Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#361
|
|||
|
|||
Jenn wrote:
In article , Steven Sullivan wrote: Jenn wrote: In article , Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 11 Jul 2005 00:53:12 GMT, Jenn wrote: In article , Steven Sullivan wrote: Jenn wrote: Steven Sullivan wrote: Jenn wrote: In article , Chung wrote: I bought Donald Fagen's "Nightfly" CD when it first came out, and it was a startlingly clear recording. That was back in 1983 IIRC, and my friends who had not listened to CD's before simply could not get over the cleanliness of the sound. Some of them converted to CD right then, and never looked back. The question of whether the CD or the vinyl LP version sounded more "life-like" was not on anyone's mind. That's too bad. Of course, in pop music, "life-like" is less of an issue than in acoustic music, don't you agree? Interesting that you respond only to Chung's note, rather than the anecdote he's responding to. Mssrs. Nichols et al. obviously thought the digital chain sounded more like the *band playing live at the same time* than the Studer. 1. Does this band really record while all playing at the same time? If so, they are the exception to common practice. WHo says all the band were listening? I presume it was just Nichols and Fagan. Remember, they were listening for which chain sounded more like a band playing live.. But if the band never played the recording live in the studio.... They did however play the songs *many* times on tour, so one must suppose that they knew what sounded most like a live performance. Please believe that this isn't intended as a "flame", but I must say that this part of the discussion has taken a tract that I find simply astonishing! People on your "side" of this issue often speak of the need to carefully adjust for output volume, test blindly, etc. in order to get a valid listening test. I understand this desire. But then you are using, as a point of debate here about Nichols, Fagan, et al preferring the digital sound for the recording under discussion, a recording for which the "original sound" never existed (i.e. the musicians never played all together in the studio)! You know this with such certainlyu *how*? Meaning, you know this for sure, in direct contradiction to what Nichols, who was there, recounts...how? The presumption is that they didn't make the recording with all players and singers performing at once because that is the way it is/was usually done. Did Nichols say otherwise? Meaning, you *don't* know. Thanks. Now I have a question: Has Nichols said that a band's worth of performers was never gathered in a studio when SD recorded? Because I have read otherwise. Besides, do you *seriously* imagine* that if Roger Nichols and Donald Fagan wanted a band to play in the studio , for the purpose of comparing that sound to the sound of the Studer and the new digital recorder, they couldn't arrange for that to occur? This presumption that he simply *could not* have had a band play a song live in the studio -- just because Steely Dan, like many acts since the 70's, tended not to release 'live in the studio' recordings -- is absurd. SD could and did have a band's worth of musicians on hand; doubtless they could have them rehearse, set down guide versions, warm up together...or play on request so Nichols could compare his two rigs. No reason to believe Fagan did things differently as a solo act. But again, there are many presumptions there. "A band's worth of musicians on hand"? "Rehearse"? "Warm up"? The idea that these are outrageously unlikely occurences, when a SD/Fagan album was being recorded circa 1983, is the far more absurd presumption here. All I am saying is that you folks argue in favor of matched level listening down to a couple of dB, etc to make legit listening comparisons, then you also argue about the listening comparison of a recording of an event that probably never actually took place live! It seems like a contradiction to me. There is no contradiction, there is only a fantastic presumption on your part, which you seem to stick to merely to prop up your prejudice. Your presumption of what is 'probable' is contradicted *directly* by the testimony of the recording engineer himself, as well as by common studio practice. The final recording is never the entire picture of a series of recording sessions. An obsessively overdubbed final product is not sufficient logical grounds to assert that musicians 'probably never' played together in the studio during the sessions.... or that they 'probably never' were even *there* all at the same time. So if Roger Nichols claims he had a band play in the studio -- particularly in the course of recounting an equipment comparison trial -- there's no sensible reason to assert that he 'probably' didn't. His comparison method *is* certainly open to rational critique, but you've picked the weakest, most irrational of legs to stand on. -- -S "You know what love really is? It's like you've swallowed a great big secret. A warm wonderful secret that nobody else knows about." - 'Blame it on Rio' |
#362
|
|||
|
|||
Jenn wrote:
In article , Chung wrote: Steven Sullivan wrote: Jenn wrote: In article , Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 11 Jul 2005 00:53:12 GMT, Jenn wrote: In article , Steven Sullivan wrote: Jenn wrote: Steven Sullivan wrote: Jenn wrote: In article , Chung wrote: I bought Donald Fagen's "Nightfly" CD when it first came out, and it was a startlingly clear recording. That was back in 1983 IIRC, and my friends who had not listened to CD's before simply could not get over the cleanliness of the sound. Some of them converted to CD right then, and never looked back. The question of whether the CD or the vinyl LP version sounded more "life-like" was not on anyone's mind. That's too bad. Of course, in pop music, "life-like" is less of an issue than in acoustic music, don't you agree? Interesting that you respond only to Chung's note, rather than the anecdote he's responding to. Mssrs. Nichols et al. obviously thought the digital chain sounded more like the *band playing live at the same time* than the Studer. 1. Does this band really record while all playing at the same time? If so, they are the exception to common practice. WHo says all the band were listening? I presume it was just Nichols and Fagan. Remember, they were listening for which chain sounded more like a band playing live.. But if the band never played the recording live in the studio.... They did however play the songs *many* times on tour, so one must suppose that they knew what sounded most like a live performance. Please believe that this isn't intended as a "flame", but I must say that this part of the discussion has taken a tract that I find simply astonishing! People on your "side" of this issue often speak of the need to carefully adjust for output volume, test blindly, etc. in order to get a valid listening test. I understand this desire. But then you are using, as a point of debate here about Nichols, Fagan, et al preferring the digital sound for the recording under discussion, a recording for which the "original sound" never existed (i.e. the musicians never played all together in the studio)! You know this with such certainlyu *how*? Meaning, you know this for sure, in direct contradiction to what Nichols, who was there, recounts...how? This presumption that he simply *could not* have had a band play a song live in the studio -- just because Steely Dan, like many acts since the 70's, tended not to release 'live in the studio' recordings -- is absurd. SD could and did have a band's worth of musicians on hand; doubtless they could have them rehearse, set down guide versions, warm up together...or play on request so Nichols could compare his two rigs. No reason to believe Fagan did things differently as a solo act. What Jenn appeared to miss is that the SD/Nichols experience was *NOT* a listening test to rigorously determine if there were any sonic differences between one source and another. It is simply an account, by Nichols, of what SD/Nichols felt at the time they were trying to evaluate the sound quality of the digital recorder. No one on "our side" has said that it was a proof of the superiority of digital. It is simply an anecdote to support the fact that there are widely respected audio pros who prefer digital recording, even back in the early '80's when the equipment was still crude compared to today's. SD/Nichols certainly had the ability to compare live sounds vs recorded sound. They could simply record individual tracks (like a drum solo for instance) and compare live vs. recorded versions. If we had used this anecdote as scientific proof that the digital audio recorder is better than the analog tape recorder, then Jenn would have a strong position to question whether level matching was done. Which Nichols could easily have done, btw. It was my understanding that a poster was using Nichols et al statements as showing that they believed that digital was superior to analogue based on the recording in question: "Mssrs. Nichols et al. obviously thought the digital chain sounded more like the *band playing live at the same time* than the Studer." I simply point out that this condition never actually happened, i.e. the band didn't play all at the same time in the session, most likely. I thought you were explicitly asking about the need for controls, and being "astonished" that "our side" has brought up a "listening test" with no controls in place as "a point of debate"? And how do you know that the band (or some members of the band) could not have been playing at the same time, so that Nichols/Fagen could do a comparison between the recorders and the live performance? If what another poster has since written, that the session was only recorded in analogue, and what we are really discussing is a remastering of the analogue recording (sorry, I'm not familiar with the recording, the session, or the work of the band beyond what I've heard on the radio), then my point is even stronger, as we are relying on the distant memory of Nichols et al of what the session sounded like; a session where, again, the musicians probably never played together in the first place. Again, this is not a rigorous listening test to tell subtle differences apart. And of course, the band or some members of the band can surely provide a reference. Contrast that to your claim that vinyl is more likelike than CD. In the majority of those comparisons you were not present in the recording sessions, and did not even have memory to base your comparisons on. Similarly, when we heard Jenn's account of how vinyl was more life-like to her compared to CD, we did not ask whether she did a level-matched, blind comparison. (For one thing the differences are not subtle at all so that there is no need for blinding.) However, when Jenn said that almost all CD players sounded different as a statement with some applicability to others, then we would want to understand whether she has taken the necessary steps to insure a fair comparison. Because those differences are very subtle. Just out of curiosity, for those (like Jenn, e.g.) who feel that vinyl is more lifelike, does it matter whether the vinyl version was based on a digital recording? Like "Nightfly" for instance? Does a digitally recorded vinyl LP still sound better than the CD version? Usually, in my experience. An example would be the 3 LPs recorded by my mentor, Frederick Fennell, for Telarc. The first one was the first symphonic digital recording made in the U.S. and I was present at the sessions. The LP is, in my view, clearly superior to the CD. The data recorded in the CD is a direct, clean, reproduction of the digital recording. The vinyl version goes through many steps where substantial errors and inaccuracies were added. An interesting note (and again, I admit that I know little about the technology), is that the LP lists its sampling rate as 50,000 samples per second. CD has a sampling rate of 44.1 KHz. Assuming your information is correct, a sampling rate conversion is performed to produce the CD. It is straightforward to perform a sampling rate conversion with no changes in attributes like tonal balance, etc., that people notice in LP vs CD comparisons. If so, wouldn't that point to euphonic distortion being an important reason for the perceived "life-likeness"? And that digital audio is not responsible for any lack of "life-likeness"? Perhaps, perhaps not. The CD technology could be messing things up, for example. Of course there is no technology that cannot be messed up by someone unskilful, or intentionally messed up. But to claim the CD technology is messing things up, you need to show that there are no excellent CD recordings at all. And you will also be saying that the 50KHz sampling technology employed by Telarc is great, but the 44.1 KHz technology is somehow responsible for the inferior sound. Not a likely reason, because there are also digital recordings based on CD sampling rates where you prefer the vinyl versions. The logical deduction is that the vinyl LP will be a lot less like the digital recording than the CD is, because of the many steps known to introduce errors involved in making the vinyl version. So if the LP and CD sounds substantially different, you have a good bet on which one is closer to the original digital recording. |
#363
|
|||
|
|||
Chung wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote: Jenn wrote: In article , Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 11 Jul 2005 00:53:12 GMT, Jenn wrote: In article , Steven Sullivan wrote: Jenn wrote: Steven Sullivan wrote: Jenn wrote: In article , Chung wrote: I bought Donald Fagen's "Nightfly" CD when it first came out, and it was a startlingly clear recording. That was back in 1983 IIRC, and my friends who had not listened to CD's before simply could not get over the cleanliness of the sound. Some of them converted to CD right then, and never looked back. The question of whether the CD or the vinyl LP version sounded more "life-like" was not on anyone's mind. That's too bad. Of course, in pop music, "life-like" is less of an issue than in acoustic music, don't you agree? Interesting that you respond only to Chung's note, rather than the anecdote he's responding to. Mssrs. Nichols et al. obviously thought the digital chain sounded more like the *band playing live at the same time* than the Studer. 1. Does this band really record while all playing at the same time? If so, they are the exception to common practice. WHo says all the band were listening? I presume it was just Nichols and Fagan. Remember, they were listening for which chain sounded more like a band playing live.. But if the band never played the recording live in the studio.... They did however play the songs *many* times on tour, so one must suppose that they knew what sounded most like a live performance. Please believe that this isn't intended as a "flame", but I must say that this part of the discussion has taken a tract that I find simply astonishing! People on your "side" of this issue often speak of the need to carefully adjust for output volume, test blindly, etc. in order to get a valid listening test. I understand this desire. But then you are using, as a point of debate here about Nichols, Fagan, et al preferring the digital sound for the recording under discussion, a recording for which the "original sound" never existed (i.e. the musicians never played all together in the studio)! You know this with such certainlyu *how*? Meaning, you know this for sure, in direct contradiction to what Nichols, who was there, recounts...how? This presumption that he simply *could not* have had a band play a song live in the studio -- just because Steely Dan, like many acts since the 70's, tended not to release 'live in the studio' recordings -- is absurd. SD could and did have a band's worth of musicians on hand; doubtless they could have them rehearse, set down guide versions, warm up together...or play on request so Nichols could compare his two rigs. No reason to believe Fagan did things differently as a solo act. What Jenn appeared to miss is that the SD/Nichols experience was *NOT* a listening test to rigorously determine if there were any sonic differences between one source and another. 1.It was Donald Fagen not Steely Dan. Not a trivial difference. 2. I'm not buying these claims on Nichol's intent for these tests. It was new technology and I *suspect* he was trying to be rigorous and he was trying to determine the differences of each medium compared to a live feed. While Nichols is a very respected engineer and I have no doubt he does care about sound quality, judging by his work, I don't think realism is one of his priorities. I think this has added to the confusion. It seems he was considering that aspect of the recorders in his comparison. It is simply an account, by Nichols, of what SD/Nichols felt at the time they were trying to evaluate the sound quality of the digital recorder. No one on "our side" has said that it was a proof of the superiority of digital. It is simply an anecdote to support the fact that there are widely respected audio pros who prefer digital recording, even back in the early '80's when the equipment was still crude compared to today's. I don't see anyone taking issue with that point. I think the confusion is that Nichols' test of the recorders was apparently done with a live group of musicians hut the album was a multitracked, overdubbed processed recording. I think the point that will clarify everything is simple. Nichols' test obviously was not done with the final product, the recording of The Nightfly. SD/Nichols certainly had the ability to compare live sounds vs recorded sound. They could simply record individual tracks (like a drum solo for instance) and compare live vs. recorded versions. I think the anecdote speaks fairly clearly as to what they actually did. Again, I think the confusion came in with the discussion of the sound quality of the final product which was not the result of a live band playing together in studio. If we had used this anecdote as scientific proof that the digital audio recorder is better than the analog tape recorder, then Jenn would have a strong position to question whether level matching was done. I think it is a fair and reasonable question regardles of any claims "you" had made about the meaning and significance of the anecdote. Which Nichols could easily have done, btw. Hence she asked a question rather than make a presumption of fact. Similarly, when we heard Jenn's account of how vinyl was more life-like to her compared to CD, we did not ask whether she did a level-matched, blind comparison. Now that would not have been a fair or reasonable question since her claim was not in regards to a specific single recording. (For one thing the differences are not subtle at all so that there is no need for blinding.) Are you suggesting that significant differences erase any effects of bias? I think the research suggests otherwise. However, when Jenn said that almost all CD players sounded different as a statement with some applicability to others, then we would want to understand whether she has taken the necessary steps to insure a fair comparison. Because those differences are very subtle. But you are comfortable with unfair preference comparisons so long as you pesonally are confident that an audible difference exists? Just out of curiosity, for those (like Jenn, e.g.) who feel that vinyl is more lifelike, does it matter whether the vinyl version was based on a digital recording? Like "Nightfly" for instance? My preferences are not predetermined by the nature of the source. There are digitally recorded albums like The Nightfly where my favorite version is on vinyl and there are albums like Aja which was an analog recording where my favorite version is on CD. For m the choice is *always* determined by direct comparisons. I don't rely on my presumptions and I am often surprised by the results. My claim for a general preference for vinyl is based on the numbers. In my comparisons it is a vinyl version that is prefered most of the time. And the very best of the very best I have in my collections are from LPs. That is the basis of my claims of overall preference. Does a digitally recorded vinyl LP still sound better than the CD version? Often, not always. If so, wouldn't that point to euphonic distortion being an important reason for the perceived "life-likeness"? It might. There are other reasonable explinations. I'm not too worried about that since it would be hard to really find out. I would rather have the folks making CDs and LPs worry about that. And that digital audio is not responsible for any lack of "life-likeness"? Again, that's for the pros to figure out. I'm just interested in the end results. Scott Wheeler |
#364
|
|||
|
|||
On 15 Jul 2005 20:10:41 GMT, Jenn wrote:
But again, there are many presumptions there. "A band's worth of musicians on hand"? "Rehearse"? "Warm up"? All I am saying is that you folks argue in favor of matched level listening down to a couple of dB, etc to make legit listening comparisons, then you also argue about the listening comparison of a recording of an event that probably never actually took place live! It seems like a contradiction to me. That's because you're missing the point. The comparison is not between two pieces of equipment, but among the opinions of professional musicians. Some of those claim that vinyl is more 'lifelike', others claim that to be true of CD. Neither opinion has scientific rigour, so they have equal (lack of) value. Basically, one regular poster always trots out Boyk as a supporter of vinyl, so trotting out Fagen is simply a counterbalance. Similarly, your opinion in this regard has no more value than that of any of the others previously quoted, or of any experienced audiophile. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#365
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 15 Jul 2005 20:10:41 GMT, Jenn wrote: But again, there are many presumptions there. "A band's worth of musicians on hand"? "Rehearse"? "Warm up"? All I am saying is that you folks argue in favor of matched level listening down to a couple of dB, etc to make legit listening comparisons, then you also argue about the listening comparison of a recording of an event that probably never actually took place live! It seems like a contradiction to me. That's because you're missing the point. The comparison is not between two pieces of equipment, but among the opinions of professional musicians. Some of those claim that vinyl is more 'lifelike', others claim that to be true of CD. Neither opinion has scientific rigour, so they have equal (lack of) value. Perhaps I misunderstood the post, as I'm rather distracted away from these matters at the moment. Wasn't the point that Fagen et al preferred the CD sound because it sounded more like the session? Basically, one regular poster always trots out Boyk as a supporter of vinyl, so trotting out Fagen is simply a counterbalance. Similarly, your opinion in this regard has no more value than that of any of the others previously quoted, or of any experienced audiophile. I never claimed that my opinion carried more weight, but rather that I have a certain insight into the sound of live music because I hear live music a great deal more than do most people. |
#366
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Chung
wrote: Jenn wrote: In article , Chung wrote: Steven Sullivan wrote: Jenn wrote: In article , Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 11 Jul 2005 00:53:12 GMT, Jenn wrote: In article , Steven Sullivan wrote: Jenn wrote: Steven Sullivan wrote: Jenn wrote: In article , Chung wrote: I bought Donald Fagen's "Nightfly" CD when it first came out, and it was a startlingly clear recording. That was back in 1983 IIRC, and my friends who had not listened to CD's before simply could not get over the cleanliness of the sound. Some of them converted to CD right then, and never looked back. The question of whether the CD or the vinyl LP version sounded more "life-like" was not on anyone's mind. That's too bad. Of course, in pop music, "life-like" is less of an issue than in acoustic music, don't you agree? Interesting that you respond only to Chung's note, rather than the anecdote he's responding to. Mssrs. Nichols et al. obviously thought the digital chain sounded more like the *band playing live at the same time* than the Studer. 1. Does this band really record while all playing at the same time? If so, they are the exception to common practice. WHo says all the band were listening? I presume it was just Nichols and Fagan. Remember, they were listening for which chain sounded more like a band playing live.. But if the band never played the recording live in the studio.... They did however play the songs *many* times on tour, so one must suppose that they knew what sounded most like a live performance. Please believe that this isn't intended as a "flame", but I must say that this part of the discussion has taken a tract that I find simply astonishing! People on your "side" of this issue often speak of the need to carefully adjust for output volume, test blindly, etc. in order to get a valid listening test. I understand this desire. But then you are using, as a point of debate here about Nichols, Fagan, et al preferring the digital sound for the recording under discussion, a recording for which the "original sound" never existed (i.e. the musicians never played all together in the studio)! You know this with such certainlyu *how*? Meaning, you know this for sure, in direct contradiction to what Nichols, who was there, recounts...how? This presumption that he simply *could not* have had a band play a song live in the studio -- just because Steely Dan, like many acts since the 70's, tended not to release 'live in the studio' recordings -- is absurd. SD could and did have a band's worth of musicians on hand; doubtless they could have them rehearse, set down guide versions, warm up together...or play on request so Nichols could compare his two rigs. No reason to believe Fagan did things differently as a solo act. What Jenn appeared to miss is that the SD/Nichols experience was *NOT* a listening test to rigorously determine if there were any sonic differences between one source and another. It is simply an account, by Nichols, of what SD/Nichols felt at the time they were trying to evaluate the sound quality of the digital recorder. No one on "our side" has said that it was a proof of the superiority of digital. It is simply an anecdote to support the fact that there are widely respected audio pros who prefer digital recording, even back in the early '80's when the equipment was still crude compared to today's. SD/Nichols certainly had the ability to compare live sounds vs recorded sound. They could simply record individual tracks (like a drum solo for instance) and compare live vs. recorded versions. If we had used this anecdote as scientific proof that the digital audio recorder is better than the analog tape recorder, then Jenn would have a strong position to question whether level matching was done. Which Nichols could easily have done, btw. It was my understanding that a poster was using Nichols et al statements as showing that they believed that digital was superior to analogue based on the recording in question: "Mssrs. Nichols et al. obviously thought the digital chain sounded more like the *band playing live at the same time* than the Studer." I simply point out that this condition never actually happened, i.e. the band didn't play all at the same time in the session, most likely. I thought you were explicitly asking about the need for controls, and being "astonished" that "our side" has brought up a "listening test" with no controls in place as "a point of debate"? I was making a point that the opinion of some pros who favor the sound of CD was used to show that some pros like CD, when it is almost certainly true that no comparison to live music at the session is possible in that case. And how do you know that the band (or some members of the band) could not have been playing at the same time, so that Nichols/Fagen could do a comparison between the recorders and the live performance? Based on how pop recordings are made, I would find it very, very unusual if the band was playing live, as a total group, instrumentals and vocals. If what another poster has since written, that the session was only recorded in analogue, and what we are really discussing is a remastering of the analogue recording (sorry, I'm not familiar with the recording, the session, or the work of the band beyond what I've heard on the radio), then my point is even stronger, as we are relying on the distant memory of Nichols et al of what the session sounded like; a session where, again, the musicians probably never played together in the first place. Again, this is not a rigorous listening test to tell subtle differences apart. And I understand that. All I'm saying is that based on how those recordings are commonly made, a stated preference would carry little wight in this case, if the standard is the sound of live music. And of course, the band or some members of the band can surely provide a reference. Contrast that to your claim that vinyl is more likelike than CD. I think that this is OFTEN the case, yes.... In the majority of those comparisons you were not present in the recording sessions, and did not even have memory to base your comparisons on. Like anyone making comparisons in any subject, when, in my opinion, the sound of one medium is time after time, more lifelike, one can make a generalization, just as you do with your opinion on the sound of CDs. Similarly, when we heard Jenn's account of how vinyl was more life-like to her compared to CD, we did not ask whether she did a level-matched, blind comparison. (For one thing the differences are not subtle at all so that there is no need for blinding.) However, when Jenn said that almost all CD players sounded different as a statement with some applicability to others, then we would want to understand whether she has taken the necessary steps to insure a fair comparison. Because those differences are very subtle. Just out of curiosity, for those (like Jenn, e.g.) who feel that vinyl is more lifelike, does it matter whether the vinyl version was based on a digital recording? Like "Nightfly" for instance? Does a digitally recorded vinyl LP still sound better than the CD version? Usually, in my experience. An example would be the 3 LPs recorded by my mentor, Frederick Fennell, for Telarc. The first one was the first symphonic digital recording made in the U.S. and I was present at the sessions. The LP is, in my view, clearly superior to the CD. The data recorded in the CD is a direct, clean, reproduction of the digital recording. The vinyl version goes through many steps where substantial errors and inaccuracies were added. An interesting note (and again, I admit that I know little about the technology), is that the LP lists its sampling rate as 50,000 samples per second. CD has a sampling rate of 44.1 KHz. Yes, of course. Even **I** know that! :-) Assuming your information is correct, It is what is stated on the record jacket, and what Tom Stockham was saying at the sessions. a sampling rate conversion is performed to produce the CD. It is straightforward to perform a sampling rate conversion with no changes in attributes like tonal balance, etc., that people notice in LP vs CD comparisons. OK. I found it interesting that the sampling rate was higher on the LP than it is on CD. I wonder if that was common with the early digital LPs. If so, wouldn't that point to euphonic distortion being an important reason for the perceived "life-likeness"? And that digital audio is not responsible for any lack of "life-likeness"? Perhaps, perhaps not. The CD technology could be messing things up, for example. Of course there is no technology that cannot be messed up by someone unskilful, or intentionally messed up. But to claim the CD technology is messing things up, you need to show that there are no excellent CD recordings at all. And you will also be saying that the 50KHz sampling technology employed by Telarc is great, but the 44.1 KHz technology is somehow responsible for the inferior sound. Not a likely reason, because there are also digital recordings based on CD sampling rates where you prefer the vinyl versions. The logical deduction is that the vinyl LP will be a lot less like the digital recording than the CD is, because of the many steps known to introduce errors involved in making the vinyl version. So if the LP and CD sounds substantially different, you have a good bet on which one is closer to the original digital recording. All good points. And, I will restate my original point, made now months ago: I really don't care why LPs generally sound better to me; all that I know is, they do. If it is because of some type of distortion, that's OK by me. My only goal is to transport what I hear live into my listening room, to the extent that it's possible. |
#367
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote: Jenn wrote: In article , Steven Sullivan wrote: Jenn wrote: In article , Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 11 Jul 2005 00:53:12 GMT, Jenn wrote: In article , Steven Sullivan wrote: Jenn wrote: Steven Sullivan wrote: Jenn wrote: In article , Chung wrote: I bought Donald Fagen's "Nightfly" CD when it first came out, and it was a startlingly clear recording. That was back in 1983 IIRC, and my friends who had not listened to CD's before simply could not get over the cleanliness of the sound. Some of them converted to CD right then, and never looked back. The question of whether the CD or the vinyl LP version sounded more "life-like" was not on anyone's mind. That's too bad. Of course, in pop music, "life-like" is less of an issue than in acoustic music, don't you agree? Interesting that you respond only to Chung's note, rather than the anecdote he's responding to. Mssrs. Nichols et al. obviously thought the digital chain sounded more like the *band playing live at the same time* than the Studer. 1. Does this band really record while all playing at the same time? If so, they are the exception to common practice. WHo says all the band were listening? I presume it was just Nichols and Fagan. Remember, they were listening for which chain sounded more like a band playing live.. But if the band never played the recording live in the studio.... They did however play the songs *many* times on tour, so one must suppose that they knew what sounded most like a live performance. Please believe that this isn't intended as a "flame", but I must say that this part of the discussion has taken a tract that I find simply astonishing! People on your "side" of this issue often speak of the need to carefully adjust for output volume, test blindly, etc. in order to get a valid listening test. I understand this desire. But then you are using, as a point of debate here about Nichols, Fagan, et al preferring the digital sound for the recording under discussion, a recording for which the "original sound" never existed (i.e. the musicians never played all together in the studio)! You know this with such certainlyu *how*? Meaning, you know this for sure, in direct contradiction to what Nichols, who was there, recounts...how? The presumption is that they didn't make the recording with all players and singers performing at once because that is the way it is/was usually done. Did Nichols say otherwise? Meaning, you *don't* know. Thanks. I also *don't* know that the sun will raise tomorrow, but based on previous experience, I'm willing to bet that it will. Now I have a question: Has Nichols said that a band's worth of performers was never gathered in a studio when SD recorded? Because I have read otherwise. Besides, do you *seriously* imagine* that if Roger Nichols and Donald Fagan wanted a band to play in the studio , for the purpose of comparing that sound to the sound of the Studer and the new digital recorder, they couldn't arrange for that to occur? Of course they could. What's the point? If they were comparing the sound of the studio to the sound of the tape and the recorder, ALL I'm saying is that the chances of such a comparison to the sound of the band playing and singing in that room live are pretty slim, as it probably never happened in the first place! This presumption that he simply *could not* have had a band play a song live in the studio -- just because Steely Dan, like many acts since the 70's, tended not to release 'live in the studio' recordings -- is absurd. SD could and did have a band's worth of musicians on hand; doubtless they could have them rehearse, set down guide versions, warm up together...or play on request so Nichols could compare his two rigs. No reason to believe Fagan did things differently as a solo act. But again, there are many presumptions there. "A band's worth of musicians on hand"? "Rehearse"? "Warm up"? The idea that these are outrageously unlikely occurences, when a SD/Fagan album was being recorded circa 1983, is the far more absurd presumption here. No it isn't based on how pop records are made. Perhaps these people record differently that the vast majority of the rest of the industry. All I am saying is that you folks argue in favor of matched level listening down to a couple of dB, etc to make legit listening comparisons, then you also argue about the listening comparison of a recording of an event that probably never actually took place live! It seems like a contradiction to me. There is no contradiction, there is only a fantastic presumption on your part, which you seem to stick to merely to prop up your prejudice. That THAT speaks directly to my point! Again, perhaps I am wrong and I missed something in the previous posts on this, but what I gathered was that a poster makes a point of stating that Fagan et al like the sound of CD based on those sessions in question, when there probably WAS no original event to compare the live sound to the recording. I found this an interesting contrast when you are so careful to match levels aon so forth very carefully when doing component listening tests, given that the differences are so very VERY great between those two standards, I think that this shows YOUR prejudice! Your presumption of what is 'probable' is contradicted *directly* by the testimony of the recording engineer himself, If the engineer said that the whole band played and sung on the session, I'm sorry; I didn't catch that, and in Saturday Night Live fashion I will say..."Never mind!" :-) as well as by common studio practice. The final recording is never the entire picture of a series of recording sessions. An obsessively overdubbed final product is not sufficient logical grounds to assert that musicians 'probably never' played together in the studio during the sessions.... Again, I'm going by common practice in pop music. It's a logical deduction for that reason. or that they 'probably never' were even *there* all at the same time. I don't believe that I said that. So if Roger Nichols claims he had a band play in the studio -- particularly in the course of recounting an equipment comparison trial -- there's no sensible reason to assert that he 'probably' didn't. His comparison method *is* certainly open to rational critique, but you've picked the weakest, most irrational of legs to stand on. |
#368
|
|||
|
|||
Jenn wrote:
In article , Chung wrote: Jenn wrote: In article , Chung wrote: Steven Sullivan wrote: Jenn wrote: In article , Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 11 Jul 2005 00:53:12 GMT, Jenn wrote: In article , Steven Sullivan wrote: Jenn wrote: Steven Sullivan wrote: Jenn wrote: In article , Chung wrote: I bought Donald Fagen's "Nightfly" CD when it first came out, and it was a startlingly clear recording. That was back in 1983 IIRC, and my friends who had not listened to CD's before simply could not get over the cleanliness of the sound. Some of them converted to CD right then, and never looked back. The question of whether the CD or the vinyl LP version sounded more "life-like" was not on anyone's mind. That's too bad. Of course, in pop music, "life-like" is less of an issue than in acoustic music, don't you agree? Interesting that you respond only to Chung's note, rather than the anecdote he's responding to. Mssrs. Nichols et al. obviously thought the digital chain sounded more like the *band playing live at the same time* than the Studer. 1. Does this band really record while all playing at the same time? If so, they are the exception to common practice. WHo says all the band were listening? I presume it was just Nichols and Fagan. Remember, they were listening for which chain sounded more like a band playing live.. But if the band never played the recording live in the studio.... They did however play the songs *many* times on tour, so one must suppose that they knew what sounded most like a live performance. Please believe that this isn't intended as a "flame", but I must say that this part of the discussion has taken a tract that I find simply astonishing! People on your "side" of this issue often speak of the need to carefully adjust for output volume, test blindly, etc. in order to get a valid listening test. I understand this desire. But then you are using, as a point of debate here about Nichols, Fagan, et al preferring the digital sound for the recording under discussion, a recording for which the "original sound" never existed (i.e. the musicians never played all together in the studio)! You know this with such certainlyu *how*? Meaning, you know this for sure, in direct contradiction to what Nichols, who was there, recounts...how? This presumption that he simply *could not* have had a band play a song live in the studio -- just because Steely Dan, like many acts since the 70's, tended not to release 'live in the studio' recordings -- is absurd. SD could and did have a band's worth of musicians on hand; doubtless they could have them rehearse, set down guide versions, warm up together...or play on request so Nichols could compare his two rigs. No reason to believe Fagan did things differently as a solo act. What Jenn appeared to miss is that the SD/Nichols experience was *NOT* a listening test to rigorously determine if there were any sonic differences between one source and another. It is simply an account, by Nichols, of what SD/Nichols felt at the time they were trying to evaluate the sound quality of the digital recorder. No one on "our side" has said that it was a proof of the superiority of digital. It is simply an anecdote to support the fact that there are widely respected audio pros who prefer digital recording, even back in the early '80's when the equipment was still crude compared to today's. SD/Nichols certainly had the ability to compare live sounds vs recorded sound. They could simply record individual tracks (like a drum solo for instance) and compare live vs. recorded versions. If we had used this anecdote as scientific proof that the digital audio recorder is better than the analog tape recorder, then Jenn would have a strong position to question whether level matching was done. Which Nichols could easily have done, btw. It was my understanding that a poster was using Nichols et al statements as showing that they believed that digital was superior to analogue based on the recording in question: "Mssrs. Nichols et al. obviously thought the digital chain sounded more like the *band playing live at the same time* than the Studer." I simply point out that this condition never actually happened, i.e. the band didn't play all at the same time in the session, most likely. I thought you were explicitly asking about the need for controls, and being "astonished" that "our side" has brought up a "listening test" with no controls in place as "a point of debate"? I was making a point that the opinion of some pros who favor the sound of CD was used to show that some pros like CD, when it is almost certainly true that no comparison to live music at the session is possible in that case. Perhaps you should read Nichols' account more carefully. He was *NOT* comparing the sound of the CD vs live. He was comparing the live sound of the band vs what the two recorders' outputs sounded like. Based on that, the rest of what you wrote regarding the comparison is snipped... Similarly, when we heard Jenn's account of how vinyl was more life-like to her compared to CD, we did not ask whether she did a level-matched, blind comparison. (For one thing the differences are not subtle at all so that there is no need for blinding.) However, when Jenn said that almost all CD players sounded different as a statement with some applicability to others, then we would want to understand whether she has taken the necessary steps to insure a fair comparison. Because those differences are very subtle. Just out of curiosity, for those (like Jenn, e.g.) who feel that vinyl is more lifelike, does it matter whether the vinyl version was based on a digital recording? Like "Nightfly" for instance? Does a digitally recorded vinyl LP still sound better than the CD version? Usually, in my experience. An example would be the 3 LPs recorded by my mentor, Frederick Fennell, for Telarc. The first one was the first symphonic digital recording made in the U.S. and I was present at the sessions. The LP is, in my view, clearly superior to the CD. The data recorded in the CD is a direct, clean, reproduction of the digital recording. The vinyl version goes through many steps where substantial errors and inaccuracies were added. An interesting note (and again, I admit that I know little about the technology), is that the LP lists its sampling rate as 50,000 samples per second. CD has a sampling rate of 44.1 KHz. Yes, of course. Even **I** know that! :-) Assuming your information is correct, It is what is stated on the record jacket, and what Tom Stockham was saying at the sessions. a sampling rate conversion is performed to produce the CD. It is straightforward to perform a sampling rate conversion with no changes in attributes like tonal balance, etc., that people notice in LP vs CD comparisons. OK. I found it interesting that the sampling rate was higher on the LP than it is on CD. There is *NO* sampling rate on the LP. LP is analog. I wonder if that was common with the early digital LPs. Some early digital recordings were based on 44.1 KHz sampling rates. If so, wouldn't that point to euphonic distortion being an important reason for the perceived "life-likeness"? And that digital audio is not responsible for any lack of "life-likeness"? Perhaps, perhaps not. The CD technology could be messing things up, for example. Of course there is no technology that cannot be messed up by someone unskilful, or intentionally messed up. But to claim the CD technology is messing things up, you need to show that there are no excellent CD recordings at all. And you will also be saying that the 50KHz sampling technology employed by Telarc is great, but the 44.1 KHz technology is somehow responsible for the inferior sound. Not a likely reason, because there are also digital recordings based on CD sampling rates where you prefer the vinyl versions. The logical deduction is that the vinyl LP will be a lot less like the digital recording than the CD is, because of the many steps known to introduce errors involved in making the vinyl version. So if the LP and CD sounds substantially different, you have a good bet on which one is closer to the original digital recording. All good points. And, I will restate my original point, made now months ago: I really don't care why LPs generally sound better to me; all that I know is, they do. If it is because of some type of distortion, that's OK by me. My only goal is to transport what I hear live into my listening room, to the extent that it's possible. I understand that you do not care why you have that preference. Others, however, don't think it is due to euphonic distortion. |
#369
|
|||
|
|||
Helen Schmidt wrote:
... the "objectivists" here are extremely naive, philosophically... But to give credit where credit is due, Chung's argument about Karajan and Jenn back on the "Newbie CD vs Vinyl" thread is a classic use of the Skeptic's procedure of opposition (as outlined by Sextus Empiricus in the 2nd century A.D.), which seems to me to be pretty cool. Mark |
#370
|
|||
|
|||
On 19 Jul 2005 00:44:29 GMT, Jenn wrote:
In article , Chung wrote: An interesting note (and again, I admit that I know little about the technology), is that the LP lists its sampling rate as 50,000 samples per second. CD has a sampling rate of 44.1 KHz. Yes, of course. Even **I** know that! :-) Assuming your information is correct, It is what is stated on the record jacket, and what Tom Stockham was saying at the sessions. a sampling rate conversion is performed to produce the CD. It is straightforward to perform a sampling rate conversion with no changes in attributes like tonal balance, etc., that people notice in LP vs CD comparisons. OK. I found it interesting that the sampling rate was higher on the LP than it is on CD. I wonder if that was common with the early digital LPs. Yes, as they mostly used the Soundstream system, which had a 50k sampling rate. The 44.1k rate of CD was chosen because it fits neatly with the line rate of a video recorder, and early PCM audio recorders were converted video recorders. Very few have suggested that this rate difference is audible in practice, particularly given all the other degradations inherent to the LP process. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#371
|
|||
|
|||
"chung" wrote in message
... Jenn wrote: snip OK. I found it interesting that the sampling rate was higher on the LP than it is on CD. There is *NO* sampling rate on the LP. LP is analog. I am pretty sure she meant that the recording was done at 50khz and decoded at that rate for production of the LP master disk. I wonder if that was common with the early digital LPs. Some early digital recordings were based on 44.1 KHz sampling rates. Soundstream was always 50khz from the time it went commercial, I believe. Sony used 44.1. snip |
#372
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 19 Jul 2005 00:44:29 GMT, Jenn wrote: In article , Chung wrote: An interesting note (and again, I admit that I know little about the technology), is that the LP lists its sampling rate as 50,000 samples per second. CD has a sampling rate of 44.1 KHz. Yes, of course. Even **I** know that! :-) Assuming your information is correct, It is what is stated on the record jacket, and what Tom Stockham was saying at the sessions. a sampling rate conversion is performed to produce the CD. It is straightforward to perform a sampling rate conversion with no changes in attributes like tonal balance, etc., that people notice in LP vs CD comparisons. OK. I found it interesting that the sampling rate was higher on the LP than it is on CD. I wonder if that was common with the early digital LPs. Yes, as they mostly used the Soundstream system, which had a 50k sampling rate. The 44.1k rate of CD was chosen because it fits neatly with the line rate of a video recorder, and early PCM audio recorders were converted video recorders. Yes, I recall that now, thanks. Very few have suggested that this rate difference is audible in practice, particularly given all the other degradations inherent to the LP process. Later digital LPs sure didn't sound as good, IMV, as the early Telarcs. |
#373
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
chung wrote: Perhaps you should read Nichols' account more carefully. He was *NOT* comparing the sound of the CD vs live. He was comparing the live sound of the band vs what the two recorders' outputs sounded like. Does anyone have a link to the original account? Again, I'm not trying to make a big deal out of this seemingly trivial story; I'm only saying that it is ironic in several ways, if, as I suspect, the band didn't play all together in the studio. Based on that, the rest of what you wrote regarding the comparison is snipped... Similarly, when we heard Jenn's account of how vinyl was more life-like to her compared to CD, we did not ask whether she did a level-matched, blind comparison. (For one thing the differences are not subtle at all so that there is no need for blinding.) However, when Jenn said that almost all CD players sounded different as a statement with some applicability to others, then we would want to understand whether she has taken the necessary steps to insure a fair comparison. Because those differences are very subtle. Just out of curiosity, for those (like Jenn, e.g.) who feel that vinyl is more lifelike, does it matter whether the vinyl version was based on a digital recording? Like "Nightfly" for instance? Does a digitally recorded vinyl LP still sound better than the CD version? Usually, in my experience. An example would be the 3 LPs recorded by my mentor, Frederick Fennell, for Telarc. The first one was the first symphonic digital recording made in the U.S. and I was present at the sessions. The LP is, in my view, clearly superior to the CD. The data recorded in the CD is a direct, clean, reproduction of the digital recording. The vinyl version goes through many steps where substantial errors and inaccuracies were added. An interesting note (and again, I admit that I know little about the technology), is that the LP lists its sampling rate as 50,000 samples per second. CD has a sampling rate of 44.1 KHz. Yes, of course. Even **I** know that! :-) Assuming your information is correct, It is what is stated on the record jacket, and what Tom Stockham was saying at the sessions. a sampling rate conversion is performed to produce the CD. It is straightforward to perform a sampling rate conversion with no changes in attributes like tonal balance, etc., that people notice in LP vs CD comparisons. OK. I found it interesting that the sampling rate was higher on the LP than it is on CD. There is *NO* sampling rate on the LP. LP is analog. But the recording process is digital, hence there IS a sampling rate. I wonder if that was common with the early digital LPs. Some early digital recordings were based on 44.1 KHz sampling rates. If so, wouldn't that point to euphonic distortion being an important reason for the perceived "life-likeness"? And that digital audio is not responsible for any lack of "life-likeness"? Perhaps, perhaps not. The CD technology could be messing things up, for example. Of course there is no technology that cannot be messed up by someone unskilful, or intentionally messed up. But to claim the CD technology is messing things up, you need to show that there are no excellent CD recordings at all. And you will also be saying that the 50KHz sampling technology employed by Telarc is great, but the 44.1 KHz technology is somehow responsible for the inferior sound. Not a likely reason, because there are also digital recordings based on CD sampling rates where you prefer the vinyl versions. The logical deduction is that the vinyl LP will be a lot less like the digital recording than the CD is, because of the many steps known to introduce errors involved in making the vinyl version. So if the LP and CD sounds substantially different, you have a good bet on which one is closer to the original digital recording. All good points. And, I will restate my original point, made now months ago: I really don't care why LPs generally sound better to me; all that I know is, they do. If it is because of some type of distortion, that's OK by me. My only goal is to transport what I hear live into my listening room, to the extent that it's possible. I understand that you do not care why you have that preference. Others, however, don't think it is due to euphonic distortion. Understood. If the "euphonic distortions" sound like music, it's fine by me. If the "perfect sound forever" doesn't sound like music, I don't see the point. |
#374
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 19:44:01 -0500, chung wrote:
Jenn wrote: OK. I found it interesting that the sampling rate was higher on the LP than it is on CD. There is *NO* sampling rate on the LP. LP is analog. She's referring to LPs such as Bop 'til You Drop, on which the original recording was digital. I wonder if that was common with the early digital LPs. Some early digital recordings were based on 44.1 KHz sampling rates. Very few - they mostly used the SoundStream system, which was 50k. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#375
|
|||
|
|||
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 19:44:01 -0500, chung wrote: Jenn wrote: OK. I found it interesting that the sampling rate was higher on the LP than it is on CD. There is *NO* sampling rate on the LP. LP is analog. She's referring to LPs such as Bop 'til You Drop, on which the original recording was digital. I wonder if that was common with the early digital LPs. Some early digital recordings were based on 44.1 KHz sampling rates. Very few - they mostly used the SoundStream system, which was 50k. Hmmm, I thought the Sony PCM-1630, a 44.1KHz sampling ADC, was very commonly used, starting sometime in the '80's, although I am not sure exactly when that was introduced. |
#376
|
|||
|
|||
Jenn wrote:
In article , chung wrote: Perhaps you should read Nichols' account more carefully. He was *NOT* comparing the sound of the CD vs live. He was comparing the live sound of the band vs what the two recorders' outputs sounded like. Does anyone have a link to the original account? Again, I'm not trying to make a big deal out of this seemingly trivial story; I'm only saying that it is ironic in several ways, if, as I suspect, the band didn't play all together in the studio. I provided a link the the original when I posted the account here, and again a day or two ago. Btw, your suspicion is *directly* contradicted by what Nichols wrote. *I* suspect you are confusing final product -- a record that contains overdubs etc -- with *sessions* , for which there is no reason to believe there *could not* have been musicians playing together. Not to mention that for a 'session' whose *purpose* was to compare two pieces of recording gear, rather than to rehearse or record for the album, it is ludicrous to 'suspect' that Roger Nichols and Donald Fagan couldn't have set up a live-feed-vs.-recording. Here is the link *again* (third time I've posted now). Might I ask that you desist from 'speculating' further until you've read Nichols' account? http://www.rogernichols.com/EQ/EQ_2001_08.html -- -S "You know what love really is? It's like you've swallowed a great big secret. A warm wonderful secret that nobody else knows about." - 'Blame it on Rio' |
#377
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote: Jenn wrote: In article , chung wrote: Perhaps you should read Nichols' account more carefully. He was *NOT* comparing the sound of the CD vs live. He was comparing the live sound of the band vs what the two recorders' outputs sounded like. Does anyone have a link to the original account? Again, I'm not trying to make a big deal out of this seemingly trivial story; I'm only saying that it is ironic in several ways, if, as I suspect, the band didn't play all together in the studio. I provided a link the the original when I posted the account here, and again a day or two ago. Btw, your suspicion is *directly* contradicted by what Nichols wrote. *I* suspect you are confusing final product -- a record that contains overdubs etc -- with *sessions* , for which there is no reason to believe there *could not* have been musicians playing together. Not to mention that for a 'session' whose *purpose* was to compare two pieces of recording gear, That's the part that I missed. rather than to rehearse or record for the album, it is ludicrous to 'suspect' that Roger Nichols and Donald Fagan couldn't have set up a live-feed-vs.-recording. Here is the link *again* (third time I've posted now). Might I ask that you desist from 'speculating' further until you've read Nichols' account? Look, Steven, there's no need to be cranky. I missed the 2nd time you evidently posted the link, and I guess that I misread the first time. I admitted that Nichols obviously preferred digital in my last post. I haven't been reading as carefully as I normally would for the past week or so due to work pressures. |