[[email protected]]

On Oct 25, 2:39�pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in ...
On Oct 24, 5:26?pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
..
I disagree. The test record you used was not cut on the latest most
advanced cutting lathes and does not represent the state of the art of
vinyl mastering.
Prove it.
HiFi News and record review test record correct? The one cut back in
the late 60s right?

Wrong again. The HFN test record was been recut in recent times. I have one
of the newly cut versions.

Here is a discussion of the more recent version of the HFN test record:

http://www.tnt-audio.com/accessories/hfnrrdisc_e.html

Actually that isn't the most recent version of The Hifi News test
record. here is a link to the latest version
http://www.soundscapehifi.com/hifi-news-test-lp.htm

""The 'Producer's Cut' is the successor to the original HFNRR Test LP,
first pressed in 1996.



Len Gregory, The Cartridge Man, who produced the original version, had
over the years concluded that there were a number of improvements that
could be made to his earlier work which in the four years since it's
release had sold an amazing 10,000 copies around the world."

Here is an excerpt from a review of the latest version

"As a satisfied user of the original HFN test record I was looking
forward to the release of the latest version and wasn't disappointed.
The new protractor is a joy to use, and while the tests are pretty
much as before, the pressing I received is of a much higher quality
with lower background noise than previously. Highly recommended."

http://www.vinylengine.com/hfn-002-test-lp.shtml

So it looks like you do indeed have a test record that contains
distortion that is not inherent in the medium.

[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message ...
On Oct 25, 5:26?pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in message

...





On Oct 24, 2:33 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in message

...

On Oct 23, 5:47 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
Vinyl is so limited in terms of dynamic range that many if not most
digital
masters would require further processing if a good-sounding LP were
the
desired outcome. It is perfectly trivial to create a digital master
that
would damage most LP cutting equipment if not operated by an
expert.
The
expert would start out by changing the master. Producing an
acceptable
LP
from an unaltered digital master of ordinary music might be
impossible.
To the best of my knowledge there are very few commercial recordings
that have an excess of 75 db dynamic range.

If we consider the results posted atwww.hometheatrehifi.com, their LP
system tests show 22 dB audio-band dynamic range,
The link doesn't work but any claim that the inherent dynamic range of
medium is 22db would simply be erroneous.

Not really.

http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/featu...s/vinyl-vs.-cd...

Thank goodness we now have a working link. I have combed the article
and I must say I don't see any claim that the tests show a 22 dB
dynamic range.


shows even worse results than that.

Test results with the Manly Preamp and MacIntosh MT10
Turntable/Arm/Cartdige
show ?20% THD+N, which corresponds to 13 dB dyanamic range.

Harmonic distortion is not a measure of dynamic range. 20% THD+N does
not have any direct corlation to the dynamic range of any system. Your
conclusion that this leads to a measured dynamic range of 13 Db is
completely eroneous.




By most accounts from those
involved with state of the art vinyl reproduction report that the
inherent dynamic range ia anywhere from 75 to 80 db.

It's not a matter of the state of the art, its a matter of a biased
criteria. ?The biased criteria has been in use for at least 40 years.
It's a
tradition. I used it without thinking.

They have been used eroneously IYO?


Also we have to
remember the noise floor of vinyl has a specific sonic signature which
allows for hearing signals well below the noise floor.

This is also true for the CD format,

Irrelevant. We are talking about the colorations of vinyl, inherent,
euphonic and inherent euphonic.


If their rig is only able to achieve 22db dynamic range it has some
serious problems.

No, there are very serious dynamic range problems with the LP format as
compared to even 30-year-old digital formats.

No. The inherent dynamic range is somewhere in the 75 dB range.

The actual inherent dynamic range of most recordings in use is generally far
poorer than that. 75 dB is an exceptional number.

Since this is in the same range as the dynamic range of musical recordings,
the music is audibly contaminated by it during quiet passages. Compare that
to the dynamic range of the CD format, which is 20 dB or so lower than that
of the music. With LPs the listener's ear has to thread its way through a
thicket of mechanical noise in order to enjoy the music in quiet passages.
With CDs one can hear the music in low level passages far more clearly.

Low frequency noise and high
frequency dynamic range are serious problems. We've been sweeping those
problems under the rug for decades with biased measurement techniques.

The low frrequency noise is a problem. It's seriousness is a matter of
opinion.

If one is willing to accept substandard reproduction, then it is no problem
at all.

One the one hand it leads to an arguably misleading poor
measured performance for dynamic range since most of the musical
material is spead well beyond the limited spectrum of this inherent
noise and therefore allows for one to hear musical information way
below the measured noise floor of vinyl.

One can hear musical information way below the measured noise floor of all
commercial recorded formats, analog or digital. However, one has to question
the process of trying to listen under degraded conditions like this when
there is usually no need to do so.

OTOH this does come at the
price of audible surface noise during the quietest passages. The
degree to which this bothers a listener is a function of the biases
and sensitivities of each individual listener.

Why tolerate audible noise at all?

which is far worse than a
typical uncompressed classical CD which has 65 dB or better audio-band
dynamic range.
65 db is well within the inherent limitations of vinyl.

Not if noise below 200 Hz is treated the same as we treat it when
characterizing the CD format.

But it is if one is actually considering music with a dynamic range of
65 dB being transcribed to vinyl.

There are commercial musical recordings with dynamic range of 72 dB or more.
I have several of them in my possession, and many more are on the
marketplace.

It can be done and has been done with out any compression.

You seem to misundertand compression - when applied to recordings it
decreases their dynamic range. In fact avoiding compression is how you make
a recording with the best possbile dynamic range. Compression need not be
used while recording Cds, but is almost manditory when trying to force wide
dynamic range music onto a LP.

In listening to music the accurate portrayal
of the dynamics in the music is what matters and vinyl is quite
capable of doing that with the vast majority of commercial recordings.

IOW, the LP format is only capable of handling the vast majority of
commerical recordings, but not all of them. The CD format is capable of
handling the dynamic range of all known recordings.

It's also extremely dynamic by recording standards.

That would appear to be a meaningless statement.

No it is an accurate statement. You will be hard pressed to find any
studio recordings with a dynamic range greater than 25dB much less 65
dB.

Virtually every studio recording I have has more than 25 dB dynamic range,
and that includes 100's of recordings. Your information is completely in
error, probably based on urban legend and rumor. If you can't produce
statistics from a recognized industry source like the RIAA, then its status
as urban legend and rumor is an accomplished fact.

You will find very few live recordings that excede 65 dB dynamic
range.

I make them all the time with fairly ordinary recording equipment.

You will find the vast
majority of commercial recordings have far less dynamic range.

Actually, 65 dB dynamic range is easy to achieve. ?Of course its possible
to
compress program material so that it has zero dynamic range, but that's
an
artistic choice, not a characteristic of CD technology.

That is irrelevant to my point.

Your so-called point appears to be based on urban legend and rumor.

Not to say we shouldn't try to accomedate recordings with exceptionally
wide
dynamic ranges.

If you want to accomodate wide dynamic range, you are forced out of the
LP
format.

Not really. I can name literally hundreds of LPs produced with no
compression that have very dynamic original material.

What is "very dynamic"? 25 dB? 55 dB? 75 dB?

It is well known that vinyl's already audible distortion greatly increases
during loud passages, and increases the perception of loudness, especially
among naive listeners.

But audio-band dynamic range is not the LP format's weakest link.
Dynamic
range at high frequencies the far more significant weakness of the LP
format.
That is true. Things like cymbal crashes with close microphone
techniques and other such signals are an issue with vinyl. The cutting
engineer will likely use a limiter if that kind of high frequency
energy is in the signal.

And the effects of the limiter will be audible and some sparkle and
liveness
will be sacrificed to accomodate the technical limitations of the LP
format

In some rare cases, yes.

No, in a high proportion of cases. Many cases where people who favor the LP
format complain about the harshnes of digital recording, are due to them
becoming accustomed to loud passages being limited, and confuse accurate
reproduction with harshness. You can find this information in the
references that have been posted here, you know the ones that you have not
even read the abstracts of, let alone studied and understood their contents.

[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message
...
On Oct 25, 2:39�pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in ...
On Oct 24, 5:26?pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
..
I disagree. The test record you used was not cut on the latest most
advanced cutting lathes and does not represent the state of the art
of
vinyl mastering.
Prove it.
HiFi News and record review test record correct? The one cut back in
the late 60s right?

Wrong again. The HFN test record was been recut in recent times. I have
one
of the newly cut versions.

Here is a discussion of the more recent version of the HFN test record:

http://www.tnt-audio.com/accessories/hfnrrdisc_e.html

Actually that isn't the most recent version of The Hifi News test
record. here is a link to the latest version
http://www.soundscapehifi.com/hifi-news-test-lp.htm

""The 'Producer's Cut' is the successor to the original HFNRR Test LP,
first pressed in 1996.

You obviously missed my post of about an hour later, wherein I said exactly
that, and explained the omission.

[C. Leeds]

Arny Krueger wrote:

There seems to be a lot of resistance among certain people towards ideas
that have been in the well-established technical literature of audio
technology for decades.

Evidence?

This was followed up with no less than 20 relevant citations from the JAES,
which is a well-known, relevant, generally-accepted independently-refereed
academic journal.

Please feel free to quote excerpts from these articles that support your
beliefs. That would be permitted under "fair use." The rest of us aren't
interested in an expensive wild-goose chase. After all, the readily
available sources you cited didn't reveal anything that supported your
oft-repeated claims.

These articles catalog the inherent technical problems
with vinyl...

Again, please feel free to quote excerpts. Remeber: at question here is
the inherent audibility of these problems.

There is no evidence...

Exactly.

[Arny Krueger]

"C. Leeds" wrote in message
...

Please feel free to quote excerpts from these articles that support your
beliefs. That would be permitted under "fair use." The rest of us aren't
interested in an expensive wild-goose chase. After all, the readily
available sources you cited didn't reveal anything that supported your
oft-repeated claims.

I know of no examples of a cited source that *didn't* support my claims.

I do seem to recall some rush-to-judgement out-of-hand dismissals based on
obviously incomplete understandings of the issues.

I have zero reason to believe that any source I cite will receive fair,
insightful treatment.

Therefore, I have zero motivation to do people's homework for them.

[[email protected]]

On Oct 27, 7:33�pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in ...
On Oct 25, 5:26?pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in message

...

On Oct 24, 2:33 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in message

...

On Oct 23, 5:47 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
Vinyl is so limited in terms of dynamic range that many if not most
digital
masters would require further processing if a good-sounding LP were
the
desired outcome. It is perfectly trivial to create a digital master
that
would damage most LP cutting equipment if not operated by an
expert.
The
expert would start out by changing the master. Producing an
acceptable
LP
from an unaltered digital master of ordinary music might be
impossible.
To the best of my knowledge there are very few commercial recordings
that have an excess of 75 db dynamic range.

If we consider the results posted atwww.hometheatrehifi.com, their LP
system tests show 22 dB audio-band dynamic range,
The link doesn't work but any claim that the inherent dynamic range of
medium is 22db would simply be erroneous.

Not really.

http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/featu...s/vinyl-vs.-cd...

Thank goodness we now have a working link. I have combed the article
and I must say I don't see any claim that the tests show a 22 dB
dynamic range.

shows even worse results than that.

Test results with the Manly Preamp and MacIntosh MT10
Turntable/Arm/Cartdige
show ?20% THD+N, which corresponds to 13 dB dyanamic range.

Harmonic distortion is not a measure of dynamic range. 20% THD+N does
not have any direct corlation to the dynamic range of any system. Your
conclusion that this leads to a measured dynamic range of 13 Db is
completely eroneous.

By most accounts from those
involved with state of the art vinyl reproduction report that the
inherent dynamic range ia anywhere from 75 to 80 db.

It's not a matter of the state of the art, its a matter of a biased
criteria. ?The biased criteria has been in use for at least 40 years.
It's a
tradition. I used it without thinking.

They have been used eroneously IYO?

Also we have to
remember the noise floor of vinyl has a specific sonic signature which
allows for hearing signals well below the noise floor.

This is also true for the CD format,

Irrelevant. We are talking about the colorations of vinyl, inherent,
euphonic and inherent euphonic.

If their rig is only able to achieve 22db dynamic range it has some
serious problems.

No, there are very serious dynamic range problems with the LP format as
compared to even 30-year-old digital formats.
No. The inherent dynamic range is somewhere in the 75 dB range.

The actual inherent dynamic range of most recordings in use is generally far
poorer than that. �75 dB is an exceptional number.

That is what I have been saying.


Since this is in the same range as the dynamic range of musical recordings,
the music is audibly contaminated by it during quiet passages.

You are not making sense first you acknowledge that 75 db dynamic
range is an exceptional number then you say " this is in the same
range as the dynamic range of musical recordings." It is eaither
exceptional or it is not. You were right the first time. It is
exceptional.



Low frequency noise and high
frequency dynamic range are serious problems. We've been sweeping those
problems under the rug for decades with biased measurement techniques.
The low frrequency noise is a problem. It's seriousness is a matter of
opinion.

If one is willing to accept substandard reproduction, then it is no problem
at all.

Substandard? What constitutes "standard" reproduction? What are you
using as your reference and what meters are you using to judge
deviations from that reference and what points of deviation are you
calling "standard?"



�One the one hand it leads to an arguably misleading poor
measured performance for dynamic range since most of the musical
material is spead well beyond the limited spectrum of this inherent
noise and therefore allows for one to hear musical information way
below the measured noise floor of vinyl.

One can hear musical information way below the measured noise floor of all
commercial recorded formats, analog or digital. However, one has to question
the process of trying to listen under degraded conditions like this when
there is usually no need to do so.

That simply is not true if one is actually interested in listening to
commercial recordings. Surface noise is nothing comparred to the sort
of audible degredations found on the vast majority of commercial CDs.
I also don't have the benefit of euphonic colorations provided by my
turntable, cartridge and preamp with CD playback so even some of the
best CDs fall short subjectively compared with their LP counterparts
in my system. So if I want the best subjective sound from my favorite
recordings I do have to live with hearing a little surface noise on
the ones with very wide dynamic range.



OTOH this does come at the
price of audible surface noise during the quietest passages. The
degree to which this bothers a listener is a function of the biases
and sensitivities of each individual listener.

Why tolerate audible noise at all?


Because there is more to the quality of playback than whether or not
there is audible noise.



which is far worse than a
typical uncompressed classical CD which has 65 dB or better audio-band
dynamic range.
65 db is well within the inherent limitations of vinyl.
Not if noise below 200 Hz is treated the same as we treat it when
characterizing the CD format.
But it is if one is actually considering music with a dynamic range of
65 dB being transcribed to vinyl.

There are commercial musical recordings with dynamic range of 72 dB or more.
I have several of them in my possession, and many more are on the
marketplace.

They are the exception not the rule. In those cases some compression
would be needed to transcribe them to vinyl.



It can be done and has been done with out any compression.

You seem to misundertand compression - when applied to recordings it
decreases their dynamic range.

You drew an eroneous conclusion. I do understand compression. I simply
asserted, correctly, that recordings with 65 dB dynamic range can be
trnascribed to vinyl without the use of compression.

In fact avoiding compression is how you make
a recording with the best possbile dynamic range. �Compression need not be
used while recording Cds, but is almost manditory when trying to force wide
dynamic range music onto a LP.

Nope. I have many LPs with no compression of music with a wide dynamic
range.



In listening to music the accurate portrayal
of the dynamics in the music is what matters and vinyl is quite
capable of doing that with the vast majority of commercial recordings.

IOW, the LP format is only capable of handling the vast majority of
commerical recordings, but not all of them.

Without using compression. Yes


It's also extremely dynamic by recording standards.
That would appear to be a meaningless statement.
No it is an accurate statement. You will be hard pressed to find any
studio recordings with a dynamic range greater than 25dB much less 65
dB.

Virtually every studio recording I have has more than 25 dB dynamic range,
and that includes 100's of recordings. Your information is completely in
error, probably based on urban legend and rumor.

Actually it is based on measurements made by various mastering
engineers who actually have to be aware fo the dynamic range of every
master tape they deal with. If you wish to check with those mastering
engineers I will happily provide names and email addresses so you can
check for yourself. no need to take my word for it and no need to pay
20 dollars per inquiry. It's free and easy to actually check with
legitimate reliable sources.

If you can't produce
statistics from a recognized industry source like the RIAA, then its status
as urban legend and rumor is an accomplished fact.

Perhaps you could produce statistics from the same source that
supports your assertion. I was not aware that they actually kept a
running score on the dynamic ranges of every recording.



You will find very few live recordings that excede 65 dB dynamic
range.

I make them all the time with fairly ordinary recording equipment.


I am concerned with commercial recordings.



You will find the vast
majority of commercial recordings have far less dynamic range.
Actually, 65 dB dynamic range is easy to achieve. ?Of course its possible
to
compress program material so that it has zero dynamic range, but that's
an
artistic choice, not a characteristic of CD technology.
That is irrelevant to my point.

Your so-called point appears to be based on urban legend and rumor.

I will happily supply references if you want to follow up on them.



Not to say we shouldn't try to accomedate recordings with exceptionally
wide
dynamic ranges.
If you want to accomodate wide dynamic range, you are forced out of the
LP
format.
Not really. I can name literally hundreds of LPs produced with no
compression that have very dynamic original material.

What is "very dynamic"? 25 dB? 55 dB? 75 dB?

Live piano, Live orchestral music, Live jazz.....


It is well known that vinyl's already audible distortion greatly increases
during loud passages, and increases the perception of loudness, especially
among naive listeners.

Really? where is the research that implies naive listeners are
particularly suseptable to this? are you suggesting that less than
naive listeners will somehow not percieve this increased loudness? I'd
like to see the listening tests that support this assertion.



But audio-band dynamic range is not the LP format's weakest link.
Dynamic
range at high frequencies the far more significant weakness of the LP
format.
That is true. Things like cymbal crashes with close microphone
techniques and other such signals are an issue with vinyl. The cutting
engineer will likely use a limiter if that kind of high frequency
energy is in the signal.
And the effects of the limiter will be audible and some sparkle and
liveness
will be sacrificed to accomodate the technical limitations of the LP
format
In some rare cases, yes.

No, in a high proportion of cases.

Prove it.

[C. Leeds]

I told Arny:

Please feel free to quote excerpts from these articles that support your
beliefs. That would be permitted under "fair use." The rest of us aren't
interested in an expensive wild-goose chase. After all, the readily
available sources you cited didn't reveal anything that supported your
oft-repeated claims.

Arny Krueger answers::

I have zero reason to believe that any source I cite will receive fair,
insightful treatment.

Therefore, I have zero motivation to do people's homework for them.

Certainly, participation here is purely optional; you have no obligation
to anyone here. However, if you decline to provide documentation to
support your beliefs, you cannot also claim to have provided evidence
that supports those beliefs. Naturally, this doesn't mean that you can't
continue to assert your beliefs. It simply puts your beliefs on par with
others who lack anything to substantiate their claims.

[Arny Krueger]

"C. Leeds" wrote in message
...
I told Arny:

However, if you decline to provide documentation to
support your beliefs, you cannot also claim to have provided evidence
that supports those beliefs.

Not a problem, since both Steven and I have provided evidence that supports
those beliefs, in a standard format.

Again, given the instant and frivolous dismissal of such evidence as was
provided from online sources, it is quite clear what is going on here.

None is as blind as one who does not want to see.

[bob]

On Oct 28, 7:48*pm, "C. Leeds" wrote:

Certainly, participation here is purely optional; you have no obligation
to anyone here. However, if you decline to provide documentation to
support your beliefs, you cannot also claim to have provided evidence
that supports those beliefs. Naturally, this doesn't mean that you can't
continue to assert your beliefs. It simply puts your beliefs on par with
others who lack anything to substantiate their claims.

But only in the eyes of those who choose not to know anything about
the subject. Folks who know something about the subject can easily
differentiate those who know what they're talking about from the other
kind. And those who at least *want* to know something about the
subject can consult the relevant literature (copious relevant examples
of which have been supplied here) and confirm that the claims stand up
to scrutiny.

Given the nature of rec.audio.high-end, I suspect that the vast
majority of its readers are very interested in understanding the
technical side of audio reproduction (though fewer probably care about
vinyl reproduction anymore). I doubt, therefore, that too many of them
will confuse Arny's arguments with those of the typical Usenet
sophist.

bob

[Richard Tollerton]

On Oct 28, 11:30*am, wrote:

You are not making sense first you acknowledge that 75 db dynamic
range is an exceptional number then you say " this is in the same
range as the dynamic range of musical recordings." It is eaither
exceptional or it is not. You were right the first time. It is
exceptional.

As a semi-lurker (who was indirectly led into this debate by Steve), I
really think we should care less about exact decibel ranges for
dynamic range. As Andy has pointed out, they're not all that
comparable between LP and CD to begin with. And you can define the
recording level to some arbitrarily high value and get an arbitrarily
increased SNR (at the expense of tracking/tracing distortion and
mistracking).

But I *will* say that, on several records I have, the dynamic range of
the music has been clearly and obviously constrained by the noise
floor of the vinyl. The biggest example here is a (sealed!) copy of a
Mahler 3 by Horenstein on Nonesuch I bought a couple years ago -
wonderfully produced, but I need to struggle through the noise to
understand the quiet solo sections. There's a Mahler 1 I bought a
month ago with about the same problem. On Shellac's "Excellent Italian
Greyhound", there is clearly audible tape print-through in one song on
the CD version that is lost in the noise on the LP version. This one,
in particular, was produced entirely on tape and is a brand-new
pressing from 2007 on 180g vinyl cut on Abbey Road's DMM lathe - so it
likely represents something pretty close to the state of the art in
vinyl production nowadays.

Quite simply, I have experienced several obvious examples where I
can't hear something nearly as well as I ought to on the vinyl because
the noise (which I believe to be surface noise) obscures it. And I've
listened to a lot more CDs and I've only encountered *one* CD whose
dynamic range reasonably exceeded the medium (and it was experimental
electronic, so CDs kind of get a by on that). That alone is reasonable
proof to me that the dynamic range of vinyl is not sufficient for at
least *some* real music out there, and IMNSHO, it should be reasonable
proof for you, too.

[[email protected]]

On Oct 27, 7:50�pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in message

...





On Oct 25, 2:39 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in ...
On Oct 24, 5:26?pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
..
I disagree. The test record you used was not cut on the latest most
advanced cutting lathes and does not represent the state of the art
of
vinyl mastering.
Prove it.
HiFi News and record review test record correct? The one cut back in
the late 60s right?

Wrong again. The HFN test record was been recut in recent times. I have
one
of the newly cut versions.

Here is a discussion of the more recent version of the HFN test record:

http://www.tnt-audio.com/accessories/hfnrrdisc_e.html

Actually that isn't the most recent version of The Hifi News test
record. here is a link to the latest version
http://www.soundscapehifi.com/hifi-news-test-lp.htm
""The 'Producer's Cut' is the successor to the original HFNRR Test LP,
first pressed in 1996.

You obviously missed my post of about an hour later, wherein I said exactly
that, and explained the omission.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It came after I already made my post. But I am not clear what you are
trying to say in those two posts it seems there may be some
conflicting information in them so I will try to sumarize what
happened and you can make any corrections. In a nutshell you decided
to get the most SOTA test record in 2001 and chose to buy both the
2000 cut of the HFN test record and the 1996 HNN test record. Then on
this thread you cited tests done by you with the 2000 cut but posted a
link to the 1996 cut when identifying the record you used to do your
tests. Then after checking your references found that you posted a
link to the wrong HFN test record. But you actually did buy that
record as well as the 2000 cut back in 2001 when you decided to do
these tests on your turntable rig.

I just have a few questions because a lot of this just isn't making
sense to me. If you bought these records somewhere around 2001 why
would you buy both versions? There is no advantage to owning the 1996
version. These are expensive records, teh 2000 cut is 50 bucks why buy
a second, inferior version at the same time for an additional 35
bucks? Everything on the 96 cut is on the 2000 cut. Why would you then
post a link to the 1996 version if you owned the 2000 version? They
are clearly unmistakably different records. And how would you forget
buying both versions? That is an unusual choice to say the least. It's
not one I would easily forget. I'm just not understanding what
transpired here.

[Richard Tollerton]

On Oct 28, 11:30*am, wrote:

You are not making sense first you acknowledge that 75 db dynamic
range is an exceptional number then you say " this is in the same
range as the dynamic range of musical recordings." It is eaither
exceptional or it is not. You were right the first time. It is
exceptional.

As a guy who got indirectly dragged into this discussed by Steven
(thanks for nothing! :P), I'd like to point out that there are several
records I own where real music seems to be obscured by the surface
noise of the records.

The most prominent example I like to throw out is Shellac's "Excellent
Italian Greyhound", believed to be mastered almost identically between
the vinyl and CD releases (and the CD comes for free with the vinyl,
and it should still be available at record stores, so it's triply easy
to compare!). On "Genuine Lulabelle", the tape print-through on Steve
Albini's voice is quite audible when listening to the CD version in a
suitably quiet environment. It's drowned in the noise on the vinyl
version. I bought this new in 2007, and it was cut on the Abbey Road
DMM lathe and produced entirely on tape and otherwise subjected to
Albini's TLC, so I think this is an eminently reasonable example of a
real record produced to modern specs that just doesn't cut the mustard
compared to CD.

If you want an example of "real" music that is affected by the reduced
dynamic range of vinyl, as opposed to print-through: My 1970 Mahler 3
by Horenstein on Nonesuch (still sealed when I bought it!) has solo
instrument parts which are quite difficult to tell out due to, I
believe, the noise of the medium. My Mahler 1 on vinyl has similar
issues. Besides some experimental electronic I have (aeo3/3hae) I've
never encountered anything like that on CD.

If that's not clear-cut personal experience of the reduced dynamic
range of vinyl cutting into real-world signal fidelity, I don't know
what is.

[[email protected]]

On Oct 28, 8:22�pm, Richard Tollerton
wrote:
On Oct 28, 11:30�am, wrote:

You are not making sense first you acknowledge that 75 db dynamic
range is an exceptional number then you say " this is in the same
range as the dynamic range of musical recordings." It is eaither
exceptional or it is not. You were right the first time. It is
exceptional.

As a semi-lurker (who was indirectly led into this debate by Steve), I
really think we should care less about exact decibel ranges for
dynamic range. As Andy has pointed out, they're not all that
comparable between LP and CD to begin with. And you can define the
recording level to some arbitrarily high value and get an arbitrarily
increased SNR (at the expense of tracking/tracing distortion and
mistracking).

But I *will* say that, on several records I have, the dynamic range of
the music has been clearly and obviously constrained by the noise
floor of the vinyl. The biggest example here is a (sealed!) copy of a
Mahler 3 by Horenstein on Nonesuch I bought a couple years ago -
wonderfully produced, but I need to struggle through the noise to
understand the quiet solo sections. There's a Mahler 1 I bought a
month ago with about the same problem. On Shellac's "Excellent Italian
Greyhound", there is clearly audible tape print-through in one song on
the CD version that is lost in the noise on the LP version. This one,
in particular, was produced entirely on tape and is a brand-new
pressing from 2007 on 180g vinyl cut on Abbey Road's DMM lathe - so it
likely represents something pretty close to the state of the art in
vinyl production nowadays.

Quite simply, I have experienced several obvious examples where I
can't hear something nearly as well as I ought to on the vinyl because
the noise (which I believe to be surface noise) obscures it. And I've
listened to a lot more CDs and I've only encountered *one* CD whose
dynamic range reasonably exceeded the medium (and it was experimental
electronic, so CDs kind of get a by on that). That alone is reasonable
proof to me that the dynamic range of vinyl is not sufficient for at
least *some* real music out there, and IMNSHO, it should be reasonable
proof for you, too.

I don't think it is really all that safe to assume a DMM at Abby Road
somehow insures a state of the art mastering job. It may or may not
be. It would help to know what choices were made by the mastering
engineer. The question is are these problems a result of the inherent
limitations of the medium or a result of that particular mastering.
Unfortunately very few mastering engineers have the skill or
inclination to fully exploit the capacities of the medium. IME the LPs
that do the best at handling the widest dynamic range possible for the
medium were cut at 45 rpm and are never cut close to the label. I have
many LPs of orchestral works that do not suffer from the sort of
obscuring of low level detail that you describe as lost or very
difficult to hear due to surface noise. Perhaps the recording you
speak of actually is more dynamic than any of the recordings I am
thinking of here. These would include several offererings from
Sheffield Labs and Refference Recordings along with some terrific
reissues from King Super Analog, Analog Productions, Speaker's Corner,
Cisco and Classics. There is some pretty dynamic stuff there. Dare I
say that there is always the possibility that your gear may also be
contributing to the problem? I suspect this suggestion may send some
into a tizzy but the reality is not all vinyl playback equipment is
created equal. I found that as I upgraded my vinyl playback equipment
I was able to extract more and more low level information from the he
grooves.

[C. Leeds]

I wrote to Arny (after he declined to cite evidence that would support
his vinyl beliefs)

...if you decline to provide documentation to
support your beliefs, you cannot also claim to have provided evidence
that supports those beliefs. Naturally, this doesn't mean that you can't
continue to assert your beliefs. It simply puts your beliefs on par with
others who lack anything to substantiate their claims.

nabob answers:

But only in the eyes of those who choose not to know anything about
the subject. Folks who know something about the subject can easily
differentiate those who know what they're talking about from the other
kind.

That's usually true.

And those who at least *want* to know something about the
subject can consult the relevant literature (copious relevant examples
of which have been supplied here)

No, the examples have not been provided. What Arny did do was present a
laundry list of sources, then insist readers engage in a wild goose
chase to discover whatever it is that Arny might be referring to. Big
difference.

Given the nature of rec.audio.high-end, I suspect that the vast
majority of its readers are very interested in understanding the
technical side of audio reproduction... I doubt, therefore, that too many of them
will confuse Arny's arguments with those of the typical Usenet
sophist.

Agreed; few Usenet readers would confuse Arny with "the typical Usenet
sophist." His voluminous postings, on here and on r.a.o., distinguish
him as being in a class of one. As you said, knowledgeable readers can
decide for themselves who is an expert, and who isn't.

[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message
...
On Oct 27, 7:50�pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in message

...





On Oct 25, 2:39 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in
...
On Oct 24, 5:26?pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
..
I disagree. The test record you used was not cut on the latest
most
advanced cutting lathes and does not represent the state of the
art
of
vinyl mastering.
Prove it.
HiFi News and record review test record correct? The one cut back in
the late 60s right?

But I am not clear what you are trying to say in those two posts

It should be totally clear. You've been conclusively proven to be grossly
wrong in a rush to judgment. Twice on just the topic of my choice of test
records. And now you're going to make it wrong three times, at least.


it seems there may be some
conflicting information in them so I will try to summarize what
happened and you can make any corrections.

You get to be wrong again.

In a nutshell you decided
to get the most SOTA test record in 2001 and chose to buy both the
2000 cut of the HFN test record and the 1996 HNN test record.

No, I just bought the latest test record available, which was the 2000 test
record.

Then on
this thread you cited tests done by you with the 2000 cut but posted a
link to the 1996 cut when identifying the record you used to do your
tests.

No, I didn't know offhand what test record I used, but I knew it wasn't the
late-60s version. Not that it would make a difference in terms of the final
outcome. I searched around and found the reference to 1996 record, and
posted it. Feeling that this wasn't right, I searched around and found the
link to the 2000 record, which matched my other recollections better.

Then after checking your references found that you posted a
link to the wrong HFN test record. But you actually did buy that
record as well as the 2000 cut back in 2001 when you decided to do
these tests on your turntable rig.

No, I only bought the 2000 record. In fact the 2000 record was produced
because people ran out of stock of the 1996 record.

I just have a few questions because a lot of this just isn't making
sense to me. If you bought these records somewhere around 2001 why
would you buy both versions?

Because that illogical act was a figment of your imagination.

There is no advantage to owning the 1996
version. These are expensive records,

You obviously have no idea about the costs involved in testing audio
equipment. $50 for a test record is a nominal expense. Remember, I have two
of them.

That's one of the mysteries of dealing with some people - they will spend
thousands on equipment, lust after $10,000s worth of equipment and then
choke on the idea of paying $50 to find out what it really does.

If one actually does their homework, they find out that expensive vinyl
playback equipment is yet another example of "audio jewelry". If you want
to have the time accurately and clearly presented, buy a Timex. If you want
a LP played back well, buy a used Rega with a sub-$100 phono cartridge. If
you want bragging rights, go elsewhere.

[Arny Krueger]

"Richard Tollerton" wrote in message
...
On Oct 28, 11:30 am, wrote:

You are not making sense first you acknowledge that 75 db dynamic
range is an exceptional number then you say " this is in the same
range as the dynamic range of musical recordings." It is either
exceptional or it is not. You were right the first time. It is
exceptional.

As a semi-lurker (who was indirectly led into this debate by Steve), I
really think we should care less about exact decibel ranges for
dynamic range.

Not even the technical experts are interested in the *exact* dB ranges.
However the fact that one is at least 30 dB more than the other, and one is
bad enough to muddy up the sound of low-level passages does interest us.

As Andy has pointed out, they're not all that
comparable between LP and CD to begin with.

Right, a LP performs poorly compared to just about everything, and a CD
performs about as well as the finest amplifiers.

And you can define the
recording level to some arbitrarily high value and get an arbitrarily
increased SNR (at the expense of tracking/tracing distortion and
mistracking).

That's an unfair comparison that no competent techhie would make. Music with
high distortion isn't music well-reproduced. This almost looks like a straw
man argument. And you can't define recording levels arbitrarily high. At
some point not that far beyond where vinyl normally operates, its output
gets to be so distorted that it simply stops increasing.

But I *will* say that, on several records I have, the dynamic range of
the music has been clearly and obviously constrained by the noise
floor of the vinyl. The biggest example here is a (sealed!) copy of a
Mahler 3 by Horenstein on Nonesuch I bought a couple years ago -
wonderfully produced, but I need to struggle through the noise to
understand the quiet solo sections.

That's what I was trying to point out to Mr. Wheeler. The way we have
historically characterized the dynamic range of vinyl including giving it
the benefit of a number of doubts or if you will, Mulligans. With all those
Mulligans in place, its noise floor is at or above the quietest passages of
many real-world wide-dynamic range recordings. In contrast the CD format's
noise floor as measured with zero Mulligans, is still about 20 dB below the
music in the quietest passage. Furthermore, the noise floor of a CD shaped
during mastering so that perceptually, the noise floor is more like 40 dB
below the music in the quietest passage.

There's a Mahler 1 I bought a
month ago with about the same problem. On Shellac's "Excellent Italian
Greyhound", there is clearly audible tape print-through in one song on
the CD version that is lost in the noise on the LP version. This one,
in particular, was produced entirely on tape and is a brand-new
pressing from 2007 on 180g vinyl cut on Abbey Road's DMM lathe - so it
likely represents something pretty close to the state of the art in
vinyl production nowadays.

In fact the state of the art of vinyl hasn't changed in decades. DMM is
maybe 2-3 decades old. It never received general acceptance. It was a
solution looking for a problem, in many people's eyes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_metal_mastering

"The original inventor of the DMM method (Neumann) has completely stopped
making cutting lathes and neither do they have any spare parts left for
existing systems."

Quite simply, I have experienced several obvious examples where I
can't hear something nearly as well as I ought to on the vinyl because
the noise (which I believe to be surface noise) obscures it. And I've
listened to a lot more CDs and I've only encountered *one* CD whose
dynamic range reasonably exceeded the medium (and it was experimental
electronic, so CDs kind of get a by on that). That alone is reasonable
proof to me that the dynamic range of vinyl is not sufficient for at
least *some* real music out there, and IMNSHO, it should be reasonable
proof for you, too.

We see people who want to give the obsolete vinyl format any number of
allowances or as I call them, Mulligans.

There's the tic and pop Mulligan. There's the inner-groove distortion
Mulligan. There's the low frequency noise Mulligan. There is the high
distortion Mulligan. There's the high background noise Mulligan. There's the
warp-induced jitter Mulligan.

There's the "I have thousands invested in LP playback gear and media, but a
$50 test record will break my bank" Mulligan. There's the "I don't want to
find a library with JAES back issues and do my homework" Mulligan.

There is something kind of warm and comforting about recording and listening
to music via a medium like the CD that needs no Mulligans! ;-)

[Arny Krueger]

"C. Leeds" wrote in message
...

I wrote to Arny (after he declined to cite evidence that would support his
vinyl beliefs)

...if you decline to provide documentation to
support your beliefs, you cannot also claim to have provided evidence
that supports those beliefs. Naturally, this doesn't mean that you can't
continue to assert your beliefs. It simply puts your beliefs on par with
others who lack anything to substantiate their claims.

nabob answers:

But only in the eyes of those who choose not to know anything about
the subject. Folks who know something about the subject can easily
differentiate those who know what they're talking about from the other
kind.

That's usually true.

Yes, it is common courtesy to not bite the hand that feeds.

And those who at least *want* to know something about the
subject can consult the relevant literature (copious relevant examples
of which have been supplied here)

No, the examples have not been provided. What Arny did do was present a
laundry list of sources, then insist readers engage in a wild goose chase
to discover whatever it is that Arny might be referring to. Big
difference.

Actually, I only personally provided two sources, both of which are
reasonably brief and well known to me.

Given the nature of rec.audio.high-end, I suspect that the vast
majority of its readers are very interested in understanding the
technical side of audio reproduction... I doubt, therefore, that too many
of them
will confuse Arny's arguments with those of the typical Usenet
sophist.

Agreed; few Usenet readers would confuse Arny with "the typical Usenet
sophist."

Yes, providing relevant test results that illustrate the problems being
discussed is not what Sophists usually do. Ironic that the test results I
provided were the better part of a decade old, and actually showed better
and more relevant results than more recent tests of far more elaborate and
expensive equipment.

His voluminous postings, on here and on r.a.o., distinguish him as being
in a class of one. As you said, knowledgeable readers can decide for
themselves who is an expert, and who isn't.

Why is there any mention of who is an expert here? Perhaps someone thinks
that anybody with relevant hands-on experience has to think of himself as
being an expert? Or, do only experts have any familiarity with classic JAES
papers?

[bob]

On Oct 29, 9:13*am, "C. Leeds" wrote:

No, the examples have not been provided. What Arny did do was present a
laundry list of sources, then insist readers engage in a wild goose
chase to discover whatever it is that Arny might be referring to. Big
difference.

Learning is neither easy nor a wild goose chase. That some choose not
to learn does not diminish Arny's credibility.

Given the nature of rec.audio.high-end, I suspect that the vast
majority of its readers are very interested in understanding the
technical side of audio reproduction... I doubt, therefore, that too many of them
will confuse Arny's arguments with those of the typical Usenet
sophist.

Agreed; few Usenet readers would confuse Arny with "the typical Usenet
sophist."

There is plenty of sophistry around here, but Arny's not responsible
for much of it.

bob

[Richard Tollerton]

On Oct 29, 8:12*am, wrote:

I don't think it is really all that safe to assume a DMM at Abby Road
somehow insures a state of the art mastering job. It may or may not
be. It would help to know what choices were made by the mastering
engineer. The question is are these problems a result of the inherent
limitations of the medium or a result of that particular mastering.
Unfortunately very few mastering engineers have the skill or
inclination to fully exploit the capacities of the medium. IME the LPs
that do the best at handling the widest dynamic range possible for the
medium were cut at 45 rpm and are never cut close to the label.

I do know that Steve Albini is unusually picky with his choice of
mastering firm and cutting house, and as far as I know, the only
difference between the vinyl and CD masters of that album is that the
vinyl mastering engineer pressed "play" an extra time. They really do
sound the same (besides the noise).

I have
many LPs of orchestral works that do not suffer from the sort of
obscuring of low level detail that you describe as lost or very
difficult to hear due to surface noise. Perhaps the recording you
speak of actually is more dynamic than any of the recordings I am
thinking of here. These would include several offererings from
Sheffield Labs and Refference Recordings along with some terrific
reissues from King Super Analog, Analog Productions, Speaker's Corner,
Cisco and Classics. There is some pretty dynamic stuff there.

Point taken, and while I've been tapping the cheap classical stacks
lately, I probably should investigate an audiophile release from one
of those guys. That said... I'm really not getting my hopes up here.
And many of those labels as we all know have had significant QC
issues, in some cases relating specifically to noise.

At the same time, even if they did have superior dynamic range, I
don't think it's particularly fair to argue about the dynamic range of
vinyl based solely on audiophile pressings such as those. They form a
small fraction of even the existing new vinyl market - outside of very
few individuals, you will not find people buying exclusively new vinyl
from labels like that. If you were saying specifically "audiophile-
quality vinyl has equal or superior dynamic range to CDs", that's
another thing, but then I would hope that you would at least concede
that mainstream pressed vinyl (even the "good" stuff from Nonesuch
etc) from decades past is very likely to have inferior SNR. And that
significantly constrains the argument that vinyl has a comparable
dynamic range....

I would also like to point out that - and I admit I have very little
references to back me up on this, this is largely anecdotal - quite a
few classical releases were subject to significant dynamic range
compression for precisely this reason (to pull up quiet sections from
the background noise). I'm not presuming that you would have those
releases, but it's at least worth mentioning.

Dare I
say that there is always the possibility that your gear may also be
contributing to the problem? I suspect this suggestion may send some
into a tizzy but the reality is not all vinyl playback equipment is
created equal. I found that as I upgraded my vinyl playback equipment
I was able to extract more and more low level information from the he
grooves.

I haven't, and I have never seen any really compelling evidence that
improved gear improves SNR, besides the bare baseline stuff like non-
defective bearings. The role of cables and preamps on the matter is
complete BS. And in particular, if tonearms really did affect noise
levels that much, as a function of the arm acoustics, you'd see pops
and ticks reflect back to the cartridge a significant fraction of a
millisecond (or more!) after they are tracked - and I've never seen
evidence of that in my own recordings, or anybody else's for that
matter. It is just really hard to believe that anything that happens
after the groove is traced causes any significant kind of increase in
transient noise. (Moreover, I clean my vinyl and I have an OC9
mounted, and OC9s are simply not well known for increasing surface
noise.)

Frankly, I'd probably turn that back around and question if your
system isn't resolving enough. I always listen with headphones - noise-
reducing Etymotics ER-4Ss to be exact - and they are murderously
sensitive to noise. John Elison at Vinyl Asylum did a ABX shootout a
while back with CD-Rs of needledrops, and commented that others
thought their (megabucks) systems were truly silent, but in fact had
plainly audible surface noise in his listening rig. This may also just
boil down to that. ER-4Ss are cheap nowadays - you should buy a pair
and hear what I'm listening.

I'm sorry, but my mind is rather closed on the matter. My own ears
tell me the dynamic range is insufficient; none of the evidence I have
read to the contrary is compelling to me. The one thing that would
probably convince me is a needledrop with a peak-to-noise ratio that
is significantly higher than my own - and note, mine's only 60db! Even
showing a vinyl record with a provable 75db SNR is going to be a
challenge, I would predict.

[[email protected]]

On Oct 29, 3:51�pm, Richard Tollerton
wrote:
On Oct 29, 8:12�am, wrote:

I don't think it is really all that safe to assume a DMM at Abby Road
somehow insures a state of the art mastering job. It may or may not
be. It would help to know what choices were made by the mastering
engineer. The question is are these problems a result of the inherent
limitations of the medium or a result of that particular mastering.
Unfortunately very few mastering engineers have the skill or
inclination to fully exploit the capacities of the medium. IME the LPs
that do the best at handling the widest dynamic range possible for the
medium were cut at 45 rpm and are never cut close to the label.

I do know that Steve Albini is unusually picky with his choice of
mastering firm and cutting house, and as far as I know, the only
difference between the vinyl and CD masters of that album is that the
vinyl mastering engineer pressed "play" an extra time. They really do
sound the same (besides the noise).

I would hesitate to say that one could simply just press play when
cutting a master from a very dynamic source.There are important
choices made by the cutting engineer in every step of the process.
There is also a real hands on craft involved in the act of cutting and
not all cutting engineers are equally skilled.


I have
many LPs of orchestral works that do not suffer from the sort of
obscuring of low level detail that you describe as lost or very
difficult to hear due to surface noise. Perhaps the recording you
speak of actually is more dynamic than any of the recordings I am
thinking of here. These would include several offererings from
Sheffield Labs and Refference Recordings along with some terrific
reissues from King Super Analog, Analog Productions, Speaker's Corner,
Cisco and Classics. There is some pretty dynamic stuff there.

Point taken, and while I've been tapping the cheap classical stacks
lately, I probably should investigate an audiophile release from one
of those guys. That said... I'm really not getting my hopes up here.
And many of those labels as we all know have had significant QC
issues, in some cases relating specifically to noise.

At the same time, even if they did have superior dynamic range, I
don't think it's particularly fair to argue about the dynamic range of
vinyl based solely on audiophile pressings such as those.

If we are talking about inherent limitations of the medium then it is
unfair to reference anything less. If we are talking real world LPs
and CDs (audiophile LPs are real world, anyone who wishes to can buy
them) then it has to be a case by case basis and one has to always
consider the substantial variations in audible performance of the wide
variety of turntable rigs out there.

They form a
small fraction of even the existing new vinyl market - outside of very
few individuals, you will not find people buying exclusively new vinyl
from labels like that.

I do find myself buying them along with audiophile CDs. It does not
matter to me what the neighbors are doing. It seems to me that if one
is really interested in getting the best sound from the music they
love that they will put together the best playback system they can and
collect the best sounding LPs and CDs of the music they wish to listen
to. Getting a better mastered LP or CD of a title one enjoys
listening to is one of the least expensive and most effective upgrades
an audiophile can make. I can't understand why anyone would shut off
all the opportunities to get their favorite music at it's best over
some idealogoical objection to either format. That strikes me as a
classic case of cutting off one's nose to spite one's face.

If you were saying specifically "audiophile-
quality vinyl has equal or superior dynamic range to CDs", that's
another thing,

I'm not really saying anything in general about either format other
than that a well mastered LP can sustain a very wide dynamic range.

but then I would hope that you would at least concede
that mainstream pressed vinyl (even the "good" stuff from Nonesuch
etc) from decades past is very likely to have inferior SNR. And that
significantly constrains the argument that vinyl has a comparable
dynamic range....

I have not argued that the dynamic range is comparable to anything. I
have argued that it's inherent limitation is in the neighborhood of
75-80 dB and that is plenty for the vast majority of commercial
recordings. of course we can find examples both on LP and CD where the
capacities of either medium were not fully exploited.


I would also like to point out that - and I admit I have very little
references to back me up on this, this is largely anecdotal - quite a
few classical releases were subject to significant dynamic range
compression for precisely this reason (to pull up quiet sections from
the background noise). I'm not presuming that you would have those
releases, but it's at least worth mentioning.

I am not denying that compression has been used on a good many records
over the years. It has. But today's state of the art cutting engineers
on state of the art cutting equipment can transcribe very dynamic
source material without using any compression. And this is actually
being done with a good many of the greatest (IMO) recordings in
history. It actually is a very exciting time to be an audiophile with
a high end turntable rig.


Dare I
say that there is always the possibility that your gear may also be
contributing to the problem? I suspect this suggestion may send some
into a tizzy but the reality is not all vinyl playback equipment is
created equal. I found that as I upgraded my vinyl playback equipment
I was able to extract more and more low level information from the he
grooves.

I haven't, and I have never seen any really compelling evidence that
improved gear improves SNR,

I have under controlled listening tests heard some pretty profound
differences in various rig's ability to portray low level information.
I base this on what I hear not on any bench tests. We are talking
about a transducer when we talk about vinyl playback. Even the biggest
tech heads usually concede that the final proof of performance is in
the listening not on the test bench with transducers.

besides the bare baseline stuff like non-
defective bearings. The role of cables and preamps on the matter is
complete BS.

I think you are really underestimating the role of phono preamps and
phono cables. I think you may even find some "objective" support for
this assertion. I'll dig something up if you wish.

And in particular, if tonearms really did affect noise
levels that much, as a function of the arm acoustics, you'd see pops
and ticks reflect back to the cartridge a significant fraction of a
millisecond (or more!) after they are tracked - and I've never seen
evidence of that in my own recordings, or anybody else's for that
matter. It is just really hard to believe that anything that happens
after the groove is traced causes any significant kind of increase in
transient noise. (Moreover, I clean my vinyl and I have an OC9
mounted, and OC9s are simply not well known for increasing surface
noise.)

Frankly, I'd probably turn that back around and question if your
system isn't resolving enough.

Fair enough. My speakers are Sound Lab A3 electrostatic speakers with
a Vandersteen sub.
http://www.soundlab-speakers.com/a3.htm
My room is heavily damped and very well isolated. It is remarkably
quite.
I also have the Stax SRX headphones.

I always listen with headphones - noise-
reducing Etymotics ER-4Ss to be exact - and they are murderously
sensitive to noise.

Heightened portrayal of detail is not always a sign of better sounding
playback. Just as one can turn up the contrast on an image and see
more detail at the overall expense of the image quality one can have
playback equipment that is hypersensitive to detail but not to the
benefit of the naturalness of the sound.

John Elison at Vinyl Asylum did a ABX shootout a
while back with CD-Rs of needledrops, and commented that others
thought their (megabucks) systems were truly silent, but in fact had
plainly audible surface noise in his listening rig. This may also just
boil down to that. ER-4Ss are cheap nowadays - you should buy a pair
and hear what I'm listening.

I'll look into it. But understand that I want to detail to sound like
detail when I listen to music. I'm not looking for etched
hyperanalytical sound. I find that to be very fatiguing and just plain
unpleasant to listen to. I am looking for the natural balance of
detail one finds with the best live acoustic music. It is easy to find
exaggerated detail in playback. I don't like it.


I'm sorry, but my mind is rather closed on the matter. My own ears
tell me the dynamic range is insufficient; none of the evidence I have
read to the contrary is compelling to me. The one thing that would
probably convince me is a needledrop with a peak-to-noise ratio that
is significantly higher than my own - and note, mine's only 60db! Even
showing a vinyl record with a provable 75db SNR is going to be a
challenge, I would predict.

If you have made up your mind I am not going to try to persuede you to
change it. hopefully, if nothing else, I have better explained my
beliefs.

[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message ...

I would hesitate to say that one could simply just press play when
cutting a master from a very dynamic source.There are important
choices made by the cutting engineer in every step of the process.

It would appear that this is a serious fault of the LP format - there are so
many important choices to be made before and while the master is being cut.
For openers, it is a *not* given that the LP will ever be able to
accurately reproduce *anything* that is on the master recording. The master
has to be constrained, either through the playing of the music, or by
limiting and compression during the production process.

In contrast, a CD master can be prepared (no cutting is involved) pretty
much by pressing the start button. For openers, it is a given that the CD
*will* be able to accurately reproduce *anything* that is on the master
recording.

At the same time, even if they did have superior dynamic range, I
don't think it's particularly fair to argue about the dynamic range of
vinyl based solely on audiophile pressings such as those.

One of the unsolved problems of vinyl is the fact that it is a wildly
inconsistent medium. In addition to the preparations that need to be made
during cutting, the remaining many steps in the process will audibly
adversely affect the sound quality of the recording.

For example, the LP master needs to be plated within 24 hours of cutting,
which is practically impossible unless the cutting room and plating room are
close to each other. The plating room is generally at the pressing plant,
but for obvious reasons must be carefully separated from the mastering room.
So you have a conundrum right there, to meet time constraints you would like
to cut and plate in places that are close to each other, but the cutting
room and the plating room have to be carefully separated from each other.

If we are talking about inherent limitations of the medium then it is
unfair to reference anything less.

Not true. One of the inherent limitations of the LP medium is that its
quality has always been so variable. One of the strengths of the CD medium
is that its quality is so consistent. However, the LP medium at its best
falls woefully short of the CD medium, even when both are judged under the
best possible circumstances.

If we are talking real world LPs
and CDs (audiophile LPs are real world, anyone who wishes to can buy
them) then it has to be a case by case basis and one has to always
consider the substantial variations in audible performance of the wide
variety of turntable rigs out there.

In fact there is no reliable evidence at all that a megabuck playback system
has any actual benefits over fairly modest systems, vis-a-vis sound quality.
Many if not all of the "substantial variations" are based on appearance and
hype.

They form a
small fraction of even the existing new vinyl market - outside of very
few individuals, you will not find people buying exclusively new vinyl
from labels like that.

I do find myself buying them along with audiophile CDs. It does not
matter to me what the neighbors are doing.

In a similar fashion it matters even less to your neighbors what you are
doing, since what you are doing is virtually impossible to justify on
anything but personal bias for audibly degraded reproduction of music.

It seems to me that if one
is really interested in getting the best sound from the music they
love that they will put together the best playback system they can and
collect the best sounding LPs and CDs of the music they wish to listen to.

Actually, if you want the best sound from the music you love, go to live
performances and/or become a good enough musician that you can entertain
yourself. Millions of people do exactly this.

Getting a better mastered LP or CD of a title one enjoys
listening to is one of the least expensive and most effective upgrades
an audiophile can make.

However, this is an relatively expensive crap shoot. If you are that picky,
then you need to realize that mastering is often about frequency response
variations that a person with educated ears and fingers can adjust for
themselves.

I can't understand why anyone would shut off
all the opportunities to get their favorite music at it's best over
some ideological objection to either format.

This isn't about ideology, it is about practical considerations such as:

The LP format is so process-dependent that there can easily be audible
differences between media from the same production run. So, when you buy a
LP, you don't know if it was from the beginning of the pressing run and the
end of the pressing run or how long the pressing run was or what the process
was like during the run. Every LP is a pig in a poke.

That strikes me as a
classic case of cutting off one's nose to spite one's face.

First off, compared to the number of new titles released on digital media,
there are almost no new titles released on LP. Relatively speaking, titles
released in the LP format are almost completely unavailable. For example,
you can't download a LP. Fact of the matter is that people who are
committed to the LP often buy certain titles because they are available on
LP, rather than any a priori love for the specific musical performance.

If you were saying specifically "audiophile-
quality vinyl has equal or superior dynamic range to CDs", that's
another thing,

That other thing would be that it is completely and totally false.

I'm not really saying anything in general about either format other
than that a well mastered LP can sustain a very wide dynamic range.

Not by comparison to what the CD format reliably delivers. Remember, that a
recording with 70 dB dynamic range delivered on a medium with 70 dB dynamic
range has zero SNR at some points. Zero SNR is not considered to be typical
of a high quality listening experience.

but then I would hope that you would at least concede
that mainstream pressed vinyl (even the "good" stuff from Nonesuch
etc) from decades past is very likely to have inferior SNR. And that
significantly constrains the argument that vinyl has a comparable
dynamic range....

I have not argued that the dynamic range is comparable to anything. I
have argued that it's inherent limitation is in the neighborhood of
75-80 dB and that is plenty for the vast majority of commercial
recordings.

There is now, and there never has been a LP with even 65 dB dynamic range if
we judge the LP by the same standards we use for judging even the cheapest
CD player. We do judge CD players using "unweighted" (actually 20-20k flat
bandwidth) noise measurements, while similarly unweighted noise measurements
are generally not used for judging LP hardware. We have a few examples at
hand where unweighted noise measurements were used, and the results for the
LP were horrific - on the order of 20 dB.

of course we can find examples both on LP and CD where the
capacities of either medium were not fully exploited.

Irrelevant. Exploiting the medium is an artistic and business choice. It's
not a technical choice.

I would also like to point out that - and I admit I have very little
references to back me up on this, this is largely anecdotal - quite a
few classical releases were subject to significant dynamic range
compression for precisely this reason (to pull up quiet sections from
the background noise). I'm not presuming that you would have those
releases, but it's at least worth mentioning.

I am not denying that compression has been used on a good many records
over the years. It has. But today's state of the art cutting engineers
on state of the art cutting equipment can transcribe very dynamic
source material without using any compression.

Again we have a entirely vague claim: "very dynamic". My "very dynamic" is
85 dB, which is the dynamic range of the widest dynamic range recording I've
ever been able to find, and approximates the dynamic range of the widest
dynamic range music recording I've ever been able to make by acoustical
means.

The LP format falls at least 10 dB short, even with every Mulligan and every
marginally-reasonable weighting curve applied. If we drop the Mulligans and
perceptual weighting curves, the LP format *fails* by at least 40 and
possibly 65 dB.

And this is actually
being done with a good many of the greatest (IMO) recordings in
history.

Again, we have an entirely vague criteria, "In My Opinion". This isn't
technology, it is solipsism.

It actually is a very exciting time to be an audiophile with
a high end turntable rig.

Depending on how we define yet another vague term, namely "high end
turntable rig", you've probably never had the privilege of even being in the
same room with one.

However, we have evidence before us that the presumed ultra-high performance
of a ""high end turntable rig" (whatever that is) is largely myth and hype.

Dare I
say that there is always the possibility that your gear may also be
contributing to the problem? I suspect this suggestion may send some
into a tizzy but the reality is not all vinyl playback equipment is
created equal. I found that as I upgraded my vinyl playback equipment
I was able to extract more and more low level information from the he
grooves.

I haven't, and I have never seen any really compelling evidence that
improved gear improves SNR,

I have under controlled listening tests heard some pretty profound
differences in various rig's ability to portray low level information.

Please document. Skepticism is indicated because of the absence of a
rigorous context for this claim.


I base this on what I hear not on any bench tests.

So what does "controlled test" mean in this context, other than perhaps the
room was temperature-controlled? (but what about humidity - that matters to
LP SQ, too).

We are talking
about a transducer when we talk about vinyl playback. Even the biggest
tech heads usually concede that the final proof of performance is in
the listening not on the test bench with transducers.

The final proof of performance is contingent on what we discover during the
lead-up. If we find that a transducer measures out with hallacious
performance, we generally never get to the final steps. And, compared to
even a good loudspeaker in a good room, the LP format leaves a lot to be
desired.


besides the bare baseline stuff like non-
defective bearings. The role of cables and preamps on the matter is
complete BS.

I think you are really underestimating the role of phono preamps and
phono cables. I think you may even find some "objective" support for
this assertion. I'll dig something up if you wish.

I'd love to see a vinyl advocate dig up even just one "objective" support
for any claim they make.

And in particular, if tonearms really did affect noise
levels that much, as a function of the arm acoustics, you'd see pops
and ticks reflect back to the cartridge a significant fraction of a
millisecond (or more!) after they are tracked - and I've never seen
evidence of that in my own recordings, or anybody else's for that
matter.

Probably true as long as we ignore some real abortions like pressed-tin tone
arms. ;-)

It is just really hard to believe that anything that happens
after the groove is traced causes any significant kind of increase in
transient noise. (Moreover, I clean my vinyl and I have an OC9
mounted, and OC9s are simply not well known for increasing surface
noise.)

OC9s are good. But, they aren't magic.

[Richard Tollerton]

On Oct 30, 8:16*am, wrote:
I would hesitate to say that one could simply just press play when
cutting a master from a very dynamic source.There are important
choices made by the cutting engineer in every step of the process.
There is also a real hands on craft involved in the act of cutting and
not all cutting engineers are equally skilled.

Understood, but my understanding is that besides the extremely hands-
on matter of maintaining the cutting head assembly and managing the
pitch, it's quite possible to cut a record that is a direct transfer
of the master material - as long as specific thresholds aren't
exceeded. eg, don't have enough stereo bass to compromise tracking,
don't incur so much acceleration that the coils fry, etc. Steve
Hoffman, at least, advertised that some of the vinyl work he's done (I
want to say Tres Hombres in particular) was cut flat from the master
tapes. But then again, he doesn't do the vinyl mastering, KG does.

At one extreme I could argue that because test records are a clear
example of something where the records are not "mastered" in the
audible sense. Also, don't direct-to-disc releases rely on very little
input from the mastering engineer?

I'll take a look through the Electrical Audio forums and dig up some
more info on this particular Shellac album, as far as what
specifically might have gone on with the vinyl.

I do find myself buying them along with audiophile CDs. It does not
matter to me what the neighbors are doing. It seems to me that if one
is really interested in getting the best sound from the music they
love that they will put together the best playback system they can and
collect the best sounding LPs and CDs of the music they wish to listen
to. Getting a better mastered LP or CD *of a title one enjoys
listening to is one of the least expensive and most effective upgrades
an audiophile can make. I can't understand why anyone would shut off
all the opportunities to get their favorite music at it's best over
some idealogoical objection to either format. That strikes me as a
classic case of cutting off one's nose to spite one's face.

I disagree, but more because I've made a conscious effort to distance
my emotional reaction to the music from the sound quality (or the
price). I prefer to choose more based on price nowadays, and with a
lot of reportory vinyl in the $1-$3 range nowadays, screw good
masterings! I've bought tons of CBS Masterworks vinyl (not the most
highly rated) and have been more or less pleased with all of it.

Ultimately what I'm getting at (and this may be less of an attack on
you than an attack on pro-vinyl arguments in general) is that while
the advantages of high-quality vinyl are highly touted, in terms of
what people actually *mean* when they refer to vinyl, they don't
always mean that. I've heard all sorts of people tout vinyl's
"improved dynamics", "extended range", etc. when listing to very
mainstream, non-audiophile vinyl - rock LPs, new or used, the
occasional Decca 60s pressing, etc. Stuff that in my experience has
none of these attributes, And when those statements are confronted,
people seem to dodge the question and go "well, if you had a mint UHQR
pressing, you'd clearly see the advantages of vinyl!"

Of course I'm exaggerating, but not by much. If one touts audiophile-
grade vinyl as the true example of the medium's potential, and lesser-
grade stuff as not, you're essentially saying that all of people who
love the sound of vinyl who haven't listened to said systems simply do
not know what they are talking about, because the criticisms stick to
them, and not to the audiophile stuff.

If you were saying specifically "audiophile-
quality vinyl has equal or superior dynamic range to CDs", that's
another thing,

I'm not really saying anything in general about either format other
than that a well mastered LP can sustain a very wide dynamic range.

And I'll agree with that. Certainly it's high enough for most music.
It's not high enough for *all* music, though.

I would also like to point out that - and I admit I have very little
references to back me up on this, this is largely anecdotal - quite a
few classical releases were subject to significant dynamic range
compression for precisely this reason (to pull up quiet sections from
the background noise). I'm not presuming that you would have those
releases, but it's at least worth mentioning.

I am not denying that compression has been used on a good many records
over the years. It has. But today's state of the art cutting engineers
on state of the art cutting equipment can transcribe very dynamic
source material without using any compression. And this is actually
being done with a good many of the greatest (IMO) recordings in
history. It actually is a very exciting time to be an audiophile with
a high end turntable rig.

How do you reconcile this statement with your beliefs that cutting a
record is a "hands on craft"? If compression is not employed, and the
source material remains more or less intact, doesn't that mean that
there is really very little "hands on" work employed? That seems to
undercut your previous argument about very dynamic sources requiring
that sort of thing.

As mentioned above, I more or less agree with you here, but then that
challenges your claim about highly dynamic works needing massaging
even further.

I have under controlled listening tests heard some pretty profound
differences in various rig's ability to portray low level information.
I base this on what I hear not on any bench tests. We are talking
about a transducer when we talk about vinyl playback. Even the biggest
tech heads usually concede that the final proof of performance is in
the listening not on the test bench with transducers.

That may be true, but if I'm completely unable to figure it out on the
bench, I am highly inclined to say that what I listened to was
placebo. The human mind is a somewhat deceptive device. Obviously it
can see things that a test environment can't see, but that doesn't
mean it can see things that *no* test environment can't see. And the
power of analysis tools to tease stuff like this out nowadays is
staggering.

besides the bare baseline stuff like non-
defective bearings. The role of cables and preamps on the matter is
complete BS.

I think you are really underestimating the role of *phono preamps and
phono cables. I think you may even find some "objective" support for
this assertion. I'll dig something up if you wish.

Please do.

And in particular, if tonearms really did affect noise
levels that much, as a function of the arm acoustics, you'd see pops
and ticks reflect back to the cartridge a significant fraction of a
millisecond (or more!) after they are tracked - and I've never seen
evidence of that in my own recordings, or anybody else's for that
matter. It is just really hard to believe that anything that happens
after the groove is traced causes any significant kind of increase in
transient noise. (Moreover, I clean my vinyl and I have an OC9
mounted, and OC9s are simply not well known for increasing surface
noise.)

Frankly, I'd probably turn that back around and question if your
system isn't resolving enough.

Fair enough. My speakers are Sound Lab A3 electrostatic speakers with
a Vandersteen sub.http://www.soundlab-speakers.com/a3.htm
My room is heavily damped and very well isolated. It is remarkably
quite.
I also have the Stax SRX headphones.

I always listen with headphones - noise-
reducing Etymotics ER-4Ss to be exact - and they are murderously
sensitive to noise.

Heightened portrayal of detail is not always a sign of better sounding
playback. Just as one can turn up the contrast on an image and see
more detail at the overall expense of the image quality one can have
playback equipment that is hypersensitive to detail but not to the
benefit of the naturalness of the sound.

Sure (and I'm not saying I'd choose my environment over yours!), but
just because it doesn't happen on a system that isn't as
"hypersensitive" as mine, doesn't mean it's not a problem. It just
means it's a problem that only shows up in certain environments. The
way I listen to music is no less valid.

Etys, in fact, have essentially no response above 16k, and have a very
tight response below that, so they can't really be compared to
traditional "hyperdetailed" kit in the peaky-treble sense. I wouldn't
go so far as to call them hypersensitive.

I'll look into it. But understand that I want to detail to sound like
detail when I listen to music. I'm not looking for etched
hyperanalytical sound. I find that to be very fatiguing and just plain
unpleasant to listen to. I am looking for the natural balance of
detail one finds with the best live acoustic music. It is easy to find
exaggerated detail in playback. I don't like it.

Again, if you think my system is hypersensitive, you're mistaken. It
sounds perfectly natural and balanced to me. The whole meaning of
"naturalness" and "sensitivity" is ultimately subjective, of course -
unless you resort to frequency response measurements. (And the Etys
have a very flat response, top end excluded.)

I'm sorry, but my mind is rather closed on the matter. My own ears
tell me the dynamic range is insufficient; none of the evidence I have
read to the contrary is compelling to me. The one thing that would
probably convince me is a needledrop with a peak-to-noise ratio that
is significantly higher than my own - and note, mine's only 60db! Even
showing a vinyl record with a provable 75db SNR is going to be a
challenge, I would predict.

If you have made up your mind I am not going to try to persuede you to
change it. hopefully, if nothing else, I have better explained my
beliefs.

You have (and this has been more civil than most conversations on the
matter, heh). I'm not saying I'm infallible or that my mind is just
sprung shut on the matter - I'm saying that the evidence that would
convince me is in my opinion rather easy to get a hold of, and rather
than debate the theoretics of SNR, some WAV samples would do a lot to
change my and others' perspective. (They don't even have to be
recorded with an audiophile sound card, you know.)

[[email protected]]

On Oct 30, 7:23�am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in ...
I would hesitate to say that one could simply just press play when
cutting a master from a very dynamic source.There are important
choices made by the cutting engineer in every step of the process.

It would appear that this is a serious fault of the LP format

Not at all. Just because a task requires skill to do well does not
mean it is inherently faulty. But mastering in general is a job that
requires skill and judgement. that is true for all formats not just
LPs.

- there are so
many important choices to be made before and while the master is being cut.
For openers, it is a *not* given that the LP will ever �be able to
accurately reproduce *anything* that is on the master recording.

I personally am not terribly concerned with absolute accuracy to the
master. I find that to be a rather arbitrary reference that is
inherently flawed because it sets up playback equipment as part of
one's reference and I find it an impractical reference because I don't
have access to the master tapes.


The master
has to be constrained, either through the playing of the music, or by
limiting and compression during the production process.

There are any number of LPs that simply run completely contrary to
this assertion.



In contrast, a CD master can be prepared (no cutting is involved) pretty
much by pressing the start button. For openers, it is a given that the CD
*will* be able to accurately reproduce *anything* that is on the master
recording.

I would hate to think that mastering engineers are so careless as to
actually do what you describe. Even when mastering CDs there is always
more to it than just pressing the start button. It would be utterly
irresponsible for a mastering engineer not to preview a tape and check
levels at the very least. More often there is plenty more to do when
mastering a CD than just pressing the start button. Mastering is both
an art and a skill set. If it were in practice as simple as just
pressing the start button we wouldn't have mastering engineers.




At the same time, even if they did have superior dynamic range, I
don't think it's particularly fair to argue about the dynamic range of
vinyl based solely on audiophile pressings such as those.

One of the unsolved problems of vinyl is the fact that it is a wildly
inconsistent medium. In addition to the preparations that need to be made
during cutting, the remaining many steps in the process will audibly
adversely affect the sound quality of the recording.

There is an error in your logic with this argument. Just because the
medium requires skilled hands and ears and technical excellence to be
done well does not mean that it is a wildly inconsistant medium.



For example, the LP �master needs to be plated within 24 hours of cutting,
which is practically impossible unless the cutting room and plating room are
close to each other.

That is much ado about nothing. take a look at how they do it at RTI.
http://www.recordtech.com/default.htm
State of the art cutting, plating and pressing all under one roof.

The plating room is generally at the pressing plant,
but for obvious reasons must be carefully separated from the mastering room.
So you have a conundrum right there, to meet time constraints you would like
to cut and plate in places that are close to each other, but the cutting
room and the plating room have to be carefully separated from each other.

That really isn't a big problem. They actually offer tours of the
facilities at RTI. Just go visit them. See for yourself how easily
they solved this problem.



If we are talking about inherent limitations of the medium then it is
unfair to reference anything less.

Not true.

No it is very true. Any short comings in any vinyl that is due to less
than state of the art execution is by definition not an inherent
limitation of the medium.

One of the inherent limitations of the LP medium is that its
quality has always been so variable.


That is not an inherent limitation.


If we are talking real world LPs
and CDs (audiophile LPs are real world, anyone who wishes to can buy
them) then it has to be a case by case basis and one has to always
consider the substantial variations in audible performance of the wide
variety of turntable rigs out there.



In fact there is no reliable evidence at all that a megabuck playback system
has any actual benefits over fairly modest systems, vis-a-vis sound quality.
Many if not all of the "substantial variations" are based on appearance and
hype.

IME there has been a plethera of evidence provided by controlled
listening comparisons to demonstrate there are significant differences
in the sonic signature of turntables and pickup arms. If you have some
actual reliable evidence in that way of published controlled listening
tests that would suggest otherwise I'd be happy to look at them.



They form a
small fraction of even the existing new vinyl market - outside of very
few individuals, you will not find people buying exclusively new vinyl
from labels like that.
I do find myself buying them along with audiophile CDs. It does not
matter to me what the neighbors are doing.

In a similar fashion it matters even less to your neighbors what you are
doing, since what you are doing is virtually impossible to justify on
anything but personal bias for audibly degraded reproduction of music.

What anyone does in this hobby is for all practical purposes only
justifiable on a personal level in that it provides personal pleasure
to the hobbyist. You are making many assertions about excellence
throughout this thread as though they were somehow objective
assertions. They are not. It is an undeniable fact that any
qualitative aesthetic judgement is at it's very base not an objective
measure. Personal non-objective choices are made about what
constitutes aesthetic excellence before any measure is made of said
excellence. I can describe my aesthetic values in music and how I use
them to judge excellence in playback. But that is perhaps a subjct for
a seperate thread. Suffice to say that when I speak of sonic
excellence it is with the undersatnding that ultimately any aesthetic
judgment is premised on a personal non-objective set of aesthetic
values. Whether or not any given LP degrades the sound is a matter of
judgement based on goals set by each individual listener and is
unfortunately in most cases strapped with the biases and prejudices of
each individual. When you find people making blanket evaluations of
the medium without considering excellence on a case by case basis it
usually suggests the assertion is born more of prejudice and strong
bias than any geniune interest in sonic excellence. I can not imagine
anyone with anything less than a profound bias against vinyl playback
not being able to appreciate the excellent sound one can get from
playing an outstanding LP on an excellent playback system that
includes excellent vinyl playback equipment.


It seems to me that if one
is really interested in getting the best sound from the music they
love that they will put together the best playback system they can and
collect the best sounding LPs and CDs of the music they wish to listen to.

Actually, if you want the best sound from the music you love, go to live
performances

I do that quite often. We are blessed with a few of the best sounding
halls in the world. Disney hall and Royce Hall at UCLA to name two.


and/or become a good enough musician that you can entertain
yourself. Millions of people do exactly this.

That aint gonna happen.



Getting a better mastered LP or CD �of a title one enjoys
listening to is one of the least expensive and most effective upgrades
an audiophile can make.

However, this is an relatively expensive crap shoot.

It can be a crap shoot. but if one is willing to do a little research
and learn about the people who are behind the masterings it is far
less of a crap shoot. But just blindly buying something on CD because
it is on CD is worse than a crap shoot. that is more like the odds you
get from a lottery. no thank you. I will do my homework instaead and
make informed decisions about what to buy. and I will continue to buy
all the contenders with my very favorite titles be it CD or LP and do
my own personal shoot outs.



I can't understand why anyone would shut off
all the opportunities to get their favorite music at it's best over
some ideological objection to either format.

This isn't about ideology

When people are making blanket dismisals of the format I think it very
much is about ideology. the only practical consideration would
logically be what one hears in actual listening.


That strikes me as a
classic case of cutting off one's nose to spite one's face.

First off, compared to the number of new titles released on digital media,
there are almost no new titles released on LP.

In those cases there is no choice involved. If there is only one
mastering of a given title regardless of the format one has to take
that one mastering if they want that music.

�Relatively speaking, titles
released in the LP format are almost completely unavailable.

Reletive to what? I have no trouble finding the LPs I want that are in
print. This is simply not an issue.

�Fact of the matter is that people who are
committed to the LP often buy certain titles because they are available on
LP, rather than any a priori love for the specific musical performance.

That is simply not true at least for myself. I have obviously made a
pretty significant financial commitment to the vinyl medium. but I
don't let that stop me from buying music on CD.



of course we can find examples both on LP and CD where the
capacities of either medium were not fully exploited.

Irrelevant.

Only if one has no geniune interest in the sound quality of commercial
music. Otherwise it is one of the most important factors in audio.

Exploiting the medium is an artistic and business choice. It's
not a technical choice.

Sound quality is an aesthetic judgement and exploitation of the vinyl
medium these days is often an aesthetic choice that has wrought superb
results.


And this is actually
being done with a good many of the greatest (IMO) recordings in
history.

Again, we have an entirely vague criteria, "In My Opinion". This isn't
technology, it is solipsism.

I am interested in the aesthetic experience of audio first and
foremost. Any interest in the technical aspects are secondary and
subserviant to my primary interest. Others may have different
priorities. Nothing wrong with that.


It actually is a very exciting time to be an audiophile with
a high end turntable rig.

Depending on how we define yet another vague term, namely "high end
turntable rig", you've probably never had the privilege of even being in the
same room with one.

That is an odd assertion from you given that I have been in the room
with many Regas including the Rega 2.



However, we have evidence before us that the presumed ultra-high performance
of a ""high end turntable rig" (whatever that is) is largely myth and hype.

I haven't seen this alleged evidence. Perhaps you could cite it. Now
remember that "performance" ultimately is measured by some asesthetic
standard. before you start tot alk about performance you have to make
clear what you see as the standard and by what meter you measure al
things against it.



Dare I
say that there is always the possibility that your gear may also be
contributing to the problem? I suspect this suggestion may send some
into a tizzy but the reality is not all vinyl playback equipment is
created equal. I found that as I upgraded my vinyl playback equipment
I was able to extract more and more low level information from the he
grooves.

I haven't, and I have never seen any really compelling evidence that
improved gear improves SNR,
I have under controlled listening tests heard some pretty profound
differences in various rig's ability to portray low level information.

Please document. �Skepticism is indicated because of the absence of a
rigorous context for this claim.

I did not formally document anything. It was always done for to inform
me on a personal level. That is the nature of home brewed listening
tests. even ones done under blind conditions. It does not matter to me
if you believe my results or not.


I base this on what I hear not on any bench tests.

So what does "controlled test" mean in this context, other than perhaps the
room was ...


extended single blind comparisons.

[Richard Tollerton]

On Oct 30, 9:23 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

For example, the LP master needs to be plated within 24 hours of cutting,
which is practically impossible unless the cutting room and plating room are
close to each other. The plating room is generally at the pressing plant,
but for obvious reasons must be carefully separated from the mastering room.
So you have a conundrum right there, to meet time constraints you would like
to cut and plate in places that are close to each other, but the cutting
room and the plating room have to be carefully separated from each other.

They solved this problem 20 years ago. It's called DMM. (Ignore for a
moment the fact that so many audiophiles abhor it.)

Actually, if you want the best sound from the music you love, go to live
performances and/or become a good enough musician that you can entertain
yourself. Millions of people do exactly this.

Heh - to be completely snarky, I'll choose an LP of My Bloody
Valentine over the live performance any day of the year. I enjoy not
having hearing damage, thank you.

Getting a better mastered LP or CD of a title one enjoys
listening to is one of the least expensive and most effective upgrades
an audiophile can make.

However, this is an relatively expensive crap shoot. If you are that picky,
then you need to realize that mastering is often about frequency response
variations that a person with educated ears and fingers can adjust for
themselves.

You're right, and this bears particular repeating. It's abundantly
clear on the forums that buying audiophile LPs nowadays is A COMPLETE
CRAP SHOOT. In some cases (notably Classic) the QC is arguably worse
than with mainstream LPs back in the day. Hopefully they'll have good
luck with their new formulation, but the fact that they're doing so
much of the work themselves nowadays gives me less reassurance, not
more.

That makes for a particularly malicious form of nonfalsifiability on
the whole matter. Let's say that I *did* take everybody's word for it
and bought a top-shelf new pressing of something for $50. Suhprize
surprize, the dynamic range isn't any better than the $15 release. As
soon as I'd open my mouth saying that, I'm sure I'll get people saying
"yeah, well, you just got unlucky and got a bad pressing, mine is
lightyears better".

That is a really compelling reason for me to not touch high-end
pressings with a ten foot pole. The whole argument about them being a
superior method of comparison is a tar pit of sophistry, at least
until the QC becomes beyond repute.

Also note that, IIRC, the JVC UHQR formulations still have not been
beaten by modern formulations, so in a very real sense, the art of
vinyl production has regressed in that respect in the last 20 years.

*It is just really hard to believe that anything that happens
after the groove is traced causes any significant kind of increase in
transient noise. (Moreover, I clean my vinyl and I have an OC9
mounted, and OC9s are simply not well known for increasing surface
noise.)

OC9s are good. But, they aren't magic.

No, but they're close enough to SOTA that I haven't found a compelling
need to switch. I do have occasional fears about the stylus polish/
mounting quality though - and I will say that I suspect that has much
more to do with the quality of the playback than most other things
people talk about. Unfortunately I haven't figured out any
particularly good way of evaluating that, besides buying near the top
of the line from a manufacturer to get good binning.

[[email protected]]

On Oct 30, 6:20�pm, Richard Tollerton
wrote:
On Oct 30, 9:23 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

However, this is an relatively expensive crap shoot. If you are that picky,
then you need to realize that mastering is often about frequency response
variations that a person with educated ears and fingers can adjust for
themselves.

You're right, and this bears particular repeating. It's abundantly
clear on the forums that buying audiophile LPs nowadays is A COMPLETE
CRAP SHOOT. In some cases (notably Classic) the QC is arguably worse
than with mainstream LPs back in the day. Hopefully they'll have good
luck with their new formulation, but the fact that they're doing so
much of the work themselves nowadays gives me less reassurance, not
more.

I think there has been many exagerrations about the poor QC from
Classics. I have over two hundred of their LPs. Only a few were
really bad. But there really isn't much of a crapshoot. If you get a
bad pressing you get to exchange it for a good one. Show me a craps
table in vegas that lets you throw the dice until you win. It can be
an inconvenience. It rarely is a geniune crap shoot.



That makes for a particularly malicious form of nonfalsifiability on
the whole matter. Let's say that I *did* take everybody's word for it
and bought a top-shelf new pressing of something for $50. Suhprize
surprize, the dynamic range isn't any better than the $15 release. As
soon as I'd open my mouth saying that, I'm sure I'll get people saying
"yeah, well, you just got unlucky and got a bad pressing, mine is
lightyears better".

While forums like the Steve Hoffman forum are often helpful and very
informative about what went into the mastering of many CDs and LPs
ultimately there is a degree of risk that you just might not like the
same things other people like.but that is not unique to LPs. You can
get the same problems with any CD too. we are talking about aesthetic
judgements here. It aint science.



That is a really compelling reason for me to not touch high-end
pressings with a ten foot pole. The whole argument about them being a
superior method of comparison is a tar pit of sophistry, at least
until the QC becomes beyond repute.

Any aesthetic choice ultimately is an act of sophistry is it not?
Ultimately any time you buy a CD or LP you run the risk that it was
poorly mastered as measured by your personal standards.



Also note that, IIRC, the JVC UHQR formulations still have not been
beaten by modern formulations, so in a very real sense, the art of
vinyl production has regressed in that respect in the last 20 years.

I have many LPs made from both formulations. I am not so convinced
that the old JVC formulations are actually any better. Hard to say.
There are so many other variables.

[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message
...
On Oct 30, 7:23�am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in ...

I would hesitate to say that one could simply just press play when
cutting a master from a very dynamic source.There are important
choices made by the cutting engineer in every step of the process.

It would appear that this is a serious fault of the LP format

Not at all. Just because a task requires skill to do well does not
mean it is inherently faulty.

Sure it does.

Plan A: obsess over every step of the many steps of the process, and face
the potential of failure at every step. When you are all done, you have
created a highly flawed product, anyway. Furthermore the market for the
product is miniscule.

Plan B: It's a one-step process and it just about can't fail. When you are
done, you have a perceptually perfect product. Just about everybody can
benefit from your product with no additional investements on their part.

Plan A = LP from master to playable disk.

Plan B = CD from master to playable disc

How many rational people would take long to make their decision?

But mastering in general is a job that
requires skill and judgement. that is true for all formats not just LPs.

Not true for all formats. The comparison above is totally factual.

- there are so
many important choices to be made before and while the master is being
cut.
For openers, it is a *not* given that the LP will ever �be able to
accurately reproduce *anything* that is on the master recording.

I personally am not terribly concerned with absolute accuracy to the
master.

To me, and 99% of the marketplace for recorded music, accuracy at a higher
level than the LP is my day-to-day expectation. Just like I don't like
prime rib roasted with sawdust and straw, I don't like music with audible
noise and distortion.

I find that to be a rather arbitrary reference that is
inherently flawed because it sets up playback equipment as part of
one's reference and I find it an impractical reference because I don't
have access to the master tapes.

It has always been true that the CD format can deliver an audibly perfect
copy of the master tapes. For most audiophiles the master tapes are someone
else's property, and they can't control what additional processing they go
through. However, some of us produce our own master tapes, and for us the CD
format is a very big benefit. In addition, there have always been owners of
master tapes such as Telarc, who were committed to distributing more
accurate renditions of their master tapes.

The master
has to be constrained, either through the playing of the music, or by
limiting and compression during the production process.

There are any number of LPs that simply run completely contrary to
this assertion.

Prove it, technically, with charts and graphs such as the ones that have
already been used to show that the LP format at its best or close to it, is
a very noisy and distorted medium. All we've seen here so far counter to
our evidence is anecdotes, hype, unreliable and biased sources, and quotes
of sales pitches.

In contrast, a CD master can be prepared (no cutting is involved) pretty
much by pressing the start button. For openers, it is a given that the CD
*will* be able to accurately reproduce *anything* that is on the master
recording.

I would hate to think that mastering engineers are so careless as to
actually do what you describe.

Once a CD master is prepared, that's all it takes. I can do it on a modest
scale in my living room. Our church secretary does it every week for longer
runs, up to several 100. A full-scale CD production facility can be fit into
a garage, run off of house current, and produce negligable hazardous waste.

Even when mastering CDs there is always
more to it than just pressing the start button. It would be utterly
irresponsible for a mastering engineer not to preview a tape and check
levels at the very least.

There are no levels to check. It's digital. Everything is as the person who
produced the master intended it. If you send a blank disc to many CD
production facilites, you just might get a thousand blank discs back!

More often there is plenty more to do when
mastering a CD than just pressing the start button. Mastering is both
an art and a skill set. If it were in practice as simple as just
pressing the start button we wouldn't have mastering engineers.

But the mastering doesn't have to be done at the manufacturing facility.
There's no need to plate the cut master within 24 hours.

At the same time, even if they did have superior dynamic range, I
don't think it's particularly fair to argue about the dynamic range of
vinyl based solely on audiophile pressings such as those.

One of the unsolved problems of vinyl is the fact that it is a wildly
inconsistent medium. In addition to the preparations that need to be made
during cutting, the remaining many steps in the process will audibly
adversely affect the sound quality of the recording.

There is an error in your logic with this argument. Just because the
medium requires skilled hands and ears and technical excellence to be
done well does not mean that it is a wildly inconsistant medium.

There's no error in a statement that describes the fabrication of the LP
product as it has been all along, and is today.

There are people who actually believe every sales pitch they hear.

For example, the LP �master needs to be plated within 24 hours of
cutting,
which is practically impossible unless the cutting room and plating room
are
close to each other.

That is much ado about nothing. take a look at how they do it at RTI.
http://www.recordtech.com/default.htm
State of the art cutting, plating and pressing all under one roof.

Exceptional enough that they make a big point of advertising it. I didn't
say it can't be done, I said it had to be done. BTW, do you know how much
hazardous waste the plating process involves? Do you really want your
masters cut right next to a plating factory? Do you want a plating factory
next door?

The plating room is generally at the pressing plant,
but for obvious reasons must be carefully separated from the mastering
room.
So you have a conundrum right there, to meet time constraints you would
like
to cut and plate in places that are close to each other, but the cutting
room and the plating room have to be carefully separated from each other.

That really isn't a big problem. They actually offer tours of the
facilities at RTI. Just go visit them. See for yourself how easily
they solved this problem.

Did they really solve the problems or are you being misled by a fancy web
site?

Do plant tours always reveal day-to-day operations?

If you are naive enough to believe all that, lets hope you never get a job
as an industrial job site inspector.

If we are talking about inherent limitations of the medium then it is
unfair to reference anything less.

Not true.

No it is very true. Any short comings in any vinyl that is due to less
than state of the art execution is by definition not an inherent
limitation of the medium.

Show technical evidence that so-called state-of-the art execution have
appreciably better performance than what has already been shown in technical
documents, or give it up!

One of the inherent limitations of the LP medium is that its
quality has always been so variable.

That is not an inherent limitation.

In what alternative universe?

If we are talking real world LPs
and CDs (audiophile LPs are real world, anyone who wishes to can buy
them) then it has to be a case by case basis and one has to always
consider the substantial variations in audible performance of the wide
variety of turntable rigs out there.

In fact there is no reliable evidence at all that a megabuck playback
system
has any actual benefits over fairly modest systems, vis-a-vis sound
quality.
Many if not all of the "substantial variations" are based on appearance
and
hype.

IME there has been a plethera of evidence provided by controlled
listening comparisons

AFAIK, completely undocumented. Besides listening evaluations need to be
confirmed by technical tests. The two should correspond to each other. The
technical results I've seen posted here exactly agree with what I hear.

to demonstrate there are significant differences
in the sonic signature of turntables and pickup arms.

No reliable evidence has been shown at all - just unsupported assertions.

If you have some
actual reliable evidence in that way of published controlled listening
tests that would suggest otherwise I'd be happy to look at them.

First show me your evidence of relaible listening tests. You're making the
unbelivable claims.

They form a
small fraction of even the existing new vinyl market - outside of very
few individuals, you will not find people buying exclusively new vinyl
from labels like that.

I do find myself buying them along with audiophile CDs. It does not
matter to me what the neighbors are doing.

In a similar fashion it matters even less to your neighbors what you are
doing, since what you are doing is virtually impossible to justify on
anything but personal bias for audibly degraded reproduction of music.

What anyone does in this hobby is for all practical purposes only
justifiable on a personal level in that it provides personal pleasure
to the hobbyist.

Getting pleasure out of unecessarily listening to good music unecessarily
contaminated by gratuitous noise and distortion strikes me as being as much
fun as having bamboo splints pushed under my fingernails and toe nails. They
tell me that people called masochists acctually love that sort of thing/.
Not my cup of tea!

You are making many assertions about excellence
throughout this thread as though they were somehow objective
assertions.

I've even produced reliable objective evidence of my own, and cited similar
or more damning objective evidence published by others.

They are not.

If wishes were fishes.

It is an undeniable fact that any
qualitative aesthetic judgement is at it's very base not an objective
measure.

Perceptual mashochism could be an attractive hobby for some, just not 99% of
all music lovers.


Dare I
say that there is always the possibility that your gear may also be
contributing to the problem? I suspect this suggestion may send some
into a tizzy but the reality is not all vinyl playback equipment is
created equal. I found that as I upgraded my vinyl playback
equipment
I was able to extract more and more low level information from the
he
grooves.

I haven't, and I have never seen any really compelling evidence that
improved gear improves SNR,

I have under controlled listening tests heard some pretty profound
differences in various rig's ability to portray low level information.

Please document. �Skepticism is indicated because of the absence of a
rigorous context for this claim.

I did not formally document anything.

So then your hands are empty.

It was always done for to inform
me on a personal level. That is the nature of home brewed listening
tests. even ones done under blind conditions. It does not matter to me
if you believe my results or not.

Then why aren't you keeping them to yourself?

So what does "controlled test" mean in this context, other than perhaps
the
room was ...

extended single blind comparisons.

IOW, nothing reliable at all - intentionally flawed.

[[email protected]]

On Oct 30, 4:44�pm, Richard Tollerton
wrote:
On Oct 30, 8:16�am, wrote:

I would hesitate to say that one could simply just press play when
cutting a master from a very dynamic source.There are important
choices made by the cutting engineer in every step of the process.
There is also a real hands on craft involved in the act of cutting and
not all cutting engineers are equally skilled.

Understood, but my understanding is that besides the extremely hands-
on matter of maintaining the cutting head assembly and managing the
pitch, it's quite possible to cut a record that is a direct transfer
of the master material - as long as specific thresholds aren't
exceeded. eg, don't have enough stereo bass to compromise tracking,
don't incur so much acceleration that the coils fry, etc. Steve
Hoffman, at least, advertised that some of the vinyl work he's done (I
want to say Tres Hombres in particular) was cut flat from the master
tapes. But then again, he doesn't do the vinyl mastering, KG does.

Sure. But when you are dealing with source material with a dynamic
range that is close to the thresholds of the medium you have this sort
of gambit that the cutting engineer has to play. The engineer has to
figure how high a level can be used to cut without breaking the groove
or running out of room on the laquer. If one playes it safe and
doesn't push the boundaries of the upper limits and they choose not to
use compression or a limiter then that cutting engneer will drive the
lower level information further into the noise floor. For the most
dynamic material KG and SH have been pushing the normal limitations by
cutting at 45 rpm and cutting shorter sides. You just cant get push
the groove as far if you are trying to cram more time per side. Now
with most pop/rock material the dynamic range is not wide enough to
have to resort to this sort of solution. It is less of a challenge to
cut something like Tres Hombres without using compression. What
Hoffman brings to the formula are his personal tweaks to improve the
sound of the master. Kevin does the dirty work on the lathe.




At one extreme I could argue that because test records are a clear
example of something where the records are not "mastered" in the
audible sense. Also, don't direct-to-disc releases rely on very little
input from the mastering engineer?

They rely heavily on the cutting engineer to get the maximum peak
levels cut without screwing up the adjacent grooves and without
running out of room. It is a highly skilled hands on job. The gambit
of choosing the highest peak level is predicated on the cutting
engineer's skills of navigating the cutter without breaking the
groove, distorting the adjacent grooves or running out of room on the
laquer. If the cutting engineer shoots to high, the session is lost on
a D2D rrecording. If the cutting engineer playes it safe the dynamic
range is reduced. I don't think it would be much of an exaggeration to
liken it to surgery.



I'll take a look through the Electrical Audio forums and dig up some
more info on this particular Shellac album, as far as what
specifically might have gone on with the vinyl.

I do find myself buying them along with audiophile CDs. It does not
matter to me what the neighbors are doing. It seems to me that if one
is really interested in getting the best sound from the music they
love that they will put together the best playback system they can and
collect the best sounding LPs and CDs of the music they wish to listen
to. Getting a better mastered LP or CD �of a title one enjoys
listening to is one of the least expensive and most effective upgrades
an audiophile can make. I can't understand why anyone would shut off
all the opportunities to get their favorite music at it's best over
some idealogoical objection to either format. That strikes me as a
classic case of cutting off one's nose to spite one's face.

I disagree, but more because I've made a conscious effort to distance
my emotional reaction to the music from the sound quality (or the
price). I prefer to choose more based on price nowadays, and with a
lot of reportory vinyl in the $1-$3 range nowadays, screw good
masterings! I've bought tons of CBS Masterworks vinyl (not the most
highly rated) and have been more or less pleased with all of it.

That is a choice to ignore better sound. That choice does not negate
my assertion.



Ultimately what I'm getting at (and this may be less of an attack on
you than an attack on pro-vinyl arguments in general) is that while
the advantages of high-quality vinyl are highly touted, in terms of
what people actually *mean* when they refer to vinyl, they don't
always mean that. I've heard all sorts of people tout vinyl's
"improved dynamics", �"extended range", etc. when listing to very
mainstream, non-audiophile vinyl - rock LPs, new or used, the
occasional Decca 60s pressing, etc. Stuff that in my experience has
none of these attributes,


It is all relative. Lets take another recent Gray/Hoffman mastering.
Joni Mitchell's Blue. For the first time this title was cut from the
actual original master rather than the EQed 2;1 compressed copy master
that had been the source for evey other version of this title
including the CDs. If someone raves about the better dynamics of this
over the CD they are simply telling the truth. Just because the source
material isn't state of the art doesn't mean that the differences in
mastering don't make a big difference. They usually do. In this day
and age when so many CDs are being compressed to 5dB dynamic range in
these crazy loudness wars it should be no surprise when people rave
about the improvements heard with audiophile LPs of the same material.
These are the real world choices audiophiles have to make. I don't see
why the enthusiasm of vinyl enthusiasts should in any way obscure or
negate these truisms for any audiophile interested in just getting the
best sound they can with their favorite music. To dismiss vinyl
because one is put off by the hyperbole of rabid vinyl enthusiasts
really is an act of cutting off one's nose.


And when those statements are confronted,
people seem to dodge the question and go "well, if you had a mint UHQR
pressing, you'd clearly see the advantages of vinyl!"

It is a case by case question. There simply are many instances where
the audiophile vinyl really is the best mastered source. But it always
is a case by case thing.



Of course I'm exaggerating, but not by much. If one touts audiophile-
grade vinyl as the true example of the medium's potential, and lesser-
grade stuff as not, you're essentially saying that all of people who
love the sound of vinyl who haven't listened to said systems simply do
not know what they are talking about, because the criticisms stick to
them, and not to the audiophile stuff.

Not at all. Again, case by case. In many cases IME that scratchy old
original really does have the prefered sound. Sometimes that is due in
no small part to the effects of euphonic colorations found in some of
those old cutting consoles. If someone has not come along and mastered
a better CD or LP, that old euphonically colored original LP often is
the prime cut.



If you were saying specifically "audiophile-
quality vinyl has equal or superior dynamic range to CDs", that's
another thing,

I'm not really saying anything in general about either format other
than that a well mastered LP can sustain a very wide dynamic range.

And I'll agree with that. Certainly it's high enough for most music.
It's not high enough for *all* music, though.

I would also like to point out that - and I admit I have very little
references to back me up on this, this is largely anecdotal - quite a
few classical releases were subject to significant dynamic range
compression for precisely this reason (to pull up quiet sections from
the background noise). I'm not presuming that you would have those
releases, but it's at least worth mentioning.

I am not denying that compression has been used on a good many records
over the years. It has. But today's state of the art cutting engineers
on state of the art cutting equipment can transcribe very dynamic
source material without using any compression. And this is actually
being done with a good many of the greatest (IMO) recordings in
history. It actually is a very exciting time to be an audiophile with
a high end turntable rig.

How do you reconcile this statement with your beliefs that cutting a
record is a "hands on craft"?

What is there to reconcile? Kevin Gray is allegedly one of, if not the
best cutting engineer ever. With these audiophile reissues he and
Steve Hoffman have been given free reign to do it the way they want
to. That is 4 sides cut at 45 rpm. They are making no holds barred
state of the art LPs. If you have that kind of freedom and a boss who
says make it as good as it can be instead of saying get it done cheap
and fast and you got the best guys in the business doing the work....
you get very dynamic source material on LP with no compression. You
also get all kinds of tweaks by these guys that just make the sound
even betterer.

If compression is not employed, and the
source material remains more or less intact, doesn't that mean that
there is really very little "hands on" work employed?

Quite the opposite. Just consider the surgery analogy. The tougher the
task the better the surgeon needs to be. i think it is fair to say
that lesser cutting engineers just couldn't get the material on laquer
without compression. I think it is fair to say most would not try to
do it without compression. It takes more skill when the source
material is more demanding of the medium.

That seems to
undercut your previous argument about very dynamic sources requiring
that sort of thing.

As mentioned above, I more or less agree with you here, but then that
challenges your claim about highly dynamic works needing massaging
even further.

More navigating than massaging. Here is another analogy. Think of it
as a Formula One car and track. You need the most skilled driver to
turn in the best time. Likewise you need the most skilled cutting
engineer to capture the widest dynamics without screwing the pooch.
AND when the boss says push the envelope regardless of what it takes
that frees you up to push the envelope. When the boss says faster
cheaper you have to play it safe.



I have under controlled listening tests heard some pretty profound
differences in various rig's ability to portray low level information.
I base this on what I hear not on any bench tests. We are talking
about a transducer when we talk about vinyl playback. Even the biggest
tech heads usually concede that the final proof of performance is in
the listening not on the test bench with transducers.

That may be true, but if I'm completely unable to figure it out on the
bench, I am highly inclined to say that what I listened to was
placebo. The human mind is a somewhat deceptive device. Obviously it
can see things that a test environment can't see, but that doesn't
mean it can see things that *no* test environment can't see. And the
power of analysis tools to tease stuff like this out nowadays is
staggering.


No doubt. But if one is using blind protocols....



besides the bare baseline stuff like non-
defective bearings. The role of cables and preamps on the matter is
complete BS.

I think you are really underestimating the role of �phono preamps and
phono cables. I think you may even find some "objective" support for
this assertion. I'll dig something up if you wish.

Please do.


I'll see what I can dig up





And in particular, if tonearms really did affect noise
levels that much, as a function of the arm acoustics, you'd see pops
and ticks reflect back to the cartridge a significant fraction of a
millisecond (or more!) after they are tracked - and I've never seen
evidence of that in my own recordings, or anybody else's for that
matter. It is just really hard to believe that anything that happens
after the groove is traced causes any significant kind of increase in
transient noise. (Moreover, I clean my vinyl and I have an OC9
mounted, and OC9s are simply not well known for increasing surface
noise.)

Frankly, I'd probably turn that back around and question if your
system isn't resolving enough.

Fair enough. My speakers are Sound Lab A3 electrostatic speakers with
a Vandersteen sub.http://www.soundlab-speakers.com/a3.htm
My room is heavily damped and very well isolated. It is remarkably
quite.
I also have the Stax SRX headphones.

I always listen with headphones - noise-
reducing Etymotics ER-4Ss to be exact - and they are murderously
sensitive to noise.

Heightened portrayal of detail is not always a sign of better sounding
playback. Just as one can turn up the contrast on an image and see
more detail at the overall expense of the image quality one can have
playback equipment that is hypersensitive to detail but not to the
benefit of the naturalness of the sound.

Sure (and I'm not saying I'd choose my environment over yours!), but
just because it doesn't happen on a system that isn't as
"hypersensitive" as mine, doesn't mean it's not a problem. It just
means it's a problem that only shows up in certain environments. The
way I listen to music is no less valid.

Validity is not really an issue. If one prefers to listen to playback
that is hyper revealing of detail that is a fair personal choice. but
with some choices there is baggage.



Etys, in fact, have essentially no response above 16k, and have a very
tight response below that, so they can't really be compared to
traditional "hyperdetailed" kit in the peaky-treble sense. I wouldn't
go so far as to call them hypersensitive.

I'll take your word for it. I have never heard them.



I'll look into it. But understand that I want to detail to sound like
detail when I listen to music. I'm not looking for etched
hyperanalytical sound. I find that to be very fatiguing and just plain
unpleasant to listen to. I am looking for the natural balance of
detail one finds with the best live acoustic music. It is easy to find
exaggerated detail in playback. I don't like it.

Again, if you think my system is hypersensitive, you're mistaken.

I don't know one way or the other. I have never heard your system. I
am going by what you say. If I am misunderstanding what you are saying
then I stand corrected.

It
sounds perfectly natural and balanced to me.

I have never heard headphones sound perfectly natural. They simply
don't image naturally. I have heard some pretty amazing imaging with
headphones and binaural recordings.

The whole meaning of
"naturalness" and "sensitivity" is ultimately subjective, of course -
unless you resort to frequency response measurements. (And the Etys
have a very flat response, top end excluded.)

no argument there and different people have different sensitivities to
different colorations and they have different aestheitc priorities.
Those things are inagruable.



I'm sorry, but my mind is rather closed on the matter. My own ears
tell me the dynamic range is insufficient; none of the evidence I have
read to the contrary is compelling to me. The one thing that would
probably convince me is a needledrop with a peak-to-noise ratio that
is significantly higher than my own - and note, mine's only 60db! Even
showing a vinyl record with a provable 75db SNR is going to be a
challenge, I would predict.

If you have made up your mind I am not going to try to persuede you to
change it. hopefully, if nothing else, I have better explained my
beliefs.

You have ...

[Richard Tollerton]

On Oct 31, 8:49 am, wrote:

I think there has been many exagerrations about the poor QC from
Classics. I have over two hundred of their LPs. Only a few were
really bad. But there really isn't much of a crapshoot. If you get a
bad pressing you get to exchange it for a good one. Show me a craps
table in vegas that lets you throw the dice until you win. It can be
an inconvenience. It rarely is a geniune crap shoot.

Anecdotally, I've heard of people getting 50% defect rates on the
Classics they buy. That said, I've also heard of a lot of people with
no defective discs, or a very small number. It is fortunate that the
major LP sellers online have gracious return policies - although I've
also heard that most/all labels refuse to honor LP returns, which is a
really crummy thing to do, and some local shops are starting to refuse
new LP returns too.

While forums like the Steve Hoffman forum are often helpful and very
informative about what went into the mastering of many CDs and LPs
ultimately there is a degree of risk that you just might not like the
same things other people like.but that is not unique to LPs. You can
get the same problems with any CD too. we are talking about aesthetic
judgements here. It aint science.

I disagree. In the case of dynamic range specifically, it is rather
easy to quantify, as long as a suitable section of silence exists on
the record.

Any aesthetic choice ultimately is an act of sophistry is it not?
Ultimately any time you buy a CD or LP you run the risk that it was
poorly mastered as measured by your personal standards.

Not at all. CDs of the same pressing have essentially zero differences
between them. If somebody raves about the dynamic range of a
particular CD, I can buy that CD and be absolutely guaranteed that
I'll be hearing the same PCM signal (assuming it tracked properly and
jitter is not an issue which is a quite reasonable assumption
nowadays). With well-pressed vinyl, the differences are significant
but small. With poorly pressed vinyl, the differences can be huge. And
those differences ultimately compromise the meaning of statements of
their audio quality.

Also note that, IIRC, the JVC UHQR formulations still have not been
beaten by modern formulations, so in a very real sense, the art of
vinyl production has regressed in that respect in the last 20 years.

I have many LPs made from both formulations. I am not so convinced
that the old JVC formulations are actually any better. Hard to say.
There are so many other variables.

I haven't had the opportunity yet of listening to a good UHQR myself,
and I agree that there are many other factors, but my understanding
was that they were all largely optimal with UHQR, and that the
formulation does dictate an upper bound on the dynamic range.
Shouldn't this be pretty easy to test strictly in terms of background
noise?

[Sonnova]

On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 06:26:42 -0700, C. Leeds wrote
(in article ):

Arny Krueger wrote:

There seems to be a lot of resistance among certain people towards ideas
that have been in the well-established technical literature of audio
technology for decades.

Evidence?

This was followed up with no less than 20 relevant citations from the JAES,
which is a well-known, relevant, generally-accepted independently-refereed
academic journal.

Please feel free to quote excerpts from these articles that support your
beliefs. That would be permitted under "fair use." The rest of us aren't
interested in an expensive wild-goose chase. After all, the readily
available sources you cited didn't reveal anything that supported your
oft-repeated claims.

These articles catalog the inherent technical problems
with vinyl...

Again, please feel free to quote excerpts. Remeber: at question here is
the inherent audibility of these problems.

There is no evidence...

Exactly.


Nobody disputes that vinyl has "inherent technical problems", After all,
vinyl playback involves a transducer and several different mechanical
processes. The amazing thing is that a good record can sound so astonishingly
real. Admittedly, such records are few and far between, but the best can
sound significantly more real than a CD of the same performance.

[Sonnova]

On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 06:13:14 -0700, C. Leeds wrote
(in article ):

I wrote to Arny (after he declined to cite evidence that would support
his vinyl beliefs)

...if you decline to provide documentation to
support your beliefs, you cannot also claim to have provided evidence
that supports those beliefs. Naturally, this doesn't mean that you can't
continue to assert your beliefs. It simply puts your beliefs on par with
others who lack anything to substantiate their claims.

nabob answers:

But only in the eyes of those who choose not to know anything about
the subject. Folks who know something about the subject can easily
differentiate those who know what they're talking about from the other
kind.

That's usually true.

And those who at least *want* to know something about the
subject can consult the relevant literature (copious relevant examples
of which have been supplied here)

No, the examples have not been provided. What Arny did do was present a
laundry list of sources, then insist readers engage in a wild goose
chase to discover whatever it is that Arny might be referring to. Big
difference.

Given the nature of rec.audio.high-end, I suspect that the vast
majority of its readers are very interested in understanding the
technical side of audio reproduction... I doubt, therefore, that too many
of them
will confuse Arny's arguments with those of the typical Usenet
sophist.

Agreed; few Usenet readers would confuse Arny with "the typical Usenet
sophist." His voluminous postings, on here and on r.a.o., distinguish
him as being in a class of one. As you said, knowledgeable readers can
decide for themselves who is an expert, and who isn't.

But Arny, like most audiophiles, is heavily opinionated. He naturally tends
to present arguments and sources of information that reinforce his own
opinions. That doesn't make his opinions or his sources suspect, but it does
leave "wiggle room" for the rest of us.

[Sonnova]

On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 15:44:57 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"C. Leeds" wrote in message
...

I wrote to Arny (after he declined to cite evidence that would support his
vinyl beliefs)

...if you decline to provide documentation to
support your beliefs, you cannot also claim to have provided evidence
that supports those beliefs. Naturally, this doesn't mean that you can't
continue to assert your beliefs. It simply puts your beliefs on par with
others who lack anything to substantiate their claims.

nabob answers:

But only in the eyes of those who choose not to know anything about
the subject. Folks who know something about the subject can easily
differentiate those who know what they're talking about from the other
kind.

That's usually true.

Yes, it is common courtesy to not bite the hand that feeds.

And those who at least *want* to know something about the
subject can consult the relevant literature (copious relevant examples
of which have been supplied here)

No, the examples have not been provided. What Arny did do was present a
laundry list of sources, then insist readers engage in a wild goose chase
to discover whatever it is that Arny might be referring to. Big
difference.

Actually, I only personally provided two sources, both of which are
reasonably brief and well known to me.

Given the nature of rec.audio.high-end, I suspect that the vast
majority of its readers are very interested in understanding the
technical side of audio reproduction... I doubt, therefore, that too many
of them
will confuse Arny's arguments with those of the typical Usenet
sophist.

Agreed; few Usenet readers would confuse Arny with "the typical Usenet
sophist."

Yes, providing relevant test results that illustrate the problems being
discussed is not what Sophists usually do. Ironic that the test results I
provided were the better part of a decade old, and actually showed better
and more relevant results than more recent tests of far more elaborate and
expensive equipment.

His voluminous postings, on here and on r.a.o., distinguish him as being
in a class of one. As you said, knowledgeable readers can decide for
themselves who is an expert, and who isn't.

Why is there any mention of who is an expert here? Perhaps someone thinks
that anybody with relevant hands-on experience has to think of himself as
being an expert? Or, do only experts have any familiarity with classic JAES
papers?

Expert or no, AES papers cost money to access. Less for a member, but they
cost to download, just the same.

[Sonnova]

On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 20:22:16 -0700, Richard Tollerton wrote
(in article ):

On Oct 28, 11:30*am, wrote:

You are not making sense first you acknowledge that 75 db dynamic
range is an exceptional number then you say " this is in the same
range as the dynamic range of musical recordings." It is eaither
exceptional or it is not. You were right the first time. It is
exceptional.

As a semi-lurker (who was indirectly led into this debate by Steve), I
really think we should care less about exact decibel ranges for
dynamic range. As Andy has pointed out, they're not all that
comparable between LP and CD to begin with. And you can define the
recording level to some arbitrarily high value and get an arbitrarily
increased SNR (at the expense of tracking/tracing distortion and
mistracking).

But I *will* say that, on several records I have, the dynamic range of
the music has been clearly and obviously constrained by the noise
floor of the vinyl. The biggest example here is a (sealed!) copy of a
Mahler 3 by Horenstein on Nonesuch I bought a couple years ago -
wonderfully produced, but I need to struggle through the noise to
understand the quiet solo sections. There's a Mahler 1 I bought a
month ago with about the same problem. On Shellac's "Excellent Italian
Greyhound", there is clearly audible tape print-through in one song on
the CD version that is lost in the noise on the LP version. This one,
in particular, was produced entirely on tape and is a brand-new
pressing from 2007 on 180g vinyl cut on Abbey Road's DMM lathe - so it
likely represents something pretty close to the state of the art in
vinyl production nowadays.

Nonesuch, Turnabout, and Vox were notorious for poor pressings which was a
shame because they had two of the best producers of classical music
recordings in the business: Marc Aubort and the late Joanna Nickrenz. Any
recording produced by this pair was properly miked, well produced and
musically satisfying. Getting decent pressing of these recordings was another
story. I had the Vox Box set of LPs with Skrowaczewsk conducting the
Minnesota Orchestra in the complete orchestral works of Maurice Ravel. It was
largely unplayable. I went through several pressings of this set and never
found a satisfactory one. I had to wait for CD to come along to actually get
a glimpse of how good these performances and recordings really were, and I
still didn't get to hear their full glory until Mobile Fidelity remastered
some of the works a couple of years ago for release on SACD.

Most of Vox/Turnabout/Nonesuch's pressing problems were the result of not
using 100% virgin vinyl (they were budget labels, after all) and using
cut-rate pressing plants. What one got was noisy "regrind" vinyl, compromised
further by indifferent pressing practices resulting in records characterized
by under-fill (not enough vinyl to completely fill the press), records which
were removed from the press to soon after being pressed (causing warpage).
off-center holes, records pressed at other than the ideal temperature for the
vinyl mix being used (this is characterized by gray-ish dull appearance to
the finished disc), etc. I had some luck buying British pressings (by British
Decca) of some of these (like the Turnabout Dallas Symphony recording of
Copland's "Rodeo" and "Billy the Kid" which was recorded with only two
excellent, custom-made ribbon microphones using passive attenuation. It was
one of the best sounding commercial recordings ever made, but you'd never
know it from the lousy domestic LP pressings).

Quite simply, I have experienced several obvious examples where I
can't hear something nearly as well as I ought to on the vinyl because
the noise (which I believe to be surface noise) obscures it. And I've
listened to a lot more CDs and I've only encountered *one* CD whose
dynamic range reasonably exceeded the medium (and it was experimental
electronic, so CDs kind of get a by on that). That alone is reasonable
proof to me that the dynamic range of vinyl is not sufficient for at
least *some* real music out there, and IMNSHO, it should be reasonable
proof for you, too.

Premium records made on 180 or 200 gram virgin vinyl are very quiet (-56 to
-60 dB), and careful handling and storage can keep them that way.

[C. Leeds]

wrote (to Mr. Krueger):

What anyone does in this hobby is for all practical purposes only
justifiable on a personal level in that it provides personal pleasure
to the hobbyist. You are making many assertions about excellence
throughout this thread as though they were somehow objective
assertions. They are not. It is an undeniable fact that any
qualitative aesthetic judgement is at it's very base not an objective
measure. Personal non-objective choices are made about what
constitutes aesthetic excellence before any measure is made of said
excellence... When you find people making blanket evaluations of
the medium without considering excellence on a case by case basis it
usually suggests the assertion is born more of prejudice and strong
bias than any geniune interest in sonic excellence.

This pretty much summarizes the problem with this discussion. It is
prejudice that drives the most vocal LP objectors. In a way, though,
it's not hard to understand. For example, Mr. Krueger wrote:

It has always been true that the CD format can deliver an audibly perfect
copy of the master tapes.

With that as the basis of a belief system, comparison to any other media
is virtually doomed. Nothing can be better than "audibly perfect," can it?

I can not imagine
anyone with anything less than a profound bias against vinyl playback
not being able to appreciate the excellent sound one can get from
playing an outstanding LP on an excellent playback system that
includes excellent vinyl playback equipment.

These critics have nothing less than a "profound bias." Hence the
futility of trying to "discuss" the matter with them. Their minds are
sealed shut.

[[email protected]]

On Oct 31, 12:12�pm, Richard Tollerton
wrote:
On Oct 31, 8:49 am, wrote:

�I think there has been many exagerrations about the poor QC from
Classics. I have over two hundred of their LPs. Only �a few were
really bad. But there really isn't much of a crapshoot. If you get a
bad pressing you get to exchange it for a good one. Show me a craps
table in vegas that lets you throw the dice until you win. It can be
an inconvenience. It rarely is a geniune crap shoot.

Anecdotally, I've heard of people getting 50% defect rates on the
Classics they buy. That said, I've also heard of a lot of people with
no defective discs, or a very small number. It is fortunate that the
major LP sellers online have gracious return policies - although I've
also heard that most/all labels refuse to honor LP returns, which is a
really crummy thing to do, and some local shops are starting to refuse
new LP returns too.

I have not heard that about the labels. It is not true about analog
Productions, Classics or Music Matters. there is plenty of
documentation of Music Matters and Classics taking back defective LPs
and I know Analog Productions do it since they are my primary dealer
for audiophile records.


While forums like the Steve Hoffman forum are often helpful and very
informative about what went into the mastering of many CDs and LPs
ultimately there is a degree of risk that you just might not like the
same things other people like.but that is not unique to LPs. You can
get the same problems with any CD too. we are talking about aesthetic
judgements here. It aint science.

I disagree. In the case of dynamic range specifically, it is rather
easy to quantify, as long as a suitable section of silence exists on
the record.

There is more to the quality of sound then just a measurement of
dynamic range. It is ultmatately an aesthetic judgement and all
aesthetic judgements involve some purely subjective criteria. But then
I'd have to ask, where do we get a set of objective measurements of
every mastering of every title we as music lovers may want to buy?


Any aesthetic choice ultimately is an act of sophistry is it not?
Ultimately any time you buy a CD or LP you run the risk that it was
poorly mastered as measured by your personal standards.

Not at all. CDs of the same pressing have essentially zero differences
between them. If somebody raves about the dynamic range of a
particular CD, I can buy that CD and be absolutely guaranteed that
I'll be hearing the same PCM signal (assuming it tracked properly and
jitter is not an issue which is a quite reasonable assumption
nowadays).

And you may find out that person grossly exagerated the dynamic range
or you may find out that the mastering was denoised to death etc etc
etc. there are all kinds of things that affect sound quality. i think
it is way overly simplistic to thing one can just look at a waveform
and know what the subjective sound quality will be.

With well-pressed vinyl, the differences are significant
but small. With poorly pressed vinyl, the differences can be huge. And
those differences ultimately compromise the meaning of statements of
their audio quality.

To a degree. IME to a vastly smaller degree than the differences one
hears in different masterings or the differences one hears in uprades
of vinyl playback equipment.


Also note that, IIRC, the JVC UHQR formulations still have not been
beaten by modern formulations, so in a very real sense, the art of
vinyl production has regressed in that respect in the last 20 years.

I have many LPs made from both formulations. I am not so convinced
that the old JVC formulations are actually any better. Hard to say.
There are so many other variables.

I haven't had the opportunity yet of listening to a good UHQR myself,
and I agree that there are many other factors, but my understanding
was that they were all largely optimal with UHQR, and that the
formulation does dictate an upper bound on the dynamic range.
Shouldn't this be pretty easy to test strictly in terms of background
noise?

I have plenty of JVC vinyl. I can not say that it is any quieter than
the offerings from the current crop of top rate pressing plants.

[[email protected]]

On Oct 31, 6:50*am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in message

...

On Oct 30, 7:23 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in ...
I would hesitate to say that one could simply just press play when
cutting a master from a very dynamic source.There are important
choices made by the cutting engineer in every step of the process.
It would appear that this is a serious fault of the LP format
Not at all. Just because a task requires skill to do well does not
mean it is inherently faulty.

Sure it does.

Plan A: obsess over every step of the many steps of the process, and face
the potential of failure at every step. When you are all done, you have
created a highly flawed product, anyway. Furthermore the market for the
product is miniscule.

Plan B: It's a one-step process and it just about can't fail. When you are
done, you have a perceptually perfect product. Just about everybody can
benefit from your product with no additional investements on their part.

Plan A = LP from master to playable disk.

Plan B = CD from master to playable disc

That is your aparent idea on what goes on in mastering. Lets see what
some of todays top mastering engineers say about their own jobs,
http://emusician.com/tutorials/emusi...ers_mastering/
"Mastering is an interesting profession, because there's no substitute
for experience” says Marcussen. “You can be a mastering engineer with
18 months of experience, but you're really still a babe in the woods.
Every day in mastering offers a different set of issues. When I first
started mastering, getting the ball rolling seemed to take forever. I
was learning the craft.” There is indeed a lot to learn, especially
considering that mastering engineers typically must be able to handle
projects in many different genres of music that have diverse sonic
requirements."
"Everybody wants their disc to sound great, but it seems that nowadays
a lot of people equate “best” with “loudest.” That puts a lot of
pressure on mastering engineers to compress their masters heavily so
that they can achieve as hot a level as possible.

Gateway Mastering and DVD's Bob Ludwig is concerned that some people's
practice of making masters can get as loud as possible can detract
from the musicality of the final product.

According to Ludwig, however, this is anything but a healthy
development. “This horrible trend started about eight years ago, with
the invention of digital-domain ‘look-ahead’ compressors,” he says.
“First was the German Junger compressor, then the Waves stuff, and the
most infamous of all, the TC Electronic Finalizer, a great piece of
gear that's often misused. I'm so glad these devices didn't exist when
the Beatles were making their music. Never in the history of the human
race have people been exposed to sounds as compressed as in the past
few years."
"what's the trick to keeping the natural dynamics? “That's the
creative part of mastering” says Marcussen, “and I try to fit the
creative part into the competitive part today. I was working with a
client yesterday, and we had a situation where we had an extremely
dynamic song sandwiched in between two songs that were far from that.
And when you master, the goal is that each song comes in and hold its
own.

“We had a piece that was literally a whispered vocal that went into a
huge chorus,” he continues. “It was one of those things where I had to
go ahead and manipulate the level, the rides, the moves, the this, the
that, and the other to make the song loud enough — while keeping some
honesty to the dynamics of the song. It just becomes an issue of
trying to work within the guidelines that are set up. Fortunately,
yesterday's project was a project that was a loud record but didn't
have to be the loudest record in the world. So it gave me a little
more room to work with to give the illusion of level and dynamics.”

I can easily line up ten fold this amount of testimonials from actual
mastering engineers describing the complexities of their job.

If one were to take your story about life in the mastering suite as
actually being representative of what happens with real commercial
recordings then one would be lead to believe that with every CD we
would have as you say "a perceptually perfect product" and with every
LP we would have a universlly subjectively "highly flawed poroduct."
Now lets just take a look of one example of what has happened in the
real world.
http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f9/ama...-vinyl-184499/
Wow, does that look like the CD is going to sound better than the LP?
That is one of many many real world examples. I could once again line
up over a hundred examples just like this one. Now if one were to
abandon the LP format as you seem to be advocating then one would be
stuck with CDs like Stadium Arcadium. This is not the exception by the
way. This is a plague on commercial music. Don't believe me? Just read
the words above from Robert Ludwig.

An audio philosophy that would abandon vinyl would lead to the music
lover being forced to listen to many many inferior versions of the
music they want to hear. I think the picture you paint here suffers
from a profound disconnect from the real world of commercial music.


But mastering in general is a job that
requires skill and judgement. that is true for all formats not just LPs.

Not true for all formats. The comparison above is totally factual.

Yogi Barra said it best. "In theory, there is no difference between
theory and practice. But, in practice, there is." If everything you
say is true how do you explain what happened to Stadium Arcadium along
with the vast majority of CD releases over the past decade? Would you
say your desciption of the process of mastering CDs "It's a one-step
process and it just about can't fail. When you are done, you have a
perceptually perfect product." is an accurate desciption of how the
vast majority of commercial CDs are mastered? Is it not obvious that
if one abandons vinyl one is largely stuck with these real world
mastering messes?


- there are so
many important choices to be made before and while the master is being
cut.
For openers, it is a *not* given that the LP will ever be able to
accurately reproduce *anything* that is on the master recording.
I personally am not terribly concerned with absolute accuracy to the
master.

To me, and 99% of the marketplace for recorded music, accuracy at a higher
level than the LP is my day-to-day expectation.

That begs the question, what have you been listening to lately?
Obviously not Stadium Arcadium or any of the other thousands of CDs
that suffer from the same problems. If you liken yourself with 99% of
the market place then it would seem like the marley place you are OK
with the loudness wars. I would say that clearly puts your aesthetic
priorities in a very different place than mine. nothing wrong with
that.

Just like I don't like
prime rib roasted with sawdust and straw, I don't like music with audible
noise and distortion.

If you consider yourself to be like minded with 99% of the market
place I think that puts a great deal of perspective on your aesthetic
values.


I find that to be a rather arbitrary reference that is
inherently flawed because it sets up playback equipment as part of
one's reference and I find it an impractical reference because I don't
have access to the master tapes.

It has always been true that the CD format can deliver an audibly perfect
copy of the master tapes.

That opinion seems to run contrary to a good many mastering enginners
who actually have had the opportunity to do side by side comparisons.

For most audiophiles the master tapes are someone
else's property, and they can't control what additional processing they go
through. However, some of us produce our own master tapes, and for us the CD
format is a very big benefit. In addition, there have always been owners of
master tapes such as Telarc, who were committed to distributing more
accurate renditions of their master tapes.

That accounts for very little of what I want to listen to. Are you
suggesting that I am making an irrational choice as an audiophile to
seek the best sounding masterings on either format and seek the best
sound from my vinyl playback gear because you make CDs of your
personal recordings? That makes no sense to me.


The master
has to be constrained, either through the playing of the music, or by
limiting and compression during the production process.
There are any number of LPs that simply run completely contrary to
this assertion.

Prove it, technically, with charts and graphs such as the ones that have
already been used to show that the LP format at its best or close to it, is
a very noisy and distorted medium. All we've seen here so far counter to
our evidence is anecdotes, hype, unreliable and biased sources, and quotes
of sales pitches.

I'll simply cite the records I am refering to.
The entire AP top 100 jazz recordings
The entire AP Blue Note series
The entire Music Matters Blue Note series
The Hoffman/Gray mastered Warner Brothers reissues.
The entire King Super Analog reissue series from the London Decca
classical catalogue
That is literally hunrdreds of LPs of some of the greatest recordings
ever made. The fact that no compression was used in mastering these
LPs is well documented. Feel free to prove using charts and graphs
that these LPs have in fact secretly been " constrained, either
through the playing of the music, or by limiting and compression
during the production process."


In contrast, a CD master can be prepared (no cutting is involved) pretty
much by pressing the start button. For openers, it is a given that the CD
*will* be able to accurately reproduce *anything* that is on the master
recording.
I would hate to think that mastering engineers are so careless as to
actually do what you describe.

Once a CD master is prepared, that's all it takes. I can do it on a modest
scale in my living room. Our church secretary does it every week for longer
runs, up to several 100. A full-scale CD production facility can be fit into
a garage, run off of house current, and produce negligable hazardous waste.

Clearly your world is very different than that of actual real world
commercial mastering engineers. As a consumer I am more concerned
about what goes on in the mastering suites where real world commercial
CDs are mastered than what happens in your living room. Any mastering
engineer who is given a master tape to master onto CD is simply
incompetent if they don't preview the tape to get levels. Find one
mastering engineer who is actually working in the business who will
tell you otherwise.


Even when mastering CDs there is always
more to it than just pressing the start button. It would be utterly
irresponsible for a mastering engineer not to preview a tape and check
levels at the very least.

There are no levels to check.

That is an interesting claim.


More often there is plenty more to do when
mastering a CD than just pressing the start button. Mastering is both
an art and a skill set. If it were in practice as simple as just
pressing the start button we wouldn't have mastering engineers.

But the mastering doesn't have to be done at the manufacturing facility.
There's no need to plate the cut master within 24 hours.

Are you arguing that the reason we still have a mastering industry in
the CD age that employs many full time mastering engineers is because
"the mastering doesn't have to be done at the manufacturing facility.
There's no need to plate the cut master within 24 hours.?"


At the same time, even if they did have superior dynamic range, I
don't think it's particularly fair to argue about the dynamic range of
vinyl based solely on audiophile pressings such as those.
One of the unsolved problems of vinyl is the fact that it is a wildly
inconsistent medium. In addition to the preparations that need to be made
during cutting, the remaining many steps in the process will audibly
adversely affect the sound quality of the recording.
There is an error in your logic with this argument. Just because the
medium requires skilled hands and ears and technical excellence to be
done well does not mean that it is a wildly inconsistant medium.

There's no error in a statement that describes the fabrication of the LP
product as it has been all along, and is today.

That is irrelevant to the error in your logic.


For example, the LP master needs to be plated within 24 hours of
cutting,
which is practically impossible unless the cutting room and plating room
are
close to each other.
That is much ado about nothing. take a look at how they do it at RTI.
http://www.recordtech.com/default.htm
State of the art cutting, plating and pressing all under one roof.

Exceptional enough that they make a big point of advertising it. I didn't
say it can't be done, I said it had to be done.

And I simply pointed out that it is being done. So it was much ado
about nothing.


The plating room is generally at the pressing plant,
but for obvious reasons must be carefully separated from the mastering
room.
So you have a conundrum right there, to meet time constraints you would
like
to cut and plate in places that are close to each other, but the cutting
room and the plating room have to be carefully separated from each other.
That really isn't a big problem. They actually offer tours of the
facilities at RTI. Just go visit them. See for yourself how easily
they solved this problem.

Did they really solve the problems or are you being misled by a fancy web
site?

The problem of cutting and plating within 24 hours? Yes, they really
have solved that problem.


Do plant tours always reveal day-to-day operations?

I don't know about always. You could visit for yourself if you have
any doubts.

[Jenn[_3_]]

In article ,
Richard Tollerton wrote:

Anecdotally, I've heard of people getting 50% defect rates on the
Classics they buy. That said, I've also heard of a lot of people with
no defective discs, or a very small number.

Count me among the later. I have 12 Classic LPs, and have had no
problems. Perhaps I'm just lucky. In fact, I've had no problems among
any of the modern "audiophile" lablels...Classic, Speakers Corner, et
al. Nor have I ever had any problems with "audiophile" LPs of a little
older vintage... Reference, Chesky, Opus 3, et al.

[Arny Krueger]

"Sonnova" wrote in message


Nobody disputes that vinyl has "inherent technical
problems", After all, vinyl playback involves a
transducer and several different mechanical processes.
The amazing thing is that a good record can sound so
astonishingly real. Admittedly, such records are few and
far between, but the best can sound significantly more
real than a CD of the same performance.

Two words: Bad mastering. There is zero technical justification for a LP to
*ever* sound better or even as good as a CD.

But, the human factor is unavoidable - nothing prevents people from doing
crazy or stupid or even just lazy things during tracking and mastering,
regardless of the delivery medium.

[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message

On Oct 31, 6:50 am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
wrote in message

...

On Oct 30, 7:23 am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
wrote in
...
I would hesitate to say that one could simply just
press play when cutting a master from a very dynamic
source.There are important choices made by the
cutting engineer in every step of the process.
It would appear that this is a serious fault of the LP
format

Not at all. Just because a task requires skill to do
well does not
mean it is inherently faulty.

Sure it does.

Plan A: obsess over every step of the many steps of the
process, and face the potential of failure at every
step. When you are all done, you have created a highly
flawed product, anyway. Furthermore the market for the
product is miniscule.

Plan B: It's a one-step process and it just about can't
fail. When you are done, you have a perceptually perfect
product. Just about everybody can benefit from your
product with no additional investements on their part.

Plan A = LP from master to playable disk.

Plan B = CD from master to playable disc

That is your aparent idea on what goes on in mastering.

Wrong.

You've obviously confused by the various meaning sof the word mastering. I
tried to make the difference between mastering a CD and mastering a LP clear
but it clearly didn't work.

Here's a document from an independent source that explains the difference.

http://www.josephson.com/audiofaq

Q6.3 - What is mastering?

Mastering is a multifaceted term that is often misunderstood. Back in
the days of vinyl records, mastering involved the actual cutting of
the master that would be used for pressing. This often involved a
variety of sonic adjustments so that the mixed tape would ultimately
be properly rendered on vinyl.

The age of the CD has changed the meaning of the term quite a bit.
There are now two elements often called mastering. The first is the
eminently straightforward process of preparing a master for pressing.

break

Compare

"Back in the days of vinyl records, mastering involved the actual cutting of
the master that would be used for pressing. This often involved a
variety of sonic adjustments so that the mixed tape would ultimately
be properly rendered on vinyl."

This is what I called "Plan A"

and contrast:

"The age of the CD has changed the meaning of the term quite a bit.
There are now two elements often called mastering. The first is the
eminently straightforward process of preparing a master for pressing."

This is what I called "Plan B"

Note that the FAQ acknowleges that my Plan B is as I said: "eminently
straightforward".

Now we get into a different process that you confused with my "Plan A" and
"Plan B":

end break

" Mastering's more common meaning, however, is the art of making a
recording sound "commercial." Is is the last chance one has to get
the recording sounding the way it ought to. Tasks often done in
mastering include: adjustment of time between pieces, quality of
fade-in/out, relation of levels between tracks (such that the listener
doesn't have to go swinging the volume control all over the place),
program EQ to achieve a desired consistency, compression to make one's
disc sound LOUDER than others on the market, the list goes on.

"A good mastering engineer can often take a poorly-produced recording
and make it suitable for the market. A bad one can make a good
recording sound terrible. Some recordings are so well produced,
mixed, and edited that all they need is to be given PQ subcode and
sent right out. Other recordings are made by people on ego trips, who
think they know everything about recording, and who make recordings
that are, technically speaking, wretched trash.

"Good mastering professionals are acquainted with many styles of music,
and know what it is that their clients hope to achieve. They then use
their tools either lightly or severely to accomplish all the multiple
steps involved in preparing a disc for pressing.

The process described in the 3 paragraphs above is *not* what I was talking
about. It *is* what the varioius quotes you provided were talking about.

In other words, from this point onward, one selects "Plan A" to make vinyl
and "Plan B" to make a CD.

[Arny Krueger]

"Sonnova" wrote in message


Premium records made on 180 or 200 gram virgin vinyl are
very quiet (-56 to -60 dB), and careful handling and
storage can keep them that way.

Trouble is that just about every live performance of classical music has
more like 65 dB dynamic range, and some go up into the 80s.

It is a rule of thumb that the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) must at all times
at least be positive, for there to be an effective listening situation. If
the actual sound level is very low, then SNRs of as low as 10 dB can be
permissible.

[Arny Krueger]

"C. Leeds" wrote in message

For example, Mr. Krueger

wrote:

It has always been true that the CD format can deliver
an audibly perfect copy of the master tapes.

With that as the basis of a belief system, comparison to
any other media is virtually doomed. Nothing can be
better than "audibly perfect," can it?

The logical error here is that a medium need not be better than "audibly
perfect" in order to succeed.

Two counter-examples come to mind

(1) Pre-recorded cassettes which were very sucessful at taking market share
away from the LP even though as a rule they did not sound better.

(2) Digital music downloads, which seem to be taking market share away from
the CD even though they can never sound better, all other things being
equal.

The logical error is symptomatic the narrow idea that "sounding better" as
the only chance that a medium has to survive. A person who makes this error
cannot comprehend that other properties, such as being more convenient, can
matter to a great many people. They will assert to their dying day that
whatever medium they prefer *must* sound better.