and 3 seem to be accurate - even though Scott *very* carefully edits highlights from reality to argue this case. Scott does appear to think that because *some* CDs were badly mastered and/or used poor ADCs back in the '80s, the base technology is somehow inferior to vinyl. To someone who was buying the garbage that mostly passed for vinyl in the '70s, that's absolutely hilarious. And yes, I also bought a lot of superb Sheffields etc in the same period, but that doesn't make vinyl more accurate than CD. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#21
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
The truth about accuracy of CD v. LP
I don't know how true this is but I used to hear that it was necessary
to compensate for the slower speed at the inner grooves of an LP. This compensation could be a boost in the higher frequencies or a boost in the overall levels. Does anyone know about this? ---MIKE--- In the White Mountains of New Hampshire (44=B0 15' N - Elevation 1580') |
|
#22
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
The truth about accuracy of CD v. LP
http://www.sickoftalk.com/whyvinyl_two.html
Part way down the page is the info you are asking about. http://www.sickoftalk.com/whyvinyl.html And here is other useful explanations of how records are made. I do however disagree with his reasons for why vinyl is better or that it is better. In this article he mentions that reference discs are cut to allow producers to see how the transfer to LP will sound compared to the master tape. If vinyl were so much superior, why wouldn't it sound like the master tape? Well because of all the EQ, varying frequency response and other factors not to mention to modest S/N values of vinyl. Dennis "---MIKE---" wrote in message ... I don't know how true this is but I used to hear that it was necessary to compensate for the slower speed at the inner grooves of an LP. This compensation could be a boost in the higher frequencies or a boost in the overall levels. Does anyone know about this? ---MIKE--- In the White Mountains of New Hampshire (44° 15' N - Elevation 1580') |
|
#23
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
The truth about accuracy of CD v. LP
"---MIKE---" wrote in message
... I don't know how true this is but I used to hear that it was necessary to compensate for the slower speed at the inner grooves of an LP. This compensation could be a boost in the higher frequencies or a boost in the overall levels. Does anyone know about this? If that was the case, it would be done in the mastering process--not during playback. Norm Strong |
|
#24
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
The truth about accuracy of CD v. LP
|
|
#25
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
The truth about accuracy of CD v. LP
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 4 Mar 2006 19:20:14 GMT, "bob" wrote: wrote: snip all Shorter Scott: 1. To me, the euphonic distortions of digital are beautiful. 2. Lots of recordings are badly made. 3. It's all digital's fault. I presume that 1. above should have been "To me, the euphonic distortions of analog are beautiful." I think Scott actually thinks that the euphonic distortions of analogue somehow make the sound more 'realistic', to him at least. You really need to collect that million dollars from Randi before you go into what you think i think. Maybe you will do better just reading what i write and understanding it. However, 2 and 3 seem to be accurate - even though Scott *very* carefully edits highlights from reality to argue this case. Scott does appear to think that because *some* CDs were badly mastered and/or used poor ADCs back in the '80s, the base technology is somehow inferior to vinyl. Well you got most of that wrong. Still amazes me when i spell out exactly what I believe in very simple language. I do think a lot not just some commercial Cds have been badly mastered and/or used ADCs that colored the sound not to mention othe problems that can be found in the making of many commercial CDs. I do not believe this is unique to the eighties nor do I think it is a reflection of the base technology. so once again we have an objctivist either misunderstnading a simply stated position or misrepresenting it as a basis for an argument. Weak, very weak. To someone who was buying the garbage that mostly passed for vinyl in the '70s, that's absolutely hilarious. And yes, I also bought a lot of superb Sheffields etc in the same period, but that doesn't make vinyl more accurate than CD. Although I find the claim rather bizzarre I have to agree with your claim that your puchases of superb Sheffields does not make vinyl more accurate than CD. I suggest you reread what I did say about the accuracy of CDs and LPs in real world applications and try to understand it. I do not make any mention of which is more accurate but which has been more accurate in real world applications. I also do not mention your buying habbits as a cause of anything Scott |
|
#26
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
The truth about accuracy of CD v. LP
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 4 Mar 2006 19:20:14 GMT, "bob" wrote: wrote: snip all Shorter Scott: 1. To me, the euphonic distortions of digital are beautiful. 2. Lots of recordings are badly made. 3. It's all digital's fault. I presume that 1. above should have been "To me, the euphonic distortions of analog are beautiful." Yep. I think Scott actually thinks that the euphonic distortions of analogue somehow make the sound more 'realistic', to him at least. In the post in question, he specifically refers to the "intrinsic beauty" of vinyl, which is why I used that term. Most of his post typically obfuscates the distinction between accuracy and realism, which is why neither it nor this whole thread tells us anything we haven't heard before. bob |
|
#27
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
The truth about accuracy of CD v. LP
bob wrote:
wrote: snip all Shorter Scott: 1. To me, the euphonic distortions of digital are beautiful. 2. Lots of recordings are badly made. 3. It's all digital's fault. bob Add (4): 4. Any attempt to summarize my (Scott's) position by objectivists will fail. |
|
#28
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
The truth about accuracy of CD v. LP
In article ,
wrote: Ok. I have spent enough time getting feedback from objectivists regarding their views on the accuracy of CDs in the real word. So it's high time to state my case. 1. Live music in a goo acoustic space is my genereal reference. james Boyk says it better than I can. "What interest me in audio is perception, not technology. One perception often lost in all the getting and spending is that live sound is beautiful, while reproduced sound rarely is." http://www.its.caltech.edu/~boyk/ear.htm It is the *intrinsic* beauty of live music that I seek when I listen to recordings of acoustic music. I know what it is. It is easily recognizable when I hear live music and it is recognizably missing in most playback. When it is there it is amazing. It is a matter of degree not a black and white issue though. OK my views on CDs vs.LPs as they help me achieve my goals in audio. 1. All else being equal IME LPs offer more of the intrinsic beauty than CDs. I base this on comparisons of CDs and LPs made from the same source by the same team of mastering enginees and producers. One example I cited was the James Boyk recording of Pictures at an Exhibition. i have also made the comparison with a number of oferings fom Classics and APO. The diffeences were not huge but I did favor the LPs. 2. The best sounding LPs sound better to me than the best sounding CDs I have heard. Granted there is a limited sampling to sure and one can claim I am comparing apples to oranges here but I am comparing the best of the best on both sides. All in all it seems fair if one wants to know which is providing the very best. 3. By and large when I compare the many CDs and LPs of a given title an LP will usually sound the best. It used to be almost all of the time but now it is about 70 to 80 percent of the time. snip Thanks, Scott, for eloquently summing up my thoughts on this topic. By the way, I just received Boyk's LP of Debussy, Stravinsky, et al. FANTASTIC! I had all of his LPs before I sold my collection in '95, so I'm in the process of getting them again. |
|
#29
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
The truth about accuracy of CD v. LP
Jenn wrote:
In article , wrote: Ok. I have spent enough time getting feedback from objectivists regarding their views on the accuracy of CDs in the real word. So it's high time to state my case. 1. Live music in a goo acoustic space is my genereal reference. james Boyk says it better than I can. "What interest me in audio is perception, not technology. One perception often lost in all the getting and spending is that live sound is beautiful, while reproduced sound rarely is." http://www.its.caltech.edu/~boyk/ear.htm It is the *intrinsic* beauty of live music that I seek when I listen to recordings of acoustic music. I know what it is. It is easily recognizable when I hear live music and it is recognizably missing in most playback. When it is there it is amazing. It is a matter of degree not a black and white issue though. OK my views on CDs vs.LPs as they help me achieve my goals in audio. 1. All else being equal IME LPs offer more of the intrinsic beauty than CDs. I base this on comparisons of CDs and LPs made from the same source by the same team of mastering enginees and producers. One example I cited was the James Boyk recording of Pictures at an Exhibition. i have also made the comparison with a number of oferings fom Classics and APO. The diffeences were not huge but I did favor the LPs. 2. The best sounding LPs sound better to me than the best sounding CDs I have heard. Granted there is a limited sampling to sure and one can claim I am comparing apples to oranges here but I am comparing the best of the best on both sides. All in all it seems fair if one wants to know which is providing the very best. 3. By and large when I compare the many CDs and LPs of a given title an LP will usually sound the best. It used to be almost all of the time but now it is about 70 to 80 percent of the time. snip Thanks, Scott, for eloquently summing up my thoughts on this topic. By the way, I just received Boyk's LP of Debussy, Stravinsky, et al. FANTASTIC! I had all of his LPs before I sold my collection in '95, so I'm in the process of getting them again. If great piano is what you are after I highly recomend the following. Nojima plays Ravel Reference Recordings RR-25 Nojima plays Liszt Reference Recordings RR-35 They are amoung the best sounding piano recordings I have ever heard. While different than the Performance recordings they don't really give up anything in sonics. I don' know how they landed this amazing artist. Nojima's performances on these records is second to none. This is quite rare for an audiophile label. These rcords are that rare combination of world class sound and world class performance of great music. Debussy & Ravel Piano works Ivan Moravec Athena ALSY-10002 Great sound, ruly great sound. Ivan Moravec is far and away my favorite pianist. Maybe I am mising something or am out of touch but I think this guy plays circles around the most acclaimed pianists. Also check out his Beethoven sonatas available on (gasp) CD. I think I have heard all the staples when it comes to the "definitive versions" of these works. I think the Moravec performances leave them all deep in the dust. Scott |
|
#30
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
The truth about accuracy of CD v. LP
In article ,
wrote: Jenn wrote: In article , wrote: Ok. I have spent enough time getting feedback from objectivists regarding their views on the accuracy of CDs in the real word. So it's high time to state my case. 1. Live music in a goo acoustic space is my genereal reference. james Boyk says it better than I can. "What interest me in audio is perception, not technology. One perception often lost in all the getting and spending is that live sound is beautiful, while reproduced sound rarely is." http://www.its.caltech.edu/~boyk/ear.htm It is the *intrinsic* beauty of live music that I seek when I listen to recordings of acoustic music. I know what it is. It is easily recognizable when I hear live music and it is recognizably missing in most playback. When it is there it is amazing. It is a matter of degree not a black and white issue though. OK my views on CDs vs.LPs as they help me achieve my goals in audio. 1. All else being equal IME LPs offer more of the intrinsic beauty than CDs. I base this on comparisons of CDs and LPs made from the same source by the same team of mastering enginees and producers. One example I cited was the James Boyk recording of Pictures at an Exhibition. i have also made the comparison with a number of oferings fom Classics and APO. The diffeences were not huge but I did favor the LPs. 2. The best sounding LPs sound better to me than the best sounding CDs I have heard. Granted there is a limited sampling to sure and one can claim I am comparing apples to oranges here but I am comparing the best of the best on both sides. All in all it seems fair if one wants to know which is providing the very best. 3. By and large when I compare the many CDs and LPs of a given title an LP will usually sound the best. It used to be almost all of the time but now it is about 70 to 80 percent of the time. snip Thanks, Scott, for eloquently summing up my thoughts on this topic. By the way, I just received Boyk's LP of Debussy, Stravinsky, et al. FANTASTIC! I had all of his LPs before I sold my collection in '95, so I'm in the process of getting them again. If great piano is what you are after I highly recomend the following. Nojima plays Ravel Reference Recordings RR-25 Got it, love it! Nojima plays Liszt Reference Recordings RR-35 Got it, love it! They are amoung the best sounding piano recordings I have ever heard. While different than the Performance recordings they don't really give up anything in sonics. I don' know how they landed this amazing artist. Nojima's performances on these records is second to none. This is quite rare for an audiophile label. These rcords are that rare combination of world class sound and world class performance of great music. Debussy & Ravel Piano works Ivan Moravec Athena ALSY-10002 Great sound, ruly great sound. Ivan Moravec is far and away my favorite pianist. Maybe I am mising something or am out of touch but I think this guy plays circles around the most acclaimed pianists. Also check out his Beethoven sonatas available on (gasp) CD. I think I have heard all the staples when it comes to the "definitive versions" of these works. I think the Moravec performances leave them all deep in the dust. Thanks for this tip. I've heard of Moravec, of course, but I've not heard his playing. Scott |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| THE TRUTH ABOUT SPEAKER WIRE | Tech | |||
| Share Your Snake Oil Story... | Pro Audio | |||
| Share Your Snake Oil Story... | Audio Opinions | |||
| Is THD really the Science of Accuracy? | Vacuum Tubes | |||
| ADAM P11a vs Truth Audio TA-1 monitors (not Behringer) | Pro Audio | |||
Hybrid Mode
