"Joseph Meditz" wrote

I am? Please tell me why.

I have, you cut it. You are not worth any more effort.

Ian

"Ian Iveson"
"Joseph Meditz"
I am? Please tell me why.

I have,


** You are a bloody LIAR !!


you cut it.


** Bull****.


You are not worth any more effort.


** He has clearly got your measure - ****head.




.............. Phil

Lord Valve wrote:

Patrick Turner wrote:

Lord Valve wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

It is indeed a tube group, but surely just for nostalgic anacrophiles?
After all, no one *seriously* thinks that tubes are *better* in any
real-world way than SS, do they?

Well, yeah.

In fact, I *know* they are. When the goal is non-linear operation,
tubes kick the **** out of SS, even mosfets. There are still
no SS amps, including the modelers, which will outperform
tube guitar amps. And when the coloration of a tube is
desirable, SS emulations don't do the trick.

Christy Moses, fetch the heart pills, LV said something I fully
agree with.....



When it comes to playback equipment, though - make mine SS.
And you can have vinyl - ugh. Why anyone would want their
music presented to them on a bed of ticks, pops, hiss, and
rumble is beyond my understanding. And let's not forget
that wow, folks. You have no idea how disconcerting it is
to a musician (like me) who can hear the the cyclic pitch
variations induced by a slightly mislocated center hole.

Er, gee, have yee not heard a decent TT and bunch of records well cared for,

Not only have I, I still own 'em.

Not that I bother with the antique crap any more, unless I need to
listen to something on vinyl for a specific reason, like the fact
that I can't find it on CD or that the CD has been "remixed" by
some clueless fader-jockey with no clue to the original engineer's
intent for the recording.

so that noise is rarely a bother,

Nonsense.

I will have to beg to disagree...



"Ye canna violate the laws of Physics, cap'n." No matter
how "well cared for" the discs, no matter how "high end"
the anachronistic playback apparatus, regardless of the
money spent on the cartridge, the entire concept is
inherently noisy, as it *must* be in order to work the way
it does. Vinyl *cannot* attain the SNR of digital, regardless
of your beliefs. And beliefs are just what they are, because
science doesn't support you on this one. Records are
noisy. I put up with them when they were all that was
available because I had no choice, other than the rare
and expensive reel-to-reel recordings one could sometimes
obtain, which I also own a few of. I, too, devloped a selective
deafness when dealing with the flaws inherent in such a
playback system - because I *had* to in order to enjoy
the recordings. I don't have to any more. Of course, the
audiophool's answer is that my hearing is somehow "flawed"
if I can't "hear" all the wonderful superiority he will claim
for his chosen antique reproduction system. Fine, let him.
I'm a jazz musician with more than 50 years' experience
in listening to recorded music, and I *know* what I hear.
The best argument that you can make for the use of
vinyl is that *you* prefer it. There is no scientific support
for your claim, and, like religion, you must take it on
faith that you are right. I have no argument with your
choice; if you like your music on a bed of rumble, static,
and hiss, you're welcome to have it that way. You can
put ketchup on your ****in' ice cream, too. No skin off
my admittedly ample fundament either way.

and all you get is sublime music which
so often sounds better than any digital source?

If you ignore the noise, you may have a case.

There are many records I have where the SNR
is still at least 55 dB, after all thse years.

Some have become terribly noisy, a product of dirt, mould, marujuana
ash, lentil pie crumbs, wine, etc, left over from the parties in the 70s.


The noise of an unmodulated groove when the volume level is set at normal
listening levels is only a trifle more than my best MM amplifiers.
Its no worse than tape hiss to most ppl.

And in the case of pop, records are, and were always a good medium
if they are well cut, and well cared for.

The people I know who still enjoy their pristine collections of vinyl
find the noise it offers is no worse than being at a concert venue, where
the ppl sneezing and coughing are a far worse problem, not to mention mobile
phones.
But I am talking about classical concerts--
that airy fairy violin music, and I don't mean blue grass.
For pop and most jazz, who cares about the tiny bit of vinyl noise??



The "better" comes from the dude who mixed it and the gear
it was mixed on, not from the (claimed) superiority of the playback
medium. And I don't care if the engineer used a digital console
or a whole roomful of tube stuff, it's the end result I'm concerned
with.

There are lotsa variables there.

Recording is an arcane science/art, and there are many paths
to the same end. "Reissued" CDs often sound crappy compared
to the original vinyl because the people who remixed the original
tracks for digital were assholes who thought the needed to
put their own "stamp" on a piece of art that didn't have anything
wrong with it in the first place. A moustache on the Mona Lisa
and whatnot.

Of course, maybe add a bottom half to the painting, so we can see
why she's smilin just a tad.

Ppl did that with Bethoven; they added boomchicka boom rythm,
and when given a bunch of such vinyls, I just binned the lot.





This happens so often, it has prevented so many folks from throwing out
their
vinyl in the same way ppl threw out their 78s when vinyl came in
all those years ago.
And don't forget pre-recorded tapes on reel to reelers. They were better
than vinyl......

Indeed they were, although tape has its own problems.

I've always preferred it to vinyl. I still do. Unfortunately,
it's a dead medium now - no-one is making it any more.

Many ppl bought expensive reel to reelers in Nam in the late 60s and 70s duty
free,
and they sent tapes home to the folks.
Must be lots laying around that might be still ok to listen to about
how things were.

I still get ppl bringing me reelers for a fix, and sometimes I can get brand new
heads
for complex machines, 25 years old.



I may be a tube salesman, but I know where they belong.

Not just in geetah amps man, they also belong in hi-fi amps.

I don't argue with people who like tubes for hi-fi.

Ultimately, it is personal preference which determines one's
choice of a playback system, not science. Tubes certainly
have unique properties that are (so far) not obtainable
with SS techniques, whether digital or analog. Who am I
to tell you that you don't hear what you hear? (Of course,
who are *you* to tell *me* the same thing? Yet, you will
do so at the drop of a hat...)

I couldn't survive without folks prefering tubes.
I get all sorts of clients, the hi-fi nutters, one has a CJ140
power amp with a 50 Kg preamp that has a 25 Kg power supply,
and a 20 Kg amp section, and its all solid state.
I don't reason why, I am here to do or die.

All the musos prefer tubes.



On the stage with the pickers, not in the living room with
the grinners.

You must never have owned a decent hi-fi tube amp.....

And you must be the arrogant and assumptive prick you appear to be.

I've owned plenty of tube gear, and plenty of SS. I've heard
SS systems that were excellent in my opinion, and I can
say the same about tube systems. I don't play that snob
**** routine all you audiophools seem to have a hard-on
for, I just listen - and I like what I hear or I don't; my
preference isn't based on whether the trons are jumping
through vacuum of silicon on their way to the voice coil.

There are many paths to audio nirvana. Feel free to
choose your own, but don't lecture me on the superiority
of yours, because I don't give a ****.

But I know you do give a **** about a lot of things,
so no need to give me that "i don't give a ****" moan.

No need indeed to explain further.

I appreciate good sound wherever I hear it,
and there are some good solid state systems around,
but I am mainly a tube amp maker, but occasionally
I build a solid amp, and all of what I do
pleases my customers, and that's what counts.
Most prefer tubes.

Patrick Turner.




Lord Valve
Ivory Smasher

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote

A single sinusoidal curve has a frequency - how could it not?

Not on its own. How could it? You may assume, by ascribing it a
period, that it is repetitive. It then has a Fourier identity based
on that assumption. However, if you ascribed the same fragment a
different period its identity would either be different, or
non-existent.

So not all of a signal is waves. Further, nothing with a straight
line in it is a wave, because there would be discontinuities, so
triangles and squares and pulses are not included, no matter how
repetitious.

Which part of 'fs/2 band limited' did you fail to understand?

There are no straight lines in a band limited signal. We can agree
on that. I said "nothing", not "fs/2 band limited". Nevertheless, a
band limited music signal does not comprise only waves and,
strictly, contains no repetition.

cheers, Ian

Joseph Meditz wrote:

"To my mind, a transient is that part of a stimulus or a response
that is not repetitive, and which therefore has no frequency. "

That conclusion is incorrect. If you sum up a bunch of sine waves of
different frequencies all starting at zero phase you will get a big
spike. And, incidently, if their phases are random you will get a
waveform that looks very much like noise.

"No frequency, no wave; at least in the sense that "wave" is being used

in this thread, to mean something that can be expressed as a sum of
frequencies. How can it be a sum of frequencies if there is no
repetition?"

You need to study the Fourier Transform which says that _any_ signal,
whether periodic or not, can be represented by a set of sinusoids of
specific amplitudes and phases.

Joe

"Transients" are misunderstood creatures.

Where you have a recording system where there is a defined sharp cut off
of any F in the signal above say 21 kHz, then we can assume
that the fastest rise in voltage that can occur is that which would happen
for the maximum input voltage of the recording system
and in the time it takes for 1/2 a cycle of a 21 kHz sine wave.
any signal with a faster rise time won't be entered as accurate data
and cannot be reproduced, or if it is, it ends up as distortion of some
kind.

So is the poster quoted saying that if we set out to add up a bunch of
musical sine waves,
then by some miracle we will end up with a wave of some kind which is a
steeper slope
than the 1/2 cycle of a 21 kHz sine wave?

Its impossible to record a perfect square wave onto a CD.

But afaik, if we have the ability to record up to 21 kHz, and no more than
that,
then that usually captures most of the transients, since
it would seem to me that no matter how many sine waves at below 21 kHz that
are combined,
you cannot get a wave which has a steeper slope than 21 kHz.

And all the transients we hear such as drumbeats, sharp leading edges from
saxaphones,
percussion sounds, all will not have any F higher than 21 kHz, even if that

F is present for 1/2 a cycle or less.
So the CD recording system is rise time limited for a given voltage.
Some would say this is a disaster for the music, but I think not.
A sharp cut off at 2 kHz sure is, like in a crummy transistor AM radio
perhaps....

Patrick Turner.

Mister wrote:

On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 22:20:33 -0600, (John Byrns) wrote:

In article , Mister
wrote:

i say quality of reproduction as in the fidelity of the signal. some people
equate the added noise of vinyl as a change in this fidelity, which is not
true. ie a sine wave would look the same, it is not distorted, there is merely
noise added. this is different then a distortion of the waveform. you need to
think in more then one dimension.

I think you are the one that is neglecting "to think in more then one
dimension"! An audio signal passing "through a set of D/A and A/D
converters" will not be suffer any wave form distortion, assuming the D/A
and A/D converters, and sampler are linear, and that the signal feed into
the A/D converter is properly dithered. There is no distortion produced
by a properly dithered A/D - D/A process, the only change to the signal is
the added dithering noise.

my only point was that a system with an a/d d/a system could not be better then
one without one... and could certainly be worse.

The best system without any ad and da converter
is at the concert hall, with not a single electronic device.



but in real world terms of sound, there is not any improvement in the sound by
using digital storage, there can be degradation in any kind of storage. point
is, digital doesn't improve sound. i have very nice sounding and quiet vinyl
here, easily comparable to CD. of course, the vinyl is limited, it will
eventually die, and analog copies will suffer, yes yes yes I know all that.

i didn't say digital was bad, i use it all the time, i even transcribe my old
vinyl to it, i just wanted to clear up the notion some people have that todays
superior sound is digital, it is not. sound is analog. speakers are analog. ears
are analog. the only thing digital is the storage.

But the ears are in some ways like truly excellent microphones, and where the signal
is then
digitised for the brain to understand it, and allow us to hum along to a tune,
by operating the epigloyis controlled oscillator in the meatus of the throat,
and modulate said hum with teeth, lips, nose muscles even.
Some folks even understand every line in any opera, but most need subtitles.
So do these gifted ppl have better digital brain processing?

Why didn't the brain evolve as an analog computer rather than the
digital one that it is?
Somewhere in God's Plan, He allowed and encouraged beings with life to
evolve into being aware of what was going on around them, and
measure analogically, but record digitally, and understand digitally.
The secrets of doing it all in the brain are still very poorly understood, or we
would have been
able to simply copy our brains when making a PC, and we'd be streets ahead.
but some progress has been made and we see that in the Cochlear Implant technology
for folks with
enough equipment to hear, they just need the microphone and ear to brain ad
converter.

Patrick Turner.


perhaps i didn't make myself clear while responding to that Phil fellow. i
didn't want to leave the impression that i don't like digital CD storage or
prefer vinyl sound or anything like that.

It sounds like you didn't graduate college either.

you are correct, only the college of hard knocks! 40 years of various field and
shop work.


Regards,

John Byrns


Surf my web pages at, http://users.rcn.com/jbyrns/

"Phil Allison" wrote

I am? Please tell me why.

I have,

** You are a bloody LIAR !!

Nope, wrong again.

you cut it.

** Bull****.

Nope, wrong again.

You are not worth any more effort.

** He has clearly got your measure - ****head.

Hope so. Doubt it though.

cheers, Ian

"Chris Hornbeck" wrote

What's really strange about things is that, yes, even an impulse
is still composed of waves.

Would that be a bandwidth-limited impulse?

Explanations that make matters stranger are counter-productive. No,
an impulse is not composed of waves, and has no Fourier transform.
You may contrive an approximation, perhaps using a delta function,
but a simple impulse is a singularity, has no period, and therefore
no transform.

A periodic discontinuity requires an infinite number of terms to
resolve, and so saying it *is* a collection of sine waves is like
saying a circle *is* a collection of straight lines. It isn't. It
may be approximated as such, that is all.

One common practical application of this is in acoustical testing,
where both actual impulses, and mathematically generated noise
designed to simulate real impulses, are used to measure time and
amplitude responses.

So?

Old fashioned example: I fire a starter's pistol in the presence
of a microphone. A computer observes the microphone and can tell
me the frequency response and delayed amplitude response of the
path between pistol and microphone.

So?

Modern example: The computer generates an MLS noise signal with
the
spectral distribution characteristic of an impulse. I feed it to a
speaker in the presence of a microphone. A computer observes the
microphone ..... etc. Same-same.

So?

This discussion of digital storage imperfections is way off base.
We need to start with a differentiation between the limitations of
a perfect conversion-storage-conversion, and the practical current
state of the art, and forget about these 1985 misperceptions. IMO,
anyway.

Perhaps so. Certainly a standard can't be justified because it is
only *hypothetically* adequate. Ultimately it is a question of
realizable benefits versus cost.

It just looks like it's not thought through. Real contributions
require solid homework first. I don't mean to sound like I picking
on you, 'cause I'm not. The whole thread is weak-assed.

Tell me about it...

cheers, Ian.

In message , Patrick Turner
writes

But the ears are in some ways like truly excellent microphones, and
where the signal
is then
digitised for the brain to understand it, and allow us to hum along to a tune,
by operating the epigloyis controlled oscillator in the meatus of the throat,
and modulate said hum with teeth, lips, nose muscles even.
Some folks even understand every line in any opera, but most need subtitles.
So do these gifted ppl have better digital brain processing?

Why didn't the brain evolve as an analog computer rather than the
digital one that it is?
Somewhere in God's Plan, He allowed and encouraged beings with life to
evolve into being aware of what was going on around them, and
measure analogically, but record digitally, and understand digitally.
The secrets of doing it all in the brain are still very poorly
understood, or we
would have been
able to simply copy our brains when making a PC, and we'd be streets ahead.
but some progress has been made and we see that in the Cochlear Implant
technology
for folks with
enough equipment to hear, they just need the microphone and ear to brain ad
converter.

Patrick Turner.


Unfortunately the ear is a very poor microphone. If you bought a mic
with the non-linearity that the ear has, you'd take it back straight
away!

The ear needs the brain to sort things out for it.

Unfortunately my ears are now even worse, with signs of tinnitus
(hereditary I guess, as my father has it) starting to appear. I used to
think my speakers had developed a high-Q resonance at a high frequency,
but it's my right ear!

(Having had some ear testing done, I now realise just how untrustworthy
human hearing is. I would now always trust the measuring equipment over
someone's supposed 'golden ears'. The view of the specialist medical
profession seems to be that the hearing of anyone over the age of forty
is very poor).
--
Chris Morriss

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 17:24:49 +0000, Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

snip

Actually, in the *real* world as opposed to RAT, there are thousands who
agree with me, and only a few benighted souls like you who do
not.................


But there are, quite literally, millions who don't give a s**t what
produces their music or what the distortion figures or frequency response
are. They are the vast majority of people who listen to recorded sound
and, via their music purchases, fund the whole shebang. They include the
people who listen to 128kbps stereo DAB radio in the UK and think that its
great. They include the people that used to buy EMI Groundhog cassettes -
probably the worst recording medium since the wax cylinder. They include
the people who download 128kbps mp3 files from the internet then compress
them to 48kbps so that they can fit more on a portable player. They are
the people who simply listen to music - never specifications because they
simply don't understand any of them - and they make, to us, horrendous
compromises in the namme of convenience.

--
Mick
(no M$ software on here... :-) )
Web: http://www.nascom.info
Web: http://projectedsound.tk

"Ian Iveson" = serial usenet criminal

A periodic discontinuity requires an infinite number of terms to resolve,


** No real world one does - since it is band limited.

As you were told earlier in the thread.

A simple fact that counters the insane rubbish you are preaching.




............ Phil

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message
news
Mister said:

the last studio reel to reel machines that were made had a S/N of up to
120db,
far better than CD.


??????????????????

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

I'll take a dozen:-)

Studio reel to reel machines are still in production (Studer A820 etc)
SNR with Dolby SR = 95dB at 38.1 cms/sec

Iain

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 17:03:30 GMT, "Ian Iveson"
wrote:

What's really strange about things is that, yes, even an impulse
is still composed of waves.

Would that be a bandwidth-limited impulse?

Explanations that make matters stranger are counter-productive. No,
an impulse is not composed of waves, and has no Fourier transform.
You may contrive an approximation, perhaps using a delta function,
but a simple impulse is a singularity, has no period, and therefore
no transform.

A periodic discontinuity requires an infinite number of terms to
resolve, and so saying it *is* a collection of sine waves is like
saying a circle *is* a collection of straight lines. It isn't. It
may be approximated as such, that is all.

Ah, OK. You're making a valid theoretical point. One could argue
that all sound sources, all microphones, all electronics, all
storage systems, all reproducing transducers, all listening room
air, all ears, in fact everything real, is bandwidth-limited.

In that context, every real impulse is composed of waves and has
a Fourier transform.

Of course, reality isn't a large component of this particular thread.
If anyone has mentioned real issues of digital filter clipping,
monotonicity, summing-junction linearity, or any of a dozen
possible real-world issues in digital storage, I've missed 'em.
Just a lot of rhetoric from idealogs on both sides of an
imaginary line. Modern discourse.


Chris Hornbeck

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...

If you're *really* serious about this, just run it through a soft
limiter (such as a SET amplifier), put in some midband phasiness, add
some clicks, pops and scratches sampled from the inter-track grooves,
sum the bass to mono and roll it off below 80Hz.

We discussed this over and over and over again on UKRA.
Didn't you learn anything? I am just listening to an early Oscar Peterson
LP, piano spread centre, drums left, bass right.

So much for your "bass to mono and rolled off at 80Hz" :-))
Sorry, but it just isn't true.

Cordially,

Iain

"Chris Hornbeck" = ****wit


Of course, reality isn't a large component of this particular thread.


** Or any damn thing you ever post.


If anyone has mentioned real issues of digital filter clipping,
monotonicity, summing-junction linearity, or any of a dozen
possible real-world issues in digital storage, I've missed 'em.
Just a lot of rhetoric from idealogs on both sides of an
imaginary line. Modern discourse.



** At what pray tell is your para above if not a load of ****ing
"rhetoric" ???





............ Phil

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 11:13:37 +1100, "Phil Allison"
wrote:


maybe you should learn how to read.


** **** off - wog idiot.

**** off yourself, bigot




your lack of comprehension is still showing.


** **** off - wog idiot.

**** off yourself, bigot


i said the fidelity of the waveform
is not affected by the added noise.


** How totally asinine .... hee-haw, hee-haw....

you are retarded, right?



it's possible i meant to say 112db,


** Anything is possible with a fool like you.

**** off - wog idiot.

**** off yourself, bigot


** 16 bit PCM is far better - Mister Massive LIAR .

specs look the same to me for standard vhs!. s/n 96db. hi8 is supposed to
be
better.


** VHS hi-fi uses companding and has high THD compared to CD.

Just looking at one spec proves nothing.

proves the s/n is the same, idiot.


How about I email the instructions for committing suicide ??

go right ahead, that would be enough to have you arrested!


** **** off - wog idiot.

**** off yourself, bigot

aiding and abetting a
suicide is a criminal offence!


** So you were planning to suicide right now ???

only after learning of your existence on the same planet

you are now a proven criminal.


** **** off - wog idiot.

**** off yourself, bigot





............... Phil
criminel avaiting arrest and incarceration

"Mister" = insane wog ****wit
"Phil Allison"



** VHS hi-fi uses companding and has high THD compared to CD.

Just looking at one spec proves nothing.

proves the s/n is the same, idiot.


** Then you are such a ****wit you do not even know what companding is.

The inherent s/n is only 60 dB at best.


**** off - wog ****wit.



............... Phil

"No, an impulse is not composed of waves, and has no Fourier
transform."
YIKES!

"You may contrive an approximation, perhaps using a delta function,
but a simple impulse is a singularity, has no period, and therefore
no transform."
YIKES!

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Fourier...aFunction.html

Once again, I say that you need to study the Fourier Transform.

Cheers,
Joe

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 21:15:29 GMT, mick wrote:

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 17:24:49 +0000, Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

snip

Actually, in the *real* world as opposed to RAT, there are thousands who
agree with me, and only a few benighted souls like you who do
not.................

But there are, quite literally, millions who don't give a s**t what
produces their music or what the distortion figures or frequency response
are. They are the vast majority of people who listen to recorded sound
and, via their music purchases, fund the whole shebang.

Very true - but of course they won't be debating on audio newsgroups.
Nor will they be using valve amplifiers............... :-)
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Chris Morriss wrote:

In message , Patrick Turner
writes

But the ears are in some ways like truly excellent microphones, and
where the signal
is then
digitised for the brain to understand it, and allow us to hum along to a tune,
by operating the epigloyis controlled oscillator in the meatus of the throat,
and modulate said hum with teeth, lips, nose muscles even.
Some folks even understand every line in any opera, but most need subtitles.
So do these gifted ppl have better digital brain processing?

Why didn't the brain evolve as an analog computer rather than the
digital one that it is?
Somewhere in God's Plan, He allowed and encouraged beings with life to
evolve into being aware of what was going on around them, and
measure analogically, but record digitally, and understand digitally.
The secrets of doing it all in the brain are still very poorly
understood, or we
would have been
able to simply copy our brains when making a PC, and we'd be streets ahead.
but some progress has been made and we see that in the Cochlear Implant
technology
for folks with
enough equipment to hear, they just need the microphone and ear to brain ad
converter.

Patrick Turner.


Unfortunately the ear is a very poor microphone. If you bought a mic
with the non-linearity that the ear has, you'd take it back straight
away!

Well if your ears are so poor, have them removed and graft
a pair of Behringers onto your head.



The ear needs the brain to sort things out for it.

Unfortunately my ears are now even worse, with signs of tinnitus
(hereditary I guess, as my father has it) starting to appear. I used to
think my speakers had developed a high-Q resonance at a high frequency,
but it's my right ear!

Maybe 50% of ppl in noisy western nation lifestyles have
hearing problems over 40, ie, varying amounts of tinnitus.
The Kalihari bushman can still hear a mosquito at 10 feet at 80 years....



(Having had some ear testing done, I now realise just how untrustworthy
human hearing is. I would now always trust the measuring equipment over
someone's supposed 'golden ears'. The view of the specialist medical
profession seems to be that the hearing of anyone over the age of forty
is very poor).

I didn't say ears would have a ruler flat response.
Why do tone controls appear on amp systems?
to allow for individual hearing, and rooms and speakers.

But where I have set up speakers to produce a flat response
with a flat mic, and pink noise signal in my room,
and averaged from 4 possible listening positions,
I find that nobody needs a tone control, ever,
and that 90% of folks agree the sound is well balanced, and without
horrible resonances.

Older ears have no automatic volume control like our our eyes have with bright
lights; the iris closes down in bright lights, and there is a similar effect in
ears,
and it degrades with age, like every other function in our bodies.
So speakers, rooms, amps, recordings with peaks in the response that don't worry a
20 year old will sure worry us when we turn 50.
What was just a bit loud at 20 is intolerable at 50.

So we need a good system more when we are 50.
It doesn't have to be all that powerful, but it does have to have fidelity.

Patrick Turner


--
Chris Morriss

In message , Patrick Turner
writes
I didn't say ears would have a ruler flat response.
Why do tone controls appear on amp systems?
to allow for individual hearing, and rooms and speakers.

But where I have set up speakers to produce a flat response
with a flat mic, and pink noise signal in my room,
and averaged from 4 possible listening positions,
I find that nobody needs a tone control, ever,
and that 90% of folks agree the sound is well balanced, and without
horrible resonances.

Older ears have no automatic volume control like our our eyes have with bright
lights; the iris closes down in bright lights, and there is a similar effect in
ears,
and it degrades with age, like every other function in our bodies.
So speakers, rooms, amps, recordings with peaks in the response that
don't worry a
20 year old will sure worry us when we turn 50.
What was just a bit loud at 20 is intolerable at 50.

Patrick Turner


Various bits snipped.
From my recent experience, I'd say the opposite. Things that would have
bothered me at twenty, my ears now at 52 can't resolve, so I doubt if
they would still bother me.

My tinnitus is disturbing though, as it is starting to affect my
enjoyment of music.

BTW, the ear specialist used Sennheiser HD600 cans for the testing, so
my HD580s at home should be OK!
--
Chris Morriss

"Joseph Meditz" wrote in message
oups.com...
: "No, an impulse is not composed of waves, and has no Fourier
: transform."
: YIKES!
:
: "You may contrive an approximation, perhaps using a delta function,
: but a simple impulse is a singularity, has no period, and therefore
: no transform."
: YIKES!
:
: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Fourier...aFunction.html
:
: Once again, I say that you need to study the Fourier Transform.
:
: Cheers,
: Joe

You seem to be missing the point that physics is what *is*,
math is what _describes_,
Joe,

Rudy

Gregg wrote in newsXPXd.11629$ZO2.8061@edtnps84:

Behold, R scribed on tube chassis:

Gregg wrote in news:xDvXd.9448$ZO2.9020@edtnps84:

Behold, tubesforall scribed on tube chassis:

Here is a decent article that puts some science behind the claims of
vinyl superiority.

http://users.bigpond.net.au/christie/comparo/part4.html

There are lies, damn lies and specs ;-)


There is always the issue of fragility of LP, the cleaning ritual, the
expense not to mention the fact that I am clumsy and lazy. I will never
go back to vinyl for all of the above reasons. One oopsie and I'll have
just tossed a few hundred bucks out the window. I will get better
digital gear as time goes on. Besides, if I start a vinyl collection my
wife will likely shoot me.

No thanks. I'll stick with digital.
r

All valid reasons ;-)


I do have to say that I have heard enough ticks, pops, hiss, and curface
noise to last me the rest of my life. For someone who is meticulous and
detail oriented, LPs can be a very satisfying experience. I guess that
says a lot what I am not. (:)

All things considered, CD's don't sound bad.

I just wish LP's were a little smaller, less prone to damage and didn't
wear out. Other than that they are pretty good.

I wonder how many lp's would be required for all 20 volumes of DG's
"Complete Beethoven Edition"?

r

--
Nothing beats the bandwidth of a station wagon filled with DLT tapes.

The question is not, does vinyl sound better than CD: but does a
particular CD sound better/worse than a particular album? It goes both
ways. Some material is best available on vinyl, a great deal of it in
fact, although much if not most of it is stuff in no great demand,
which is why great efforts to make a great CD master haven't been
applied. Indeed there are tens of thousands of hours of music on vinyl
that has never been released on CD. Is it all good? No. But it's not
all bad either.

SACD/DVD-A offers promise if people will buy it, and if best effort
mastering will be done from extant analog sources. New recordings at
high-bit with good ADC's will offer the possibility of being some of
the greatest recordings in history-if there are performances of
greatness to record and if there are people motivated to do them right.
Turning on the radio at any given minute in any given city in the US
(with the very possible exception of NYc or SFO) is enough to make
anyone pretty pessimistic though.

"Patrick Turner" wrote in message
...

When CDs were first invented, the recording companies
didn't like CD at first and the inventors had to alter a few things and
finally
tests showed a a majority of critical listeners couldn't discern what they
were listening to, either CD or vinyl.
But once that occurred, the fate of vinyl was sealed.
The convenience and ease of CD, with an hour of noiseless music,
( and sometimes without any soul, or air, ) made CD a sure winner.
Mass production of players and of disks soon had the CD price below what
a vinyl disc cost.

Everyone jumped on the bandwagon, and anyone anywhere
could record anything easily, so we now have a plethera of the crappiest
artistes. Its quantity before quality.

Yes. That to me seems an accurate summary of the situation.
The record companies, inclding the one that owned the studios were I
worked were very keen indeed to adopt the CD. Of course, technical
quality was the reason given, but economics came a close second.
Compared with cutting lathes, and the skilled personell needed to use
and maintain them, plus the processing of masters, matrices, stampers
etc and the cost of a pressing plant, the costs of producing CD's were
very small indeed. Added to that, the retail price of a CD was much higher,
and so the profit margin increased enormously.


Just because we have digital recording doesn't mean we'll get more
fidelity
unless the signal is left alone so that the mic heard is placed onto disc.
Seldom this is the case, and digital allows such a lot of easy
"processing"
and the sound is rarely au-natural when placed onto a disc.
I know a local recording studio that trys to use ancient analog tape gear
transistor based, with maybe a tube compressor added, to get the recorded
tracks
of artists anywhere near listenable, maybe even saleable.


I spend quite a lot of time in CD mastering suites, either with my own
material
or as a production consultant (mediator:-) hired by the client to oversee
the
mastering process on their behalf.

Almost every mastering room I have ever visited has a two-track analogue
tape recorder as a part of its equipment. This machine is rarely used as a
source,
but added as a link in the mastering chain, to meet the requests of the
many clients who expressly ask for an "analogue pass"

I have recently bought one such analogue recorder (SS) which the studio has
replaced with a valve Studer C37.


This BS is rife in the world of pop music, which is the vast majority
of recorded sound.
So one hardly ever knows exactly what's been done to a signal before the
numbers are finally
put down on a CD.

So its not unusual to buy a CD and find its not all that wonderful,
even if the music was supposedly taken from an old master tape,
but "re-mastered", and that its common to find that there are more
dynamics
and panache from a 1970 vinyl of the same music.

This is due to a difference in attitude to mastering. Most classical
engineers
regard their master tape as the final. As far as disc cutting was concerned
the
object of the excercise was to get the lacquer disc to sound as close as
possible
to the master tape. This required great skill - any fool could make it
sound different.


In pop music production, CD mastering facilities treat the master tape as
some kind of "half way stage" and try their best to sell their services and
time in post-production, premastering work, with the result that the final
master sometimes differs considerably from the studio master.


Sorry Pinky, but there are thousands of folks out there who KNOW
you are BS with regards to valve and vinyl.

But look, keep up the anti valve and anti vinyl campaign, at least we know
you are crapping on and on and getting knowhere.

Do you really expect ppl here to rush out and buy a Krell, or a Mark
Levinson
just because you spout your bigotry?

You waste bandwidth to tell us what you think you know is true,
but its only your wacky wobbly opinion.

Some time ago, we discussed disc cutting at length on UKRA, and I
was able to provide evidence to correct many of Stewart's misconceptions
concerning the disc cutting process. I spent two years of my training
period with Decca learning disc cutting. He treated with derision my
statement regarding the use of helium to cool the cutter head.
Later, he found out of course that my statement was totally correct.
He then claimed that he had "misunderstood"
(he was not wrong, but had misunderstood) I wondered
at the time what part of the sentence "Helium can be used to cool
the cutter head" could be misunderstood:-)

People who have visited a disc mastering facility, always
comment on the two large helium bottles standing to the left rear of the
Neumann, Westrex, Lyrec or Scully lathe. The fact that Stewart knew nothing
of helium cooling, and tried to ridicule the idea, illustrated clearly that
he
had never been present at a disc cutting session, or even seen the inside of
a disc cutting room, and knew little about the techniques involved.

He still thinks that LF is panned centre and rolled off at 80Hz.
Where are the orchestral basses in 95% of symphonic recordings?

Don't take what he says about vinyl too seriously.

Iain

"audiodir" wrote in message
news0UWd.82680$uc.5110@trnddc04...
(big snip)

I believe the Synclavier uses a sampling frequency of 100kHz. If it needs
that much to create a specific sound, how can a lowly 44.1 kHz sampling
rate reveal the subtleties that a programmer/musician may want to play.

The Synclavier uses a sampling frequency if 50kHz, which was chosen
by the maker New England Digital, long before 44.1 or 44kHz came into
being.

Iain

"Iain M Churches" = an utter, pig ignorant pommy moron.


Some time ago, we discussed disc cutting at length on UKRA, and I
was able to provide evidence to correct many of Stewart's misconceptions
concerning the disc cutting process. I spent two years of my training
period with Decca learning disc cutting. He treated with derision my
statement regarding the use of helium to cool the cutter head.
Later, he found out of course that my statement was totally correct.
He then claimed that he had "misunderstood"
(he was not wrong, but had misunderstood) I wondered
at the time what part of the sentence "Helium can be used to cool
the cutter head" could be misunderstood:-)



** The cutter head may need cooling - but Helium is not a good coolant.

The cutting stylus is in fact *heated* .


He still thinks that LF is panned centre and rolled off at 80Hz.


** LFs ** are** recorded in mono on an LP to eliminate excess vertical
modulation.


Where are the orchestral basses in 95% of symphonic recordings?


** Churches asinine, pig ignorant, ****ing monumental stupidity is
breathtaking.


Don't take what he says about vinyl too seriously.


** A stale pile of dog dung has more value than any post made by this POS.







.............. Phil

"tubesforall" wrote in message
...
I feel good.

It is my "opinion" (not edict) that CD technology is a very poor medium
for critical listening. I am an (ex) classical concert violinist and
hyper sensitive to distortion in the upper registers. After years of
trying to buy CD players that could reproduce violins faithfully I gave up
and went back to vinyl. The best I thought I heard were Cary tube CD
players--which colored the sound and chopped of high frequencies, but were
at least pleasant to the ear.


Some time ago, during a break at a classical recording session, a
Swedish concert pianist told me that he had bought a Conrad Johnson
tube amp, because it made a Bosendorfer piano sound like a Bosendorfer
piano.

Then, just two weeks ago, I heard about a classical woodwind player who
wanted an amplifier that would allow him to differentiate between a oboe
and a cor anglais. He had spent a great deal of money with one particular
hifi dealer, who did his best to find an amp to meet the simple criteria.
When
the not inconsiderable range of SS amps had been exhausted, he borrowed a
vintage, rather battered McIntosh 275. He is now a happy man:-)

A psychologist, who is a member of an audio group to which I belong, told
me that he believes that some people can hear things that others of us
cannot. Perhaps he is right, though vanity would probably prevent most of
us from accepting such a statement.

Iain

On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 12:59:32 +0200, "Iain M Churches"
wrote:

Some time ago, we discussed disc cutting at length on UKRA, and I
was able to provide evidence to correct many of Stewart's misconceptions
concerning the disc cutting process.

Er no, you provided anecdotes related to some experience you had in
one particular environment.

I spent two years of my training
period with Decca learning disc cutting. He treated with derision my
statement regarding the use of helium to cool the cutter head.
Later, he found out of course that my statement was totally correct.
He then claimed that he had "misunderstood"
(he was not wrong, but had misunderstood) I wondered
at the time what part of the sentence "Helium can be used to cool
the cutter head" could be misunderstood:-)

Easily misunderstood, since you did not specify the phase of the
element.

People who have visited a disc mastering facility, always
comment on the two large helium bottles standing to the left rear of the
Neumann, Westrex, Lyrec or Scully lathe. The fact that Stewart knew nothing
of helium cooling, and tried to ridicule the idea, illustrated clearly that he
had never been present at a disc cutting session, or even seen the inside of
a disc cutting room, and knew little about the techniques involved.

He still thinks that LF is panned centre and rolled off at 80Hz.

As indeed it is, of necessity which Churches *should* understand, but
apparently does not. You can lead a whore tae culture, but ye canna
make her think............................

Where are the orchestral basses in 95% of symphonic recordings?

Somewhat right of centre at the live event, but dead centre in the
recording.

Don't take what he says about vinyl too seriously.

Don't take what Churches says about vinyl too seriously, his
experience is some twenty years out of date.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 13:36:05 +0200, "Iain M Churches"
wrote:

A psychologist, who is a member of an audio group to which I belong, told
me that he believes that some people can hear things that others of us
cannot. Perhaps he is right, though vanity would probably prevent most of
us from accepting such a statement.

Perhaps he is, but vanity is not the issue. The issue is that, when
the listener does not *know* what is playing, so-called 'Golden Ears'
are notable by their absence - especially the self-acclaimed ones....
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"Phil Allison" wrote in message
...

** The cutter head may need cooling - but Helium is not a good coolant.

The cutting stylus is in fact *heated* .

Hello Phil,

The cutting stylus is indeed heated. The cutter head coil is cooled
as required with helium. This is a fact which is well documented.
Do little research, or contact Neumann, Lyrec, Scully or any other
cutting lathe manufacturer for confirmation.

Whether or not helium is a good coolant is neither here nor there.
The fact is that it is used.



He still thinks that LF is panned centre and rolled off at 80Hz.


** LFs ** are** recorded in mono on an LP to eliminate excess vertical
modulation.

I will agree that LF is often cut centre (it's the most obvious place to
place a bass gtr and bs drum) There are countless LP's which prove that
this is not by necessity. I am listening at this very moment to an Oscar
Peterson LP with piano spread across half left to half right, drums hard
left., bass hard right.

Iain

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...

He still thinks that LF is panned centre and rolled off at 80Hz.

As indeed it is, of necessity which Churches *should* understand, but
apparently does not. You can lead a whore tae culture, but ye canna
make her think............................

There are countless LP's, for example the Oscar Peterson trio recording
I am listening to at the moment, with piano across the centre, bass on
one side and drums on the other.


Iain

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 9 Mar 2005 15:06:25 -0800, "tubesforall"
wrote:

Listening is subjective--my ears are tuned to realism in the strings.
Years
of performance violin will do that. A concert violinist trains their ears
to detect distortion and quality in the second, third, and fourth
harmonics.

And tends to premature deafness in the left ear...............

I notice on several occasions you have meantioned deafness in
relation to professional musicians (and recording engineers).

You are probably unaware that part of the standard contract of
employment for players that have a fixed engagement with a
symphony orchestra, require an audiogram at the start of that
engagement and at one year intervals thereafter.

Major record companies also have the same requirement,
for all those actively engaged in the recording process, so your
comments re deafness are hardly applicable to either of the above
two groups.

I am sure there is no-one here suggesting your hearing may be at fault.
But, you are 57 years old. When did you last take an audiogram?
It is quite likely that your hearing is not what it used to be.

In answer to a question I posed on UKRA, you replied that you
have no formal musical training. We know also that you have never
been emploted on a professional basis in the recording, so you have
no formal training there either.

Without such training, it may be that your levels of perception are
not as acute as they could be.

The psyschologist who stated that he believes some people (he
was referring to musicians, as he is on the staff or a conservatory of
music) can hear what others cannot, is probably correct.

I am beginning to think it is no co-incidence that professional musicians
often seem to choose tube/valve equipment. They care nothing for technical
specification, but know what they hear, I have mentioned earlier the
concert
pianist who bought a Conrad-Johnson, because it made a Bosendorfer sound
like a Bosendorfer. And just recently, I was speaking with a woodwind
player
who chose a McIntosh 275 tube amp, for use with his B+W Nautilus speakers,
because it allowed him to differentiate between an oboe and a cor anglais.
Are you among those who can differentiate between the two?

Can you tell the difference between a violin and an alto violin (viola)
playing the same note? Can you differentiate between a tenor and alto
saxophone playing in the same register?


If not, the psychologist must be right:-)

Cordially,

Iain

"Ian Iveson" wrote in message
k...
"Phil Allison" wrote

The theorem is true for any possible wave form, or combinations of
waveforms and varying in any possible way.

Only whilst remaining waveforms. I don't think music quite
qualifies. Waves are about sameness, music is about change.

cheers, Ian


Not so. Any repeating waveform can be represented by set of sinusoids
(fundamental plus harmonics, i.e. Fourier analysis.) Thus, given a
proper bandwidth limiting antialiasing filter, any waveform can be
sampled and reproduced exactly by sampling at twice the highest
harmonic frequency.
Cheers,
Roger

On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 21:28:40 +0200, "Iain M Churches"
wrote:


"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 9 Mar 2005 15:06:25 -0800, "tubesforall"
wrote:

Listening is subjective--my ears are tuned to realism in the strings.
Years
of performance violin will do that. A concert violinist trains their ears
to detect distortion and quality in the second, third, and fourth
harmonics.

And tends to premature deafness in the left ear...............

I notice on several occasions you have meantioned deafness in
relation to professional musicians (and recording engineers).

You are probably unaware that part of the standard contract of
employment for players that have a fixed engagement with a
symphony orchestra, require an audiogram at the start of that
engagement and at one year intervals thereafter.

Major record companies also have the same requirement,
for all those actively engaged in the recording process, so your
comments re deafness are hardly applicable to either of the above
two groups.

I am sure there is no-one here suggesting your hearing may be at fault.
But, you are 57 years old. When did you last take an audiogram?
It is quite likely that your hearing is not what it used to be.

In answer to a question I posed on UKRA, you replied that you
have no formal musical training. We know also that you have never
been emploted on a professional basis in the recording, so you have
no formal training there either.

Without such training, it may be that your levels of perception are
not as acute as they could be.

The psyschologist who stated that he believes some people (he
was referring to musicians, as he is on the staff or a conservatory of
music) can hear what others cannot, is probably correct.

I am beginning to think it is no co-incidence that professional musicians
often seem to choose tube/valve equipment. They care nothing for technical
specification, but know what they hear, I have mentioned earlier the
concert
pianist who bought a Conrad-Johnson, because it made a Bosendorfer sound
like a Bosendorfer. And just recently, I was speaking with a woodwind
player
who chose a McIntosh 275 tube amp, for use with his B+W Nautilus speakers,
because it allowed him to differentiate between an oboe and a cor anglais.
Are you among those who can differentiate between the two?

Can you tell the difference between a violin and an alto violin (viola)
playing the same note? Can you differentiate between a tenor and alto
saxophone playing in the same register?


If not, the psychologist must be right:-)

Cordially,

Iain


A friend of mine is a professional pianist and sometime organist. HIs
piano at home is an old upright (sort of, it only has feet on the
right), which is perpetually out of tune. It doesn't matter to him, he
hears past that, and listens to what he wants to hear. He has the
musical facility to convert the most appalling racket to music inside
his head. He can do this because he is a very good musician.

Although he has a good Hi Fi, I'm pretty sure he could do the same
with listening to recorded music, which is why he could never, ever be
a good judge of musical reproduction quality. He is just too close to
the whole thing.

He is also much poorer in hearing than me, despite being the same age
(55). I can hear 15kHz, he can barely hit 11.

I have to ask, though - how does an annual audiogram protect your
hearing? The only thing I can see it doing is reveal the awful truth.
No musician is ever going to stop playing on the strength of it.

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

"Ruud Broens" wrote in message
...
:
: "Joseph Meditz" wrote in message
: oups.com...
: : "No, an impulse is not composed of waves, and has no Fourier
: : transform."
: : YIKES!
: :
: : "You may contrive an approximation, perhaps using a delta function,
: : but a simple impulse is a singularity, has no period, and therefore
: : no transform."
: : YIKES!
: :
: : http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Fourier...aFunction.html
: :
: : Once again, I say that you need to study the Fourier Transform.
: :
: : Cheers,
: : Joe
:
: You seem to be missing the point that physics is what *is*,
: math is what _describes_,
: Joe,

...of course, then philosophers come and spoil it all by saying something ..
like "what appears to be" , the phenomenal ;-)
Rudy

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...

I have to ask, though - how does an annual audiogram protect your
hearing? The only thing I can see it doing is reveal the awful truth.
No musician is ever going to stop playing on the strength of it.

If only it did:-) I presume the idea is to compare each audiogram with
the one previous, (and with the original) to be aware of any changes
as they occur.

Most professional orchestras have private medical schemes, as do
record companies, and the audiogram is a part of the yearly health
check.


Iain

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
: On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 21:28:40 +0200, "Iain M Churches"
: wrote:
:
:
: A friend of mine is a professional pianist and sometime organist. HIs
: piano at home is an old upright (sort of, it only has feet on the
: right), which is perpetually out of tune. It doesn't matter to him, he
: hears past that, and listens to what he wants to hear. He has the
: musical facility to convert the most appalling racket to music inside
: his head. He can do this because he is a very good musician.
:
: Although he has a good Hi Fi, I'm pretty sure he could do the same
: with listening to recorded music, which is why he could never, ever be
: a good judge of musical reproduction quality. He is just too close to
: the whole thing.
:
: He is also much poorer in hearing than me, despite being the same age
: (55). I can hear 15kHz, he can barely hit 11.
:
: I have to ask, though - how does an annual audiogram protect your
: hearing? The only thing I can see it doing is reveal the awful truth.
: No musician is ever going to stop playing on the strength of it.


It doesn't. Being a professional classical music performer has it's drawbacks:
from a RAO posting, about 2 weeks ago:
: I have played trombone and tuba in concert bands for about
: 12 years now. I have played trombone in orchestra pits for musicals over
: the past 8 years. I played trombone and sang in a big band from 1995 to
: 2003. I played piano and sang for our church from 1998 to 2003. I have
: been in marching bands and orchestras since jr. high school and played
: piano since I was 9. Not to mention just playing instruments at home as
: well, and of course attending professional concerts. I'm 43, and I want
: to finally buy a sound system that I can immerse myself in, rather than
: making price the driving factor as it has since my first Realistic stereo
: in 1975. *I want to enjoy my hearing while I still can! ;-)

*Hmm, well, indeed. http://orkestengehoor.nl/achtergrond.../r816_3_ra.pdf
is a dutch report from 2003 : brass section players are on average exposed to 88
dbA SPL dayly average over a 260 day working year .

K. Kähäri (Linholmen Development, Göteborg) reported in 2003 that
only 26 % of classical orchestra performers had no hearing impairements
;
within the remaining 74 %:
41 % suffered diminished hearing capabilities
43 % suffered tinnitus
39 % suffered hyperacuses

Rudy
............


: d
:
: Pearce Consulting
: http://www.pearce.uk.com

"Iain M Churches"

"Phil Allison"

** The cutter head may need cooling - but Helium is not a good coolant.

The cutting stylus is in fact *heated* .


The cutting stylus is indeed heated. The cutter head coil is cooled
as required with helium. This is a fact which is well documented.


** How bizarre - cold air would do.


He still thinks that LF is panned centre and rolled off at 80Hz.


** LFs ** are** recorded in mono on an LP to eliminate excess
vertical modulation.

I will agree that LF is often cut centre (it's the most obvious place to
place a bass gtr and bs drum) There are countless LP's which prove that
this is not by necessity.


** You are an absolute fool and a incorrigible LIAR.


I am listening at this very moment to an Oscar
Peterson LP with piano spread across half left to half right, drums hard
left., bass hard right.



** It is not possible to tell by ear if the low bass has been monoed in a
stereo recording - that is why the method is so successful. Low bass is
non directional - you ass. Also, a double bass has little LF energy.

If you had even HALF a brain you would see that the possible lateral
excursion of a stylus playing an LP is quite large - while the possible
vertical excursion is very small.

QED.




.............. Phil

"Iain M Churches"

There are countless LP's, for example the Oscar Peterson trio recording
I am listening to at the moment, with piano across the centre, bass on
one side and drums on the other.



** A fool argues using irrelevant examples.




................ Phil