[Eeyore]

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Tynan AgviÐr" wrote
"Arny Krueger" wrote in
"Tynan AgviÐr" wrote

*I dont want to go digital/solid state etc because I
dont ****ing like the way it sounds for ****s
sake!!!!!!

I suggest then that you do the practical thing, and
assemble a good clean digital signal chain, and add some
EFX boxes to get the sound you want. For example, by
randomly shifting the sliders on a 1/3 octave equalizer,
you could simulate the effect of attaching a speaker to
an amplifier with a high source impedance.

But why do that when I can have the real thing?

How can you call it the real thing when it is clearly the less accurate
version of the real thing which is a live performance?

I thought that Tynan had made it clear that his goal was NOT a purely
technically accurate representation of the performance and indeed THAT is why
he's seeking a tubed mixer.

It's a perfectly valid requirement and it seems he fully understands the
'compromises' involved.

Graham

[vt]

Eeyore wrote:

And please stop top-posting. It's RUDE. It implies the words of the previous
posters have no value.


Far as the top posting I just updated my software & didn't realize that
the settings had changed. It is now fixed. However I find it rather
comical that you would find that to be rude given some of the comments
that you have made to others in this thread. Some of the name calling
that you have engaged in I would say is far more rude & malicious.

[Eeyore]

Arny Krueger wrote:

"RickH" wrote

I have mixed in analog and digital,

As have I, the analog mixing going back as early as 1966.

a well done analog board does add depth to the soundfield that digital
compresses out.

There's no compression in a digital board.

Agreed. It's inherently impossible (unless you select a compression algorithm).


In fact the greater nonlinear
distortion of an analog board amounts to being a kind of compression

That would have to be a 1950s or so board most likely to exhibit any kind of
effect like that. Did they even have 'boards' in the 50s ?

Graham

[Eeyore]

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
RickH wrote:

I have mixed in analog and digital, a well done analog
board does add depth to the soundfield

No it bloody well DOESN'T.

It adds or subtracts NOTHING.

Well, it may add or subtract the LSB, but we can scale that down to
infinitesimal.

Clearly Rick has no clue about how digital works.

Actually I was referring to analogue boards but they're no different in
that respect either.

The job of the board is to mix and monitor (and EQ) mainly. Sound
effects belong in the 'toy rack'.

Graham

[Eeyore]

vt wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

And please stop top-posting. It's RUDE. It implies the words of the previous
posters have no value.

Far as the top posting I just updated my software & didn't realize that
the settings had changed. It is now fixed. However I find it rather
comical that you would find that to be rude given some of the comments
that you have made to others in this thread. Some of the name calling
that you have engaged in I would say is far more rude & malicious.

And you'd be polite to complete idiots and MORONS who talk down science with
complete nonsense, myth, rumour. fairy stories and quasi-religious beliefs would
you ?

Grahan

[John Byrns]

In article ,
Eeyore wrote:

John Byrns wrote:

I am asking you to educate me about the nature of the mechanism that causes
HD

Non-linear transfer characteristics of course.

OK, that's a start, you have answered about a third of the question.

Let's review, you claimed "the mechanisms are quite different" that
produce HD and IMD. So I asked "you to educate me about the nature of
the mechanism that causes HD and the mechanism that causes IMD."? You
also implied in the context of the thread that the amounts of HD & IMD
weren't highly correlated due to the different mechanisms that you claim
cause them.

So you still need to explain the mechanism that causes IMD? Then you
need to explain how that mechanism differs from the mechanism that
produces HD, and how one might have high IMD in an audio amplifier
without also having high HD?

An entirely linear device would produce NO distortion.

Duh!

So why are YOU asking ME ?

That's a very good question!


Regards,

John Byrns

--
Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/

[Ian Thompson-Bell]

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Ian Thompson-Bell" wrote in
message
Arny Krueger wrote:
The best converters are now so good that one stage of
conversion even without a gain control can have the more
dynamic range than an analog mic preamp with a gain
control.
I would be very interested to look a the data sheet of
such a device. Can you give an example please?

http://focus.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/pcm4222.pdf




Many thanks - looks like an interesting read.

Cheers

Ian

[Eeyore]

John Byrns wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
John Byrns wrote:

I am asking you to educate me about the nature of the mechanism that causes
HD

Non-linear transfer characteristics of course.

OK, that's a start, you have answered about a third of the question.

Let's review, you claimed "the mechanisms are quite different" that
produce HD and IMD.

Where did I say that ?

Graham

[robert casey]

The only way to have HD without IM or IM without HD is to use cleverly
designed bandpass circuits.



Superheterodyne radio receivers do something like this. The mixer stage
is designed to go into distortion, such that you get IM on purpose, with
a local oscillator beat with the radio station's carrier frequency to
convert it to the intermediate frequency. The IF amp uses bandpass
filters tuned to the intermediate frequency, and rejects everything
else. Of course, the bandpass filters are set wide enough to pass the
station's sidebands, but to stop everything else. But this isn't
applicable to audio work, as the audio spectrum spans 4 orders of
magnitude (20Hz to 20KHz). Unless you build a distortion meter that has
a narrow bandpass set to 2x the source sine wave frequency, or 3x etc.

[John Byrns]

In article ,
Eeyore wrote:

John Byrns wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
John Byrns wrote:

I am asking you to educate me about the nature of the mechanism that
causes
HD

Non-linear transfer characteristics of course.

OK, that's a start, you have answered about a third of the question.

Let's review, you claimed "the mechanisms are quite different" that
produce HD and IMD.

Where did I say that ?

Six levels up in this thread. For your convenience here is a copy of
your entire post.

===========

John Byrns wrote:

I was simply trying to point out that IMD and THD are highly correlated and
as a rule you don't have
one without the other, and they pretty much track one another

Pure nonsense. The mechanisms are quite different.

Graham

===========


Regards,

John Byrns

--
Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/

[ian]

Patrick Turner wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
John Byrns wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
John Byrns wrote:
You say most "tubeophiles" are seeking the "triode sound", can you
explain what you mean when you refer to the "triode sound", and contrast
it with the sound of pentodes?
The harmonic character of the distortion products created by the non-linear
transfer characteristic. The transfer characteristic of the triode and
pentode are markedly different.

http://www.google.com/search?n&q=%22triode+equation
Graham, you are avoiding the question, I know that triodes and pentodes
have markedly different transfer characteristics. I didn't ask you
about transfer characteristics, I asked you what you mean by "triode
sound", and how it differs from the sound of other devices?
Clearly the specific non-linearities of the transfer characteristic will affect
the sound. Do you not accept that ? Various devices have a 'sonic fingerprint' if
you like in this regard.

What are you trying to get at ?

Graham

The THD and IMD are often quoted as being the root cause of percieved
sound differences between two circuits doing the same job.

In comparisons of 4 different brands of 6CG7 a few years ago,
some were percieved as being better/worse/different to each other.
4 listeners were present on the day to make the comparisons.
For the record, NOS Siemans 6CG7 were percieved as more detailed, far
less harsh
than new made Russian EH6CG7. We concluded that nobody in their right
mind would use an EH6CG7.

Maybe it was a bad batch, but why? ask the GOT, maybe He knows.

I later tested the preamp in which the tests were made and found the THD
could NOT have exceeded 0.01% at any time during the tests.


If this preamp has a couple or so triodes with overall feedback
(necessary to achieve the distortion figures mentioned) then no matter
what the tube make the distortion will probably measure very low in all
cases. However, distortion is not the only thing affected by feedback.
All such systems with two or more tubes produce response peaks at the
extremes of the spectrum and controlling these peaks is an important
part of the design process. The effect of these peaks is to produce
overshoot on transients. The size of these peaks, and hence the degree
of overshoot, depends on the total loop gain which could vary
considerably as you change tube manufacturers. Seems to me what you
heard may have been caused by this mechanism.

RDH4 is most instructive on this topic.

Cheers

Ian

[Arny Krueger]

"Eeyore" wrote in
message
Arny Krueger wrote:

"Tynan AgviÐr" wrote
"Arny Krueger" wrote in
"Tynan AgviÐr" wrote

*I dont want to go digital/solid state etc because I
dont ****ing like the way it sounds for ****s
sake!!!!!!

I suggest then that you do the practical thing, and
assemble a good clean digital signal chain, and add
some EFX boxes to get the sound you want. For
example, by randomly shifting the sliders on a 1/3
octave equalizer, you could simulate the effect of
attaching a speaker to an amplifier with a high source
impedance.

But why do that when I can have the real thing?

How can you call it the real thing when it is clearly
the less accurate version of the real thing which is a
live performance?

I thought that Tynan had made it clear that his goal was
NOT a purely technically accurate representation of the
performance and indeed THAT is why he's seeking a tubed
mixer.

He keeps talking about the real thing, which is obviously not what he wants.

It's a perfectly valid requirement and it seems he fully
understands the 'compromises' involved.

I think he's confused. What he seems to really want is a walk down memory
lane.

[Arny Krueger]

"Eeyore" wrote in
message
Arny Krueger wrote:

"RickH" wrote

I have mixed in analog and digital,

As have I, the analog mixing going back as early as 1966.

a well done analog board does add depth to the
soundfield that digital compresses out.

There's no compression in a digital board.

Agreed. It's inherently impossible (unless you select a
compression algorithm).


In fact the greater nonlinear
distortion of an analog board amounts to being a kind of
compression

That would have to be a 1950s or so board most likely to
exhibit any kind of effect like that. Did they even have
'boards' in the 50s ?

Yes, mostly designed for broadcasting.

[Arny Krueger]

"robert casey" wrote in message


The only way to have HD without IM or IM without HD is
to use cleverly designed bandpass circuits.

Superheterodyne radio receivers do something like this. The mixer stage is
designed to go into distortion, such
that you get IM on purpose, with a local oscillator beat
with the radio station's carrier frequency to convert it
to the intermediate frequency. The IF amp uses bandpass
filters tuned to the intermediate frequency, and rejects
everything else. Of course, the bandpass filters are set
wide enough to pass the station's sidebands, but to stop
everything else.

Agreed.

But this isn't applicable to audio
work, as the audio spectrum spans 4 orders of magnitude
(20Hz to 20KHz).

Actually, it could be and it has been, but not as regular hi fi gear.

Unless you build a distortion meter
that has a narrow bandpass set to 2x the source sine wave
frequency, or 3x etc.

That would be known as a spectrum analyzer, and exist as test equipment.

[Tynan AgviÐr]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in
:

How can you call it the real thing when it is clearly the less
accurate version of the real thing which is a live performance?


Arny, i dont know what your intent is here..if you are trying to convert
me to your way of thinking, you are a dead man walking. Ive used various
gear combinations ..tube/ss/analog/digital in various price brackets from
various designers who used various variations on the same sad
themes....and only liked a handful..guess what. All tubes , transformers
and tape. and again..i dont give half a damn about what I am compromising
on paper or in YOUR mind. I am recording for ME and the clients that
approach ME because they like the way I work. If I please those two
persons, hell with everyone else. Hell...**** it..if I only please
myself, selfish ******* that I am, ive succeeded. Youve stated what you
think, and I appreciate your contributions to this thread(though they
have nothing to do with what I originally posted or this forum), but
truth be told, as far as my original post goes, it has not, nor will it
ever..make one iota of difference. I want what I want. That is it. If I
were walking around with your ears on my head, and with your brain
jiggling around in my skull maybe id feel different...but that aint the
case, thanks be to Allah*peace be upon him*






Now we hear some truth - its all about laziness.

yeah, that and I have this nagging problem of trying to acquire equipment
and albums that I actually enjoy listening to. I am one sick, dumbassed
*******, Arny.


How does a spec sound?




When I record, I like to set up
the mics(the most involved part of the recording process,
and the most important) hit record, tear down, and go
home to my wife and daughter afterwards.

You must be badly mislead if you think that somehow using digital
prevents you from using that process.


and you must be badly mislead if you think that your chest
thumping/pontificating/sermonizing/etc etc on is going to make any
difference. This is a thread about tube gear, Arny. If you dont have
anything to contribute with regards to that, why type anything at all??
(what is your intention here/?)Dont tell me you are still sore because I
insulted JonBoy "polish multitrack" Atkinson?

anyway..again.

(is there a filter value for irrelevant bull****???)

[Tynan AgviÐr]

One beauty of digital mixing is that you can have as much dynamic
range in the mix bus as you can imagine, just by adding bits. There
are no components in the analog domain that have as much dynamic range
as plain vanilla 24 bits digital, no matter how you twist it. In
contrast, much DAW software mixes with 32 bit floating point, that has
close to 1,000 dB dynamic range.



well mix your plain vanilla digital ass off, Arny. Ill use my noisy
compromised trash, and well both be happy. None of the statements above
mean dick to me. I only care about sound. You mix with your eyes and your
brain, ill stick to using my ears.

[Tynan AgviÐr]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in
:

I think he's confused. What he seems to really want is a walk down
memory lane.





of course, you have to insult..class act you are..
you suggested using a digital signal something or other

to emulate the sound of a certain piece of equipment.

my response to that was "why use an emulation when I could use the real
thing"???



Cant you just state your point *once*, leave it at that? Why do you keep
pushing, and pushing, and pushing? Ive stated more than once that your
opinions have no bearing on what I am trying to accomplish..so why keep on,
*unless* you are trying to stir up ****??


Let me state this once more....

I want a mixer. I dont give a **** about how it is compromised, how much
better digital is. If you cannot help(like the others here have all others
BUT you, Arny), kindly take your arguments to an appropriate area...

If you want to compare your digital dicks, please start a seperate thread
on "Digital is the roXXor and analogue is teh suXXor" or something similar.

Please. Stop the pollution.

[Patrick Turner]

Eeyore wrote:

Patrick Turner wrote:

But if you have a single triode with 0.01% THD, mainly 2H

Under what conditions does a typical triode, say an ECC83, produce ONLY 0.01%
THD ?

I've been digging up data on valve mic preamps and was fairly shocked to see THD
specced in the 0.4% region.

Graham

In a line level preamp with gain pot before the gain tube,
typical output voltage for a power amp is say 1/20 of the input required
for
clipping, or 0.05Vrms, and its difficult to measure the THD.

But where RL of the gian triode = 10Ra, as in the case preamps at my
website
shown with 6CG7 or 12AU7 etc in µ-followers, typical THD in SE mode is
0.2% at 10Vrms,
so since THD gets lower with reduced Vo, expect 0.02% at 1Vrms.

0.4% thd in ANY preamp is poor design.

Its often because they have say 50k used as a load for 1/2 12AX7, ie, RL
is LESS than Ra,
and they are asking maybe 5Vrms....

12AX7 or ECC83 can produce astonishingly low THD.

Getting low THD without any loop FB, local or long loop around cascaded
tubes
is simply achievable by making the anode load 10Ra at least,
or preferable 100Ra, ie, thr anode load approximates a current source.

Take a look at typical triode anode curves. These represent Ra spaced
alng for values of Eg bias voltage.

If the load line plotted on the curves is horizontal, then its a CCS,
and THD is the lowest you'll get for that triode, and its often lower
than the
ancient poorly produced anode curve sheets indicate.
1% thd at 100Vrms is easily possible.....

Patrick Turner.

[Patrick Turner]

"Tynan AgviÐr" wrote:


Not enough noise and distortion for you, I take it?


I will take noise and distortion any , i mean any day of the week over
sterility(ie TELARC and about 90% of the recordings of the last 5 years). I
went down the road of millennias, DPAs, GML 8302s, DCS clarity, Gordon
model 5, Sonodores, sonomas, and didnt like it at all. My ears are the
judge and jury, and if you put a truckload of neumann Ds and a fully
strapped Pyramix/DAD DAW beside one pair of RCA 44DX , a single tfunken
201 and a Stellavox and told me to choose one of em, itd take me a
nanosecond to choose the latter, though specs wise, id be going with the
losers .

Ears matter, nothing else(unless you are an engineer and have to kiss
corporate ass to put food on the table, which I do not)

How do specs sound?

Like ****e being cooked, if the specs are poor enough.

But when triodes are used to get very nice specs without using a zillion
dB of NFB
and umpteen bottles and bits and peices in abox, they usually sound
well.
Basically, if you have good triode circuit specs, and the circuit is
simple,
its difficult to make a triode amp sound wrong.

Patrick Turner.

[Patrick Turner]

"Tynan AgviÐr" wrote:

"Arny Krueger" wrote in
:

"RickH" wrote in message


Maybe the OP shuld just go digital then.

Only if he wants the best possible SQ.



I do want the best possible SQ..hence my query here.

I dont give half a **** about specs, chips, number of conversions, DSPs,
ADCs, DACs, LSBs, FFTs, BCDs, ECCs, or SMPTEs.

I am intriqued by just why during the course of any discussion about
*analog* recording/audio ;;digital acolytes have to chime in with *"man,
why dont you just go digital"* it never ever fails. there should be an
equivalent to Godwin's law for the phenomenon.

*I dont want to go digital/solid state etc because I dont ****ing like the
way it sounds for ****s sake!!!!!!Damn!In my 15 years as a professional
musician, around orchestras and bands and countless live performances, I am
damn well sure of what I like and what I dont, thank you very much. If my
precious paper specs suffer , then hell with it. My ears will be pleased at
least.*

(not directed at anyone in particular , just venting)

KrOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOger will not be moved by your
venting.

He has yet to make one single constructive post in favour of tubes.

And this here group is a tubes group.

Probably he has cemented his ideas so firmly in his brain
that all the alternative points of view are alien to him.
Its a problem of growing old; utter inflexibility sets in.
Anyone ele's idea of correct is always wrong.

I await a time when I am led to believe I have a solid state
component in front of me does sound better than my humble triode
concoctions
I bake up in the oven of my shed.
I've even tried to make some SS gear and it merely proves there ain't no
short cuts to audio nivirna via silicon, except perhaps with a j-fet
at the input to a phono amp because its 10 times quieter than any tube,
can be trusted not to maul music because the level is mV, and
avoids the veil of a transformer.


I'm eternally hopeful.

But what's going to happen is that all the SS analog gear
will ALL be junked in favour of all digital gear everywhere.

The New Digital when mature will have a chance to prove its better than
what it replaces.

Marketting will push it so strongly like they did when they first
introduced SS gear when tubes were IT.

Meanwhile, the world's remaining 10 cognescenti will continue to
enjoy farnarkling around with tubes and wonder WhyTF mankind ever
bothered with
bjts and digits.

Patrick Turner.

[Ian Thompson-Bell]

Patrick Turner wrote:

Getting low THD without any loop FB, local or long loop around cascaded
tubes
is simply achievable by making the anode load 10Ra at least,
or preferable 100Ra, ie, thr anode load approximates a current source.


Since the ECC83 Ra is 80K at low currents, 10Ra would be 8Meg - now I
understand why you use a CCS in a ttube circuit.

Thanks Patrick, another little gm to add to my store.

Cheers

Ian

[Eeyore]

Patrick Turner wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Patrick Turner wrote:

But if you have a single triode with 0.01% THD, mainly 2H

Under what conditions does a typical triode, say an ECC83, produce ONLY 0.01%
THD ?

I've been digging up data on valve mic preamps and was fairly shocked to see THD
specced in the 0.4% region.


In a line level preamp with gain pot before the gain tube,
typical output voltage for a power amp is say 1/20 of the input required
for clipping, or 0.05Vrms, and its difficult to measure the THD.

That is not a pro-audio line level and is an irrelevance in the context of a
professional audio mixer.

As I expected you aren't familiar with the function this pre-amp will have to provide.

Nominal 'line level' is 0dBu ( 1.228V rms) and one might expect (even with non-digital
recording gear) to have peak levels easily 6-10dB above that, so up to 4V or so.

With digital recording equipment the peak level is likely to be in the +18 to +20dBu
region which is ~ 10V rms.

These TFK mic amps certainly aren't designed to do THAT !

Graham

[Eeyore]

Ian Thompson-Bell wrote:

Patrick Turner wrote:

Getting low THD without any loop FB, local or long loop around cascaded
tubes is simply achievable by making the anode load 10Ra at least,
or preferable 100Ra, ie, thr anode load approximates a current source.

Since the ECC83 Ra is 80K at low currents, 10Ra would be 8Meg

Well, 800k but certainly not a practical load resistor value.


- now I understand why you use a CCS in a ttube circuit.

I wonder if that would satisfly the OP's desire for (AIUI) classic tube
circuitry ?

Graham

[Arny Krueger]

"Tynan AgviÐr" wrote in message
. 3.70

One beauty of digital mixing is that you can have as
much dynamic range in the mix bus as you can imagine,
just by adding bits. There are no components in the
analog domain that have as much dynamic range as plain
vanilla 24 bits digital, no matter how you twist it. In
contrast, much DAW software mixes with 32 bit floating
point, that has close to 1,000 dB dynamic range.

well mix your plain vanilla digital ass off, Arny. Ill
use my noisy compromised trash, and well both be happy.

I've got no problem with people who want to live their lives in a museum, as
long as they don't insult people's intelligence by claiming that those
obsolete museum pieces are somehow better than that which made them obsolete
in the first place.

Contrary to the beliefs of people who are overwhelmed with sentimentality
and fear of change, most people are pretty pragmatic about their choices.
For example, people scapped their LPs because they didn't want to suffer
with their noise and distortion, not due to some conspiracy by the
producers.

None of the statements above mean dick to me.

Over your head, right?

I only care about sound.

That's why most of the world modernizes.

You mix with your eyes and your brain, ill stick to using my ears.

The idea that one would mix without the use of one's ears just shows how
much your thinking has been ruined by fear and ignorance. The idea that
using a digital console would somehow compromise the process of mixing with
ears shows more of the same kind of knee-jerk wishful thinking.

[John Byrns]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Tynan AgviÐr" wrote in message
. 3.70

I only care about sound.

That's why most of the world modernizes.

I disagree, the world modernizes because of lower cost, more compact
size, lower heat, & etc., not because of "better" sound.


Regards,

John Byrns

--
Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/

[Arny Krueger]

"John Byrns" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Tynan AgviÐr" wrote in message
. 3.70

I only care about sound.

That's why most of the world modernizes.

I disagree, the world modernizes because of lower cost,
more compact size, lower heat, & etc., not because of
"better" sound.

I've heard that false claim way too many times from LP bigots, to believe
it. Something about actually living through the conversion as an adult
audiophile.

[Eeyore]

John Byrns wrote:

"Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Tynan AgviÐr" wrote

I only care about sound.

That's why most of the world modernizes.

I disagree, the world modernizes because of lower cost, more compact
size, lower heat, & etc., not because of "better" sound.

In what way did stereo TV sound (or indeed stereo sound generally) make
anything "lower cost, more compact size, lower heat, & etc" just as an
example ?

Ditto for home theatre multi-channel sound.

Graham

[Tynan AgviÐr]

I've got no problem with people who want to live their lives in a
museum, as long as they don't insult people's intelligence by claiming
that those obsolete museum pieces are somehow better than that which
made them obsolete in the first place.


Are you an idiot? How can you quantify sound?? To try to suggest with any
authority that gear a is better sounding than gear b because of
specifications on paper is absurd. to my ears, analogue gear/workflow DOES
sound better than working in the digital domain. I work that way because to
MY ears(key point of the ears being mine and all) it is better SOUNDING.
and that is all that matters here. End of story.


*killfile*

[Arny Krueger]

"Tynan AgviÐr" wrote in message
. 3.70
I've got no problem with people who want to live their
lives in a museum, as long as they don't insult people's
intelligence by claiming that those obsolete museum
pieces are somehow better than that which made them
obsolete in the first place.


Are you an idiot? How can you quantify sound?? To try to
suggest with any authority that gear a is better sounding
than gear b because of specifications on paper is absurd.

Who said anythinb about paper specs?

I think that anybody with at least normal intelligence can identify this
straw man argument.

to my ears,

and only a tiny fraction of anybody else's ears.

analogue gear/workflow DOES sound better than
working in the digital domain.

Take a nearly-deaf guy with a big mouth, lots of old-fashioned prejudices
and a fear of change and...

I work that way because to
MY ears(key point of the ears being mine and all)

Don't you feel strange when other people cringe when they hear your
recordings, or do you keep your work private and spare everybody the
embarassment?

it is better SOUNDING.

There are always a few die-hards.

and that is all that matters here. End of story.

The good news is that hearing deterioration is a one-way street, so you'll
never ever have to admit that you found out that you are wrong.


*killfile*

[Eeyore]

"Tynan AgviÐr" wrote:

I've got no problem with people who want to live their lives in a
museum, as long as they don't insult people's intelligence by claiming
that those obsolete museum pieces are somehow better than that which
made them obsolete in the first place.


Are you an idiot? How can you quantify sound?? To try to suggest with any
authority that gear a is better sounding than gear b because of
specifications on paper is absurd. to my ears, analogue gear/workflow DOES
sound better than working in the digital domain. I work that way because to
MY ears(key point of the ears being mine and all) it is better SOUNDING.
and that is all that matters here. End of story.

But have you used the latest state-of-the-art 24 bit converters @ 192kHz ? Like
this from some old friends of mine ...
http://prismsound.com/music_recordin...da8xr_home.php

"Trying to assess and evaluate the sound quality of the ADA8XR is extremely
difficult, simply because it is so good! It provided a degree of transparency,
resolution, and sheer realism that was unmatched by anything else available to
me "
http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/apr0...rismada8xr.htm

The only problem with stuff like this is that doesn't have 'a sound' per se,
hence why people sometimes like to 'warm it up' with valve/tubed outboard gear
etc.

Graham

[Arny Krueger]

"Eeyore" wrote in
message
"Tynan AgviÐr" wrote:

I've got no problem with people who want to live their
lives in a museum, as long as they don't insult
people's intelligence by claiming that those obsolete
museum pieces are somehow better than that which made
them obsolete in the first place.


Are you an idiot? How can you quantify sound?? To try to
suggest with any authority that gear a is better
sounding than gear b because of specifications on paper
is absurd. to my ears, analogue gear/workflow DOES sound
better than working in the digital domain. I work that
way because to MY ears(key point of the ears being mine
and all) it is better SOUNDING. and that is all that
matters here. End of story.

But have you used the latest state-of-the-art 24 bit
converters @ 192kHz ? Like this from some old friends of
mine ...
http://prismsound.com/music_recordin...da8xr_home.php

You don't need anything as good or expensive as Prism converters to have
audibly transparent reproduction. When they came out the Prism products
significantly outperformed lower cost alternatives. But look at the spec
sheet - 112 dB dynamic range - there are any number of chips from TI,
Crystal, and AKM that do as well.

"Trying to assess and evaluate the sound quality of the
ADA8XR is extremely difficult, simply because it is so
good! It provided a degree of transparency, resolution,
and sheer realism that was unmatched by anything else
available to me "
http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/apr0...rismada8xr.htm

Sonic transparency is always good because it leaves the sonic choices up to
the people doing setup and operations.

The only problem with stuff like this is that doesn't
have 'a sound' per se, hence why people sometimes like to
'warm it up' with valve/tubed outboard gear etc.

Smart people cut through the trash and learn how to run a parametric
equalizer.

[Tynan AgviÐr]

Eeyore wrote in
:



"Tynan AgviÐr" wrote:

I've got no problem with people who want to live their lives in a
museum, as long as they don't insult people's intelligence by
claiming that those obsolete museum pieces are somehow better than
that which made them obsolete in the first place.


Are you an idiot? How can you quantify sound?? To try to suggest with
any authority that gear a is better sounding than gear b because of
specifications on paper is absurd. to my ears, analogue gear/workflow
DOES sound better than working in the digital domain. I work that way
because to MY ears(key point of the ears being mine and all) it is
better SOUNDING. and that is all that matters here. End of story.

But have you used the latest state-of-the-art 24 bit converters @
192kHz ? Like this from some old friends of mine ...
http://prismsound.com/music_recordin...xr/ada8xr_home.
php

"Trying to assess and evaluate the sound quality of the ADA8XR is
extremely difficult, simply because it is so good! It provided a
degree of transparency, resolution, and sheer realism that was
unmatched by anything else available to me "
http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/apr0...rismada8xr.htm

The only problem with stuff like this is that doesn't have 'a sound'
per se, hence why people sometimes like to 'warm it up' with
valve/tubed outboard gear etc.

Graham



yessir, I have prism converters in my mastering room..they are widely
used by colleagues in the classical world. I use digital in tandem with
my analogue gear begrudgingly. I dont have a cutting lathe, and dont see
myself getting one,(my wife would cut my balls off) so I work in the
analogue domain until the very end. (also have a tape copy for quality
assurance ) If I did not have nice converters(Mytek DACs and Prism
AD/DA) that took a bit of the digitus out, I wouldnt convert to digital
at all. id set up a lathe in my studio and listen that way. Yes, I do
like warm, rich, euphonic sounds. RCA living stereo LPs are the Gold
Standard.

[John Byrns]

In article ,
flipper wrote:

On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 04:13:36 +0000, Eeyore
wrote:

"Tynan AgviÐr" wrote:

I've got no problem with people who want to live their lives in a
museum, as long as they don't insult people's intelligence by claiming
that those obsolete museum pieces are somehow better than that which
made them obsolete in the first place.


Are you an idiot? How can you quantify sound?? To try to suggest with any
authority that gear a is better sounding than gear b because of
specifications on paper is absurd. to my ears, analogue gear/workflow DOES
sound better than working in the digital domain. I work that way because
to
MY ears(key point of the ears being mine and all) it is better SOUNDING.
and that is all that matters here. End of story.

But have you used the latest state-of-the-art 24 bit converters @ 192kHz ?
Like
this from some old friends of mine ...
http://prismsound.com/music_recordin...da8xr_home.php

"Trying to assess and evaluate the sound quality of the ADA8XR is extremely
difficult, simply because it is so good! It provided a degree of
transparency,
resolution, and sheer realism that was unmatched by anything else available
to
me "
http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/apr0...rismada8xr.htm

The only problem with stuff like this is that doesn't have 'a sound' per se,
hence why people sometimes like to 'warm it up' with valve/tubed outboard
gear
etc.

Graham

What I don't understand here is that if 'digital' is 'transparent'
then how can one implementation be 'better' than the other?

And once distortion is 'inaudible' then any further 'improvement'
should be, well, inaudible, so what's the point to "latest
state-of-the-art" when it's been argued this point was reached decades
ago?

Even if distortion is inaudible, if an improvement can be detected with
sensitive measuring instruments, then people will imagine they can hear
the difference, the ego is a powerful force.


Regards,

John Byrns

--
Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/

[Arny Krueger]

"flipper" wrote in message


What I don't understand here is that if 'digital' is
'transparent' then how can one implementation be 'better'
than the other?

In the real world we have a ton of equipment that is sonically transparent,
but some of it measures better than others.

And once distortion is 'inaudible' then any further
'improvement' should be, well, inaudible, so what's the
point to "latest state-of-the-art" when it's been argued
this point was reached decades ago?

Margins for safety and reprocessing the same signal over and over again.

Right now its not uncommon to do things like have a digital CD player that
goes through an analog line amp, and into a digital console and out via
analog lines to a digital speaker management box. I count 3 DACs and 2 ADCs
in that signal path. If you want the whole route to be sonically
transparent, each converter has to have a safety margin of a few dB.

In time signal chains like the one I just mentioned will be in the digital
domain from end to end. Many already are.

[Arny Krueger]

"John Byrns" wrote in message


In article ,
flipper wrote:


What I don't understand here is that if 'digital' is
'transparent' then how can one implementation be
'better' than the other?

And once distortion is 'inaudible' then any further
'improvement' should be, well, inaudible, so what's the
point to "latest state-of-the-art" when it's been argued
this point was reached decades ago?

Even if distortion is inaudible, if an improvement can be
detected with sensitive measuring instruments, then
people will imagine they can hear the difference, the ego
is a powerful force.

Totally agreed!

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


Arny Krueger wrote:

"RickH" wrote

I have mixed in analog and digital,

As have I, the analog mixing going back as early as 1966.

a well done analog board does add depth to the soundfield that digital
compresses out.

There's no compression in a digital board.

Agreed. It's inherently impossible (unless you select a compression
algorithm).


In fact the greater nonlinear
distortion of an analog board amounts to being a kind of compression

That would have to be a 1950s or so board most likely to exhibit any kind
of
effect like that. Did they even have 'boards' in the 50s ?

Do you think everything was single mic up to that time?
Decca had a 4-channel mixer in the redudancy store that
dated from circa 1934

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"flipper" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 08:57:20 +0200, "Iain Churches"
wrote:


Do you think everything was single mic up to that time?
Decca had a 4-channel mixer in the redudancy store that
dated from circa 1934

They had to use more mics. Lena kept moving her head

Yes of course. Why didn't I think of that? :-)

[John Byrns]

In article ,
"Iain Churches" wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


Arny Krueger wrote:

"RickH" wrote

I have mixed in analog and digital,

As have I, the analog mixing going back as early as 1966.

a well done analog board does add depth to the soundfield that digital
compresses out.

There's no compression in a digital board.

Agreed. It's inherently impossible (unless you select a compression
algorithm).


In fact the greater nonlinear
distortion of an analog board amounts to being a kind of compression

That would have to be a 1950s or so board most likely to exhibit any kind
of
effect like that. Did they even have 'boards' in the 50s ?

Do you think everything was single mic up to that time?
Decca had a 4-channel mixer in the redudancy store that
dated from circa 1934

The BBC seems to have used "low level mixing" as late as the 1950s,
necessitating only one microphone amplifier for typically 4 microphones.


Regards,

John Byrns

--
Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"John Byrns" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Iain Churches" wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


Did they even have 'boards' in the 50s ?

Do you think everything was single mic up to that time?
Decca had a 4-channel mixer in the redudancy store that
dated from circa 1934

The BBC seems to have used "low level mixing" as late as the 1950s,
necessitating only one microphone amplifier for typically 4 microphones.


Yes indeed. I have some photos somewhere of an early
BBC control panel (can't really call it a mixer) with massive
studded rotary faders probably early 60s.

Iain

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"John Byrns" wrote in message
...


The BBC seems to have used "low level mixing" as late as the 1950s,
necessitating only one microphone amplifier for typically 4 microphones.


There are some interesting BBC pics of Type A equipment at:

http://www.btinternet.com/~roger.bec...pea/typea1.htm


Iain