Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Jenn
 
Posts: n/a
Default Heaven!

So, after a week of living with the Clearaudio TT/arm/cartridge, I love
it more and more. The sound that I am getting from my records is just
so effortless and easy... like a good concert hall. I just put on
several CDs, and I just don't get that with them. The timbres are
thinner and less life-like. I wish that it were the other way around,
but it's not. If this is due to "euphonic distortion", bring on more of
it!
  #2   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
So, after a week of living with the Clearaudio TT/arm/cartridge, I love
it more and more. The sound that I am getting from my records is just
so effortless and easy... like a good concert hall. I just put on
several CDs, and I just don't get that with them. The timbres are
thinner and less life-like. I wish that it were the other way around,
but it's not. If this is due to "euphonic distortion", bring on more of
it!


One man's euphonic distortion is another man's compression.
I would find it interesting to know what, if any differences in the mix
might be.
My suspcion is that the LP mix you like is simply different than that of the
same recordings on CD.


  #3   Report Post  
Harry Lavo
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
So, after a week of living with the Clearaudio TT/arm/cartridge, I love
it more and more. The sound that I am getting from my records is just
so effortless and easy... like a good concert hall. I just put on
several CDs, and I just don't get that with them. The timbres are
thinner and less life-like. I wish that it were the other way around,
but it's not. If this is due to "euphonic distortion", bring on more of
it!


I just copied a few CD's for my daughter...Joan Jett's first two
albums...her favs and very danceable. Copied them first through my main
system analog to a Marantz 530 pro recorder circa 1999..using a 4x Samsung
CD-R (top quality)..this was in real time. This was recorded near-maximum
signal but at no time did the overload light come on. Then copied that via
my DAW at 16x to another CD-R (current Memorex 52X variety) using a full
disk copy.

On these two records there are several tracks that have much ambience
surrounding back up vocals. Also, several tracks with featured drum
segments with extremely natural sounding drum recording. On my LP rig (Dual
701, Accuphase AC-2, modified Marcof PPA-2 headamp), these tracks sounded
very fine...the backups floated in natural ambience, and the drums sounded
taut and with extremely natural sounding transients.

On the direct-recorded 4X CD, the ambience comes through okay. But
transients in general and especially on the drum sound "sharp" and
unnatural. Moreover, the drums loose their "tautness" and sound "hollow".

On the second recording (52X CD recorded at 16X) the recording has
deteriorated...with "grunge" creeping into the sound, ambience greatly
reduced, and both the transient info and "hollowness" of the drum sound
deteriorated further, almost to the point of pain in listening.

I don't know how to record to CD any cleaner than the Marantz transfer...and
the effects here were remarkably defined. I've also recorded other disks
this way (Dylan, other folk-rockers) and felt they didn't sound quite as
good as the vinyl, but didn't pay as much attention to why.

This is the first time I tried a second generation copy on my DAW, and I was
taken aback by how bad it sounded. It is possible that the "read" CD-RW/R
player was having trouble picking up a clean transfer from the original
CD-R, but I think it goes beyond that. For I have also noticed that CD
transfers done one-to-one on the DAW don't sound nearly as clean as CD
transfers from my main system to the Marantz through my DTI Pro - Proceed
Converter chain. .I have some hunches about why this may be so, but need to
do more investigation.

My conclusion: take what you hear about the transparency of CD's with two,
maybe three grains of salt. Some of it may be equipment- or blank-induced,
but the deterioration is noticeable in a side-by-side -- ranging from subtle
to apparent. And if this is true in home recording under controlled
conditions, it is also likely true (as has been asserted) in production runs
of commercial CD's.

  #4   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Jenn wrote:
So, after a week of living with the Clearaudio TT/arm/cartridge, I love
it more and more. The sound that I am getting from my records is just
so effortless and easy... like a good concert hall. I just put on
several CDs, and I just don't get that with them. The timbres are
thinner and less life-like. I wish that it were the other way around,
but it's not. If this is due to "euphonic distortion", bring on more of
it!


We know the objectivists think it is euphonic distortion.

The funny thing is, I have NEVER, not ONCE met an objectivist who could
accurately repeat the description of vinyl provided by those who think
vinyl is truer to life.

For example, we get all this stuff about "midrange phasiness",
"enhanced ambience", "pleasant timbre," etc.

Of course, none of that describes the reason I like vinyl---and your
word "effortless" above conveys this: the way the sound comes to my
attention, how it feels to pay attention to it, particularly to pay
attention to multiple voices, more accurately reflects live listening.

And of course I get the same effect from analog tape, so this matter
goes beyond vinyl-specific distortions.

I also think it is amusing that the objectivists suggest that people
who, as their full-time job, discern small differences in timbre, and
have a mature "taste" (not simply wowed over by "more midrange" or
"more ambience") would somehow drop all mature discernment and be
unable to judge the "lifelike" quality of different means of
reproduction.

For example, I doubt that you think "more ambience" is always
better--you think the RIGHT AMOUNT of ambience is best.

I doubt you think that a "warmer tone" is always better--you think that
the right tone for the job is best.

I challenge any objectivist here to simply repeat the arguments I've
made above in their own words without distorting my meaning. It has
never been done before.

Mike
  #5   Report Post  
Jenn
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
So, after a week of living with the Clearaudio TT/arm/cartridge, I love
it more and more. The sound that I am getting from my records is just
so effortless and easy... like a good concert hall. I just put on
several CDs, and I just don't get that with them. The timbres are
thinner and less life-like. I wish that it were the other way around,
but it's not. If this is due to "euphonic distortion", bring on more of
it!


One man's euphonic distortion is another man's compression.
I would find it interesting to know what, if any differences in the mix
might be.
My suspcion is that the LP mix you like is simply different than that of the
same recordings on CD.


Hmmm... generally, I don't know. But, the classical and solo folk
guitar recordings I tend to listen to the minimum miking, so minimum
mixing differences, I would imagine.


  #7   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default Heaven!

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
...
"Jenn" wrote in message
...
So, after a week of living with the Clearaudio TT/arm/cartridge, I love
it more and more. The sound that I am getting from my records is just
so effortless and easy... like a good concert hall. I just put on
several CDs, and I just don't get that with them. The timbres are
thinner and less life-like. I wish that it were the other way around,
but it's not. If this is due to "euphonic distortion", bring on more of
it!


I just copied a few CD's for my daughter...Joan Jett's first two
albums...her favs and very danceable. Copied them first through my main
system analog to a Marantz 530 pro recorder circa 1999..using a 4x Samsung
CD-R (top quality)..this was in real time. This was recorded near-maximum
signal but at no time did the overload light come on. Then copied that via
my DAW at 16x to another CD-R (current Memorex 52X variety) using a full
disk copy.

On these two records there are several tracks that have much ambience
surrounding back up vocals. Also, several tracks with featured drum
segments with extremely natural sounding drum recording. On my LP rig
(Dual
701, Accuphase AC-2, modified Marcof PPA-2 headamp), these tracks sounded
very fine...the backups floated in natural ambience, and the drums sounded
taut and with extremely natural sounding transients.

On the direct-recorded 4X CD, the ambience comes through okay. But
transients in general and especially on the drum sound "sharp" and
unnatural. Moreover, the drums loose their "tautness" and sound "hollow".

On the second recording (52X CD recorded at 16X) the recording has
deteriorated...with "grunge" creeping into the sound, ambience greatly
reduced, and both the transient info and "hollowness" of the drum sound
deteriorated further, almost to the point of pain in listening.

I don't know how to record to CD any cleaner than the Marantz
transfer...and
the effects here were remarkably defined. I've also recorded other disks
this way (Dylan, other folk-rockers) and felt they didn't sound quite as
good as the vinyl, but didn't pay as much attention to why.

That just helps prove what has been said many times, that feelings and bias
don't have much to do with reality, since a CD copy is an exact copy of
whatever thesource material was. It is possible to loose some of the
quality of the source if you copy at to fast a rate.
IIRC 4X is the max.


This is the first time I tried a second generation copy on my DAW, and I
was
taken aback by how bad it sounded. It is possible that the "read" CD-RW/R
player was having trouble picking up a clean transfer from the original
CD-R, but I think it goes beyond that.


Then to discuss it properly, one would need to know whar were the
circumstnaces.

For I have also noticed that CD
transfers done one-to-one on the DAW don't sound nearly as clean as CD
transfers from my main system to the Marantz through my DTI Pro - Proceed
Converter chain. .I have some hunches about why this may be so, but need
to
do more investigation.


Whatever, it is not a fault with the fact that it is a digital recording.

My conclusion: take what you hear about the transparency of CD's with two,
maybe three grains of salt.


Only in the sense thatif somebody tells you there some problem with making a
digital copy they are incorrect. Done properly, you get an exact copy.

Some of it may be equipment- or blank-induced,
but the deterioration is noticeable in a side-by-side -- ranging from
subtle
to apparent.


Check the instructions for making a music CD, as data CD copies have
different rules.

And if this is true in home recording under controlled
conditions, it is also likely true (as has been asserted) in production
runs
of commercial CD's.

Nope, that's bias.
  #8   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default Heaven!

wrote in message
...
Jenn wrote:
So, after a week of living with the Clearaudio TT/arm/cartridge, I love
it more and more. The sound that I am getting from my records is just
so effortless and easy... like a good concert hall. I just put on
several CDs, and I just don't get that with them. The timbres are
thinner and less life-like. I wish that it were the other way around,
but it's not. If this is due to "euphonic distortion", bring on more of
it!


We know the objectivists think it is euphonic distortion.

The funny thing is, I have NEVER, not ONCE met an objectivist who could
accurately repeat the description of vinyl provided by those who think
vinyl is truer to life.


It's like arguing with someone who is convinced that God exists and that
miracles happen. There is no way that an inferior medium can be better than
an inferior one.
Vinyl playback is limited by the medium which is inherently flawed. It is
rife with distortions of speed accuracy, wow and flutter and the media that
it is transcibed on, not to mention the differences in equipment.

For example, we get all this stuff about "midrange phasiness",
"enhanced ambience", "pleasant timbre," etc.

It's not stuff, it's the way it is.


Of course, none of that describes the reason I like vinyl---and your
word "effortless" above conveys this: the way the sound comes to my
attention, how it feels to pay attention to it, particularly to pay
attention to multiple voices, more accurately reflects live listening.


The differences are due to the way LP's are mixed and the things you are
used to.


And of course I get the same effect from analog tape, so this matter
goes beyond vinyl-specific distortions.


Again, you'd have to see how they were mixed.

I also think it is amusing that the objectivists suggest that people
who, as their full-time job, discern small differences in timbre, and
have a mature "taste" (not simply wowed over by "more midrange" or
"more ambience") would somehow drop all mature discernment and be
unable to judge the "lifelike" quality of different means of
reproduction.


It's not possible for a medium limited in dynamic range the way LP is to be
as lifelike as a CD recording, assuming it used the full capability for
dynamic range available for a CD recording.

For example, I doubt that you think "more ambience" is always
better--you think the RIGHT AMOUNT of ambience is best.

I think the right amount is the amount that the recoring engineer applied,
no more and no less.

I doubt you think that a "warmer tone" is always better--you think that
the right tone for the job is best.


I think the right amount is the amount that the engineer applied, no more,no
less.

I challenge any objectivist here to simply repeat the arguments I've
made above in their own words without distorting my meaning. It has
never been done before.

Oooh, you've set up a self fulfilling prophecy.

You like what you like for anynumber of reasons, none of which have to do
with LP playback or analog tape being any way superior to digital recording.

The best way to hear what teh artist and engineer intended you to hear is
from a digital recording.
  #9   Report Post  
BEAR
 
Posts: n/a
Default Heaven!

wrote:
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
...

"Jenn" wrote in message
...


snip


Then to discuss it properly, one would need to know whar were the
circumstnaces.




Whatever, it is not a fault with the fact that it is a digital recording.

Whatever that means... there are many potential "faults" in CDR
recordings, the "fact" that they are "digital" does not assure in and of
itself anything with regard to results or quality.


My conclusion: take what you hear about the transparency of CD's with two,
maybe three grains of salt.



Only in the sense thatif somebody tells you there some problem with making a
digital copy they are incorrect. Done properly, you get an exact copy.


Done properly needs to be carefully defined.
As with everything else, "done properly" - ipso facto there being no
problems to find - is essentially a tautology, and meaningless without
context.


Some of it may be equipment- or blank-induced,



but the deterioration is noticeable in a side-by-side -- ranging from
subtle
to apparent.



Check the instructions for making a music CD, as data CD copies have
different rules.


Harry did say: DAW.


And if this is true in home recording under controlled

conditions, it is also likely true (as has been asserted) in production
runs
of commercial CD's.


Nope, that's bias.


Sorry, it was found some years back that a seemingly insignificant
problem with clocks in digital "pressing" and "mastering" at the plant
was in fact screwing up the *results*.

There are all sorts of seemingly insignificant things that can and do
mess with the data retrieval from Redbook CDs...

It's just not all plain vanilla in the digital domain, and the process
of turning it back into analog. Perhaps nearly so, and perhaps better
than cassette, but not perfect and not infallible.

_-_-bear
  #10   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default Heaven!

Most of your post here expresses the basic objectivist's error of
conflating measured (objective) performance with the *experience* of
listening to something. More specific points below:

wrote:
wrote in message
...
Jenn wrote:
So, after a week of living with the Clearaudio TT/arm/cartridge, I love
it more and more. The sound that I am getting from my records is just
so effortless and easy... like a good concert hall. I just put on
several CDs, and I just don't get that with them. The timbres are
thinner and less life-like. I wish that it were the other way around,
but it's not. If this is due to "euphonic distortion", bring on more of
it!


We know the objectivists think it is euphonic distortion.

The funny thing is, I have NEVER, not ONCE met an objectivist who could
accurately repeat the description of vinyl provided by those who think
vinyl is truer to life.


It's like arguing with someone who is convinced that God exists and that
miracles happen. There is no way that an inferior medium can be better than
an inferior one.
Vinyl playback is limited by the medium which is inherently flawed. It is
rife with distortions of speed accuracy, wow and flutter and the media that
it is transcibed on, not to mention the differences in equipment.

For example, we get all this stuff about "midrange phasiness",
"enhanced ambience", "pleasant timbre," etc.

It's not stuff, it's the way it is.


Of course, none of that describes the reason I like vinyl---and your
word "effortless" above conveys this: the way the sound comes to my
attention, how it feels to pay attention to it, particularly to pay
attention to multiple voices, more accurately reflects live listening.


The differences are due to the way LP's are mixed and the things you are
used to.


Funny--what I'm "used to" is live music. This is also true for the
numerous musicians and engineers who share my view that analog has
higher fidelity to life.

I listen mostly to perspective-miked classical, so I don't know what
"mixing" has to do with it.



And of course I get the same effect from analog tape, so this matter
goes beyond vinyl-specific distortions.


Again, you'd have to see how they were mixed.


"Mixed" seems to be your magic word for explaining any "preference" or
particular subjective experience.


I also think it is amusing that the objectivists suggest that people
who, as their full-time job, discern small differences in timbre, and
have a mature "taste" (not simply wowed over by "more midrange" or
"more ambience") would somehow drop all mature discernment and be
unable to judge the "lifelike" quality of different means of
reproduction.


It's not possible for a medium limited in dynamic range the way LP is to be
as lifelike as a CD recording, assuming it used the full capability for
dynamic range available for a CD recording.

For example, I doubt that you think "more ambience" is always
better--you think the RIGHT AMOUNT of ambience is best.

I think the right amount is the amount that the recoring engineer applied,
no more and no less.


The recording engineer *applied*??? I guess you are in a different
world, but in perspective-miked classical recording, the right amount
is the amount that was actually present in the hall. Many listeners,
musicians, and engineers experience analog as doing the better job of
getting that right.


I doubt you think that a "warmer tone" is always better--you think that
the right tone for the job is best.


I think the right amount is the amount that the engineer applied, no more,no
less.


The right amount is the amount the musician used in performing. It's
funny how the objectivists think that musicians who modulate their tone
carefully so that it has the right balance for the job, would think
that arbitrarily changing the tonal balance would be an improvement!



I challenge any objectivist here to simply repeat the arguments I've
made above in their own words without distorting my meaning. It has
never been done before.

Oooh, you've set up a self fulfilling prophecy.


Check your dictionary.. a prophecy requires future tense. I would be
happy to have an objectivist accurately repeat my arguments, but it has
never been done before.. certainly not by you.


You like what you like for anynumber of reasons, none of which have to do
with LP playback or analog tape being any way superior to digital recording.


What you seem to mean by this is that *you* are more comfortable with
any number of reasons other than "analog is more lifelike," because you
wouldn't know how to explain that.


The best way to hear what teh artist and engineer intended you to hear is
from a digital recording.


Funny that many artists and engineers disagree.

Mike


  #11   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default Heaven!

wrote:
wrote in message
...
Jenn wrote:
So, after a week of living with the Clearaudio TT/arm/cartridge, I love
it more and more. The sound that I am getting from my records is just
so effortless and easy... like a good concert hall. I just put on
several CDs, and I just don't get that with them. The timbres are
thinner and less life-like. I wish that it were the other way around,
but it's not. If this is due to "euphonic distortion", bring on more of
it!


We know the objectivists think it is euphonic distortion.

The funny thing is, I have NEVER, not ONCE met an objectivist who could
accurately repeat the description of vinyl provided by those who think
vinyl is truer to life.


It's like arguing with someone who is convinced that God exists and that
miracles happen.




i find arguing with objectivists to be very muh like this. Your
following statements are very much on that level as i will demonstrate.



There is no way that an inferior medium can be better than
an inferior one.




assuming you meant superior one, lest look at this statement and how it
resembles your characterizaton of some people. your statemnet assumes
facts in it's premise and makes value judgements as though they were
objective. i might agree with you an say that vinyl as a superior
medium cannot be bettered by CD, an inferior medium. But that would be
a silly dogmatic claim. it assumes that both technologies are monliths
without any degree of technological variations. It ignores all the rst
that goes into producing a CD or LP. It simplifies a complex
comparison. Very much what the miracle believer does as well. Anyone
who believes an LP cannot sound better than a CD or visa versa is being
a true believer and is not using their powers of observation.



Vinyl playback is limited by the medium which is inherently flawed.



So are CDs.


It is
rife with distortions of speed accuracy, wow and flutter and the media that
it is transcibed on, not to mention the differences in equipment.



Actually this is a common false claim made by many objectivists.
audible speed acuracy distortions , wow and flutter and the like are
not inherent distortons in the medium but problems that can be found in
less than ideal playback equipment and less than ideal mnufactured LPs.
one can find numerous ugly distortions in poorly produced CDs and badly
engineered CD players. For some reason advocates of CD like to compare
the theretical ideal of CD to something far less than the actual ideal
of vinyl playback. IOW they like to stack the deck against LP playback.
What good does this do for the person interested in getting the best
sound? Nothing. The lesson of value is in the listening and that does
not involve comparing theoretical specs against specs of substandard
equipment. It involves extensive side by side comparisons with one's
biases set aside if possible. I have learned that it simply isn't
possible for some people. that is their loss.



For example, we get all this stuff about "midrange phasiness",
"enhanced ambience", "pleasant timbre," etc.

It's not stuff, it's the way it is.



How do you know? you can hear a more realistic redition of a title on
LP and identify that greater realism as midrange phasiness? I'd like to
see that.





Of course, none of that describes the reason I like vinyl---and your
word "effortless" above conveys this: the way the sound comes to my
attention, how it feels to pay attention to it, particularly to pay
attention to multiple voices, more accurately reflects live listening.


The differences are due to the way LP's are mixed and the things you are
used to.



That makes no sense given the fact that the vast majority of titles
available on LP and CD come from the same mix. many audiphiles who
prefer LPs to CDs by and large are quite used to the sound of the real
thing.





And of course I get the same effect from analog tape, so this matter
goes beyond vinyl-specific distortions.


Again, you'd have to see how they were mixed.



Again, they are almost always the ame mix.




I also think it is amusing that the objectivists suggest that people
who, as their full-time job, discern small differences in timbre, and
have a mature "taste" (not simply wowed over by "more midrange" or
"more ambience") would somehow drop all mature discernment and be
unable to judge the "lifelike" quality of different means of
reproduction.


It's not possible for a medium limited in dynamic range the way LP is to be
as lifelike as a CD recording, assuming it used the full capability for
dynamic range available for a CD recording.




Spoken like a true believer. to heck with the observations of the
educated listener we know the truth already no matter what the
practical evidence suggest.




For example, I doubt that you think "more ambience" is always
better--you think the RIGHT AMOUNT of ambience is best.

I think the right amount is the amount that the recoring engineer applied,
no more and no less.




That is an odd claim. Now recoring enginees are creators of reference.
no thank you. Too many bad recording engineers.





I doubt you think that a "warmer tone" is always better--you think that
the right tone for the job is best.


I think the right amount is the amount that the engineer applied, no more,no
less.



In the world of classical music you would be quite wrong most of the
time. Rare is the recording engineer that creates a recording that
allows the listener to even have a taste of what one experiences in the
concert hall.




I challenge any objectivist here to simply repeat the arguments I've
made above in their own words without distorting my meaning. It has
never been done before.

Oooh, you've set up a self fulfilling prophecy.



IOW he has objectivists pegged. he makes a good point though. if an
objectivist cannot accurately voice the POW of the subjectivist then
the objectivist really doesn't understand the opposing POV.




You like what you like for anynumber of reasons, none of which have to do
with LP playback or analog tape being any way superior to digital recording.



One down and how many to go. you did fail the challenge. Next?




The best way to hear what teh artist and engineer intended you to hear is
from a digital recording.



Yep, spoken like a true believer. simple answers for complex questions.
sadly you are exluding yourself from some terrific, often superior
sound with this mantra. oh well.




Scott
  #12   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default Heaven!

wrote:
wrote:
wrote in message
...
Jenn wrote:
So, after a week of living with the Clearaudio TT/arm/cartridge, I love
it more and more. The sound that I am getting from my records is just
so effortless and easy... like a good concert hall. I just put on
several CDs, and I just don't get that with them. The timbres are
thinner and less life-like. I wish that it were the other way around,
but it's not. If this is due to "euphonic distortion", bring on more of
it!

We know the objectivists think it is euphonic distortion.

The funny thing is, I have NEVER, not ONCE met an objectivist who could
accurately repeat the description of vinyl provided by those who think
vinyl is truer to life.


It's like arguing with someone who is convinced that God exists and that
miracles happen.




i find arguing with objectivists to be very muh like this. Your
following statements are very much on that level as i will demonstrate.



There is no way that an inferior medium can be better than
an inferior one.




assuming you meant superior one, lest look at this statement and how it
resembles your characterizaton of some people. your statemnet assumes
facts in it's premise and makes value judgements as though they were
objective. i might agree with you an say that vinyl as a superior
medium cannot be bettered by CD, an inferior medium. But that would be
a silly dogmatic claim. it assumes that both technologies are monliths
without any degree of technological variations. It ignores all the rst
that goes into producing a CD or LP. It simplifies a complex
comparison. Very much what the miracle believer does as well. Anyone
who believes an LP cannot sound better than a CD or visa versa is being
a true believer and is not using their powers of observation.



Vinyl playback is limited by the medium which is inherently flawed.



So are CDs.


It is
rife with distortions of speed accuracy, wow and flutter and the media that
it is transcibed on, not to mention the differences in equipment.



Actually this is a common false claim made by many objectivists.
audible speed acuracy distortions , wow and flutter and the like are
not inherent distortons in the medium but problems that can be found in
less than ideal playback equipment and less than ideal mnufactured LPs.
one can find numerous ugly distortions in poorly produced CDs and badly
engineered CD players. For some reason advocates of CD like to compare
the theretical ideal of CD to something far less than the actual ideal
of vinyl playback. IOW they like to stack the deck against LP playback.
What good does this do for the person interested in getting the best
sound? Nothing. The lesson of value is in the listening and that does
not involve comparing theoretical specs against specs of substandard
equipment. It involves extensive side by side comparisons with one's
biases set aside if possible. I have learned that it simply isn't
possible for some people. that is their loss.



For example, we get all this stuff about "midrange phasiness",
"enhanced ambience", "pleasant timbre," etc.

It's not stuff, it's the way it is.



How do you know? you can hear a more realistic redition of a title on
LP and identify that greater realism as midrange phasiness? I'd like to
see that.


Hi Scott,

Your response hear makes me think of something.

Objectivists *expect* to hear vinyl as less true to life since that is
the way it measures. And, yes, they agree vinyl has a specific *sound*
to it--and the words they choose to describe this sound *always* imply
something unlife-like or lower fidelity to the master tape. Meanwhile,
other people use words to describe the "sound of vinyl" which imply
*greater* fidelity to life. This simple fact has never been
acknowledged by the objectivists--not *one* has ever been able to
repeat back the way I describe vinyl without substituting their own
words. My challenge stands: to any objectivist, repeat how I've
described vinyl in your own words without distorting my meaning.

Mike
  #13   Report Post  
Norman M. Schwartz
 
Posts: n/a
Default Heaven!

wrote in message
...

This simple fact has never been
acknowledged by the objectivists--not *one* has ever been able to
repeat back the way I describe vinyl without substituting their own
words. My challenge stands: to any objectivist, repeat how I've
described vinyl in your own words without distorting my meaning.

My challenge:
It depends upon the azimuth, tracking angle, overhang, tracking weight,
degree of anti-skate applied, turntable and geometry and material of
attached tone arm, the condition of elastomer suspension ( how dried up it
is), degree of smoke and pollution in the environment, relative humidity,
and last but not least; how large of a dust ball has adhered to the stylus?
(There must be many other factors I've overlooked.)
  #14   Report Post  
Jenn
 
Posts: n/a
Default Heaven!

In article ,
wrote:

Jenn wrote:
So, after a week of living with the Clearaudio TT/arm/cartridge, I love
it more and more. The sound that I am getting from my records is just
so effortless and easy... like a good concert hall. I just put on
several CDs, and I just don't get that with them. The timbres are
thinner and less life-like. I wish that it were the other way around,
but it's not. If this is due to "euphonic distortion", bring on more of
it!


We know the objectivists think it is euphonic distortion.

The funny thing is, I have NEVER, not ONCE met an objectivist who could
accurately repeat the description of vinyl provided by those who think
vinyl is truer to life.

For example, we get all this stuff about "midrange phasiness",
"enhanced ambience", "pleasant timbre," etc.

Of course, none of that describes the reason I like vinyl---and your
word "effortless" above conveys this: the way the sound comes to my
attention, how it feels to pay attention to it, particularly to pay
attention to multiple voices, more accurately reflects live listening.

And of course I get the same effect from analog tape, so this matter
goes beyond vinyl-specific distortions.


Just a moment ago, I listened to the Speaker's Corner reissue of the
Fennell/Eastman Wind Ensemble Mercury recording of Grainger:
Linclonshire Posy (for the first time with my new TT rig.) Now, I know
this recording REALLY well; the conductor was my mentor, I've heard
music in the Eastman Theater several times, and there are, frankly, only
maybe 20 or 30 people in the world who know this work as well as I do.
I've heard a first generation copy of the master tape. For the past 7
years or so, I've only heard the Mercury CD reissue of this recording.
My CD player (Rotel) is highly rated by the "guru" magazines, but is not
of the very high priced variety. I last conducted this work 5 months
ago, for the 9th time.

I swear to you that I was in tears listening to this LP tonight. There
is so much more MUSIC there. There is also more objective information;
lines that one doesn't hear on the CD, timbres that are more "true" on
the LP, etc. But mostly I'm struck by the message of Percy and Fred
that comes though so much more clearly on this recording. The
difference, in this case at least, between the media has never been more
clear to me.

I also think it is amusing that the objectivists suggest that people
who, as their full-time job, discern small differences in timbre, and
have a mature "taste" (not simply wowed over by "more midrange" or
"more ambience") would somehow drop all mature discernment and be
unable to judge the "lifelike" quality of different means of
reproduction.

For example, I doubt that you think "more ambience" is always
better--you think the RIGHT AMOUNT of ambience is best.

I doubt you think that a "warmer tone" is always better--you think that
the right tone for the job is best.


I don't understand this either, but....whatever. I don't claim that
either media is more "accurate" than another, or that one displays "less
distortion" than another. All is know is that based on my very real
daily exposure to live acoustic music, analogue gets it right
(especially instrumental and vocal timbres) more often ON AVERAGE than
does digital.

I challenge any objectivist here to simply repeat the arguments I've
made above in their own words without distorting my meaning. It has
never been done before.

Mike

  #15   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default Heaven!

Jenn wrote:
In article ,
wrote:

Jenn wrote:
So, after a week of living with the Clearaudio TT/arm/cartridge, I love
it more and more. The sound that I am getting from my records is just
so effortless and easy... like a good concert hall. I just put on
several CDs, and I just don't get that with them. The timbres are
thinner and less life-like. I wish that it were the other way around,
but it's not. If this is due to "euphonic distortion", bring on more of
it!


We know the objectivists think it is euphonic distortion.

The funny thing is, I have NEVER, not ONCE met an objectivist who could
accurately repeat the description of vinyl provided by those who think
vinyl is truer to life.

For example, we get all this stuff about "midrange phasiness",
"enhanced ambience", "pleasant timbre," etc.

Of course, none of that describes the reason I like vinyl---and your
word "effortless" above conveys this: the way the sound comes to my
attention, how it feels to pay attention to it, particularly to pay
attention to multiple voices, more accurately reflects live listening.

And of course I get the same effect from analog tape, so this matter
goes beyond vinyl-specific distortions.


Just a moment ago, I listened to the Speaker's Corner reissue of the
Fennell/Eastman Wind Ensemble Mercury recording of Grainger:
Linclonshire Posy (for the first time with my new TT rig.) Now, I know
this recording REALLY well; the conductor was my mentor, I've heard
music in the Eastman Theater several times, and there are, frankly, only
maybe 20 or 30 people in the world who know this work as well as I do.
I've heard a first generation copy of the master tape. For the past 7
years or so, I've only heard the Mercury CD reissue of this recording.
My CD player (Rotel) is highly rated by the "guru" magazines, but is not
of the very high priced variety. I last conducted this work 5 months
ago, for the 9th time.

I swear to you that I was in tears listening to this LP tonight. There
is so much more MUSIC there. There is also more objective information;
lines that one doesn't hear on the CD, timbres that are more "true" on
the LP, etc. But mostly I'm struck by the message of Percy and Fred
that comes though so much more clearly on this recording. The
difference, in this case at least, between the media has never been more
clear to me.

I also think it is amusing that the objectivists suggest that people
who, as their full-time job, discern small differences in timbre, and
have a mature "taste" (not simply wowed over by "more midrange" or
"more ambience") would somehow drop all mature discernment and be
unable to judge the "lifelike" quality of different means of
reproduction.

For example, I doubt that you think "more ambience" is always
better--you think the RIGHT AMOUNT of ambience is best.

I doubt you think that a "warmer tone" is always better--you think that
the right tone for the job is best.


I don't understand this either, but....whatever. I don't claim that
either media is more "accurate" than another, or that one displays "less
distortion" than another. All is know is that based on my very real
daily exposure to live acoustic music, analogue gets it right
(especially instrumental and vocal timbres) more often ON AVERAGE than
does digital.


I agree. If this occurs due to a distortion in vinyl, no one has EVER
proposed such a distortion that would accurately convey the musician's
intentions---and you have hit the nail on the head, it is the
musician's intentions that come through clearly. I feel free to use the
word "accurate" since there is an original event which is being
reproduced--namely the intentions of the musicians.

Every single proposed distortion mechanism of analog, *without
exception* would change some aspect of the sound in a way that brings
it further from the musician's intentions.

Not only have the objectivists never proposed a distortion mechanism
that would more accurately convey musical intentions, they have never
even been able to repeat back this simple description of analog.

Mike


  #16   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default Heaven!

wrote in message
...
Most of your post here expresses the basic objectivist's error of
conflating measured (objective) performance with the *experience* of
listening to something. More specific points below:


wrote:
wrote in message
...
Jenn wrote:
So, after a week of living with the Clearaudio TT/arm/cartridge, I
love
it more and more. The sound that I am getting from my records is just
so effortless and easy... like a good concert hall. I just put on
several CDs, and I just don't get that with them. The timbres are
thinner and less life-like. I wish that it were the other way around,
but it's not. If this is due to "euphonic distortion", bring on more
of
it!

We know the objectivists think it is euphonic distortion.

The funny thing is, I have NEVER, not ONCE met an objectivist who could
accurately repeat the description of vinyl provided by those who think
vinyl is truer to life.


It's like arguing with someone who is convinced that God exists and that
miracles happen. There is no way that an inferior medium can be better
than
an inferior one.
Vinyl playback is limited by the medium which is inherently flawed. It
is
rife with distortions of speed accuracy, wow and flutter and the media
that
it is transcibed on, not to mention the differences in equipment.

For example, we get all this stuff about "midrange phasiness",
"enhanced ambience", "pleasant timbre," etc.

It's not stuff, it's the way it is.


Of course, none of that describes the reason I like vinyl---and your
word "effortless" above conveys this: the way the sound comes to my
attention, how it feels to pay attention to it, particularly to pay
attention to multiple voices, more accurately reflects live listening.


The differences are due to the way LP's are mixed and the things you are
used to.


Funny--what I'm "used to" is live music. This is also true for the
numerous musicians and engineers who share my view that analog has
higher fidelity to life.

And you've never been made aware of the fact that audio memory is incredibly
bad, it is completeley worthless after a few seconds, which is what quickly
switching between 2 sources is preferred?

I listen mostly to perspective-miked classical, so I don't know what
"mixing" has to do with it.

That would seem to be obvious.

The mix for LP's tends to be different than that for CD. or some other
digital medium.
Depending on the music and the engineer things like compression may be used,
that wouldn't be necessary (although sometimes still are) for a digital
recording.


And of course I get the same effect from analog tape, so this matter
goes beyond vinyl-specific distortions.


Again, you'd have to see how they were mixed.


"Mixed" seems to be your magic word for explaining any "preference" or
particular subjective experience.


Not alt all, only when tlaking about different media. A surround mix is
different than a 2 channel one and CD mix is often different from an LP one,

I also think it is amusing that the objectivists suggest that people
who, as their full-time job, discern small differences in timbre, and
have a mature "taste" (not simply wowed over by "more midrange" or
"more ambience") would somehow drop all mature discernment and be
unable to judge the "lifelike" quality of different means of
reproduction.


You haven't read Mr. sullivan's post below yet then about how badly such
people
tend to do.


It's not possible for a medium limited in dynamic range the way LP is to
be
as lifelike as a CD recording, assuming it used the full capability for
dynamic range available for a CD recording.

For example, I doubt that you think "more ambience" is always
better--you think the RIGHT AMOUNT of ambience is best.

I think the right amount is the amount that the recoring engineer
applied,
no more and no less.


The recording engineer *applied*??? I guess you are in a different
world, but in perspective-miked classical recording, the right amount
is the amount that was actually present in the hall. Many listeners,
musicians, and engineers experience analog as doing the better job of
getting that right.

They are entitled to their opinion, but since abience tends to live in teh
low frequency area, and since LP can't go as low as CD, then..........well
you get the picture.

I doubt you think that a "warmer tone" is always better--you think that
the right tone for the job is best.


I think the right amount is the amount that the engineer applied, no
more,no
less.


The right amount is the amount the musician used in performing. It's
funny how the objectivists think that musicians who modulate their tone
carefully so that it has the right balance for the job, would think
that arbitrarily changing the tonal balance would be an improvement!

And yet it happens. If the engineer and the artists agree not to play with
the amibeince, I applaud them for that. The more lifelike the recording the
better IMO.


I challenge any objectivist here to simply repeat the arguments I've
made above in their own words without distorting my meaning. It has
never been done before.

Oooh, you've set up a self fulfilling prophecy.


Check your dictionary.. a prophecy requires future tense. I would be
happy to have an objectivist accurately repeat my arguments, but it has
never been done before.. certainly not by you.

Since yo are issuing a challenge for something tohappen which hasn't yet, I
just assumed it would take place in the future.


You like what you like for any number of reasons, none of which have to
do
with LP playback or analog tape being any way superior to digital
recording.


What you seem to mean by this is that *you* are more comfortable with
any number of reasons other than "analog is more lifelike," because you
wouldn't know how to explain that.

Actually it's because with a digital recording and someone with a modicum of
expertise, recording any kind of music, digital recording is capable of more
of what you want in a recirding, accuracy, FR, dynamic range, and so on. In
short it's capable of more realism.
If that's not your experience then either you have had exremely bad luck
finding decent digital recordings or you just have a bias of some sort,
probably based on what you grew used to. That's all well and good, it
doesn't change the fact that digital recording is superior and more real
sounding when you look at all the things that pertain to live music.

The best way to hear what the artist and engineer intended you to hear is
from a digital recording.


Funny that many artists and engineers disagree.

We should poll them then. :-)
  #18   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default Heaven!

wrote:
wrote in message
...
Most of your post here expresses the basic objectivist's error of
conflating measured (objective) performance with the *experience* of
listening to something. More specific points below:


wrote:
wrote in message
...
Jenn wrote:
So, after a week of living with the Clearaudio TT/arm/cartridge, I
love
it more and more. The sound that I am getting from my records is just
so effortless and easy... like a good concert hall. I just put on
several CDs, and I just don't get that with them. The timbres are
thinner and less life-like. I wish that it were the other way around,
but it's not. If this is due to "euphonic distortion", bring on more
of
it!

We know the objectivists think it is euphonic distortion.

The funny thing is, I have NEVER, not ONCE met an objectivist who could
accurately repeat the description of vinyl provided by those who think
vinyl is truer to life.


It's like arguing with someone who is convinced that God exists and that
miracles happen. There is no way that an inferior medium can be better
than
an inferior one.
Vinyl playback is limited by the medium which is inherently flawed. It
is
rife with distortions of speed accuracy, wow and flutter and the media
that
it is transcibed on, not to mention the differences in equipment.

For example, we get all this stuff about "midrange phasiness",
"enhanced ambience", "pleasant timbre," etc.

It's not stuff, it's the way it is.


Of course, none of that describes the reason I like vinyl---and your
word "effortless" above conveys this: the way the sound comes to my
attention, how it feels to pay attention to it, particularly to pay
attention to multiple voices, more accurately reflects live listening.


The differences are due to the way LP's are mixed and the things you are
used to.


Funny--what I'm "used to" is live music. This is also true for the
numerous musicians and engineers who share my view that analog has
higher fidelity to life.

And you've never been made aware of the fact that audio memory is incredibly
bad, it is completeley worthless after a few seconds, which is what quickly
switching between 2 sources is preferred?


Oh, I get it.. audio memory is bad.

I thought that when musicians rehearsed, they were perceiving the
quality of their sound, and evolving that quality toward the desired
goal... each day. But since audio memory doesn't last more than a few
seconds, I see now that they are just making random changes and
shooting in the dark. Thanks for clearing that up!

I THINK I like the LA Philharmonic, but of course I've never heard a
quick-switching test between them and the Pasadena Symphony so I have
to admit in the end I just don't know.

I also thought that when Stradavari made a violin, he got better at it
over time because he got better at fine-tuning the wood by ear. But
obviously no such thing is possible, now that you've informed me audio
memory lasts just a few seconds!

You've made everything so much clearer!

Mike
  #20   Report Post  
ScottW
 
Posts: n/a
Default Heaven!

wrote:
wrote in message
...
wrote:
wrote:
wrote in message
...

Hi Scott,

Your response hear makes me think of something.

Objectivists *expect* to hear vinyl as less true to life since that is
the way it measures.


It's not an expectation, it's simply the way it is and has always been from
the very first digital recording I ever heard, classical by the way. At 56
years old I grew up listening to LP's, so it's not like I never hear them or
only had brief exposure to them. But the very fist time I ever heard a CD I
knew ho badly LP sucked.

And, yes, they agree vinyl has a specific *sound*
to it--and the words they choose to describe this sound *always* imply
something unlife-like or lower fidelity to the master tape. Meanwhile,
other people use words to describe the "sound of vinyl" which imply
*greater* fidelity to life. This simple fact has never been
acknowledged by the objectivists--not *one* has ever been able to
repeat back the way I describe vinyl without substituting their own
words. My challenge stands: to any objectivist, repeat how I've
described vinyl in your own words without distorting my meaning.

It would be unreasonable to call LP more lifelike when it is so vastly
inferior in cpaturing dynamic range and so full of noise, and speed
variations.


Statements like this lead me to believe that you did not have the
priviledge of even a modest performing vinyl rig. I haven't
experienced audible speed variations since my BSR changer days of high
school. Even my ultimate in simplicity AR-XA was capable of accurate
speed.
Many records are noisy but I do have a few well made and maintained
that won't obviously tip people off to the vinyl source clearly
demonstrating the technology is capable.
What is left to debate but dynamic range? Yes, some CDs are superior
in that regard while many more are compressed and clipped.

IMO, CD might enable a skilled recording engineer to produce a
superior product, but it doesn't guarantee it.

I have a simple theory why I think vinyl can sound more realistic. It
has to do with the supposedly inferior channel separation of vinyl.
Seems to me that the vinyl soundstage is often more realistic as it
loses pinpoint focus (as most live venues do) due to less than perfect
channel separation. I suspect, based on my system, that this also
enhances an illusion of depth to the soundstage that a CD doesn't
always create.

ScottW


  #22   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default Heaven!

wrote:
wrote in message
...
wrote:
wrote:
wrote in message
...

Hi Scott,

Your response hear makes me think of something.

Objectivists *expect* to hear vinyl as less true to life since that is
the way it measures.


It's not an expectation, it's simply the way it is and has always been from
the very first digital recording I ever heard, classical by the way. At 56
years old I grew up listening to LP's, so it's not like I never hear them or
only had brief exposure to them. But the very fist time I ever heard a CD I
knew ho badly LP sucked.

And, yes, they agree vinyl has a specific *sound*
to it--and the words they choose to describe this sound *always* imply
something unlife-like or lower fidelity to the master tape. Meanwhile,
other people use words to describe the "sound of vinyl" which imply
*greater* fidelity to life. This simple fact has never been
acknowledged by the objectivists--not *one* has ever been able to
repeat back the way I describe vinyl without substituting their own
words. My challenge stands: to any objectivist, repeat how I've
described vinyl in your own words without distorting my meaning.

It would be unreasonable to call LP more lifelike when it is so vastly
inferior in cpaturing dynamic range and so full of noise, and speed
variations.


It would be unreasonable to call CD more lifelike when it is so vastly
inferior at conveying the musician's intentions.

I challenge you to show even a glimmer of understanding of what I mean
by that.

Mike
  #25   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default Heaven!

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
your preference is based on artifacts *added* by
vinyl. That you *think* they sound more natural, in a 'whiter than
white' kind of way, doesn't make it so. Same applies to Jenn.


Once again, an objectivist shows he cannot repeat my description of
analog. First of all, drop "vinyl" from your statement--it is all
analog. Second, no recording matches the qualities of live music,
including the initimate connection to the musician's intentions that is
possible--but analog, for my ears (and apparently for Jenn's) gets
closer. Choosing analogies such as "whiter than white" demonstrates
that you don't understand this basic experience.

Amateur musicians such as myself and even more so professional
musicians such as Jenn are aware that music exists as a balance of
qualties. The only distortion mechanisms you've ever proposed, if they
were the cause of this vinyl preference, would *upset*, not *preserve*
these balances. You have never proposed a distortion mechanism that
would preserve the musician's intentions, and yet that is how I (and
apparently Jenn) experience analog.

Mike


  #27   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default Heaven!

wrote in message
...
wrote:
wrote in message
...
wrote:
wrote:
wrote in message
...
Hi Scott,

Your response hear makes me think of something.

Objectivists *expect* to hear vinyl as less true to life since that is
the way it measures.


It's not an expectation, it's simply the way it is and has always been
from
the very first digital recording I ever heard, classical by the way. At
56
years old I grew up listening to LP's, so it's not like I never hear them
or
only had brief exposure to them. But the very fist time I ever heard a
CD I
knew ho badly LP sucked.

And, yes, they agree vinyl has a specific *sound*
to it--and the words they choose to describe this sound *always* imply
something unlife-like or lower fidelity to the master tape. Meanwhile,
other people use words to describe the "sound of vinyl" which imply
*greater* fidelity to life. This simple fact has never been
acknowledged by the objectivists--not *one* has ever been able to
repeat back the way I describe vinyl without substituting their own
words. My challenge stands: to any objectivist, repeat how I've
described vinyl in your own words without distorting my meaning.

It would be unreasonable to call LP more lifelike when it is so vastly
inferior in cpaturing dynamic range and so full of noise, and speed
variations.


It would be unreasonable to call CD more lifelike when it is so vastly
inferior at conveying the musician's intentions.

Which musicians are not involved in the mixing process of their work?


I challenge you to show even a glimmer of understanding of what I mean
by that.

You can't mean anything by that, since it would mean that the musicans are
not involved in the mixdown process.

One hopes that the musicians intent is to present as lifelike a presentation
of his/her work as possible. CD conveys that you are there feeling much
better, IMO. I know there are some musicans who prefer analog recordings to
digital, but for music with any sort of dynamics it makes no sense to me.

Then there's the issue of generation loss that would come from analog
recordings, unless transferred to a digital medium, they will deteriorate.
Tranfering to a digital medium means you have an exact copy that can be
copied endless times.

Enjoy what you like, I do.
  #28   Report Post  
chung
 
Posts: n/a
Default Heaven!

wrote:
wrote:
wrote in message
...
wrote:
wrote:
wrote in message
...
Hi Scott,

Your response hear makes me think of something.

Objectivists *expect* to hear vinyl as less true to life since that is
the way it measures.


It's not an expectation, it's simply the way it is and has always been from
the very first digital recording I ever heard, classical by the way. At 56
years old I grew up listening to LP's, so it's not like I never hear them or
only had brief exposure to them. But the very fist time I ever heard a CD I
knew ho badly LP sucked.

And, yes, they agree vinyl has a specific *sound*
to it--and the words they choose to describe this sound *always* imply
something unlife-like or lower fidelity to the master tape. Meanwhile,
other people use words to describe the "sound of vinyl" which imply
*greater* fidelity to life. This simple fact has never been
acknowledged by the objectivists--not *one* has ever been able to
repeat back the way I describe vinyl without substituting their own
words. My challenge stands: to any objectivist, repeat how I've
described vinyl in your own words without distorting my meaning.

It would be unreasonable to call LP more lifelike when it is so vastly
inferior in cpaturing dynamic range and so full of noise, and speed
variations.


It would be unreasonable to call CD more lifelike when it is so vastly
inferior at conveying the musician's intentions.


But have you considered all possible ear-brain contexts? You know the
whole-person response is very complex, so how can you say that with any
certainty? What did you listen to prior to coming up with that
conclusion, and have you controlled it? Was that statement based on
"directed" or "free-floating" attention? And how many musicians have you
surveyed? How do you know what the musicians' intentions were? See, if
you only consider one extremely narrow context, out of many, many,
possible contexts, of course you may not realize that vinyl is actually
much inferior than CD's when it comes to conveying musicians'
intentions, let alone the intentions of the recording engineers.

Without considering all those contexts, you might as well say elephants
fly! It would have been equally silly.


I challenge you to show even a glimmer of understanding of what I mean
by that.


We're not really interested in understanding what you meant by that,
because obviously that was based on one single context only, and an
extremely narrow one at that.

Now, can you show a glimmer of understanding what I mean by the above
paragraph?


Mike

  #29   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default Heaven!

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 19 Oct 2005 02:29:12 GMT, wrote:

Not only have the objectivists never proposed a distortion mechanism
that would more accurately convey musical intentions, they have never
even been able to repeat back this simple description of analog.


More to the point, they have never agreed with your insistence that
vinyl sounds more natural.



Which is kind of silly given that it is to some degree a subjective
matter.


More natural than what?



Than their CD counterparts.

The original tape?



In xome cases according to some of the best mastering engineers in the
world. Neither of us would know though since we haven't had the
privilidge of making those comparisons.


The original mic feed?



Same answer as above.


The original performance?



Never. that is the ultimate reference.





What remains true is that you can make a digital recording of an LP
which is audibly indistinguishable from the original LP.



You can also make one that is not.



This is
pretty much definite proof that digital audio can be totally
transparent, and that your preference is based on artifacts *added* by
vinyl.





While that may be true to a degree it is not a fact that all or even
many commercial CDs sound exactly like the master tapes from which they
were made nor is it alay o even often desirable for that to happen.
And that is supported by testimony of many of the best recording and
mastering engineers in the business.



That you *think* they sound more natural, in a 'whiter than
white' kind of way, doesn't make it so.



Actually it does. It is a matter of opinion and opinions other than
yours count as well.




Same applies to Jenn.



Heaven forbid anyone should listen to the opinions of what sounds more
natural in playback from someone who lives and works wit live music.


Scott
  #30   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default Heaven!

wrote:

Amateur musicians such as myself and even more so professional
musicians such as Jenn are aware that music exists as a balance of
qualties. The only distortion mechanisms you've ever proposed, if they
were the cause of this vinyl preference, would *upset*, not *preserve*
these balances. You have never proposed a distortion mechanism that
would preserve the musician's intentions, and yet that is how I (and
apparently Jenn) experience analog.


Yet more evidence that your perceptions are not necessarily a good
measure of objective reality.

Those distortions are there, easily measurable, and--by the standards
of modern audio reproduction--quite large in magnitude. Given that, we
have a limited number of possible explanations for the common
perception that vinyl is closer to the live event (however you may wish
to express that):

1) These distortions are euphonic--they may be distortions, but they
sound good to you, and may in some ways evoke things that please you
when listening to live music.

2) Your perceptions are affected by non-sonic
considerations--nostalgia, exclusivity, price, etc.

3) There is some distortion mechanism in digital which we can neither
define nor measure, but is substantially worse than any known,
measurable distortion in vinyl.

Jenn, to her great credit, has been honest enough to say that she
doesn't care why vinyl sounds better to her, it just does. Would that
all vinylphiles could just live with that.

bob


  #31   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default Heaven!

I had some superb LP equipment. If I never hear another LP in my life,
that will be too soon..

I hate LPs!

Compression. Inner-groove distortion. Pops. Ticks. Rumble. Wow.
Flutter.

Good riddance!

Jenn wrote:
So, after a week of living with the Clearaudio TT/arm/cartridge, I love
it more and more. The sound that I am getting from my records is just
so effortless and easy... like a good concert hall. I just put on
several CDs, and I just don't get that with them. The timbres are
thinner and less life-like. I wish that it were the other way around,
but it's not. If this is due to "euphonic distortion", bring on more of
it!

  #32   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default Heaven!

On 21 Oct 2005 05:33:12 GMT, Jenn wrote:

In article ,
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

On 19 Oct 2005 02:29:12 GMT, wrote:

Not only have the objectivists never proposed a distortion mechanism
that would more accurately convey musical intentions, they have never
even been able to repeat back this simple description of analog.


More to the point, they have never agreed with your insistence that
vinyl sounds more natural. More natural than what? The original tape?
The original mic feed? The original performance?

What remains true is that you can make a digital recording of an LP
which is audibly indistinguishable from the original LP.


I hope to hear this comparison soon.

This is
pretty much definite proof that digital audio can be totally
transparent, and that your preference is based on artifacts *added* by
vinyl. That you *think* they sound more natural, in a 'whiter than
white' kind of way, doesn't make it so. Same applies to Jenn.


Again, I don't care why LPs overall sound more like music to me.


That's a perfectly fair point, and completely unarguable.

For
all I care, maybe it's because Lenny Bernstein wore polkadotted panties
when he made them. I only know that they do. I know what music sounds
like, and to my ears (the only ones that I listen with) LPs sound more
like that than do CDs.


That's absolutely fine. However, it remains *your* opinion, and is not
shared by others with just as much musical experience as you have.
There are no absolutes here, and I find well-made CD to be closer to
the sound of a live performance, and certainly lacking all the
irritating non-musical artifacts of typical vinyl replay which can
intrude, and suspend the suspension of disbelief, so to speak.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
  #33   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default Heaven!

On 21 Oct 2005 05:14:44 GMT, wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 19 Oct 2005 02:29:12 GMT,
wrote:

Not only have the objectivists never proposed a distortion mechanism
that would more accurately convey musical intentions, they have never
even been able to repeat back this simple description of analog.


More to the point, they have never agreed with your insistence that
vinyl sounds more natural.


Actually you have demonstrated precisely, once again, that you miss the
point. I have never insisted that *everyone* finds it "more natural." I
have stated that some people find analog to have a number of qualities
that are truer to the experience of listening live.


And other people do not. What you have never answered is the basic
conundrum that it's p[ossible to make a digital recording ov vinyl
which is sonically indistinguishable from the original. This is
compelling evidence that what *you* happen to prefer about analogue is
the *added* artifacts, not anything that digital mysteriously loses.

No objectivist has
ever been able to repeat back this list of qualities without
substituting their own language.


Perhaps you fail to understand that no one actually cares about your
foot-stamping on this point.

Here, for example, you could have
simply repeated my statement that analog more accurately conveys
musical intentions--not that that would have demonstrated you
understood it--but you chose not to.


That would be because I do not agree with it.

More natural than what? The original tape?
The original mic feed? The original performance?


I think you know perfectly well what the answer to this question is.


With you, one *never* knows what you actually mean, since you
continually evade any specific points that are made.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
  #34   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default Heaven!

On 21 Oct 2005 05:38:30 GMT, wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
your preference is based on artifacts *added* by
vinyl. That you *think* they sound more natural, in a 'whiter than
white' kind of way, doesn't make it so. Same applies to Jenn.


Once again, an objectivist shows he cannot repeat my description of
analog.


Do not confuse 'cannot' with 'will not'.

First of all, drop "vinyl" from your statement--it is all
analog.


That is a ludicrous statement, as it would include cassette and AM
radio. I have yet to hear any serious audiphile argue that these are
superior to CD. At the other extreme, I seriously doubt that you have
ever heard a 30ips studio master.

Second, no recording matches the qualities of live music,
including the initimate connection to the musician's intentions that is
possible--but analog, for my ears (and apparently for Jenn's) gets
closer. Choosing analogies such as "whiter than white" demonstrates
that you don't understand this basic experience.


No, choosing such an analogy demonstrates that you missed the point.
It is my belief that your opinion is based on a 'technicolor' vision
of reality, which seems to you more real than the paler colours of the
real thing.

Amateur musicians such as myself and even more so professional
musicians such as Jenn are aware that music exists as a balance of
qualties.


Oh please, enough with the pretension! I've been a regular
concert-goer for forty years, and my musical appreciation is certainly
a match for many musicians. OTOH, as a long-term audiophile, my sense
of the *fidelity* of a reproduced musical event is certainly more
acute than that of most of the professional musicians of my
acquaintance. In point of fact, musos are *notorious* for their poor
hi-fi rigs, since they are generally listening on a different plane.

The only distortion mechanisms you've ever proposed, if they
were the cause of this vinyl preference, would *upset*, not *preserve*
these balances.


No, as mentioned ad nauseam, they are *euphonic* distortions.

You have never proposed a distortion mechanism that
would preserve the musician's intentions, and yet that is how I (and
apparently Jenn) experience analog.


You have absolutely no idea what were the intentions of the musician.
This is mere pretension.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
  #35   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default Heaven!

On 21 Oct 2005 05:54:57 GMT, wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 19 Oct 2005 02:29:12 GMT,
wrote:

Not only have the objectivists never proposed a distortion mechanism
that would more accurately convey musical intentions, they have never
even been able to repeat back this simple description of analog.


More to the point, they have never agreed with your insistence that
vinyl sounds more natural.



Which is kind of silly given that it is to some degree a subjective
matter.


'Objectivist' is merely a convenient nametag, not an actual
description. Personally, I prefer 'reliabel and repeatable
subjectivist'. ABX is a *listening* test, remember?

More natural than what?


Than their CD counterparts.

The original tape?


In xome cases according to some of the best mastering engineers in the
world. Neither of us would know though since we haven't had the
privilidge of making those comparisons.


The original mic feed?



Same answer as above.


The original performance?



Never. that is the ultimate reference.


Ah well, now that's where my alarm bell rings. It's my impression that
those well-known euphonic artifacts of both vinyl and analogue tape
(remember that Iain has confirmed that many musos ask for an 'analogue
pass-through' of a *digital* recording) provide an *enhanced* version
of reality that does, as I previously mentioned. look 'whiter than
white' to people like Michael, Jenn and yourself.


What remains true is that you can make a digital recording of an LP
which is audibly indistinguishable from the original LP.


You can also make one that is not.


There is no tachnology which cannot be badly implemented - this is
hardly a decent rebuttal.

This is
pretty much definite proof that digital audio can be totally
transparent, and that your preference is based on artifacts *added* by
vinyl.


While that may be true to a degree it is not a fact that all or even
many commercial CDs sound exactly like the master tapes from which they
were made nor is it alay o even often desirable for that to happen.
And that is supported by testimony of many of the best recording and
mastering engineers in the business.


I think you'll find that many musicians would be pretty upset to think
that a mastering engineer would *deliberately* change the sound of the
final mixdown master!

That you *think* they sound more natural, in a 'whiter than
white' kind of way, doesn't make it so.


Actually it does. It is a matter of opinion and opinions other than
yours count as well.


No, it's not a matter of opinion. Which version you *prefer* is a
matter of opinion, but which is really closer to the original sound is
not.

Same applies to Jenn.


Heaven forbid anyone should listen to the opinions of what sounds more
natural in playback from someone who lives and works wit live music.


Heaven forbid that anyone should think that gives her opinion more
weight than that of someone who has spent decades trying to improve
the sound of reproduced music in their home - when not concert-going.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering


  #37   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default Heaven!

wrote:
wrote:

Amateur musicians such as myself and even more so professional
musicians such as Jenn are aware that music exists as a balance of
qualties. The only distortion mechanisms you've ever proposed, if they
were the cause of this vinyl preference, would *upset*, not *preserve*
these balances. You have never proposed a distortion mechanism that
would preserve the musician's intentions, and yet that is how I (and
apparently Jenn) experience analog.


Yet more evidence that your perceptions are not necessarily a good
measure of objective reality.


Rather, your measurements are not necessarily a good description of the
reality of experience.


Those distortions are there, easily measurable, and--by the standards
of modern audio reproduction--quite large in magnitude. Given that, we
have a limited number of possible explanations for the common
perception that vinyl is closer to the live event (however you may wish
to express that):

1) These distortions are euphonic--they may be distortions, but they
sound good to you, and may in some ways evoke things that please you
when listening to live music.


If you wish to undermine the ability of a musician to judge whether a
recording accurately captures their intentions, then you wish to
undermine the whole basis by which musicians get better at their craft
over time. Or recording engineers.

So once again an objectivist must substitute his own langauge. Now we
have vague statements like "sounds good" or "evoke things" (whatever
these 'things' are). How a distortion could more accurately convey
musical intentions remains unexplained.

Mike
  #38   Report Post  
ScottW
 
Posts: n/a
Default Heaven!

" wrote in message

extended FR, it all


Could you explain why you think LP cannot exceed CD in this category?

ScottW
  #39   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default Heaven!

wrote:
wrote:

Amateur musicians such as myself and even more so professional
musicians such as Jenn are aware that music exists as a balance of
qualties. The only distortion mechanisms you've ever proposed, if they
were the cause of this vinyl preference, would *upset*, not *preserve*
these balances. You have never proposed a distortion mechanism that
would preserve the musician's intentions, and yet that is how I (and
apparently Jenn) experience analog.


Yet more evidence that your perceptions are not necessarily a good
measure of objective reality.



I think ths statement says a lot about your misunderstandings of the
relationship or lack there of between human perceptions and this so
called "objective rality."




Those distortions are there, easily measurable, and--by the standards
of modern audio reproduction--quite large in magnitude.



By any standards? I'd like to see the evidence that the inherent
distortions of the medium are quite large in magnitude in relationhip
to the human experience of listening to stereo playback of commercial
recordings. that is after all the only relevant measure of distortion
in audiophilia other than the same for the recording end of things.



Given that, we
have a limited number of possible explanations for the common
perception that vinyl is closer to the live event (however you may wish
to express that):



While i agree that the number of exlinations are limited I don't agree
that you found all the posible explinations. kind of reminds me of your
previous lists of all poible explinations for things. I think it is
more a reflection of your biases than of rality. Just my opinion.




1) These distortions are euphonic--they may be distortions, but they
sound good to you, and may in some ways evoke things that please you
when listening to live music.

2) Your perceptions are affected by non-sonic
considerations--nostalgia, exclusivity, price, etc.

3) There is some distortion mechanism in digital which we can neither
define nor measure, but is substantially worse than any known,
measurable distortion in vinyl.



1. There are some, many distortions that can be found in the practical
implimentation of digital recording, mastering, transfer and production
of CDs that can be measured but are ignored or simply accepted by many
proucers of commercial CDs.

2. There are considerations in the mastering proccess needed to get the
most life like sound from an original recording in a commercial release
that simply isn't being taken care of in the mastering step of many
CDs.

3. some distortions inherent in LP playback are analogous with the
sound of live music and do make for more life like sound on many
commercial recordings. Not exactly the same as a so called euphonic
distortion but more specific and less identifiable by ear other than
the greater life like quality.

4. people who cannot accept the reality of others finding LPs more life
like in many instances are affected by their own biases based on
limited ideas of what is possible.





Jenn, to her great credit, has been honest enough to say that she
doesn't care why vinyl sounds better to her, it just does. Would that
all vinylphiles could just live with that.



They would still be attacked by some objectivists for simply having an
opinion just as Jenn and I have. Oh well.



Scott
  #40   Report Post  
Jenn
 
Posts: n/a
Default Heaven!

In article ,
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

On 21 Oct 2005 05:33:12 GMT, Jenn wrote:

In article ,
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

On 19 Oct 2005 02:29:12 GMT, wrote:

Not only have the objectivists never proposed a distortion mechanism
that would more accurately convey musical intentions, they have never
even been able to repeat back this simple description of analog.

More to the point, they have never agreed with your insistence that
vinyl sounds more natural. More natural than what? The original tape?
The original mic feed? The original performance?

What remains true is that you can make a digital recording of an LP
which is audibly indistinguishable from the original LP.


I hope to hear this comparison soon.

This is
pretty much definite proof that digital audio can be totally
transparent, and that your preference is based on artifacts *added* by
vinyl. That you *think* they sound more natural, in a 'whiter than
white' kind of way, doesn't make it so. Same applies to Jenn.


Again, I don't care why LPs overall sound more like music to me.


That's a perfectly fair point, and completely unarguable.

For
all I care, maybe it's because Lenny Bernstein wore polkadotted panties
when he made them. I only know that they do. I know what music sounds
like, and to my ears (the only ones that I listen with) LPs sound more
like that than do CDs.


That's absolutely fine. However, it remains *your* opinion,


Of course, and I've never stated otherwise.

and is not
shared by others with just as much musical experience as you have.


I'm sure that that's true, though frankly I've never spoken to anyone
like that.

There are no absolutes here, and I find well-made CD to be closer to
the sound of a live performance, and certainly lacking all the
irritating non-musical artifacts of typical vinyl replay which can
intrude, and suspend the suspension of disbelief, so to speak.

Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
HDTV in heaven Edwin Pawlowski Car Audio 3 April 16th 05 02:24 PM
*Thank Heaven For Arnie Kroo* Le Lionellaise Audio Opinions 0 September 15th 03 01:44 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:04 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"