Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Timing
Current audio systems do not reproduce the entire wavefront that
creates the listener's experience in the concert hall. At best, they measure a few channels and reproduce those, inexactly, through a few speakers. Yet the playback experience can be enjoyable and thrilling. Obviously something of the original sonic event is preserved. Something of the original time-evolving spectrum of sonic energy is reproduced. Ignoring for now the question of reproducing a wavefront, let's look at just how the signal in one channel is handled. It can be quite distorted and yet still recognizable. What aspects of a signal must be preserved for it to be recognizable? What aspects must be preserved for it to sound good, and to sound very much like the original signal? Engineers have addressed this question in many ways, for example designing compression algorithms. Some details of the original signal can be thrown away without losing much, perceptually. MP3's sound sorta like the orignal files. I'm interested in addressing the question "what makes an accurate signal" at a higher level of quality than that. For example, I've always preferred analog sources to digital, finding the former more lifelike. Does an analog recorder preserve some aspect of the signal better than a digital recorder? I know that many of you will say categorically not. Fine. Let's look anyway at one aspect of the signal. Intuitively, a musical signal is made of many "events"...for example attacks of notes. Intuitively I hear even sustained notes as made of events...little shifts of timbre, and so on. This idea is confirmed when we look at an audio signal and see periodic spikes, and also confirmed by the success of "granular synthesis" (a technique for synthesizing sustained sounds by summing many individual wavelets). Perhaps an important dimension of accurate sound reproduction is the accurate reproduction of the *relative timing* of these events. To clarify, perhaps we could conceive of each event as being recognized by the neural machinery and triggering a neuron to fire. And something about the pattern of this firing, the timing contained therein, is important to defining the sound quality. How does a particular recording/playback process affect the timing of transients? Recording processes are sometimes characterized in terms of frequency response. Digital has a very flat response in the region audible to the ear, meaning it doesn't introduce much distortion. However, it does introduce some distortion. And if we were somehow able to examine the relative firing times of neurons in response to a recorded/played-back signal, how much would a digital playback process distort those times? How much would an analog process distort those times? This is not a question about jitter. Certainly jitter is one distortion mechanism in digital (and analog) playback, but this more about how even a linear playback system will distort transients because it is band-limited. Changing the shape of the transient will likely have a small effect on neural timing. Both digital and analog recording processes distort the shape of the transient, but perhaps one of them does so in a way that better preserves the relative timing of neural events. My *suspicion* is that analog in fact does better preserve the timing of neural events. However, I would need to know more about neuroscience and non-linear systems to have a good answer to this, but perhaps someone reading is interested. Best, Mike |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Michael Mossey wrote:
Current audio systems do not reproduce the entire wavefront that creates the listener's experience in the concert hall. At best, they measure a few channels and reproduce those, inexactly, through a few speakers. Yet the playback experience can be enjoyable and thrilling. Obviously something of the original sonic event is preserved. Something of the original time-evolving spectrum of sonic energy is reproduced. Ignoring for now the question of reproducing a wavefront, let's look at just how the signal in one channel is handled. It can be quite distorted and yet still recognizable. What aspects of a signal must be preserved for it to be recognizable? What aspects must be preserved for it to sound good, and to sound very much like the original signal? Engineers have addressed this question in many ways, for example designing compression algorithms. Some details of the original signal can be thrown away without losing much, perceptually. MP3's sound sorta like the orignal files. I'm interested in addressing the question "what makes an accurate signal" at a higher level of quality than that. For example, I've always preferred analog sources to digital, finding the former more lifelike. Does an analog recorder preserve some aspect of the signal better than a digital recorder? I know that many of you will say categorically not. Fine. Let's look anyway at one aspect of the signal. Intuitively, a musical signal is made of many "events"...for example attacks of notes. Intuitively I hear even sustained notes as made of events...little shifts of timbre, and so on. This idea is confirmed when we look at an audio signal and see periodic spikes, and also confirmed by the success of "granular synthesis" (a technique for synthesizing sustained sounds by summing many individual wavelets). Perhaps an important dimension of accurate sound reproduction is the accurate reproduction of the *relative timing* of these events. To clarify, perhaps we could conceive of each event as being recognized by the neural machinery and triggering a neuron to fire. And something about the pattern of this firing, the timing contained therein, is important to defining the sound quality. How does a particular recording/playback process affect the timing of transients? Recording processes are sometimes characterized in terms of frequency response. Digital has a very flat response in the region audible to the ear, meaning it doesn't introduce much distortion. However, it does introduce some distortion. And if we were somehow able to examine the relative firing times of neurons in response to a recorded/played-back signal, how much would a digital playback process distort those times? How much would an analog process distort those times? This is not a question about jitter. Certainly jitter is one distortion mechanism in digital (and analog) playback, but this more about how even a linear playback system will distort transients because it is band-limited. Changing the shape of the transient will likely have a small effect on neural timing. Both digital and analog recording processes distort the shape of the transient, but perhaps one of them does so in a way that better preserves the relative timing of neural events. My *suspicion* is that analog in fact does better preserve the timing of neural events. However, I would need to know more about neuroscience and non-linear systems to have a good answer to this, but perhaps someone reading is interested. Best, Mike There were experiments done where the output of a vinyl rig is captured and digitized using the CD standard. Then the listeners tried to tell the analog playback from the digitized verison. The difference was indistingusihable by the most vigorous vinyl supporters. Do a search on the Lip****z article to read more about this. Many of us have digitally recorded vinyl LP's with great success, achieving results that are virtually identical to the original. That should tell you a lot about how good digital recording is. You prefer analog (vinyl) because the distortions associated with vinyl equipment are euphonic to you. It's really quite simple. Read up on the sampling theorem to learn how accurate digital recording can be. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Michael Mossey wrote:
Current audio systems do not reproduce the entire wavefront that creates the listener's experience in the concert hall. At best, they measure a few channels and reproduce those, inexactly, through a few speakers. Yet the playback experience can be enjoyable and thrilling. Obviously something of the original sonic event is preserved. Something of the original time-evolving spectrum of sonic energy is reproduced. Ignoring for now the question of reproducing a wavefront, let's look at just how the signal in one channel is handled. It can be quite distorted and yet still recognizable. What aspects of a signal must be preserved for it to be recognizable? What aspects must be preserved for it to sound good, and to sound very much like the original signal? Engineers have addressed this question in many ways, for example designing compression algorithms. Some details of the original signal can be thrown away without losing much, perceptually. MP3's sound sorta like the orignal files. I'm interested in addressing the question "what makes an accurate signal" at a higher level of quality than that. For example, I've always preferred analog sources to digital, finding the former more lifelike. Does an analog recorder preserve some aspect of the signal better than a digital recorder? I know that many of you will say categorically not. Fine. Let's look anyway at one aspect of the signal. Intuitively, a musical signal is made of many "events"...for example attacks of notes. Intuitively I hear even sustained notes as made of events...little shifts of timbre, and so on. This idea is confirmed when we look at an audio signal and see periodic spikes, and also confirmed by the success of "granular synthesis" (a technique for synthesizing sustained sounds by summing many individual wavelets). Perhaps an important dimension of accurate sound reproduction is the accurate reproduction of the *relative timing* of these events. To clarify, perhaps we could conceive of each event as being recognized by the neural machinery and triggering a neuron to fire. And something about the pattern of this firing, the timing contained therein, is important to defining the sound quality. How does a particular recording/playback process affect the timing of transients? Recording processes are sometimes characterized in terms of frequency response. Digital has a very flat response in the region audible to the ear, meaning it doesn't introduce much distortion. However, it does introduce some distortion. And if we were somehow able to examine the relative firing times of neurons in response to a recorded/played-back signal, how much would a digital playback process distort those times? How much would an analog process distort those times? This is not a question about jitter. Certainly jitter is one distortion mechanism in digital (and analog) playback, but this more about how even a linear playback system will distort transients because it is band-limited. Changing the shape of the transient will likely have a small effect on neural timing. Both digital and analog recording processes distort the shape of the transient, but perhaps one of them does so in a way that better preserves the relative timing of neural events. My *suspicion* is that analog in fact does better preserve the timing of neural events. However, I would need to know more about neuroscience and non-linear systems to have a good answer to this, but perhaps someone reading is interested. These are your speculations. I deny your whole idea. You can test it yourself. Use your turntable and play one of your favourite tunes. At the same time record from the tape out receptacle with your soundcard. Keep the level low, like -12dB so there is some headroom. Then burn s CD from the wave-file. Now you can set up a comparison. I do this with a small mixer, but you can switch also on your (pre)amp, if you fade out before switching and then adjust the volume knob, so both sources have exactly the same volume. Start the CD first and pause it at a significant point, so you can synchronize the two sources. Try to listen carefully if there is any difference. Do this with a friend without you knowing which is which. -- ciao Ban Bordighera, Italy |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
First the differences have to be audible.
Nonetheless, it is generally the case that if a device has a well behaved frequency response curve, then it probably doesn't distort transients very much. Of course you can concoct devices which disobey this rule (such as echo chambers and goofy filters), but I don't think they are typically part of a basic audio recorder. There is a widespread misconception that something is lost in between the data points measured by a digital recorder. This is not the case. If the input signal is bandwidth-limited by reasonable analog means, then the digital data accurately preserves *all* of the temporal content. (Other experts on this forum can probably state this more precisely). Chances are, digital does a better job of preserving timing because the phase response can be quite flat. Hope this helps. Michael Mossey wrote: My *suspicion* is that analog in fact does better preserve the timing of neural events. However, I would need to know more about neuroscience and non-linear systems to have a good answer to this, but perhaps someone reading is interested. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"Both digital and analog
recording processes distort the shape of the transient, but perhaps one of them does so in a way that better preserves the relative timing of neural events. My *suspicion* is that analog in fact does better preserve the timing of neural events. However, I would need to know more about neuroscience and non-linear systems to have a good answer to this, but" There is a simple test, record an analog source unto a digital one and using listening alone see if they can be distinguished. We can save time, it was done and they can not. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Chung wrote:
There were experiments done where the output of a vinyl rig is captured and digitized using the CD standard. Then the listeners tried to tell the analog playback from the digitized verison. The difference was indistingusihable by the most vigorous vinyl supporters. Do a search on the Lip****z article to read more about this. Many of us have digitally recorded vinyl LP's with great success, achieving results that are virtually identical to the original. That should tell you a lot about how good digital recording is. You prefer analog (vinyl) because the distortions associated with vinyl equipment are euphonic to you. It's really quite simple. Read up on the sampling theorem to learn how accurate digital recording can be. When recording an LP digitally you can really "see" the kind of analog grundge that is present. I use Audacity on Linux, and from the moment the tonearm is placed on the "silent" lead in groove the meters start jumping around like the 4th of July. I'm guessing that this stuff is present throughout the recording, but just masked by the louder program signal. I've always thought that maybe digital recording was "too good" for the analog crowd. That they just couldn't ever get used to the low noise floor (along with the wider frequency response). In any event, to me the CD's sound essentially the same as the records when I monitor using headphones. michael |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
michael wrote:
I've always thought that maybe digital recording was "too good" for the analog crowd. That they just couldn't ever get used to the low noise floor (along with the wider frequency response). The HF response of many, if not most, recordings is hotter than neutral. Some degree of HF distortion is also not infrequent. With digital, it is possible to reproduce this all accurately. It can be annoying to those with good ears. That is not to say that those who love vinyl may not also be responding to other factors, just to agree that better reproduction is not always pleasant to hear. Mike Prager North Carolina, USA |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
On 23 Dec 2004 19:03:57 GMT, Mike Prager wrote:
michael wrote: I've always thought that maybe digital recording was "too good" for the analog crowd. That they just couldn't ever get used to the low noise floor (along with the wider frequency response). The HF response of many, if not most, recordings is hotter than neutral. Some degree of HF distortion is also not infrequent. With digital, it is possible to reproduce this all accurately. It can be annoying to those with good ears. That is not to say that those who love vinyl may not also be responding to other factors, just to agree that better reproduction is not always pleasant to hear. Mike Prager North Carolina, USA Hear hear! Go to a normal classical concert with a symphony orchestra, and you hear a pleasant, balanced sound. Listen to the same on a normal record - CD or vinyl - and all of a sudden the highs have a sort of exaggerated fizzing quality. This is very unpleasant, but can usually be fixed quite easily if you are prepared to take the trouble of running the recording through a DAW to re-equalise. d Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
S888Wheel wrote:
From: michael When recording an LP digitally you can really "see" the kind of analog grundge that is present. I use Audacity on Linux, and from the moment the tonearm is placed on the "silent" lead in groove the meters start jumping around like the 4th of July. I'm guessing that this stuff is present throughout the recording, but just masked by the louder program signal. Kind of a broad claim based on limited experience don't you think? You tell me, then. I'm guessing that the "silent grooves" of a record are the baseline and represent the actual noise floor of the record/diamond interface. Would not this "baseline" (if indeed it is such) be present throughout the recording but masked during louder passages? In any case, from home transfers it is clear that the analog signal differs greatly from a digital source when strictly considering non-musical program noise. I've always thought that maybe digital recording was "too good" for the analog crowd. That they just couldn't ever get used to the low noise floor (along with the wider frequency response). That striles me as a rather absurd claim given that most said vinyl enthusiasts at least claim that live music is their reference. Well...that's what they claim in any case. When one listens to a live performance there are all kinds of noise artifacts present which may not be heard on a recording. But we are speaking and writing of two different things. First, I was speaking of inherent vinyl noise which is NOT present in any live venue. Second, in a "live" recording ambient acoustical noise is (or should be) recorded along with the program. I am a Wagner fan. Let's look at two different recordings: first, the Boulez Bayreuth Ring (Phillips) and, second, the Levine Met Ring (DGG-the CD version and not the DVD live recording). The first was an all digital (except Gotterdammerung) 'rehearsal' recording and exhibits all one would expect from a live performance except audience artifacts (since no audience was present). That is, stage noises from the cast jumping around on the floor, and sets moving, etc. This is caught on the digital tape quite clearly and can be heard apart from any additional vinyl artifacts. The Levine set, on the other hand, being a studio recording arises from an imperceptible noise floor and one hears nothing but the musical notes (and singing). When making a CD copy of both I can attest to the vinyl noise of the former (which I have records of), but the latter is a CD version and my subsequent copies have no additional noise (simply copying digit for digit). On the other hand, the Levine set has an eerie, almost unnatural aural feeling about it due to "digital silence". It is true that we do not experience, in life, sound emanating from a zero noise floor. That is what I meant when I suggested that maybe digital is "too good" for the analog crowd. Not that digital cannot capture a "live music reference" to use your words, but that, at times and from the studio, what is presented IS artificial due to a lack of background noise. Maybe analog front ends supply enough background grundge to allow us to psychologically better integrate what we are hearing vis-a-vis our normal experience. Now, in the analog world we also experience studio recordings, but they always have some tape hiss along with the heretofore mentioned vinyl background crud. Listening to them is nothing like listening to a CD. Often the vinyl background crud is high enough to mask the master analog tape hiss (assuming no Dolby or dbx was used in which case tape hiss may not be a factor). As an aside, I am reminded of, many many years ago and when digital was quite young, purchasing a CD copy of a Yes album. Upon listening to the CD I found that on a particular tune one side of the stereo track abruptly drops out. Tape hiss (clearly audible on the CD) from this "silent" channel was quite startling. I checked my Lp version but because of surface noise I could not hear any tape hiss. This was my first indication that digital really does capture everything. michael |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Don Pearce wrote:
On 23 Dec 2004 19:03:57 GMT, Mike Prager wrote: michael wrote: I've always thought that maybe digital recording was "too good" for the analog crowd. That they just couldn't ever get used to the low noise floor (along with the wider frequency response). The HF response of many, if not most, recordings is hotter than neutral. Some degree of HF distortion is also not infrequent. With digital, it is possible to reproduce this all accurately. It can be annoying to those with good ears. That is not to say that those who love vinyl may not also be responding to other factors, just to agree that better reproduction is not always pleasant to hear. Mike Prager North Carolina, USA Hear hear! Go to a normal classical concert with a symphony orchestra, and you hear a pleasant, balanced sound. Listen to the same on a normal record - CD or vinyl - and all of a sudden the highs have a sort of exaggerated fizzing quality. This is very unpleasant, but can usually be fixed quite easily if you are prepared to take the trouble of running the recording through a DAW to re-equalise. And you're sure this is due to the recording, and not the vastly different room acoustics? -- -S If you're a nut and knock on enough doors, eventually someone will open one, look at you and say, Messiah, we have waited for your arrival. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
michael wrote:
S888Wheel wrote: From: michael When recording an LP digitally you can really "see" the kind of analog grundge that is present. I use Audacity on Linux, and from the moment the tonearm is placed on the "silent" lead in groove the meters start jumping around like the 4th of July. I'm guessing that this stuff is present throughout the recording, but just masked by the louder program signal. Kind of a broad claim based on limited experience don't you think? You tell me, then. I'm guessing that the "silent grooves" of a record are the baseline and represent the actual noise floor of the record/diamond interface. Would not this "baseline" (if indeed it is such) be present throughout the recording but masked during louder passages? In any case, from home transfers it is clear that the analog signal differs greatly from a digital source when strictly considering non-musical program noise. There's no question that even the quietest vinyl will show visible 'grunge' in a wavform or spectral view, during the supposed silences before and after tracks...in contrast to digital silence. This is just one of several ways of demonstrating technically that digital beats vinyl in the S/N department hands down. I've always thought that maybe digital recording was "too good" for the analog crowd. That they just couldn't ever get used to the low noise floor (along with the wider frequency response). That striles me as a rather absurd claim given that most said vinyl enthusiasts at least claim that live music is their reference. Well...that's what they claim in any case. When one listens to a live performance there are all kinds of noise artifacts present which may not be heard on a recording. But we are speaking and writing of two different things. First, I was speaking of inherent vinyl noise which is NOT present in any live venue. Second, in a "live" recording ambient acoustical noise is (or should be) recorded along with the program. It used to be common for CDs to have the disclaimer like, ' the higher resolution of digital transfer may reveal imperfections in the source' . On the other hand, the Levine set has an eerie, almost unnatural aural feeling about it due to "digital silence". It is true that we do not experience, in life, sound emanating from a zero noise floor. That is what I meant when I suggested that maybe digital is "too good" for the analog crowd. Not that digital cannot capture a "live music reference" to use your words, but that, at times and from the studio, what is presented IS artificial due to a lack of background noise. Maybe analog front ends supply enough background grundge to allow us to psychologically better integrate what we are hearing vis-a-vis our normal experience. Along the same lines, it has often been suggested that what vinylphiles prefer about the LP medium is what it *adds* to the recording -- midrange phasiness and other so-called 'euphonic' distortion. As an aside, I am reminded of, many many years ago and when digital was quite young, purchasing a CD copy of a Yes album. Upon listening to the CD I found that on a particular tune one side of the stereo track abruptly drops out. Tape hiss (clearly audible on the CD) from this "silent" channel was quite startling. I checked my Lp version but because of surface noise I could not hear any tape hiss. This was my first indication that digital really does capture everything. ah...Perpetual Change. ; -- -S If you're a nut and knock on enough doors, eventually someone will open one, look at you and say, Messiah, we have waited for your arrival. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
On 24 Dec 2004 16:08:34 GMT, Steven Sullivan wrote:
Don Pearce wrote: On 23 Dec 2004 19:03:57 GMT, Mike Prager wrote: michael wrote: I've always thought that maybe digital recording was "too good" for the analog crowd. That they just couldn't ever get used to the low noise floor (along with the wider frequency response). The HF response of many, if not most, recordings is hotter than neutral. Some degree of HF distortion is also not infrequent. With digital, it is possible to reproduce this all accurately. It can be annoying to those with good ears. That is not to say that those who love vinyl may not also be responding to other factors, just to agree that better reproduction is not always pleasant to hear. Mike Prager North Carolina, USA Hear hear! Go to a normal classical concert with a symphony orchestra, and you hear a pleasant, balanced sound. Listen to the same on a normal record - CD or vinyl - and all of a sudden the highs have a sort of exaggerated fizzing quality. This is very unpleasant, but can usually be fixed quite easily if you are prepared to take the trouble of running the recording through a DAW to re-equalise. And you're sure this is due to the recording, and not the vastly different room acoustics? It still happens with headphones - so room acoustics don't come into it. d Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
are boiled alive!
You don?t need silverware, the hot spicy meat comes off in your hands. 6 live babies 1 lb. smoked sausage 4 lemons whole garlic 2 lb. new potatoes 4 ears corn 1 box salt crab boil Bring 3 gallons of water to a boil. Add sausage, salt, crab boil, lemons and garlic. Drop potatoes in, boil for 4 minutes. Corn is added next, boil an additional 11 minutes. Put the live babies into the boiling water and cover. Boil till meat comes off easily with a fork. Oven-Baked Baby-Back Ribs Beef ribs or pork ribs can be used in this recipe, and that is exactly what your dinner guests will assume! An excellent way to expose the uninitiated to this highly misunderstood yet succulent source of protein. 2 human baby rib racks 3 cups barbecue sauce or honey glaze (see index) Salt black pepper white pepper paprika Remove the silverskin by loosening from the edges, then stripping off. Season generously, rubbing the mixture into the baby?s flesh. Place 1 quart water in a baking pan, the meat on a wire rack. Bake uncovered in 250° oven for 1½ hours. When browned, remove and glaze, return to oven and bake 20 minutes more to form a glaze. Cut ribs into individual pieces and serve with extra sauce. Fresh Sausage If it becomes necessary to hide the fact that you are eating human babies, this is the perfect solution. But if you are still paranoid, you can substitute pork butt. 5 lb. lean chuck roast 3 lb. prime baby butt 2 tablespoons each: salt black, white and cayenne peppers celery salt garlic powder parsley flakes brown sugar 1 teaspoon sage 2 onions 6 cloves garlic bunch green onions, chopped Cut the children?s butts and the beef roast into pieces that will |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
with whole roasted children replete with apples in mouths -
and babies? heads stuffed with wild rice. Or keep it simple with a hearty main course such as stew, lasagna, or meat loaf. Some suggestions Pre-mie pot pies, beef stew, leg of lamb, stuffed chicken, roast pork spiral ham, Cranberry pineapple salad, sweet potatoes in butter, vegetable platter, tossed salad with tomato and avocado, parsley new potatoes, spinich cucumber salad, fruit salad Bran muffins, dinner rolls, soft breadsticks, rice pilaf, croissants Apple cake with rum sauce, frosted banana nut bread sherbet, home made brownies Iced tea, water, beer, bloody marys, lemonade, coffee The guests select food, beverages, silverware... everything from the buffet table. They move to wherever they are comfortable, and sit with whoever they choose. Provide trays so your guests will not spill everything all over your house from carrying too much, nor will they have to make 10 trips back and fourth from the service stations. Roast Leg of Amputee By all means, substitute lamb or a good beef roast if the haunch it is in any way diseased. But sometimes surgeons make mistakes, and if a healthy young limb is at hand, then don?t hesitate to cook it to perfection! 1 high quality limb, rack, or roast Potatoes, carrot Oil celery onions green onions parsley garlic salt, pepper, etc 2 cups beef stock Marinate meat (optional, not necessary with better cuts). Season liberally and lace w |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
of abortion clinics
thrive and hot French bread is always available. 2 cleaned fetuses, head on 2 eggs 1 tablespoon yellow mustard 1 cup seasoned flour oil enough for deep frying 1 loaf French bread Lettuce tomatoes mayonnaise, etc. Marinate the fetuses in the egg-mustard mixture. Dredge thoroughly in flour. Fry at 375° until crispy golden brown. Remove and place on paper towels. Holiday Youngster One can easily adapt this recipe to ham, though as presented, it violates no religious taboos against swine. 1 large toddler or small child, cleaned and de-headed Kentucky Bourbon Sauce (see index) 1 large can pineapple slices Whole cloves Place him (or ham) or her in a large glass baking dish, buttocks up. Tie with butcher string around and across so that he looks like he?s crawling. Glaze, then arrange pineapples and secure with cloves. Bake uncovered in 350° oven till thermometer reaches 160°. Cajun Babies Just like crabs or crawfish, babies are boiled alive! You don?t need silverware, the hot spicy meat comes off in your hands. 6 live babies 1 lb. smoked sausage 4 lemons whole garlic 2 lb. new potatoes 4 ears corn 1 box salt crab boil Bring 3 gallons of water to a boil. Add sausage, salt, crab boil, lemons and garlic. Drop potatoes in, boil for 4 minutes. Corn is added next, boil an additional 11 minutes. Put the live babies into the boiling water and cover. Boil t |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
the lifeless unfortunate available immediately after delivery,
or use high quality beef or pork roasts (it is cheaper and better to cut up a whole roast than to buy stew meat). 1 stillbirth, de-boned and cubed ¼ cup vegetable oil 2 large onions bell pepper celery garlic ½ cup red wine 3 Irish potatoes 2 large carrots This is a simple classic stew that makes natural gravy, thus it does not have to be thickened. Brown the meat quickly in very hot oil, remove and set aside. Brown the onions, celery, pepper and garlic. De-glaze with wine, return meat to the pan and season well. Stew on low fire adding small amounts of water and seasoning as necessary. After at least half an hour, add the carrots and potatoes, and simmer till root vegetables break with a fork. Cook a fresh pot of long grained white rice. Pre-mie Pot Pie When working with prematurely delivered newborns (or chicken) use sherry; red wine with beef (buy steak or roast, do not pre-boil). Pie crust (see index) |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
is the perfect solution.
But if you are still paranoid, you can substitute pork butt. 5 lb. lean chuck roast 3 lb. prime baby butt 2 tablespoons each: salt black, white and cayenne peppers celery salt garlic powder parsley flakes brown sugar 1 teaspoon sage 2 onions 6 cloves garlic bunch green onions, chopped Cut the children?s butts and the beef roast into pieces that will fit in the grinder. Run the meat through using a 3/16 grinding plate. Add garlic, onions and seasoning then mix well. Add just enough water for a smooth consistency, then mix again. Form the sausage mixture into patties or stuff into natural casings. Stillborn Stew By definition, this meat cannot be had altogether fresh, but have the lifeless unfortunate available immediately after delivery, or use high quality beef or pork roasts (it is cheaper and better to cut up a whole roast than to buy stew meat). 1 stillbirth, de-boned and cubed ¼ cup vegetable oil 2 large onions bell pepper celery garlic ½ cup red wine 3 Irish potatoes 2 large carrots This is a simple classic stew that makes natural gravy, thus it does not have to be thickened. Brown the meat quickly in very hot oil, remove and set aside. Brown the onions, celery, pepper and garlic. De-glaze with wine, return meat to the pan and season well. Stew on low fire adding small amounts of water and seasoning as necessary. After at least half an hour, add the carrots and potatoes, and simmer till root vegetables break with a fork. Cook a fresh pot of long grained white rice. Pre-mie Pot Pie When working with prematurely delivered newborns (or chicken) use sherry; red wine with beef (buy steak or roast, do not pre-boil). Pie crust (see index) Whole fresh pre-m |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Don Pearce wrote:
On 24 Dec 2004 16:08:34 GMT, Steven Sullivan wrote: Don Pearce wrote: On 23 Dec 2004 19:03:57 GMT, Mike Prager wrote: michael wrote: I've always thought that maybe digital recording was "too good" for the analog crowd. That they just couldn't ever get used to the low noise floor (along with the wider frequency response). The HF response of many, if not most, recordings is hotter than neutral. Some degree of HF distortion is also not infrequent. With digital, it is possible to reproduce this all accurately. It can be annoying to those with good ears. That is not to say that those who love vinyl may not also be responding to other factors, just to agree that better reproduction is not always pleasant to hear. Mike Prager North Carolina, USA Hear hear! Go to a normal classical concert with a symphony orchestra, and you hear a pleasant, balanced sound. Listen to the same on a normal record - CD or vinyl - and all of a sudden the highs have a sort of exaggerated fizzing quality. This is very unpleasant, but can usually be fixed quite easily if you are prepared to take the trouble of running the recording through a DAW to re-equalise. And you're sure this is due to the recording, and not the vastly different room acoustics? It still happens with headphones - so room acoustics don't come into it. Headphone listening doesn't model listening in a concert hall either. The limitations of two-channel reproduction of a live event have been known since the development of audio for movies and later, for home. Yet you seem to be talking about a frequency anomaly. If all recordings --LP and CD -- merely require re-equalization to 'fix' them, it seems surpassingly odd that no recording engineer or producer has noticed taht so far, in the 50+ years since the first LPs. -- -S If you're a nut and knock on enough doors, eventually someone will open one, look at you and say, Messiah, we have waited for your arrival. |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
On 26 Dec 2004 16:57:12 GMT, Steven Sullivan wrote:
Don Pearce wrote: On 24 Dec 2004 16:08:34 GMT, Steven Sullivan wrote: Don Pearce wrote: On 23 Dec 2004 19:03:57 GMT, Mike Prager wrote: michael wrote: I've always thought that maybe digital recording was "too good" for the analog crowd. That they just couldn't ever get used to the low noise floor (along with the wider frequency response). The HF response of many, if not most, recordings is hotter than neutral. Some degree of HF distortion is also not infrequent. With digital, it is possible to reproduce this all accurately. It can be annoying to those with good ears. That is not to say that those who love vinyl may not also be responding to other factors, just to agree that better reproduction is not always pleasant to hear. Mike Prager North Carolina, USA Hear hear! Go to a normal classical concert with a symphony orchestra, and you hear a pleasant, balanced sound. Listen to the same on a normal record - CD or vinyl - and all of a sudden the highs have a sort of exaggerated fizzing quality. This is very unpleasant, but can usually be fixed quite easily if you are prepared to take the trouble of running the recording through a DAW to re-equalise. And you're sure this is due to the recording, and not the vastly different room acoustics? It still happens with headphones - so room acoustics don't come into it. Headphone listening doesn't model listening in a concert hall either. The limitations of two-channel reproduction of a live event have been known since the development of audio for movies and later, for home. Yet you seem to be talking about a frequency anomaly. If all recordings --LP and CD -- merely require re-equalization to 'fix' them, it seems surpassingly odd that no recording engineer or producer has noticed taht so far, in the 50+ years since the first LPs. Who says they haven't noticed? I suspect that even the most assiduous of engineers will fall prey to the producer leaning over his shoulder saying - it sound a bit dull, can you give it some sparkle? d Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
S888Wheel wrote:
From: michael Yes, I'm not sure that your personal experience is a universal base line though. In any case, from home transfers it is clear that the analog signal differs greatly from a digital source when strictly considering non-musical program noise. I'm not questioning what you found to be true with *your* transfers, only the universitality of it. I snipped out most of the thread becuase anyone interested can go back and read. This back and forth is getting unmanagable. Anyhow, to recap: I claimed that when recording from a turntable to a CD there exists alot of analog grundge that is heard and is also shown graphically by VU meters. This stuff is non-musical noise. Now it appears that you are arguing the validity of this? My suggestion: take a turntable, any turntable, and get yourself some analog to digital software. Use any album you like. If you want to replicate my results then I'll tell you that I use Audacity on Linux; I'm sure there are many other similar applications out there you may use--even Windows applications. :-) Next, place the stylus in the lead in or the lead out groove, or any silent passage you like. Finally, watch the vu meters bob up and down with peaks around the -40dB value when there is supposed to be "quietness". It helps to have a good set of headphones for monitoring. I use Sennheisers. Once you have done this several hundred times, or even just once or twice, then post about the "universality" of the experiment. I have 2 turntables (I kind of collect Lps) and both exhibit this behavior when hooked up to the computer. For the record (since you asked and with no pun intended), during digital transfer I use a Thorens 160 with a V-15xMR. Other cartridges I currently have are a Denon 103; an Ortofon super OM-20; A Stanton 881 S; an Epoch L8Z S; and an AT 440 ML. I have used most of these to copy personal CDs also, and each exhibits the same properties. I settled on the Shure since, IMO, it sounds very musical, it tracks as well if not better than the others, and the nifty little damping brush gathers lint off even "clean" Lps. michael |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
From: michael
Date: 12/27/2004 7:52 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: S888Wheel wrote: From: michael Yes, I'm not sure that your personal experience is a universal base line though. In any case, from home transfers it is clear that the analog signal differs greatly from a digital source when strictly considering non-musical program noise. I'm not questioning what you found to be true with *your* transfers, only the universitality of it. I snipped out most of the thread becuase anyone interested can go back and read. This back and forth is getting unmanagable. Anyhow, to recap: I claimed that when recording from a turntable to a CD there exists alot of analog grundge that is heard and is also shown graphically by VU meters. This stuff is non-musical noise. Now it appears that you are arguing the validity of this? No I am arguing against the implied global implications. Heck one can find any number of CDs that have "grundge" in the signal. It doesn't say anything about the medium just something about that CD. I have never said your tests weren't valid for *your* records on *your* equipment. My suggestion: take a turntable, any turntable, and get yourself some analog to digital software. Use any album you like. My suggestion is that you take a turntable but not any turntable. A world class turntable and then take an album, not any album but a top of the line RTI pressing or a 180 gram pressing from Simply Vinyl or a pressing from King Super Analog and do your tests over again. If you want to replicate my results then I'll tell you that I use Audacity on Linux; I'm sure there are many other similar applications out there you may use--even Windows applications. :-) If you want to know what the limitations of the medium are and not just the limitations of your stuff I suggest you use a Rockport TT or Forsell that is properly isolated or even a fully decked out Walker Procenium Gold. There are others in this league as well. Hey, there is nothing wrong with finding out the noise floor of your stuff. It's just not likely going to have anything to do with the actual limitations of the medium. Next, place the stylus in the lead in or the lead out groove, or any silent passage you like. Finally, watch the vu meters bob up and down with peaks around the -40dB value when there is supposed to be "quietness". It helps to have a good set of headphones for monitoring. I use Sennheisers. Once you have done this several hundred times, or even just once or twice, then post about the "universality" of the experiment. I have 2 turntables (I kind of collect Lps) and both exhibit this behavior when hooked up to the computer. For the record (since you asked and with no pun intended), during digital transfer I use a Thorens 160 with a V-15xMR. Other cartridges I currently have are a Denon 103; an Ortofon super OM-20; A Stanton 881 S; an Epoch L8Z S; and an AT 440 ML. All reasonable equipment but hardly representative of SOTA. I have used most of these to copy personal CDs also, and each exhibits the same properties. I settled on the Shure since, IMO, it sounds very musical, it tracks as well if not better than the others, and the nifty little damping brush gathers lint off even "clean" Lps. michael |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
michael wrote:
S888Wheel wrote: From: michael Yes, I'm not sure that your personal experience is a universal base line though. In any case, from home transfers it is clear that the analog signal differs greatly from a digital source when strictly considering non-musical program noise. I'm not questioning what you found to be true with *your* transfers, only the universitality of it. I snipped out most of the thread becuase anyone interested can go back and read. This back and forth is getting unmanagable. Anyhow, to recap: I claimed that when recording from a turntable to a CD there exists alot of analog grundge that is heard and is also shown graphically by VU meters. This stuff is non-musical noise. Now it appears that you are arguing the validity of this? My suggestion: take a turntable, any turntable, and get yourself some analog to digital software. Use any album you like. If you want to replicate my results then I'll tell you that I use Audacity on Linux; I'm sure there are many other similar applications out there you may use--even Windows applications. :-) Next, place the stylus in the lead in or the lead out groove, or any silent passage you like. Finally, watch the vu meters bob up and down with peaks around the -40dB value when there is supposed to be "quietness". It helps to have a good set of headphones for monitoring. I use Sennheisers. Once you have done this several hundred times, or even just once or twice, then post about the "universality" of the experiment. Yep, the behavior you see is not unusual; you're seeing the surface noise of vinyl, which even for the *best*, *cleanest* LP is noisier than digital silence. It *is* a universal phenomenon. Vinylphiles IME are loath to admit any deficiencies of their favorite medium, but to deny the universal existence of surface noise in vinyl, is to be, well, in denial. Digital capture and display of vinyl transfers simply makes it visible. It can be 'heard through' and thus ignored, but it's always there. -- -S If you're a nut and knock on enough doors, eventually someone will open one, look at you and say, Messiah, we have waited for your arrival. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
From: Steven Sullivan
Date: 12/28/2004 7:33 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: michael wrote: S888Wheel wrote: From: michael Yes, I'm not sure that your personal experience is a universal base line though. In any case, from home transfers it is clear that the analog signal differs greatly from a digital source when strictly considering non-musical program noise. I'm not questioning what you found to be true with *your* transfers, only the universitality of it. I snipped out most of the thread becuase anyone interested can go back and read. This back and forth is getting unmanagable. Anyhow, to recap: I claimed that when recording from a turntable to a CD there exists alot of analog grundge that is heard and is also shown graphically by VU meters. This stuff is non-musical noise. Now it appears that you are arguing the validity of this? My suggestion: take a turntable, any turntable, and get yourself some analog to digital software. Use any album you like. If you want to replicate my results then I'll tell you that I use Audacity on Linux; I'm sure there are many other similar applications out there you may use--even Windows applications. :-) Next, place the stylus in the lead in or the lead out groove, or any silent passage you like. Finally, watch the vu meters bob up and down with peaks around the -40dB value when there is supposed to be "quietness". It helps to have a good set of headphones for monitoring. I use Sennheisers. Once you have done this several hundred times, or even just once or twice, then post about the "universality" of the experiment. Yep, the behavior you see is not unusual; you're seeing the surface noise of vinyl, which even for the *best*, *cleanest* LP is noisier than digital silence. It *is* a universal phenomenon. Vinylphiles IME are loath to admit any deficiencies of their favorite medium, but to deny the universal existence of surface noise in vinyl, is to be, well, in denial. Please cite one example of anyone denying the existance of surface noise. Digital capture and display of vinyl transfers simply makes it visible. It can be 'heard through' and thus ignored, but it's always there. It is not the same for all records and all TT rigs. That was my point. -- -S If you're a nut and knock on enough doors, eventually someone will open one, look at you and say, Messiah, we have waited for your arrival. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
S888Wheel wrote:
From: michael I snipped out most of the thread becuase anyone interested can go back and read. This back and forth is getting unmanagable. Anyhow, to recap: I claimed that when recording from a turntable to a CD there exists alot of analog grundge that is heard and is also shown graphically by VU meters. This stuff is non-musical noise. Now it appears that you are arguing the validity of this? No I am arguing against the implied global implications. Heck one can find any number of CDs that have "grundge" in the signal. It doesn't say anything about the medium just something about that CD. NO, NO, NO! Don't mix up two different ideas. Maybe I am at fault for not explaining this clearly. I am talking about inherent vinyl noise. This has nothing to do with any "grundge" recorded on a CD as part of the program material, nor does it have anything to do with badly recorded CDs that might sound harsh, or are otherwise flawed. Vinyl noise is an artifact present on EVERY Lp played with a stylus. Some Lps are worse than others, but its origin is in the stylus-groove interface and manifests regardless of whatever program signal is present. There is no comparable digital artifact because, with properly applied digital techniques, the noise floor drops to essentially zero. If you want to know what the limitations of the medium are and not just the limitations of your stuff I suggest you use a Rockport TT or Forsell that is properly isolated or even a fully decked out Walker Procenium Gold. I don't care what turntable/arm/cartridge one uses. Lp surface noise will be audible, especially when monitoring using headphones. Obviously some systems may contribute additional mechanism related noise that others may not, but this, again, is not what I'm speaking and writing about. michael |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
... michael wrote: S888Wheel wrote: From: michael Yes, I'm not sure that your personal experience is a universal base line though. In any case, from home transfers it is clear that the analog signal differs greatly from a digital source when strictly considering non-musical program noise. I'm not questioning what you found to be true with *your* transfers, only the universitality of it. I snipped out most of the thread becuase anyone interested can go back and read. This back and forth is getting unmanagable. Anyhow, to recap: I claimed that when recording from a turntable to a CD there exists alot of analog grundge that is heard and is also shown graphically by VU meters. This stuff is non-musical noise. Now it appears that you are arguing the validity of this? My suggestion: take a turntable, any turntable, and get yourself some analog to digital software. Use any album you like. If you want to replicate my results then I'll tell you that I use Audacity on Linux; I'm sure there are many other similar applications out there you may use--even Windows applications. :-) Next, place the stylus in the lead in or the lead out groove, or any silent passage you like. Finally, watch the vu meters bob up and down with peaks around the -40dB value when there is supposed to be "quietness". It helps to have a good set of headphones for monitoring. I use Sennheisers. Once you have done this several hundred times, or even just once or twice, then post about the "universality" of the experiment. Yep, the behavior you see is not unusual; you're seeing the surface noise of vinyl, which even for the *best*, *cleanest* LP is noisier than digital silence. It *is* a universal phenomenon. Vinylphiles IME are loath to admit any deficiencies of their favorite medium, but to deny the universal existence of surface noise in vinyl, is to be, well, in denial. Digital capture and display of vinyl transfers simply makes it visible. It can be 'heard through' and thus ignored, but it's always there. Since a cantilever/tonearm must ride up and down stereo grooves regardless of the equipment or the LP in question, that very ride contributes to grunge and noise which must be at least hundreds of times greater than digital silence. Take a peek at "digital silence" on a scope and compare what you see to LP "silence". |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
S888Wheel wrote:
From: Steven Sullivan Date: 12/28/2004 7:33 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: michael wrote: S888Wheel wrote: From: michael Yes, I'm not sure that your personal experience is a universal base line though. In any case, from home transfers it is clear that the analog signal differs greatly from a digital source when strictly considering non-musical program noise. I'm not questioning what you found to be true with *your* transfers, only the universitality of it. I snipped out most of the thread becuase anyone interested can go back and read. This back and forth is getting unmanagable. Anyhow, to recap: I claimed that when recording from a turntable to a CD there exists alot of analog grundge that is heard and is also shown graphically by VU meters. This stuff is non-musical noise. Now it appears that you are arguing the validity of this? My suggestion: take a turntable, any turntable, and get yourself some analog to digital software. Use any album you like. If you want to replicate my results then I'll tell you that I use Audacity on Linux; I'm sure there are many other similar applications out there you may use--even Windows applications. :-) Next, place the stylus in the lead in or the lead out groove, or any silent passage you like. Finally, watch the vu meters bob up and down with peaks around the -40dB value when there is supposed to be "quietness". It helps to have a good set of headphones for monitoring. I use Sennheisers. Once you have done this several hundred times, or even just once or twice, then post about the "universality" of the experiment. Yep, the behavior you see is not unusual; you're seeing the surface noise of vinyl, which even for the *best*, *cleanest* LP is noisier than digital silence. It *is* a universal phenomenon. Vinylphiles IME are loath to admit any deficiencies of their favorite medium, but to deny the universal existence of surface noise in vinyl, is to be, well, in denial. Please cite one example of anyone denying the existance of surface noise. Well, here is what you said: "Kind of a broad claim based on limited experience don't you think?". That was in response to michael's statement that there is noticeable noise observed from LP systems. Seems to me that you were at least questioning the universal existance of surface noise... Can you cite any example where the vinyl noise cannot be heard? Digital capture and display of vinyl transfers simply makes it visible. It can be 'heard through' and thus ignored, but it's always there. It is not the same for all records and all TT rigs. That was my point. It is the same in that the noise is always there. It can always be heard, no matter how expensive a rig you have, or how clean and pristine the vinyl is. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
On 29 Dec 2004 16:12:30 GMT, (S888Wheel) wrote:
From: Steven Sullivan Date: 12/28/2004 7:33 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: michael wrote: S888Wheel wrote: I'm not questioning what you found to be true with *your* transfers, only the universitality of it. Yep, the behavior you see is not unusual; you're seeing the surface noise of vinyl, which even for the *best*, *cleanest* LP is noisier than digital silence. It *is* a universal phenomenon. Vinylphiles IME are loath to admit any deficiencies of their favorite medium, but to deny the universal existence of surface noise in vinyl, is to be, well, in denial. Please cite one example of anyone denying the existance of surface noise. How about "I'm not questioning what you found to be true with *your* transfers, only the universitality of it." You seem determined to insist that surface noise somehow magically lowers on top-class vinyl rigs. Hint - it doesn't. Digital capture and display of vinyl transfers simply makes it visible. It can be 'heard through' and thus ignored, but it's always there. It is not the same for all records and all TT rigs. That was my point. But it is *never* lower than 60-65dB below peak level on other than direct-cut LPs, which is the *real* point. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
On 29 Dec 2004 16:14:58 GMT, michael wrote:
S888Wheel wrote: From: michael I snipped out most of the thread becuase anyone interested can go back and read. This back and forth is getting unmanagable. Anyhow, to recap: I claimed that when recording from a turntable to a CD there exists alot of analog grundge that is heard and is also shown graphically by VU meters. This stuff is non-musical noise. Now it appears that you are arguing the validity of this? No I am arguing against the implied global implications. Heck one can find any number of CDs that have "grundge" in the signal. It doesn't say anything about the medium just something about that CD. NO, NO, NO! Don't mix up two different ideas. Maybe I am at fault for not explaining this clearly. I am talking about inherent vinyl noise. This has nothing to do with any "grundge" recorded on a CD as part of the program material, nor does it have anything to do with badly recorded CDs that might sound harsh, or are otherwise flawed. Vinyl noise is an artifact present on EVERY Lp played with a stylus. Some Lps are worse than others, but its origin is in the stylus-groove interface and manifests regardless of whatever program signal is present. There is no comparable digital artifact because, with properly applied digital techniques, the noise floor drops to essentially zero. Well, -93dB anyway, and since there exists not one single music master tape with more than 80-85dB dynamic range, we can reasonably call it 'zero' for the playback medium. Also essentially zero distortion, and ruler-flat FR from less than 10Hz to more than 20Hz, with less than -80dB crosstalk at all frequencies. Compare and contrast with vimyl.................. If you want to know what the limitations of the medium are and not just the limitations of your stuff I suggest you use a Rockport TT or Forsell that is properly isolated or even a fully decked out Walker Procenium Gold. I don't care what turntable/arm/cartridge one uses. Lp surface noise will be audible, especially when monitoring using headphones. Obviously some systems may contribute additional mechanism related noise that others may not, but this, again, is not what I'm speaking and writing about. Scott is of course just trotting out the tired old 'you've never heard a decent vinyl rig' strawman. Well, I own a pretty decent vinyl rig, and I have listened at length to what many would call the ultimate vinyl rig - a Rockport Sirius III fitted with Clearaudio Insider cartridge, set up personally by Andy Payor. Since it was playing *vinyl*, it still suffered from surface noise, treble splash and inner groove distortion, all perfectly audible. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
On 12/29/04 11:14 AM, in article , "michael"
wrote: S888Wheel wrote: From: michael I snipped out most of the thread becuase anyone interested can go back and read. This back and forth is getting unmanagable. Anyhow, to recap: I claimed that when recording from a turntable to a CD there exists alot of analog grundge that is heard and is also shown graphically by VU meters. This stuff is non-musical noise. Now it appears that you are arguing the validity of this? No I am arguing against the implied global implications. Heck one can find any number of CDs that have "grundge" in the signal. It doesn't say anything about the medium just something about that CD. NO, NO, NO! Don't mix up two different ideas. Maybe I am at fault for not explaining this clearly. I am talking about inherent vinyl noise. This has nothing to do with any "grundge" recorded on a CD as part of the program material, nor does it have anything to do with badly recorded CDs that might sound harsh, or are otherwise flawed. Vinyl noise is an artifact present on EVERY Lp played with a stylus. Some Lps are worse than others, but its origin is in the stylus-groove interface and manifests regardless of whatever program signal is present. There is no comparable digital artifact because, with properly applied digital techniques, the noise floor drops to essentially zero. Yup the quantization noise of CD is 96dB down, and the native noise floor of the CD player is likely higher than that. The source material if from analog is likely to be no better than 70dB, and if recorded digitally with standard equipment is likely 24 bit/96kHz, making the acoustics and ambient noise of the recording environment much bigger factors to the "pristine" sound - which is what one ideally like. Records have a lot of surface noise - and some records are better than others, and some stylii are better at rejecting it than others - but the most amazing thing is that some people hear right through the stuff, while others are driven out of the room by it. It is amazing how the brain can "ignore" this type of noise. Since it is a function of the brain ("software/hardware" if you will) it really depends on the person, and you may be able to measure it, though it may not matter to the people who like the medium, because after a short period of time, they aren't hearing it anymore - and the things the LP does right (and it does a few things right) is being listened to. Sure, this is additive distortion, but it is, for many, an easily ignored additive phenomenon. If you want to know what the limitations of the medium are and not just the limitations of your stuff I suggest you use a Rockport TT or Forsell that is properly isolated or even a fully decked out Walker Procenium Gold. I don't care what turntable/arm/cartridge one uses. Lp surface noise will be audible, especially when monitoring using headphones. Obviously some systems may contribute additional mechanism related noise that others may not, but this, again, is not what I'm speaking and writing about. Sure - but it may not be perceptible without concentration after a brief period of time listening by a large number of people. |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
|
#33
|
|||
|
|||
On 12/30/04 11:17 AM, in article , "Stewart
Pinkerton" wrote: treble splash What is "treble splash?" |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
|
#36
|
|||
|
|||
From: Chung
Date: 12/30/2004 8:12 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: S888Wheel wrote: From: Steven Sullivan Date: 12/28/2004 7:33 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: michael wrote: S888Wheel wrote: From: michael Yes, I'm not sure that your personal experience is a universal base line though. In any case, from home transfers it is clear that the analog signal differs greatly from a digital source when strictly considering non-musical program noise. I'm not questioning what you found to be true with *your* transfers, only the universitality of it. I snipped out most of the thread becuase anyone interested can go back and read. This back and forth is getting unmanagable. Anyhow, to recap: I claimed that when recording from a turntable to a CD there exists alot of analog grundge that is heard and is also shown graphically by VU meters. This stuff is non-musical noise. Now it appears that you are arguing the validity of this? My suggestion: take a turntable, any turntable, and get yourself some analog to digital software. Use any album you like. If you want to replicate my results then I'll tell you that I use Audacity on Linux; I'm sure there are many other similar applications out there you may use--even Windows applications. :-) Next, place the stylus in the lead in or the lead out groove, or any silent passage you like. Finally, watch the vu meters bob up and down with peaks around the -40dB value when there is supposed to be "quietness". It helps to have a good set of headphones for monitoring. I use Sennheisers. Once you have done this several hundred times, or even just once or twice, then post about the "universality" of the experiment. Yep, the behavior you see is not unusual; you're seeing the surface noise of vinyl, which even for the *best*, *cleanest* LP is noisier than digital silence. It *is* a universal phenomenon. Vinylphiles IME are loath to admit any deficiencies of their favorite medium, but to deny the universal existence of surface noise in vinyl, is to be, well, in denial. Please cite one example of anyone denying the existance of surface noise. Well, here is what you said: "Kind of a broad claim based on limited experience don't you think?". That was in response to michael's statement that there is noticeable noise observed from LP systems. Seems to me that you were at least questioning the universal existance of surface noise... Then you are mistaken. I was questioning the notion that his experience was indicative of the best the medium has to offer in performance. His statement wasn't that there was just noticable noise but it gave very specific meansurments of how much but that was based on his records on his rig. I was simply pointing out that this limited experience is not neccessarily evidence of the limitations of the medium but just his records on his rig. Can you cite any example where the vinyl noise cannot be heard? Do you live in the L.A area? I'll demonstrate it for you. Digital capture and display of vinyl transfers simply makes it visible. It can be 'heard through' and thus ignored, but it's always there. It is not the same for all records and all TT rigs. That was my point. It is the same in that the noise is always there. It isn't the same in nature and level for all rigs and all records though. It can always be heard, no matter how expensive a rig you have, or how clean and pristine the vinyl is. I disagree. It is not always noticable. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
From: michael
Date: 12/29/2004 8:14 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: S888Wheel wrote: From: michael I snipped out most of the thread becuase anyone interested can go back and read. This back and forth is getting unmanagable. Anyhow, to recap: I claimed that when recording from a turntable to a CD there exists alot of analog grundge that is heard and is also shown graphically by VU meters. This stuff is non-musical noise. Now it appears that you are arguing the validity of this? No I am arguing against the implied global implications. Heck one can find any number of CDs that have "grundge" in the signal. It doesn't say anything about the medium just something about that CD. NO, NO, NO! Don't mix up two different ideas. Maybe I am at fault for not explaining this clearly. I am talking about inherent vinyl noise. No you are talking about the vinyl noise in *your* records on *your* rig. You seem to be assuming that *that* noise is indicative of the inherent noise floor of the medium. I think you are likely wrong about that. I bet the medium is capable of better. This has nothing to do with any "grundge" recorded on a CD as part of the program material, nor does it have anything to do with badly recorded CDs that might sound harsh, or are otherwise flawed. Sure it does, Unless you are using the quitest records available you are measuring more than just the inherent noise floor of vinyl. Same goes for your rig. Vinyl noise is an artifact present on EVERY Lp played with a stylus. Agreed. Some Lps are worse than others, but its origin is in the stylus-groove interface and manifests regardless of whatever program signal is present. That is my point. You cannot make any universal claims about the severity of it based on such limited experience. Your tests are not evidence of the limits of the medium just your stuff. There is no comparable digital artifact because, with properly applied digital techniques, the noise floor drops to essentially zero. If you want to know what the limitations of the medium are and not just the limitations of your stuff I suggest you use a Rockport TT or Forsell that is properly isolated or even a fully decked out Walker Procenium Gold. I don't care what turntable/arm/cartridge one uses. Lp surface noise will be audible, especially when monitoring using headphones. I think you are wrong about that. You *might* be able to here it cranked up with no music playing but no way will you here the surface noise at normal levels with any kind of music playing if you are using SOTA equipment with SOTA records. Obviously some systems may contribute additional mechanism related noise that others may not, but this, again, is not what I'm speaking and writing about. Actually it is when you are talking about your stuff because that additional noise from your stuff is present in your tests. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
"B&D" wrote in message
... This is no way is trying to be an apologist for LP's - I am happy with CD's and no longer own a turntable - but it is sometimes more helpful to ask the question "Why...... Simple, you want to hear something that's on a LP and unavailable on CD, or you like to tinker with tonearm geometry, switch cartridges, etc. for the sheer fun of it. |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
S888Wheel wrote:
From: Chung Date: 12/30/2004 8:12 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: S888Wheel wrote: From: Steven Sullivan Date: 12/28/2004 7:33 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: michael wrote: S888Wheel wrote: From: michael Yes, I'm not sure that your personal experience is a universal base line though. In any case, from home transfers it is clear that the analog signal differs greatly from a digital source when strictly considering non-musical program noise. I'm not questioning what you found to be true with *your* transfers, only the universitality of it. I snipped out most of the thread becuase anyone interested can go back and read. This back and forth is getting unmanagable. Anyhow, to recap: I claimed that when recording from a turntable to a CD there exists alot of analog grundge that is heard and is also shown graphically by VU meters. This stuff is non-musical noise. Now it appears that you are arguing the validity of this? My suggestion: take a turntable, any turntable, and get yourself some analog to digital software. Use any album you like. If you want to replicate my results then I'll tell you that I use Audacity on Linux; I'm sure there are many other similar applications out there you may use--even Windows applications. :-) Next, place the stylus in the lead in or the lead out groove, or any silent passage you like. Finally, watch the vu meters bob up and down with peaks around the -40dB value when there is supposed to be "quietness". It helps to have a good set of headphones for monitoring. I use Sennheisers. Once you have done this several hundred times, or even just once or twice, then post about the "universality" of the experiment. Yep, the behavior you see is not unusual; you're seeing the surface noise of vinyl, which even for the *best*, *cleanest* LP is noisier than digital silence. It *is* a universal phenomenon. Vinylphiles IME are loath to admit any deficiencies of their favorite medium, but to deny the universal existence of surface noise in vinyl, is to be, well, in denial. Please cite one example of anyone denying the existance of surface noise. Well, here is what you said: "Kind of a broad claim based on limited experience don't you think?". That was in response to michael's statement that there is noticeable noise observed from LP systems. Seems to me that you were at least questioning the universal existance of surface noise... Then you are mistaken. I was questioning the notion that his experience was indicative of the best the medium has to offer in performance. His statement wasn't that there was just noticable noise but it gave very specific meansurments of how much but that was based on his records on his rig. I was simply pointing out that this limited experience is not neccessarily evidence of the limitations of the medium but just his records on his rig. Michael's experience was that the LP noise is very noticeable on a digital readout as soon as the needle contacts the "lead-in" groove. That is universally true. You seem to be saying that on some recordings/set-ups the LP noise is not noticeable this way. That's quite an extraordinary claim, given that the surface noise is 20 dB or more higher than the sensitivity of today's 16-bit or higher A-D converters. Can you cite any example where the vinyl noise cannot be heard? Do you live in the L.A area? I'll demonstrate it for you. Given the easily measureable noise floor of vinyl, you need to listen more carefully... Digital capture and display of vinyl transfers simply makes it visible. It can be 'heard through' and thus ignored, but it's always there. It is not the same for all records and all TT rigs. That was my point. It is the same in that the noise is always there. It isn't the same in nature and level for all rigs and all records though. It can always be heard, no matter how expensive a rig you have, or how clean and pristine the vinyl is. I disagree. It is not always noticable. You perhaps will be the only one with this belief. |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
On 31 Dec 2004 16:21:15 GMT, (S888Wheel) wrote:
From: michael Date: 12/29/2004 8:14 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: S888Wheel wrote: From: michael NO, NO, NO! Don't mix up two different ideas. Maybe I am at fault for not explaining this clearly. I am talking about inherent vinyl noise. No you are talking about the vinyl noise in *your* records on *your* rig. You seem to be assuming that *that* noise is indicative of the inherent noise floor of the medium. I think you are likely wrong about that. I bet the medium is capable of better. I bet it's not capable of anything significantly better. This has nothing to do with any "grundge" recorded on a CD as part of the program material, nor does it have anything to do with badly recorded CDs that might sound harsh, or are otherwise flawed. Sure it does, Unless you are using the quitest records available you are measuring more than just the inherent noise floor of vinyl. Same goes for your rig. The inherent noise of vinyl is the inherent surface noise on any record you happen to have - so long as it's been properly cleaned. To suggest that only say 1960s JVC vinyl can be used, is risible. Vinyl noise is an artifact present on EVERY Lp played with a stylus. Agreed. Some Lps are worse than others, but its origin is in the stylus-groove interface and manifests regardless of whatever program signal is present. That is my point. You cannot make any universal claims about the severity of it based on such limited experience. Your tests are not evidence of the limits of the medium just your stuff. However, the benchmark doesn't vary by more than a few dB from say a Planar 3 to a Rockport Sirius III. No vinyl ever made had *inherent* surface noise more than 55-60dB below the 1cm/sec reference level. There is no comparable digital artifact because, with properly applied digital techniques, the noise floor drops to essentially zero. If you want to know what the limitations of the medium are and not just the limitations of your stuff I suggest you use a Rockport TT or Forsell that is properly isolated or even a fully decked out Walker Procenium Gold. Yup, I've heard the Rockport Sirius, set up by Andy Payor himself - it exhibited perfectly audible surface noise, as you'd expect, since it was playing *vinyl*. I don't care what turntable/arm/cartridge one uses. Lp surface noise will be audible, especially when monitoring using headphones. I think you are wrong about that. You *might* be able to here it cranked up with no music playing but no way will you here the surface noise at normal levels with any kind of music playing if you are using SOTA equipment with SOTA records. Utter nonsense, surface noise is *always* audible in the quiet passages of music, regardless of the quality of the equipment - it's an *inherent* problem of vinyl. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
CD RW for audio | Tech | |||
A Couple of questions on audioquest power cords and CD-Rs | Tech | |||
Our singer is really pulling us down! | Pro Audio | |||
Comparative High-End Tube Amp Costs - Then and Now | High End Audio | |||
Loudspeaker timing | Audio Opinions |