Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
"chung" wrote in message
... snip I might be wrong, I guess, but it seems like such display of technical cluelessness is so much more common among those who prefer vinyl to CD. But at least they don't have expectation bias that CD *must* sound better because of its better specs. :-) |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
Jenn wrote:
Chung: I might be wrong, I guess, but it seems like such display of technical cluelessness is so much more common among those who prefer vinyl to CD. I might be wrong too, I guess, but it seems like those who are more into technical details and measurements don't talk much about music. I'm wondering about where this descussion leads. Isn't the goal in this hobby to enjoy music in one's home? If a person has heard good CD and good LP and enjoys either one more, what's the point of discussion? Do you think that I'll enjoy music in my home more if I listen exclusively to CDs? Just points to ponder..... The point is not whether one talks about music or technical details. The point is the apparently higher occurrences of serious errors in the technical evidence presented by those who prefer vinyl over CD to support their preference. These errors are undebatable, meaning they are clearly, provably, wrong. BTW, this is the forum where high-end *audio reproduction* is discussed. There are many other forums for discussion of music. And please show some evidence that those who are more into technical details do not talk about music. |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
Stewart Pinkerton a écrit :
On 6 May 2005 03:17:35 GMT, Jocelyn Major wrote: I think you did'nt understand my point at all ( Or I was not clear enought in my explanation). I used to prefer the sound of cd until I get myself a better turntable. Yes, we got that point, thanks. I try to understand why the sound of an analog device was way better than the sound of a digital one and I got it when I think about the nature of frequency wave. Each wave is formed with curves. The analog sound will reproduce the wave in a natural way. Now try to do the same with digital it is simply not possible to have a perfect curve.It is like to try to build a curved wall with bricks: You can use hundred of thousand or millions of bricks you will never get a perfect curve. Its is that simple. It *would* be that simple, except that this is a total misunderstanding of how digital audio works. Your 'understanding' is based on sheer ignorance. Up to the 22kHz cutoff point of CD (which is well above anything you'll find on 99.9% of available vinyl), you most certainly do capture a perfect curve, with about 20dB greater dynamic range than vinyl can ever achieve. Just use a 'scope to check the output of any competent CD player, and you will see no trace whatever of 'stairsteps'. This is an urban myth perpetuated by those who simply don't understand the process. CD are way more convenient than LP that I fully agree. But as I find out a well care LP will always sound better than is CD counterpart. That is only a personal opinion, the objective reality is exactly the opposite. True if you do not take care of your LP then you will hear cracks, pop and all kind of noise. If you make a scratch on you LP you will hear that scratch but make the same kind of scratch on a CD sometime when you're lucky you won't find any difference in the sound but most of the time what you will get is NO SOUND. If a good quality CD player play better than a good quality turntable it is simply because of a bad installation. That is utter nonsense, as I'll happily demonstrate to any visitor. And also NO way a CD transcribed from a turntable will sound as good as the turntable. Sure it will, in fact very few listeners can tell the difference if it's a good transcription. I did try it and it the sound was no way comparable to the sound of the LP. All the ability to pinpoint in the room where are the performer was simply gone. In that case, you did it badly. I just think about something and find out that Jenn is so right in was he (or she -- I'm sorry my native language is not english but french, and I don't know if you know but Jocelyn in french is male.. anyway that's not the point) said. We are all here for the music and we should not care about what kind of the medium that music was recorded. We all love the music and that the point. We should share that joy of music not bashing each other about our medium preference. We are all supposed to be mature people so we must act as mature people. Thank you Jenn to let me remember the main reason I join this newsgroup : THE MUSIC. Some prefer the music on LP that is ok. Some prefer the music on CD that is also ok. But we should remerber that in those 2 phrase we all those 3 word "prefer the music" and those 3 word are all that is important. Bye and don't forget to "ENJOY THE MUSIC" Jocelyn |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
On 6 May 2005 23:30:22 GMT, Neil Gendzwill
wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: AFAIK, CD simply does not *have* any audible problems. That's a fairly bold statement. So there's no point to the higher definition formats in your opinion? There is *theoretical* advantage in the bigger numbers, but I have not personally *heard* any advantage over well-made CD, and there remains considerable doubt that ther's actually *any* audible advantage where you can genuinely compare low-res and high-res from the same (hi-res) master. I had always understood the problem with the format to be insufficient sampling rate to account for real-world filtering - have modern digital filters effectively ended that complaint? That seems to be the case, along with so-called 'upsampling'. While I wouldn't say that CD is perfect, it's sure a whole lot better than it was years ago and I have no problems listening to it rather than LP, especially when convenience is taken into account. The engineers seem to have figured out all that filtering stuff quite well now. Indeed so. However LPs can still sound surprisingly good, and friends who listen to a record on my system are often astounded at how good it sounds. No argument there. Mind you, their recollection of LP sound usually comes from some $150 cheapie table and a record that's been ground to death. At any rate I'm not sufficiently motivated to replace any of my records with CD equivalents, unless I need them for the car or something. Fair enough, I still keep a few hundred LPs myself. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
On 7 May 2005 00:14:09 GMT, "Jenn" wrote:
Chung: I might be wrong, I guess, but it seems like such display of technical cluelessness is so much more common among those who prefer vinyl to CD. I might be wrong too, I guess, but it seems like those who are more into technical details and measurements don't talk much about music. Sure we do, but not on *audio* newsgroups like this one. I'm wondering about where this descussion leads. Isn't the goal in this hobby to enjoy music in one's home? If a person has heard good CD and good LP and enjoys either one more, what's the point of discussion? That's not what we were discussing. It was *you* who claimed that ayone who heard a good vinyl rig would realise that vinyl is better than CD. That's simply an opinion, definitely not an absolute. Do you think that I'll enjoy music in my home more if I listen exclusively to CDs? Possibly, but you'll definitely *hear* more of the music........ -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
"Jocelyn Major" wrote in message
... Stewart Pinkerton a écrit : On 6 May 2005 03:17:35 GMT, Jocelyn Major wrote: I think you did'nt understand my point at all ( Or I was not clear enought in my explanation). I used to prefer the sound of cd until I get myself a better turntable. Yes, we got that point, thanks. I try to understand why the sound of an analog device was way better than the sound of a digital one and I got it when I think about the nature of frequency wave. Each wave is formed with curves. The analog sound will reproduce the wave in a natural way. Now try to do the same with digital it is simply not possible to have a perfect curve.It is like to try to build a curved wall with bricks: You can use hundred of thousand or millions of bricks you will never get a perfect curve. Its is that simple. It *would* be that simple, except that this is a total misunderstanding of how digital audio works. Your 'understanding' is based on sheer ignorance. Up to the 22kHz cutoff point of CD (which is well above anything you'll find on 99.9% of available vinyl), you most certainly do capture a perfect curve, with about 20dB greater dynamic range than vinyl can ever achieve. Just use a 'scope to check the output of any competent CD player, and you will see no trace whatever of 'stairsteps'. This is an urban myth perpetuated by those who simply don't understand the process. CD are way more convenient than LP that I fully agree. But as I find out a well care LP will always sound better than is CD counterpart. That is only a personal opinion, the objective reality is exactly the opposite. True if you do not take care of your LP then you will hear cracks, pop and all kind of noise. If you make a scratch on you LP you will hear that scratch but make the same kind of scratch on a CD sometime when you're lucky you won't find any difference in the sound but most of the time what you will get is NO SOUND. If a good quality CD player play better than a good quality turntable it is simply because of a bad installation. That is utter nonsense, as I'll happily demonstrate to any visitor. And also NO way a CD transcribed from a turntable will sound as good as the turntable. Sure it will, in fact very few listeners can tell the difference if it's a good transcription. I did try it and it the sound was no way comparable to the sound of the LP. All the ability to pinpoint in the room where are the performer was simply gone. In that case, you did it badly. I just think about something and find out that Jenn is so right in was he (or she -- I'm sorry my native language is not english but french, and I don't know if you know but Jocelyn in french is male.. anyway that's not the point) said. We are all here for the music and we should not care about what kind of the medium that music was recorded. We all love the music and that the point. We should share that joy of music not bashing each other about our medium preference. We are all supposed to be mature people so we must act as mature people. Thank you Jenn to let me remember the main reason I join this newsgroup : THE MUSIC. Some prefer the music on LP that is ok. Some prefer the music on CD that is also ok. But we should remerber that in those 2 phrase we all those 3 word "prefer the music" and those 3 word are all that is important. Bye and don't forget to "ENJOY THE MUSIC" And also please don't forget that the choice of media and gadgets used to record and play back "the music" is a HOBBY. Enthusiasts within a hobby are often engaged in conversations of the like just as they occur here. BTW I knew a French speaking family's daughter named and spelled Jocelyn, and there is this female, Jocelyn: http://www.jocelynpook.com/, who as you can tell by the photo, appears as a person of the female gender. Bye and don't forget to "ENJOY THE HOBBY" |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
Harry Lavo wrote:
"chung" wrote in message ... snip I might be wrong, I guess, but it seems like such display of technical cluelessness is so much more common among those who prefer vinyl to CD. But at least they don't have expectation bias that CD *must* sound better because of its better specs. :-) Actually we always say preferences are personal. What we tend to say is that CD *must* be more accurate than vinyl *as a medium*. Big difference there, since how a particular CD sound depends a lot on the performance, how it's recorded and how it's mastered. |
#89
|
|||
|
|||
Steven Sullivan wrote:
wrote: chung wrote: wrote: Contrary to urban myth, it has very little to do with the quality of your vinyl replay gear - once above the most basic level, the quality is limited by the *vinyl*, not the TT, arm or cart. Complete nonsense. The same record played on better vinyl equipment will sound better all the way up to SOTA gear. The quality of vinyl playback has a great deal to do with the quality of the gear used. Many people when exposed to better vinyl playback are completely surprised by the vast improvements and often come to understand the preference for vinyl playback back numerous hard core audiophiles hold. Does that mean that as you get closer and closer to SOTA vinyl equipment, you get more and more accurate reproduction from the same record? well tell me what you mean by "accurate reproduction of the record first" A record is a piece of plastic with a groove sut into it. The record is not reproduced in playback. And a magnetic recording tape is just a piece of plastic film coated with metal oxide. Yet some playback setups are clearly extracting more information more accurately *from* it than other. Which, of course, is clearly analogous to what Chung meant...yet again you indulge in semantic quibbling for no good purpose. No, I simply choose not to ignore the complexity of the question in it's full context. You cannot discuss accuracy without a standard to which things are being compared. What is a "vinyl record and it's playback equipment" being compared to when you ask how accurate it is? The only meaningful think you can guage is the signal going itno the cutting lathe to the signal leaving the preamp after the record has been played. You cannot ignore the other elements in the chain when you make such a comparison. Scott Wheeler |
#90
|
|||
|
|||
Chung wrote:
wrote: chung wrote: wrote: Contrary to urban myth, it has very little to do with the quality of your vinyl replay gear - once above the most basic level, the quality is limited by the *vinyl*, not the TT, arm or cart. Complete nonsense. The same record played on better vinyl equipment will sound better all the way up to SOTA gear. The quality of vinyl playback has a great deal to do with the quality of the gear used. Many people when exposed to better vinyl playback are completely surprised by the vast improvements and often come to understand the preference for vinyl playback back numerous hard core audiophiles hold. Does that mean that as you get closer and closer to SOTA vinyl equipment, you get more and more accurate reproduction from the same record? well tell me what you mean by "accurate reproduction of the record first" A record is a piece of plastic with a groove sut into it. The record is not reproduced in playback. The record stores the information which the vinyl system reproduces. Does my question now makes more sense? The record stores the grooves cut by the cutting lathe. How do we evaluate the accuracy of the record playback to the groove *cut* by the cutting lathe? Do different SOTA equipment sound the same to you No. Not the same. OK, then they cannot be all accurate. Thanks. Accurate to what? Of course, my question should be better stated as whether different SOTA vinyl systems sound the same to you, assuming the same speakers. I got that. The problem with the question is you have not set the objetive by which accuracy should be measured. Personally I don't know which vinyl playback rigs/ cutting lates/ plating and pressing plants offer the most accurate transfer of the signal coming off the master tape. I have no way of knowing. I judge the final playback which includes all the colorations of any part of the chain from recording to playback. When a component, in this case, a vinyl playback rig brings that playback experience closer to that which I love about live acoustic music then I deem that as an improvement. SOTA playback rigs are that which bring me the closest to that ideal. I hope this gives you a better idea of where I am coming from on this issue. (and they can't be different if they are all accurate)? Again accurate to what? To the vinyl? That doesn't make sense. To the information that is stored on the record. I'm not sure how one can determine that. To the signal that fed the cuttter head? That would be a complicated question then which involves the combined sonic signature that the cutting lathe/ molding and pressing proccess, turntable/arm/ cartidge equipment and setup and preamp. One can talk about the accuracy of this comination since it begins with and ends with an analog electrical signal of the same source. Well, that's certainly one way to define accuracy. When you compare two vinyl rigs playing the same record, the process that involves the cutting head, the lathe, the molding and the pressing would be common to the two rigs. Yes they would but they may also be quite inaccurate. So the more accurate reproduction of an inaccurate cutting lathe may give the false impression of less accuracy. So when two rigs produce different sounds, it then follows that at least one rig is not accurate. Lets get something straight here. It isn't a matter of accurate or inaccurate. It is a matter of degrees of inaccuracy. No one I know is claiming that vinyl cutting and playback is ever a perfect transfer of the original signal. I suggest you read up on Stan Rickers comments on the subject. he has some rather surpiseing POVs on the subject. He feels the proccess can actually enhance the original signal if doen at half speed. Or you can define accuracy as accuracy to the master tape. I suspect you can compare the signal coming off the master tape to the signal coming from a preamp that has been fed the signal from a vinyl playback rig. In theory this can be done. I sure can't do it. i do know any number of mastering engineers compare the feed off the master tape to the test pressing of the record they have mastered. That seems like a common, albeit not easily measureable, definition in the case of vinyl. I think we are on the same page here more or less. I just think we cannot exclude the other components in the chain like the cutting lathe and the plating and pressing proccess. You think yours and, say, Mr Lavo's vinyl systems sound the same? I doubt it. I think you are right there. Or do they sound different, and, in that case, how do you know which one is more accurate? Again acurate to what? Answered above. Or you can provide your own definition of what accuracy means. I believe I have. I can't say for sure which one would be more accurate to the signal coming off the master tape. I cannot say which is more accurate to the colorations of any given cutting lathe. I can say which sounds more like live music on my system if Harry were to bring his rig over. more importantly *that* is the criteria by which I judge any source component. It is what matters to me. We can use "accuracy to your memory of what music should sound like" if that is how you wish to define accuracy. No, that is not how I wish to define accuracy. That is how I wish to measure my satisfaction with any given system. I have never claimed that the most life like playback is comprised of strictly the most accurate components. I know a lot of audiophiles like that definition. Do you go by the price tag? Yeah, the cat is out of the bag. I go by the price tag. Can you manage to not be so insulting, ever? Why is it insulting? It infers a mentality that can be readily found with the bored hous wives shopping on Rodeo Dr. in Beverly Hills. It is an approach to consumption of goods that I find shallow and idiotic. Perhaps you find shopping via price tag (expensive is better because it is expensive) a valid way of making choices. I suspect you don't think that way. Correct me if I am wrong. Correct me if you do not also find that approach to be shallow and idiotic. I mean, how do you know whether a given vinyl rig is SOTA? Oh, it must be the price tag of course. It wouldn't have anything to do with listening tests. (sarcasm in case it wasn't clear) I would think that a lot of people would tend to believe that expensive systems are more SOTA than inexpensive ones. And you would value those peoples' opinions or mock them? Since you seem to know whether a system is SOTA, I do? I suggest you read my posts more carefully. I have clearly stated that I don't claim to "know" but I hold opinions. that is a valid possibility. Amoung many possibilities. It just happens to be one that has a fairly insulting inference attached. Unless you don't believe, as I do, that evaluating things by price tag is shallow and stupid. The obvious question is that if there is no objective measure of which one is more accurate, how do you compare accuracy? You can scroll up for my thourough answer to this question. No point in repeating myslef in this post. We use the term high-fidelity to describe this hobby. What do you think fidelity means? Truth. In this case truth to the original event. That being the original live performance. I prefer to look at the forrest rather than the trees. I measure the truth of any component by how it affects the truth of the system over all. Does that seem like a bad idea when it comes to fidelity? How do you know a vinyl system is SOTA? How do I know? I don't "know." I have opinions. They are based on listening to live music and playback. So there is really no way to know whether a vinyl system is SOTA. It's all just opinions. Good, that's what I thought. It seems that uncertainty is something objectivists are uncomfortable with. I prefer honest uncertainty to a false sense of knowing everything. Scott Wheeler |
#91
|
|||
|
|||
Chung: I might be wrong, I guess, but it seems like such display of
technical cluelessness is so much more common among those who prefer vinyl to CD. Jenn: I might be wrong too, I guess, but it seems like those who are more into technical details and measurements don't talk much about music. Stewart: Sure we do, but not on *audio* newsgroups like this one. Fair enough. But I'm afraid that I didn't express myself too well on this. What I meant was that there seems to be little discussion by those who rely on measurement about the SOUND of music in their systems. I suppose that this is typical; the old Jullian Hersh vs. Harry Pearson issue :-) I'm wondering about where this descussion leads. Isn't the goal in this hobby to enjoy music in one's home? If a person has heard good CD and good LP and enjoys either one more, what's the point of discussion? Stewart: That's not what we were discussing. It was *you* who claimed that ayone who heard a good vinyl rig would realise that vinyl is better than CD. No, I've never made that claim, nor would I. |
#92
|
|||
|
|||
Chung: BTW, this is the forum where high-end *audio reproduction* is
discussed. There are many other forums for discussion of music I understand that. And, I came here to discuss such things and to learn and share ideas. I wasn't looking for a place to discuss the use of the Augmented 6 chord in the music of Racmaninoff; I have other places for that, of course. What I meant was that there seems to be little discussion about how music SOUNDS when played by a given piece of gear. And please show some evidence that those who are more into technical details do not talk about music. I didn't say that, any more than you said that all those who like LP are "clueless." I was speaking in generalities, based on observation, participation in audio clubs, and so forth. |
#93
|
|||
|
|||
Jenn wrote:
Chung: BTW, this is the forum where high-end *audio reproduction* is discussed. There are many other forums for discussion of music I understand that. And, I came here to discuss such things and to learn and share ideas. I wasn't looking for a place to discuss the use of the Augmented 6 chord in the music of Racmaninoff; I have other places for that, of course. What I meant was that there seems to be little discussion about how music SOUNDS when played by a given piece of gear. And please show some evidence that those who are more into technical details do not talk about music. I didn't say that, any more than you said that all those who like LP are "clueless." I was speaking in generalities, based on observation, participation in audio clubs, and so forth. Since you conveniently snipped my original response, let's put it back here. I said this: "I might be wrong, I guess, but it seems like such display of technical cluelessness is so much more common among those who prefer vinyl to CD." The evidence is in the post that I responded to, where someone gave some seriously wrong reason for why vinyl should be technically better. There have been numerous posts by vinyl lovers on how vinyl has infinite resolution, infinte bandwidth and so on. I am sure you have see those posts before. Now on the other hand, this is what you said: "I might be wrong too, I guess, but it seems like those who are more into technical details and measurements don't talk much about music." Now would you please provide evidence that you statement is correct? Or please retract it? Just thinking it is so is not evidence. Again I should remind you that this is not a forum where music is the main focus of the discussions. |
#94
|
|||
|
|||
wrote:
Chung wrote: wrote: chung wrote: wrote: Contrary to urban myth, it has very little to do with the quality of your vinyl replay gear - once above the most basic level, the quality is limited by the *vinyl*, not the TT, arm or cart. Complete nonsense. The same record played on better vinyl equipment will sound better all the way up to SOTA gear. The quality of vinyl playback has a great deal to do with the quality of the gear used. Many people when exposed to better vinyl playback are completely surprised by the vast improvements and often come to understand the preference for vinyl playback back numerous hard core audiophiles hold. Does that mean that as you get closer and closer to SOTA vinyl equipment, you get more and more accurate reproduction from the same record? well tell me what you mean by "accurate reproduction of the record first" A record is a piece of plastic with a groove sut into it. The record is not reproduced in playback. The record stores the information which the vinyl system reproduces. Does my question now makes more sense? The record stores the grooves cut by the cutting lathe. How do we evaluate the accuracy of the record playback to the groove *cut* by the cutting lathe? I thought I gave you several ways to define accuracy. The point I am trying to make, in case you don't catch it, is whatever way you choose to define accuracy, the fact that two vinyl rigs sound noticeably different means that at least one is inaccurate. Do different SOTA equipment sound the same to you No. Not the same. OK, then they cannot be all accurate. Thanks. Accurate to what? Whatever you want to use as reference. Of course, my question should be better stated as whether different SOTA vinyl systems sound the same to you, assuming the same speakers. I got that. The problem with the question is you have not set the objetive by which accuracy should be measured. Personally I don't know which vinyl playback rigs/ cutting lates/ plating and pressing plants offer the most accurate transfer of the signal coming off the master tape. I have no way of knowing. I judge the final playback which includes all the colorations of any part of the chain from recording to playback. When a component, in this case, a vinyl playback rig brings that playback experience closer to that which I love about live acoustic music then I deem that as an improvement. SOTA playback rigs are that which bring me the closest to that ideal. I hope this gives you a better idea of where I am coming from on this issue. If you don't have a definition of accuracy that you are comfortable with, I can certainly propose accuracy to the master tape. If you want to use accuracy as "closeness to that ideal", that's an impossible one to objectively evaluate, but I'll take it as your working definition. You seem to say that even SOTA vinyl systems sound different, so that must mean that at most only one system can be the closest to that ideal. Do I get you right? (and they can't be different if they are all accurate)? Again accurate to what? To the vinyl? That doesn't make sense. To the information that is stored on the record. I'm not sure how one can determine that. Master tape is one reference. To the signal that fed the cuttter head? That would be a complicated question then which involves the combined sonic signature that the cutting lathe/ molding and pressing proccess, turntable/arm/ cartidge equipment and setup and preamp. One can talk about the accuracy of this comination since it begins with and ends with an analog electrical signal of the same source. Well, that's certainly one way to define accuracy. When you compare two vinyl rigs playing the same record, the process that involves the cutting head, the lathe, the molding and the pressing would be common to the two rigs. Yes they would but they may also be quite inaccurate. So the more accurate reproduction of an inaccurate cutting lathe may give the false impression of less accuracy. So when two rigs produce different sounds, it then follows that at least one rig is not accurate. Lets get something straight here. It isn't a matter of accurate or inaccurate. It is a matter of degrees of inaccuracy. No one I know is claiming that vinyl cutting and playback is ever a perfect transfer of the original signal. I suggest you read up on Stan Rickers comments on the subject. he has some rather surpiseing POVs on the subject. He feels the proccess can actually enhance the original signal if doen at half speed. OK, you can't say whether SOTA systems are accurate or inaccurate, it's just that SOTA means some degree of accuracy that is acceptable to you. Now how would you know then a system that is not what you called SOTA will have a lesser degree of accuracy for another listener? You see, it all gets back to your point that vinyl rigs get "better and better" until you get to that ambiguous SOTA level, but there is really no way for you to define what better means in the sense that others can accept. Or what is SOTA. It's just your opinion that is so, IOW. Or you can define accuracy as accuracy to the master tape. I suspect you can compare the signal coming off the master tape to the signal coming from a preamp that has been fed the signal from a vinyl playback rig. In theory this can be done. I sure can't do it. i do know any number of mastering engineers compare the feed off the master tape to the test pressing of the record they have mastered. That seems like a common, albeit not easily measureable, definition in the case of vinyl. I think we are on the same page here more or less. I just think we cannot exclude the other components in the chain like the cutting lathe and the plating and pressing proccess. You think yours and, say, Mr Lavo's vinyl systems sound the same? I doubt it. I think you are right there. Or do they sound different, and, in that case, how do you know which one is more accurate? Again acurate to what? Answered above. Or you can provide your own definition of what accuracy means. I believe I have. I can't say for sure which one would be more accurate to the signal coming off the master tape. I cannot say which is more accurate to the colorations of any given cutting lathe. I can say which sounds more like live music on my system if Harry were to bring his rig over. more importantly *that* is the criteria by which I judge any source component. It is what matters to me. We can use "accuracy to your memory of what music should sound like" if that is how you wish to define accuracy. No, that is not how I wish to define accuracy. That is how I wish to measure my satisfaction with any given system. I have never claimed that the most life like playback is comprised of strictly the most accurate components. I know a lot of audiophiles like that definition. Do you go by the price tag? Yeah, the cat is out of the bag. I go by the price tag. Can you manage to not be so insulting, ever? Why is it insulting? It infers a mentality that can be readily found with the bored hous wives shopping on Rodeo Dr. in Beverly Hills. It is an approach to consumption of goods that I find shallow and idiotic. Perhaps you find shopping via price tag (expensive is better because it is expensive) a valid way of making choices. I suspect you don't think that way. Correct me if I am wrong. Correct me if you do not also find that approach to be shallow and idiotic. Oh I see, you are the one who is doing the insulting. As far as I am concerned, anyone can buy anything for any reason. If they buy it because they believe higher price means closer to SOTA, it's their prerogative. I certainly will not insult those who think that way by saying that they are idiotic. Most people believe that quality is tied to price, so why should it be idiotic? I mean, how do you know whether a given vinyl rig is SOTA? Oh, it must be the price tag of course. It wouldn't have anything to do with listening tests. (sarcasm in case it wasn't clear) Price tag is perfectly acceptable to me as a measure of SOTA-ness if that's how someone feels, your sarcasm notwithstanding. I would think that a lot of people would tend to believe that expensive systems are more SOTA than inexpensive ones. And you would value those peoples' opinions or mock them? You are the one who call them idiotic, in case you forget. I say it is their prerogative. Since you seem to know whether a system is SOTA, I do? I suggest you read my posts more carefully. I have clearly stated that I don't claim to "know" but I hold opinions. that is a valid possibility. Amoung many possibilities. It just happens to be one that has a fairly insulting inference attached. Unless you don't believe, as I do, that evaluating things by price tag is shallow and stupid. The obvious question is that if there is no objective measure of which one is more accurate, how do you compare accuracy? You can scroll up for my thourough answer to this question. No point in repeating myslef in this post. We use the term high-fidelity to describe this hobby. What do you think fidelity means? Truth. In this case truth to the original event. That being the original live performance. I prefer to look at the forrest rather than the trees. I measure the truth of any component by how it affects the truth of the system over all. Does that seem like a bad idea when it comes to fidelity? Of course that assumes you somehow heard the original live performance. How many records do you have that you have heard the original live performance before? How do you know a vinyl system is SOTA? How do I know? I don't "know." I have opinions. They are based on listening to live music and playback. So there is really no way to know whether a vinyl system is SOTA. It's all just opinions. Good, that's what I thought. It seems that uncertainty is something objectivists are uncomfortable with. I prefer honest uncertainty to a false sense of knowing everything. I am perfectly content with uncertainty. In fact, the purpose of my post was to make sure that people are uncertain about what SOTA is. They have their opinions, of course, but not certainty. |
#95
|
|||
|
|||
Chung: The evidence is in the post that I responded to, where
someone gave some seriously wrong reason for why vinyl should be technically better. There have been numerous posts by vinyl lovers on how vinyl has infinite resolution, infinte bandwidth and so on. I am sure you have see those posts before. And I agree that if someone gives incorrect technical information, it's a good thing to correct that person. I have no beef with that. Chung: Now on the other hand, this is what you said: " I might be wrong too, I guess, but it seems like those who are more into technical details and measurements don't talk much about music .." Now would you please provide evidence that you statement is correct? Or please retract it? Just thinking it is so is not evidence. Again I should remind you that this is not a forum where music is the main focus of the discussions. Again, as stated in the previous post, I've observed this from experience in discussions in various locales, in person and online. I would add to the list some quarters of the audio press. Look, I'm not trying to pick a fight. I'm simply making an observation based on my experience. Your experience is that LP lovers tend to be technically "clueless" when compared to CD lovers. That's fine, and you're entitled to your opinion. I have an observation as well: in my experience, CD lovers tend to express their thoughts on gear in terms of specs and measurements, and LP lovers tend to express their thoughts on gear in terms of how much it sounds like live acoustic music. It's just my observation after about 30 years in this hobby (with about 10 years off for good behavior!) I do have some strong feelings about how music sounds through some gear, and how music is represented by some recordings, both digital and analogue. For example, I was present at the very first digital symphonic recording made in the U.S. I heard the music in Severance Hall, and I then heard the live feed on another "take" and I heard the digital master immediately after that. I was stunned. It was factastic. The LP of that session came out, and I was, again, stunned. The CD came out a year or so later, and I was less impressed. Now, some 25 years later, I hear the CD on contemporary equipment, and I'm stunned again. I hear that CD on other contemporary gear, and I'm less than impressed. Digital sounds different through different equipment, obviously. Price seems to matter very little. Is CD better now than it was? In my view, yes. As I stated earlier, there are many CDs that I enjoy. I'm just saying that on average, I enjoy music more on well done vinyl. And, by the way, so do most of my fellow acoustic musicians, when they hear a comparison. I can only go by my observations. Is vinyl more accurate? I have no idea, and I have very little interest in that part of the hobby. Peace. |
#96
|
|||
|
|||
Chung wrote:
wrote: Chung wrote: wrote: chung wrote: wrote: Contrary to urban myth, it has very little to do with the quality of your vinyl replay gear - once above the most basic level, the quality is limited by the *vinyl*, not the TT, arm or cart. Complete nonsense. The same record played on better vinyl equipment will sound better all the way up to SOTA gear. The quality of vinyl playback has a great deal to do with the quality of the gear used. Many people when exposed to better vinyl playback are completely surprised by the vast improvements and often come to understand the preference for vinyl playback back numerous hard core audiophiles hold. Does that mean that as you get closer and closer to SOTA vinyl equipment, you get more and more accurate reproduction from the same record? well tell me what you mean by "accurate reproduction of the record first" A record is a piece of plastic with a groove sut into it. The record is not reproduced in playback. The record stores the information which the vinyl system reproduces. Does my question now makes more sense? The record stores the grooves cut by the cutting lathe. How do we evaluate the accuracy of the record playback to the groove *cut* by the cutting lathe? I thought I gave you several ways to define accuracy. No. And we don't need to redefine the word. I am quite comfortable using the dictionary definition. The point I am trying to make, in case you don't catch it, is whatever way you choose to define accuracy, the fact that two vinyl rigs sound noticeably different means that at least one is inaccurate. Or both. But again, no one is claiming that the chain between the signal from the master tape and the signal coming from the phono preamp are ever perfectly identical. It is a matter of degree. Do different SOTA equipment sound the same to you No. Not the same. OK, then they cannot be all accurate. Thanks. Accurate to what? Whatever you want to use as reference. That is arbitrary. If I use the original performance then it inevitably involves the entire recording and playback chain. One can only evaluate the changes in the entire system wrought by changes in one or more components in that chain. One cannot via this method really talk about the accuracy of the component but the effect the component has on the percieved accuracy of the system. OTOH one can, if they have the means, compare the signal of the feed to the cutter head of a lathe to the signal coming from a record/vinyl playback rig/preamp played back from the particular cut. This would be a good way to determine the accuracy of the vinyl cutting/plating/pressing/playback system in total. It still wont tell you anything about the individual components in that whole system. Of course, my question should be better stated as whether different SOTA vinyl systems sound the same to you, assuming the same speakers. I got that. The problem with the question is you have not set the objetive by which accuracy should be measured. Personally I don't know which vinyl playback rigs/ cutting lates/ plating and pressing plants offer the most accurate transfer of the signal coming off the master tape. I have no way of knowing. I judge the final playback which includes all the colorations of any part of the chain from recording to playback. When a component, in this case, a vinyl playback rig brings that playback experience closer to that which I love about live acoustic music then I deem that as an improvement. SOTA playback rigs are that which bring me the closest to that ideal. I hope this gives you a better idea of where I am coming from on this issue. If you don't have a definition of accuracy that you are comfortable with, I am comfortable with the dictionary definition. I can certainly propose accuracy to the master tape. That wouldn't be a different definition just a specific reference. Probably a good one for those with access to master tapes. I lack the access to make that comparison. If you want to use accuracy as "closeness to that ideal", that's an impossible one to objectively evaluate, Quite the opposite. I have much better access to the ideal, that being live acoustic music in a good acoustic space than I do to master tapes. but I'll take it as your working definition. You mean my point of reference? Yeah good call. You seem to say that even SOTA vinyl systems sound different, so that must mean that at most only one system can be the closest to that ideal. Do I get you right? Ummmmmmm. maybe. You see, so long as one uses the complete recording and playback chain and compares it to live acoustic music there are so many variables. One vinyl rig may be better on one playback system and not better on another playback system. The other thing that one cannot forget is that there may be give and take between competing SOTA rigs along various parameters. As a gross analogy let me put this to you. What is more accurate to the original source a sharp contrasty low grain black and white print with infinite depth of field or a grainy color print with low contrast and a narrow depth of field? Tough to answer isn't it? So long as there is no perfect recording and playback system we will be often faced with choices as to which colorations are more problematic and which are less. It becomes difficult for one to make simple determinations as to what is more accurate and what is less acurate. (and they can't be different if they are all accurate)? Again accurate to what? To the vinyl? That doesn't make sense. To the information that is stored on the record. I'm not sure how one can determine that. Master tape is one reference. But it is not the same reference. That information from the master tape has been put through the cutting/plating and pressing proccess. The groove of a record is not the signal from a master tape feed. To the signal that fed the cuttter head? That would be a complicated question then which involves the combined sonic signature that the cutting lathe/ molding and pressing proccess, turntable/arm/ cartidge equipment and setup and preamp. One can talk about the accuracy of this comination since it begins with and ends with an analog electrical signal of the same source. Well, that's certainly one way to define accuracy. When you compare two vinyl rigs playing the same record, the process that involves the cutting head, the lathe, the molding and the pressing would be common to the two rigs. Yes they would but they may also be quite inaccurate. So the more accurate reproduction of an inaccurate cutting lathe may give the false impression of less accuracy. So when two rigs produce different sounds, it then follows that at least one rig is not accurate. Lets get something straight here. It isn't a matter of accurate or inaccurate. It is a matter of degrees of inaccuracy. No one I know is claiming that vinyl cutting and playback is ever a perfect transfer of the original signal. I suggest you read up on Stan Rickers comments on the subject. he has some rather surpiseing POVs on the subject. He feels the proccess can actually enhance the original signal if doen at half speed. OK, you can't say whether SOTA systems are accurate or inaccurate, it's just that SOTA means some degree of accuracy that is acceptable to you. No it means a certain degree of life like sound when used in a high fi playback system with the most consistantly life like sounding records. I don't know how common audiophiles can isolate that component and meaningfully talk about it's accuracy without the context of the rest of the recording and playback chain. Now how would you know then a system that is not what you called SOTA will have a lesser degree of accuracy for another listener? Common experience. You see, it all gets back to your point that vinyl rigs get "better and better" until you get to that ambiguous SOTA level, but there is really no way for you to define what better means in the sense that others can accept. Maybe *some* can't accept it but most people I know have no problem with how I define "better" when it comes to vinyl playback nor do they have much problem hearing it when it is played for them. But then most people I know don't demand that all qualitative experiences be measured and quanitifed and broken down into formulas. Or what is SOTA. It's just your opinion that is so, IOW. Given the use of audio equipment SOTA will always be somewhat subjective. Or you can define accuracy as accuracy to the master tape. I suspect you can compare the signal coming off the master tape to the signal coming from a preamp that has been fed the signal from a vinyl playback rig. In theory this can be done. I sure can't do it. i do know any number of mastering engineers compare the feed off the master tape to the test pressing of the record they have mastered. That seems like a common, albeit not easily measureable, definition in the case of vinyl. I think we are on the same page here more or less. I just think we cannot exclude the other components in the chain like the cutting lathe and the plating and pressing proccess. You think yours and, say, Mr Lavo's vinyl systems sound the same? I doubt it. I think you are right there. Or do they sound different, and, in that case, how do you know which one is more accurate? Again acurate to what? Answered above. Or you can provide your own definition of what accuracy means. I believe I have. I can't say for sure which one would be more accurate to the signal coming off the master tape. I cannot say which is more accurate to the colorations of any given cutting lathe. I can say which sounds more like live music on my system if Harry were to bring his rig over. more importantly *that* is the criteria by which I judge any source component. It is what matters to me. We can use "accuracy to your memory of what music should sound like" if that is how you wish to define accuracy. No, that is not how I wish to define accuracy. That is how I wish to measure my satisfaction with any given system. I have never claimed that the most life like playback is comprised of strictly the most accurate components. I know a lot of audiophiles like that definition. Do you go by the price tag? Yeah, the cat is out of the bag. I go by the price tag. Can you manage to not be so insulting, ever? Why is it insulting? It infers a mentality that can be readily found with the bored hous wives shopping on Rodeo Dr. in Beverly Hills. It is an approach to consumption of goods that I find shallow and idiotic. Perhaps you find shopping via price tag (expensive is better because it is expensive) a valid way of making choices. I suspect you don't think that way. Correct me if I am wrong. Correct me if you do not also find that approach to be shallow and idiotic. Oh I see, you are the one who is doing the insulting. As far as I am concerned, anyone can buy anything for any reason. I didn't say otherwise. I simply stated that *I* have an opinion about buying via price tag. I suppose you have no opinion about that yourself? I would be very skeptical about such a claim. I did assume you held a similar opinion about that and asked you to correct me if I were wrong. I see no such correction. So you are given another chance. Do you not feel, as I do, that buying things *because* they are expensive is shallow and stupid? If they buy it because they believe higher price means closer to SOTA, it's their prerogative. I never said otherwise. I simply offered an opinion about that approach. Does your opinion differ? I certainly will not insult those who think that way by saying that they are idiotic. Perhaps not directly. But if you share my opinion about shopping via price tag then the accusation would be an infered insult. Insults often lie between the lines. I think you know that. IMO it is a typical means of getting insults past the moderators on RAO. Most people believe that quality is tied to price, so why should it be idiotic? Most people believe in astrology. Does the popularity of such a belief make it not idiotic? I mean, how do you know whether a given vinyl rig is SOTA? Oh, it must be the price tag of course. It wouldn't have anything to do with listening tests. (sarcasm in case it wasn't clear) Price tag is perfectly acceptable to me as a measure of SOTA-ness if that's how someone feels, your sarcasm notwithstanding. Please excuse my skeptism. I doubt you really believe this is anything less than foolish say when one is considering buying a megabuck CD playback source for instance. I would think that a lot of people would tend to believe that expensive systems are more SOTA than inexpensive ones. And you would value those peoples' opinions or mock them? You are the one who call them idiotic, in case you forget. I say it is their prerogative. I agree that it is their perogative. Do you really disagree that it is also idiotic not to mention shallow? Since you seem to know whether a system is SOTA, I do? I suggest you read my posts more carefully. I have clearly stated that I don't claim to "know" but I hold opinions. that is a valid possibility. Amoung many possibilities. It just happens to be one that has a fairly insulting inference attached. Unless you don't believe, as I do, that evaluating things by price tag is shallow and stupid. The obvious question is that if there is no objective measure of which one is more accurate, how do you compare accuracy? You can scroll up for my thourough answer to this question. No point in repeating myslef in this post. We use the term high-fidelity to describe this hobby. What do you think fidelity means? Truth. In this case truth to the original event. That being the original live performance. I prefer to look at the forrest rather than the trees. I measure the truth of any component by how it affects the truth of the system over all. Does that seem like a bad idea when it comes to fidelity? Of course that assumes you somehow heard the original live performance. No. It assumes that there is a substantial difference between any number of live performaces and the closest proximity recording and playback has to offer to those common traits found in live performances held in good acoustic spaces. It assumes that one can determine what systems come closert to bridging that common gap between live music in genereal and recordings and playback of live music. How many records do you have that you have heard the original live performance before? None. How do you know a vinyl system is SOTA? How do I know? I don't "know." I have opinions. They are based on listening to live music and playback. So there is really no way to know whether a vinyl system is SOTA. It's all just opinions. Good, that's what I thought. It seems that uncertainty is something objectivists are uncomfortable with. I prefer honest uncertainty to a false sense of knowing everything. I am perfectly content with uncertainty. In fact, the purpose of my post was to make sure that people are uncertain about what SOTA is. They have their opinions, of course, but not certainty. Scott Wheeler |
#97
|
|||
|
|||
Jenn wrote:
Fair enough. But I'm afraid that I didn't express myself too well on this. What I meant was that there seems to be little discussion by those who rely on measurement about the SOUND of music in their systems. When you listen to a favorite recording, what are you most struck by? The quality of its reproduction by your system? The recording quality? Or the quality of the composition and its performance? I'm always most affected by #3, although I am liable to notice #2 when the recording is particularly well-made. Except when I am specifically tinkering with it--which I don't do much of these days--I pay no notice at all to my system. So "the sound of music in my system" is indistinguishable to me from "the sound of music." A big reason is that I am reasonably confident that, based on both technical grounds and listening preferences, my system is as good as I can make it right now given budgetary and room (and spouse-imposed) constraints. That's as good an explanation as I can give for why I, personally, don't talk much here about "the sound of music in my system." On other discussion groups, you will find people who will wax poetic about "the sound of music on their systems." Frequently, you will see them make assumptions about the impact that a particular piece of gear has on that "sound" that are simply preposterous. Personally, I'd rather talk about technical stuff with people who know what they're talking about than music with people who don't. I suppose that this is typical; the old Jullian Hersh vs. Harry Pearson issue :-) I'm not sure Harry Pearson could talk about the technical merits of a piece of audio gear if his life depended on it. As for Hirsch, he most certainly did talk about the sound of music in his system. He said it basically sounded the same whatever competently designed amp he used. bob |
#98
|
|||
|
|||
On 7 May 2005 14:12:29 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:
"chung" wrote in message ... snip I might be wrong, I guess, but it seems like such display of technical cluelessness is so much more common among those who prefer vinyl to CD. But at least they don't have expectation bias that CD *must* sound better because of its better specs. :-) That's true, but luckily the *real* sonic differences are so large that expectation bias is not a significant factor. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#99
|
|||
|
|||
On 7 May 2005 15:53:02 GMT, "Norman M. Schwartz"
wrote: And also please don't forget that the choice of media and gadgets used to record and play back "the music" is a HOBBY. Enthusiasts within a hobby are often engaged in conversations of the like just as they occur here. BTW I knew a French speaking family's daughter named and spelled Jocelyn, and there is this female, Jocelyn: http://www.jocelynpook.com/, who as you can tell by the photo, appears as a person of the female gender. Bye and don't forget to "ENJOY THE HOBBY" OTOH, There are many Englishmen called Jocelyn and Hilary, even though these are more commonly girl's names. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#100
|
|||
|
|||
"Jenn" wrote in message
... musician. I can only go by my observations. Is vinyl more accurate? I have no idea, and I have very little interest in that part of the hobby. Then might I be so bold as writing, I think you posted in the wrong newsgroup. Peace Norman |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message ...
Jenn wrote: Fair enough. But I'm afraid that I didn't express myself too well on this. What I meant was that there seems to be little discussion by those who rely on measurement about the SOUND of music in their systems. When you listen to a favorite recording, what are you most struck by? The quality of its reproduction by your system? The recording quality? Or the quality of the composition and its performance? I'm always most affected by #3, although I am liable to notice #2 when the recording is particularly well-made. Except when I am specifically tinkering with it--which I don't do much of these days--I pay no notice at all to my system. So "the sound of music in my system" is indistinguishable to me from "the sound of music." A big reason is that I am reasonably confident that, based on both technical grounds and listening preferences, my system is as good as I can make it right now given budgetary and room (and spouse-imposed) constraints. That's as good an explanation as I can give for why I, personally, don't talk much here about "the sound of music in my system." Since that is what this forum is about, it also strikes me as a reasonably good reason for making posts few and far between, only when there is something relevant to say. On other discussion groups, you will find people who will wax poetic about "the sound of music on their systems." Frequently, you will see them make assumptions about the impact that a particular piece of gear has on that "sound" that are simply preposterous. Personally, I'd rather talk about technical stuff with people who know what they're talking about than music with people who don't. Then why aren't you spending more of your time more on rec.audio.tech rather than rec.audio.high-end. I suppose that this is typical; the old Jullian Hersh vs. Harry Pearson issue :-) I'm not sure Harry Pearson could talk about the technical merits of a piece of audio gear if his life depended on it. As for Hirsch, he most certainly did talk about the sound of music in his system. He said it basically sounded the same whatever competently designed amp he used. Harry would be the first to agree with you...he has never positioned himself as technical. In fact, he has always had a more technically-minded "setup man" for this very reason, and has made no secret of it. Julian, on the other hand, who was basically a technician, often made comments on the sound of equipment that was so at odds with what most other hobby'sts heard that he lost credibility with the audiophile community, who knew that all the mid-fi gear of the seventies didn't sound the same, as Julian often professed. It was this disparity between reportage and "reality" when it came to Japonese-engineered mid-fi gear that gave rise to both Stereophile and The Abso!ute Sound. |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
... On 7 May 2005 14:12:29 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote: "chung" wrote in message ... snip I might be wrong, I guess, but it seems like such display of technical cluelessness is so much more common among those who prefer vinyl to CD. But at least they don't have expectation bias that CD *must* sound better because of its better specs. :-) That's true, but luckily the *real* sonic differences are so large that expectation bias is not a significant factor. Sorry Stewart but on my and many other people's systems there is no *real* sonic difference in favor of CD...simply a convenience difference. You say your system is "tuned" to CD. Mine is "tuned" to the sound of live, acoustic music as best I can do it, and the individual source components are selected for accuracy to this goal. Thus they tend to sound virtually alike. I believe many other audiophiles do the same thing. |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
Jenn wrote:
Chung: The evidence is in the post that I responded to, where someone gave some seriously wrong reason for why vinyl should be technically better. There have been numerous posts by vinyl lovers on how vinyl has infinite resolution, infinte bandwidth and so on. I am sure you have see those posts before. And I agree that if someone gives incorrect technical information, it's a good thing to correct that person. I have no beef with that. Chung: Now on the other hand, this is what you said: " I might be wrong too, I guess, but it seems like those who are more into technical details and measurements don't talk much about music ." Now would you please provide evidence that you statement is correct? Or please retract it? Just thinking it is so is not evidence. Again I should remind you that this is not a forum where music is the main focus of the discussions. Again, as stated in the previous post, I've observed this from experience in discussions in various locales, in person and online. I would add to the list some quarters of the audio press. Look, I'm not trying to pick a fight. I'm simply making an observation based on my experience. Your experience is that LP lovers tend to be technically "clueless" when compared to CD lovers. Please read carefully. You grossly misrepresented my position. Again, here is what I said (which you once again snipped): "I might be wrong, I guess, but it seems like such display of technical cluelessness is so much more common among those who prefer vinyl to CD." I did not say that LP lovers tend to be technically clueless. I am saying that when we see posts extolling the technical virtues of vinyl that are factually wrong, they tend to come from vinyl lovers. Do you see that huge difference between what I wrote and what you assumed that I wrote? That's fine, and you're entitled to your opinion. I have an observation as well: in my experience, CD lovers tend to express their thoughts on gear in terms of specs and measurements, and LP lovers tend to express their thoughts on gear in terms of how much it sounds like live acoustic music. It's just my observation after about 30 years in this hobby (with about 10 years off for good behavior!) Perhaps it is a simple reflection that vinyl lovers cannot explain why they prefer the vinyl sound, because measurements indicate the vinyl medium is less accurate. So their repeated assertion is that the vinyl sound is "truer to that ideal/live music". Certainly I, and others, have repeatedly expressed our observation that the CD sound reproduces the live acoustic event so much better. I gave some CD piano recording as an example. You obviously missed those posts. That's why I ask you for evidence supportion your assertion that CD lovers do not talk much about music, which is a really wrong (to put it mildly) observation. |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
Norman M. Schwartz wrote:
"Jenn" wrote in message ... musician. I can only go by my observations. Is vinyl more accurate? I have no idea, and I have very little interest in that part of the hobby. Then might I be so bold as writing, I think you posted in the wrong newsgroup. Peace Norman Not according to the newsgroup guidlines. 2.0 -- Definition of High-End Audio The working definition of 'high-end audio' under which this newsgroup operates is a) audio equipment whose primary and fundamental design goal is to reproduce a musical event as faithfully as possible; or b) audio equipment which attempts to provide an electromechanical realization of the emotional experience commonly called music; Looks like her posts are quite relevant to "b)" despite how much this may upset objectivists. Scott Wheeler |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 7 May 2005 14:12:29 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote: "chung" wrote in message ... snip I might be wrong, I guess, but it seems like such display of technical cluelessness is so much more common among those who prefer vinyl to CD. But at least they don't have expectation bias that CD *must* sound better because of its better specs. :-) That's true, but luckily the *real* sonic differences are so large that expectation bias is not a significant factor. Unfortunately your claim is completely at odds with the research on psychoacoustics. I would expect someone who insists that others do research on the subject to know as much. The *fact* is that biases can profoundly affect *preferences* even when sonic differences are gross. Scott Wheeler |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
Jenn: I can only go by my
observations. Is vinyl more accurate? I have no idea, and I have very little interest in that part of the hobby. Norman: Then might I be so bold as writing, I think you posted in the wrong newsgroup. Peace Norman Perhaps so. Peace, back attcha |
#107
|
|||
|
|||
Chung: Please read carefully. You grossly misrepresented my
position. Again, here is what I said (which you once again snipped): " I might be wrong, I guess, but it seems like such display of technical cluelessness is so much more common among those who prefer vinyl to CD I did not say that LP lovers tend to be technically clueless. I am saying that when we see posts extolling the technical virtues of vinyl that are factually wrong, they tend to come from vinyl lovers. Do you see that huge difference between what I wrote and what you assumed that I wrote? I don't see a HUGE difference, but, OK, the difference is noted. Chung: Perhaps it is a simple reflection that vinyl lovers cannot explain why they prefer the vinyl sound, because measurements indicate the vinyl medium is less accurate. So their repeated assertion is that the vinyl sound is "truer to that ideal/live music". But stating that "vinyl sound is truer to that ideal/live music" IS an explanation of why we prefer the vinyl sound. Isn't that also a partial explanation of why you prefer CD sound? Chung: Certainly I, and others, have repeatedly expressed our observation that the CD sound reproduces the live acoustic event so much better. I gave some CD piano recording as an example. You obviously missed those posts. That's why I ask you for evidence supportion your assertion that CD lovers do not talk much about music, which is a really wrong (to put it mildly) observation. No, I didn't miss your posts about piano sound. I even responded to them. I haven't seen anyone else here talk about the sound of music. Perhaps that happened before I started reading the group. So, in my experience here, there has one person here talk about the sound of music. I never wrote that CD lovers never talk about the sound of music. If you are saying that I did, you are "grossly misrepresenting" my position. By the way, I heard a CD yesterday that blew me away. It was an ADD disk of an EMI recording of the Vaughan Williams Sea Symphony. Stunning. On another tract, I've been thinking about this whole issue and discussion quite a bit, and trying to think more specifically about why I prefer, in general, LP sound. Last night, I conducted perforance #5 of a 10 show run of "Cabaret." During one tune that I don't have to concentrate very much on, I concentrated on the sound of the instruments. I think that the timbre of certain instruments is what throws me off on much of CD. The saxophones last night, for example, didn't have that hard edge that I hear so much on CD and so little on good LP. I guess that this is what I was speaking of much earlier here when I mentioned the "headache factor" I get with some CD. Perhaps it has something to do with how some digital deals with high frequences; I don't know. Something for me to think about anyway! |
#108
|
|||
|
|||
Jenn: Fair enough. But I'm afraid that I didn't express myself too
well on this. What I meant was that there seems to be little discussion by those who rely on measurement about the SOUND of music in their systems. Bob: When you listen to a favorite recording, what are you most struck by? The quality of its reproduction by your system? The recording quality? Or the quality of the composition and its performance? All of those things, but mostly #3. Also, how much do the intstruments and voice sound like the real thing. I'm always most affected by #3, although I am liable to notice #2 when the recording is particularly well-made. Except when I am specifically tinkering with it--which I don't do much of these days--I pay no notice at all to my system. So "the sound of music in my system" is indistinguishable to me from "the sound of music." A big reason is that I am reasonably confident that, based on both technical grounds and listening preferences, my system is as good as I can make it right now given budgetary and room (and spouse-imposed) constraints. That's as good an explanation as I can give for why I, personally, don't talk much here about "the sound of music in my system." On other discussion groups, you will find people who will wax poetic about "the sound of music on their systems." Frequently, you will see them make assumptions about the impact that a particular piece of gear has on that "sound" that are simply preposterous. Personally, I'd rather talk about technical stuff with people who know what they're talking about than music with people who don't. That;s fair. I just find it interesting to discuss the extent to whcih home equipment affects how much music in the home sounds like...music. That seems to me to be the true test of the equipment and the recordings. Jenn: I suppose that this is typical; the old Jullian Hersh vs. Harry Pearson issue :-) Bob: I'm not sure Harry Pearson could talk about the technical merits of a piece of audio gear if his life depended on it. As for Hirsch, he most certainly did talk about the sound of music in his system. He said it basically sounded the same whatever competently designed amp he used. I don't think that Harry ever claimed to be able to discuss techical merrits. Jullian did talk about the sound, as you mention, especially later in his career (the effect of AS and Sterophile?) But as you say, everything pretty much sound alike to him, which I found lacking. |
#109
|
|||
|
|||
|
#110
|
|||
|
|||
Jenn wrote:
Chung: Please read carefully. You grossly misrepresented my position. Again, here is what I said (which you once again snipped): " I might be wrong, I guess, but it seems like such display of technical cluelessness is so much more common among those who prefer vinyl to CD I did not say that LP lovers tend to be technically clueless. I am saying that when we see posts extolling the technical virtues of vinyl that are factually wrong, they tend to come from vinyl lovers. Do you see that huge difference between what I wrote and what you assumed that I wrote? I don't see a HUGE difference, but, OK, the difference is noted. ? It's an elementary syllogism (whether you accept it as accurate is another matter): Most technically clueless posts are made by vinylphiles. Post X was technically clueless. Therefore Poster X is probably a vinylphile But it does *not* follow that most vinylphiles are technically clueless. Chung: Perhaps it is a simple reflection that vinyl lovers cannot explain why they prefer the vinyl sound, because measurements indicate the vinyl medium is less accurate. So their repeated assertion is that the vinyl sound is "truer to that ideal/live music". But stating that "vinyl sound is truer to that ideal/live music" IS an explanation of why we prefer the vinyl sound. Isn't that also a partial explanation of why you prefer CD sound? Yet both can't be true unless you define 'truer to the ideal' differently for each, can they? Or unless 'truer to the idea; has *no* objective meaning. On another tract, I've been thinking about this whole issue and discussion quite a bit, and trying to think more specifically about why I prefer, in general, LP sound. Last night, I conducted perforance #5 of a 10 show run of "Cabaret." During one tune that I don't have to concentrate very much on, I concentrated on the sound of the instruments. I think that the timbre of certain instruments is what throws me off on much of CD. The saxophones last night, for example, didn't have that hard edge that I hear so much on CD and so little on good LP. I guess that this is what I was speaking of much earlier here when I mentioned the "headache factor" I get with some CD. Perhaps it has something to do with how some digital deals with high frequences; I don't know. Something for me to think about anyway! Perhaps LP simply *rolls off * those high frequencies, such that there cannot be a 'hard edge' in a room the size of an average listening room. A live saxoophone in such a space might also exhibit that 'hard edge'. -- -S It's not my business to do intelligent work. -- D. Rumsfeld, testifying before the House Armed Services Committee |
#111
|
|||
|
|||
Chung: Please read carefully. You grossly misrepresented my
position. Again, here is what I said (which you once again snipped): " I might be wrong, I guess, but it seems like such display of technical cluelessness is so much more common among those who prefer vinyl to CD I did not say that LP lovers tend to be technically clueless. I am saying that when we see posts extolling the technical virtues of vinyl that are factually wrong, they tend to come from vinyl lovers. Do you see that huge difference between what I wrote and what you assumed that I wrote? I don't see a HUGE difference, but, OK, the difference is noted. Steven: ? It's an elementary syllogism (whether you accept it as accurate is another matter): Most technically clueless posts are made by vinylphiles. Post X was technically clueless. Therefore Poster X is probably a vinylphile But it does *not* follow that most vinylphiles are technically clueless. True, thanks. Chung: Perhaps it is a simple reflection that vinyl lovers cannot explain why they prefer the vinyl sound, because measurements indicate the vinyl medium is less accurate. So their repeated assertion is that the vinyl sound is "truer to that ideal/live music". Jenn: But stating that "vinyl sound is truer to that ideal/live music" IS an explanation of why we prefer the vinyl sound. Isn't that also a partial explanation of why you prefer CD sound? Steven: Yet both can't be true unless you define 'truer to the ideal' differently for each, can they? Or unless 'truer to the idea; has *no* objective meaning. My quote was, of course, a response to Mr. Chung's statement that "vinyl people" cannot explain why we like vinyl better. Interesting point you bring up: does "truer to the ideal" really have ANY objective meaning? Perhaps it doesn't, as we all hear differently (objectively) and we all have different standards. Jenn: On another tract, I've been thinking about this whole issue and discussion quite a bit, and trying to think more specifically about why I prefer, in general, LP sound. Last night, I conducted perforance #5 of a 10 show run of "Cabaret." During one tune that I don't have to concentrate very much on, I concentrated on the sound of the instruments. I think that the timbre of certain instruments is what throws me off on much of CD. The saxophones last night, for example, didn't have that hard edge that I hear so much on CD and so little on good LP. I guess that this is what I was speaking of much earlier here when I mentioned the "headache factor" I get with some CD. Perhaps it has something to do with how some digital deals with high frequences; I don't know. Something for me to think about anyway! Steven: Perhaps LP simply *rolls off * those high frequencies, such that there cannot be a 'hard edge' in a room the size of an average listening room. Perhaps so, and that was kind of my point when I started this whole mess: Does it even MATTER if the highs are rolled off in a given medium, if that rolling off makes the end product sound more like music to a given listener? A live saxoophone in such a space might also exhibit that 'hard edge'. Not in the case that I spoke about. In the hall we were playing in, with these saxophonists, playing in this style, there WAS no hard edge; I 've only heard that once on any recording on CD. |
#112
|
|||
|
|||
Steven: No, because in both the primary and secondary definition,
the focus is on the *equipment*, not the the music, nor even on the 'emotional experience'. I'm in favor of discussing equipment as it relates to the musical experience. That's why I dropped in. I just don't discuss measurements and such because A. I don't trust them, as I've had too much experience with gear that measures "well" and sounds bad, and, B. I know very little about them, frankly. I still like to talk about and opine about the gear, however. But even if Jenn wants to assert that vinyl gives her a stronger emotional experience than CDs, and not try to explain *why* that happens in technical terms, she probably won't run into any flak. Too late! :-) |
#113
|
|||
|
|||
Jenn wrote:
Chung: Please read carefully. You grossly misrepresented my position. Again, here is what I said (which you once again snipped): " I might be wrong, I guess, but it seems like such display of technical cluelessness is so much more common among those who prefer vinyl to CD I did not say that LP lovers tend to be technically clueless. I am saying that when we see posts extolling the technical virtues of vinyl that are factually wrong, they tend to come from vinyl lovers. Do you see that huge difference between what I wrote and what you assumed that I wrote? I don't see a HUGE difference, but, OK, the difference is noted. Let me try to clarify it with an example: Let's assume that I find 100 posts that make grossly wrong technical claims. I find that 95 of those are made by people who prefer LPs's over CD's. Based on that, I say "It seems like such display of techncical cluelessness is so much more common among who prefer vinyl to CD". I, in no way, imply by that statement that LP lovers tend to be technically clueless. There might very well be thousands of LP lovers who are technically savvy, who understand the advantages of CD over vinyl, but still prefer certain vinyl recordings for a host of reasons. Does this help? Chung: Perhaps it is a simple reflection that vinyl lovers cannot explain why they prefer the vinyl sound, because measurements indicate the vinyl medium is less accurate. So their repeated assertion is that the vinyl sound is "truer to that ideal/live music". But stating that "vinyl sound is truer to that ideal/live music" IS an explanation of why we prefer the vinyl sound. Isn't that also a partial explanation of why you prefer CD sound? I am not sure what you are arguing about. Those who prefer CD's do not necessarily need to provide the reason why they prefers CD's over vinyl. The strengths of the CD medium are well known, and supported by sales. A lot of times, they just assume it is universally accepted that CD's and digital audio provide a higher level of accuracy. OTOH, some of those who prefer vinyl somehow have to validate their preference. They cannot do it on technical terms, so they would be much more likely to come up with reasons like "much closer to ideal", "must closer to memory", and so on. In case you missed it, I repeat it he Even not based on technical merits that are measureable, CD's provide a much higher level of fidelity, i.e., accuracy to the source, than vinyl to me. Chung: Certainly I, and others, have repeatedly expressed our observation that the CD sound reproduces the live acoustic event so much better. I gave some CD piano recording as an example. You obviously missed those posts. That's why I ask you for evidence supportion your assertion that CD lovers do not talk much about music, which is a really wrong (to put it mildly) observation. No, I didn't miss your posts about piano sound. I even responded to them. I haven't seen anyone else here talk about the sound of music. OK, have you noticed that there are CD lovers and vinyl lovers here? So if you haven't seen anyone else here talk much about the sound of music, you can draw the following conclusions: (a) People do not talk much about music in this forum. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that this is an *audio* forum, not a music forum. (b) Both those who love to talk about technical details on this forum, and those who don't, do not talk much about music on this forum. The wrong conclusion to draw is that those who talk about technical details do not talk much about music. Unfortunately that seems to be your conclusion. Perhaps that happened before I started reading the group. So, in my experience here, there has one person here talk about the sound of music. I never wrote that CD lovers never talk about the sound of music. If you are saying that I did, you are "grossly misrepresenting" my position. You said that those who are more into technical details and measurements don't talk much about music. You said that "in my experience, CD lovers tend to express their thoughts on gear in terms of specs and asurements" Note that I did not claimed that you wrote that CD lovers never talk about the sound of music. Please read what I wrote again. I simply asked you to provide evidence that CD lovers do not talk much about music. Wasn't that what you were saying (that CD lovers do not talk much about music)? By the way, I heard a CD yesterday that blew me away. It was an ADD disk of an EMI recording of the Vaughan Williams Sea Symphony. Stunning. On another tract, I've been thinking about this whole issue and discussion quite a bit, and trying to think more specifically about why I prefer, in general, LP sound. You know, many people have thought about this quite a bit, for the last twenty years or more. I can give you two reasons off the top of my head: (1) You prefer the way certain vinyl records are produced (mastered) over the CD counterpart. (2) Euphonic distortion is something that you really like. Gabe Wiener gave a good example of this. The Nazi's realized, before WW2, that a little bit of second harmonic distortion can add to the authority of a voice. So the PA amplifers they used for their speeches had intentionally higher second harmonic distortion, to make the speaker sound "better". In a similar way, distortion in the vinyl manufacturing and reproduction process can sometimes make certain sounds more "fuller", "airier", "more dynamic", "more micro-details" and so on. Excuse me, you don't want to worry about technical details. Last night, I conducted perforance #5 of a 10 show run of "Cabaret." During one tune that I don't have to concentrate very much on, I concentrated on the sound of the instruments. I think that the timbre of certain instruments is what throws me off on much of CD. The saxophones last night, for example, didn't have that hard edge that I hear so much on CD and so little on good LP. I guess that this is what I was speaking of much earlier here when I mentioned the "headache factor" I get with some CD. Perhaps it has something to do with how some digital deals with high frequences; I don't know. Something for me to think about anyway! Maybe your speakers are at fault. Maybe you have been listening to recordings with exaggerated highs. Many other reasons. |
#114
|
|||
|
|||
|
#116
|
|||
|
|||
Steven Sullivan wrote:
wrote: Norman M. Schwartz wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message ... musician. I can only go by my observations. Is vinyl more accurate? I have no idea, and I have very little interest in that part of the hobby. Then might I be so bold as writing, I think you posted in the wrong newsgroup. Peace Norman Not according to the newsgroup guidlines. 2.0 -- Definition of High-End Audio The working definition of 'high-end audio' under which this newsgroup operates is a) audio equipment whose primary and fundamental design goal is to reproduce a musical event as faithfully as possible; or b) audio equipment which attempts to provide an electromechanical realization of the emotional experience commonly called music; Looks like her posts are quite relevant to "b)" despite how much this may upset objectivists. No, because in both the primary and secondary definition, the focus is on the *equipment*, not the the music, nor even on the 'emotional experience'. You mean she wasn't talking about "equipment?" As much as objectivists like to disparage the virtues of vinyl playback I didn't realize you guys no longer consider turntables to be "equipment." But even if Jenn wants to assert that vinyl gives her a stronger emotional experience than CDs, and not try to explain *why* that happens in technical terms, she probably won't run into any flak. But alas, she did so and ran into some flak. Alas, my experience is that vinylphile are rarely content to assert a subjective preference, they also want to draw larger conclusions from it about intrinsic characteristics of the medium itself, oftin in comparison to other media. And there they almost invariably end up making questionable technical claims. They know what they hear and they are struggling for an explination. People, in general, are prone to draw eroneous conclusions on why things are the way they are. Doesn't change the way things are though. Unfortunately, the audiophile press fosters this sort of bad logic with its pervasive, usually unquestioned assumption that vinyl reproduction is the audio 'standard' to which other home playback media should aspire. It isn't an assumption it is a position based on listening experience. I dont think it is as pervasive in the audio press as you seem to think. Either way I'm not sure why it would be unfortunate or fortunate. The audio press are just critics when it comes to their preferences. Who cares? Scott Wheeler |
#117
|
|||
|
|||
Chung: (snipped for brevity only) Does this help?
As I said to another poster, yes, I understand. OK, have you noticed that there are CD lovers and vinyl lovers here? So if you haven't seen anyone else here talk much about the sound of music, you can draw the following conclusions: (a) People do not talk much about music in this forum. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that this is an *audio* forum, not a music forum. (b) Both those who love to talk about technical details on this forum, and those who don't, do not talk much about music on this forum. The wrong conclusion to draw is that those who talk about technical details do not talk much about music. Unfortunately that seems to be your conclusion. I'm only going on past and present experience, as I've said before. And just to clarify again, I'm not seeking discussion about music per se here, as I get that elsewhere, including daily at work. What I am referring to is discussion about the sound of music through audio systems. (2) Euphonic distortion is something that you really like. Gabe Wiener gave a good example of this. The Nazi's realized, before WW2, that a little bit of second harmonic distortion can add to the authority of a voice. So the PA amplifers they used for their speeches had intentionally higher second harmonic distortion, to make the speaker sound "better". In a similar way, distortion in the vinyl manufacturing and reproduction process can sometimes make certain sounds more "fuller", "airier", "more dynamic", "more micro-details" and so on. Excuse me, you don't want to worry about technical details. I do understand some things about specific harmonic distortion, because it relates to the sound of things that I conduct and play in concert halls, the perception of intonation differences, and so on. Perhaps what you say is true. But again, I come to this: if what I like in LP is some form of distortion, that's OK by me, if it sounds more like live acoustic music. Why would it bother me, or anyone else, if the sound is musical? Are we not in this hobby to get as life-like a sound as possible? Perhaps this is my mistake; maybe that's not a universal desire. Maybe your speakers are at fault. Maybe you have been listening to recordings with exaggerated highs. Many other reasons. A. My generalized observations are based on hearing a great deal of gear. For example, my trail of speaker ownership for the past 25 years or so would read: Bose 901, DCM Timewindows, Maggies, Martin-Logan Seqeul II, Vandersteen 2. Quite a variety, plus what I've heard in other systems. B. As to what recordings I listen to, well, it covers the gammit in classical music and folk (for fun, I also play finger-style acoustic guitar, and I sub for the accompanist for a well-known folk trio), CDs and LP recorded all sorts of ways, by every imaginable label, etc. Like most people here, I suspect, I own a lot of recordings. Look, I didn't come here to pitch a bitch. If people want to leave, I will. I just thought it would be fun to contribue and learn, and I also thought that having the input of someone more familiar with the sound of acoustic music than are most people might be interesting to others. Perhaps I should just bow out... |
#118
|
|||
|
|||
"Jenn" wrote in message
... snip ... Not in the case that I spoke about. In the hall we were playing in, with these saxophonists, playing in this style, there WAS no hard edge; I 've only heard that once on any recording on CD. Many engineers use large diameter mics on brass....and these invariably seem to have an upper midrange "presence" rise, oft times as low as 4-5khz, in addition to a rising high end. More importantly, engineers have also tended to mic brass close up .... even if using an overall hall pickup, they will often spotlight the brass, the woodwinds, the violins. A true "purist" recording will almost never have "edgy" brass. Unfortunately, there have not been many true "purist" recordings done from the early seventies until just the last few years. With "purist" recording (spaced omni's, M-S,X-Y,Blumlein,ORTF,Jecklin disk), even if mics with rising high-ends are used, they are at enough distance that it doesn't create "edge". That's one reason the older RCA "Living Stereo" and Mercury "Living Presence" recordings sound so good. With a few exceptions (and very minor one's at that) they were done using "purist" mic techniques. In the studio anything goes. But sometimes the results can be quite good....play Branford Marsalis's "Trio Jeepy" if you want to hear a good reproduction of sax in the studio. But judging from some of the cuts on this cd, my guess is the engineers did use some fairly naturalistic if not outright purist techniques. To me it is encouraging that in the last decade there seems to be a swing back to understanding and using more "purist" mic technique in both location and studio recording. The "schooling" of young recordists is often derided by old hands (read seventies-raised engineers) but one of the advantages of such schooling is that they give the students both theoretical understanding and practical understanding of such techniques and their use. I myself attended one of the very first (if not *the* first) of such schools, founded by John Woram, The Institute of Audio Engineering, back in the early seventies and as a result was able to do first class acoustic recording at a time when it was somewhat of a lost art. |
#119
|
|||
|
|||
On 8 May 2005 15:45:00 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On 7 May 2005 14:12:29 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote: "chung" wrote in message ... snip I might be wrong, I guess, but it seems like such display of technical cluelessness is so much more common among those who prefer vinyl to CD. But at least they don't have expectation bias that CD *must* sound better because of its better specs. :-) That's true, but luckily the *real* sonic differences are so large that expectation bias is not a significant factor. Sorry Stewart but on my and many other people's systems there is no *real* sonic difference in favor of CD...simply a convenience difference. I didn't say CD was 'better', simply that it is definitely different. You say your system is "tuned" to CD. It's tuned for *any* neutral source, which makes it much easier to use multiple sources. Linn-based systems tend to be heavily biased in favour of a particularly coloured form of vinyl, which wrecks the performance with truly neutral sources. I am *never* surprised when a Linnie tells me that he prefers vinyl........... Mine is "tuned" to the sound of live, acoustic music as best I can do it, and the individual source components are selected for accuracy to this goal. Thus they tend to sound virtually alike. I believe many other audiophiles do the same thing. Indeed they do, and so do I - that is precisely *why* mine is set up to make the best use of a truly neutral source - be that CD, DVD, open-reel tape, or a live FM broadcast. It takes considerable time and effoprt to approach that same sound balance with vinyl, but my fairly 'dry' GyroDec/RB300/OC9 rig gets reasonably close. Of course, it also helps that I'm a regular concert-goer - got to keep that 'Absolute Sound' reference fresh in the mind! -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#120
|
|||
|
|||
|
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
What are they Teaching | Audio Opinions | |||
newbie question - aardvark q10 + external mixer? | Pro Audio | |||
Simple science question | Audio Opinions | |||
Newbie question: What software 2 use 4 recording 2 x AES/EBU (2xstereo) | General | |||
simple crossover question | General |