[Steven Sullivan]

Scott wrote:
On Jan 25, 7:03=A0pm, bob wrote:

And what a shame it is that the high-end community has spent the
better part of three decades wailing about the inadequacies of CD as a
medium, rather than about the quality of the recordings.


News to me. I have heard a lot of complaints about recording and
mastering of new material since the introduction of CDs to audio. I
certainly have done my fair share of complaining. I try not to wail
about it though.


TAS and Stereophile have never abandoned the idea that vinyl sounds better
than CD because, well....just BECAUSE.

A variation on the phrase "... though it didn't quite have the [audiophile flooby jargon] of the [LP|turntable]"
is so common in the audiophile press as to now constitute self-parody.


--
-S
We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine

[Steven Sullivan]

Arny Krueger wrote:
"bob" wrote in message

On Jan 25, 10:15=A0am, Audio Empire
wrote:

Since it is so easy to make great-sounding CDs, and I
would think that it would take more time and effort to
screw one up, my only conclusion would have to be that
for some reason, this (seemingly) industry-wide practice
= of giving us less than they can and calling it more
must be on purpose. OTOH= , I can't think of a single
reason why this should be so, can you?

One reason that's been suggested is that they are
optimizing for the earbud listener, not the owner of a
good in-room audio system.

I wonder if people are talking about what they don't understand. In general,
good quality IEMs perform not that much unlike good speakers.

IEMs are not the same as earbuds. The former involve an
airtight seal to drastically reduce ambient noise, the latter does not,
so DR compression could come in handy for earbuds.
But of course for that purpose it shouldn't be hard-coded into the music,
it should be an option in the *player*.




--
-S
We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine

[Steven Sullivan]

Audio Empire wrote:
On Sun, 30 Jan 2011 05:06:36 -0800, Dick Pierce wrote
(in article ):

Audio Empire wrote:
On Sat, 29 Jan 2011 06:22:53 -0800, vlad wrote
(in article ):
On Jan 28, 8:47=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:
In the way he meant it - that unlike digital, analog is not confined by a
fixed word length and sample rate, it does, indeed, have infinite
resolution.
...
I realize that this analogy too is flawed,

It is not flawed , it is grossly incorrect, making this analogy
worthless. CD is not a container and analog is not a book.

It was an analogy, have you never heard of an analogy, a simplified way of
describing a very complex situation or process by using another, more
familiar point of reference? It was not supposed to be literal.

The analogy is completely innappropriate, does not in any way
analogously describe the reality of the basic, fundamental
properties of physical systems, is misleading and starts from
a wholly incorrect premise.

That it is an analogy does not excuse the fact that it is,
indeed, grossly incorrect.



Sigh - but the analogy is to show HOW FRAMER SEES THE PROCESS, not ow *I*
see it! How many times do I need to explain that?. I just put it in analogous
terms. IOW, I'm the messenger.

So, Fremer 'sees the process' grossly incorrectly. And he's been a
major spokesperson for vinyl in the audiophile press (and vinyl ambassador
to the mainstream press).

If audio mattered more, that would be a disgrace.


--
-S
We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine

[Steven Sullivan]

ScottW wrote:
On Jan 30, 11:37?am, Scott wrote:
On Jan 30, 7:22?am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Rockinghorse Winner"
wrote in

I think the difference is definitely in production. Some
CD's I own, like Buena Vista Social Club, are just
spectacular.
It seems when the producers want to make a
great sounding CD, they can.

That says it all. No LP can truely be great sounding except in the
imaginations of those very few people who look on a medium that is hobbled
by relatively massive amounts of audible noise and distoriton as being
beneficial.

You know I offered to put this claim to the test under blind
conditions and you declined to be subjected to such a test. Until such
a time that you are willing to subject yourself to such a test under
blind conditions I'm going to have to conclude this is pure bias. I'll
make the offer again. Using a high end two chanel playback system we
can play a variety of recordings sourced from various CDs, SACDs and
LPs of my chosing but the LP versions have to be sourced from my
equipment, You, under blind conditions have to identify the LP sourced
samples based on their audible distortion and their inability to
"sound great." You can bring a sample of your own that you consider a
to be great sounding so we can have some reference of you taste in
sound quality. I am willing to bet you will fail miserably in such a
test.

How long are the "samples"? I think this could be a very difficult
test with some samples of relative short duration which has fairly
high recording levels.
But play a track through from silent lead in to exit which includes
very quiet passages which don't completely mask the noise and I think
I'll be able to pass that test more often than not.
That doesn't mean I don't think vinyl can sound great, but greatness
is in the ear of the beholder.

ScottW

As written above it's an absurd farrago of a test, not least because Mr.
Wheeler is conflating test for difference with quality rating.




--
-S
We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine

[Steven Sullivan]

Audio Empire wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 15:32:09 -0800, Greg Wormald wrote
(in article ):

In article ,
Audio Empire wrote:
SNIPS
Some people here have made very interesting suggestions on this, including
Arny's theory that it's a business decision. It might well be. If so, I'd
love to see the logic behind it.
SNIPS
I really don't understand why record companies
would think that putting out sub-par product would somehow advance sales,
and
would love to hear some justification for it.

I suspect that the answer to this is actually very simple:

Since most music media purchasers first hear the music on some sort of
radio/mixed music format, (I am *assuming* this) the music that sounds
the loudest sounds the best. So, compress, increase mid-bass, and
bingo--perceived loudness increases. Result--increased media sales.

But has this not ALWAYS been the case? Like I've been saying, early stereo
LPs were likewise mostly played on cheap "brown-goods" console
radio-phonographs and portable record players with cheap record changers in
them (or worse). Yet the record companies made these early LPs the best that
they could, and I don't recall owners of cheap players complaining about the
quality of these records being "too good". IOW, if producing this crap is
aimed at the lowest common denominator, as has been suggested (an I don't
disagree with that hypothesis), then I say that this is wrongheaded
marketing.


Yes, so?

'Loudness wars' have actually been going on since well before the days of CD.
45rpm singles were more compressed than LP versions. Radio stations vied to be the
loudest. It's always, *ALWAYS* because someone believes that louder sounds better.
And that is often corroborated by informal, poorly controlled 'focus group'-like
auditions conducted by record companies or engineers, involving playing short snippets of a
multiple versions of a track. In such an A/B, the longer-term fatiguing effects of
extreme compression don't come into play. Instead it just sounds like the louder
version has 'more impact' or 'more excitement' or "I can hear everything better" etc.
This is a trick founded in basic psychoacoustics.

Read the book 'Perfect Sounds Forever' for a historical view of the loudness war
(among other audio topics).


--
-S
We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine

[Steven Sullivan]

Audio Empire wrote:

There's one sure way to reproduce the quality of the Lp on CD: record
the output from your preamp with a good ADC.

Been there, done that. It works fine. It's even better when the LP is
transferred to 24/96 or higher.

It shouldn't be. 16 bits already suffices for the dynamic range of LPs;
22 kHz suffices for their frequency range, unless your hearing, and the
recording, are both *quite* remarkable.



--
-S
We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine

[Steven Sullivan]

Audio Empire wrote:
On Fri, 4 Feb 2011 20:36:28 -0800, bob wrote
(in article ):

On Feb 4, 6:46=A0pm, Scott wrote:

The answer is quite simple. Being a niche market, labels like Analog
Productions and Music Matters etc can obtain a licence at a reasonable
cost to remaster popular titles owned by the majors on vinyl and on
SACD. The majors retain the rights to make the CDs since that is where
the mass market is.

Interesting, although there obviously are plenty of cases where the
companies with the rights *have* granted licenses for audiophile CD
releases. So while this may be a factor it clearly isn't a full
explanation.

So you get the tender loving care in the mastering
for the niche market and the crap mastering for the mainstream market.
The same labels that do audiophile reissues are constantly trying to
get the rights to do CDs and some times they do get them.

Are the companies releasing the vinyl the same companies producing
audiophile CDs? I haven't looked closely, but I didn't get the sense
there was a lot of overlap there.

Not usually, no. An interesting case in point. When Philips hired the late
Wilma Cozart Fine to master the Mercury Living Presence catalog to CD, she
said that the resultant digital masters sounded exactly like the analog
masters (all of which she originally produced. She and her husband C. Robert
Fine WERE, essentially, Mercury Living Presence Records). Yet a year or so
later, Classic Records hired her to master the 45 RPM 4-disc, 200 gram LP of
one of those Philips CDs she mastered. The title was the "Firebird " ballet
by Stravinsky with the LSO/ Antal Dorati. I have both her CD and her LP of
that work. The Classic LP is absolutely breathtaking and the Philips/Mercury
CD sounds terrible. It's thin, and shrill, and lacking in any sense of
dynamics at all. Now the same person supervised the mastering of BOTH of
these transfers of this material. Now, if Fine said that the digital masters
sound so close to the analog masters that one cannot tell the difference,
then how come the CD she helped produce sounds so bad and the LP, which she
also helped to produce, sounds so unbelievably good?


1) maybe the masters would sound 'shrill' to you too.
2) maybe you like the euphonic distortions of vinyl
3) maybe the LP transfers were significantly EQ'd, in a way that you like


All of which is to say, someone else might find the SACD to sounds better than
the LP.

So?


--
-S
We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine

[Steven Sullivan]

Scott wrote:
On Feb 4, 6:47?pm, bob wrote:
On Feb 4, 2:11=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:



Many of these "classic" analog recordings from the 'golden era' of stereo
(before recording got so complicated with multt-miking and multi-track an=
d
ruined the sound) HAVE be digitized but with varying success. For instanc=
e,
many of the RCA Red Seal Shaded Dogs have been digitized several times by
BMG/RCA with varying success. Certainly, the most ambitious project was w=
hen
RCA/BMG released more than 100 titles as hybrid SACDs. None sound as good=
?as
the LPs released by Classics records

And is that because of better mastering, or the euphonic distortions
that the vinyl offers? The former maybe, the latter definitely.

and, in fact, the SACDs don't even sound
as good as the JVC XRCD releases of the same titles,

Not surprising. There quite a bit of evidence that the 2-channel
layers are often treated as an afterthought.

and XRCD is Red Book,
not SACD or DVD-A or Blu-Ray or any other high-resolution digital release
format.

Which, as we know, wouldn't make an audible difference anyway.



So, what it comes down to is what I said before. These LP titles have
a reputation for being good sounding LPs and it's what the dyed-in-the-wo=
ol
vinyl-phile wants. So that's what gets remastered (perhaps at 45 RPM) and
pressed on heavy 180 or 200 gram virgin vinyl sometimes as single -sided
records. =A0

I guess another way of asking the question I've been raising is, why
are there so many died-in-the-wool vinylphiles today?

You've pretty much answered the question for yourself. " And is that
because of better mastering, and the euphonic distortions.

that could be an 'or' rather than an 'and'


Why would that make a difference? The results are what they are
regardless of why. Better sound is better sound regardless of how you
get there.


If the judgement of 'better sound' is significantly influenced by knowledge of,
and bias for or against, the format being listened to, is it really better *sound*?



--
-S
We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine

[Steven Sullivan]

Scott wrote:
On Feb 5, 10:34?am, ScottW wrote:

You didn't say she said the Classic reissues sounded exactly like the
original analog masters.

I am confident they didn't.

?I'm guessing some younger ears at Classic's
took some of that shrill edge off needed to create some sparkle for
aging ears.

Some younger ears? Bernie Grundman mastered the Classics Mercury 45rpm
reissues. He is one of the best in the business but I don't think we
can say he has "younger ears."

?Or maybe the original analog masters were dialed in for
ceramic cartridges just as todays CDs are mastered for cars and are
really bad to your ears.

They most certainly were not dialed in for ceramic cartridges. No
consideration was given to the playback equipment of the time when the
recordings were made. They remain some of the most amazingly realistic
recordings of orchestral music ever made.



It also doesn't surprise me that if your system is breathtaking on
vinyl, CD's don't measure up. ?I've had a similar problem and have
concluded that ?the best setup for either format is not the same
setup. ?I briefly tinkered with some digital correction, which is now
a really inexpensive option, ?and think it might be the answer but
haven't had time to really explore it.


Digital euphonic colorations. That makes perfect sense.

The difference being, it can be turned off. Another difference being,
DSP can correct for real distortions that exist due to room and speaker properties.

What do vinyl's inescapable euphonic distortions correct for?



--
-S
We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine

[Steven Sullivan]

Scott wrote:
On Feb 5, 11:42=A0am, bob wrote:
On Feb 5, 1:18=3DA0pm, Scott wrote:

On Feb 4, 6:47=3DA0pm, bob wrote:
=3DA0And would there
be so many if Stereophile and TAS had spent the last 25 years saying,
"Look, CD really is technically better. It's poor CD mastering plus
the euphonic distortions inherent in vinyl that make the vinyl sound
better"?

Why would that make a difference? The results are what they are
regardless of why. Better sound is better sound regardless of how you
get there. Would you avoid vinyl if it sounded better to you despite
CD being "technically superior" and vinyl's only advantages were
euphonic distortions and better mastering?

I would prefer to avoid any medium which introduced unnecessary levels
of distortion.

this reply avoids the question and adds a red herring.

If some distortion sounds better, then the listener
should control it: DSP, equalizers, etc.

Why? Do you think I could or you could replicate the unique euphonic
distortions of my vinyl playback equipment or the inherent euphonic
colorations of vinyl that seems to draw audiophiles to that medium by
using DSP and equalizers?

Probably yes, for the vinyl part of it.
There certainly are DSPs that attempt to emulate 'vinyl sound'.
Same with 'tube sound'. I'm sure your
cartidge's and TT's distortions could be modelled, too.

One could even model your room, if need be.


--
-S
We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine

[Steven Sullivan]

Audio Empire wrote:
On Sat, 5 Feb 2011 12:20:35 -0800, bob wrote
(in article ):

On Feb 5, 1:22=A0pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

The euphonic distortion argument IME pretty much falls flat.

In what way? Are you saying that the distortions inherent in vinyl
reproduction are *not* euphonic? They sound quite pleasant, even to
me. I can even see why some might confuse those distortions with "the
sound of live music."

To state what I've been hinting at here, I suspect that for the vast
majority of vinylphiles the appeal is in fact these distortions,
rather than the supposedly superior mastering. And that's why
audiophile vinyl appears to be far more popular than audiophile
digital.

bob

While I don't necessarily disagree, I think that in some cases the vinyl
mastering IS superior to the CD mastering of the same material. When the LP
has more presence, more bass, better dynamics, silkier, airier highs, with
more silken strings and more realistic-sounding percussion than does the CD
of the same material, there is more than just "euphonic coloration" going-on
here.


Not necessarily. Have you researched what is encompassed by the term?


Somebody, following some corporate agenda is purposely hobbling the CD
release because there is NO EXCUSE for the CD to sound that mediocre. After
all, if one can take that superior LP, transfer it to CD with all of the
virtues I just outlined intact, then it's clear that the CD is certainly
CAPABLE of being just as good as the LP, it just isn't.

No, it sometimes (and depending on the genre, usually) is as good, or better,
than LP.

As for the rest of your lament, why can't you get it through your head that
louder, to some, is thought to bring more sales?

It's not like this is a phenomenon exclusive to the CD era. It's just been
taken to a new extreme.


--
-S
We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine

[Steven Sullivan]

Audio Empire wrote:
On Sat, 5 Feb 2011 16:53:36 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"bob" wrote in message

On Feb 5, 1:22 pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

The euphonic distortion argument IME pretty much falls flat.

In what way?

I know of no kind of nonlinear distortion that make a reasonable selection
of music sound better to me.

That's called bias. The specific type of bias is called prejudice.

Bias may play a role in his preference. As in yours. Without
controlled testing of a specific case, you can't say otherwise.



--
-S
We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine

[Steven Sullivan]

Audio Empire wrote:
On Mon, 7 Feb 2011 06:40:00 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

When a recording has been remastered 6 or 8 times like DSOTM, the
probability that the repeated remasteriing is actually improving the end
product signfiicantly each and every time is pretty darn slight.

OK, I cannot speak for DSOTM, because I've never heard it in any of its
guises (and I don't even know what's on it, nor do I particularly care but, I
have heard of it), but I can speak to many classical titles that have been
similarly remastered multiple times. RCA Victor was famous (notorious?) for
doing this. First there was the original "Living Stereo" Red Seal "Shaded
Dog" releases in the late '50's and early '60s'. These generally sound great.
Louis Leyton and Richard Mohr were very talented recording engineers who knew
how to use two or three microphones to paint a gorgeous stereo picture.


But did/does listening to these recordings sound like what an orchestra sounds like
in a real hall? Not really. This, of course, is the dirty little secret of
'hi fi'. It often seeks levels of 'detail' and 'imaging' that don't exist at
concerts, meanwhile, ambience cues that do exist there, are severely diminished.
Articles about this crop up in the audio press every decade or so,
and then the topic submerges again into the background.

We're actually getting closer to being able to model the 'real', though...with
surround technology.



--
-S
We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine

[Steven Sullivan]

Harry Lavo wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Scott" wrote in message


snip

(Or) how silly or not silly the writers at Stereophile or TAS look?

The adulation of die-hard LP adherents some 27 years more or less after
being totally and utterly obsoleced by the audio CD was clearly stoked by
these writers. Advertisers paid these jounals hard, cold cash for
advertisements based on their ability to encourge possibly otherwise
sensible people to spend and spend on meaningless "upgrades" again and
again.

snip

You are aware that at the time CD's were released that The Abso!ute Sound
still was being published with no manufacturer's advertising, are you not?
And five years later it was still accepting ads only from dealers, not
manufacturers. If you are not aware, then stop slandering the audiophile
press. Early CD's on early CD equipment were often unlistenable to many
audiophiles. I have in my possession some of the promo copies of the first
CD releases...The King and I, among others. On my 1989 Phillips CD player
it was literally unlistenable and sounded like it was being played back
through a kazoo (and I only exagerate slightly). Most didn't sound that
bad, but digital glare was much in evidence.

Digital glare, Harry, or just naive digital mastering? There was a learning
curve involved in the latter, you know.





--
-S
We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine

[Steven Sullivan]

Audio Empire wrote:
On Mon, 7 Feb 2011 06:38:35 -0800, Scott wrote
(in article ):

Here is a website that has extensive info on all things Mercury Living
Presence.
http://www.soundfountain.com/amb/mercury.html
The original pressings were cut from the orginal three track masters.
It does not look like there was all that much difference in the signal
that went to the cutting lathe back in the 50s and the signal used to
master the CDs. I can't speak for the reissues on vinyl made by
Classics or Speaker's Corner. I was not aware that Wilma Cozart Fine
was even involved in those reissues. With that said you can be sure
that minimal tinkering would have been done by Bernie Grundman. He is
a purist almost to a fault.

Agreed. Grundman is probably one of the most fastidious vinyl mastering
engineers working today. He believes in letting the master tape speak for the
recording and does not believe in reinterpreting it if he can help it.

Thanks for the link the the Mercury Living Presence site. It's pretty good,
but I do take exception to the statement that a stereo recording is only
true-to-life when made with three spaced microphones. This is simply not
true.

Compared to good binaural recording of a live event that occured in a
reverberant or open-air space, listened to on headphones, no stereo recording is
'true-to-life'.

And now with recording for multichannel delivery formats,
stereo is really a pleasant old compromise that we're no longer constrained
to use.




--
-S
We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott" wrote in message


For real? You would put the vast catalog of music
recorded in analog (or even digital but cut on vinyl)
from the begining of commercial recordings to the present
day a distant second over the body of digital recordings
that never appeared on vinyl?

I'd like to see an count of the actual number of titles that fit into each
category.

The two relevant time periods would probably be:

(1) The last 5 years

(2) Since the beginning of the 20th century

[Steven Sullivan]

Audio Empire wrote:
On Mon, 7 Feb 2011 16:17:08 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"bob" wrote in message

On Feb 7, 2:14=A0pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message

Well yeah if you chose to ignore what vinylphiles
actually do in chosing their equipment and their LPs.

There is little evidence of an actual rational approach
that is being use= d by LP-shackled audiophiles to
choose equipment above a fairly minimal quality level.

Their approach appears to be to compare numerous
cartridges with, among other characteristics, different
FR profiles.

Exactly.


And yet how many of them own a decent equalizer?

Among high end audiophiles, equalizers are generally anathema. OTOH, if the
equalizers are not user-adjustable and sold as cartrdiges or vacuum tube
power amplifiers, then high end audiophiles wax poetic and line up to
sacrifice their dollars.



Analog equalizers "ring" and even with all the sliders set flat, they
definitely have an "insertion sound" and, believe me, it's not something you
want in your stereo system. Of course that could be avoided with a DSP based
equalizer, but it would need an ADC on one end and a DAC on the other (unless
the whole amplification chain were digital - including the power amp, then it
might be practical).


Digital EQ is standard on AV receivers nowadays. It's integral to most
'room correction' schemes, for example.





--
-S
We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine

[Steven Sullivan]

Scott wrote:
On Feb 7, 9:05=A0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message



Another claim I'd love to put to the test. I can send you
a list of titles I have on vinyl that I consider to be
SOTA for sound quality of that given title. If you if
have any CD version of any of those titles you can take
those CDs, digitally tweak them to your heart's content.

You seem to have missed the point, Scott.

No I didn't miss the point and this old glib ad hominem is really
getting tired.


Most tweaking that is done as part of remastering involves changes to
spectral balance and =A0dynamics.

You say this from your vast experience as a mastering engineer? Sorry
Arny I get my info on what gores into mastering from actual mastering
engeineers.

Like the digital ignoramus who refuses to use any digital stages if he can help it,
even to do something as innocuous as a digital splice?

(If any reader here bought the 'Original Masters' Jethro Tull CD, mastered by Steve Hoffman
for DCC,and wondered why side One of 'Thick As A Brick' on there has a moment of silence about
3/4 of the way through it, now you know.)



--
-S
We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine

[Andrew Haley]

Steven Sullivan wrote:
Audio Empire wrote:

There's one sure way to reproduce the quality of the Lp on CD: record
the output from your preamp with a good ADC.

Been there, done that. It works fine. It's even better when the LP is
transferred to 24/96 or higher.

It shouldn't be. 16 bits already suffices for the dynamic range of LPs;
22 kHz suffices for their frequency range, unless your hearing, and the
recording, are both *quite* remarkable.

Or you're a 12-year-old child. I guess that's unlikely. :-)

Brian Moore says "young children can often hear tones as high as 20
kHz." Zwicker and Fastl reckon that even by the age of 20 the limit
above which no sensation is produced is between 16 and 18 kHz,
provided that the subject has not already been exposed to sounds with
levels that produce a hearing loss. I wonder how often that happens
these days...

Andrew.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Feb 8, 5:07=A0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message



Not my approach but anyway keep trying.

Perhaps that would be an indictment of your communication skills?

perhaps not. What didn't you understand about my comment about your
continued use of glib ad hominem? Were my communication skills lacking
about that?


Scott, I've studied the equipment lists that you've published and the one
thing I see is a lot of placebo =A0effect generators.

Aren't you the one who made the false claim that i didn't have a CD
player in my main system? Perhaps your study skills are the real
problem here.


This suggests to me that unless your goal is mainly to impress with lists=
of
makes and models of expensive but ineffective paraphernalia, you're not
following a strategy that is easy to justify or explain.

Please advise!

I already have. It didn't help you understand my approach to vinyl
playback.

This is getting old. enough of the ad hominem. there was no real audio
content in your post.


[ There is no audio content left in this thread, so it's over.
-- dsr ]

[Sebastian Kaliszewski]

Scott wrote:
On Feb 7, 11:14=A0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message

"Scott" wrote in message
[snip]
Then why should we all be happy with the single set of
distortion artifacts that vinyl imposes on us?
A single set? really? All vinyl playback equipment sounds
the same?
The audible distortion that is inherent in vinyl comes from the same
laws=
of
physics as applied to a very narrow implementation. =A0IME vinyl
playback
equipment has a very narrowly-defined set of colorations and
distortions.

Unfortunately your experience is painfully limited and colored with an
obvious bias. I have offered to put these and other such claims to the
test under blind conditions but you refuse. That says it all.

Nope. The offer must be reasonable to begin with.

I could come with an offer to all the group as well. Lets perform the
whole test somewhere in Siberia -- it would be about equally hard to get
there for all the participants so this should make things even
All the expenses and visas and customs permits for the equpment are up
to participants


[...]
I know that I can't do a better job than the best
mastering engineers and
I see very little evidence that you've ever tried or even seriously
investigated what it would take.

You probably also see very little evidence of the color of the
furniture in my house. By your logic it is therefore colorless.

Nope, by that logic you have simply presented no evidence of it's color.
Noones asserting they're colorless. The assersion is that their color is
not known to others but you. That's all.

Arny
it is a basic logical fallacy to use yourself as a reference for
impirical evidence.

I see that Arny bases this on (lack of) evidence you (have not)
provided. He is not using himself as a source of evidence, he is using you.

That is especially true when you remain willfully
ignorant on the subject as shown in your description of the various
masterings of Pink Floyd's DSOTM which was something you cut and
pasted from wickipedia.


But what has the origin of quote to the discussed matters? And how it
shows someone's ignorance?


I know I don't have the technical
chops to mimic the euphonic colorations of my vinyl rig
Well, that's because those euphonic colorations are primarily a
creation =
of
your preferences.

Prove it. I've challenged you to do so under blind conditions and you
continue to be a no show.

You still did not show in Siberia. And I've challenged you! (Well, just
few paragraphs ago, but if you're serious you should be already in a
plane to Irkutsk )

Back to being serious, Arny proposed much more realistic way to perform
the test. Yet you declined (and accused him of dishonesty as an excuse).

But his proposal could be quite easily modified, so none of his alleged
by you dishonesty could play a role. Just put audio samples on the net,
and allow all the interested people to listen for themselves. If the
samples are not whole tunes, but just fragments it would certailnly be a
fair use and would not violate copyrights.

And it'd be really interesting to see who is right.

It's easy to talk the talk. let's see you
walk the walk.

So, will you do the walk (as described above)?


and the inherent euphonic colorations of the medium.
Whether or not such colorations even exist is a controversy.

Yeah like the moon landing is a contraversy.

Nope. The controversy is wether they're euphonic, or simply a bit harder
to detect but still worsening the sound (like 2nd harmonic distrotion is
somewhat harder to detect by ear -- greater distorion amount is needed
to allow detection)

[...snip...]

rgds
\SK
--
"Never underestimate the power of human stupidity" -- L. Lang
--
http://www.tajga.org -- (some photos from my travels)

[Scott[_6_]]

On Feb 8, 5:08=A0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message



On Feb 7, 11:14=3DA0am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message



I think there is far more commonality to the sound of
live music and with the perceptions of listeners who
have
extensive experience with live music.

That's fine and wonderful, but where is even any
evidence that this is indeed how things are?
Before I bother with evidence I have to ask, do you
really believe this is not true?

I think I've said that in so many words any number of times.

OK so for the record you beleive that there is so little commonality
of the perceptions of people who have extensive experience with live
music that the results of tests gauging realism of various versions of
the same recording will wrought random results and no patterns will
emerge



Do you really beleive
that there is so little commonality of the perceptions of
people who have extensive experience with live music that
the results of tests gauging realism of various versions
of the same recording will wrought random results and no
patterns will emerge?

I really believe that remastering is a simple trick that has been a prove=
n
revenue generator. Occasionally the first mastering of a commercial
recording is suboptimal and a re-issue might be in order. The rest of the
time, we're talking about making a recording sound different for the sake=
of
making it sound different and using trivial changes to generate non-trivi=
al
amounts of money.

But you base this belief on willful ignorance on the subject. When you
tried to demonstrate just little bit of knowledge yo resorted to
cutting and pasting a whoafully in adequate history of the mastering
of one popular title. Sorry Arny but I'd sooner accept the opinions on
biology from the ICR than your opinions on the state of the art of
mastering.

If you want to talk about mastering we can go down a list of titles
and discuss what went into the various versions of many great titles
but I just don't see any reason to do so if your source for such
information is wikipedia. But heck why not? You cut and pasted that
inadequate list of various versions of Pink Floyd's DSOTM. Which ones
do you have? Which is your prefered version and why?

[Scott[_6_]]

On Feb 8, 7:04=A0am, Steven Sullivan wrote:
Scott wrote:
On Jan 25, 7:03=3DA0pm, bob wrote:

And what a shame it is that the high-end community has spent the
better part of three decades wailing about the inadequacies of CD as =
a
medium, rather than about the quality of the recordings.

News to me. I have heard a lot of complaints about recording and
mastering of new material since the introduction of CDs to audio. I
certainly have done my fair share of complaining. I try not to wail
about it though.

TAS and Stereophile have never abandoned the idea that vinyl sounds bette=
r
than CD because, well....just BECAUSE. =A0

A variation on the phrase =A0"... though it didn't quite have the [audiop=
hile flooby jargon] of the [LP|turntable]"
is so common in the audiophile press as to now constitute self-parody.


I am unaware of any individuals named Stereophile or TAS. If you are
speaking of the publications then you are palinly mistaken since they
are both made up of individual writers who hold various beliefs on the
subject and freely express those beliefs and opinions.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Feb 8, 7:24=A0am, Steven Sullivan wrote:
Scott wrote:
On Feb 5, 10:34?am, ScottW wrote:

You didn't say she said the Classic reissues sounded exactly like the
original analog masters.
I am confident they didn't.
?I'm guessing some younger ears at Classic's
took some of that shrill edge off needed to create some sparkle for
aging ears.
Some younger ears? Bernie Grundman mastered the Classics Mercury 45rpm
reissues. He is one of the best in the business but I don't think we
can say he has "younger ears."
?Or maybe the original analog masters were dialed in for
ceramic cartridges just as todays CDs are mastered for cars and are
really bad to your ears.
They most certainly were not dialed in for ceramic cartridges. No
consideration was given to the playback equipment of the time when the
recordings were made. They remain some of the most amazingly realistic
recordings of orchestral music ever made.

It also doesn't surprise me that if your system is breathtaking on
vinyl, CD's don't measure up. ?I've had a similar problem and have
concluded that ?the best setup for either format is not the same
setup. ?I briefly tinkered with some digital correction, which is now
a really inexpensive option, ?and think it might be the answer but
haven't had time to really explore it.
Digital euphonic colorations. That makes perfect sense.

The difference being, it can be turned off. =A0Another difference being,
DSP can correct for real distortions that exist due to room and speaker p=
roperties.


Which has what to do with the subject of vinyl v. CD? Are you
suggesting that DSP room correction does not work when a record is
being played? Smells like a red herring to me.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Feb 8, 7:41=A0am, Steven Sullivan wrote:
Scott wrote:
On Feb 5, 11:42=3DA0am, bob wrote:
On Feb 5, 1:18=3D3DA0pm, Scott wrote:

On Feb 4, 6:47=3D3DA0pm, bob wrote:
=3D3DA0And would there
be so many if Stereophile and TAS had spent the last 25 years say=
ing,
"Look, CD really is technically better. It's poor CD mastering pl=
us
the euphonic distortions inherent in vinyl that make the vinyl so=
und
better"?

Why would that make a difference? The results are what they are
regardless of why. Better sound is better sound regardless of how y=
ou
get there. Would you avoid vinyl if it sounded better to you despit=
e
CD being "technically superior" and vinyl's only advantages were
euphonic distortions and better mastering?

I would prefer to avoid any medium which introduced unnecessary level=
s
of distortion.
this reply avoids the question and adds a red herring.
If some distortion sounds better, then the listener
should control it: DSP, equalizers, etc.
Why? Do you think I could or you could replicate the unique euphonic
distortions of my vinyl playback equipment or the inherent euphonic
colorations of vinyl that seems to draw audiophiles to that medium by
using DSP and equalizers?

Probably yes, for the vinyl part of it. =A0
There certainly are DSPs that attempt to emulate 'vinyl sound'. =A0
Same with 'tube sound'. I'm sure your
cartidge's and TT's distortions could be modelled, too.

So do you want to take up the challenge i put to Bob but was declined?
Lets see you take a commercial CD version of one of my prefered LPs
and using DSP duplicate the sound of that LP played back through my
vinyl playback equipment. If you can do that I concede the point.


One could even model your room, if need be.


One could even paint the exterior of my house afterward. Niether fact
is relevant to the subject though.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Feb 8, 7:02=A0am, Steven Sullivan wrote:
Audio Empire wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 11:18:28 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):
"Scott" wrote in message

.
We can find many explanations that are strictly due to
sound quality and have nothing to do with nostolgia or
rituals. The large body of better mastered LPs is a very
good and common reason for such a preference along with
the now well documented euphonic distortions that can
lead to a more convincing sense of spaciousness, richness
and realism.

There is no such thing as a "large body of better-mastered LPs", comp=
ared to
the huge number of well-mastered CDs that continue to be produced.
Volume-wise, you're probably correct, but today's newly remastered and =
newly
pressed vinyl from people like Classic Records et al, are generally of =
older
titles that had a reputation for sounding great back in the day. These
include jazz titles from Verve, Blue Note, and Riverside, (the last two
largely recorded by Rudy Van Gelder), and classic titles from RCA Victo=
r,
Mercury, British Decca, Vox Turnabout, and Everest among others. Just a=
bout
every vinyl title that ended up on somebody's "to die for" list is avai=
lable
again on really high quality pressings. Often these are DMM mastered an=
d
pressed on 180 or 200 gram virgin vinyl, some are cut at 45 RPM, and so=
me are
even single-sided. All are much better than the original pressings from=
the
original label's manufacturing facilities. =A0And where the same title =
is also
available on CD, the vinyl USUALLY sounds better.

Says who? The majority of impartial listeners in a double-blind, level ma=
tched
comparison of media struck from exactly the same mastering chain?

Well actually yes. But since you won't like that answer no use in
explaining it. It will inevitably lead to the usual personal attacks
aginst those involved in the tests. But do you have any "level matched
double blind tests of LPs and CDs struck from exactly the same
mastering chain where the majority of impartial listeners prefered the
CD?



If not, or if such a subject pool doesn't exist in substantial numbers, t=
hen
to say it USUALLY sounds anything, is overstepping...unless you mean,
usually *to you*. =A0In which case the caveats about DBT, level matched e=
tc
still apply.

Well that is not true and you added a ridiculous condition, that the
LPs and CDs had to be struck from exactly the same mastering which is
almost never the case in the real world. The assertion was " where the
same title is also available on CD, the vinyl USUALLY sounds better."
I would add that in these cases the LPs and CDs were almost always
mastered differently by virtue of the fact that they are so rarely not
mastered differently.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Feb 8, 10:12=A0am, Sebastian Kaliszewski
wrote:
Scott wrote:

=A0 On Feb 7, 11:14=3DA0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
=A0 "Scott" wrote in message

=A0 "Scott" wrote in message
[snip]
=A0 Then why should we all be happy with the single set of
=A0 distortion artifacts that vinyl imposes on us?
=A0 A single set? really? All vinyl playback equipment sounds
=A0 the same?
=A0 The audible distortion that is inherent in vinyl comes from the sam=
e
laws=3D
=A0 =A0of
=A0 physics as applied to a very narrow implementation. =3DA0IME vinyl
playback
=A0 equipment has a very narrowly-defined set of colorations and
distortions.
=A0
=A0 Unfortunately your experience is painfully limited and colored with =
an
=A0 obvious bias. I have offered to put these and other such claims to t=
he
=A0 test under blind conditions but you refuse. That says it all.

Nope. The offer must be reasonable to begin with.

The offer is reasonable.


I could come with an offer to all the group as well. Lets perform the
whole test somewhere in Siberia -- it would be about equally hard to get
there for all the participants so this should make things even
All the expenses and visas and customs permits for the equpment are up
to participants

I guess you missed the part where I stated we could find a location
near enough to Arny's home that the travel woould not inconvenient
him. So is this a matter of the offer being unreasonable by me or
misunderstood by you?



[...]
=A0 I know that I can't do a better job than the best
=A0 mastering engineers and
=A0 I see very little evidence that you've ever tried or even seriously
=A0 investigated what it would take.
=A0
=A0 You probably also see very little evidence of the color of the
=A0 furniture in my house. By your logic it is therefore colorless.

Nope, by that logic you have simply presented no evidence of it's color.

That is true but it also ignores Arny's conclusions drawn from an
absence of evidence. were Arny drawing such reasonable conclusions
from his lack of experience with mastering I wouldn't have used the
analogy.


=A0 Arny
=A0 it is a basic logical fallacy to use yourself as a reference for
=A0 impirical evidence.

I see that Arny bases this on (lack of) evidence you (have not)
provided. He is not using himself as a source of evidence, he is using yo=
u.

No he is not using me he is using his misrepresentations of me. all in
all it boils down to the same nonsense.



=A0 That is especially true when you remain willfully
=A0 ignorant on the subject as shown in your description of the various
=A0 masterings of Pink Floyd's DSOTM which was something you cut and
=A0 pasted from wickipedia.
=A0

But what has the origin of quote to the discussed matters? And how it
shows someone's ignorance?

If one were not ignorant on the subject I suspect they would not cut
and paste a whoafully inadequate list of masterings. One would know
better if they were well versed on the subject


=A0
=A0 I know I don't have the technical
=A0 chops to mimic the euphonic colorations of my vinyl rig
=A0 Well, that's because those euphonic colorations are primarily a
creation =3D
=A0 of
=A0 your preferences.
=A0
=A0 Prove it. I've challenged you to do so under blind conditions and yo=
u
=A0 continue to be a no show.

You still did not show in Siberia. And I've challenged you! (Well, just
few paragraphs ago, but if you're serious you should be already in a
plane to Irkutsk )

Do you know the difference between a convenient location and Siberia?
It is much like the difference between a reasonable offer such as the
one I made and an unreasonable offer such as the one you are mockingly
making here. Perhaps you should read my offers more carefully before
equating a location that would not cause Arny any inconvenience with
Siberia. but on the same note you might want to learn more about the
body of masterings out there before asking why Arny's cut and paste
from wikipedia was evidence of his ignorance on the subject.



Back to being serious, Arny proposed much more realistic way to perform
the test. Yet you declined (and accused him of dishonesty as an excuse).

His proposition was not in any way more realistic. any meaningful test
needs moderation. I would think anyone with the most basic of
knowledge on such tests would understand this. The test was supposed
to be by ear only. Without moderation we would have no way of knowing
this was what happened. Sorry but no, I don't trust Arny to do the
test on his own by ear alone. Doing the test at a convenient location
for Arny under moderation is not an unreasonable test.



But his proposal could be quite easily modified, so none of his alleged
by you dishonesty could play a role. Just put audio samples on the net,
and allow all the interested people to listen for themselves.

Sorry but this doe not force people to make a determination by ear
alone. Your ideas simply do not offer reasonable controls under the
circumstances of the debate.


If the
samples are not whole tunes, but just fragments it would certailnly be a
fair use and would not violate copyrights.

Copyright is not my concern. Insuring the test is done by ear alone
is.



And it'd be really interesting to see who is right.

Would you like to do the test? Certainly there must be a location near
you that is convenient. not going to ask you to travel to Siberia.
Heck, given the opportunity I'd come visit you and we could do it on
your system. Would that be too unreasonable?


=A0 It's easy to talk the talk. let's see you
=A0 walk the walk.

So, will you do the walk (as described above)?

I will happily participate in the test so long as there is a control
that prevents the testee from using any means other than his or her
own listening abilities to make a determination. so now the offer goes
out to you. Are you going to wlak or talk?

[Audio Empire]

On Tue, 8 Feb 2011 07:59:23 -0800, Steven Sullivan wrote
(in article ):

Audio Empire wrote:
On Mon, 7 Feb 2011 06:40:00 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

When a recording has been remastered 6 or 8 times like DSOTM, the
probability that the repeated remasteriing is actually improving the end
product signfiicantly each and every time is pretty darn slight.

OK, I cannot speak for DSOTM, because I've never heard it in any of its
guises (and I don't even know what's on it, nor do I particularly care but,
I
have heard of it), but I can speak to many classical titles that have been
similarly remastered multiple times. RCA Victor was famous (notorious?) for
doing this. First there was the original "Living Stereo" Red Seal "Shaded
Dog" releases in the late '50's and early '60s'. These generally sound
great.
Louis Leyton and Richard Mohr were very talented recording engineers who
knew
how to use two or three microphones to paint a gorgeous stereo picture.


But did/does listening to these recordings sound like what an orchestra
sounds like
in a real hall? Not really.

To the extent that all recordings are about capturing an illusion, I'd say
that these recordings are more successful at capturing the sound of an
orchestra in a real hall than many, maybe even than most. But the question,
as asked, is almost totally without meaning. No two channel recording can
ever capture the actual sound of an orchestra playing in a concert hall. I'm
not even sure that such a recording is possible at all.


This, of course, is the dirty little secret of
'hi fi'. It often seeks levels of 'detail' and 'imaging' that don't exist at
concerts, meanwhile, ambience cues that do exist there, are severely
diminished.

I don't think it's much of a secret, dirty or not. Recordings that seek to
capture the kind of detail that you are talking about are multi-miked and
multi-channeled and those are usually terrible. As far as imaging is
concerned, a stereo pair picks-up the soundfield that is present in thge
space occupied by the microphones. Whatever imaging they capture is what is
really there, and it can be quite palpably real.


Articles about this crop up in the audio press every decade or so,
and then the topic submerges again into the background.

We're actually getting closer to being able to model the 'real',
though...with
surround technology.

Closer, maybe, but no cigar. The only way to really capture the soundfield
even remotely accurately is with binaural recording, and that can only be
played back with headphones.

[Audio Empire]

On Tue, 8 Feb 2011 07:41:50 -0800, Steven Sullivan wrote
(in article ):

Audio Empire wrote:
On Sat, 5 Feb 2011 16:53:36 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"bob" wrote in message

On Feb 5, 1:22 pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

The euphonic distortion argument IME pretty much falls flat.

In what way?

I know of no kind of nonlinear distortion that make a reasonable
selection
of music sound better to me.

That's called bias. The specific type of bias is called prejudice.

Bias may play a role in his preference. As in yours. Without
controlled testing of a specific case, you can't say otherwise.





But I'm NOT biased in this particular case. I merely acknowledge that digital
is superior and can provide the closest approach to the original sound that's
possible given current technology. But I also know that there are some LPs
that sound much better than the CD release of the same performance. I have
never argued that LP is somehow inherently better than digital, nor have I
argued that digital is perfect. My only argument here is with those who
dismiss either on some general criteria such as "vinyl is inferior, therefore
no vinyl record can possibly be worth listening to". To my mind that
particular opinion is untutored, terribly biased, and without merit.

[Audio Empire]

On Tue, 8 Feb 2011 07:41:42 -0800, Steven Sullivan wrote
(in article ):

Audio Empire wrote:
On Sat, 5 Feb 2011 12:20:35 -0800, bob wrote
(in article ):

On Feb 5, 1:22=A0pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

The euphonic distortion argument IME pretty much falls flat.

In what way? Are you saying that the distortions inherent in vinyl
reproduction are *not* euphonic? They sound quite pleasant, even to
me. I can even see why some might confuse those distortions with "the
sound of live music."

To state what I've been hinting at here, I suspect that for the vast
majority of vinylphiles the appeal is in fact these distortions,
rather than the supposedly superior mastering. And that's why
audiophile vinyl appears to be far more popular than audiophile
digital.

bob

While I don't necessarily disagree, I think that in some cases the vinyl
mastering IS superior to the CD mastering of the same material. When the LP
has more presence, more bass, better dynamics, silkier, airier highs, with
more silken strings and more realistic-sounding percussion than does the CD
of the same material, there is more than just "euphonic coloration"
going-on
here.


Not necessarily. Have you researched what is encompassed by the term?

Don't be ridiculous. Of course I have. But in the final analysis, it's
unimportant. It just IS and I enjoy the listening pleasure that these LPs
provide,

Somebody, following some corporate agenda is purposely hobbling the CD
release because there is NO EXCUSE for the CD to sound that mediocre. After
all, if one can take that superior LP, transfer it to CD with all of the
virtues I just outlined intact, then it's clear that the CD is certainly
CAPABLE of being just as good as the LP, it just isn't.

No, it sometimes (and depending on the genre, usually) is as good, or better,
than LP.

Now how the heck can an LP transfered to CD sound better on the CD than the
source record? This I've gotta see!

As for the rest of your lament, why can't you get it through your head that
louder, to some, is thought to bring more sales?

I know that. Can't you discuss something without being condescending and
snide about it?

It's not like this is a phenomenon exclusive to the CD era. It's just been
taken to a new extreme.

Championing the obvious again, I see.

[Audio Empire]

On Tue, 8 Feb 2011 08:21:30 -0800, Steven Sullivan wrote
(in article ):

Audio Empire wrote:
On Mon, 7 Feb 2011 06:38:35 -0800, Scott wrote
(in article ):

Here is a website that has extensive info on all things Mercury Living
Presence.
http://www.soundfountain.com/amb/mercury.html
The original pressings were cut from the orginal three track masters.
It does not look like there was all that much difference in the signal
that went to the cutting lathe back in the 50s and the signal used to
master the CDs. I can't speak for the reissues on vinyl made by
Classics or Speaker's Corner. I was not aware that Wilma Cozart Fine
was even involved in those reissues. With that said you can be sure
that minimal tinkering would have been done by Bernie Grundman. He is
a purist almost to a fault.

Agreed. Grundman is probably one of the most fastidious vinyl mastering
engineers working today. He believes in letting the master tape speak for
the
recording and does not believe in reinterpreting it if he can help it.

Thanks for the link the the Mercury Living Presence site. It's pretty good,
but I do take exception to the statement that a stereo recording is only
true-to-life when made with three spaced microphones. This is simply not
true.

Compared to good binaural recording of a live event that occured in a
reverberant or open-air space, listened to on headphones, no stereo recording

is
'true-to-life'.

Yes, I think I've said that before, more than once. In fact I just said the
same thing in an earlier reply to a post of yours, just a couple of minutes
ago.

And now with recording for multichannel delivery formats,
stereo is really a pleasant old compromise that we're no longer constrained
to use.

Well, there I disagree. The market constrains us to stick to those
compromises because binaural recording is rarely done and since most music
listening is done via speakers in the home and in the car, it isn't likely to
be done any more often in the foreseeable future, either.

[Audio Empire]

On Tue, 8 Feb 2011 06:57:03 -0800, Steven Sullivan wrote
(in article ):

Audio Empire wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 16:02:30 -0800, Scott wrote
(in article ):

how can you claim to speak authoritatively about how digital releases
sound?

I don't claim any authority. My opinion is my opinion. But my opinion
is based on extensive comparisons. I base my opinion on how digital
releases sound by playing them on my system.

And on the result of those comparisons, I concur. CD rarely sounds as good
as it could or should sound and in instances where a CD and a vinyl release
of the same title exist, the LP usually sounds better, as I said before.


Let's remember some history. The fanbase most excited about the coming
of CD circa 1982 wasn't rock or pop or country or jazz. It was 'classical'
fans. These were the listeners championing 'high fidelity' the most
consistently over the previous decades. They were excited about a medium
that promised perfect pitch consistentcy, lack of tracking distortion and
wear, 96dB of dynamic range, flat frequency response from 20Hz to 20kHz,
and immunity from 'pops and tics'.

Yes, I was one of them. What of it? Most of these same people were highly
disillusioned by the reality of CD. And even if CD, as a medium, does live up
to it's hype, that's not to say that record producers can't or don't suborn
the medium to their own marketing purposes, many of which have nothing to do
with "fi".

And it has been classical recording which has continued to hold out
longest against the 'loudness wars' (though some recordings have succumbed).

Do classical releases typically get an LP version these days? And if so,
does it usually 'sound better'?

Yes. The titles and labels that have stood the test of time do anyway and
they OFTEN sound better than the CD of the same performance, but not always.
And I'm surprised that you have taken it upon yourself to pontificate on this
subject when you don't even pretend to know what's available on vinyl and
what isn't.

[Audio Empire]

On Tue, 8 Feb 2011 11:12:39 -0800, Scott wrote
(in article ):

On Feb 8, 7:24=A0am, Steven Sullivan wrote:
Scott wrote:
On Feb 5, 10:34?am, ScottW wrote:

You didn't say she said the Classic reissues sounded exactly like the
original analog masters.
I am confident they didn't.
?I'm guessing some younger ears at Classic's
took some of that shrill edge off needed to create some sparkle for
aging ears.
Some younger ears? Bernie Grundman mastered the Classics Mercury 45rpm
reissues. He is one of the best in the business but I don't think we
can say he has "younger ears."
?Or maybe the original analog masters were dialed in for
ceramic cartridges just as todays CDs are mastered for cars and are
really bad to your ears.
They most certainly were not dialed in for ceramic cartridges. No
consideration was given to the playback equipment of the time when the
recordings were made. They remain some of the most amazingly realistic
recordings of orchestral music ever made.

It also doesn't surprise me that if your system is breathtaking on
vinyl, CD's don't measure up. ?I've had a similar problem and have
concluded that ?the best setup for either format is not the same
setup. ?I briefly tinkered with some digital correction, which is now
a really inexpensive option, ?and think it might be the answer but
haven't had time to really explore it.
Digital euphonic colorations. That makes perfect sense.

The difference being, it can be turned off. =A0Another difference being,
DSP can correct for real distortions that exist due to room and speaker p=
roperties.


Which has what to do with the subject of vinyl v. CD? Are you
suggesting that DSP room correction does not work when a record is
being played? Smells like a red herring to me.


DSP room correction deals with the speaker/room interface, not the source.
Therefore what it does for your system, it will do with any source material
digital or analog. It matters not.

[Audio Empire]

On Tue, 8 Feb 2011 07:24:26 -0800, Steven Sullivan wrote
(in article ):

Audio Empire wrote:
On Fri, 4 Feb 2011 20:36:28 -0800, bob wrote
(in article ):

On Feb 4, 6:46=A0pm, Scott wrote:

The answer is quite simple. Being a niche market, labels like Analog
Productions and Music Matters etc can obtain a licence at a reasonable
cost to remaster popular titles owned by the majors on vinyl and on
SACD. The majors retain the rights to make the CDs since that is where
the mass market is.

Interesting, although there obviously are plenty of cases where the
companies with the rights *have* granted licenses for audiophile CD
releases. So while this may be a factor it clearly isn't a full
explanation.

So you get the tender loving care in the mastering
for the niche market and the crap mastering for the mainstream market.
The same labels that do audiophile reissues are constantly trying to
get the rights to do CDs and some times they do get them.

Are the companies releasing the vinyl the same companies producing
audiophile CDs? I haven't looked closely, but I didn't get the sense
there was a lot of overlap there.

Not usually, no. An interesting case in point. When Philips hired the late
Wilma Cozart Fine to master the Mercury Living Presence catalog to CD, she
said that the resultant digital masters sounded exactly like the analog
masters (all of which she originally produced. She and her husband C.
Robert
Fine WERE, essentially, Mercury Living Presence Records). Yet a year or so
later, Classic Records hired her to master the 45 RPM 4-disc, 200 gram LP
of
one of those Philips CDs she mastered. The title was the "Firebird " ballet
by Stravinsky with the LSO/ Antal Dorati. I have both her CD and her LP of
that work. The Classic LP is absolutely breathtaking and the
Philips/Mercury
CD sounds terrible. It's thin, and shrill, and lacking in any sense of
dynamics at all. Now the same person supervised the mastering of BOTH of
these transfers of this material. Now, if Fine said that the digital
masters
sound so close to the analog masters that one cannot tell the difference,
then how come the CD she helped produce sounds so bad and the LP, which she
also helped to produce, sounds so unbelievably good?


1) maybe the masters would sound 'shrill' to you too.
2) maybe you like the euphonic distortions of vinyl
3) maybe the LP transfers were significantly EQ'd, in a way that you like


And maybe not. I record digitally all the time I record jazz, classical, wind
ensembles, orchestras, string quartets, big bands, small jazz quartets and
trios, etc. I get great results, The CDs I burn from my DSD or 24/192 masters
sound pretty much as good as CD can sound, and certainly better than any
vinyl LP. As for the LP transfer bering EQ'd, while it's possible, it's
unlikely because Bernie Grundman is too much of a purist for that. However,
IF he did EQ the LP mastering, he did the right thing, because I don't think
anybody would want to listen to the CD as presented. It's mediocre beyond
belief.


All of which is to say, someone else might find the SACD to sounds better
than
the LP.

I don't own the SACD of the Firebird on Mercury, but I have heard it. It's
definitely better than the 1991 CD release, but not as good as the Classic
LP. I wish I had bought it though, Amazon is selling it at as much as
$190/copy, USED! Can't imagine why.

So?

So what's your point?

[Audio Empire]

On Tue, 8 Feb 2011 07:02:37 -0800, Steven Sullivan wrote
(in article ):

Audio Empire wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 11:18:28 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Scott" wrote in message

.
We can find many explanations that are strictly due to
sound quality and have nothing to do with nostolgia or
rituals. The large body of better mastered LPs is a very
good and common reason for such a preference along with
the now well documented euphonic distortions that can
lead to a more convincing sense of spaciousness, richness
and realism.

There is no such thing as a "large body of better-mastered LPs", compared
to
the huge number of well-mastered CDs that continue to be produced.

Volume-wise, you're probably correct, but today's newly remastered and
newly
pressed vinyl from people like Classic Records et al, are generally of
older
titles that had a reputation for sounding great back in the day. These
include jazz titles from Verve, Blue Note, and Riverside, (the last two
largely recorded by Rudy Van Gelder), and classic titles from RCA Victor,
Mercury, British Decca, Vox Turnabout, and Everest among others. Just about
every vinyl title that ended up on somebody's "to die for" list is
available
again on really high quality pressings. Often these are DMM mastered and
pressed on 180 or 200 gram virgin vinyl, some are cut at 45 RPM, and some
are
even single-sided. All are much better than the original pressings from the
original label's manufacturing facilities. And where the same title is
also
available on CD, the vinyl USUALLY sounds better.


Says who?

Says ME! This is MY OPINION.

The majority of impartial listeners in a double-blind, level
matched comparison of media struck from exactly the same mastering chain?

Couldn't car less. This is not some subtle differences that amount to
counting angels dancing on the head of a pin. These are substantial
differences in content. These are cases where the CD doesn't ever turn-on my
self-powered subwoofers, but the LP does - and at exactly the same volume via
my HP 400E audio VTVM. This indicates that the low frequency content of the
CD is not sufficient to trigger the auto-on circuitry in the subs.

If not, or if such a subject pool doesn't exist in substantial numbers, then
to say it USUALLY sounds anything, is overstepping...unless you mean,
usually *to you*. In which case the caveats about DBT, level matched etc
still apply.

Of course they do,



is evident in the final product. and it's a very rare thing these days.
I've
noticed (as have others) that the JVC XRCD Red Book releases of the old RCA
Living Stereo titles actually sound MUCH superior to BMGs own SACD
remasterings of these same titles!

So, why would that be? Do you think the SACD releases, whose background has
was covered well in the audio press, actually was significantly less careful
than JVC's XRCDs?

Yes.

(Personally, I have the XRCD of the Reiner Bartok, and since getting the
3-channel SACD, haven't looked back. They both sound great to me.)


That's pretty irrelevant to the point here, isn't it Arny? Looks to me that
you have pulled up that old argument confusing quantity with quality. The
purpose of this exercise is to discuss the shortcomings of commercially
available CDs which make them APPEAR to be a medium that is inferior to LP,
SACD, DVD-A and high-resolution downloads, when in fact, it's purely the
execution of those CDs, and not the medium itself which is responsible for
these phenomenon.

Then you're confusing quality and quantity too. You're discussing pop CDs,
mostly. "Commercially available" CDs also include a subset of CDs
that aren't loudness war victims.

No I'm not. I don't listen to "pop" CDs - ever! I despise popular music and
think that a solid-body electric guitar makes among the ugliest sounds on
earth.

[Ed Seedhouse[_2_]]

On Feb 8, 4:32=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:

Couldn't car less. This is not some subtle differences that amount to
counting angels dancing on the head of a pin. These are substantial
differences in content. These are cases where the CD doesn't ever turn-on=
my
self-powered subwoofers, but the LP does - and at exactly the same volume=
via
my HP 400E audio VTVM. This indicates that the low frequency content of t=
he
CD is not sufficient to trigger the auto-on circuitry in the subs.

Most likely it means that the CD has no resonant hump right around
those frequencies, as records and LP playing equipment are well known
to have. And the person mastering hasn't put that hump in there but
recorded flat from the masters.

I have noticed the same thing with my own vinyl records in comparison
with a CD of the same record.

You are right, it is not subtle and I have heard it myself and in my
opinion it is there. But it's not an indication that the vinyl is
"better" than the CD version. No one is disputing here, that I have
seen, that vinyl sounds different then CD. These are, as far as I
know, merely facts, and well known ones. It's when you claim that
therefore the vinyl is objectively better that you leave, in my
opinion, the land of reason, at least on that matter.

[Sebastian Kaliszewski]

Scott wrote:
On Feb 8, 10:12=A0am, Sebastian Kaliszewski
wrote:
Scott wrote:

=A0 On Feb 7, 11:14=3DA0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
=A0 "Scott" wrote in message

=A0 "Scott" wrote in message
[snip]
=A0 Then why should we all be happy with the single set of
=A0 distortion artifacts that vinyl imposes on us?
=A0 A single set? really? All vinyl playback equipment sounds
=A0 the same?
=A0 The audible distortion that is inherent in vinyl comes from the sam=
e
laws=3D
=A0 =A0of
=A0 physics as applied to a very narrow implementation. =3DA0IME vinyl
playback
=A0 equipment has a very narrowly-defined set of colorations and
distortions.
=A0
=A0 Unfortunately your experience is painfully limited and colored with =
an
=A0 obvious bias. I have offered to put these and other such claims to t=
he
=A0 test under blind conditions but you refuse. That says it all.

Nope. The offer must be reasonable to begin with.

The offer is reasonable.

I could come with an offer to all the group as well. Lets perform the
whole test somewhere in Siberia -- it would be about equally hard to get
there for all the participants so this should make things even
All the expenses and visas and customs permits for the equpment are up
to participants

I guess you missed the part where I stated we could find a location
near enough to Arny's home that the travel woould not inconvenient
him. So is this a matter of the offer being unreasonable by me or
misunderstood by you?

But then, what is that *exact* location? And who would be the
'moderator'? How'd you trust her/him? Are you willing to travel near
Arny's to check if moderator is not cheating?

Then, this is just a discussion on a newsgroup. It's perfectly
conceivable for me, that for at least some participants arranging some
physical place for a test, attending the test, bringing up equipment,
it's simply too much hassle just for a great glory of winning an usenet
discussion.

[...]
=A0 That is especially true when you remain willfully
=A0 ignorant on the subject as shown in your description of the various
=A0 masterings of Pink Floyd's DSOTM which was something you cut and
=A0 pasted from wickipedia.
=A0

But what has the origin of quote to the discussed matters? And how it
shows someone's ignorance?

If one were not ignorant on the subject I suspect they would not cut
and paste a whoafully inadequate list of masterings. One would know
better if they were well versed on the subject

I see that simply as an case example of existence of many remasterings
of some title. Besides, this would be just an ignorance about details of
Pink Floyd discography, not about general matters of mastering to begin
with.


=A0
=A0 I know I don't have the technical
=A0 chops to mimic the euphonic colorations of my vinyl rig
=A0 Well, that's because those euphonic colorations are primarily a
creation =3D
=A0 of
=A0 your preferences.
=A0
=A0 Prove it. I've challenged you to do so under blind conditions and yo=
u
=A0 continue to be a no show.

You still did not show in Siberia. And I've challenged you! (Well, just
few paragraphs ago, but if you're serious you should be already in a
plane to Irkutsk )

Do you know the difference between a convenient location and Siberia?
It is much like the difference between a reasonable offer such as the
one I made and an unreasonable offer such as the one you are mockingly
making here. Perhaps you should read my offers more carefully before
equating a location that would not cause Arny any inconvenience with
Siberia.

Well, to nitpick, your offer is incomplete as you didn't propose who and
where (near somebody's home is a bit nebulous) would supervise the test.
Especially that I couldn't see any other active participant of this
newsgroup (there are not too many) who lives close to Arny. So "some
place near his home" and "some moderator" are, for now, rather
theoretical, abstract things/beings.

but on the same note you might want to learn more about the
body of masterings out there before asking why Arny's cut and paste
from wikipedia was evidence of his ignorance on the subject.

I still don't see how using convinient quotation from wikipedia as an
example has anything to do to knowledge about mastering. How not knowing
some Japaneese releases of some particular album shows anyting about
mastering knowledge. It might just show that that particular somebody is
not an expert in 70-ties rock discography.
Then, we know that Arny has at least some well documented audio
engneering backround (being for example an author of published papers),
and from his own account he works with audio recording at least from
time to time. From all I've read you have presented here about yourself,
you don't.

And the real fact is that you both are exchaning ad hominems, but that's
up to moderators (and as I see they act accordingly).


Back to being serious, Arny proposed much more realistic way to perform
the test. Yet you declined (and accused him of dishonesty as an excuse).

His proposition was not in any way more realistic. any meaningful test
needs moderation. I would think anyone with the most basic of
knowledge on such tests would understand this. The test was supposed
to be by ear only. Without moderation we would have no way of knowing
this was what happened. Sorry but no, I don't trust Arny to do the
test on his own by ear alone.

But the same test, if done as I sketeched it, would allow to many other
people to listen for themselves. Are you assuming that all the
participants here are dishonest?

Doing the test at a convenient location
for Arny under moderation is not an unreasonable test.

See few paragraphs above.



But his proposal could be quite easily modified, so none of his alleged
by you dishonesty could play a role. Just put audio samples on the net,
and allow all the interested people to listen for themselves.

Sorry but this doe not force people to make a determination by ear
alone. Your ideas simply do not offer reasonable controls under the
circumstances of the debate.

But it allows the participants to check for themselves. It would help
them to make their own mind about the subject. Of course, it wouldn't be
a formal test, good for publishing results in a form of some journal
paper, but come on, this is just an usenet dicussion not scientific debate.



If the
samples are not whole tunes, but just fragments it would certailnly be a
fair use and would not violate copyrights.

Copyright is not my concern. Insuring the test is done by ear alone
is.


And it'd be really interesting to see who is right.

Would you like to do the test?

Yes. But to see for myself I could just click some tunes in
Firefox/Chrome/Internet Expoler.


Certainly there must be a location near
you that is convenient. not going to ask you to travel to Siberia.
Heck, given the opportunity I'd come visit you and we could do it on
your system. Would that be too unreasonable?

I'm no sure if thraveling to "the other side of the pond" (aka Atlantic
Ocean) and then some would be reasonable to you

Well, its porpably a bit better than Siberia, as there are more
connections here and at least stuff like need to obtain an entry visa is
not an issue (but custom controls still could).


=A0 It's easy to talk the talk. let's see you
=A0 walk the walk.

So, will you do the walk (as described above)?

I will happily participate in the test so long as there is a control
that prevents the testee from using any means other than his or her
own listening abilities to make a determination. so now the offer goes
out to you. Are you going to wlak or talk?

So, are you willing to travel 5-7 thousand miles, thake the records and
equipment via customs, and handle all the expenses?

Yet, if you want to actually demonstrate what you claim and not just win
the debate, you could just demonstrate by putting some files on the net
and ask to determine by ear which comes from a vinyl and which from
digital source. I could then listen, judge for myself and make my mind.
Others would too. And there could be additional benefits for some -- If
for example someone owns a turntable and while (s)he could hear the
distortions on her/his setup, while could not on your provied files, one
could get to know, that their setup could see some improvement, that the
audible distotrions are not inherent in the medium, but just an effect
of their setup.

rgds
\SK
--
"Never underestimate the power of human stupidity" -- L. Lang
--
http://www.tajga.org -- (some photos from my travels)

[Harry Lavo]

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
Audio Empire wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 16:02:30 -0800, Scott wrote
(in article ):

how can you claim to speak authoritatively about how digital releases
sound?

I don't claim any authority. My opinion is my opinion. But my opinion
is based on extensive comparisons. I base my opinion on how digital
releases sound by playing them on my system.

And on the result of those comparisons, I concur. CD rarely sounds as
good
as it could or should sound and in instances where a CD and a vinyl
release
of the same title exist, the LP usually sounds better, as I said before.


Let's remember some history. The fanbase most excited about the coming
of CD circa 1982 wasn't rock or pop or country or jazz. It was
'classical'
fans. These were the listeners championing 'high fidelity' the most
consistently over the previous decades. They were excited about a medium
that promised perfect pitch consistentcy, lack of tracking distortion and
wear, 96dB of dynamic range, flat frequency response from 20Hz to 20kHz,
and immunity from 'pops and tics'.


And then they heard the early CD's, and that started the anti-CD sentiment.

And it has been classical recording which has continued to hold out
longest against the 'loudness wars' (though some recordings have
succumbed).

Yep, so?

Do classical releases typically get an LP version these days? And if so,
does it usually 'sound better'?


No, because the convenience of not having to change sides overwhelms
everything else....and the state-of-the-art has progressed substantially.
But there has been a strong movement towards SACD among classical musical
lovers. Why do you suppose that is?

[Scott[_6_]]

On Feb 9, 4:57=A0am, Ed Seedhouse wrote:
On Feb 8, 4:32=3DA0pm, Audio Empire wrote:



Couldn't car less. This is not some subtle differences that amount to
counting angels dancing on the head of a pin. These are substantial
differences in content. These are cases where the CD doesn't ever turn-=
on=3D
=A0my
self-powered subwoofers, but the LP does - and at exactly the same volu=
me=3D
=A0via
my HP 400E audio VTVM. This indicates that the low frequency content of=
t=3D
he
CD is not sufficient to trigger the auto-on circuitry in the subs.

Most likely it means that the CD has no resonant hump right around
those frequencies, as records and LP playing equipment are well known
to have. =A0And the person mastering hasn't put that hump in there but
recorded flat from the masters.

Wow that is so not the most likely explination. If the sub isn't going
on nothing is present in the signal. Nothing.


I have noticed the same thing with my own vinyl records in comparison
with a CD of the same record.

That the CD doesn't even engage your sub and the LPs do? Really?



You are right, it is not subtle and I have heard it myself and in my
opinion it =A0is there. =A0But it's not an indication that the vinyl is
"better" than the CD version. =A0No one is disputing here, that I have
seen, that vinyl sounds different then CD. =A0These are, as far as I
know, merely facts, and well known ones. =A0It's when you claim that
therefore the vinyl is objectively better that you leave, in my
opinion, the land of reason, at least on that matter.

He didn't claim they were objectively better. He claimed they were
subjectively better. You know, the kind of better that atually matters
in audio.

[Audio Empire]

On Wed, 9 Feb 2011 04:57:15 -0800, Ed Seedhouse wrote
(in article ):

On Feb 8, 4:32=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:

Couldn't car less. This is not some subtle differences that amount to
counting angels dancing on the head of a pin. These are substantial
differences in content. These are cases where the CD doesn't ever turn-on=
my
self-powered subwoofers, but the LP does - and at exactly the same volume=
via
my HP 400E audio VTVM. This indicates that the low frequency content of t=
he
CD is not sufficient to trigger the auto-on circuitry in the subs.

Most likely it means that the CD has no resonant hump right around
those frequencies, as records and LP playing equipment are well known
to have. And the person mastering hasn't put that hump in there but
recorded flat from the masters.

I have noticed the same thing with my own vinyl records in comparison
with a CD of the same record.

Reasonable, except that if this were true, it would be fairly common between
CDs and LPs. It isn't, Ed. Only the Firebird does this. Most of my CDs and my
records have decent bass, and bot trigger the subs to turn on pretty
consistently. Also, the anomaly is present with any cartridge (I have 4
cartridges at the moment: Sumiko Blackbird, Benz Glider, Soundsmith 'Carmen',
and a Shure V-15/V MR).

You are right, it is not subtle and I have heard it myself and in my
opinion it is there. But it's not an indication that the vinyl is
"better" than the CD version. No one is disputing here, that I have
seen, that vinyl sounds different then CD. These are, as far as I
know, merely facts, and well known ones. It's when you claim that
therefore the vinyl is objectively better that you leave, in my
opinion, the land of reason, at least on that matter.

And it's not just the bass either. It's the whole shooting match, dynamics,
high frequencies, everything. And the reason is not as important as the
results. The fact remains that the LP (in this particular case and a few
others) sounds more like live music to me (and everyone else to whom I've
demonstrated this).