| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#121
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl's Comeback - featured NYTimes article
"Scott" wrote in message
On Dec 22, 4:25=A0pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Scott" wrote in message On Dec 22, 6:01=3DA0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Scott" wrote in message I would be very surprised if there weren't any such papers on the sort of technology utilized by Goldmund, Versa, Rockport, Forsell and Basis. IOW, no supporting facts at all - 100% speculation. Not at all Arny. Just because I didn't really want to go on some easter egg hunt for papers on the technology that went into those products doesn't mean there are no supporting facts. That's the high price of credibility - actually being able to document on= e's claims. I said I wasn't interested not that I wasn't able. Scott, This statement sounds like a guy who claims he can run a 3 minute mile, but isn't interested in actually doing so. But if you are worried about credibility you might want to think twice before asking for someone cite scientific papers supporting technology like low tolerance high preasure airbearings, modern composite materials that offer lower mass and higher stiffness or active pneumatic suspensions for isolation. Supporting raw technology is one thing, showing that it actually audibly improves the sound quality of vinyl performance is something else. AFAIK, neither thing has shown up on RAHE. There are some great papers that have been cited here about vinyl playback particualrly from the JAES, but they all show how it is inherently a highly limited format. Digital isn't just eyewash, it pushed the performance of the media so high that the basic limitations of music recording and playback are all someplace else. The LP could never do that. Yes, it can take a little work. I see no documentation of some pretty exceptional claims. Again if you are really worried about credibility you might want to reconsider your assertion that my claims are exceptional. You really doubt there is science behind things like low tolerance high pressure air, modern low mass high stiffness materials or active pneumatic suspensions? Air bearings have been around for at least 5 decades that I know of. The Empire 598 turntable had air damped suspension, back in the middle 1960s. Again, what still seems to be lacking is any reliable evidence that they actually do any good, as far as listening quality goes. |
|
#122
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vinyl's Comeback - featured NYTimes article
"Dick Pierce" wrote in message
Audio Empire wrote: On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 06:20:53 -0800, Harry Lavo wrote The "early days of stereo" (so far as LP's were concerned) was in 1957-58. Multitrack recorders and studio effects didn't come into widespread use until the late '60's/early '70's. Your timeline is off. Multitrack came along in the mid-sixties and while a useful tool for pop music, it was a disaster for classical and jazz. Multitrack classical recordings (especially the early ones using first-gen transistor electronics), for the most part, sound simply dreadful. Indeed, Columbia was pretty heavy into classical multi-tracking already in the 1960s. For example, all of the E. Power Biggs recordings done on the Flentrop organ at Harvard were multi- tracked, starting in the early 1960's. Great instrument, interesting performances, somewhat weird recordings. The very idea of multitracking this instrument is pretty amusing. http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/~organ/images/flentrop.jpg To summarize, it is a relatively small, very compact, particularly narrow neo-baroque instrument in a large, live, extremely reverberent, highly diffusive hall. The audience's soundstage will be dominated by reflections and reverberations from the room. The person playing it might be outside the critical distance, or not! No matter where one sits in the audience seating area, there will be little if any sense as to the relative or actual locations of the pipes. The sound might be so diffuse that a blindfolded person might not be able to tell which end of the hall houses the organ. I can see recording it with a goodly number of mics and tracks, but only once or a very few times for the purpose of thoughtfully selecting just a few mics for the recording that was ultimately sold. Once I figured out the most characteristic micing location, a well-placed coincident pair might suffice. |
|
#123
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vinyl's Comeback - featured NYTimes article
On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 07:36:11 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "Dick Pierce" wrote in message Audio Empire wrote: On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 06:20:53 -0800, Harry Lavo wrote The "early days of stereo" (so far as LP's were concerned) was in 1957-58. Multitrack recorders and studio effects didn't come into widespread use until the late '60's/early '70's. Your timeline is off. Multitrack came along in the mid-sixties and while a useful tool for pop music, it was a disaster for classical and jazz. Multitrack classical recordings (especially the early ones using first-gen transistor electronics), for the most part, sound simply dreadful. Indeed, Columbia was pretty heavy into classical multi-tracking already in the 1960s. For example, all of the E. Power Biggs recordings done on the Flentrop organ at Harvard were multi- tracked, starting in the early 1960's. Great instrument, interesting performances, somewhat weird recordings. The very idea of multitracking this instrument is pretty amusing. http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/~organ/images/flentrop.jpg To summarize, it is a relatively small, very compact, particularly narrow neo-baroque instrument in a large, live, extremely reverberent, highly diffusive hall. The audience's soundstage will be dominated by reflections and reverberations from the room. The person playing it might be outside the critical distance, or not! No matter where one sits in the audience seating area, there will be little if any sense as to the relative or actual locations of the pipes. The sound might be so diffuse that a blindfolded person might not be able to tell which end of the hall houses the organ. I can see recording it with a goodly number of mics and tracks, but only once or a very few times for the purpose of thoughtfully selecting just a few mics for the recording that was ultimately sold. Once I figured out the most characteristic micing location, a well-placed coincident pair might suffice. With classical music, a coincident, Blumlein, or M-S stereo pair is ALWAYS preferable to multi-miking. I've never heard a multi-miked, multi-track classical recording that didn't sound like crap. Even spaced omnis is preferable to multi-miking. Of course, I'm speaking from a listener's perspective. I understand the economics of multi-miking/multi track, I just don't think it serves the music very well. I also don't agree with the three-channel mono methodology that has dominated small jazz ensemble recording for so long. |
|
#124
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vinyl's Comeback - featured NYTimes article
"Audio Empire" wrote in message
On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 07:36:11 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): "Dick Pierce" wrote in message Audio Empire wrote: On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 06:20:53 -0800, Harry Lavo wrote The "early days of stereo" (so far as LP's were concerned) was in 1957-58. Multitrack recorders and studio effects didn't come into widespread use until the late '60's/early '70's. Your timeline is off. Multitrack came along in the mid-sixties and while a useful tool for pop music, it was a disaster for classical and jazz. Multitrack classical recordings (especially the early ones using first-gen transistor electronics), for the most part, sound simply dreadful. Indeed, Columbia was pretty heavy into classical multi-tracking already in the 1960s. For example, all of the E. Power Biggs recordings done on the Flentrop organ at Harvard were multi- tracked, starting in the early 1960's. Great instrument, interesting performances, somewhat weird recordings. The very idea of multitracking this instrument is pretty amusing. http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/~organ/images/flentrop.jpg To summarize, it is a relatively small, very compact, particularly narrow neo-baroque instrument in a large, live, extremely reverberent, highly diffusive hall. The audience's soundstage will be dominated by reflections and reverberations from the room. The person playing it might be outside the critical distance, or not! No matter where one sits in the audience seating area, there will be little if any sense as to the relative or actual locations of the pipes. The sound might be so diffuse that a blindfolded person might not be able to tell which end of the hall houses the organ. I can see recording it with a goodly number of mics and tracks, but only once or a very few times for the purpose of thoughtfully selecting just a few mics for the recording that was ultimately sold. Once I figured out the most characteristic micing location, a well-placed coincident pair might suffice. With classical music, a coincident, Blumlein, or M-S stereo pair is ALWAYS preferable to multi-miking. If wishes were fishes... Note that my comments related to one particular situation. I've seen organs with vastly different physical configurations where multi-micing and even multi-channel playback might work a treat. The very large organ in the Fox Theatre here in Detroit comes to mind. I've never heard a multi-miked, multi-track classical recording that didn't sound like crap. I don't think that it is possible to know for sure how every classical recording is miced. Even spaced omnis is preferable to multi-miking. Now that has got to be hyperbole! Of course, I'm speaking from a listener's perspective. I understand the economics of multi-miking/multi track, I just don't think it serves the music very well. Please explain why you think that multi-miking/multi track can't serve the music well. I also don't agree with the three-channel mono methodology that has dominated small jazz ensemble recording for so long. I'm all about what sounds good. Multi-mono approaches tend towards a phasey, sort of almost seasick sort of sound in many cases. |
|
#125
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vinyl's Comeback - featured NYTimes article
On Dec 23, 7:09=A0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message On Dec 22, 4:25=3DA0pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Scott" wrote in message On Dec 22, 6:01=3D3DA0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Scott" wrote in message I would be very surprised if there weren't any such papers on the sort of technology utilized by Goldmund, Versa, Rockport, Forsell and Basis. IOW, no supporting facts at all - 100% speculation. Not at all Arny. Just because I didn't really want to go on some easter egg hunt for papers on the technology that went into those products doesn't mean there are no supporting facts. That's the high price of credibility - actually being able to document on=3D e's claims. I said I wasn't interested not that I wasn't able. Scott, This statement sounds =A0like a guy who claims he can run a 3 minu= te mile, but isn't interested in actually doing so. Argument by incredulity is nothing more than a logical fallacy. How you personally percieve these things has no bearing on their validity. But if you are worried about credibility you might want to think twice before asking for someone cite scientific papers supporting technology like low tolerance high preasure airbearings, modern composite materials that offer lower mass and higher stiffness or active pneumatic suspensions for isolation. Supporting raw technology is one thing, showing that it actually audibly improves the sound quality of vinyl performance is something else. So you are of the position that bearing quality, stiffness to mass ratios and isolation from mechanical feedback do not affect vinyl playback performance? AFAIK, neither thing has shown up on RAHE. neither your knowledge nor the archives of RAHE have any bearing on the significance of bearing performance, effects of material used or effects of mechanical feedback on vinyl playback. Those things are what they are regardless of your knowledge or any discussions on RAHE. If you have any published scientific studies that suggest none of these things are a factor in vinyl playback performance feel free to cite them. So far all we have is your personal opinions. There are some great papers that have been cited here about vinyl playbac= k particualrly from the JAES, but they all show how it is inherently a high= ly limited format. Digital isn't just eyewash, it pushed the performance of = the media so high that the basic limitations of music recording and playback = are all someplace else. The LP could never do that. Do tell us which ones actually did DBTs with SOTA equipment to see which could actually deliver a better illusion of live music. Yes, it can take a little work. I see no documentation of some pretty exceptional claims. Again if you are really worried about credibility you might want to reconsider your assertion that my claims are exceptional. You really doubt there is science behind things like low tolerance high pressure air, modern low mass high stiffness materials or active pneumatic suspensions? Air bearings have been around for at least 5 decades that I know of. I did not say that any of these designers invented airbearings. What i did say was that their implimentation of them was a breakthrough in performance. If you have some scientific evidence that shows bearing performance for turntables and pickup arms do not affect the performance of them please cite it. The Empire 598 turntable had air damped suspension, back in the middle 1960s. I did not claim that any of these rigs introduced suspensions to the world of turntables. However the active pneumatic suspension fo the Rockport was a significant jump over anything used prior to the commercial release of CDs. Do you really want to argue that all suspensions are equal and don't affect turntable performance? Again, what still seems to be lacking is any reliable evidence that they actually do any good, as far as listening quality goes Please feel free to show us any published scientific evidence that materials, bearing qaulity and isolation do not affect vinyl playback performance. |
|
#126
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vinyl's Comeback - featured NYTimes article
On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 07:09:43 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "Scott" wrote in message On Dec 22, 4:25=A0pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Scott" wrote in message On Dec 22, 6:01=3DA0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Scott" wrote in message I would be very surprised if there weren't any such papers on the sort of technology utilized by Goldmund, Versa, Rockport, Forsell and Basis. IOW, no supporting facts at all - 100% speculation. Not at all Arny. Just because I didn't really want to go on some easter egg hunt for papers on the technology that went into those products doesn't mean there are no supporting facts. That's the high price of credibility - actually being able to document on= e's claims. I said I wasn't interested not that I wasn't able. Scott, This statement sounds like a guy who claims he can run a 3 minute mile, but isn't interested in actually doing so. But if you are worried about credibility you might want to think twice before asking for someone cite scientific papers supporting technology like low tolerance high preasure airbearings, modern composite materials that offer lower mass and higher stiffness or active pneumatic suspensions for isolation. Supporting raw technology is one thing, showing that it actually audibly improves the sound quality of vinyl performance is something else. AFAIK, neither thing has shown up on RAHE. There are some great papers that have been cited here about vinyl playback particualrly from the JAES, but they all show how it is inherently a highly limited format. Digital isn't just eyewash, it pushed the performance of the media so high that the basic limitations of music recording and playback are all someplace else. The LP could never do that. While what you say is correct, it in no way disqualifies LP as a viable source for music as you seem to maintain. Yes, it can take a little work. I see no documentation of some pretty exceptional claims. Again if you are really worried about credibility you might want to reconsider your assertion that my claims are exceptional. You really doubt there is science behind things like low tolerance high pressure air, modern low mass high stiffness materials or active pneumatic suspensions? Air bearings have been around for at least 5 decades that I know of. The Empire 598 turntable had air damped suspension, back in the middle 1960s. Again, what still seems to be lacking is any reliable evidence that they actually do any good, as far as listening quality goes. Most of it is simple physics. A properly set-up and damped suspension on a turntable can protect playback from structure and air-bourn feedback as well as protecting playback from skipping due to footfalls and weak floors. There are many different routes to this result of which air damped suspensions, spring suspensions, elastic band suspensions and even pressurized air or oil suspensions are but some of the methodologies that will get a turntable to that state. All of them work fine if properly designed, and that's just a question of the application of well known mechanical engineering principles. Most turntable improvements over the last quarter-century are related to materials technology. Some of it is probably a sales gimmick, but much of the things seen in modern turntable technology do allow for more information to be gleaned from the grooves than was possible before. I have an Empire 598 and a Michele Gyrodeck SE (with an Audioquest PT-9 arm) and as much as I love the looks of the 598, the Gyrodeck simply retrieves more information from the grooves (both have the same cartridge/ pre-amp) than does the Empire. These things do make a huge difference. I remember well when I placed a lead-filled Nagaoka record mat on the Empire. The difference in bass was astounding, and is easy to do double-blind. There is NO doubt when the Nagaoka was in place instead of the turntable's own ribbed-rubber mat. The bass amplitude is greater, the bass is more focused and tighter and using a test record and an audio voltmeter, the difference in amplitude below 50 Hz is easily measured. The Michele Gyrodeck with its acrylic platter doesn't need a lead-filled mat. It accomplishes similar low-end performance without it. The Gyrodeck also exhibits improved immunity from feedback, is more stable with regard to footfalls on the floor, has a better midrange and smoother highs from the same cartridge and preamp that the 598 uses. The difference is really quite eye-opening. Turntable design and the materials used DO make a difference. |
|
#127
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vinyl's Comeback - featured NYTimes article
"Scott" wrote in message
On Dec 23, 7:09=A0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote: Supporting raw technology is one thing, showing that it actually audibly improves the sound quality of vinyl performance is something else. So you are of the position that bearing quality, stiffness to mass ratios and isolation from mechanical feedback do not affect vinyl playback performance? Excluded middle argument. First, quality bearings have been around for decades. Bearing quality in the better ca. 1970 turntables was good enough that rumble from the best cutting lathes became the weakest link. AFAIK, neither thing has shown up on RAHE. neither your knowledge nor the archives of RAHE have any bearing on the significance of bearing performance, effects of material used or effects of mechanical feedback on vinyl playback. If reliable documentation of these claims exist, why hasn't it shown up on RAHE? Certainly, there has been no problem finding reliable documentation of the inherent failings of the vinyl vormat. Those things are what they are regardless of your knowledge or any discussions on RAHE. If these materials exist, why is finding them so difficult? Are you saying that only vinyl critics are capable of doing their homework? If you have any published scientific studies that suggest none of these things are a factor in vinyl playback performance feel free to cite them. Been there, done that. So far all we have is your personal opinions. Denial isn't a river in Africa. There are some great papers that have been cited here about vinyl playback particualrly from the JAES, but they all show how it is inherently a highly limited format. Digital isn't just eyewash, it pushed the performance of the media so high that the basic limitations of music recording and playback are all someplace else. The LP could never do that. Do tell us which ones actually did DBTs with SOTA equipment to see which could actually deliver a better illusion of live music. Been there, done that. The sonic transparency of good digital equipment was demonstrated even before the CD format was delivered to the general public: http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_digi.htm Yes, it can take a little work. I see no documentation of some pretty exceptional claims. Again if you are really worried about credibility you might want to reconsider your assertion that my claims are exceptional. You really doubt there is science behind things like low tolerance high pressure air, modern low mass high stiffness materials or active pneumatic suspensions? Air bearings have been around for at least 5 decades that I know of. I did not say that any of these designers invented airbearings. What i did say was that their implimentation of them was a breakthrough in performance. Saying so does not make it so. Where are the test results showing dramatic improvements in technical or reliable listening comparisons? If you have some scientific evidence that shows bearing performance for turntables and pickup arms do not affect the performance of them please cite it. Not the job of the critic, but the job of the advocate. The Empire 598 turntable had air damped suspension, back in the middle 1960s. I did not claim that any of these rigs introduced suspensions to the world of turntables. However the active pneumatic suspension fo the Rockport was a significant jump over anything used prior to the commercial release of CDs. Where are the reliable listening tests or technical test results that show that? Do you really want to argue that all suspensions are equal and don't affect turntable performance? Not the job of the critic, but the job of the advocate. Again, what still seems to be lacking is any reliable evidence that they actually do any good, as far as listening quality goes Please feel free to show us any published scientific evidence that materials, bearing qaulity and isolation do not affect vinyl playback performance. Not the job of the critic, but the job of the advocate. |
|
#128
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vinyl's Comeback - featured NYTimes article
On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 17:26:35 -0800, ScottW wrote
(in article ): On Dec 23, 11:51=A0am, Audio Empire wrote: Most of it is simple physics. A properly set-up and damped suspension on = a turntable can protect playback from structure and air-bourn feedback as w= ell as protecting playback from skipping due to footfalls and weak floors. Th= ere are many different routes to this result of which air damped suspensions, spring suspensions, elastic band suspensions and even pressurized air or = oil suspensions are but some of the methodologies that will get a turntable t= o that state. All of them work fine if properly designed, and that's just a question of the application of well known mechanical engineering principl= es. Most turntable improvements over the last quarter-century are related to materials technology. Some of it is probably a sales gimmick, but much of= the things seen in modern turntable technology do allow for more information = to be gleaned from the grooves than was possible before. I have an Empire 59= 8 and a Michele Gyrodeck SE (with an Audioquest PT-9 arm) and as much as I = love the looks of the 598, the Gyrodeck simply retrieves more information from= the grooves (both have the same cartridge/ pre-amp) than does the Empire. The= se things do make a huge difference. I remember well when I placed a lead-fi= lled Nagaoka record mat on the Empire. The difference in bass was astounding, = and is easy to do double-blind. There is NO doubt when the Nagaoka was in pla= ce instead of the turntable's own ribbed-rubber mat. The bass amplitude is greater, the bass is more focused and tighter and using a test record and= an audio voltmeter, the difference in amplitude below 50 Hz is easily measur= ed. I'd like to hear your explanation for this with simple physics if you don't mind. ScottW Easy. The grove is supposed to move the stylus, not the other way 'round. There are two ways to damp out vinyl resonances: use high, non-resonant mass, or use a mechanical impedance matching. The heavy. lead-filled Nagaoka rubber mat does the former, the acrylic platter on the Gyrodeck, obviously does the latter. |
|
#129
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vinyl's Comeback - featured NYTimes article
On Dec 23, 5:26=A0pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message On Dec 23, 7:09=3DA0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote: Supporting raw technology is one thing, showing that it actually audibly improves the sound quality of vinyl performance is something else. So you are of the position that bearing quality, stiffness to mass ratios and isolation from mechanical feedback do not affect vinyl playback performance? Excluded middle argument. First, quality bearings have been around for decades. Straw man. I have never said that they have not. What i have said was that Vers and Rockport introduced a level of qaulity bearings that was not seen in vinyl playback prior to the introduction of commercial CDs. 2. quality is a matter of degree not a black or white thing. There is no such dichotomy that divides the world of bearings into two groups, quality bearings and non quality bearings. Bearing quality in the better ca. 1970 turntables was good enough that rumble from the best cutt= ing lathes became the weakest link. Do you have any scientific papers that support this assertion that all audible artifacts due to the bearings used in turntables and pickup arms had been eliminated by the 70s? I'd like to see the results of DBTs proving this assertion. AFAIK, neither thing has shown up on RAHE. neither your knowledge nor the archives of RAHE have any bearing on the significance of bearing performance, effects of material used or effects of mechanical feedback on vinyl playback. If reliable documentation of these claims exist, why hasn't it shown up o= n RAHE? Why would you assume that the existance of scientific evidence of anything is in any way dependent on your ability to find it in the RAHE archives? =A0Certainly, there has been no problem finding reliable documentation of the inherent failings of the vinyl vormat. I'm not so certain about that. Those things are what they are regardless of your knowledge or any discussions on RAHE. If these materials exist, why is finding them so difficult? I don't know whay it is difficult for you. I have had no problem finding information on the materials used in making these rigs and I have had no problem finding information on their properties. Are you saying that only vinyl critics are capable of doing their homework? No. If you have any published scientific studies that suggest none of these things are a factor in vinyl playback performance feel free to cite them. Been there, done that. Sorry but personal testimony is no substitute for evidence. I'll take your failure to produce any such evidence when directly asked to do so to mean that you actually don't have any published studies that support the assertion that bearings, isolation and materials make no difference in the audible performance of vinyl playback. So far all we have is your personal opinions. Denial isn't a river in Africa. OK..... There are some great papers that have been cited here about vinyl playback particualrly from the JAES, but they all show how it is inherently a highly limited format. Digital isn't just eyewash, it pushed the performance of the media so high that the basic limitations of music recording and playback are all someplace else. The LP could never do that. Do tell us which ones actually did DBTs with SOTA equipment to see which could actually deliver a better illusion of live music. Been there, done that. Sorry but personal testimony is no substitute for evidence. I'll take your failure to produce any such evidence when directly asked to do so to mean that you actually don't have any published studies that support the position that CD offers a more convincing illusion of live music than vinyl playback. The sonic transparency of good digital equipment was demonstrated even before the CD format was delivered to the general publi= c: The question was in regards to convincing illusions of live music. Yes, it can take a little work. I see no documentation of some pretty exceptional claims. Again if you are really worried about credibility you might want to reconsider your assertion that my claims are exceptional. You really doubt there is science behind things like low tolerance high pressure air, modern low mass high stiffness materials or active pneumatic suspensions? Air bearings have been around for at least 5 decades that I know of. I did not say that any of these designers invented airbearings. What i did say was that their implimentation of them was a breakthrough in performance. Saying so does not make it so. Denying it doesn't make it not so. Where are the test results showing dramatic improvements in technical or reliable listening comparisons? Where are the test results showing that they made no audible difference? If you have some scientific evidence that shows bearing performance for turntables and pickup arms do not affect the performance of them please cite it. Not the job of the critic, but the job of the advocate. Clearly you are an advocate for the extraordinary claim that there have been no advancements in the state of vinyl playback performance since the 70s. Clearly you have offered no evidence to support that position even when directly asked for that evidence. The Empire 598 turntable had air damped suspension, back in the middle 1960s. I did not claim that any of these rigs introduced suspensions to the world of turntables. However the active pneumatic suspension fo the Rockport was a significant jump over anything used prior to the commercial release of CDs. Where are the reliable listening tests or technical test results that sho= w that? the big question is what are the thresholds of audible feedback in vinyl playback. The degree of isolation of active pneumatic isolation systems is pretty easy to find. I suggest you look up the vibraplane to see for yourself. If you have some published studies that show the rigs of the 70s had already passed any and all thresholds for audible feedback please feel free to cite them. Please note that while the Vibraplane offers superb isolation, the integrated system on the Rockport is arguably better. but that is neither here nor there since the comparison is with the isolation built into the rigs from the 70s. Do you really want to argue that all suspensions are equal and don't affect turntable performance? Not the job of the critic, but the job of the advocate. But you are the advocate of the extraordinary claim that all suspensions are equal and don't affect turntable performance. Here is a primer on how isolation works. Certainly if one understands thsi primer it should be quite obvious that not all isolation systems are equal. http://www.kineticsystems.com/page306.html Here is a primer on the effects of mechanical feedback on vinyl playback complete with measurements. http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/turntables/= feedback.html Again, what still seems to be lacking is any reliable evidence that they actually do any good, as far as listening quality goes Please feel free to show us any published scientific evidence that materials, bearing qaulity and isolation do not affect vinyl playback performance. Not the job of the critic, but the job of the advocate IOW you are a complete no show when directly asked to offer scientific support for any of your assertions. |
|
#130
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vinyl's Comeback - featured NYTimes article
On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 11:51:02 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "Audio Empire" wrote in message On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 07:36:11 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): "Dick Pierce" wrote in message Audio Empire wrote: On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 06:20:53 -0800, Harry Lavo wrote The "early days of stereo" (so far as LP's were concerned) was in 1957-58. Multitrack recorders and studio effects didn't come into widespread use until the late '60's/early '70's. Your timeline is off. Multitrack came along in the mid-sixties and while a useful tool for pop music, it was a disaster for classical and jazz. Multitrack classical recordings (especially the early ones using first-gen transistor electronics), for the most part, sound simply dreadful. Indeed, Columbia was pretty heavy into classical multi-tracking already in the 1960s. For example, all of the E. Power Biggs recordings done on the Flentrop organ at Harvard were multi- tracked, starting in the early 1960's. Great instrument, interesting performances, somewhat weird recordings. The very idea of multitracking this instrument is pretty amusing. http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/~organ/images/flentrop.jpg To summarize, it is a relatively small, very compact, particularly narrow neo-baroque instrument in a large, live, extremely reverberent, highly diffusive hall. The audience's soundstage will be dominated by reflections and reverberations from the room. The person playing it might be outside the critical distance, or not! No matter where one sits in the audience seating area, there will be little if any sense as to the relative or actual locations of the pipes. The sound might be so diffuse that a blindfolded person might not be able to tell which end of the hall houses the organ. I can see recording it with a goodly number of mics and tracks, but only once or a very few times for the purpose of thoughtfully selecting just a few mics for the recording that was ultimately sold. Once I figured out the most characteristic micing location, a well-placed coincident pair might suffice. With classical music, a coincident, Blumlein, or M-S stereo pair is ALWAYS preferable to multi-miking. If wishes were fishes... Note that my comments related to one particular situation. I've seen organs with vastly different physical configurations where multi-micing and even multi-channel playback might work a treat. The very large organ in the Fox Theatre here in Detroit comes to mind. I've never heard a multi-miked, multi-track classical recording that didn't sound like crap. I don't think that it is possible to know for sure how every classical recording is miced. I can tell a multi-miked recording in seconds after it starts. Even spaced omnis is preferable to multi-miking. Now that has got to be hyperbole! Not at all. All of the Mercury Living Presence recordings were done with spaced omnis as were many of the Telarcs, especially the early ones. While they don't image as well as a coincident, Blumlein, or an M-S stereo pair, and tend to phasing problems, they image better than do multimiked/multitrack (which have no acoustic image at all). Note that when I say multimiked/multitracked I don't refer to a proper stereo pair with highlight mikes on some instruments. I mean a recording where each instrument or grouping has its own microphone (and sometimes its own track) and is "pan-potted" into place in the final mix). Of course, I'm speaking from a listener's perspective. I understand the economics of multi-miking/multi track, I just don't think it serves the music very well. Please explain why you think that multi-miking/multi track can't serve the music well., First of all, multi-miked/multi track recordings aren't stereo. They are multiple channel mono with the instrument's positions pan-potted into place. Close, multiple-miking captures the instruments themselves, not the SPACE that the instruments occupy. Secondly a string section, for instance, cannot be made to sound like a string section by mixing the individual violins together from separate tracks or separate mikes. When strings (or woodwinds, or brasses) are miked individually and then mixed together electronically, they don't sound the same as they do when miked as a complete ensemble. In fact the entire orchestra or wind ensemble or string quartet etc., does not sound the same close-miked and multi-miked/multi-tracked as they do when recorded with a proper true stereo microphone technique. Lastly, multi-miked/multi-track recordings do not image. I have stereo miked recordings where I can close my eyes and point to every instrument in the group. That's right-to-left as well as front-to-back. In a proper stereo recording those positioning clues ARE there, in a multi-miked/multi-track recording they are NOT there because they weren't captured in the first place. I also don't agree with the three-channel mono methodology that has dominated small jazz ensemble recording for so long. I'm all about what sounds good. Multi-mono approaches tend towards a phasey, sort of almost seasick sort of sound in many cases. I'm all about what sounds REAL. YOu have two ears, not twenty, You only need two microphones to record any musical performance of live instruments played in a real acoustic space; pop recordings (which have a different set of values) notwithstanding. |
|
#131
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vinyl's Comeback - featured NYTimes article
On Dec 24, 10:52=A0am, Audio Empire wrote:
On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 11:51:02 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): [ Excessive quotation snipped --dsr ] I don't think that it is possible to know for sure how every classical recording is miced. I can tell a multi-miked recording in seconds after it starts. Even spaced omnis is preferable to multi-miking. Now that has got to be hyperbole! Not at all. All of the Mercury Living Presence recordings were done with spaced omnis as were many of the Telarcs, especially the early ones. Whil= e they don't image as well as a =A0coincident, Blumlein, or an M-S stereo p= air, and tend to phasing problems, they image better than do multimiked/multit= rack (which have no acoustic image at all). Note that when I say multimiked/multitracked I don't refer to a proper stereo pair with highli= ght mikes on some instruments. I mean a recording where each instrument or grouping has its own microphone (and sometimes its own track) and is "pan-potted" into place in the final mix). Of course, I'm speaking from a listener's perspective. I understand th= e economics of multi-miking/multi track, I just don't think it serves the music very well. Please explain why you think that =A0multi-miking/multi track can't ser= ve the music well., First of all, multi-miked/multi track recordings aren't stereo. They are multiple channel mono with the instrument's positions pan-potted into pla= ce. Close, multiple-miking captures the instruments themselves, not the SPACE that the instruments occupy. Secondly a string section, for instance, can= not be made to sound like a string section by mixing the individual violins together from separate tracks or separate mikes. When strings (or woodwin= ds, or brasses) are miked individually and then mixed together electronically= , they don't sound the same as they do when miked as a complete ensemble. I= n fact the entire orchestra or wind ensemble or string quartet etc., does n= ot sound the same close-miked and multi-miked/multi-tracked as they do when recorded with a proper true stereo microphone technique. Lastly, multi-miked/multi-track recordings do not image. I have stereo miked recordings where I can close my eyes and point to every instrument in the group. That's right-to-left as well as front-to-back. In a proper stereo recording those positioning clues ARE there, in a multi-miked/multi-track recording they are NOT there because they weren't captured in the first place. I also don't agree with the three-channel mono methodology that has dominated small jazz ensemble recording for so long. I'm all about what sounds good. Multi-mono approaches tend towards a ph= asey, sort of almost seasick sort of sound in many cases. I'm all about what sounds REAL. YOu have two ears, not twenty, You only n= eed two microphones to record any musical performance of live instruments pla= yed in a real acoustic space; pop recordings (which have a different set of values) notwithstanding.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - I have several early Mercury Living Presence recordings which are wonderfully spacious, one of them made in the Bolshoi hall of the Tchakovsky Conservatory of Music. But, the form I have them in is 3- channel SACD's made from the original 3-channel, not 2-channel, masters. It is difficult to compare 2-channel and muli-channel playback simply because the 2-channel works best in a fairly live room while the muli- channel requires a relatively dead room. Mild ringing, which only makes a stero playback seem fuller and more natural, can mutilate a multi-channel image. I have a system which compromises by cutting ringing when in multi- channel and seems a decent compromise, but may still bias my comparisons. But, I have both stereo and muiti-channel recordings which sound very good to me. My experience is that some of my multi-channel recordings have rather good images, and some have rather poor ones, and there seems to be very little correlation between the results and the minimalist/heavy miking philosophy. However, I suspect that the good heavy miking recordings record tracks of the room ambience as well as instrumental zones. This last may apply when down-mixed to stereo as well. Fred. |
|
#132
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vinyl's Comeback - featured NYTimes article
Scott wrote:
: Supporting raw technology is one thing, showing that it actually audibly : improves the sound quality of vinyl performance is something else. : So you are of the position that bearing quality, stiffness to mass : ratios and isolation from mechanical feedback do not affect vinyl : playback performance? : If you have any published scientific studies that suggest none of : these things are a factor in vinyl playback performance feel free to : cite them. So far all we have is your personal opinions. Isn't the burden of proof on the advocate for the new thing? I mean, I completely agree that many improvements in technology can increase function (that's the major reason they're called "improvements"). But at a certain point, either no further improvement is needed (no one needs speakers that can reproduce 500,000 KHz tones, for example), or it's measurable but has no effect on the utility of the object, which is what Arny Kreuger was suggesting for these bearing 'improvements'. To make an analogy, I can imgine someone putting these http://www.zszbearing.com/49/standar...aring-products into a turntable, a lawnmower, or a bandsaw. But since their advantage is continued operation under severe temperature extremes, it would be pointless. If you look around in the industrial world, there are bearings with all sorts of wonderful properties, but no all of them are necessary, or would make any difference at all, in turntables. Do you see the logic of this point? If you do, then you'll surely agree that someone building audio component X with a newfangled, very high-end ingredient (high-temp bearings, platters flat to .000025 inch across several feet (which are pretty standard in the machinist industry, for example), exotic materials), etc. should, as a matter of common sense, be willing to back up claims of increased performance with independent data as to whether it is audible. For which, double-blind perception testing is the only game in town. -- Andy Barss |
|
#133
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vinyl's Comeback - featured NYTimes article
On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 17:48:34 -0800, Fred. wrote
(in article ): On Dec 24, 10:52=A0am, Audio Empire wrote: On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 11:51:02 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): [ Excessive quotation snipped --dsr ] I don't think that it is possible to know for sure how every classical recording is miced. I can tell a multi-miked recording in seconds after it starts. Even spaced omnis is preferable to multi-miking. Now that has got to be hyperbole! Not at all. All of the Mercury Living Presence recordings were done with spaced omnis as were many of the Telarcs, especially the early ones. Whil= e they don't image as well as a =A0coincident, Blumlein, or an M-S stereo p= air, and tend to phasing problems, they image better than do multimiked/multit= rack (which have no acoustic image at all). Note that when I say multimiked/multitracked I don't refer to a proper stereo pair with highli= ght mikes on some instruments. I mean a recording where each instrument or grouping has its own microphone (and sometimes its own track) and is "pan-potted" into place in the final mix). Of course, I'm speaking from a listener's perspective. I understand th= e economics of multi-miking/multi track, I just don't think it serves the music very well. Please explain why you think that =A0multi-miking/multi track can't ser= ve the music well., First of all, multi-miked/multi track recordings aren't stereo. They are multiple channel mono with the instrument's positions pan-potted into pla= ce. Close, multiple-miking captures the instruments themselves, not the SPACE that the instruments occupy. Secondly a string section, for instance, can= not be made to sound like a string section by mixing the individual violins together from separate tracks or separate mikes. When strings (or woodwin= ds, or brasses) are miked individually and then mixed together electronically= , they don't sound the same as they do when miked as a complete ensemble. I= n fact the entire orchestra or wind ensemble or string quartet etc., does n= ot sound the same close-miked and multi-miked/multi-tracked as they do when recorded with a proper true stereo microphone technique. Lastly, multi-miked/multi-track recordings do not image. I have stereo miked recordings where I can close my eyes and point to every instrument in the group. That's right-to-left as well as front-to-back. In a proper stereo recording those positioning clues ARE there, in a multi-miked/multi-track recording they are NOT there because they weren't captured in the first place. I also don't agree with the three-channel mono methodology that has dominated small jazz ensemble recording for so long. I'm all about what sounds good. Multi-mono approaches tend towards a ph= asey, sort of almost seasick sort of sound in many cases. I'm all about what sounds REAL. YOu have two ears, not twenty, You only n= eed two microphones to record any musical performance of live instruments pla= yed in a real acoustic space; pop recordings (which have a different set of values) notwithstanding.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - I have several early Mercury Living Presence recordings which are wonderfully spacious, one of them made in the Bolshoi hall of the Tchakovsky Conservatory of Music. But, the form I have them in is 3- channel SACD's made from the original 3-channel, not 2-channel, masters. I have not had the pleasure of hearing any of those, although I have heard OF them. I'll bet they sound great! Mercury used mostly Telefunken Omnis in those days and by today's standards, their patterns are about halfway between an Omni and a mild cardioid. If you tried the same thing today with a modern true omnidirectional mike, you likely wouldn't get the same results. It is difficult to compare 2-channel and muli-channel playback simply because the 2-channel works best in a fairly live room while the muli- channel requires a relatively dead room. Mild ringing, which only makes a stero playback seem fuller and more natural, can mutilate a multi-channel image. Depends on what you are talking about. Classical recordings made with a forest of microphones and 16 or more "channels" sound like crap (IMHO) no matter what the playback space is like. The three-channel Mercury's were done that way, not for stereo, but so that the center mike/channel could be used to cut the monaural version of the album. In the later stereo Living Presence recordings, the center channel was mixed equally into both the left and the right channel. This helped ameliorate some of the phase problems that are part and parcel of space omnis and in some venues also tended to fill-in for the "hole-in-the-middle" effect. I have a system which compromises by cutting ringing when in multi- channel and seems a decent compromise, but may still bias my comparisons. But, I have both stereo and muiti-channel recordings which sound very good to me. Except that heavily mult-tracked recordings don't sound anything like a real orchestra. They can't because there is no REAL soundstage info. My experience is that some of my multi-channel recordings have rather good images, and some have rather poor ones, and there seems to be very little correlation between the results and the minimalist/heavy miking philosophy. However, I suspect that the good heavy miking recordings record tracks of the room ambience as well as instrumental zones. This last may apply when down-mixed to stereo as well. I have found that when a heavily multi-miked/multi-track recording exhibits anything like a semblance of decent imaging, It's because the recording team threw-up an overall stereo pair and let the heavy multi-miking and multi-track methodology be subordinate to the stereo pair. I still don't like them because instruments don't sound the same up-close as they do at a distance when mixed in the air that exists between the ensemble and the audience (even if that audience is a pair of mikes). Electronic mixing and "air" mixing aren't the same thing and electronic pan-potting cannot replicate the sound of a homogenous ensemble playing in a real space. |
|
#134
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vinyl's Comeback - featured NYTimes article
"Audio Empire" wrote in message
On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 11:51:02 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): I've never heard a multi-miked, multi-track classical recording that didn't sound like crap. I don't think that it is possible to know for sure how every classical recording is miced. I can tell a multi-miked recording in seconds after it starts. Clearly posturing. All multi-miced recordings are not the same. They are usually made using a device called a mixing console which is notable for its faders and channel strips, which allow various channels to be mixed in various ways, at different amplitudes and with differing amounts of delay and equalization. Furthermore multi-miced recordings are as their name suggests, made with microphones, which are varied devices that can be used in varied ways. Even spaced omnis is preferable to multi-miking. Now that has got to be hyperbole! Not at all. All of the Mercury Living Presence recordings were done with spaced omnis as were many of the Telarcs, especially the early ones. If what you're saying is that the best examples of spaced-omni recordings are preferable to the worst and most extreme examples of close micing with zillions of directional mics then all we have is an excluded middle argument. While they don't image as well as a coincident, Blumlein, or an M-S stereo pair, and tend to phasing problems, they image better than do multimiked/multitrack (which have no acoustic image at all). Imaging is one of those things that is difficult to measure in the lab and not generally characterized in any standard way. In short, "good imaging" is a matter of personal taste. Note that when I say multimiked/multitracked I don't refer to a proper stereo pair with highlight mikes on some instruments. Now an additional wild card is produced at the last moment - multimicing is defined to be just one of the nearly infinite number of things that it can possibly be. I mean a recording where each instrument or grouping has its own microphone (and sometimes its own track) and is "pan-potted" into place in the final mix). I can think of several different ways to do that that would be good practice but yield generally different sonic results. Of course, I'm speaking from a listener's perspective. I understand the economics of multi-miking/multi track, I just don't think it serves the music very well. Please explain why you think that multi-miking/multi track can't serve the music well., First of all, multi-miked/multi track recordings aren't stereo. That would be a controversial view. They are multiple channel mono with the instrument's positions pan-potted into place. This would be a outdated, simplistic view. As pointed out earlier the generally-available technical facilities for mixing in 2010 include a wide variety of signal processing alternatives that include but are hardly limited to simple pan-potting. Close, multiple-miking captures the instruments themselves, not the SPACE that the instruments occupy. This would be another simplistic view. Even if you put contact mics on an acoustical instrument it acts like a microphone and picks up significant amounts of its acoustical environment. More typically the instrument is miced using a more traditional transducer (omni or directional microphone) operating over an acoustical path. The simple logistics of micing acoustical instruments (which I am intimately familiar with because I routinely do SR and recording of an 18 piece orchestra that includes violins, violas, cellos, flutes, french horns, clarinets, trumpets of various kinds, acoustic guitar, harp, etc., etc.) inhibit really close micing because a musican needs space to read the music and play the instrument and enter and leave his seat. Secondly a string section, for instance, cannot be made to sound like a string section by mixing the individual violins together from separate tracks or separate mikes. "Cannot made" is a very strong statement. Furthermore, you just previously allowed that one of the objects of mult-micing could be "an instrument grouping" which avoids the basic problem. I admit it, I tend to mic my violins and viola as a group with a coincident pair but that's to as much to economize on microphones as anything else. OTOH, I mic the cello(s) separately but nobody complains about unnatural sound. When strings (or woodwinds, or brasses) are miked individually and then mixed together electronically, they don't sound the same as they do when miked as a complete ensemble. Says you, based on an apparently limited understanding of the available options. In fact the entire orchestra or wind ensemble or string quartet etc., does not sound the same close-miked and multi-miked/multi-tracked as they do when recorded with a proper true stereo microphone technique. "proper, true stereo microphone technique" presumes a lot of agreement as to what that might be which does not in fact exist. Do I need to do a quick review of the generally accepted permutations of micing to make this point more clearly? Lastly, multi-miked/multi-track recordings do not image. Same problem as before. Exactly what constitutes imaging is not well-defined or generally agreed upon, and there is not a narrow enough definition of "multi-miked/multi-track recordings" even in just the post I'm responding to justify reducing the situation to a go/no-go situation. I have stereo miked recordings where I can close my eyes and point to every instrument in the group. (1) This is something that you *can't* do from virtually any seat in a concert hall. (2) This is something that can be done within the definition of "multi-miked/multi-track recordings" even in the post I'm responding to. That's right-to-left as well as front-to-back. In a proper stereo recording those positioning clues ARE there, in a multi-miked/multi-track recording they are NOT there because they weren't captured in the first place. Says you, based on what seems to be a limited and outdated understanding of the relevant technology and available options. I also don't agree with the three-channel mono methodology that has dominated small jazz ensemble recording for so long. I'm all about what sounds good. Multi-mono approaches tend towards a phasey, sort of almost seasick sort of sound in many cases. I'm all about what sounds REAL. But real isn't just one thing. YOu have two ears, not twenty, Ignores the fact that using 20 microphones is not the same as having 20 ears. Anybody who is familar with microhones knows that in general you have to mic closer to get a similar sonic perspective as you get by listening from a given location. A mic may have to be at from 1/2 to 1/20 the distance to get a similar perceived balance between direct and reflected sound. For example, one of the banes of my life is lecturer who insists on using a lavilier microphone. Even with the microphone only 2 feet or less from the lecturer's mouth, tremendous amounts of room reverb is picked up. This is aside from another serious problem, which is the fact that lavs pick up vocal sounds that are emitted from the chest, and give an unnatural sound. My point is that just because a mic is seemingly close to the sound source is no guarantee that the room sound is excluded. You only need two microphones to record any musical performance of live instruments played in a real acoustic space; That very much depends on the space and the instruments and what your goals for an acoustical perspective is. Remember that most musical venues have upwards of 26 rows of seats and each row of seats has from 15 to 75 seats side-by-side. Depending on which seats and which venues, moving only 3 seats in any of 4 directions yields an audibly different sonic experience. There is no one right answer for micing a musical presentation. pop recordings (which have a different set of values) notwithstanding. If were talking live concerts, pop can be very different, or very much the same. Pop done exclusively with electronic instruments is clearly different from pop or traditional music done with acoustic instruments, but the degree of similarity can be whatever the producers decide it should be. Electronic and acoustic instruments are frequently mixed and matched. |
|
#135
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vinyl's Comeback - featured NYTimes article
On Dec 25, 3:12=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:
On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 17:48:34 -0800, Fred. wrote (in article ): On Dec 24, 10:52=3DA0am, Audio Empire wrote: On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 11:51:02 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): =A0 =A0[ Excessive quotation snipped =A0 --dsr ] I don't think that it is possible to know for sure how every classica= l recording is miced. I can tell a multi-miked recording in seconds after it starts. Even spaced omnis is preferable to multi-miking. Now that has got to be hyperbole! Not at all. All of the Mercury Living Presence recordings were done wi= th spaced omnis as were many of the Telarcs, especially the early ones. W= hil=3D e they don't image as well as a =3DA0coincident, Blumlein, or an M-S ste= reo p=3D air, and tend to phasing problems, they image better than do multimiked/mul= tit=3D rack (which have no acoustic image at all). Note that when I say multimiked/multitracked I don't refer to a proper stereo pair with hig= hli=3D ght mikes on some instruments. I mean a recording where each instrument or grouping has its own microphone (and sometimes its own track) and is "pan-potted" into place in the final mix). Of course, I'm speaking from a listener's perspective. I understand = th=3D e economics of multi-miking/multi track, I just don't think it serves the music very well. Please explain why you think that =3DA0multi-miking/multi track can't= ser=3D ve the music well., First of all, multi-miked/multi track recordings aren't stereo. They a= re multiple channel mono with the instrument's positions pan-potted into = pla=3D ce. Close, multiple-miking captures the instruments themselves, not the SP= ACE that the instruments occupy. Secondly a string section, for instance, = can=3D not be made to sound like a string section by mixing the individual violin= s together from separate tracks or separate mikes. When strings (or wood= win=3D ds, or brasses) are miked individually and then mixed together electronica= lly=3D , they don't sound the same as they do when miked as a complete ensemble= .. I=3D n fact the entire orchestra or wind ensemble or string quartet etc., doe= s n=3D ot sound the same close-miked and multi-miked/multi-tracked as they do wh= en recorded with a proper true stereo microphone technique. Lastly, multi-miked/multi-track recordings do not image. I have stereo miked recordings where I can close my eyes and point to every instrument in = the group. That's right-to-left as well as front-to-back. In a proper ster= eo recording those positioning clues ARE there, in a multi-miked/multi-tr= ack recording they are NOT there because they weren't captured in the firs= t place. I also don't agree with the three-channel mono methodology that has dominated small jazz ensemble recording for so long. I'm all about what sounds good. Multi-mono approaches tend towards a = ph=3D asey, sort of almost seasick sort of sound in many cases. I'm all about what sounds REAL. YOu have two ears, not twenty, You onl= y n=3D eed two microphones to record any musical performance of live instruments = pla=3D yed in a real acoustic space; pop recordings (which have a different set o= f values) notwithstanding.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - I have several early Mercury Living Presence recordings which are wonderfully spacious, one of them made in the Bolshoi hall of the Tchakovsky Conservatory of Music. =A0But, the form I have them in is 3- channel SACD's made from the original 3-channel, not 2-channel, masters. I have not had the pleasure of hearing any of those, although I have hear= d OF them. I'll bet they sound great! Mercury used mostly Telefunken Omnis in those days =A0and by today's standards, their patterns are about halfway between an Omni and a mild cardioid. If you tried the same thing today wi= th a modern true omnidirectional mike, you likely wouldn't get the same result= s. It is difficult to compare 2-channel and muli-channel playback simply because the 2-channel works best in a fairly live room while the muli- channel requires a relatively dead room. =A0Mild ringing, which only makes a stero playback seem fuller and more natural, can mutilate a multi-channel image. Depends on what you are talking about. Classical recordings made with a forest of microphones and 16 or more "channels" sound like crap (IMHO) no matter what the playback space is like. The three-channel Mercury's were = done that way, not for stereo, but so that the center mike/channel could be us= ed to cut the monaural version of the album. In the later stereo Living Pres= ence recordings, the center channel was mixed equally into both the left and t= he right channel. This helped ameliorate some of the phase problems that are part and parcel of space omnis and in some venues also tended to fill-in = for the "hole-in-the-middle" effect. =A0 I have a system which compromises by cutting ringing when in multi- channel and seems a decent compromise, but may still bias my comparisons. =A0But, I have both stereo and muiti-channel recordings which sound very good to me. Except that heavily mult-tracked recordings don't sound anything like a r= eal orchestra. They can't because there is no REAL soundstage info. My experience is that some of my multi-channel recordings have rather good images, and some have rather poor ones, and there seems to be very little correlation between the results and the minimalist/heavy miking philosophy. =A0However, I suspect that the good heavy miking recordings record tracks of the room ambience as well as instrumental zones. =A0This last may apply when down-mixed to stereo as well. I have found that when a heavily multi-miked/multi-track recording exhibi= ts anything like a semblance of decent imaging, It's because the recording t= eam threw-up an overall stereo pair and let the heavy multi-miking and multi-track methodology be subordinate to the stereo pair. I still don't like them because instruments don't sound the same up-close= as they do at a distance when mixed in the air that exists between the ensem= ble and the audience (even if that audience is a pair of mikes). Electronic mixing and "air" mixing aren't the same thing and electronic pan-potting cannot replicate the sound of a homogenous ensemble playing in a real spa= ce.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - The MLP SACD's are not partciularly expensive as SACD's go, and are pretty easy to find on the internet. I just did a search on _Balalaika Favorites_ (Osipov Folk Orchestra) and it was selling at a number of places, some of them among the last places I would think to look for quality recordings. They are transfers from aged 35mm film and despite the efforts to compensate seem just a little acid. But the acidity is not enough to keep me from preferring the SACD to the original CD transfers (included on the Hybrid SACD for reference). But, you should probably listen to at least a clip if you are considering buying. You may respond to things quite differently. And, it may be true, as you suggest, that the good heavy miked recordings may rely heavily on a small number of mikes and just use the others for touch-up. I don't see any way to determine that without shawdowing or interviewing some specific recording engineers, and sometimes this will require a medium :-). I do know that my favorite multi-channel recording, which is, in fact, quad, seems to have nothing but ambience in the rear channels and has quite a bit of ambience in front. It may well have been done on a 2 main + 2 supplemental mike system, with a back-up on the soloist. But, I definately prefer it to the 2-channel version I have on the same SACD. Again, who knows when I have apples to compare with apples, since the miking was set up with 4-channel in mind, and I play them both in the same listening room. Fred. |
|
#136
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vinyl's Comeback - featured NYTimes article
On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 12:13:00 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "Audio Empire" wrote in message On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 11:51:02 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): I've never heard a multi-miked, multi-track classical recording that didn't sound like crap. I don't think that it is possible to know for sure how every classical recording is miced. I can tell a multi-miked recording in seconds after it starts. Clearly posturing. Clearly posturing, indeed. All one has to do is notice the lack of any depth in the soundstage (at best) or no real soundstage at all (at worst). All multi-miced recordings are not the same. They are usually made using a device called a mixing console which is notable for its faders and channel strips, which allow various channels to be mixed in various ways, at different amplitudes and with differing amounts of delay and equalization. Sigh! Yes I know, I own several of different sizes. Furthermore multi-miced recordings are as their name suggests, made with microphones, which are varied devices that can be used in varied ways. Really? Even spaced omnis is preferable to multi-miking. Now that has got to be hyperbole! Not at all. All of the Mercury Living Presence recordings were done with spaced omnis as were many of the Telarcs, especially the early ones. If what you're saying is that the best examples of spaced-omni recordings are preferable to the worst and most extreme examples of close micing with zillions of directional mics then all we have is an excluded middle argument. I'd say that any recording made with a pair (or three) spaced omnis, is going to be better than any multi-tracked, multi-miked abortion that I can think of offhand. While they don't image as well as a coincident, Blumlein, or an M-S stereo pair, and tend to phasing problems, they image better than do multimiked/multitrack (which have no acoustic image at all). Imaging is one of those things that is difficult to measure in the lab Yeah, that's true. Well, there has to be SOMETHING that the human ear is better at than measuring equipment. and not generally characterized in any standard way. In short, "good imaging" is a matter of personal taste. Sorry but that last part is incorrect. Good imaging, while it might not be quantifiable, certainly can be described in a clear enough manner that most people will then notice it when they hear it. Perfect imaging would be when the listener's ear can place each instrument in space exactly where it is in the ensemble. Front to back, left-to right, up and down, just as we can in the concert hall. If a recording can do that, to the extent that it can do that, is the definition of imaging. A properly miked true stereo recording can do it very well, a heavily multi-miked, multi-track recording, not at all. Note that when I say multimiked/multitracked I don't refer to a proper stereo pair with highlight mikes on some instruments. Now an additional wild card is produced at the last moment - multimicing is defined to be just one of the nearly infinite number of things that it can possibly be. Heavy multi-miking (the practice that I'm talking about here) is the use of a forest of microphones capturing each instrument or group of instruments close-up and usually, though not always, consigning them to a separate recording track (either analog or digital). This practice started in classical recording in the late 1960's because producers who did classical recording found it cheaper (!???) to throw up a forest of mikes, capture the talent on as many tracks as possible (I've seen recordings where as many as 96 tracks were used with time code locking three 32-track 2" tape transports together! ), and then get the expensive talent out of the picture as quickly as possible. Then it was a matter of the producers and the recording engineers vacillating over the balances and EQ 'till their little hearts' content. this methodology is responsible for some of the worst sounding classical recordings in the history of modern recorded sound. I mean a recording where each instrument or grouping has its own microphone (and sometimes its own track) and is "pan-potted" into place in the final mix). I can think of several different ways to do that that would be good practice but yield generally different sonic results. In classical recording it's NEVER good practice. in pop/rock recording, it's necessary, but then I don't care, because I don't listen to or record pop/rock. Of course, I'm speaking from a listener's perspective. I understand the economics of multi-miking/multi track, I just don't think it serves the music very well. Please explain why you think that multi-miking/multi track can't serve the music well., First of all, multi-miked/multi track recordings aren't stereo. That would be a controversial view. I don't see that it is controversial at all. Multi-miked/multi-track recordings are, by definition, usually an artificial combination of multiple monaural tracks, mixed into either the right or left channel to some varying degree. Stereophonic does not mean two channel (or four, or more), it's a word derived from the Greek "stereos" meaning solid, or three dimensional and "phonos" meaning sound, I.E. "three dimensional sound". Multi-miked, multi-channel recordings of the type we are discussing here are definitely NOT three dimensional, but true stereo recordings are and have width, depth and height to them. They are multiple channel mono with the instrument's positions pan-potted into place. This would be a outdated, simplistic view. As pointed out earlier the generally-available technical facilities for mixing in 2010 include a wide variety of signal processing alternatives that include but are hardly limited to simple pan-potting. Whatever pedanticism you wish. The fact remains that we are talking here of multiple monaural microphone feeds or most likely, tracks, combined in such a way as to produce (normally) a two-channel result. This result is realized by some electronic means. It doesn't matter how elaborate and or sophisticated these tools are, they aren't going to make real space out of a bunch of close-miked instrument tracks, and they aren't going to make three-dimensions out of a plethora of separate track that each, separately have only one. Close, multiple-miking captures the instruments themselves, not the SPACE that the instruments occupy. This would be another simplistic view. Even if you put contact mics on an acoustical instrument it acts like a microphone and picks up significant amounts of its acoustical environment. Not really, or I should say, not to any useful or usable extent. More typically the instrument is miced using a more traditional transducer (omni or directional microphone) operating over an acoustical path. In heavy multi-miked situations, it's a very short acoustic path, often with baffles and gobos between each instrument or group of instruments and it's neighbors to provide for a maximum of isolation. The simple logistics of micing acoustical instruments (which I am intimately familiar with because I routinely do SR and recording of an 18 piece orchestra that includes violins, violas, cellos, flutes, french horns, clarinets, trumpets of various kinds, acoustic guitar, harp, etc., etc.) inhibit really close micing because a musican needs space to read the music and play the instrument and enter and leave his seat. You obviously have never attended a commercial recording session of a large symphony orchestra. I used to attend recording session of the San Francisco Symphony when Philips used to record them at a local college auditorium. I've never so many microphones and gobos in one place! the results sounded like it too. Secondly a string section, for instance, cannot be made to sound like a string section by mixing the individual violins together from separate tracks or separate mikes. "Cannot made" is a very strong statement. I made it strong on purpose. Even someone unfamiliar with recording can figure out that a single violin, hear close-up does not sound like a string section and you can't attain that sound by mixing together 12 separate close-miked violins electronically either. The only thing that I can think of that's worse, is 12 contact-miked violins mixed together (shudder). Furthermore, you just previously allowed that one of the objects of mult-micing could be "an instrument grouping" which avoids the basic problem. No it doesn't. The instrument grouping are still mono, still close miked, just not as close as a one-mike-one-track-per-instrument method. I admit it, I tend to mic my violins and viola as a group with a coincident pair but that's to as much to economize on microphones as anything else. And then you try to mix this coincident pair into a cohesive, stereo recording? .....OK..........????!!!! OTOH, I mic the cello(s) separately but nobody complains about unnatural sound. Many people never hear live concerts and don't really know how an orchestra is SUPPOSED to sound or what joy it is to be aurally transported to a venue by one's stereo system with much of that sound, including it's three dimensional palpability pretty much in tact. When strings (or woodwinds, or brasses) are miked individually and then mixed together electronically, they don't sound the same as they do when miked as a complete ensemble. Says you, based on an apparently limited understanding of the available options. Says I WHO KNOWS the available options. In fact the entire orchestra or wind ensemble or string quartet etc., does not sound the same close-miked and multi-miked/multi-tracked as they do when recorded with a proper true stereo microphone technique. "proper, true stereo microphone technique" presumes a lot of agreement as to what that might be which does not in fact exist. Do I need to do a quick review of the generally accepted permutations of micing to make this point more clearly? Don't bother. I probably do more recording in a year than most amateur or semi-pro recordists have done in a lifetime. Lastly, multi-miked/multi-track recordings do not image. Same problem as before. Exactly what constitutes imaging is not well-defined or generally agreed upon, Yes it is, see above. and there is not a narrow enough definition of "multi-miked/multi-track recordings" even in just the post I'm responding to justify reducing the situation to a go/no-go situation. I have stereo miked recordings where I can close my eyes and point to every instrument in the group. (1) This is something that you *can't* do from virtually any seat in a concert hall. Yes you can. (2) This is something that can be done within the definition of "multi-miked/multi-track recordings" even in the post I'm responding to. I've yet to see it or hear it, and I've never encountered anyone else who could do it either. That's right-to-left as well as front-to-back. In a proper stereo recording those positioning clues ARE there, in a multi-miked/multi-track recording they are NOT there because they weren't captured in the first place. Says you, based on what seems to be a limited and outdated understanding of the relevant technology and available options. Says I who knows what I'm talking about. I also don't agree with the three-channel mono methodology that has dominated small jazz ensemble recording for so long. I'm all about what sounds good. Multi-mono approaches tend towards a phasey, sort of almost seasick sort of sound in many cases. I'm all about what sounds REAL. But real isn't just one thing. YOu have two ears, not twenty, Ignores the fact that using 20 microphones is not the same as having 20 ears. Anybody who is familar with microhones knows that in general you have to mic closer to get a similar sonic perspective as you get by listening from a given location. A mic may have to be at from 1/2 to 1/20 the distance to get a similar perceived balance between direct and reflected sound. For example, one of the banes of my life is lecturer who insists on using a lavilier microphone. Even with the microphone only 2 feet or less from the lecturer's mouth, tremendous amounts of room reverb is picked up. This is aside from another serious problem, which is the fact that lavs pick up vocal sounds that are emitted from the chest, and give an unnatural sound. My point is that just because a mic is seemingly close to the sound source is no guarantee that the room sound is excluded. Well, that point I'll give you. My comment was meant more philosophically than practically. |
|
#137
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vinyl's Comeback - featured NYTimes article
On Dec 25, 7:56=A0am, Andrew Barss wrote:
Scott wrote: : Supporting raw technology is one thing, showing that it actually audib= ly : improves the sound quality of vinyl performance is something else. : So you are of the position that bearing quality, stiffness to mass : ratios and isolation from mechanical feedback do not affect vinyl : playback performance? : If you have any published scientific studies that suggest none of : these things are a factor in vinyl playback performance feel free to : cite them. So far all we have is your personal opinions. Isn't the burden of proof on the advocate for the new thing? =A0 I mean, I completely agree that many improvements in technology can increase function (that's the major reason they're called "improvements")= .. But at a certain point, either no further improvement is needed (no one needs speakers that can reproduce 500,000 KHz tones, for example), or it'= s measurable but has no effect on the utility of the object, which is what Arny Kreuger was suggesting for these bearing 'improvements'. To make an analogy, I can imgine someone putting these http://www.zszbearing.com/49/standar...aring-products into a turntable, a lawnmower, or a bandsaw. =A0But since their advantage= is continued operation under severe temperature extremes, it would be pointless. If you look around in the industrial world, there are bearings with all sorts of wonderful properties, but no all of them are necessary, or would make any difference at all, in turntables. You say this as if there is no knowledge in the world about the affects of bearing performance in vinyl playback. So I would ask you the same thing that I asked Arny. Is that your position? That the propperties of bearings in Turntables and pickup arms don't affect performance? If not then it is not unreasonable to assert that improvements in bearings will bring about improvements in performance. And it goes beyond just the direct effects of bearing performance. It also goes into how the bearing allows for other design choices in the table and arm. In the case of aribearings it isn't just that an airbearing is measurably lower in friction than mechanical bearings, it is that it allows for one to design and impliment a linear tracking arm in a completely different way. And again, there is far more to bearing performance than edcution of friction. we also have stiffness and resonances to consider not to mention play. Even more obvious would be the value of isolation. I posted some basic common knowledge information on isolation. It should have been clear from that information that there are different degrees of effectiveness in isolation devices. The effects of mechanical feedback on vinyl playback is also well known and easily measurable. so is it your position that isolation performance is irrelevant? Do you see the logic of this point? I see the flaw in the logic which is the assumption that bearing performance may not matter in vinyl playback performance or affect other critical design and implimentation choices. If you do, then you'll surely agree that someone building audio component X with a newfangled, very high-end ingredient (high-temp bearings, platters flat to .000025 inch across several feet (which are pretty standard in the machinist industry, for example), exotic materials), etc.= =A0 should, as a matter of common sense, be willing to back up claims of increased performance with independent data as to whether it is audible. = =A0 For which, double-blind perception testing is the only game in town. No I don't see such a burden of proof unless they are trying to publish peer reviewed papers on the subject. I see no reason why they are obligated to make their research public when making a competetive commercial product. But if one is actually interested in knowing if these breakthroughs are legit one can always contact the designers and ask the relevant questions. I'd like to see the published peer reviewed double blind tests from the nay sayers that show every parameter of vinyl playback perfomance has exceded the thresholds of human hearing back in the 70s. |
|
#138
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vinyl's Comeback - featured NYTimes article
On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 16:01:20 -0800, Fred. wrote
(in article ): On Dec 25, 3:12=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote: On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 17:48:34 -0800, Fred. wrote (in article ): On Dec 24, 10:52=3DA0am, Audio Empire wrote: On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 11:51:02 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): Snip extraneous text I have several early Mercury Living Presence recordings which are wonderfully spacious, one of them made in the Bolshoi hall of the Tchakovsky Conservatory of Music. =A0But, the form I have them in is 3- channel SACD's made from the original 3-channel, not 2-channel, masters. I have not had the pleasure of hearing any of those, although I have hear= d OF them. I'll bet they sound great! Mercury used mostly Telefunken Omnis in those days =A0and by today's standards, their patterns are about halfway between an Omni and a mild cardioid. If you tried the same thing today wi= th a modern true omnidirectional mike, you likely wouldn't get the same result= s. It is difficult to compare 2-channel and muli-channel playback simply because the 2-channel works best in a fairly live room while the muli- channel requires a relatively dead room. =A0Mild ringing, which only makes a stero playback seem fuller and more natural, can mutilate a multi-channel image. Depends on what you are talking about. Classical recordings made with a forest of microphones and 16 or more "channels" sound like crap (IMHO) no matter what the playback space is like. The three-channel Mercury's were = done that way, not for stereo, but so that the center mike/channel could be us= ed to cut the monaural version of the album. In the later stereo Living Pres= ence recordings, the center channel was mixed equally into both the left and t= he right channel. This helped ameliorate some of the phase problems that are part and parcel of space omnis and in some venues also tended to fill-in = for the "hole-in-the-middle" effect. =A0 I have a system which compromises by cutting ringing when in multi- channel and seems a decent compromise, but may still bias my comparisons. =A0But, I have both stereo and muiti-channel recordings which sound very good to me. Except that heavily mult-tracked recordings don't sound anything like a r= eal orchestra. They can't because there is no REAL soundstage info. My experience is that some of my multi-channel recordings have rather good images, and some have rather poor ones, and there seems to be very little correlation between the results and the minimalist/heavy miking philosophy. =A0However, I suspect that the good heavy miking recordings record tracks of the room ambience as well as instrumental zones. =A0This last may apply when down-mixed to stereo as well. I have found that when a heavily multi-miked/multi-track recording exhibi= ts anything like a semblance of decent imaging, It's because the recording t= eam threw-up an overall stereo pair and let the heavy multi-miking and multi-track methodology be subordinate to the stereo pair. I still don't like them because instruments don't sound the same up-close= as they do at a distance when mixed in the air that exists between the ensem= ble and the audience (even if that audience is a pair of mikes). Electronic mixing and "air" mixing aren't the same thing and electronic pan-potting cannot replicate the sound of a homogenous ensemble playing in a real spa= ce.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - The MLP SACD's are not partciularly expensive as SACD's go, and are pretty easy to find on the internet. I just did a search on _Balalaika Favorites_ (Osipov Folk Orchestra) and it was selling at a number of places, some of them among the last places I would think to look for quality recordings. They are transfers from aged 35mm film and despite the efforts to compensate seem just a little acid. But the acidity is not enough to keep me from preferring the SACD to the original CD transfers (included on the Hybrid SACD for reference). But, you should probably listen to at least a clip if you are considering buying. You may respond to things quite differently. I have several, and I agree that they sound better than the CDs of the same performances. What I've NOT heard are these SACDs played with a center channel from the multi-channel layers on the SACD. And, it may be true, as you suggest, that the good heavy miked recordings may rely heavily on a small number of mikes and just use the others for touch-up. I don't see any way to determine that without shawdowing or interviewing some specific recording engineers, and sometimes this will require a medium :-). Use your ears man. If the recording images and was recorded after about 1965, it is because it's either a stereo recording or a multi-miked/ multi-track recoding where an overall stereo mike was employed. EMI used to do this, as did British Decca (London in the USA) with their famous "Decca tree". There are others. I do know that my favorite multi-channel recording, which is, in fact, quad, seems to have nothing but ambience in the rear channels and has quite a bit of ambience in front. It may well have been done on a 2 main + 2 supplemental mike system, with a back-up on the soloist. But, I definately prefer it to the 2-channel version I have on the same SACD. Well, I'm not talking about multi-channel playback such as the so-called "Quadraphonic Sound" or anything similar. I'm talking about the practice of using a single mike/track per instrument and the doing something akin to pan-potting each instrument into it's place left-to-right. This is NOT stereo by any stretch of the term. Again, who knows when I have apples to compare with apples, since the miking was set up with 4-channel in mind, and I play them both in the same listening room. Like I said, that's a different case. It is possible to to use four microphones; a stereo pair for the front and a stereo pair for the rear, and get real stereo for both the direct and the ambient sound soundfield Audio_Empire |
|
#139
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vinyl's Comeback - featured NYTimes article
"Scott" wrote in message
... On Dec 25, 7:56 am, Andrew Barss wrote: You say this as if there is no knowledge in the world about the affects of bearing performance in vinyl playback. Not at all. It has been well-known for several decades that high quality turntable bearings can perform better than cutting lathe bearings in general use. The reason is pretty obvious if you've ever seen a cutting lathe in person - cutting lathes are far larger and heavier and stress their bearings more. So I would ask you he same thing that I asked Arny. Is that your position? The idea that turntable performance is irelevant to bearing performance is both a straw man argument and also an excluded middle argument. It's a straw man because nobody has seriously advanced it, and its excluded middle because it is such an extreme postion. That the properties of bearings in Turntables and pickup arms don't affect performance? Of course they do, but this has been a solved problem for about 5 decades. If not then it is not unreasonable to assert that improvements in bearings will bring about improvements in performance. The problem here is the ignorance of the well-known law of diminishing returns. Once things like bearing performance advance to a certain degree, they are no longer a significant problem. Further improvements are useless because the sticking point is somewhere else. And it goes beyond just the direct effects of bearing performance. Despite all of the posturing, we really don't know if even the basic bearings have been improved, or whether they are simply hype. Which of the high end manufacturers has given "before" and "after" specs relating to the purportedly improved bearings? Where have they reliably and objectively compared to baseline performance? Where are the makes and models of the supposedly improved bearings been specified? It also goes into how the bearing allows for other design choices in the table and arm. In the case of aribearings it isn't just that an airbearing is measurably lower in friction than mechanical bearings, it is that it allows for one to design and impliment a linear tracking arm in a completely different way. Air bearing linear tracking tonearms have been around for at least 20 years. http://www.freepatentsonline.com/4628500.html shows the patent application for such a thing dated 05/30/1985. That was over 20 years ago. I believe this idea did come to market and was fairly sucessful. I may ever have one in my posession. So, how can this be called new technology? |
|
#140
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vinyl's Comeback - featured NYTimes article
On Dec 26, 9:41=A0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message ... On Dec 25, 7:56 am, Andrew Barss wrote: You say this as if there is no knowledge in the world about the affects of bearing performance in vinyl playback. Not at all. It has been well-known for several decades that high quality turntable bearings can perform better than cutting lathe bearings in gene= ral use. 1. if you demand published scientific studies for my assertions you can hardly make your assertions based on what is allegedly "well known." 2. This is not about turntable bearings v. Cutting lathe bearings. This is about turntable and pickup arm bearings of the cited rigs v. what was available prior to the commercial releaase of the CD format. So I would ask you he same thing that I asked Arny. Is that your positi= on? The idea that turntable performance is irelevant to bearing performance i= s both a straw man argument and also an excluded middle argument. That is an ironic argument since I have never made such an argument that turntable performance is irrelevant to bearing performance.Hence your argument of a strawman is a straw man. My argument is quite clear that bearing perfromance is quite relevant to turntable and pickup arm performance and quite relevant to turntable and pickup arm design that has other tangental performance effects. It's a straw man because nobody has seriously advanced it, Prove it. Show the published scientific studies that support this extraordinary assertion. and its excluded middle because it is such an extreme postion. What middle ground position? Your assertion is that there has been no advancement in vinyl playback technology or design or implimentation since the 70s. My aregument is that there has. what "middle ground" is being excluded? That the properties of bearings in Turntables and pickup arms don't affect performance? Of course they do, but this has been a solved problem for about 5 decades= .. Prove it. Show the published scientific studies that support this extraordinary assertion. If not then it is not unreasonable to assert that improvements in bearings will bring about improvements in performance. The problem here is the ignorance of the well-known law of diminishing returns. Sorry Arny, your position is one that there is no returns not that they are diminishing. Once things like bearing performance advance to a certain degree, they are no longer a significant problem. Further improvements are useles= s because the sticking point is somewhere else. If you can demonstrate that the rigs from the 70s were and are sonically indistinguishable from the rigs I have cited then you win the argument. Please feel free to show us the published scientific studies that support this. Until then your position is built upon an extraordinary axiom not on any sort of meaningful science. And it goes beyond just the direct effects of bearing performance. Despite all of the posturing, we really don't know if even the basic bearings have been improved, Arny *you* don't know. or whether they are simply hype. Which of the high end manufacturers has given "before" and "after" specs relating to t= he purportedly improved bearings? Where have they reliably and objectively compared to baseline performance? Where are the makes and models of the supposedly improved bearings been specified? I have suggested contacting the actual designers, http://www.rockporttechnologies.com/ http://www.drforsell.com/home.htm Why assume anything when you can get answers from the source? C'mon Arny, show us you are genuinely interested in the correct answers by asking the guys with the goods. It also goes into how the bearing allows for other design choices in th= e table and arm. In the case of aribearings it isn't just that an airbearing is measurably lower in friction than mechanical bearings, it is that it allows for one to design and impliment a linear tracking arm in a completely different way. Air bearing linear tracking tonearms have been around for at least 20 yea= rs. http://www.freepatentsonline.com/4628500.html=A0shows the patent applicat= ion for such a thing dated =A005/30/1985. =A0 That was over 20 years ago. That doesn't really help your case Arny since it is your stated position that there have been no advancements since the 70s. besides that I am talking about a specific implimentation of air bearings. I am not talking about the invention of air bearings. Heck they invented wheels centuries ago. Does that mean there has been no meaningful technology that has advanced the performance of wheels since the invention? I believe this idea did come to market and was fairly sucessful. I may ever have on= e in my posession. So, how can this be called new technology? Um Arny, I suggest you review the thread. My assertion was that these advancements took place after the commercial release of CDs. I said nothing about "new." Your stated position is that we can go back to the 70s to find the point at which no advancements have been made in vinyl playback performace. "new" is not the issue here. we are talking about a 30 year span in whcih you claim no advancement has taken place. |
|
#141
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vinyl's Comeback - featured NYTimes article
On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 13:04:42 -0800, Scott wrote
(in article ): On Dec 26, 9:41=A0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Scott" wrote in message ... On Dec 25, 7:56 am, Andrew Barss wrote: You say this as if there is no knowledge in the world about the affects of bearing performance in vinyl playback. Not at all. It has been well-known for several decades that high quality turntable bearings can perform better than cutting lathe bearings in gene= ral use. 1. if you demand published scientific studies for my assertions you can hardly make your assertions based on what is allegedly "well known." 2. This is not about turntable bearings v. Cutting lathe bearings. This is about turntable and pickup arm bearings of the cited rigs v. what was available prior to the commercial releaase of the CD format. That's what I thought you meant. Turntables, especially belt-drive models have used so-called thrust bearings using a variety of technologies from bronze-oilite sleeves to tips of case-hardened steel to actual gemstones like ruby and sapphire since the 1950's. In the sixties we saw platter bearings using like-poled magnets to provide an "air bearing" eliminating vertical contact completely, and since the seventies we have had turntables using forced air to do the same thing. I suspect that turntables bearings have been what engineers call a "mature technology" for a long time. Tonearm ball-bearings are something else. While there are designs that don't need them at all (SME's knife-edge bearings and unipivot designs come to mind) It's only recently that real high quality ball-bearings have become available at a reasonable price. While arms have used ball-bearings in both planes for decades the good ones were very expensive and the affordable ones were not very good. |
|
#142
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vinyl's Comeback - featured NYTimes article
"Scott" wrote in message
... On Dec 26, 9:41=A0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Scott" wrote in message ... On Dec 25, 7:56 am, Andrew Barss wrote: You say this as if there is no knowledge in the world about the affects of bearing performance in vinyl playback. Not at all. It has been well-known for several decades that high quality turntable bearings can perform better than cutting lathe bearings in gene= ral use. 1. if you demand published scientific studies for my assertions you can hardly make your assertions based on what is allegedly "well known." Sure I can. I already have posted links to numerous published scientific studies for my assertions. Clearly, there is a lack of follow-up here, because if those links had been followed up, this comment would have never come up. Note that some of the links to published scientific studies were to open documents on the web, so the poverty defense won't work. 2. This is not about turntable bearings v. Cutting lathe bearings Of course it is. If LP discs can't be made that have low noise and distortion, all the fancy playback equipment in the world isn't going to overcome that noise and distortion. This is about turntable and pickup arm bearings of the cited rigs v. what was available prior to the commercial releaase of the CD format. Only a slightly different argument. There's no evidence that bearings were the limiting factor in pre-1983 tone arms. So I would ask you he same thing that I asked Arny. Is that your position? The idea that turntable performance is irelevant to bearing performance is both a straw man argument and also an excluded middle argument. That is an ironic argument since I have never made such an argument that turntable performance is irrelevant to bearing performance. Niether did I. That argument first shows up in a post that you made, Scott. |
|
#143
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vinyl's Comeback - featured NYTimes article
Audio Empire wrote:
The MLP SACD's are not partciularly expensive as SACD's go, and are pretty easy to find on the internet. I just did a search on _Balalaika Favorites_ (Osipov Folk Orchestra) and it was selling at a number of places, some of them among the last places I would think to look for quality recordings. They are transfers from aged 35mm film and despite the efforts to compensate seem just a little acid. But the acidity is not enough to keep me from preferring the SACD to the original CD transfers (included on the Hybrid SACD for reference). But, you should probably listen to at least a clip if you are considering buying. You may respond to things quite differently. I have several, and I agree that they sound better than the CDs of the same performances. What I've NOT heard are these SACDs played with a center channel from the multi-channel layers on the SACD. I have heard several Mercury 3-channel recordings on my 3-channel setup, and they are as good as advertised, which is to say, as good as any recording I have ever heard on my setup, clearly better than any 2-channel recordings, as far as imaging. Some RCA 3-channel recordings of that era are as good. Some Telarc multichannel recordings are as good, some are grossly bad. Doug McDonald |
|
#144
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vinyl's Comeback - featured NYTimes article
On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 15:33:32 -0800, Doug McDonald wrote
(in article ): Audio Empire wrote: The MLP SACD's are not partciularly expensive as SACD's go, and are pretty easy to find on the internet. I just did a search on _Balalaika Favorites_ (Osipov Folk Orchestra) and it was selling at a number of places, some of them among the last places I would think to look for quality recordings. They are transfers from aged 35mm film and despite the efforts to compensate seem just a little acid. But the acidity is not enough to keep me from preferring the SACD to the original CD transfers (included on the Hybrid SACD for reference). But, you should probably listen to at least a clip if you are considering buying. You may respond to things quite differently. I have several, and I agree that they sound better than the CDs of the same performances. What I've NOT heard are these SACDs played with a center channel from the multi-channel layers on the SACD. I have heard several Mercury 3-channel recordings on my 3-channel setup, and they are as good as advertised, which is to say, as good as any recording I have ever heard on my setup, clearly better than any 2-channel recordings, as far as imaging. Some RCA 3-channel recordings of that era are as good. Some Telarc multichannel recordings are as good, some are grossly bad. Doug McDonald With Telarc, it seems to be that the earlier ones, where Bob Woods (Telarc's recording engineer) was trying to mimic Bob Fine's microphone technique using spaced Shoeps instrumentation microphones, are lousy. The Shoeps are REAL, modern omnidirectional microphones and the microphones that Fine used, while called omnis by their maker Telefunken, were, in reality, about halfway between a real omni and a mild cardioid. Fines recordings worked (as you have noted, above), while Woods' "copies" didn't. Eventually Woods found his own microphone style and Telarc recordings improved vastly. |
|
#145
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vinyl's Comeback - featured NYTimes article
Audio Empire wrote:
With Telarc, it seems to be that the earlier ones, where Bob Woods (Telarc's recording engineer) was trying to mimic Bob Fine's microphone technique using spaced Shoeps instrumentation microphones, are lousy. The Shoeps are REAL, modern omnidirectional microphones and the microphones that Fine used, while called omnis by their maker Telefunken, were, in reality, about halfway between a real omni and a mild cardioid. Fines recordings worked (as you have noted, above), while Woods' "copies" didn't. Eventually Woods found his own microphone style and Telarc recordings improved vastly. It's amazing to me that the old Mercury's are praised for their sound. The microphones used have valleys and peaks above 5K Hz that amount to at least +/- 6dB, and that's with a "modern" knock off which actually performs better than the originals. Tonally, the recordings sound WAY WRONG and to my ears, are very unpleasant. Acoustic music does NOT sound like what comes off them. There are some interesting historical performances on them, but that's about it. The situation of the "high end" in adulation of them is a poster child for a severe fault being turned into a virtue by the fanzine gurus. |
|
#146
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vinyl's Comeback - featured NYTimes article
Scott wrote:
: On Dec 25, 7:56=A0am, Andrew Barss wrote: : Scott wrote: : : : Supporting raw technology is one thing, showing that it actually au= dibly : : improves the sound quality of vinyl performance is something else. snip : Isn't the burden of proof on the advocate for the new thing? =A0 snip : If you look around in the industrial world, there are bearings with al= l : sorts of wonderful properties, but no all of them are necessary, or : would make any difference at all, in turntables. : You say this as if there is no knowledge in the world about the : affects of bearing performance in vinyl playback. So I would ask you : the same thing that I asked Arny. Is that your position? That the : propperties of bearings in Turntables and pickup arms don't affect : performance? No, of course that isn't my position, and it isn't the position of nyone=20 with a modicu of sense. BUT: there are many properties of many bearings=20 that are irrelevant to performance. So, the meat of the matter is: does= =20 putting bearing X into a turntable affect its performance? You are=20 painting with a very broad brush, and asserting that =20 a) bearing quality is on a single scale b) the higher a particular set of bearings is on that scale, the better the performance of the turntable. The alternative, which I, and I believe Arny Krueger, adsert, is just=20 this: a') bearing quality is on a series of different scales; quality is=20 dictated by function. (So, e.g., there's a scale of heat resistance,=20 which some bearings that would be superb in a turntable would do badly=20 on.) b') (b) is false in at least two ways. =20 First, some bearing properties are irrelevant (or perhaps detrimental) t= o=20 turntable performance. That is,=20 putting them into a turntable produces no audible difference, no=20 improvement in tracking, wear, etc. I gave very high temperature=20 resistance as one example. Another is resistance to deflection under ver= y=20 heavy load. Very important if you're machining airplane engine rotors,=20 not so much for spinning an LP.=20 Secondly, if you pick a property of bearings that *can* have an audible effect -- smoothness of spinning, resistance to skipping with footfalls, etc. for example -- there are in principle, and I would think in=20 pratice, going to be threshold effects. Suppose you rank order three sets= =20 of bearings along that scale, call them A (medium quality), B (superb=20 quality) and C (out of this world quality), it may very well be that B=20 will produce much better sound than A, while B and C produce no audible=20 difference. So, you need to actually figure out *which* quality increase= s=20 do *anything*. Which DBTing is for. =20 At the beginning of the process, differentiating two components may be=20 very easy. You may not need to do a DBT to distinguish a really shoddy=20 bearing -- one which binds, squeals, and vibrates like crazy -- from a=20 decent one. (But, and this is important, you could do a DBT here, and=20 confirm the obvious). But as soon as you get to a point where you're=20 comparing two well-made items --- two bearings, two pieces of wire, two=20 fuel additives for a car -- careful testing is called for. And if=20 perception is the measure, it has to be done blind, for obvious reasons. : If not then it is not unreasonable to assert that : improvements in bearings will bring about improvements in performance. *Some* improvements will. Others will not. : And it goes beyond just the direct effects of bearing performance. It : also goes into how the bearing allows for other design choices in the : table and arm.=20 Yes. In the case of aribearings it isn't just that an : airbearing is measurably lower in friction than mechanical bearings, : it is that it allows for one to design and impliment a linear tracking : arm in a completely different way. And again, there is far more to : bearing performance than edcution of friction. we also have stiffness : and resonances to consider not to mention play. Absolutely.=20 : Even more obvious would be the value of isolation. I posted some basic : common knowledge information on isolation. It should have been clear : from that information that there are different degrees of : effectiveness in isolation devices. The effects of mechanical feedback : on vinyl playback is also well known and easily measurable. so is it : your position that isolation performance is irrelevant? : Do you see the logic of this point? : I see the flaw in the logic which is the assumption that bearing : performance may not matter in vinyl playback performance or affect : other critical design and implimentation choices. So you think that ANY improvement in bearing quality, along any scale of=20 measure of quality, will improve audio performance? Really? A bearing=20 rated to keep working at 1500 degrees F is going to make music sound=20 better? Or one that can spin with maximally .00001" deflection when=20 carrying a 500 pound off-balance load and mounted on a horizontal shaft? Because those are two things that, in the real world of bearings, are=20 considered to matter, for some applications, and for which money is spent= ..=20 -- Andy Barss |
|
#147
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vinyl's Comeback - featured NYTimes article
|
|
#148
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vinyl's Comeback - featured NYTimes article
logging-data="5706"; "
User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.1 (Intel Mac OS X) X-Auth-Sender: U2FsdGVkX1/UdizPATmYOfA23VHTpfvMkijR+C+hEFc= Cancel-Lock: sha1:LkD3a/c8hA9a1lE2xPffR5xx2cM= X-UIDL: !9D!!e54!!^:"!^_`"! In article , " wrote: It's amazing to me that the old Mercury's are praised for their sound. The microphones used have valleys and peaks above 5K Hz that amount to at least +/- 6dB, and that's with a "modern" knock off which actually performs better than the originals. Tonally, the recordings sound WAY WRONG and to my ears, are very unpleasant. Acoustic music does NOT sound like what comes off them. There are some interesting historical performances on them, but that's about it. The situation of the "high end" in adulation of them is a poster child for a severe fault being turned into a virtue by the fanzine gurus. I couldn't disagree more about the sound of most of the old Mercury recordings. Yes, a few are overly bright, IMV. But others, particularly those recorded in the Eastman Theater (Eastman Wind Ensemble, Eastman/Rochester Orchestra) are excellent representations of how music sounds in that hall. The ET is a great venue, and the recordings sound very realistic. I've conducted in the hall (4 rehearsals, 2 concerts), and have heard about 8 rehearsals and 4 concerts from the audience seats. The hall is neither overly bright nor dark, and the recordings capture the timbre of the instruments and the great ambiance of the hall very well. I also think that some of the recordings done at the Ballroom Studio (the Starker Bach Cello Suites, for example) are fantastic recordings. Different strokes and all... |
|
#149
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vinyl's Comeback - featured NYTimes article
Audio Empire wrote:
It IS amazing, isn't it? Condenser mikes made in the '50's and '60's (and possibly even into the middle seventies -at least on SOME brands) had acid -etched brass capsule diaphragms. They would take a piece of brass foil and put resist on some parts of it, leave others exposed and bathed the diaphragm in acid. This would selectively eat away the foil making it thinner in some places and thicker in others. This way they could, somewhat control the frequency response of the capsule. Unfortunately, even after acid etching, the brass foil still had a lot of mass making the diaphragm resonance quite low in frequency. The final and largest peak started about 8 KHz on some of the larger Neumann and Telefunken models and climbed to as much as +12 dB ay 16 KHz only to drop off like a rock above that. Often there were smalle peaks at 4 KHz, 2 Khz. etc. Of course, today's condensers, even relatively cheap ones from China, use diaphragms made of thin mylar which is sputtered with a layer of gold only a few atoms thick. These optically transparent diaphragms have so little mass that the fundamental mechanical resonance of the capsule is way above the microphone's primary passband making them much smoother in frequency response than were these old (and very expensive" mikes of yesteryear. Nice description of the problem. Thanks. Tonally, the recordings sound WAY WRONG and to my ears, are very unpleasant. Acoustic music does NOT sound like what comes off them. There are some interesting historical performances on them, but that's about it. The situation of the "high end" in adulation of them is a poster child for a severe fault being turned into a virtue by the fanzine gurus. Well, I won't go so far as to say that they sound totally wrong, but some of them can sound way bright. The best of them are a serendipitous happenstance of venue, distance from the ensemble, and the fact that they were originally recorded for vinyl where the natural poor high-frequency response of the medium would somewhat ameliorate the aggressiveness of these old mikes. I used to have a pair of Sony C37Ps and a pair of Telefunken ELA M 251s. I sold them and bought newer Chinese mikes (at a small fraction of what I sold the "vintage" mikes for) and find them much more accurate (especially my Aventone CK-40 stereo mike and my Behringer P-2 Pros) than either the Sonys or the Telefunkens. I put a custom software based target curve in the chain when playing these old LP's, or even the CD reissues. Helps a LOT. The old even more venerated RCA's and the reissues really have the same problem, it's seems to be usually just less in degree. All the old recordings were EQ'ed like mad anyway. Which is really rather amusing, considering that these days, many try to play them with minimalist techniques. It doesn't make much sense and sounds screwy. |
|
#150
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vinyl's Comeback - featured NYTimes article
On 8 Dec 2009 19:50:19 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:
"bob" wrote in message ... On Dec 7, 9:04=A0pm, "Harry Lavo" wrote: Did you miss, or simply choose to ignore her comment about it not being a fad? =A0See my comments to Dick Pierce for more on this. Just because a New York Times reporter says something is not a fad does not mean that it is not a fad. My guess is there's a retro coolness thing going on here, which may or may not last. It may plateau, it may fade away again, we just don't know yet. The Times reporter didn't say it wasn't a fad -- the ower of J&R said it wasn't a fad. Who's better to judge....you, or she who talks to and caters to her customers? Or she who will say damn near anything to try to sell more product. :-) "Step right up! Getchyer LPs here! Everyone's gettin' 'em - don't you be late to get yers too!" I figure the interest in vinyl is about like the interest in tube gear. There's a small number of people who like the feel of old technology and are willing to pay extra to have it. It's not meaningful on a global scale though. |
|
#151
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vinyl's Comeback - featured NYTimes article
On 10 Dec 2009 11:42:13 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:
J&R sells everything electronic, everything music, everything photo, everything kitchen, every.....man, So? How is that relevant? Because she has no apparent commercial reason to be biased towards vinyl and against other forms of music and machines to retrieve it, which she also sells. I wouldn't think she would be biased towards vinyl and against other media. She'll say good things about anything that she can sell. I was thinking about the "resurgence" of vinyl a bit more, and I'm still not convinced it exists. However, I have met people who are getting into vinyl that never had any LPs before. They have found that there are a lot of inexpensive "indy" records out there from before CDs were inexpensive enough that a new band would self-release on CD. Vinyl was cheap, so all the young hopefuls did vinyl. These records are now evidently available for a buck or two from various local used record stores, and are attractive to some people. Personally, I've found the recording and production quality to be miserable on this kind of thing, and a lot of the music is best played on the radio equivalent of Elvira or other late-night TV shows that play awful movies and make fun of them. |
|
#152
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vinyl's Comeback - featured NYTimes article
On Sun, 7 Feb 2010 10:52:31 -0800, Soupe du jour wrote
(in article ): On 8 Dec 2009 19:50:19 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote: "bob" wrote in message ... On Dec 7, 9:04=A0pm, "Harry Lavo" wrote: Did you miss, or simply choose to ignore her comment about it not being a fad? =A0See my comments to Dick Pierce for more on this. Just because a New York Times reporter says something is not a fad does not mean that it is not a fad. My guess is there's a retro coolness thing going on here, which may or may not last. It may plateau, it may fade away again, we just don't know yet. The Times reporter didn't say it wasn't a fad -- the ower of J&R said it wasn't a fad. Who's better to judge....you, or she who talks to and caters to her customers? Or she who will say damn near anything to try to sell more product. -) "Step right up! Getchyer LPs here! Everyone's gettin' 'em - don't you be late to get yers too!" I figure the interest in vinyl is about like the interest in tube gear. There's a small number of people who like the feel of old technology and are willing to pay extra to have it. It's not meaningful on a global scale though. This is kind of a chicken-and-egg question. Certainly there is a self-serving aspect to the J&R representative's comments. They sell records (I guess) and they sell turntables and phono cartridges and phono preamps and all the accouterments thereto. On the other hand, in this economic climate, most retailers don't sell that which doesn't move off the shelves. So, either J&R is stuck with a line of items that don't sell very well, an thus the spin to the NYT to whip-up some interest, or, there really is a Renaissance in vinyl, no matter how small or fleeting. From the buzz I'm hearing from my local audiophile community, I'm inclined to believe its' the latter. |
|
#153
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vinyl's Comeback - featured NYTimes article
"Soupe du jour" wrote in message
I was thinking about the "resurgence" of vinyl a bit more, and I'm still not convinced it exists. Hope appears to spring eternal. ;-) Remember, there is still new production of buggy whips. ;-) I suspect that the resurgence of harness racing due to the legalization of pari-mutual betting led to a spike in the production of buggy whips some decades back. Casinos and lotteries have put pari-mutual betting back on the skids around here. The point is that long term trends tend to reassert themselves after brief spiking. However, I have met people who are getting into vinyl that never had any LPs before. They have found that there are a lot of inexpensive "indy" records out there from before CDs were inexpensive enough that a new band would self-release on CD. Vinyl was cheap, so all the young hopefuls did vinyl. One encounters vinyl newbies on various audiophile and audio forums. Many of them are having err, educational experiences. One of the problems is that there have apparently been pretty good sales of very low end turntables. They are often are very cheaply made, and often packed and shipped very casually and then found to be damaged in shipment. They often have tracking forces on the order of 5-8 grams, ceramic cartridges, with more than a few bent styluses. I've seen pictures of how equipment like this can completely trash a new 180g pressing in one playing. :-( I've also heard MP3 recordings showing obvious mistracking due to poor quality equipment or worn LPs. All those things that are unfamiliar to most younger people due to the past nearly 30 years of digital bliss. I was talking to one newbie and he was bragging about how his friends bring their LPs over to him to record, because their players are incapable of playing them without skipping. He was kind of surprised when I said that my standards for adequate LP playback involves a lack of skipping as a baseline for reasonable performance. |
|
#154
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vinyl's Comeback - featured NYTimes article
"Audio Empire" wrote in message
This is kind of a chicken-and-egg question. Certainly there is a self-serving aspect to the J&R representative's comments. J&R have a track record of benefitting from both the consumer and professional market for turntables. They sell records (I guess) and they sell turntables and phono cartridges and phono preamps and all the accouterments thereto. On the other hand, in this economic climate, most retailers don't sell that which doesn't move off the shelves. So, either J&R is stuck with a line of items that don't sell very well, an thus the spin to the NYT to whip-up some interest, or, there really is a Renaissance in vinyl, no matter how small or fleeting. What I get is the idea that the last resurgance of vinyl was probably based on naive young people seeing authority figures (e.g. DJs) who based their authority on their expertise with dynamic modifications of vinyl playback (e.g. scratching). At one point sales of turntablist equipment exceeded the sales of the ever-popular electric guitar. From the buzz I'm hearing from my local audiophile community, I'm inclined to believe its' the latter. I just got a flyer from an audio retailer who is at least courting business in the dance club sector. The flyer has several pages of turntables and other digital players. I notice that the pages devoted to turntables are being scaled back, and that digital players that simulate turntable-like dynamic alterations of disc media playback (AKA scratching) are now about half of the listings of this kind. It was always about the art, not the means to the art. Turntables were just a means to the art. Provide people with a modern alternative with practical advantages at a reasonble price, and that's the way that the market is likely to go. |
|
#155
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vinyl's Comeback - featured NYTimes article
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote: dynamic modifications of vinyl playback Arny, what do you mean by "dynamic modifications"? |
|
#156
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vinyl's Comeback - featured NYTimes article
On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 16:21:01 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "Audio Empire" wrote in message This is kind of a chicken-and-egg question. Certainly there is a self-serving aspect to the J&R representative's comments. J&R have a track record of benefitting from both the consumer and professional market for turntables. They sell records (I guess) and they sell turntables and phono cartridges and phono preamps and all the accouterments thereto. On the other hand, in this economic climate, most retailers don't sell that which doesn't move off the shelves. So, either J&R is stuck with a line of items that don't sell very well, an thus the spin to the NYT to whip-up some interest, or, there really is a Renaissance in vinyl, no matter how small or fleeting. What I get is the idea that the last resurgance of vinyl was probably based on naive young people seeing authority figures (e.g. DJs) who based their authority on their expertise with dynamic modifications of vinyl playback (e.g. scratching). At one point sales of turntablist equipment exceeded the sales of the ever-popular electric guitar. From the buzz I'm hearing from my local audiophile community, I'm inclined to believe its' the latter. I just got a flyer from an audio retailer who is at least courting business in the dance club sector. The flyer has several pages of turntables and other digital players. I notice that the pages devoted to turntables are being scaled back, and that digital players that simulate turntable-like dynamic alterations of disc media playback (AKA scratching) are now about half of the listings of this kind. Possibly, but that flyer is catering to the dance-club sector, not to music lovers. I get flyers from places like "Audio Advisor" and they sell belt-drive turntables from around $350 (Rega, Pro-Ject, and Music Hall) all the way up to many thousands of dollars (VPI, Thorens, SME, to name a few). They all sell phono preamps, cartridges and arms. What I see is MORE of this stuff with new models being added all the time, rather than less. It was always about the art, not the means to the art. Turntables were just a means to the art. Provide people with a modern alternative with practical advantages at a reasonble price, and that's the way that the market is likely to go. While your market sense is spot-on, it is by no means the case that everything the market goes after is necessarily an improvement over what went before or better than something else similar that the market ignores almost completely. |
|
#157
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vinyl's Comeback - featured NYTimes article
"Jenn" wrote in message
In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: dynamic modifications of vinyl playback Arny, what do you mean by "dynamic modifications"? Quoting from my post. "dynamic alterations of disc media playback (AKA scratching)" |
|
#158
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vinyl's Comeback - featured NYTimes article
"Audio Empire" wrote in message
On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 16:21:01 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): I just got a flyer from an audio retailer who is at least courting business in the dance club sector. The flyer has several pages of turntables and other digital players. I notice that the pages devoted to turntables are being scaled back, and that digital players that simulate turntable-like dynamic alterations of disc media playback (AKA scratching) are now about half of the listings of this kind. Possibly, but that flyer is catering to the dance-club sector, not to music lovers. I get flyers from places like "Audio Advisor" and they sell belt-drive turntables from around $350 (Rega, Pro-Ject, and Music Hall) all the way up to many thousands of dollars (VPI, Thorens, SME, to name a few). They all sell phono preamps, cartridges and arms. What I see is MORE of this stuff with new models being added all the time, rather than less. Just because more people are crowding in to the market to sell, doesn't mean that more equipment is being sold. Manufacturers often pay a fee to have their equipment listed in dealer flyers. At one time there were 100's of car manufacturers in just the US. Then there was a shake out and we ended up with just a few survivors. It was always about the art, not the means to the art. Turntables were just a means to the art. Provide people with a modern alternative with practical advantages at a reasonable price, and that's the way that the market is likely to go. While your market sense is spot-on, it is by no means the case that everything the market goes after is necessarily an improvement over what went before or better than something else similar that the market ignores almost completely. I see no reliable evidence of improved performance of vinyl recording or playback equipment in the past 30 years. Most solid technical analyses say that no improvement of significance is possible unless there are major changes in the playback process. Probably the only actual change in the past 30 years would be improvements in processing while making digital transcriptions of LPs due to the use of computers. |
|
#159
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vinyl's Comeback - featured NYTimes article
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: dynamic modifications of vinyl playback Arny, what do you mean by "dynamic modifications"? Quoting from my post. "dynamic alterations of disc media playback (AKA scratching)" Yes, I know that you were writing about scratching. My question is, what is meant by "dynamic alterations"? What does that mean? |
|
#160
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vinyl's Comeback - featured NYTimes article
On Tue, 9 Feb 2010 06:02:27 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "Audio Empire" wrote in message On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 16:21:01 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): I just got a flyer from an audio retailer who is at least courting business in the dance club sector. The flyer has several pages of turntables and other digital players. I notice that the pages devoted to turntables are being scaled back, and that digital players that simulate turntable-like dynamic alterations of disc media playback (AKA scratching) are now about half of the listings of this kind. Possibly, but that flyer is catering to the dance-club sector, not to music lovers. I get flyers from places like "Audio Advisor" and they sell belt-drive turntables from around $350 (Rega, Pro-Ject, and Music Hall) all the way up to many thousands of dollars (VPI, Thorens, SME, to name a few). They all sell phono preamps, cartridges and arms. What I see is MORE of this stuff with new models being added all the time, rather than less. Just because more people are crowding in to the market to sell, doesn't mean that more equipment is being sold. Actually, it sort of does mean JUST that if you think about it. Entrepreneurs don't jump-in to shrinking markets. Business plans are based on growing markets, otherwise, what's the point? Manufacturers often pay a fee to have their equipment listed in dealer flyers. At one time there were 100's of car manufacturers in just the US. Then there was a shake out and we ended up with just a few survivors. That "shakeout" was called the Great Depression but it's pretty irrelevant to this scenario if you ask me. Obviously, many people feel that vinyl is either a growing market, or it has growth potential. Otherwise, there wouldn't be so many new players. It was always about the art, not the means to the art. Turntables were just a means to the art. Provide people with a modern alternative with practical advantages at a reasonable price, and that's the way that the market is likely to go. While your market sense is spot-on, it is by no means the case that everything the market goes after is necessarily an improvement over what went before or better than something else similar that the market ignores almost completely. I see no reliable evidence of improved performance of vinyl recording or playback equipment in the past 30 years. I suspect that's because of your oft-stated, anti-vinyl bias. IOW, you really aren't looking very hard. There are some really nice turntables, arms and cartridges out there at all price points. Materials technology such as rare-earth magnets, better stylus suspension materials improvement in the wire used to wind coils. Not to mention low resonance, low mass arm materials such as carbon fiber and Kevlar, improved manufacturing techniques resulting in better bearings at cheaper prices, etc. On the turntable front, there are new low resonance materials for platters. Again, bearing technology has lowered noise floors both in the rotational mass of the platter and in the motors. Materials like sorbothane improve suspensions and record support, etc. While I agree that the basic designs of turntables haven't changed that much (as in any mature technology), access to what used to be prohibitively expensive manufacturing techniques and materials or totally new materials, or materials that have been re-thought with regard to the problems and challenges of retrieving the most information from a phonograph record have all conspired to improve these products considerably, and at all price points. I dare say that a cheap $350 table from Pro-Ject, Rega, or Music Hall will easily sonically outperform the best, and most expensive record decks of thirty years ago. Most solid technical analyses say that no improvement of significance is possible unless there are major changes in the playback process. I disagree. Mature technologies fix overall design at some point in their development. Further improvements result from refining those technologies by focusing on their limiting properties and applying new methodologies and materials to either eliminate or lessen the effects of those limitations. A somewhat hyperbolic example of this is the US Air Force's B-52 bomber. It's almost 60 years old. None have been made in over 40 years. Yet, not only do they still fly, but a B-52 pilot from the 1950's wouldn't recognize one (beyond it's distinctive shape) if he were to sit in the cockpit today. Everything has changed EXCEPT the airframe. Controls, avionics, weaponry, engine technology, mission profiles, everything is different. Yet these planes, with their late 1940's sub-sonic jet airframe technology are still viable because improvements to all of the aforementioned systems have been applied and re-applied to keep the planes current. Probably the only actual change in the past 30 years would be improvements in processing while making digital transcriptions of LPs due to the use of computers. A very myopic view, in my estimation. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| NYTimes article - Stereo Sanctuaries | High End Audio | |||
| NYTimes is despicable | Audio Opinions | |||
| MIX featured in "Soul Plane" | Pro Audio | |||
| MIX featured in "Soul Plane" | Pro Audio | |||
| MIX featured in "Soul Plane" | Pro Audio | |||
Linear Mode
