Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Quote without comment
"Robert Orban" wrote in message
news Through hard experience I've found that with recordings of this vintage, it really pays to find sealed, unplayed copies even if one has to wait for them to show up on eBay and even if one has to pay more. There were a *lot* of bad phono playback systems in the late 60s, and even one play through some of them could audibly damage the vinyl. Finally, after doing this a hundred times or so I have to observe that the audio quality of the run of the mill vinyl from that era was pretty bad. It got a lot better starting in mid-1969, probably because a new generation of disc cutters was just coming on line. I find incomprehensible the affection that some people evidently have for the audio quality of vinyl from that era. Bob Orban Who is Robert Orban? Robert Orban is one of the most productive minds in the audio industry, and has been so for the past 30-40 years. http://www.orban.com/about/timeline/ Patents: 3,980,828 Reverberation system with extended frequency response 4,103,243 Method and system for controlling peak signal levels in a bandlimited recording or transmission system employing high-frequency pre-emphasis 4,208,548 Apparatus and method for peak-limiting audio frequency signals 4,228,368 Polarity correcting circuit 4,241,266 Peak-limiting apparatus for audio signal 4,249,042 Multiband cross-coupled compressor with overshoot protection circuit 4,412,100 Multiband signal processor 4,460,871 Multiband cross-coupled compressor with overshoot protection circuit 4,495,643 Audio peak limiter using Hilbert transforms 4,525,857 Crossover network 4,674,122 Encoding for the FMX companding system 4,837,824 Stereophonic image widening circuit 4,888,789 Adjustable equalizer for compensating for high frequency rolloff and typical AM receivers 5,050,217 Dynamic noise reduction and spectral restoration system 5,168,526 Distortion-cancellation circuit for audio peak limiting 5,282,252 Audio equalizer providing reciprocal equalization plus infinite-depth notch 5,444,788 Audio compressor combining feedback and feedfoward sidechain processing 5,574,791 Combined de-esser and high-frequency enhancer using single pair of level detectors 6,337,999 Oversampled differential clipper 6,434,241 Controlling the peak levels of the FM composite signal by half-cosine interpolation Papers: A Short History of Transmission Audio Processing in the United States http://www.bext.com/histproc.htm |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Quote without comment
On 29 Aug, 15:13, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Robert Orban" wrote in message news Through hard experience I've found that with recordings of this vintage, it really pays to find sealed, unplayed copies even if one has to wait for them to show up on eBay and even if one has to pay more. There were a *lot* of bad phono playback systems in the late 60s, and even one play through some of them could audibly damage the vinyl. Finally, after doing this a hundred times or so I have to observe that the audio quality of the run of the mill vinyl from that era was pretty bad. It got a lot better starting in mid-1969, probably because a new generation of disc cutters was just coming on line. I find incomprehensible the affection that some people evidently have for the audio quality of vinyl from that era. Bob Orban Who is Robert Orban? Robert Orban is one of the most productive minds in the audio industry, and has been so for the past 30-40 years. http://www.orban.com/about/timeline/ Patents: 3,980,828 Reverberation system with extended frequency response 4,103,243 Method and system for controlling peak signal levels in a bandlimited recording or transmission system employing high-frequency pre-emphasis 4,208,548 Apparatus and method for peak-limiting audio frequency signals 4,228,368 Polarity correcting circuit 4,241,266 Peak-limiting apparatus for audio signal 4,249,042 Multiband cross-coupled compressor with overshoot protection circuit 4,412,100 Multiband signal processor 4,460,871 Multiband cross-coupled compressor with overshoot protection circuit 4,495,643 Audio peak limiter using Hilbert transforms 4,525,857 Crossover network 4,674,122 Encoding for the FMX companding system 4,837,824 Stereophonic image widening circuit 4,888,789 Adjustable equalizer for compensating for high frequency rolloff and typical AM receivers 5,050,217 Dynamic noise reduction and spectral restoration system 5,168,526 Distortion-cancellation circuit for audio peak limiting 5,282,252 Audio equalizer providing reciprocal equalization plus infinite-depth notch 5,444,788 Audio compressor combining feedback and feedfoward sidechain processing 5,574,791 Combined de-esser and high-frequency enhancer using single pair of level detectors 6,337,999 Oversampled differential clipper 6,434,241 Controlling the peak levels of the FM composite signal by half-cosine interpolation Papers: A Short History of Transmission Audio Processing in the United Stateshttp://www.bext.com/histproc.htm yea, alright, but what about a patent for the Omni ashtray? been there, done that? |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Quote without comment
"MiNe 109" wrote in message
In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Robert Orban" wrote in message news Through hard experience I've found that with recordings of this vintage, it really pays to find sealed, unplayed copies even if one has to wait for them to show up on eBay and even if one has to pay more. There were a *lot* of bad phono playback systems in the late 60s, and even one play through some of them could audibly damage the vinyl. Finally, after doing this a hundred times or so I have to observe that the audio quality of the run of the mill vinyl from that era was pretty bad. It got a lot better starting in mid-1969, probably because a new generation of disc cutters was just coming on line. I find incomprehensible the affection that some people evidently have for the audio quality of vinyl from that era. Bob Orban Who is Robert Orban? Nice appeal to authority. If you and Jen promise to never appeal to authority, personal or otherwise, I'll do the same. ;-) Was someone arguing in favor of damaged, poor-quality vinyl? Nice job of missing the point of the second paragraph, Stephen. "Distractions R U", right? ;-) It should be pretty obvious to an unbiased reader (not Stephen or Jen for example) that the second paragraph refers to undamaged, even completely virgin LPs. The point of the first paragraph is that Orban has very high standards for choosing and preparing LPs for digitizing. But even given that, the LP format still falls way short of modern standards for quality audio. |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Quote without comment
MiNe 109 wrote:
snip Finally, after doing this a hundred times or so I have to observe that the audio quality of the run of the mill vinyl from that era was pretty bad. It got a lot better starting in mid-1969, probably because a new generation of disc cutters was just coming on line. I find incomprehensible the affection that some people evidently have for the audio quality of vinyl from that era. Bob Orban Who is Robert Orban? Nice appeal to authority. Was someone arguing in favor of damaged, poor-quality vinyl? I dunno. I didn't read the thread which provoked the above. My experience in the 60's/70's was that the vast majority of vinyl records (the only kind available, of course) were real crap, quality wise. If one wanted a quiet, clean copy of a given suite of music, it was necessary to buy multiple copies and transfer immediately to tape. I never--repeat, NEVER--heard a completely pop-free album in my entire life...and I was a dealer. Still, there is that nostalgia for the 'good ol' days' that persists and grows. jak Stephen. |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Quote without comment
"jakdedert" wrote in message
MiNe 109 wrote: snip Finally, after doing this a hundred times or so I have to observe that the audio quality of the run of the mill vinyl from that era was pretty bad. It got a lot better starting in mid-1969, probably because a new generation of disc cutters was just coming on line. I find incomprehensible the affection that some people evidently have for the audio quality of vinyl from that era. Bob Orban Who is Robert Orban? Nice appeal to authority. Was someone arguing in favor of damaged, poor-quality vinyl? I dunno. I didn't read the thread which provoked the above. You can find it he http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...b8d154c20e0ebf My experience in the 60's/70's was that the vast majority of vinyl records (the only kind available, of course) were real crap, quality wise. In the US, particularly true. I spent a year in Germany near the end of the 60s and the quality of LPs was considerably better over there. But the inherent limitations of the LP format still intruded, big time. If one wanted a quiet, clean copy of a given suite of music, it was necessary to buy multiple copies and transfer immediately to tape. Hence my Revox A-77 in the day. I never--repeat, NEVER--heard a completely pop-free album in my entire life...and I was a dealer. Even the enhanced quality of european pressings didn't totally erase that problem. Still, there is that nostalgia for the 'good ol' days' that persists and grows. I think that in the end, it will be yet another boomer thing that dies with that generation. |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Quote without comment
jakdedert said: Still, there is that nostalgia for the 'good ol' days' that persists and grows. You're fueling the Krooborg's jihad. |
#7
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Quote without comment
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote: "Robert Orban" wrote in message news Through hard experience I've found that with recordings of this vintage, it really pays to find sealed, unplayed copies even if one has to wait for them to show up on eBay and even if one has to pay more. There were a *lot* of bad phono playback systems in the late 60s, and even one play through some of them could audibly damage the vinyl. Finally, after doing this a hundred times or so I have to observe that the audio quality of the run of the mill vinyl from that era was pretty bad. It got a lot better starting in mid-1969, probably because a new generation of disc cutters was just coming on line. I find incomprehensible the affection that some people evidently have for the audio quality of vinyl from that era. Bob Orban I don't find a whole lot to disagree with here. There was a lot of junk out there, as there is presently in digital. Just about all Columbia and DGG was very bad in the 60s. A shame considering the performances they recorded. Most of Mercury, Decca, EMI, Harmonia Mundi, and much of RCA sounded terrific on the other hand. |
#8
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Quote without comment
"MiNe 109" wrote in message
In article , jakdedert wrote: MiNe 109 wrote: snip Finally, after doing this a hundred times or so I have to observe that the audio quality of the run of the mill vinyl from that era was pretty bad. It got a lot better starting in mid-1969, probably because a new generation of disc cutters was just coming on line. I find incomprehensible the affection that some people evidently have for the audio quality of vinyl from that era. Bob Orban Who is Robert Orban? Nice appeal to authority. Was someone arguing in favor of damaged, poor-quality vinyl? I dunno. I didn't read the thread which provoked the above. My experience in the 60's/70's was that the vast majority of vinyl records (the only kind available, of course) were real crap, quality wise. If one wanted a quiet, clean copy of a given suite of music, it was necessary to buy multiple copies and transfer immediately to tape. I never--repeat, NEVER--heard a completely pop-free album in my entire life...and I was a dealer. I swore off classical lps after a bad stretch of DGs in the early eighties. After that, the decision was made for me! So you never play classical LPs any more? Still, there is that nostalgia for the 'good ol' days' that persists and grows. Can't have that. Actually, desipite all the phoney angst we hear from vinylistas, there's no problem with sentimentality at all. The problem comes when a tiny minority of vinyl bigots confuse sentimentality for LP's well-known audible foilbles with improved sound quality and realism. |
#9
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Quote without comment
"Jenn" wrote in
message In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Robert Orban" wrote in message news Through hard experience I've found that with recordings of this vintage, it really pays to find sealed, unplayed copies even if one has to wait for them to show up on eBay and even if one has to pay more. There were a *lot* of bad phono playback systems in the late 60s, and even one play through some of them could audibly damage the vinyl. Finally, after doing this a hundred times or so I have to observe that the audio quality of the run of the mill vinyl from that era was pretty bad. It got a lot better starting in mid-1969, probably because a new generation of disc cutters was just coming on line. I find incomprehensible the affection that some people evidently have for the audio quality of vinyl from that era. Bob Orban I don't find a whole lot to disagree with here. Except when you start free-associating with the usual vinylista propaganda about certain LPs sounding more realistic than any CD. There was a lot of junk out there, as there is presently in digital. The difference is that the junk problem with the LP could never be adequately solved. The junk problem with CDs is simply that there's no accounting for taste. Just about all Columbia and DGG was very bad in the 60s. A shame considering the performances they recorded. Most of Mercury, Decca, EMI, Harmonia Mundi, and much of RCA sounded terrific on the other hand. Still had the usual litany of vinyl noises, distortion and coloration. |
#10
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Quote without comment
"MiNe 109" wrote in message
In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "MiNe 109" wrote in message In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Robert Orban" wrote in message news Through hard experience I've found that with recordings of this vintage, it really pays to find sealed, unplayed copies even if one has to wait for them to show up on eBay and even if one has to pay more. There were a *lot* of bad phono playback systems in the late 60s, and even one play through some of them could audibly damage the vinyl. Finally, after doing this a hundred times or so I have to observe that the audio quality of the run of the mill vinyl from that era was pretty bad. It got a lot better starting in mid-1969, probably because a new generation of disc cutters was just coming on line. I find incomprehensible the affection that some people evidently have for the audio quality of vinyl from that era. Bob Orban Who is Robert Orban? Nice appeal to authority. If you and Jen promise to never appeal to authority, personal or otherwise, I'll do the same. ;-) Appeals to authority are usually in service of an argument. Was someone arguing in favor of damaged, poor-quality vinyl? Nice job of missing the point of the second paragraph, Stephen. "Distractions R U", right? ;-) Most lps were junk. Who was saying otherwise? Come on Stephen, the truth is that compared to a well-made digital recording, the very best LP ever made was still, noisy, colored, and distorted junk. It should be pretty obvious to an unbiased reader (not Stephen or Jen for example) that the second paragraph refers to undamaged, even completely virgin LPs. The point of the first paragraph is that Orban has very high standards for choosing and preparing LPs for digitizing. But even given that, the LP format still falls way short of modern standards for quality audio. The first paragraph doesn't mention digitizing at all. Come on Stephen, I posted a link to the whole post. The original post on RAO could be linked to the OP I quoted on RAP in two clicks. Can you possibly bring yourself to judge a statement in its proper context? Still, in cases of deteriorated or missing original master tapes, an LP transfer might be the best way to hear a specific recording. In the absence of superior options which often abound, we sometimes must get desperate and dab some makeup on LP's sonic piggishness, in order to just enjoy the music. |
#11
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Quote without comment
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Robert Orban" wrote in message news Through hard experience I've found that with recordings of this vintage, it really pays to find sealed, unplayed copies even if one has to wait for them to show up on eBay and even if one has to pay more. There were a *lot* of bad phono playback systems in the late 60s, and even one play through some of them could audibly damage the vinyl. Finally, after doing this a hundred times or so I have to observe that the audio quality of the run of the mill vinyl from that era was pretty bad. It got a lot better starting in mid-1969, probably because a new generation of disc cutters was just coming on line. I find incomprehensible the affection that some people evidently have for the audio quality of vinyl from that era. Bob Orban I don't find a whole lot to disagree with here. Except when you start free-associating with the usual vinylista propaganda about certain LPs sounding more realistic than any CD. What does that have to do with your quote? There was a lot of junk out there, as there is presently in digital. The difference is that the junk problem with the LP could never be adequately solved. The junk problem with CDs is simply that there's no accounting for taste. Whatever. There are bad LPs and there are bad CDs. So? Just about all Columbia and DGG was very bad in the 60s. A shame considering the performances they recorded. Most of Mercury, Decca, EMI, Harmonia Mundi, and much of RCA sounded terrific on the other hand. Still had the usual litany of vinyl noises, distortion and coloration. And many sounded more like music than any CD I've heard. That's based on the highest authority for the purposes of my music listening: my ears. |
#12
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Quote without comment
"MiNe 109" wrote in message
In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "MiNe 109" wrote in message In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "MiNe 109" wrote in message In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Robert Orban" wrote in message news Through hard experience I've found that with recordings of this vintage, it really pays to find sealed, unplayed copies even if one has to wait for them to show up on eBay and even if one has to pay more. There were a *lot* of bad phono playback systems in the late 60s, and even one play through some of them could audibly damage the vinyl. Finally, after doing this a hundred times or so I have to observe that the audio quality of the run of the mill vinyl from that era was pretty bad. It got a lot better starting in mid-1969, probably because a new generation of disc cutters was just coming on line. I find incomprehensible the affection that some people evidently have for the audio quality of vinyl from that era. Bob Orban Who is Robert Orban? Nice appeal to authority. If you and Jen promise to never appeal to authority, personal or otherwise, I'll do the same. ;-) Appeals to authority are usually in service of an argument. Was someone arguing in favor of damaged, poor-quality vinyl? Nice job of missing the point of the second paragraph, Stephen. "Distractions R U", right? ;-) Most lps were junk. Who was saying otherwise? Come on Stephen, the truth is that compared to a well-made digital recording, the very best LP ever made was still, noisy, colored, and distorted junk. That's an opinion. No, that's a fact to just about everybody with the proverbial brain, and its a fact to a great many more. Fact is there is this tiny noisy minority who are sort of like the audio world's version of extremely pierced people. They mostly want to be thought of as being special. Many will take up any number of completely anti-factual not to mention illogical positions to get the special attention that they crave. As for "still," one spins vinyl. Naah, compared to the CD that spins at 300 rpm and up, the 33 rpm LP is standing still. It should be pretty obvious to an unbiased reader (not Stephen or Jen for example) that the second paragraph refers to undamaged, even completely virgin LPs. The point of the first paragraph is that Orban has very high standards for choosing and preparing LPs for digitizing. But even given that, the LP format still falls way short of modern standards for quality audio. The first paragraph doesn't mention digitizing at all. Come on Stephen, I posted a link to the whole post. The original post on RAO could be linked to the OP I quoted on RAP in two clicks. Can you possibly bring yourself to judge a statement in its proper context? That brings up the question of why you crossposted while suppressing the group in which it originated. The supression exists only in your mind, Stephen. Knowlegable persons used google to trace the post id, and quickly found out everything there was to know. Need a google 101 course, Stephen? Still, in cases of deteriorated or missing original master tapes, an LP transfer might be the best way to hear a specific recording. In the absence of superior options which often abound, we sometimes must get desperate and dab some makeup on LP's sonic piggishness, in order to just enjoy the music. Straight transfers, a little de-clicking, and there you are. I can see that even with the link to Orban's OP staring you in the face Stephen, you are caught flat on your feet, and have hung yourself out to dry. Here it is again: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...b8d154c20e0ebf |
#13
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Quote without comment
"Jenn" wrote in
message In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Robert Orban" wrote in message news Through hard experience I've found that with recordings of this vintage, it really pays to find sealed, unplayed copies even if one has to wait for them to show up on eBay and even if one has to pay more. There were a *lot* of bad phono playback systems in the late 60s, and even one play through some of them could audibly damage the vinyl. Finally, after doing this a hundred times or so I have to observe that the audio quality of the run of the mill vinyl from that era was pretty bad. It got a lot better starting in mid-1969, probably because a new generation of disc cutters was just coming on line. I find incomprehensible the affection that some people evidently have for the audio quality of vinyl from that era. Bob Orban I don't find a whole lot to disagree with here. Except when you start free-associating with the usual vinylista propaganda about certain LPs sounding more realistic than any CD. What does that have to do with your quote? There was a lot of junk out there, as there is presently in digital. The difference is that the junk problem with the LP could never be adequately solved. The junk problem with CDs is simply that there's no accounting for taste. Whatever. There are bad LPs and there are bad CDs. So? Just about all Columbia and DGG was very bad in the 60s. A shame considering the performances they recorded. Most of Mercury, Decca, EMI, Harmonia Mundi, and much of RCA sounded terrific on the other hand. Still had the usual litany of vinyl noises, distortion and coloration. And many sounded more like music than any CD I've heard. Jen, even with the usual litany of vinyl noises, distortion and coloration? I seriously doubt it. More like you're a hopeless romantic, as demonstrated by how you throw good money after bad for overpriced vinyl players. That's based on the highest authority for the purposes of my music listening: my ears. No doubt damaged by exposure to too much live music way too loud. |
#14
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Quote without comment
"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
oups.com Some people prefer the treble digital artifacts of CD. There ain't no such thing. |
#15
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Quote without comment
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote: It should be pretty obvious to an unbiased reader (not Stephen or Jen for example) that the second paragraph refers to undamaged, even completely virgin LPs. The point of the first paragraph is that Orban has very high standards for choosing and preparing LPs for digitizing. But even given that, the LP format still falls way short of modern standards for quality audio. Arny, every time I read one of your posts I get the impression that all you listen to is the equipment and technology, and and that you rarely listen to the music. There is much great and worthwhile music that comes to us by way 78s, a format with even lower standards than the LPs you so decry. Your listing of Bob Orban's patents is very impressive, and I have always admired and respected Bob's inventiveness and creativity. But while several of Bob's inventions are indispensable, most of them are sort of like guns, in that they are not always used for their intended purpose and are also often used for evil, as they commonly are in today's audio world. Bob himself seems to espouse this philosophy of misuse in his post describing the extensive processing he does to the sound of the original LP when transferring it to digital. I would be happier with a basically straight transfer from LP to digital, with the only special processing applied being some modest declicking. Regards, John Byrns -- Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/ |
#16
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Quote without comment
John Byrns said to SnottyBorg: It should be pretty obvious to an unbiased reader (not Stephen or Jen for Arny, every time I read one of your posts I get the impression that all you listen to is the equipment and technology, and and that you rarely listen to the music. Well, naturally. Arnii has no procedures for "testing" music. He lives to "test" equipment. All "tests" to date have prooved™ there is no "relaibley percievable" difference between Krooger's audio krap and the high-priced stuff Krooger can't afford. There is much great and worthwhile music that comes to us by way 78s, a format with even lower standards than the LPs you so decry. "Music is irrelevant to audio." -- A. Krooger (1998, 2001, 2003, 2004, 2006) |
#17
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Quote without comment
"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
oups.com On Aug 29, 9:04 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "MiNe 109" wrote in message In article , jakdedert wrote: MiNe 109 wrote: snip Finally, after doing this a hundred times or so I have to observe that the audio quality of the run of the mill vinyl from that era was pretty bad. It got a lot better starting in mid-1969, probably because a new generation of disc cutters was just coming on line. I find incomprehensible the affection that some people evidently have for the audio quality of vinyl from that era. Bob Orban Who is Robert Orban? Nice appeal to authority. Was someone arguing in favor of damaged, poor-quality vinyl? I dunno. I didn't read the thread which provoked the above. My experience in the 60's/70's was that the vast majority of vinyl records (the only kind available, of course) were real crap, quality wise. If one wanted a quiet, clean copy of a given suite of music, it was necessary to buy multiple copies and transfer immediately to tape. I never--repeat, NEVER--heard a completely pop-free album in my entire life...and I was a dealer. I swore off classical lps after a bad stretch of DGs in the early eighties. After that, the decision was made for me! So you never play classical LPs any more? Still, there is that nostalgia for the 'good ol' days' that persists and grows. Can't have that. Actually, desipite all the phoney angst we hear from vinylistas, there's no problem with sentimentality at all. The problem comes when a tiny minority of vinyl bigots confuse sentimentality for LP's well-known audible foilbles with improved sound quality and realism. The fact is is that when best practices were followed throughout the chain, vinyl wasn't too bad, but it was never intended to equal 30 ips half inch half track, Vinyl was never intended to equal 30 ips half track? Ask Doug Sax! and it never did. Doug Sax thought differently. Hence: Sheffield Records. To this day GOOD analog tape is the gold standard of recording, and neither vinyl nor CD equals it. Both are arguable, but that that the CD format sonically surpasses analog tape is fact. There was some pretty good vinyl at times. Most of it was mediocre, even classical releases, and much terrible. Most CDs are mediocre and the digitization rate is not adequate for best results especially in the treble. The rule of analog accuracy is five times bandwidth, as every old Tektronix catalog stated, but a 23 kHz brick wall for 20 kHz repro is obvious horse**** on its face. No one is advocating vinyl today as a primary release format. But antivinyl activism fails on the basis of confusing sunk costs with marginal costs: http://isteve.blogspot.com/2007/08/w...t-fallacy.html Relevance to vinyl?????????????/ Vinyl is the BEST source of much of the 100+ year library of recorded sound which mankind possesses. Not really. There is no 100+ year library of recorded sound on vinyl simply because vinyl wasn't available and/or wasn't commonly used for something like the first half of those 100 years. Other than oddities like those Sheffield Records direct-disc recordings, virtually all of the recordings that were made on vinyl were first recorded on magnetic tape. If they are valuable but aren't available on tape, then someone screwed up. If you want to hear the voice of people long dead (or living people in historical context if they are even modestly old) and the sounds of music as it was played decades ago, as a "consumer", vinyl is often it. Bad history. Many LPs were never reissued as CDs and many others were poorly done. Bad history. Virtually all vinyl LPs were transcribed from tape. Before LPs there were 78s, and 78s were generally recorded on far harder substances than vinyl. Even many of the latest releases on CD are from less than excellent masters and sound worse than extant vinyl. That's an archiving problem, not a technical situation. If people threw away their master tapes, that's too bad. Therefore vinyl playback is not an otiose matter at all. Thus, the use of vinyl masters is a testimonial to the human propensity to screw up. |
#18
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Quote without comment
"John Byrns" wrote in message
In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: It should be pretty obvious to an unbiased reader (not Stephen or Jen for example) that the second paragraph refers to undamaged, even completely virgin LPs. The point of the first paragraph is that Orban has very high standards for choosing and preparing LPs for digitizing. But even given that, the LP format still falls way short of modern standards for quality audio. Arny, every time I read one of your posts I get the impression that all you listen to is the equipment and technology, and and that you rarely listen to the music. John, it is just your prejudices and biases working overtime, it would seem. There is much great and worthwhile music that comes to us by way 78s, a format with even lower standards than the LPs you so decry. Agreed, but that isn't what I was talking about. What's unclear about "the LP format still falls way short of modern standards for quality audio" . Can you distinguish between audio and music? I can. Your listing of Bob Orban's patents is very impressive, and I have always admired and respected Bob's inventiveness and creativity. But while several of Bob's inventions are indispensable, most of them are sort of like guns, in that they are not always used for their intended purpose and are also often used for evil, as they commonly are in today's audio world. Agreed. But, I don't see mankind stopping the manufacture and development of weapons, any time soon. And, when someone shoots someone else, rarely if ever is the weapons manufacturer or developer held responsibile. If you want to make up your own laws, be my guest but not my guide! Bob himself seems to espouse this philosophy of misuse in his post describing the extensive processing he does to the sound of the original LP when transferring it to digital. That's a reach! I would be happier with a basically straight transfer from LP to digital, with the only special processing applied being some modest declicking. I'd like to get away with that more often in the work I do. Trouble is, most if not all of the LPs I end uptranscribing seem to need more processing than that. |
#19
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Quote without comment
"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
ups.com It should be pretty obvious to an unbiased reader (not Stephen or Jen for example) that the second paragraph refers to undamaged, even completely virgin LPs. The point of the first paragraph is that Orban has very high standards for choosing and preparing LPs for digitizing. But even given that, the LP format still falls way short of modern standards for quality audio. I submit the CD does too. And in the case of pop music made after 1965 or so, we shouldn't have to go from a vinyl release but the original two track tape masters. Two track masters have been generally used since about a decade before 1965. |
#20
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Quote without comment
"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
oups.com Actually, desipite all the phoney angst we hear from vinylistas, there's no problem with sentimentality at all. The problem comes when a tiny minority of vinyl bigots confuse sentimentality for LP's well-known audible foilbles with improved sound quality and realism. If improved sound quality and realism were the standard the CD would be superceded. Trouble is the absence of properly-done listening tests where the CD format has been found to change sound quality. |
#21
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Quote without comment
"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
ups.com On Aug 29, 10:28 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Bret Ludwig" wrote in message oups.com Some people prefer the treble digital artifacts of CD. There ain't no such thing. But, unfortunately, there are. CD sample rate is NOT high enough, Prove it. In fact a sample rate as low as 32 KHz can give transparent reproduction of just about every kind of music there is. and that's the consensus view of hundreds of pros as well as in compliance with the generally accepted rules of bandwidth. 100's of pros? OK, so there is a tiny fraction of poorly-informed pros out there. So what? You want a lot of headroom of bandwidth-five times was the precision analog rule. Bret you're conflating headroom with bandwidth. They aren't the same. They are orthogonal. Know what that means? In practice you probably don't need a 100 kHz Nyquist wall, and as you pointed out earlier it means excessive use of available file size and throughput, but having the brick wall at 30-40 kHz is just common sense at modern data density rates. That sort of nonsense is supported by neither scientific test, nor the consensus of the 100's of millions of listeners, musicians, and production people. SACD and DVD-A are available and should be the standard today, with a CD layer for compatibility. It's not terribly expensive. It's a waste of good bandwidth. SACD and DVD were failures in the mainstream marketplace because they had no reliably perceptible benefits. |
#22
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Quote without comment
In article . com,
Bret Ludwig wrote: On Aug 29, 10:28 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Bret Ludwig" wrote in message oups.com Some people prefer the treble digital artifacts of CD. There ain't no such thing. But, unfortunately, there are. CD sample rate is NOT high enough, and that's the consensus view of hundreds of pros as well as in compliance with the generally accepted rules of bandwidth. Exactly what is the CD sample rate not high enough for, and how do you justify that statement? If the audio is first run through a 20 kHz brick-wall filter the CD sample rate is plenty high. Brick-wall filters can be built with today's digital techniques that do not contribute phase distortion to the filtered signal. Done right CD is the ultimate format for consumer audio, unfortunately we are well down the road toward abandoning it in favor of low bit rate mp3s and other similar formats. Regards, John Byrns -- Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/ |
#23
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Quote without comment
On Aug 29, 10:37 am, John Byrns wrote:
In article . com, Bret Ludwig wrote: On Aug 29, 10:28 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Bret Ludwig" wrote in message roups.com Some people prefer the treble digital artifacts of CD. There ain't no such thing. But, unfortunately, there are. CD sample rate is NOT high enough, and that's the consensus view of hundreds of pros as well as in compliance with the generally accepted rules of bandwidth. Exactly what is the CD sample rate not high enough for, and how do you justify that statement? If the audio is first run through a 20 kHz brick-wall filter the CD sample rate is plenty high. Brick-wall filters can be built with today's digital techniques that do not contribute phase distortion to the filtered signal. How does one implement an anti-aliasing filter on the input before a signal is digitized.....digitally? ScottW |
#24
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Quote without comment
"John Byrns" wrote in message
In article . com, Bret Ludwig wrote: On Aug 29, 10:28 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Bret Ludwig" wrote in message oups.com Some people prefer the treble digital artifacts of CD. There ain't no such thing. But, unfortunately, there are. CD sample rate is NOT high enough, and that's the consensus view of hundreds of pros as well as in compliance with the generally accepted rules of bandwidth. Exactly what is the CD sample rate not high enough for, A very relevant question. The SACD and DVD-A advocates have missed a tremendous sales demonstration opportunity. All they have to do is set up a booth or room at the AES or some high end show (e.g. HE 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008...), composed of one of their new and nifty players playing one of their new and nifty discs thorugh a great audio system in a great room. Of course, there would be a back-to-back 16/44 KHz converter pair (example: Midiman's Flying Cow) operating at unity gain and with minimal delay, that listeners could switch in and out of the signal path. A blind demonstration facility would be an available option. If 44 KHz sampling and 21 KHz brick wall filters were the sonic problem that Bret and so many others claim, the difference should be immediately obvious, blind test or not. and how do you justify that statement? I suspect that engineers from Sony, Philips, Pioneer, and Panasonic already did this test, at the very least. They didn't hear a difference, and hence all the obfuscation that we've had to this day. If the audio is first run through a 20 kHz brick-wall filter the CD sample rate is plenty high. Agreed, and it takes a brick wall filter at less than 16 KHz to be audible with a general sampling of music. Brick-wall filters can be built with today's digital techniques that do not contribute phase distortion to the filtered signal. Agreed. And converters that include these filters are a few bucks, at the most. Done right CD is the ultimate format for consumer audio, It's overkill! |
#25
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Quote without comment
"ScottW" wrote in message
ups.com On Aug 29, 10:37 am, John Byrns wrote: In article . com, Bret Ludwig wrote: On Aug 29, 10:28 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Bret Ludwig" wrote in message oups.com Some people prefer the treble digital artifacts of CD. There ain't no such thing. But, unfortunately, there are. CD sample rate is NOT high enough, and that's the consensus view of hundreds of pros as well as in compliance with the generally accepted rules of bandwidth. Exactly what is the CD sample rate not high enough for, and how do you justify that statement? If the audio is first run through a 20 kHz brick-wall filter the CD sample rate is plenty high. Brick-wall filters can be built with today's digital techniques that do not contribute phase distortion to the filtered signal. How does one implement an anti-aliasing filter on the input before a signal is digitized.....digitally? Before oversampling, brick-wall filtering was done in the analog domain, with complex filters. The brick wall filter in the CDP-101 had about 100 components (mostly coils and capacitors) for 2 channels. What oversampling does is put the brick-wall filter into the digital domain, but running at a far higher sample rate then say 44 KHz. Relatively simple analog filters running at far higher frequencies are then sufficient. |
#26
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Quote without comment
In article . com,
ScottW wrote: On Aug 29, 10:37 am, John Byrns wrote: In article . com, Bret Ludwig wrote: On Aug 29, 10:28 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Bret Ludwig" wrote in message roups.com Some people prefer the treble digital artifacts of CD. There ain't no such thing. But, unfortunately, there are. CD sample rate is NOT high enough, and that's the consensus view of hundreds of pros as well as in compliance with the generally accepted rules of bandwidth. Exactly what is the CD sample rate not high enough for, and how do you justify that statement? If the audio is first run through a 20 kHz brick-wall filter the CD sample rate is plenty high. Brick-wall filters can be built with today's digital techniques that do not contribute phase distortion to the filtered signal. How does one implement an anti-aliasing filter on the input before a signal is digitized.....digitally? By oversampling sufficiently that the required analog filter has negligible impact. Regards, John Byrns -- Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/ |
#27
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Quote without comment
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote: "John Byrns" wrote in message In article . com, Bret Ludwig wrote: On Aug 29, 10:28 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Bret Ludwig" wrote in message oups.com Some people prefer the treble digital artifacts of CD. There ain't no such thing. But, unfortunately, there are. CD sample rate is NOT high enough, and that's the consensus view of hundreds of pros as well as in compliance with the generally accepted rules of bandwidth. Exactly what is the CD sample rate not high enough for, A very relevant question. The SACD and DVD-A advocates have missed a tremendous sales demonstration opportunity. All they have to do is set up a booth or room at the AES or some high end show (e.g. HE 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008...), composed of one of their new and nifty players playing one of their new and nifty discs thorugh a great audio system in a great room. Of course, there would be a back-to-back 16/44 KHz converter pair (example: Midiman's Flying Cow) operating at unity gain and with minimal delay, that listeners could switch in and out of the signal path. A blind demonstration facility would be an available option. If 44 KHz sampling and 21 KHz brick wall filters were the sonic problem that Bret and so many others claim, the difference should be immediately obvious, blind test or not. and how do you justify that statement? I suspect that engineers from Sony, Philips, Pioneer, and Panasonic already did this test, at the very least. They didn't hear a difference, and hence all the obfuscation that we've had to this day. If the audio is first run through a 20 kHz brick-wall filter the CD sample rate is plenty high. Agreed, and it takes a brick wall filter at less than 16 KHz to be audible with a general sampling of music. Brick-wall filters can be built with today's digital techniques that do not contribute phase distortion to the filtered signal. Agreed. And converters that include these filters are a few bucks, at the most. Done right CD is the ultimate format for consumer audio, It's overkill! The "ultimate" is always overkill to some extent, by definition. Regards, John Byrns -- Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/ |
#28
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Quote without comment
On Aug 29, 1:56 pm, ScottW wrote:
On Aug 29, 10:37 am, John Byrns wrote: Exactly what is the CD sample rate not high enough for, and how do you justify that statement? If the audio is first run through a 20 kHz brick-wall filter the CD sample rate is plenty high. Brick-wall filters can be built with today's digital techniques that do not contribute phase distortion to the filtered signal. How does one implement an anti-aliasing filter on the input before a signal is digitized.....digitally? Yes, in essence. Put in a VERY gentle analog filter whose low-pass is at, say, 64x that of your base sample rate. Oversample the A/D at 64x your final sample rate, e.g., 2.822 MHz, and then do your real anti-aliasing filtering entirely in the digital domain. You can now build yourself a very nice filter at 20+ kHz that has in-band response anomolies of under +-.1 dB, excellent phase repsonse and more. Same thing for the output reconstruction filter: oversample the stream, do your filtering digitally, then convert and follow with a final very gentle analog filter. Those analog filters now need not be at the top of the bandwidth, they can be 32x higher, far above the 5 times limit that Ludwig is wagging about. It, by the way, has been routinely this for the last couple of decades in one form or another. |
#29
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Quote without comment
"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
ups.com I submit the CD does too. And in the case of pop music made after 1965 or so, we shouldn't have to go from a vinyl release but the original two track tape masters. Two track masters have been generally used since about a decade before 1965. Since most releases then were mono, they were one track masters. Dirty little secret Bret - people were recording stereo for years before stereo LPs became available. Mono LPs were available until well into the rock era. Irrelevant to how they were recorded. And in fact most people prefer mono Beatles and Stones LPs (of that era) sonically. OK, so their engineers didn't always know how to mix properly. Say it to yourself as many times as it takes Bret - music and audio are two different things that often converge, but it ain't necessarily so all of the time. |
#30
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Quote without comment
"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
oups.com The problem comes when a tiny minority of vinyl bigots confuse sentimentality for LP's well-known audible foilbles with improved sound quality and realism. The fact is is that when best practices were followed throughout the chain, vinyl wasn't too bad, but it was never intended to equal 30 ips half inch half track, Vinyl was never intended to equal 30 ips half track? Ask Doug Sax! and it never did. Doug Sax thought differently. Hence: Sheffield Records. Doug never said LP was BETTER than pro tape, but that it wasn't better than the live signal feed, and that saving a step in the chain would mean better fidelity. In fact it did. Time to use a little logic Bret. If something degrades the sound of a medium, then its accuracy is equal or less than that medium. For example, people cut lots of very successful LPs from digital masters that were less than 44 KHz and 16 bits. To this day GOOD analog tape is the gold standard of recording, and neither vinyl nor CD equals it. Both are arguable, but that that the CD format sonically surpasses analog tape is fact. Not good pro analog tape, it does not. I know better because I've heard it. Pro highbit digital formats, whether tape or hard drive, do. Note to Bret: Highbit is digital, not analog. I clearly said analog tape. Vinyl is the BEST source of much of the 100+ year library of recorded sound which mankind possesses. Not really. There is no 100+ year library of recorded sound on vinyl simply because vinyl wasn't available and/or wasn't commonly used for something like the first half of those 100 years. In a lot of cases, transcriptions were made of earlier material onto vinyl and the vinyl is all that survives, Then a lot of quality was lost due to carelessness. Bret, this is about technology not occasional lapses. or the old acetates and wax has further deteriorated by time and more playing. True to this day, in which case transcription to digital is the rule. In others, the tapes have not survived or have not aged well. Bret why can't you admit it - that you made a mistake and said that vinyl has been around for 100 years. Heck, PVC wasn't even invented until the 1920s! And, PVC was not in general use until the 1950s because it was soft and would be destroyed by a lot of the 78 rpm playback equipment that was widely used. Give us your assessment, Arny, of Sticky Shed Syndrome sometime;-) It is a problem that is generally reversible. You bake the tapes in a warm oven and drive off the moisture. Other than oddities like those Sheffield Records direct-disc recordings, virtually all of the recordings that were made on vinyl were first recorded on magnetic tape. If they are valuable but aren't available on tape, then someone screwed up. Yes Arny, they did. In some cases that someone was the tape makers. Other times the record companies, the vault people, or any of dozens of others. There was no amount of not screwing up that would result in Vinyl best the BEST source of much of the 100+ year library of recorded sound which mankind possesses, because prior to about 58 years ago there were very few vinyl recordings being made and distributed. Vinyl is a screwed-up enough medium that transcribing shellac and wax recordings to it would result in a sound quality loss. |
#31
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Quote without comment
"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
ups.com But, unfortunately, there are. CD sample rate is NOT high enough, and that's the consensus view of hundreds of pros as well as in compliance with the generally accepted rules of bandwidth. Exactly what is the CD sample rate not high enough for, A very relevant question. The SACD and DVD-A advocates have missed a tremendous sales demonstration opportunity. All they have to do is set up a booth or room at the AES or some high end show (e.g. HE 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008...), composed of one of their new and nifty players playing one of their new and nifty discs thorugh a great audio system in a great room. Of course, there would be a back-to-back 16/44 KHz converter pair (example: Midiman's Flying Cow) operating at unity gain and with minimal delay, that listeners could switch in and out of the signal path. A blind demonstration facility would be an available option. I have an mechanical engineer friend that worked on the Orenda engine project (basically an aluminum BB Chevy certified as an aircraft engine.) He was assigned the cylinder heads, which had to have two spark plugs per cylinder. He immediately sent off a memo stating that he felt that this would decrease reliability by making another stress riser to form cracks. They wrote the Canada Transport people and they wrote back: It's not our job to prove that two ignition systems are more reliable: it's your job to prove they are less reliable. it's our job to determine what constitutes proof. And since there are thirty thousand airplanes with dual ignition in Canada we will have to make change over if you do, we will require really good proof. Now if you would like to continue..... This relates to the audio topic how??????????????? |
#32
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Quote without comment
I submit the CD does too. And in the case of pop music made after 1965 or so, we shouldn't have to go from a vinyl release but the original two track tape masters. This assumes that those tapes were kept in good enviroments all this time. And that the tape was of good quality and was able to last without chemical breakdown and such. |
#33
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Quote without comment
I don't find a whole lot to disagree with here. There was a lot of junk out there, as there is presently in digital. Just about all Columbia and DGG was very bad in the 60s. A shame considering the performances they recorded. Most of Mercury, Decca, EMI, Harmonia Mundi, and much of RCA sounded terrific on the other hand. Bell Records LPs tended to sound distorted. Their 45s were absolute crap. Heard that they used a version of vinyl that was supposed to sound really good on the first play, but sounded like crap on subsequent plays... Disposable music?... Well, some of it was.... |
#34
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Quote without comment
Robert Casey wrote:
I submit the CD does too. And in the case of pop music made after 1965 or so, we shouldn't have to go from a vinyl release but the original two track tape masters. This assumes that those tapes were kept in good enviroments all this time. And that the tape was of good quality and was able to last without chemical breakdown and such. And they weren't bulk-erased by the label in order to re-use the tape, or shredded by the musician's angry ex-wife or misfiled in the archive never to be seen again. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#35
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Quote without comment
On Aug 29, 1:27 pm, wrote:
On Aug 29, 1:56 pm, ScottW wrote: On Aug 29, 10:37 am, John Byrns wrote: Exactly what is the CD sample rate not high enough for, and how do you justify that statement? If the audio is first run through a 20 kHz brick-wall filter the CD sample rate is plenty high. Brick-wall filters can be built with today's digital techniques that do not contribute phase distortion to the filtered signal. How does one implement an anti-aliasing filter on the input before a signal is digitized.....digitally? Yes, in essence. Put in a VERY gentle analog filter whose low-pass is at, say, 64x that of your base sample rate. Oversample the A/D at 64x Is the A/D output changing at every sample or is constant for 64 samples? If its constant....then how does this prevent aliasing that gets past the digital antialiasing filter? your final sample rate, e.g., 2.822 MHz, and then do your real anti-aliasing filtering entirely in the digital domain. You can now build yourself a very nice filter at 20+ kHz that has in-band response anomolies of under +-.1 dB, excellent phase repsonse and more. Same thing for the output reconstruction filter: oversample the stream, do your filtering digitally, then convert and follow with a final very gentle analog filter. Those analog filters now need not be at the top of the bandwidth, they can be 32x higher, far above the 5 times limit that Ludwig is wagging about. It, by the way, has been routinely this for the last couple of decades in one form or another. Which seems to indicate that the CD sample rate is truly insufficient for the entire process. It is only sufficient for storage and playback. I return to the question, "Exactly what is the CD sample rate not high enough for....?" ScottW |
#36
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Quote without comment
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: "MiNe 109" wrote in message In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Robert Orban" wrote in message news Through hard experience I've found that with recordings of this vintage, it really pays to find sealed, unplayed copies even if one has to wait for them to show up on eBay and even if one has to pay more. There were a *lot* of bad phono playback systems in the late 60s, and even one play through some of them could audibly damage the vinyl. Finally, after doing this a hundred times or so I have to observe that the audio quality of the run of the mill vinyl from that era was pretty bad. It got a lot better starting in mid-1969, probably because a new generation of disc cutters was just coming on line. I find incomprehensible the affection that some people evidently have for the audio quality of vinyl from that era. Bob Orban Who is Robert Orban? Nice appeal to authority. If you and Jen promise to never appeal to authority, personal or otherwise, I'll do the same. ;-) Appeals to authority are usually in service of an argument. Was someone arguing in favor of damaged, poor-quality vinyl? Nice job of missing the point of the second paragraph, Stephen. "Distractions R U", right? ;-) Most lps were junk. Who was saying otherwise? Come on Stephen, the truth is that compared to a well-made digital recording, the very best LP ever made was still, noisy, colored, and distorted junk. That's an opinion. No, that's a fact to just about everybody with the proverbial brain, and its a fact to a great many more. Fact is there is this tiny noisy minority who are sort of like the audio world's version of extremely pierced people. They mostly want to be thought of as being special. Many will take up any number of completely anti-factual not to mention illogical positions to get the special attention that they crave. No, it's your opinion. The "facts" are subject to differing degrees of what's important to the listening experience, thresholds of audibility, etc. As for "still," one spins vinyl. Naah, compared to the CD that spins at 300 rpm and up, the 33 rpm LP is standing still. Still is still moving to me. It should be pretty obvious to an unbiased reader (not Stephen or Jen for example) that the second paragraph refers to undamaged, even completely virgin LPs. The point of the first paragraph is that Orban has very high standards for choosing and preparing LPs for digitizing. But even given that, the LP format still falls way short of modern standards for quality audio. The first paragraph doesn't mention digitizing at all. Come on Stephen, I posted a link to the whole post. The original post on RAO could be linked to the OP I quoted on RAP in two clicks. Can you possibly bring yourself to judge a statement in its proper context? That brings up the question of why you crossposted while suppressing the group in which it originated. The supression exists only in your mind, Stephen. Knowlegable persons used google to trace the post id, and quickly found out everything there was to know. Need a google 101 course, Stephen? I looked at "Newsgroups" in the header and didn't see "rec.audio.pro". If you're using google, well, some prefer dedicated newsreaders. Still, in cases of deteriorated or missing original master tapes, an LP transfer might be the best way to hear a specific recording. In the absence of superior options which often abound, we sometimes must get desperate and dab some makeup on LP's sonic piggishness, in order to just enjoy the music. Straight transfers, a little de-clicking, and there you are. I can see that even with the link to Orban's OP staring you in the face Stephen, you are caught flat on your feet, and have hung yourself out to dry. Here it is again: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...b8d154c20e0ebf Since that cite isn't important enough to your argument for you to quote, I will wait for you to actually state a case. Stephen |
#37
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Quote without comment
"MiNe 109" wrote in message ... Was someone arguing in favor of damaged, poor-quality vinyl? Unfortunately that was just the new stuff! MrT. |
#38
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Quote without comment
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... It should be pretty obvious to an unbiased reader (not Stephen or Jen for example) that the second paragraph refers to undamaged, even completely virgin LPs. The point of the first paragraph is that Orban has very high standards for choosing and preparing LPs for digitizing. But even given that, the LP format still falls way short of modern standards for quality audio. And that debate was finished a decade or two ago for *intelligent* people. Anyone may still PREFER to listen to anything they like, the problem they have is accepting that they may PREFER something that is actually INFERIOR to the original sound. Hence their continued need to convince themselves. Such people even prefer vinyl, and valve amps to live music concerts without PA, but I don't see so many debates on that issue. Even they have trouble arguing that case :-) MrT. |
#39
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Quote without comment
On Aug 29, 3:09 pm, "Mr.T" MrT@home wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... It should be pretty obvious to an unbiased reader (not Stephen or Jen for example) that the second paragraph refers to undamaged, even completely virgin LPs. The point of the first paragraph is that Orban has very high standards for choosing and preparing LPs for digitizing. But even given that, the LP format still falls way short of modern standards for quality audio. And that debate was finished a decade or two ago for *intelligent* people. Anyone may still PREFER to listen to anything they like, the problem they have is accepting that they may PREFER something that is actually INFERIOR to the original sound. Hence their continued need to convince themselves. I've been to enough live rock concerts to know that if not being true to the original sound is inferior, I'll take inferiority....no, I'll demand it. ScottW |
#40
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Quote without comment
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message . .. I submit the CD does too. And in the case of pop music made after 1965 or so, we shouldn't have to go from a vinyl release but the original two track tape masters. Two track masters have been generally used since about a decade before 1965. But unless the owner of the tapes and/or copyright holder wishes to release to CD, how is a simple LP owner going to get a hold of them? Also another fact, I have copied an LP to CD for the original recording artist, where the record label/recording studio had lost the original master tapes. That is certainly not an isolated incident either, unfortunately. MrT. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Quote without comment | Audio Opinions | |||
quote | Car Audio | |||
A quote | Audio Opinions | |||
Quote: Wikpedia | Audio Opinions | |||
Howie's Quote of the Day | Audio Opinions |