[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.

[[email protected]]

On Sep 3, 10:17 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

IME speaker sound has become more internationalized.

proof for my assertion;
incompetent="Arny Krueger"

[[email protected]]

On Sep 3, 10:15 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Iain Churches" wrote in message

C'mon Arny. Stop the BS:-)) Recording engineer,
acoustics consultant, architect, recording engineer (!!!)
and now transcription engineer. Whatever next? :-)))

Whatever next?

I perform all the corresponding tasks for lighting and video as well.

PAR cans, DMX, RGBVH, DLP, HDTV, MPEG, all spoken and performed here.

jack(off) of all trades

master of none

[Phildo]

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
i.fi...
C'mon Arny. Stop the BS:-)) Recording engineer,
acoustics consultant, architect, recording engineer (!!!)
and now transcription engineer. Whatever next? :-)))

Whatever he wants to pretend to be. Arny is a fraud, everybody knows it,
including himself. I guess he just enjoys being laughed at.

Phildo

[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

[Arny Krueger]

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
i.fi...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
ti.fi...

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


Iain Churches wrote:

"MiNe 109" wrote

Still, in cases of deteriorated or missing original master tapes, an
lp
transfer might be the best way to hear a specific recording.

From tape to vinyl is a three, four, or five step process. Any of the
"negatives" from these intermediate steps can be used for
transcription in CD mastering. This is often done.

Transfer from a pressing is the least desirable option.

Maybe you should explain how the stampers are generated ?

I am referring to original metalwork.
You cannot use a stamper - it's a positive:-)

Iain has apparently never heard of those special styli ground to ride on
the top of the raised groove of a stamper.

Indeed I have. Decca used to make them for studio use.

They were more widely available than that.

AFAIK they were not available to the public.

Decca was a minority supplier of cartridges, especially in the US. Their
cartridges had a horrible reputation for reliability.

[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.

[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.

[George M. Middius]

Iain Churches said:

"Facts about Krooborg" states that you're a second-hand
computer repair man from Michigan!

Also Chrysler Ashtray Designer Emeritus. (It says so on his toilet
paper.)

How could someone so cruelly mis-inform me on such an important
matter? :-)

That's what you get for relying on underground reference books. The
Resistance's official handbook on audio 'borgism is quite comprehensive.

I received an e-mail circular some years ago, when I first
began "discussions" with Arny on UKRA.

Do you still have the email? I'd be interested in knowing who sent it. The
maddening emerged originally on RAO and spread to other audio groups.

This was prior to his being born again.

When was Krooger "born again"? I have to say his piety is overwhelming.

At that time he had quite the foulest mouth of anyone on Usenet)

Not just on Usenet, I'm afraid. He's a veritable two-legged sewer in
person.

The e-mail was entitled "Facts About Krooborg". I gave it only a
cursory glance, but the "computer repair man" stuck in my mind for
some reason.

He's also a "web designer". Check out his aBxism site for some advanced
design concepts.

I exchange an e-mail now and again with a second generation
Danish American. He calls Arny "Kruborg" Good Danish
humour:-)

You can't make too many jokes when it comes to Arnii Krooborg.

[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/

[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

[Steven Sullivan]

In rec.audio.tech Bret Ludwig wrote:


I submit the CD does too. And in the case of pop music
made after 1965 or so, we shouldn't have to go from a
vinyl release but the original two track tape masters.

Two track masters have been generally used since about a decade before 1965.

Since most releases then were mono, they were one track masters.
Mono LPs were available until well into the rock era. And in fact
most people prefer mono Beatles and Stones LPs (of that era)
sonically.

Amazing. You've polled them?


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

[Steven Sullivan]

In rec.audio.tech Scott Dorsey wrote:
Robert Orban wrote:
preference. With reference to the "remastering" controversy, what I take away
from Olive and Toole's work is that people seem to have a pretty well-defined
model in their brains of what a natural spectral balance should sound like and
they consistently prefer loudspeakers that supply this to them. Thanks largely
to O&T's work, today's popular loudspeakers are not only less colored than any
time in the past but also sound closer to each other regarding spectral
balance. It's amazing what you can get in a $250 loudspeaker today (from
companies like PSB, Mirage, Energy, etc., not to mention the speaker
manufacturers under the Harman banner) compared to what you could get even 10
years ago.

I am not familiar with the Toole work you're referring to, but it sounds
very interesting. I'd love to see a citation. I've always attributed the
different sonic character of various nation's loudspeaker designs to local
sonic preferences (ie. the propensity of American home speakers to have flabby
out of control bass, of British speakers to have restricted but tight bass,
of Japanese speakers to be smiley filtered). Maybe that's not true.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."


the work is included in this review:

Toole, F. (2006) Loudspeakers and Rooms for Sound Reproduction.A Scientific Review - JAES 54:6
451-476

and here's a primary paper:

Olive, S. (2003) Differences in Performance and Preference of Trained versus Untrained
Listeners in Loudspeaker Tests: A Case Study - JAES 51:9 806-825

--

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

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
i.fi...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
ti.fi...

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


Iain Churches wrote:

"MiNe 109" wrote

Still, in cases of deteriorated or missing original master tapes,
an lp
transfer might be the best way to hear a specific recording.

From tape to vinyl is a three, four, or five step process. Any of
the
"negatives" from these intermediate steps can be used for
transcription in CD mastering. This is often done.

Transfer from a pressing is the least desirable option.

Maybe you should explain how the stampers are generated ?

I am referring to original metalwork.
You cannot use a stamper - it's a positive:-)

Iain has apparently never heard of those special styli ground to ride on
the top of the raised groove of a stamper.

Indeed I have. Decca used to make them for studio use.

They were more widely available than that.

AFAIK they were not available to the public.

Decca was a minority supplier of cartridges, especially in the US. Their
cartridges had a horrible reputation for reliability.


I have two Decca London cartridges, amongst those which I use for
transcription.When set up correctly, they sound very good indeed.
Some clients ask for them specifically over the ubiquitous
Shure V15/III. It's simple a matter of taste.

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"MiNe 109" wrote in message
...
In article i,
"Iain Churches" wrote:

"MiNe 109" wrote in message
...

Still, in cases of deteriorated or missing original master tapes, an lp
transfer might be the best way to hear a specific recording.


From tape to vinyl is a three, four, or five step process. Any of the
"negatives" from these intermediate steps can be used for
transcription in CD mastering. This is often done.

Transfer from a pressing is the least desirable option.

Okay, in the absence of safety copies, mixdown tapes, metal parts, etc...

Most record companies keep multitracks and also stereo
master mixes (and also a "B" tape) of everything they still
have in catalogue. Some lease contracts stipulate that all
"materials" must be returned to the owner at the end of the
lease period.

The cost of multritrack tape was quite a large chunk of the
budget so some budget studios rented them to the client for the
duration of the project and then re-used them as soon as
the project was approved for release.

As a very last resort, it is possible to make a production
master from a good clean vinyl pressing. I have been involved
in this kind of project several times. Most people have never
heard a clean vinyl pressing played on a trranscription-quality
turntable/arm with an MC cartidge and a high quality
RIAA stage. It can sound remarkably good.

The public do not need to know (and probably don't ca-)
that there are quite many pop CD's which have been
re-mastered in this way.

Iain

[Arny Krueger]

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
.fi...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..

Decca was a minority supplier of cartridges, especially in the US. Their
cartridges had a horrible reputation for reliability.

I have two Decca London cartridges, amongst those which I use for
transcription.When set up correctly, they sound very good indeed.

Whatever that means.

Some clients ask for them specifically over the ubiquitous
Shure V15/III. It's simple a matter of taste.

Shure probably inadevertantly lost more V15s in production and distribution
than Decca Londons were ever built.

[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.

[George M. Middius]

The Krooborg runs aground on the rocks of clearly expressed thoughts.

I have two Decca London cartridges, amongst those which I use for
transcription.When set up correctly, they sound very good indeed.

Whatever that means.

Arnii, weren't you just babbling about mental counseling? I hope you didn't
murder yet another therapist. Dr. Kroomacher made you promise to stop at
ten. You didn't Break your Promise while getting borned again, did you?

Some clients ask for them specifically over the ubiquitous
Shure V15/III. It's simple a matter of taste.

Shure probably inadevertantly[sic]

Krooglish!

[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.

[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.

[Mr.T]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
Some clients ask for them specifically over the ubiquitous
Shure V15/III. It's simple a matter of taste.

Shure probably inadevertantly lost more V15s in production and
distribution
than Decca Londons were ever built.

And went on to make a far better cartridge than the V15III anyway, the
V15VMR.
I certainly know which I would play my records with, and it's NOT the Decca.

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
ups.com...
Mud can be smooth, too.

A good analogy for vinyl. And pigs love mud too :-)

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
In rec.audio.tech Bret Ludwig wrote:
Mono LPs were available until well into the rock era. And in fact
most people prefer mono Beatles and Stones LPs (of that era)
sonically.

Amazing. You've polled them?

Well John Lennon did say he preferred the Mono version of Sgt Peppers to the
stereo version.
Why? Well he and Paul did the mono mix and George Martin did the stereo mix
:-)

(or so it's been written, I wasn't there personally)

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
.fi...
The public do not need to know (and probably don't ca-)
that there are quite many pop CD's which have been
re-mastered in this way.

That does help explain Iain's attitude to his customers.
Those more used to CD quality though, DO find it annoying when they buy a
reissue on CD that has some of the noise of a vinyl pressing, plus the
artefacts of single ended noise reduction attempts, plus the extra
distortion etc.
Personally I am ****ed off, especially if I already have it on vinyl and was
hoping for something a step closer to the master tapes.

Those who prefer vinyl probably think it's fine though.

MrT.

[John Phillips]

On 2007-09-05, Mr.T MrT@home wrote:

"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.

Indeed. Actually I used to do DSP in a past element of my professional
life. However I always did find it to be a good idea to test a practical
implementation to check my understanding of the theory.

--
John Phillips

[Arny Krueger]

"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message
u...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
Some clients ask for them specifically over the ubiquitous
Shure V15/III. It's simple a matter of taste.

Shure probably inadevertantly lost more V15s in production and
distribution
than Decca Londons were ever built.

And went on to make a far better cartridge than the V15III anyway, the
V15VMR.

Not to mention the intermediate models of V15.

I certainly know which I would play my records with, and it's NOT the
Decca.

Agreed. That some would prefer them has to be more about sentiment than
practicality or accuracy.

[Arny Krueger]

"John Phillips" wrote in message
...
On 2007-09-05, Mr.T MrT@home wrote:

"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.

Indeed. Actually I used to do DSP in a past element of my professional
life. However I always did find it to be a good idea to test a practical
implementation to check my understanding of the theory.

I got my first experiences with hearing tones zillions of dB below the
broadband noise level in the Army. We would routinely hear targets in
Doppler radar audio signals that looked like pure noise on a scope. The
equipment that did the same thing to track the target or display the target
involved purpose-built spectrum analyzers with fairly narrow bandwidth.

[John Phillips]

On 2007-09-05, Arny Krueger wrote:

"John Phillips" wrote in message
...
On 2007-09-05, Mr.T MrT@home wrote:

"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.

Indeed. Actually I used to do DSP in a past element of my professional
life. However I always did find it to be a good idea to test a practical
implementation to check my understanding of the theory.

I got my first experiences with hearing tones zillions of dB below the
broadband noise level in the Army. We would routinely hear targets in
Doppler radar audio signals that looked like pure noise on a scope. The
equipment that did the same thing to track the target or display the target
involved purpose-built spectrum analyzers with fairly narrow bandwidth.

Of course the point of the test was not spcifically to show that tones
below the noise floor could be heard. Rather to show that the CD medium
is perfectly capable of carrying information whose level is below its
nominal quantization limit. This sometimes surprises those who think that
digital systems lose detail that analogue systems retain.

--
John Phillips

[Arny Krueger]

"John Phillips" wrote in message
...
On 2007-09-05, Arny Krueger wrote:

"John Phillips" wrote in message
...
On 2007-09-05, Mr.T MrT@home wrote:

"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.

Indeed. Actually I used to do DSP in a past element of my professional
life. However I always did find it to be a good idea to test a
practical
implementation to check my understanding of the theory.

I got my first experiences with hearing tones zillions of dB below the
broadband noise level in the Army. We would routinely hear targets in
Doppler radar audio signals that looked like pure noise on a scope. The
equipment that did the same thing to track the target or display the
target
involved purpose-built spectrum analyzers with fairly narrow bandwidth.

Of course the point of the test was not spcifically to show that tones
below the noise floor could be heard. Rather to show that the CD medium
is perfectly capable of carrying information whose level is below its
nominal quantization limit. This sometimes surprises those who think that
digital systems lose detail that analogue systems retain.

Agreed. The idea that digital systems can't pass signals smaller than one
quantization level is one of those things that is "intuitively clear" to
many.

[Robert Orban]

In article , says...


I am not familiar with the Toole work you're referring to, but it sounds
very interesting. I'd love to see a citation. I've always attributed the
different sonic character of various nation's loudspeaker designs to local
sonic preferences (ie. the propensity of American home speakers to have
flabby
out of control bass, of British speakers to have restricted but tight bass,
of Japanese speakers to be smiley filtered). Maybe that's not true.

It looks like it was just Olive. Here's the reference:

Differences in Performance and Preference of Trained versus Untrained
Listeners in Loudspeaker Tests: A Case Study
AES Journal Volume 51 Number 9 pp. 806-825; September 2003

Listening tests on four different loudspeakers were conducted over the course
of 18 months using 36 different groups of listeners. The groups included 256
untrained listeners whose occupations fell into one of four categories: audio
retailer, marketing and sales, professional audio reviewer, and college
student. The loudspeaker preferences and performance of these listeners were
compared to those of a panel of 12 trained listeners. Significant differences
in performance, expressed in terms of the magnitude of the loudspeaker F
statistic FL, were found among the different categories of listeners. The
trained listeners were the most discriminating and reliable listeners, with
mean FL values 3-27 times higher than the other four listener categories.
Performance differences aside, loudspeaker preferences were generally
consistent across all categories of listeners, providing evidence that the
preferences of trained listeners can be safely extrapolated to a larger
population. The highest rated loudspeakers had the flattest measured frequency
response maintained uniformly off axis. Effects and interactions between
training, programs, and loudspeakers are discussed.

Author: Olive, Sean E.
E-lib Location: (CD aes20) /jrnl2003/2003/0806.pdf

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message
u...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
Some clients ask for them specifically over the ubiquitous
Shure V15/III. It's simple a matter of taste.

Shure probably inadevertantly lost more V15s in production and
distribution
than Decca Londons were ever built.

And went on to make a far better cartridge than the V15III anyway, the
V15VMR.
I certainly know which I would play my records with, and it's NOT the
Decca.


When paying for a transcription, a client must be allowed
the possibility to make a choice. Many have their own cartridge which
they bring with them. I keep a spare SME headshell for this.

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message
u...

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
In rec.audio.tech Bret Ludwig wrote:
Mono LPs were available until well into the rock era. And in fact
most people prefer mono Beatles and Stones LPs (of that era)
sonically.

Amazing. You've polled them?

Well John Lennon did say he preferred the Mono version of Sgt Peppers to
the
stereo version.
Why? Well he and Paul did the mono mix and George Martin did the stereo
mix
:-)

(or so it's been written, I wasn't there personally)

Nonsense. George Martin was a producer! He did not mix anything!
The engineer for St Peppers was Geoff Emerick, with Richard Lush
and Phil McDonald as Assistant engineers. The same crew
were responsible for stereo and mono versions. I knew all three
of them personally.

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message
...

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
.fi...
The public do not need to know (and probably don't ca-)
that there are quite many pop CD's which have been
re-mastered in this way.

That does help explain Iain's attitude to his customers.

Mr. T. You are sounding more like Arny by the day:-))
You seem also to be at the same level of comprehension!

My comments above were made about pop recordings. I am
a classical music engineer (with a penchant for jazz when an
interesting project comes along) I do however attend pop
mastering sessions often.

Those more used to CD quality though, DO find it annoying when they buy a
reissue on CD that has some of the noise of a vinyl pressing, plus the
artefacts of single ended noise reduction attempts, plus the extra
distortion etc.

You really don't have a clue about transcription or
mastering do you:-)

If you are foolish enough to buy CD's with the artefacts
you describe, then you are deserve exactly what you get.


Personally I am ****ed off, especially if I already have it on vinyl and
was
hoping for something a step closer to the master tapes.´

Having never heard the master tapes, how can you possibly
know? LOL:-)

Please read my earlier comments about CD pre-production
mastering.

Iain

[Arny Krueger]

"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message
...

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
.fi...

The public do not need to know (and probably don't ca-)
that there are quite many pop CD's which have been
re-mastered in this way.

That does help explain Iain's attitude to his customers.

Yup, he presumes that they can't smell crap when he serves it up to them.

Those more used to CD quality though, DO find it annoying when they buy a
reissue on CD that has some of the noise of a vinyl pressing, plus the
artefacts of single ended noise reduction attempts, plus the extra
distortion etc.

You bet.

Futheremore, a lot of record company engineers don't seem to have the time,
interest, or technology to do a decent job of recovering lost music from
vinyl hell. OTOH, there are specialists and talented amateurs who can do a
lot.

Personally I am ****ed off, especially if I already have it on vinyl and
was
hoping for something a step closer to the master tapes.

Agreed. However, remember that Iain seems to think of passage through the
dark and twisted valley of the groove of vinyl as a "beautification" step
for those master tapes.

Those who prefer vinyl probably think it's fine though.

They seem to have developed a habit of ignoring or even preferring all of
the usual sonic trash that vinyl adds.

Strange.

[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
__________________________________________________ _______________________

[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
__________________________________________________ _______________________

[Mr.T]

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
ti.fi...
The public do not need to know (and probably don't ca-)
that there are quite many pop CD's which have been
re-mastered in this way.

Those more used to CD quality though, DO find it annoying when they buy
a
reissue on CD that has some of the noise of a vinyl pressing, plus the
artefacts of single ended noise reduction attempts, plus the extra
distortion etc.

If you are foolish enough to buy CD's with the artefacts
you describe, then you are deserve exactly what you get.

You are so lucky then that you can listen to every single CD you have before
you buy it.
Most people are not so lucky. Or maybe you just don't buy any?

Personally I am ****ed off, especially if I already have it on vinyl and
was
hoping for something a step closer to the master tapes.´

Having never heard the master tapes, how can you possibly
know? LOL:-)

Well the noise and distortion is a give away to those who can tell. I guess
that doesn't include you.

MrT.

[John Phillips]

On 2007-09-07, Peter Scott wrote:


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.

Ah, you may be right. I was thinking of the links to the transmitters
and I now suspect that was not the right meaning of broadcast digital
audio links.

--
John Phillips

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"George M. Middius" cmndr _ george @ comcast . net wrote in message
...


Iain Churches said:

"Facts about Krooborg" states that you're a second-hand
computer repair man from Michigan!

Also Chrysler Ashtray Designer Emeritus. (It says so on his toilet
paper.)

How could someone so cruelly mis-inform me on such an important
matter? :-)

That's what you get for relying on underground reference books. The
Resistance's official handbook on audio 'borgism is quite
comprehensive.

I received an e-mail circular some years ago, when I first
began "discussions" with Arny on UKRA.

Do you still have the email? I'd be interested in knowing who sent it. The
maddening emerged originally on RAO and spread to other audio groups.

Sadly no. I think its sender was a subscriber to RAO, a group I had
not even heard of at that time. I took a look there once. That was
enough for me.

Other than an announcement saying that Arny had been voted
"No.1 Sh*t on Usenet" I have no other bits of endearing
biographical info:-) except:

There was a very good cartoon posted on a university
audio website. It depicted a control room with Phil A at the
console and Arny as tape op. You could see a huge number of
people all with tambourines in the studio. The conductor looked
like Sir Simon Rattle ! Phil was shouting down the talkback,
calling the conductor a an autistic pommy cretin, while Arny,
with achinagraph pencil in his mouth, was pondering
"Do all symphonies sound the same?"


This was prior to his being born again.

When was Krooger "born again"? I have to say his piety is overwhelming.

Isn't Arny a born again Baptist?

They have the most dreadful music! Give me a Russian Orthodox
Choir any day:-)


Iain

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message
...

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
.fi...

The public do not need to know (and probably don't ca-)
that there are quite many pop CD's which have been
re-mastered in this way.

Arny. It's nice to see yourself and Mr.T hand in hand on
Usenet. You deserve each other:-)

That does help explain Iain's attitude to his customers.

Yup, he presumes that they can't smell crap when he serves it up to them.

Arny. Please remind me. Which one of us has made
1000 recordings without a single one being published
or being accepted for commercial release???

I fear it must be your goodself who is turning out
the cr*p :-)))

In classical recording proper, client, artist and listener
all have very high expectations indeed.

Cordially,
Iain