[Arny Krueger]

"Robert Orban" wrote in message
news
Through hard experience I've found that with
recordings of this vintage, it really pays to find
sealed, unplayed copies even if one has to wait for them
to show up on eBay and even if one has to pay more. There
were a *lot* of bad phono playback systems in the late
60s, and even one play through some of them could audibly
damage the vinyl.

Finally, after doing this a hundred times or so I have to
observe that the audio quality of the run of the mill
vinyl from that era was pretty bad. It got a lot better
starting in mid-1969, probably because a new generation
of disc cutters was just coming on line.

I find
incomprehensible the affection that some people evidently
have for the audio quality of vinyl from that era.

Bob Orban

Who is Robert Orban?

Robert Orban is one of the most productive minds in the audio industry, and
has been so for the past 30-40 years.

http://www.orban.com/about/timeline/

Patents:
3,980,828 Reverberation system with extended frequency response
4,103,243 Method and system for controlling peak signal levels in a
bandlimited recording or transmission system employing high-frequency
pre-emphasis
4,208,548 Apparatus and method for peak-limiting audio frequency signals
4,228,368 Polarity correcting circuit
4,241,266 Peak-limiting apparatus for audio signal
4,249,042 Multiband cross-coupled compressor with overshoot protection
circuit
4,412,100 Multiband signal processor
4,460,871 Multiband cross-coupled compressor with overshoot protection
circuit
4,495,643 Audio peak limiter using Hilbert transforms
4,525,857 Crossover network
4,674,122 Encoding for the FMX companding system
4,837,824 Stereophonic image widening circuit
4,888,789 Adjustable equalizer for compensating for high frequency rolloff
and typical AM receivers
5,050,217 Dynamic noise reduction and spectral restoration system
5,168,526 Distortion-cancellation circuit for audio peak limiting
5,282,252 Audio equalizer providing reciprocal equalization plus
infinite-depth notch
5,444,788 Audio compressor combining feedback and feedfoward sidechain
processing
5,574,791 Combined de-esser and high-frequency enhancer using single pair of
level detectors
6,337,999 Oversampled differential clipper
6,434,241 Controlling the peak levels of the FM composite signal by
half-cosine interpolation
Papers:
A Short History of Transmission Audio Processing in the United States
http://www.bext.com/histproc.htm

[Clyde Slick]

On 29 Aug, 15:13, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Robert Orban" wrote in message

news


Through hard experience I've found that with
recordings of this vintage, it really pays to find
sealed, unplayed copies even if one has to wait for them
to show up on eBay and even if one has to pay more. There
were a *lot* of bad phono playback systems in the late
60s, and even one play through some of them could audibly
damage the vinyl.
Finally, after doing this a hundred times or so I have to
observe that the audio quality of the run of the mill
vinyl from that era was pretty bad. It got a lot better
starting in mid-1969, probably because a new generation
of disc cutters was just coming on line.
I find
incomprehensible the affection that some people evidently
have for the audio quality of vinyl from that era.
Bob Orban

Who is Robert Orban?

Robert Orban is one of the most productive minds in the audio industry, and
has been so for the past 30-40 years.

http://www.orban.com/about/timeline/

Patents:
3,980,828 Reverberation system with extended frequency response
4,103,243 Method and system for controlling peak signal levels in a
bandlimited recording or transmission system employing high-frequency
pre-emphasis
4,208,548 Apparatus and method for peak-limiting audio frequency signals
4,228,368 Polarity correcting circuit
4,241,266 Peak-limiting apparatus for audio signal
4,249,042 Multiband cross-coupled compressor with overshoot protection
circuit
4,412,100 Multiband signal processor
4,460,871 Multiband cross-coupled compressor with overshoot protection
circuit
4,495,643 Audio peak limiter using Hilbert transforms
4,525,857 Crossover network
4,674,122 Encoding for the FMX companding system
4,837,824 Stereophonic image widening circuit
4,888,789 Adjustable equalizer for compensating for high frequency rolloff
and typical AM receivers
5,050,217 Dynamic noise reduction and spectral restoration system
5,168,526 Distortion-cancellation circuit for audio peak limiting
5,282,252 Audio equalizer providing reciprocal equalization plus
infinite-depth notch
5,444,788 Audio compressor combining feedback and feedfoward sidechain
processing
5,574,791 Combined de-esser and high-frequency enhancer using single pair of
level detectors
6,337,999 Oversampled differential clipper
6,434,241 Controlling the peak levels of the FM composite signal by
half-cosine interpolation
Papers:
A Short History of Transmission Audio Processing in the United Stateshttp://www.bext.com/histproc.htm

yea, alright, but what about a patent for the Omni ashtray?
been there, done that?

[Jenn]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Robert Orban" wrote in message
news
Through hard experience I've found that with
recordings of this vintage, it really pays to find
sealed, unplayed copies even if one has to wait for them
to show up on eBay and even if one has to pay more. There
were a *lot* of bad phono playback systems in the late
60s, and even one play through some of them could audibly
damage the vinyl.

Finally, after doing this a hundred times or so I have to
observe that the audio quality of the run of the mill
vinyl from that era was pretty bad. It got a lot better
starting in mid-1969, probably because a new generation
of disc cutters was just coming on line.

I find
incomprehensible the affection that some people evidently
have for the audio quality of vinyl from that era.

Bob Orban

I don't find a whole lot to disagree with here. There was a lot of junk
out there, as there is presently in digital. Just about all Columbia
and DGG was very bad in the 60s. A shame considering the performances
they recorded. Most of Mercury, Decca, EMI, Harmonia Mundi, and much of
RCA sounded terrific on the other hand.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Robert Orban" wrote in
message
news
Through hard experience I've found that with
recordings of this vintage, it really pays to find
sealed, unplayed copies even if one has to wait for them
to show up on eBay and even if one has to pay more.
There were a *lot* of bad phono playback systems in the
late 60s, and even one play through some of them could
audibly damage the vinyl.

Finally, after doing this a hundred times or so I have
to observe that the audio quality of the run of the mill
vinyl from that era was pretty bad. It got a lot better
starting in mid-1969, probably because a new generation
of disc cutters was just coming on line.

I find
incomprehensible the affection that some people
evidently have for the audio quality of vinyl from that
era.

Bob Orban

I don't find a whole lot to disagree with here.

Except when you start free-associating with the usual vinylista propaganda
about certain LPs sounding more realistic than any CD.

There
was a lot of junk out there, as there is presently in
digital.

The difference is that the junk problem with the LP could never be
adequately solved. The junk problem with CDs is simply that there's no
accounting for taste.

Just about all Columbia and DGG was very bad in
the 60s. A shame considering the performances they
recorded. Most of Mercury, Decca, EMI, Harmonia Mundi,
and much of RCA sounded terrific on the other hand.

Still had the usual litany of vinyl noises, distortion and coloration.

[Jenn]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Robert Orban" wrote in
message
news
Through hard experience I've found that with
recordings of this vintage, it really pays to find
sealed, unplayed copies even if one has to wait for them
to show up on eBay and even if one has to pay more.
There were a *lot* of bad phono playback systems in the
late 60s, and even one play through some of them could
audibly damage the vinyl.

Finally, after doing this a hundred times or so I have
to observe that the audio quality of the run of the mill
vinyl from that era was pretty bad. It got a lot better
starting in mid-1969, probably because a new generation
of disc cutters was just coming on line.

I find
incomprehensible the affection that some people
evidently have for the audio quality of vinyl from that
era.

Bob Orban

I don't find a whole lot to disagree with here.

Except when you start free-associating with the usual vinylista propaganda
about certain LPs sounding more realistic than any CD.

What does that have to do with your quote?


There
was a lot of junk out there, as there is presently in
digital.

The difference is that the junk problem with the LP could never be
adequately solved. The junk problem with CDs is simply that there's no
accounting for taste.

Whatever. There are bad LPs and there are bad CDs. So?


Just about all Columbia and DGG was very bad in
the 60s. A shame considering the performances they
recorded. Most of Mercury, Decca, EMI, Harmonia Mundi,
and much of RCA sounded terrific on the other hand.

Still had the usual litany of vinyl noises, distortion and coloration.

And many sounded more like music than any CD I've heard. That's based on
the highest authority for the purposes of my music listening: my ears.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"Robert Orban" wrote in
message
news
Through hard experience I've found that with
recordings of this vintage, it really pays to find
sealed, unplayed copies even if one has to wait for
them to show up on eBay and even if one has to pay
more. There were a *lot* of bad phono playback
systems in the late 60s, and even one play through
some of them could audibly damage the vinyl.

Finally, after doing this a hundred times or so I have
to observe that the audio quality of the run of the
mill vinyl from that era was pretty bad. It got a lot
better starting in mid-1969, probably because a new
generation of disc cutters was just coming on line.

I find
incomprehensible the affection that some people
evidently have for the audio quality of vinyl from
that era.

Bob Orban

I don't find a whole lot to disagree with here.

Except when you start free-associating with the usual
vinylista propaganda about certain LPs sounding more
realistic than any CD.

What does that have to do with your quote?


There
was a lot of junk out there, as there is presently in
digital.

The difference is that the junk problem with the LP
could never be adequately solved. The junk problem with
CDs is simply that there's no accounting for taste.

Whatever. There are bad LPs and there are bad CDs. So?


Just about all Columbia and DGG was very bad in
the 60s. A shame considering the performances they
recorded. Most of Mercury, Decca, EMI, Harmonia Mundi,
and much of RCA sounded terrific on the other hand.

Still had the usual litany of vinyl noises, distortion
and coloration.

And many sounded more like music than any CD I've heard.

Jen, even with the usual litany of vinyl noises, distortion
and coloration? I seriously doubt it. More like you're a hopeless romantic,
as demonstrated by how you throw good money after bad for overpriced vinyl
players.

That's based on the highest authority for the purposes of
my music listening: my ears.

No doubt damaged by exposure to too much live music way too loud.

[Jenn]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message
.
net
In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"Robert Orban" wrote in
message
news
Through hard experience I've found that with
recordings of this vintage, it really pays to find
sealed, unplayed copies even if one has to wait for
them to show up on eBay and even if one has to pay
more. There were a *lot* of bad phono playback
systems in the late 60s, and even one play through
some of them could audibly damage the vinyl.

Finally, after doing this a hundred times or so I have
to observe that the audio quality of the run of the
mill vinyl from that era was pretty bad. It got a lot
better starting in mid-1969, probably because a new
generation of disc cutters was just coming on line.

I find
incomprehensible the affection that some people
evidently have for the audio quality of vinyl from
that era.

Bob Orban

I don't find a whole lot to disagree with here.

Except when you start free-associating with the usual
vinylista propaganda about certain LPs sounding more
realistic than any CD.

What does that have to do with your quote?


There
was a lot of junk out there, as there is presently in
digital.

The difference is that the junk problem with the LP
could never be adequately solved. The junk problem with
CDs is simply that there's no accounting for taste.

Whatever. There are bad LPs and there are bad CDs. So?


Just about all Columbia and DGG was very bad in
the 60s. A shame considering the performances they
recorded. Most of Mercury, Decca, EMI, Harmonia Mundi,
and much of RCA sounded terrific on the other hand.

Still had the usual litany of vinyl noises, distortion
and coloration.

And many sounded more like music than any CD I've heard.

Jen, even with the usual litany of vinyl noises, distortion
and coloration? I seriously doubt it. More like you're a hopeless romantic,
as demonstrated by how you throw good money after bad for overpriced vinyl
players.

Yes, that must be it.

My name is Jenn, btw.)


That's based on the highest authority for the purposes of
my music listening: my ears.

No doubt damaged by exposure to too much live music way too loud.

Yes, I'm sure.

[Jenn]

In article . com,
Bret Ludwig wrote:

On Aug 29, 10:28 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Jenn" wrote in

odigy.net



In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

.net
In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"Robert Orban" wrote in
message
news5mdndg4J_p6UzLbnZ2dnUVZ_gednZ2d@giganews .com

Through hard experience I've found that with
recordings of this vintage, it really pays to find
sealed, unplayed copies even if one has to wait for
them to show up on eBay and even if one has to pay
more. There were a *lot* of bad phono playback
systems in the late 60s, and even one play through
some of them could audibly damage the vinyl.

Finally, after doing this a hundred times or so I have
to observe that the audio quality of the run of the
mill vinyl from that era was pretty bad. It got a lot
better starting in mid-1969, probably because a new
generation of disc cutters was just coming on line.

I find
incomprehensible the affection that some people
evidently have for the audio quality of vinyl from
that era.

Bob Orban

I don't find a whole lot to disagree with here.

Except when you start free-associating with the usual
vinylista propaganda about certain LPs sounding more
realistic than any CD.

What does that have to do with your quote?

There
was a lot of junk out there, as there is presently in
digital.

The difference is that the junk problem with the LP
could never be adequately solved. The junk problem with
CDs is simply that there's no accounting for taste.

Whatever. There are bad LPs and there are bad CDs. So?

Just about all Columbia and DGG was very bad in
the 60s. A shame considering the performances they
recorded. Most of Mercury, Decca, EMI, Harmonia Mundi,
and much of RCA sounded terrific on the other hand.
Still had the usual litany of vinyl noises, distortion
and coloration.
And many sounded more like music than any CD I've heard.

Jen, even with the usual litany of vinyl noises, distortion
and coloration? I seriously doubt it. More like you're a hopeless
romantic,
as demonstrated by how you throw good money after bad for overpriced vinyl
players.

That's based on the highest authority for the purposes of
my music listening: my ears.

No doubt damaged by exposure to too much live music way too loud.

It is a fact classical musicians suffer even more hearing damage than
rock musicians in many cases.

No, it's not. You're really saying that the average classical musician
suffers more hearing damage than the average rock band musician?

[Arny Krueger]

"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
oups.com

Some people prefer the treble digital artifacts of CD.

There ain't no such thing.

[Arny Krueger]

"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
ups.com
On Aug 29, 10:28 am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message

oups.com

Some people prefer the treble digital artifacts of CD.

There ain't no such thing.

But, unfortunately, there are. CD sample rate is NOT high
enough,

Prove it. In fact a sample rate as low as 32 KHz can give transparent
reproduction of just about every kind of music there is.

and that's the consensus view of hundreds of pros
as well as in compliance with the generally accepted
rules of bandwidth.

100's of pros? OK, so there is a tiny fraction of poorly-informed pros out
there. So what?

You want a lot of headroom of
bandwidth-five times was the precision analog rule.

Bret you're conflating headroom with bandwidth. They aren't the same. They
are orthogonal. Know what that means?

In
practice you probably don't need a 100 kHz Nyquist wall,
and as you pointed out earlier it means excessive use of
available file size and throughput, but having the brick
wall at 30-40 kHz is just common sense at modern data
density rates.

That sort of nonsense is supported by neither scientific test, nor the
consensus of the 100's of millions of listeners, musicians, and production
people.

SACD and DVD-A are available and should be the standard
today, with a CD layer for compatibility. It's not
terribly expensive.

It's a waste of good bandwidth. SACD and DVD were failures in the
mainstream marketplace because they had no reliably perceptible benefits.

[John Byrns]

In article . com,
Bret Ludwig wrote:

On Aug 29, 10:28 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message

oups.com

Some people prefer the treble digital artifacts of CD.

There ain't no such thing.

But, unfortunately, there are. CD sample rate is NOT high enough, and
that's the consensus view of hundreds of pros as well as in compliance
with the generally accepted rules of bandwidth.

Exactly what is the CD sample rate not high enough for, and how do you
justify that statement? If the audio is first run through a 20 kHz
brick-wall filter the CD sample rate is plenty high. Brick-wall filters
can be built with today's digital techniques that do not contribute
phase distortion to the filtered signal. Done right CD is the ultimate
format for consumer audio, unfortunately we are well down the road
toward abandoning it in favor of low bit rate mp3s and other similar
formats.


Regards,

John Byrns

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

[Steven Sullivan]

In rec.audio.tech Bret Ludwig wrote: On Aug 29, 10:28 am, "Arny
Krueger" wrote: "Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
oups.com Some people prefer
the treble digital artifacts of CD. There ain't no such thing.

But, unfortunately, there are. CD sample rate is NOT high enough, and
that's the consensus view of hundreds of pros as well as in compliance
with the generally accepted rules of bandwidth. You want a lot of
headroom of bandwidth-five times was the precision analog rule. In
practice you probably don't need a 100 kHz Nyquist wall


I can think of two 'pros' who actually design DACs -- Dan Lavry and Bruno Putzys
-- who don't seem to think the base SR needs to be anywhere near 100 kHz, and nor is it clear
that either thinks 44.1 is 'not enough -- when implemented properly.


"Nyquist pointed out that the sampling rate needs only to exceed twice the signal bandwidth.
What is the audio bandwidth? Research shows that musical instruments may produce energy
above 20 KHz, but there is little sound energy at above 40KHz. Most microphones do not pick
up sound at much over 20KHz. Human hearing rarely exceeds 20KHz, and certainly does not
reach 40KHz. The above suggests that 88.2 or 96KHz would be overkill. In fact all the
objections regarding audio sampling at 44.1KHz, (including the arguments relating to pre
ringing of an FIR filter) are long gone by increasing sampling to about 60KHz."

So if going as fast as say 88.2 or 96KHz is already faster than the optimal rate, how can we
explain the need for 192KHz sampling? Some tried to present it as a benefit due to narrower
impulse response: implying either "better ability to locate a sonic impulse in space" or "a
moreanalog like behavior". Such claims show a complete lack of understanding of signal theory
fundamentals."

--http://www.lavryengineering.com/documents/Sampling_Theory.pdf


Putzys doesn't put a hard number on it, but it seems from the below , a system that *properly*
filters content above *22.05 kHz* would be sufficient...for those who can actually hear
content at 20 kHz.


"The specifications of commercially available filters are invariably set as follows:
passband: 0 to 0.4535*fs
stopband: up from 0.5465*fs
and of course -6dB at 0.5*fs
In a halfband filter, passband and stopband are mirror images of eachother.

You'd ask why on earth such a specific number? Well.....:
0.4535*44100Hz=20000Hz.
Yup. Audioskepticism gone bad. Someone must have "scientifically" decided that humans hear up
to exactly 20000.0000Hz and if there's some aliasing right beyond that, who cares. Wrong of
course. I've done blind ABX tests on source material alternatively coded to 44.1kHz sampling
with "standard filters" and with filters that really go to 0 at 22.05kHz and got 20/20 on
that. With the radio playing and cars passing by my lab. It's not subtle.

Having established using a blind test that the effect of the alias band between 20kHz and
24.1kHz is audible, it makes sense to note what this aliasing sounds like, subjectively. It
sounds like the stereo image is more fussy and flattened, with an annoying grainy top end. Uh.
Precisely what audiophiles had been complaining about when they talked about "CD sound". Use
the correct filters on either end of the record/reproduce chain and the problem is gone. I've
done tests and demos with SACD vs correctly encoded 44.1kHz and most listeners feel pretty
hard pressed telling one from the other.

It's not the steepness of the filter that causes the problem. It's just that nobody cares to
heed the hard-nosed maths of nyquist/shannon to its full extent. Only, and only because
half-band filters are cheaper to implement, and because someone thought that the 20kHz limit
of the human ear had been set to a bone-hard perfectly round number by, well by whom really?"


http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...2&postcount=36



___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

[Mr.T]

"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
oups.com...
Some people prefer the treble digital artifacts of CD

And some people like to pluck quasi-scientific sounding terms out of their
arse :-)

MrT.

[robert casey]

I don't find a whole lot to disagree with here. There was a lot of junk
out there, as there is presently in digital. Just about all Columbia
and DGG was very bad in the 60s. A shame considering the performances
they recorded. Most of Mercury, Decca, EMI, Harmonia Mundi, and much of
RCA sounded terrific on the other hand.

Bell Records LPs tended to sound distorted. Their 45s were absolute crap.

Heard that they used a version of vinyl that was supposed to sound
really good on the first play, but sounded like crap on subsequent
plays... Disposable music?... Well, some of it was....

[Peter Wieck]

Keeerist....

Ninety-two (92) post including this one to-date.

Fly-poop to the right.
Pepper to the left.

Ain't none of you gonna change your closely held beliefs or reach any
sort of religious, vinyl, analog or digital epiphany.

Give it up, already!

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[Peter Scott]

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Robert Orban" wrote in message
news
Through hard experience I've found that with
recordings of this vintage, it really pays to find
sealed, unplayed copies even if one has to wait for them
to show up on eBay and even if one has to pay more. There
were a *lot* of bad phono playback systems in the late
60s, and even one play through some of them could audibly
damage the vinyl.

Finally, after doing this a hundred times or so I have to
observe that the audio quality of the run of the mill
vinyl from that era was pretty bad. It got a lot better
starting in mid-1969, probably because a new generation
of disc cutters was just coming on line.

I find
incomprehensible the affection that some people evidently
have for the audio quality of vinyl from that era.

Bob Orban


I feel a bit nervous entering this debate. However I think my comments
are worthwhile as I have been listening to recorded music for 50 years
on a huge variety of equipment.

Vinyl varied enormously. I can remember trekking back to HMV in Oxford
Street many times before I got a decent pressing of a particular album.
Contrary to some other postings I think that DG was amongst the best.
Then, despite having a Shure V15 that tracked at 0.8g, wear inevitably
set in and the noise levels crept up. Always of course most on the ones
that I liked most. Despite the greatest care, fingers got onto the
surface and other accidents added the pops and sizzles. Yes I recorded
all new records onto an A77 after an initial few listens. The tape type
wasn't so much of a problem because of the adjustable dolby level.
However there was loss.

There is a sound (!) argument that the analogue nature of vinyl should
have some advantages. The main one is that, subject to the stylus being
small and stable enough to track and to differentiate the information,
the result surely must be smoother. This should mean less distortion.
The buffs used to call this 'musicality'. Despite the various tricks
used by CD players to fill the in the steps, digital has steps between
adjacent samples. At 16 bit these can be quite large in power terms at
the highest audio levels. After all, 16 bit was chosen only because it
was the maximum you could use to fit one hour onto a standard CD. It
never was the optimum technical specification. When we start hearing 20
bit or better on DVD type disks the step issue should go.

What I like about CD is the silence. Oh, and the dynamic range. Oh, and
the resistance to minor damage. Oh, and being able to play it in my car.

I still listen to vinyl. Once my brain blots out the background noise, I
really do enjoy it. Now that I have a sound system that can reproduce
the whole audio range at a realistic level, I find that the dynamic
range, particularly low frequencies, is much better than I used to hear
on lesser systems. And it is ... er... musical!!

One last point. Just as people have forgotten what good live acting is
because of the crap they watch on TV, so MP3 has degraded people's idea
of what fidelity is. I exclude this ng of course. It is fine on
headphones and tweaked mini systems, but having got used to MP3, people
regard CD as wonderful. Music is now designed so that it sounds good on
such systems, just as Berry Gordy mixed motown to sound good on 6 x 4
car speakers. It's only when you listen to acoustic instruments with a
complex waveform and set of overtones, particularly orchestral ones like
the violin, or a grand piano, that you realise the limitations of CD and
MP3.

So I reckon all this discussion will stop when disk capacity is enough
to move to higher digital resolutions.

Peter Scott

[Mr.T]

"Peter Scott" wrote in message
...
Despite the various tricks
used by CD players to fill the in the steps, digital has steps between
adjacent samples.

Not when dithered, a necessary part of the process.

At 16 bit these can be quite large in power terms at
the highest audio levels. After all, 16 bit was chosen only because it
was the maximum you could use to fit one hour onto a standard CD. It
never was the optimum technical specification. When we start hearing 20
bit or better on DVD type disks the step issue should go.

So please name ONE single CD that uses over 90dB DNR, and may actually
benefit from having more than 96dB?
Now tell me where you propose to listen to it? :-)

What I like about CD is the silence. Oh, and the dynamic range.

And yet you still claim 16 bits is inadequate, despite no commercial disks
using the full potential of standard CD performance.

So I reckon all this discussion will stop when disk capacity is enough
to move to higher digital resolutions.

So why hasn't SACD done it already then?

MrT.

[Peter Scott]

Mr.T wrote:
"Peter Scott" wrote in message
...
Despite the various tricks
used by CD players to fill the in the steps, digital has steps between
adjacent samples.

Not when dithered, a necessary part of the process.

Doesn't alter the argument that there are steps that have to be filled
in by some technique. The real in-fill information is not there.



And yet you still claim 16 bits is inadequate, despite no commercial disks
using the full potential of standard CD performance.

If 16 bits is adequate why are recordings made at, and broadcast data
links use, higher resolutions?




--
__________________________________________________ _______________________

Composed using Mozilla Thunderbird and virus checked using Grisoft AVG

Peter Scott
__________________________________________________ _______________________

[Mr.T]

"Peter Scott" wrote in message
om...
Despite the various tricks
used by CD players to fill the in the steps, digital has steps between
adjacent samples.

Not when dithered, a necessary part of the process.

Doesn't alter the argument that there are steps that have to be filled
in by some technique. The real in-fill information is not there.

So what, you lose a couple of dB DNR, you still have 30dB or so more than
the best vinyl, when it's new.

And yet you still claim 16 bits is inadequate, despite no commercial
disks
using the full potential of standard CD performance.

If 16 bits is adequate why are recordings made at, and broadcast data
links use, higher resolutions?

Mainly because they can, and partly because they at least understand the
difference between recording, and final distribution requirements.

MrT.

[John Phillips]

On 2007-09-04, Peter Scott wrote:


Mr.T wrote:
"Peter Scott" wrote in message
...
Despite the various tricks
used by CD players to fill the in the steps, digital has steps between
adjacent samples.

Not when dithered, a necessary part of the process.

Doesn't alter the argument that there are steps that have to be filled
in by some technique. The real in-fill information is not there.

You seem to cover two types of "step" in one argument: time steps
("adjacent samples") and level steps ("digital" - i.e. quantized to
the 16 bits you quote).

With respect to the time steps no information is lost at all in sampling
provided the input is properly filtered to include only information below
half the sampling rate. This is a well-known consequence of the sampling
theorem which has been known and practised for decades. The only issue
is the engineering of the anti-aliasing filter and that's been so good
for such a long time that it is, to all intents and purposes, perfect
with respect to known human hearing limits.

Then the CD player's reconstruction filter is there to remove ultrasonic
aliases, not for the human ear which cannot perceive them but for the
equipment which may intermodulate if they are present at high enough
levels. That isn't any form of trick to fill in these time steps since
there's nothing mising to fill in.

With respect to level steps (16 bit quantization), steps of 1/65,566
of full scale are there indeed, and that introduces a noise floor 96.3
dB below full scale. That's rather good with respect to even the most
dynamic of real-life performances. If the performance can be captured
adequately on vinyl it will always be better in this respect on CD.
(Note that I am talking technically here - I know there are people who
prefer the sound of vinyl to CD.)

In fact with dither you can easily hear a tone on CD that's 106 dB
below full scale - yes that's below 1 LSB peak-to-peak. I even tried
that myself as an exercise and it's very well reproduced, especially
with higher orders of noise-shaped dither.

And yet you still claim 16 bits is inadequate, despite no commercial disks
using the full potential of standard CD performance.

If 16 bits is adequate why are recordings made at, and broadcast data
links use, higher resolutions?

Recordings are these days made at higher resolution so that they can be
digitally processed without introducing significant quantization errors.
It's easier to do this with 24-bit processing than it is with 16-bit
processing. Then you create the clean 16-bit CD master. And 24-bit A/D
converters (nominally 24 bit anyway) are quite readily available now.

As for broadcast digital audio links, in UK they are Nicam728 and the
data carried is 14-bit (actually its compressed slightly on the link to
13 bits IIRC). Possibly in other parts of the world they use more than
16 bits but I don't know the standards. Out of interest can you point
me to the relevant references?

--
John Phillips

[Mr.T]

"John Phillips" wrote in message
...
In fact with dither you can easily hear a tone on CD that's 106 dB
below full scale - yes that's below 1 LSB peak-to-peak. I even tried
that myself as an exercise and it's very well reproduced, especially
with higher orders of noise-shaped dither.

Sure, now you need to look up the difference between wide band noise
measurements and narrow band noise measurement to understand why.

MrT.

[Peter Scott]

John Phillips wrote:
On 2007-09-04, Peter Scott wrote:



As for broadcast digital audio links, in UK they are Nicam728 and the
data carried is 14-bit (actually its compressed slightly on the link to
13 bits IIRC). Possibly in other parts of the world they use more than
16 bits but I don't know the standards. Out of interest can you point
me to the relevant references?


I thought that the BBC used 20 bit for data links from live concerts
such as the Proms. Perhaps I'm wrong. I know that much lower resolutions
are used on the broadcast material on most digital channels.
--
__________________________________________________ _______________________

Composed using Mozilla Thunderbird and virus checked using Grisoft AVG

Peter Scott
__________________________________________________ _______________________

[Arny Krueger]

"Peter Scott" wrote in message
om...


Mr.T wrote:
"Peter Scott" wrote in message
...
Despite the various tricks
used by CD players to fill the in the steps, digital has steps between
adjacent samples.

Not when dithered, a necessary part of the process.

Doesn't alter the argument that there are steps that have to be filled in
by some technique.

The steps only exist on the media and the circuitr direcly associated with
it. Even in that form they are like the steps of a regular stairway - they
are solid and need no filling-in.

All digital signals that have been properly converted back to analog are
smooth, and this has been true for over 40 years. It was true of the very
first CD player on the market - the CDP 101.

Peter, you are really one sad mess of erroneous, out-of-date information. I
presume that you can read - you should search google and bring yourself up
to date.

[Clyde Slick]

On 4 Sep, 16:27, "Arny Krueger" wrote:


All digital signals that have been properly converted back to analog are
smooth, and this has been true for over 40 years.

Mud can be smooth, too.

[Arny Krueger]

"Peter Scott" wrote in message
...

There is a sound (!) argument that the analogue nature of vinyl should
have some advantages.

Not true. If you properly understand the theory and practice of the two
technologies, the rather grotesque limitions of real-world analog
record/playback media as compared to digital becomes obvious.

In the case of video, analog is even starting to lose out to digital, even
in the prosaic world of interconnects. In the case of multichannel audio,
analog has already lost out to digital for consumers.

The main one is that, subject to the stylus being small and stable enough
to track and to differentiate the information, the result surely must be
smoother.

Absolutely untrue if you understand the details of the mechanical
limitations of vinyl.

This should mean less distortion.

Absolutely untrue if you understand the details of the mechanical
limitations of vinyl. Back in the day of there was a tremendous lot
studied, written, and put into practice about attempts to alleviate vinyl's
inherent errors of a fairly gross nature.

The buffs used to call this 'musicality'.

It still is all about musicality. I don't know how adding random noise,
distortion, phase and frequency response errors of a highly audible nature
can make a good audio signal sound better. This is not even like musical
instrument amps, where the distortion that is added is designed to be
euphonic. With vinyl you take what the medium gives you, and you don't have
any choices except to alleviate what you can, which isn't enough for most
people.

Despite the various tricks used by CD players to fill the in the steps,
digital has steps between adjacent samples.

There are no gaps and there are no tricks.

At 16 bit these can be quite large in power terms at the highest audio
levels.

Nonsense. When you're talking about gaps and steps, you're talking about
something that can be easily measured. Obviously, you've never looked at a
scope attached to the output of a phono preamp playing a LP and a CD player,
and compared the two. The output of a CD player is a very nice signal,
potentially the cleanest audio signal in most lab settings. The output of a
phono preamp playing a LP is a real mess. For openers it tends to jump
around a lot due to the inherent subsonic and bass noise due to the
turntable and the non-flatness of the record.

After all, 16 bit was chosen only because it was the maximum you could use
to fit one hour onto a standard CD.

Not true at all. In fact it takes only about 12 bits to provide a good sonic
representation of music. The remaining 4 bits were added more or less
gratuitously because they were free - they were already part of the
off-the-shelf digital hardware that was readily available at the time.

Furthermore, the original CD was not a 1 hour or 60 minute medium, but a 74
minute medium.

It never was the optimum technical specification.

Right, it was overkill.

When we start hearing 20 bit or better on DVD type disks the step issue
should go.

Sorry about your lack of real-world experience, but most recordists, even
amateurs on a budget have been able to make recordings with more than 16 bit
resolution at the media level for a number of years. Its no sonic magic
bullet.

Ditto for the SACD and DVD-A formats that have been on the market for about
5 years, and pretty much tanked for lack of mainstream interest. One of the
bigger jokes about SACD and particularly DVD-A is that while some people
ranted and raved about the benefits of the enhanced resolution, the
recordings they were often made from from music that was recorded with 16
bits or less, at far lower sample rates than they were delivered.

It is a simple fact that once resolution is lost it is gone forever, and
putting it on higher resolution medium does nothing but twiddle bits. So,
these purported sensitive listeners were reporting improved sound quality
due to enhanced resolution that existed only in their minds.

One reason that SACD and DVD-A tanked is that the CD format is already an
overkill format, as I explained above.

What I like about CD is the silence. Oh, and the dynamic range. Oh, and
the resistance to minor damage. Oh, and being able to play it in my car.

Hold those thoughts. Most people just like the overall improved sound
quality.

I still listen to vinyl. Once my brain blots out the background noise, I
really do enjoy it. Now that I have a sound system that can reproduce the
whole audio range at a realistic level, I find that the dynamic range,
particularly low frequencies, is much better than I used to hear on lesser
systems. And it is ... er... musical!!

Musical in a limited sort of way. No way can vinyl have as good clean bass
as is readily available with digital.

One last point. Just as people have forgotten what good live acting is
because of the crap they watch on TV, so MP3 has degraded people's idea of
what fidelity is.

It is still possible to hear a lot of live music. Or at least music that
includes live acoustic musical instruments and has not been recorded, by MP3
or otherwise.

I exclude this ng of course. It is fine on headphones and tweaked mini
systems, but having got used to MP3, people regard CD as wonderful.

To tell the truth I never got used to the inherently crappy sound of even
the best LPs played on very fine systems. And that was after going through
the 78 - LP conversion and the mono-stereo conversion. Compared to the
LP, the CD was a very strong and clean breath of fresh air.

Music is now designed so that it sounds good on such systems, just as
Berry Gordy mixed motown to sound good on 6 x 4 car speakers.

Actually, Berry Gordy mixed Motown to sound good on a 4" round speaker in a
$15 LP player. Motown's consoles had a high-slope 85 Hz high pass filters
right in the mixer channel strips.

It's only when you listen to acoustic instruments with a complex waveform
and set of overtones, particularly orchestral ones like the violin, or a
grand piano, that you realise the limitations of CD and MP3.

The limitations of the CD format that you think you hear are figments of
your imagination. It is a rare person who does not hear the benefits of the
CD format. After all, why did the LP 98% disappear from the market place?

So I reckon all this discussion will stop when disk capacity is enough to
move to higher digital resolutions.

You really need to get out more. We've had DVDs for at least 7 years, and
even the older 1-layer DVDs have about 8 times the capacity of a CD.
2-layer DVDs with about 16 times the capacity of the CD have been in routine
distribution to consumers for at least 5 years.

[John Byrns]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

Actually, Berry Gordy mixed Motown to sound good on a 4" round speaker in a
$15 LP player. Motown's consoles had a high-slope 85 Hz high pass filters
right in the mixer channel strips.

You aren't implying that "a 4 inch round speaker in a $15 LP player" is
flat down to 85 Hz, or can reproduce any significant amount of power at
that frequency, are you? And what about the output transformer in that
$15 player, how low might it have gone? I would think Motown should
have set the cutoff frequency of their filters a little higher if
simulating "a 4 inch round speaker in a $15 LP player" was their goal.
It sounds to me more like the real purpose of 85 Hz filters was to avoid
troubling the $15 players with signals they couldn't dream of
reproducing and that would have the potential of introducing various
forms of annoying distortion.


Regards,

John Byrns

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

[Arny Krueger]

"John Byrns" wrote in message
...
In article ,

"Arny Krueger" wrote:

Actually, Berry Gordy mixed Motown to sound good on a 4" round speaker in
a
$15 LP player. Motown's consoles had a high-slope 85 Hz high pass filters
right in the mixer channel strips.

You aren't implying that "a 4 inch round speaker in a $15 LP player" is
flat down to 85 Hz, or can reproduce any significant amount of power at
that frequency, are you?

No, especially not the 4 inchers in question. They probably had a FS in the
150 Hz range.

And what about the output transformer in that
$15 player, how low might it have gone?

Unknown, but it could have been better than the speaker.

I would think Motown should
have set the cutoff frequency of their filters a little higher if
simulating "a 4 inch round speaker in a $15 LP player" was their goal.

I didn't say that they were trying to simulate a 4" round speaker. They were
trying to condition the signal so that playing it through a 4" round speaker
didn't do too awfully much violence.

It sounds to me more like the real purpose of 85 Hz filters was to avoid
troubling the $15 players with signals they couldn't dream of
reproducing and that would have the potential of introducing various
forms of annoying distortion.

Exactly.

[Peter Scott]

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Peter Scott" wrote in message
...

Thanks for all your comments and those from others. Looks

like I have been poorly educated in the technicalities of

CD. I'll take your advice and update my knowledge. I guess

the pictures that I have in mind about the stepped nature

of samples is far too simplistic.







--
__________________________________________________ _______________________

Composed using Mozilla Thunderbird and virus checked using Grisoft AVG

Peter Scott
__________________________________________________ _______________________