| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#1
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The truth about accuracy of CD v. LP
Perhaps a beaten horse but still a hot topic. Before going into my
views on the subject v. the views of objectivists I would like to pose some of my impressions about objectivist views to objectivists. Just to get a fair representation of those views I would like to hear from objectivists on the accuracy of my impressions . It is my impression that 1. objectivists believe that commerical CDs from thier intorduction to the market place to the present are audibly transparent transfers of the signal used to make them. 2. Objectivists blame any faults of commercial CD sound to the poor quality of the original recordings or bad choices made by mastering engineers but never blame the actual digital conversion or manugfacturing of those CDs. 3. Objectivists believe that CDs in the cases that no tweaking has been done by the mastering engineers always present a more accurate sounding version of that master than any LP played back on any TT rig and thus will offer a more accurate representation of the artists/producer/ engineer's intentions as well as a more accurate reproduction of the master. 4. Objectivists believe the often cited preference for LPs to CDs when not a result of mastering differences is often the result of euphonic colorations inherent in LPs as a medium and that while some may like them they are never more accurate to the master tape or even the original sound of a live recording. 5. Objectivists believe the primary source of preferences for LPs over CDs by vinyl enthusiasts is mostly a result of biases. Let me know if I am making any misrepresentations of objectivists beliefs on this subject. |
|
#2
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
The truth about accuracy of CD v. LP
I think the objectivist position is not that CDs are perfect, but that they
are uniformly good. |
|
#3
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
The truth about accuracy of CD v. LP
|
|
#4
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
The truth about accuracy of CD v. LP
Just as one example, I can hear the harmonic quality of intervals in
analog. A fifth on a harpsichord is a beautiful, stable interval, that makes musical sense in context. On CD, this quality of beauty is lost. If distortion is what creates this wonderful effect (even though for some reason this effect resembles live music) then so be it. It is perfectly possible for even-harmonic distortion to enhance the harmonies in music. |
|
#5
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
The truth about accuracy of CD v. LP
MC wrote:
I think the objectivist position is not that CDs are perfect, but that they are uniformly good. Or rather, capable of more objectively *accurate* reproduction of the source, than LP. -- -S "If men were angels, no government would be necessary." - James Madison (1788) |
|
#6
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
The truth about accuracy of CD v. LP
Let me know if I am making any misrepresentations of objectivists
beliefs on this subject. Just one. Some people prefer beer to burgundy, some people prefer rye to Napoleon brandy, and some people prefer Twinkies to mousse. Without reference to which is which, the attempt to disguse what amount to simple preferences within a bunch of folderol and fancy labels is akin to elevating preference to some sort of deeply meaningful and important issue of "right" and "wrong". Actually, it is of no more significance than the difference between Cherry-Vanilla and Rocky Road. One picks what one likes.... without the need to preclude enjoyment of other flavors as well. If the choice of one flavor excludes all others, it is no longer a preference but a religion. And religion cannot be discussed with any meaning amongst non-aligned true-believers. War, sure. Discussion... not hardly. Are you a Big Ender or a Little Ender? (and I have written all of this before) Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA |
|
#7
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
The truth about accuracy of CD v. LP
|
|
#8
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
The truth about accuracy of CD v. LP
|
|
#9
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
The truth about accuracy of CD v. LP
bob wrote:
wrote: Perhaps a beaten horse but still a hot topic. Before going into my views on the subject v. the views of objectivists I would like to pose some of my impressions about objectivist views to objectivists. Just to get a fair representation of those views I would like to hear from objectivists on the accuracy of my impressions . It is my impression that 1. objectivists believe that commerical CDs from thier intorduction to the market place to the present are audibly transparent transfers of the signal used to make them. No. They are audibly transparent transfers of the "master tapes" (by which I mean, the very last stage of processing) used to make them--assuming no manufacturing screw-ups. or other incompetence. OK. i meant the same thing by signal. but if you wish to refer to the master tape that is fine. so you agree with that statement so long as we refer to the master tape itslef rather than the signal. Fine with me. 2. Objectivists blame any faults of commercial CD sound to the poor quality of the original recordings or bad choices made by mastering engineers but never blame the actual digital conversion or manugfacturing of those CDs. OK, assuming no manufacturing screw-ups. or other incompetence. Which begs the question how many commercial CDs are out there that suffer from " manufacturing screw-ups or other incompetence?" So what say you on this question? Common problem, rare problem not a problem? 3. Objectivists believe that CDs in the cases that no tweaking has been done by the mastering engineers always present a more accurate sounding version of that master than any LP played back on any TT rig and thus will offer a more accurate representation of the artists/producer/ engineer's intentions as well as a more accurate reproduction of the master. No, because the phrase "a more accurate representation of the artists/producer/engineer's intentions" has no meaning here. Sure it does. It means exacty what it says. Are you suggesting that the artists/producer/engineer's intentions were and are a nonexistant entity? I think it's hard to argue that they never had any intentions as to how their releases will sound. The "artists/producer/engineer's intentions" are presumably to put out a recording that sounds like what the recording sounds like. They don't put out "recordings" they put out CDs and LPs of recordings. So the statement that there intentions are to put out "recording that sounds lik what the recording sounds like" has no meaning in this context. If it doesn't, If what doesn't? The CD the LP? then they screwed up. Who screwed up? So intentions aside would you agree with the first part of #3 Objectivists believe that CDs in the cases that no tweaking has been done by the mastering engineers always present a more accurate sounding version of that master than any LP played back on any TT rig. 4. Objectivists believe the often cited preference for LPs to CDs when not a result of mastering differences is often the result of euphonic colorations inherent in LPs as a medium and that while some may like them they are never more accurate to the master tape or even the original sound of a live recording. LPs are never more accurate to the master tape. But "accurate to . . the original sound of a live recording" has no meaning here. My bad. I sould have said *the* original sound of *the* live event that was recorded. "There are an infinite number of "sounds of a live recording." I'm not going to nit pick hyperbole. 5. Objectivists believe the primary source of preferences for LPs over CDs by vinyl enthusiasts is mostly a result of biases. No. They are simply preferences. I know that preferences are preferences. The question I ask is do you believe those preferences are more commonly the result of biases rather than actual sound? Thank you for your response. |
|
#11
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
The truth about accuracy of CD v. LP
Dick, I'm just talking about my experience. Sorry if I didn't make that
clear. I can't hear the beauty of intervals on CD. More below.... wrote: wrote: Just as one example, I can hear the harmonic quality of intervals in analog. A fifth on a harpsichord is a beautiful, stable interval, that makes musical sense in context. On CD, this quality of beauty is lost. I had read this thread and promised to stay far away from it because, frankly, I have never seen so many strawmen erected in a single post. However, I feel I MUST adress this specific point directly. Let me provide you with a little background so that my response makes some sense in context. In 1973, I started studying harpsichord and later went on to build, restore, tune and repair a number more. I have, althogether built about 1 dozen such instruments, all but one generally faithful reproductions of historical examples. I have also restored and repaired many more, the most recent (last year) being a major structural rebuild of an early 1970's Zuckerman 1x8, 1x4 single manual based on the general Ruckers prototype. I spent a goodly amount of time (almost a year) in Brussells, and there was able to gain ready access to the keyboard section of the Royal Instrument Museum and had a chance to extensively study, measure and play a number of instruments by the likes of Hass, Couchet and others. Marvelous instruments all. Probably the largest single block of music in my collections of recordings is Baroque keyboard music, and I probably have an equal number of LPs and CDs in this genre. They all range from the truly beautiful to the horrifically grotesque. Let's just say that I believe I speak from a position of some knowledge on the topic. That mush said, let's look at what I find objectionable in your comments. You stated: "A fifth on a harpsichord is a beautiful, stable interval, that makes musical sense in context." You state that as if the "beautifully, stable interval [of a] fifth] is an intrinsic property of the harpsichord which can only be captured on the LP to your satsisfaction. I will, for the moment, defer on any response to the LP vs CD issue, but get to the meat of my point. The "beautifully stable" fifth is most assuredly NOT an intrinsic property of harpsichord, any more than it is less so for a piano or ANY fretted instrument. It is in fact, a property of the specific TUNING applied to the instrument, and is not a property of the instrument itself. Okay, agreed, but the point remains. As you ask later, I do have the same performance on CD and LP in several cases, including digital and analog master recordings. You clearly are an authority on harpsichord building and tuning. My own experience is in composition and analysis of Bach. I've also hear numerous recordings of most of his keyboard music.. digital & analog, piano & harpsichord & keyboard, and I've analyzed a fair bit of it. I think I'm pretty sensitive to the relationship of the tuning to the composition. I'm sure we agree that a tuning provides a beautiful "color," (equal-temperament being a bit bland) and a lot of Bach's compositions make much sense when you hear them in something other than equal-temperament... the colors "make sense" compositionally... Listening to his keyboard music on LP is a series of "aha" experiences.. "Ah, the color of the harmonies meshes with this phrase.. I get it!" I don't have as extensive a collection of harpsichord music as you, and I only have the matching CD/LP in 3 cases. Nonetheless, these Aha! experiences happen *only* on analog recordings. The "colors" of the harmonies come through *only* on analog. Your experience may be different. I'm only describing my experience. It's like eating at Mcdonald's and then at a fine restaurant. Do I have to eat the exact same dish in both places to make a fair comparison? No, there are qualities to fine food---freshness, presentation, contrast of flavors---which are simply non-existent at McDonald's. My experience.. the same kind of contrast happen with analog and digital. I'm still waiting for the first CD that comes close to the beauty and compositional integrity of a good analog recording. There are any number of tunings in vogue for use with harpsichords, ranging from equal temperement (which, interestingly enough, has about the closets to pure fifth intervals of any practical keyboard tuning scheme) to any number of just intonations and beyond. They can be applied at the whim of the performer or the tuner, and can and often are changed to suit different genres of music. Myself, I generally use one of the so-called equal-beating temperements, such as Werkmeister III or Kirnberger, and occasionally try one of the temperements suggested by Rameau. That being said, the "purity of the fifths" as you might put it, indeed the sound of any other interval is there or not there NOT because it's a harpsichord, but because that's they weay THAT instrument was tined for THAT performance. Now, let's go back and address the remainder of your comment: "I can hear the harmonic quality of intervals in analog. On CD, this quality of beauty is lost." If you assume that this "harmonic quality" is an intrinsic property of the instrument, then I would say this claim might have some validity. But as it most definitely does not, then I suggest your opinion is based on noth an assumption and skewed data. DO you have, for instance, the precise SAME performance (that is, the very same original recording) on both LP and CD by which you can make the comparison? Yup. Well, in fact, I do, and LOTS of them. Just to give one example: when I was in Brussells, I picked up the complete set of Kenneth Gilbert's landmark recordings of the complete Livre de Clavecin on LP (Harmonia Mundi) originally recorded in 1970-71. Later, I was able to acquire the Harmonia Mundi 1989 CD release of precisely the same recordings. Without a lot of handwaving, let me make a simple statement: you're wrong. I can't be wrong about my own experience. I have an a number of recordings sat down and listened to to both for extensive periods of time, and the beauty, the subtlety of the temperment used, Couperin's exploitation of it, and Gilberts sensitive and brilliant realization of it shines through equally well on BOTH media. To your ears. That's all you can say. I would be delighted if CD possessed this wonderful qualities because it would be a lot more convenient, but it's just not true for my ears. Mike |
|
#12
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
The truth about accuracy of CD v. LP
Or the short answer to this post:
You know how objectivists are irritated that they are told "You don't like vinyl because you've never really listened to a good rig?" This post is an exact parallel. I'm confused about the qualities of analog because I've never heard good cd's, or never heard the same music on both. It's the same red herring in both cases. Mike |
|
#13
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
The truth about accuracy of CD v. LP
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 24 Feb 2006 00:43:03 GMT, wrote: Perhaps a beaten horse but still a hot topic. Before going into my views on the subject v. the views of objectivists I would like to pose some of my impressions about objectivist views to objectivists. Just to get a fair representation of those views I would like to hear from objectivists on the accuracy of my impressions . It is my impression that 1. objectivists believe that commerical CDs from thier intorduction to the market place to the present are audibly transparent transfers of the signal used to make them. Certainly, they *can* be, and I have some examples from 1983. There will of course always be plenty of badly-produced CDs - just as with vinyl in the '70s! So are you saying that there are some unkown number of commercial CDs that have been soncially degraded during the digitaztion/ manufacturing part of production? 2. Objectivists blame any faults of commercial CD sound to the poor quality of the original recordings or bad choices made by mastering engineers but never blame the actual digital conversion or manugfacturing of those CDs. Manufacturing *can* be at fault, but I'd hope that's a rare occurrence after 23 years of manufacturing experience. Similarly with modern A/D converters. OK so it seems you are saying there is some unknown number of commercial CDs that have been sonically degraded by the A/D conversion or manufacturing? 3. Objectivists believe that CDs in the cases that no tweaking has been done by the mastering engineers always present a more accurate sounding version of that master than any LP played back on any TT rig and thus will offer a more accurate representation of the artists/producer/ engineer's intentions as well as a more accurate reproduction of the master. Yes, that's true. 4. Objectivists believe the often cited preference for LPs to CDs when not a result of mastering differences is often the result of euphonic colorations inherent in LPs as a medium and that while some may like them they are never more accurate to the master tape or even the original sound of a live recording. Yes, that's true. 5. Objectivists believe the primary source of preferences for LPs over CDs by vinyl enthusiasts is mostly a result of biases. Can't speak for the others, but I believe that the very real audible differences generate a preference which is based on a combination of euphonic distortions, mastering differences, and a feeling of involvement with the mechanical complexity of the medium which is missing with 'load and press play' CD. Let me know if I am making any misrepresentations of objectivists beliefs on this subject. Seems a reasonable analysis, with the caveats given above. Thank you. Scott |
|
#14
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Harpsichords; was: The truth about accuracy of CD v. LP
wrote in message
... The "beautifully stable" fifth is most assuredly NOT an intrinsic property of harpsichord, any more than it is less so for a piano or ANY fretted instrument. It is in fact, a property of the specific TUNING applied to the instrument, and is not a property of the instrument itself. I was thinking about that. Das Wohltempierte Klavier and all that, right? Now, that's not to say that you didn't hear what you claim, just that it's not for the reason you think. During the 1960's and 70's, recordings where made by performers who were fastidious about historically authentic tunings. This was during probably the zenith of the historically -appropriate Baroque keyboard performance practice. For a lot of reasons, less attention is often paid to such, with the result that there are a lot of recrodings out there where these subtle plays of intervals, deleiberate properties, again, of the tuning and NOT of teh instrument, are simply lost. And since MOST new classical music in the last 25 years has been released on CD and not LP, more of these types of performances are going to find their way on to CD. Can you recommend some good harpsichord recordings with fastidious old-style tuning that have been re-released on CD? I'm interested. |
|
#15
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
The truth about accuracy of CD v. LP
Maybe all we can say is that "high fidelity" means delivering a copy of the
master tapes into the listener's final amplifier stages as faithfully as possible. We might. As long as we accept GI-GO as an abiding principle. Essentially, the reproducing system should neither add nor remove any artifact(s). The operative word being "should". Some systems do add artifacts, to the peculiar (in the sense of specific and unique, not odd) tastes and preferences of its owner. But between vinyl and CD, all other things being equal, THAT is purely a matter of taste and preference that does not bear discussion outside of that designation. Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA |
|
#16
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
The truth about accuracy of CD v. LP
wrote:
bob wrote: wrote: Perhaps a beaten horse but still a hot topic. Before going into my views on the subject v. the views of objectivists I would like to pose some of my impressions about objectivist views to objectivists. Just to get a fair representation of those views I would like to hear from objectivists on the accuracy of my impressions . It is my impression that 1. objectivists believe that commerical CDs from thier intorduction to the market place to the present are audibly transparent transfers of the signal used to make them. No. They are audibly transparent transfers of the "master tapes" (by which I mean, the very last stage of processing) used to make them--assuming no manufacturing screw-ups. or other incompetence. OK. i meant the same thing by signal. but if you wish to refer to the master tape that is fine. so you agree with that statement so long as we refer to the master tape itslef rather than the signal. Fine with me. Check. 2. Objectivists blame any faults of commercial CD sound to the poor quality of the original recordings or bad choices made by mastering engineers but never blame the actual digital conversion or manugfacturing of those CDs. OK, assuming no manufacturing screw-ups. or other incompetence. Which begs the question how many commercial CDs are out there that suffer from " manufacturing screw-ups or other incompetence?" So what say you on this question? Common problem, rare problem not a problem? Outside my area of expertise. I suspect bad choices at the mixing/mastering stage are far more common, however. 3. Objectivists believe that CDs in the cases that no tweaking has been done by the mastering engineers always present a more accurate sounding version of that master than any LP played back on any TT rig and thus will offer a more accurate representation of the artists/producer/ engineer's intentions as well as a more accurate reproduction of the master. No, because the phrase "a more accurate representation of the artists/producer/engineer's intentions" has no meaning here. Sure it does. It means exacty what it says. Are you suggesting that the artists/producer/engineer's intentions were and are a nonexistant entity? I think it's hard to argue that they never had any intentions as to how their releases will sound. But you're using code words that often mean something very different. The "artists' intentions" often refers to the choices they make in their musical performance, rather than the choices they (or the engineers they entrust with the task) make at the mixing/mastering stage. The "artists/producer/engineer's intentions" are presumably to put out a recording that sounds like what the recording sounds like. They don't put out "recordings" they put out CDs and LPs of recordings. So the statement that there intentions are to put out "recording that sounds lik what the recording sounds like" has no meaning in this context. What I had in mind was the idea that the "artists/producer/engineer's intentions" are whatever's on the master tape. Then we can ask which medium more accurately reproduces that. If it doesn't, If what doesn't? The CD the LP? then they screwed up. Who screwed up? So intentions aside would you agree with the first part of #3 Objectivists believe that CDs in the cases that no tweaking has been done by the mastering engineers always present a more accurate sounding version of that master than any LP played back on any TT rig. I'd put it this way: If we have a common 15ips analog "master tape," a CD made from that tape will sound closer to the tape than an LP made from that tape. Part of the reason for that, however, is that in order to make an LP you do have to do some further tweaking first. 4. Objectivists believe the often cited preference for LPs to CDs when not a result of mastering differences is often the result of euphonic colorations inherent in LPs as a medium and that while some may like them they are never more accurate to the master tape or even the original sound of a live recording. LPs are never more accurate to the master tape. But "accurate to . . the original sound of a live recording" has no meaning here. My bad. I sould have said *the* original sound of *the* live event that was recorded. That's what I thought you meant. But which original sound? The sound at the point where the mike(s) are, or at some other point in the room? What if the mikes are more than 6 inches apart? Then they are picking up a "sound" that no human being could possibly hear. "There are an infinite number of "sounds of a live recording." I'm not going to nit pick hyperbole. This may be unnecessary nitpicking. I was just laying the basis for an objection to an argument I suspect you'll make at some point. But we can put this aside for now. 5. Objectivists believe the primary source of preferences for LPs over CDs by vinyl enthusiasts is mostly a result of biases. No. They are simply preferences. I know that preferences are preferences. The question I ask is do you believe those preferences are more commonly the result of biases rather than actual sound? Like Stewart, I suspect there's a combination of factors, and trying to disaggregate and assign weights to them seems rather pointless. That's why I said they are simply preferences. bob |
|
#17
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
The truth about accuracy of CD v. LP
On 25 Feb 2006 17:40:25 GMT, wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 24 Feb 2006 00:43:03 GMT, wrote: Perhaps a beaten horse but still a hot topic. Before going into my views on the subject v. the views of objectivists I would like to pose some of my impressions about objectivist views to objectivists. Just to get a fair representation of those views I would like to hear from objectivists on the accuracy of my impressions . It is my impression that 1. objectivists believe that commerical CDs from thier intorduction to the market place to the present are audibly transparent transfers of the signal used to make them. Certainly, they *can* be, and I have some examples from 1983. There will of course always be plenty of badly-produced CDs - just as with vinyl in the '70s! So are you saying that there are some unkown number of commercial CDs that have been soncially degraded during the digitaztion/ manufacturing part of production? Sure, just as there were lots of rubbish LPs issued in the '70s, likely still ongoing in the current 'DJ' market. One might of course have known that your questions lacked a certain impartiality......... 2. Objectivists blame any faults of commercial CD sound to the poor quality of the original recordings or bad choices made by mastering engineers but never blame the actual digital conversion or manugfacturing of those CDs. Manufacturing *can* be at fault, but I'd hope that's a rare occurrence after 23 years of manufacturing experience. Similarly with modern A/D converters. OK so it seems you are saying there is some unknown number of commercial CDs that have been sonically degraded by the A/D conversion or manufacturing? Sure, just as there were lots of rubbish LPs issued in the '70s, likely still ongoing in the current 'DJ' market. One might of course have known that your questions lacked a certain impartiality......... The essential point is that a well-made CD will be *much* closer to the sound of the master tape than will a well-made LP. Check out the JVC XRCD issues of Miles Davis' music for examples. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#18
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
The truth about accuracy of CD v. LP
MC wrote:
wrote in message ... Some people prefer beer to burgundy, some people prefer rye to Napoleon brandy, and some people prefer Twinkies to mousse. ... That is of course true. Is the goal of "high fidelity" to produce the sound of the original instruments, or to produce a copy of that sound that is colored to reflect the hearer's further preferences? And what if the music was electronically synthesized, so there was never any original sound to begin with? Then, is it purely a matter of taste how any particular listener chooses to make it sound? Maybe all we can say is that "high fidelity" means delivering a copy of the master tapes into the listener's final amplifier stages as faithfully as possible. We at home generally don't deal with the recording and mastering stages ourselves, but only with playback. Most of us can't know personally how the master tape sounded in the mastering suite, much less how the live performance sounded. So we can't even say for sure how 'faithful' the reproduction of is. We can't know in fine detail how it's 'supposed to ' sound. Thus for the vast majority of listeners, 'high fidelity' as a hobby comes down to reaching for what they *believe* the 'right sound' is. And the 'right sound' ends up being, of course, 'what sounds good to me'. Lots of audiophiles then make the leap backwards to : 'this is the way it's *supposed to* sound'. ; -- -S "If men were angels, no government would be necessary." - James Madison (1788) |
|
#19
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
The truth about accuracy of CD v. LP
You know what, I'm really glad to meet another Baroque harpsichord
music enthusiast. Let's not let a disagreement about the preferred format come between us. I can see that you are very knowledgeable about harpsichord construction and tuning. I have no doubt that if we sat down to listen to a CD together, you would point out many subtleties and I would be quite enlightened. My collection is focused on Gustav Leonhardt playing Bach. I love his Goldberg Variations, which I have on Musical Heritage Society 512400Z. Alas, I have this only on CD. I believe this is a 1965 performance. I have an earlier performance on LP (Vanguard SRV-175 SD) but my goodness did he grow in subtlties between these. I love Leonhardt's use of rhythm, his subtle timing variations in the beat, the way he can bring out a feeling quality in a line while at the same time you are hardly aware of exactly what he's doing with timing. I have Leonhardt's French Suites, Inventions, and Sinfonias on Seon LP's. These are the clearest examples of when I can hear qualities of intervals that I have never heard on CD. Mike |
|
#20
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
The truth about accuracy of CD v. LP
wrote:
Dick, I'm just talking about my experience. Sorry if I didn't make that clear. Thank you for this clarification. I have an a number of recordings sat down and listened to to both for extensive periods of time, and the beauty, the subtlety of the temperment used, Couperin's exploitation of it, and Gilberts sensitive and brilliant realization of it shines through equally well on BOTH media. To your ears. That's all you can say. I would be delighted if CD possessed this wonderful qualities because it would be a lot more convenient, but it's just not true for my ears. The distortions of LP can be pleasant in the same sense that a certain degree of randomness is necessary to make a musical sound. This is why electronic organs fail miserably in comparison to pipes: i.e. they don't have the randomess that a mass of pipes in 3 dimensional acoustic space have, and technically, this is 'distortion.' (for lack of a better term in this context) Simularly, saying that fifth's on harpsichords are a stable interval ignores the fact that in tuning, one tunes the beats produced immediately after the pluck, not to the after ring, which has more inharmonicity, and thus is part of the 'randomness' I mentioned that makes a musical sound more interesting. Since all reproduced music is sadly lacking in realism and musicality compared to a live acoustic event, some people prefer to add random-like distortions to their setup as a compromise. Frankly, I'm sick to death of claims or insinuations that these approaches to music reproduction are 'more accurate' with any qualifying conditional statements by the person making them. It's just a civilized courtesy to do so. The said approach is also very unweildy in the sense that the user has quite limited and relatively imprecise control over how a system behaves. I gave up on it because assuming a reproduction system is a musical instrument might be good for one handful (at best) of recordings, but terrible for another and I'm not content to listen only to recordings that might have the best sound, (i.e. the 'audio quality') most of which IME have mediocre performances. What's the point of that for those interested primarilly in the music? DSP correction (i.e. fancy tone controls) are a very nice compromise for this problem in sort of the same sense that temperaments are a compromise, and since all audio systems are pretty large compromises, I feel it's a bit silly to focus on perfection for a few recordings. What's the point other than a 'mine is bigger than yours' attitude? FYI, the latest offering on Bach temperaments to my knowledge is he http://www.larips.com There is also Hermann Keller's work, but it doesn't appear to be up on the web since his passing, but maybe I missed it. Owen Jorgensen's work also has some good practical points, but it has been criticized for the lack of precision in its approach by those who prefer analyzing temperaments mathematically, a perspective that has considerable merit. |
|
#21
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
The truth about accuracy of CD v. LP
|
|
#22
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
The truth about accuracy of CD v. LP
bob wrote:
wrote: bob wrote: 3. Objectivists believe that CDs in the cases that no tweaking has been done by the mastering engineers always present a more accurate sounding version of that master than any LP played back on any TT rig and thus will offer a more accurate representation of the artists/producer/ engineer's intentions as well as a more accurate reproduction of the master. No, because the phrase "a more accurate representation of the artists/producer/engineer's intentions" has no meaning here. Sure it does. It means exacty what it says. Are you suggesting that the artists/producer/engineer's intentions were and are a nonexistant entity? I think it's hard to argue that they never had any intentions as to how their releases will sound. But you're using code words that often mean something very different. No. there is nothing ambiguous about the word "intentions." The "artists' intentions" often refers to the choices they make in their musical performance, rather than the choices they (or the engineers they entrust with the task) make at the mixing/mastering stage. But we aren't talking about that we are talking about sound. We are talking about which one would the artists/producer/engineers say 'yeah that one sounds more like what we were trying to do than that other one." There is no trickery going on here. The "artists/producer/engineer's intentions" are presumably to put out a recording that sounds like what the recording sounds like. They don't put out "recordings" they put out CDs and LPs of recordings. So the statement that there intentions are to put out "recording that sounds lik what the recording sounds like" has no meaning in this context. What I had in mind was the idea that the "artists/producer/engineer's intentions" are whatever's on the master tape. Then we can ask which medium more accurately reproduces that. That question was addressed seperately. If you don't feel comfortable saying that commerical CDs that have not ben tampered with by the mastering engineer are a better epresentation than the artists/producer/engineer's intentions then feel free to say so. You can say yes, no sometimes yes somethims no, or I don't really know or have an opinion. I just want to get an understanding of what *you* believe. If it doesn't, If what doesn't? The CD the LP? then they screwed up. Who screwed up? So intentions aside would you agree with the first part of #3 Objectivists believe that CDs in the cases that no tweaking has been done by the mastering engineers always present a more accurate sounding version of that master than any LP played back on any TT rig. I'd put it this way: If we have a common 15ips analog "master tape," a CD made from that tape will sound closer to the tape than an LP made from that tape. Part of the reason for that, however, is that in order to make an LP you do have to do some further tweaking first. OK that clarifies your belief. thank you. 4. Objectivists believe the often cited preference for LPs to CDs when not a result of mastering differences is often the result of euphonic colorations inherent in LPs as a medium and that while some may like them they are never more accurate to the master tape or even the original sound of a live recording. LPs are never more accurate to the master tape. But "accurate to . . the original sound of a live recording" has no meaning here. My bad. I sould have said *the* original sound of *the* live event that was recorded. That's what I thought you meant. But which original sound? The sound at the point where the mike(s) are, or at some other point in the room? What if the mikes are more than 6 inches apart? Then they are picking up a "sound" that no human being could possibly hear. True but a recording engineer does step into the room and listen and then goes back and listens to the monitors. so I would say from the reference perspective of the recording engineers. "There are an infinite number of "sounds of a live recording." I'm not going to nit pick hyperbole. This may be unnecessary nitpicking. I was just laying the basis for an objection to an argument I suspect you'll make at some point. But we can put this aside for now. 5. Objectivists believe the primary source of preferences for LPs over CDs by vinyl enthusiasts is mostly a result of biases. No. They are simply preferences. I know that preferences are preferences. The question I ask is do you believe those preferences are more commonly the result of biases rather than actual sound? Like Stewart, I suspect there's a combination of factors, and trying to disaggregate and assign weights to them seems rather pointless. That's why I said they are simply preferences. OK so you offer no opinion on the source of vinyl enthusiasts' preference. Fair enough and thanks for your clarifications. Scott |
|
#23
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
The truth about accuracy of CD v. LP
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
... MC wrote: Maybe all we can say is that "high fidelity" means delivering a copy of the master tapes into the listener's final amplifier stages as faithfully as possible. We at home generally don't deal with the recording and mastering stages ourselves, but only with playback. Most of us can't know personally how the master tape sounded in the mastering suite, much less how the live performance sounded. So we can't even say for sure how 'faithful' the reproduction of is. We can't know in fine detail how it's 'supposed to ' sound. Thus for the vast majority of listeners, 'high fidelity' as a hobby comes down to reaching for what they *believe* the 'right sound' is. And the 'right sound' ends up being, of course, 'what sounds good to me'. Lots of audiophiles then make the leap backwards to : 'this is the way it's *supposed to* sound'. ; That is the most intelligent thing I've heard anybody say for several days. |
|
#24
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
The truth about accuracy of CD v. LP
|
|
#25
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
The truth about accuracy of CD v. LP
wrote:
wrote: Dick, I'm just talking about my experience. Sorry if I didn't make that clear. Thank you for this clarification. I have an a number of recordings sat down and listened to to both for extensive periods of time, and the beauty, the subtlety of the temperment used, Couperin's exploitation of it, and Gilberts sensitive and brilliant realization of it shines through equally well on BOTH media. To your ears. That's all you can say. I would be delighted if CD possessed this wonderful qualities because it would be a lot more convenient, but it's just not true for my ears. You have some interesting theories here. A thought I've had: could we say that the ear/brain system is highly tuned to the types of sounds which normally occur in nature, and can recognize sounds which, in some way, don't correspond to natural occurances? For example, a hobby of mine is digital sound synthesis. Using a program called Csound, I write digital "instruments". some of them are meant to imitate real acoustic instruments, while others are purely electronic-sounding. A guy named Perry Cook is leading the way in digital modeling of acoustic instruments, and Csound incorporates some of his models. Anyway, I've had a chance to play with these digital instruments, and in particular notice what types of sounds seem "real" and which seem "electronic" (not like something occuring in the physical world). I've noticed a few things. Tonal balance needs to be right. Some sounds have too much highs or too little highs.. they don't sound like something that could occur physically. Humans have an intuition about natural events, like two things bonking together. You are going to hear a lot of high frequencies when two rocks hit each other, but not *too* much high frequencies. Just as you mention, putting several copies of an instrument together, and detuning them slightly especially with random tuning fluctuations, makes a much richer sound that resembles something real. Nevertheless, this effect never gets away from an "artificial sound." Listen to a recording of a real instrument and Wow! you know right away you are listening to a real thing, and that the electronic sounds are not like something in the physical world. Consider artificial reverberation generators. The simplest ones sound fake. The more complex ones sound pretty good, but I haven't heard one that fools me into thinking these sounds are taking place inside a real room. And this is not surprising.. real rooms and concert halls are far too complex to model digitally (the impulse response and convolution is one possibility but still not a complete model). The distortions of LP can be pleasant in the same sense that a certain degree of randomness is necessary to make a musical sound. This is why electronic organs fail miserably in comparison to pipes: i.e. they don't have the randomess that a mass of pipes in 3 dimensional acoustic space have, and technically, this is 'distortion.' (for lack of a better term in this context) What's interesting to me about an organ in 3 dimensional acoustic space, is that it is a complex system, but a physical one. I don't think 'random' or 'distortion' is a good term here. That's because when you add randomness to electronic sounds, you don't get "real-sounding" sounds. You get richer sounds, yes, but you don't come anywhere close to crossing that real/artifical divide. I suspect that's because the ear/brain knows pretty well what complexity results from real (complex) physical models, and what complexity has been inserted after the fact via some algorithm. Consider audio: it's an illusion in that it doesn't recreate the same soundfield (two channel, anyway), and it tries to portray several instruments scattered in space, but in reality all the sounds are coming from some paper/cloth/whatever cones positioned on the left and right side. Perhaps this is one reason we can't be completely fooled. Simularly, saying that fifth's on harpsichords are a stable interval ignores the fact that in tuning, one tunes the beats produced immediately after the pluck, not to the after ring, which has more inharmonicity, and thus is part of the 'randomness' I mentioned that makes a musical sound more interesting. Since all reproduced music is sadly lacking in realism and musicality compared to a live acoustic event, some people prefer to add random-like distortions to their setup as a compromise. Okay, that's one theory.. that we prefer analog because it adds random-like distortion. But what's curious is that you can easily find recording engineers who spend a lot of time in concert halls, then make recordings of those same performances, in both digital and analog form.. so they have plenty of experience with the choices involved.. and for their ears, analog is a better representation of the musical event, as a fairly clear general trend. And as I said above, "randomness" doesn't make things real.. it makes them more complex, but I think a better word for what you are describing is "complex" -- that is, complex, but very real, physical models. The after ring is not random, it is the consequence of a real, and complex, physical system acting as it acts. I can tell you from experience that adding random fluctuations of frequency to a sustained tone or interval does *not* make it sound real. It sounds richer, yes, but not real. Perhaps the fact that analog is a complex and physical system adds just the right kind of distortion. (as opposed to digital models) Frankly, I'm sick to death of claims or insinuations that these approaches to music reproduction are 'more accurate' with any qualifying conditional statements by the person making them. It's just a civilized courtesy to do so. If you accept that different people are listening for different things, then ALL statements about the ability of an audio system to create authentic reproductions of sound are *relative* to what that person listens for. I know you would like qualitifications, but they really aren't necessary. Every single statement anyone makes about what audio systems best reproduce musc, is truest to the orignal---in short, is "accurate"---has an implicit qualification, "Relative to what I listen for." The said approach is also very unweildy in the sense that the user has quite limited and relatively imprecise control over how a system behaves. I gave up on it because assuming a reproduction system is a musical instrument might be good for one handful (at best) of recordings, but terrible for another and I'm not content to listen only to recordings that might have the best sound, The curious thing is that for some of us, using analog means is not unweildy.. it is not an attempt to create distortions that compensate for flaws in recordings.. it is simply the best way to reproduce music. (i.e. the 'audio quality') most of which IME have mediocre performances. What's the point of that for those interested primarilly in the music? DSP correction (i.e. fancy tone controls) are a very nice compromise for this problem in sort of the same sense that temperaments are a compromise, and since all audio systems are pretty large compromises, I feel it's a bit silly to focus on perfection for a few recordings. What's the point other than a 'mine is bigger than yours' attitude? I would really like to hear a CD processed through DSP such that it sounds like analog. That would be wonderful. I'm also going to be making CD-R recordings of some of my records, so we'll see. Mike |
|
#26
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
The truth about accuracy of CD v. LP
A couple of glaring errors in my post, sorry for them:
claims or insinuations that these approaches to music reproduction are 'more accurate' with any qualifying conditional statements by the person making them. Should read 'without any qualifying statements...' (perhaps an obvious error, but offensive if taken literally as written) There is also Hermann Keller's work... That's Herbert Kellner Organbuilder John Brombaugh, who I apprenticed with, used this temperament in the last part of his career. This temperament can be viewed at: http://www.music.indiana.edu/som/pia...ts/5thkwt.html and articles: Http://homepages.bw.edubachbib/scrip...%20Herbert%20A |
|
#27
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
The truth about accuracy of CD v. LP
wrote:
wrote: You know what, I'm really glad to meet another Baroque harpsichord music enthusiast. Let's not let a disagreement about the preferred format come between us. Actually, I have no "preferred format," only preferred results. Right. I have a preferred format though, but I am interested in your suggestions. I can see that you are very knowledgeable about harpsichord construction and tuning. I have no doubt that if we sat down to listen to a CD together, you would point out many subtleties and I would be quite enlightened. My collection is focused on Gustav Leonhardt playing Bach. I love his Goldberg Variations, which I have on Musical Heritage Society 512400Z. Alas, I have this only on CD. I believe this is a 1965 performance. I have an earlier performance on LP (Vanguard SRV-175 SD) but my goodness did he grow in subtlties between these. I love Leonhardt's use of rhythm, his subtle timing variations in the beat, the way he can bring out a feeling quality in a line while at the same time you are hardly aware of exactly what he's doing with timing. I have Leonhardt's French Suites, Inventions, and Sinfonias on Seon LP's. These are the clearest examples of when I can hear qualities of intervals that I have never heard on CD. Well, your revelations are telling. Come now... these "revelations" don't tell you about how I experience analog vs. digital. There are two issues here.. how my ears experience analog and digital, and how much I know about tunings. My comment about the fifth was perhaps not the best way to express what I was thinking. The character of ALL intervals, and especially their functional relationship to the composition, come through more clearly on analog (to my ears). Whether Leonhardt uses the most authentic and/or beautiful tunings is not relevant. Whatever tunings he does use, they sound better on analog.. and in fact NO cd I've heard has EVER come close to portraying intervals with the integrity of an analog recording. The comment about the fifth came because I was thinking of the fugue in C major from WTC I, which has a part where the left hand moves though some intervals and lands on a fifth. On analog, I heard the compositional "sense" of this passage clearly for the first time. Perhaps it had more to do with the intervals in the right hand, so in that sense mentioning the fifth was inappropriate. Much of Leonhardt's recordings paid little attention to the subleties of temperements and I find them, in fact quite bland and boring, be they CD's or LP's. In short, he is not be preferred performer. I find him while virtuostic, he's dry, academic and somewhat soulless. Whoa, whoa, whoa... I don't find him "dry, academic" at all.. and as far as "soulless," that's just bizarre to me. His earlier Goldbergs I have on Vanguard, perhaps can be described this way. But his 1965 Goldbergs is everything but soulless, and so is every other recording I have by him. There never is accounting for taste... Try finding the Bach Inventions and Sinfonias (aka, the two-part and three-part inventions) performed by Gilbert on Archiv. Much better instrument, better tuning, better performance, better everything. Well, okay I will see if I can locate this recording and the ones below. See if you can find Gabe Weiners CDs on the PGM label, two come to mind: The Buxtehude project Vol II: Harpsichord music and Ricerca Keyboard music in Germany before Bach. I find both to have all those lush qualities that many LP enthusiasts wax on about. Both recordings are on better instruments with better tuning and better recording and mastering than anything Leonhardt did, and I find the performance far more engaging and less, well, "academic." And see if the Couperin by Gilbert is still around: it's reletaively unknown to the listening pubic and represents a genre of work that's very different: collections of pieces that are as much little minitures or caricatures, many of them playful, some sarcastic, a few very biting, of life in the pre-revolutionary French Court. And there's lots of stuff out there performed by Sylvia Marlow which is junk. I have most of the LP's she did and I think she is a good performer, but the recordings are almost uniformly dreadful enough that I don't care to even try to find out for sure. And avoid anything by Wanda Landowska: the instrument she played (essentially a plucking Pleyel Piano), how she played and all is so far removed from the literature that I find here stuff almost farcical. This despite her lofty reputation as a founding "diva" of the modern harpsichord revival. Yeah, I once owned a cd by Landowska which I sold later on Ebay. By the way, do you have an opinion on a good WTC book II? And, as an aside, the appropriate tunings for the literature, in fact, have less pure fifths than equal temperement. They are generally more compromised than equal temperement in exchange to FAR better tunings of the major thirds, sixths and simialr intervals that in equal temperement, are just plain disonant. This is one reason why I focused on your comment about the "purit6y and beauty of the fifths" as a telling indication that you've clued into something that is not right. As I said, what was behind the comment was my memory of WTC I fugue in C major, and perhaps it was the other intervals that were creating my experience of the piece. Certainly I don't know much about tunings, so I didn't use the right words in expressing it; however, my experience about analog and digital stands. And I know when a tuning is beautiful and makes sense compositionally. Mike |
|
#28
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
The truth about accuracy of CD v. LP
wrote:
bob wrote: wrote: bob wrote: 3. Objectivists believe that CDs in the cases that no tweaking has been done by the mastering engineers always present a more accurate sounding version of that master than any LP played back on any TT rig and thus will offer a more accurate representation of the artists/producer/ engineer's intentions as well as a more accurate reproduction of the master. No, because the phrase "a more accurate representation of the artists/producer/engineer's intentions" has no meaning here. Sure it does. It means exacty what it says. Are you suggesting that the artists/producer/engineer's intentions were and are a nonexistant entity? I think it's hard to argue that they never had any intentions as to how their releases will sound. But you're using code words that often mean something very different. No. there is nothing ambiguous about the word "intentions." Google phrases like "musicians' intentions" on audio sites and you will see plenty of ambiguity--all from the subjectivist side, of course. If you mean something specific by it, you are going to have to tell us what that is. The "artists' intentions" often refers to the choices they make in their musical performance, rather than the choices they (or the engineers they entrust with the task) make at the mixing/mastering stage. But we aren't talking about that we are talking about sound. We are talking about which one would the artists/producer/engineers say 'yeah that one sounds more like what we were trying to do than that other one." There is no trickery going on here. Well, that's what I'm talking about. Glad to hear it's what you're talking about, too. So we can agree that the master tape represents the true intentions of the artists/producer/engineers, right? And the only remaining question is, which medium better preserves the sound of that master tape. The "artists/producer/engineer's intentions" are presumably to put out a recording that sounds like what the recording sounds like. They don't put out "recordings" they put out CDs and LPs of recordings. So the statement that there intentions are to put out "recording that sounds lik what the recording sounds like" has no meaning in this context. What I had in mind was the idea that the "artists/producer/engineer's intentions" are whatever's on the master tape. Then we can ask which medium more accurately reproduces that. That question was addressed seperately. I hadn't seen you address it previously. If you agree with it, say so. If not, explain. If you don't feel comfortable saying that commerical CDs that have not ben tampered with by the mastering engineer are a better epresentation than the artists/producer/engineer's intentions then feel free to say so. You can say yes, no sometimes yes somethims no, or I don't really know or have an opinion. I just want to get an understanding of what *you* believe. I believe that the master tape represents the intentions of its producers, and that CD better preserves the sound of that master tape than LP. What more do you want? If it doesn't, If what doesn't? The CD the LP? then they screwed up. Who screwed up? So intentions aside would you agree with the first part of #3 Objectivists believe that CDs in the cases that no tweaking has been done by the mastering engineers always present a more accurate sounding version of that master than any LP played back on any TT rig. I'd put it this way: If we have a common 15ips analog "master tape," a CD made from that tape will sound closer to the tape than an LP made from that tape. Part of the reason for that, however, is that in order to make an LP you do have to do some further tweaking first. OK that clarifies your belief. thank you. 4. Objectivists believe the often cited preference for LPs to CDs when not a result of mastering differences is often the result of euphonic colorations inherent in LPs as a medium and that while some may like them they are never more accurate to the master tape or even the original sound of a live recording. LPs are never more accurate to the master tape. But "accurate to . . the original sound of a live recording" has no meaning here. My bad. I sould have said *the* original sound of *the* live event that was recorded. That's what I thought you meant. But which original sound? The sound at the point where the mike(s) are, or at some other point in the room? What if the mikes are more than 6 inches apart? Then they are picking up a "sound" that no human being could possibly hear. True but a recording engineer does step into the room and listen and then goes back and listens to the monitors. so I would say from the reference perspective of the recording engineers. "Reference perspective" is an oxymoron. A personal perspective cannot be a reference, because it isn't fixed. What we heard yesterday and what we now think we heard yesterday are two different things. (That aside, do you not care what the performers themselves think?) The only clear indication we have of anyone's perspective is what winds up on that master tape. bob |
|
#29
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
The truth about accuracy of CD v. LP
bob wrote:
wrote: bob wrote: wrote: bob wrote: 3. Objectivists believe that CDs in the cases that no tweaking has been done by the mastering engineers always present a more accurate sounding version of that master than any LP played back on any TT rig and thus will offer a more accurate representation of the artists/producer/ engineer's intentions as well as a more accurate reproduction of the master. No, because the phrase "a more accurate representation of the artists/producer/engineer's intentions" has no meaning here. Sure it does. It means exacty what it says. Are you suggesting that the artists/producer/engineer's intentions were and are a nonexistant entity? I think it's hard to argue that they never had any intentions as to how their releases will sound. But you're using code words that often mean something very different. No. there is nothing ambiguous about the word "intentions." Google phrases like "musicians' intentions" on audio sites and you will see plenty of ambiguity--all from the subjectivist side, of course. If you mean something specific by it, you are going to have to tell us what that is. bob, the intentions of musicians will never be hard science. But if you pick up an instrument, practice very hard for 20 years, pay careful attention to sound and musical structure, and peform a piece with the intention of using sound qualities to bring about a desired effect, the term will be more concrete. Furthermore, if you listen to musicians with this same careful ear, then get involved in recording them and evaluating the records re how clear the desired patterns come through, the term will be more concrete. Music is not hard science---right? Mike |
|
#30
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
The truth about accuracy of CD v. LP
bob wrote:
wrote: bob wrote: wrote: bob wrote: 3. Objectivists believe that CDs in the cases that no tweaking has been done by the mastering engineers always present a more accurate sounding version of that master than any LP played back on any TT rig and thus will offer a more accurate representation of the artists/producer/ engineer's intentions as well as a more accurate reproduction of the master. No, because the phrase "a more accurate representation of the artists/producer/engineer's intentions" has no meaning here. Sure it does. It means exacty what it says. Are you suggesting that the artists/producer/engineer's intentions were and are a nonexistant entity? I think it's hard to argue that they never had any intentions as to how their releases will sound. But you're using code words that often mean something very different. No. there is nothing ambiguous about the word "intentions." Google phrases like "musicians' intentions" on audio sites and you will see plenty of ambiguity--all from the subjectivist side, of course. If you mean something specific by it, you are going to have to tell us what that is. The "artists' intentions" often refers to the choices they make in their musical performance, rather than the choices they (or the engineers they entrust with the task) make at the mixing/mastering stage. But we aren't talking about that we are talking about sound. We are talking about which one would the artists/producer/engineers say 'yeah that one sounds more like what we were trying to do than that other one." There is no trickery going on here. Well, that's what I'm talking about. Glad to hear it's what you're talking about, too. So we can agree that the master tape represents the true intentions of the artists/producer/engineers, right? Well, actually no but I will get into that when I lay down *my* views on the subject. And the only remaining question is, which medium better preserves the sound of that master tape. No,IMO the questions are which *have* done a better job of it, is that the best option for a given recording. The "artists/producer/engineer's intentions" are presumably to put out a recording that sounds like what the recording sounds like. They don't put out "recordings" they put out CDs and LPs of recordings. So the statement that there intentions are to put out "recording that sounds lik what the recording sounds like" has no meaning in this context. What I had in mind was the idea that the "artists/producer/engineer's intentions" are whatever's on the master tape. Then we can ask which medium more accurately reproduces that. That question was addressed seperately. I hadn't seen you address it previously. If you agree with it, say so. If not, explain. I think the questions have to remain seperate. Whether or not i agree with it I will get into later. If you don't feel comfortable saying that commerical CDs that have not ben tampered with by the mastering engineer are a better epresentation than the artists/producer/engineer's intentions then feel free to say so. You can say yes, no sometimes yes somethims no, or I don't really know or have an opinion. I just want to get an understanding of what *you* believe. I believe that the master tape represents the intentions of its producers, and that CD better preserves the sound of that master tape than LP. What more do you want? Well, i find the first half of your answer quite direct and completely relevant to my assertions on the objectivists POV. I find the second half a bit dodgey. I am not talking about what CDs and LPs can do but what has actually been done. "CD better preserves the sound of that master tape than LP" is IMO a substantially different claim then "Commercial CDs have preserved the sound of master tapes provided no tinkering has been done with the master tape better than LPs have regardless of the playback equipment." The difference is the first is not refering to real world instances and the second is. And it is the real world availablity of commercial CDs and LPs that the audiophile has to deal with. 4. Objectivists believe the often cited preference for LPs to CDs when not a result of mastering differences is often the result of euphonic colorations inherent in LPs as a medium and that while some may like them they are never more accurate to the master tape or even the original sound of a live recording. LPs are never more accurate to the master tape. But "accurate to . . the original sound of a live recording" has no meaning here. My bad. I sould have said *the* original sound of *the* live event that was recorded. That's what I thought you meant. But which original sound? The sound at the point where the mike(s) are, or at some other point in the room? What if the mikes are more than 6 inches apart? Then they are picking up a "sound" that no human being could possibly hear. True but a recording engineer does step into the room and listen and then goes back and listens to the monitors. so I would say from the reference perspective of the recording engineers. "Reference perspective" is an oxymoron. A personal perspective cannot be a reference, because it isn't fixed. I quite disagree with you here. Jut because a reference isn't perfectly precise doesn't mean it is nonexistant. What we heard yesterday and what we now think we heard yesterday are two different things. Quite irrelevant to the perspective of a recording engnineer doing his job on the day. (That aside, do you not care what the performers themselves think?) Depends on the performers and the recording engineer. But all peformers are going to hear of a live peformance for a recording session is playback. What say so they should have is highly situational. The value of their opinion is likewise. The only clear indication we have of anyone's perspective is what winds up on that master tape. I'll give you my take on that when I spell out my beliefs on the whole topic. But let's just say for now i think it is again highly situational. Scott |
|
#31
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
The truth about accuracy of CD v. LP
bob wrote:
wrote: Music is not hard science---right? Right. Which is why using scientific terms like "reference" and "accuracy" to discuss musicians' intentions is pseudoscience. sorry but the word "reference" is not exlusive to the scientific domain nor is "accuracy." it isn't pseudoscience. It simply isn't science at all. Scott |
|
#32
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
The truth about accuracy of CD v. LP
bob wrote:
wrote: Music is not hard science---right? Right. Which is why using scientific terms like "reference" and "accuracy" to discuss musicians' intentions is pseudoscience. bob "reference" and "accuracy" are not scientific terms. Music is neither science nor pseudoscience; however, it does involve human intentions, communication of said intentions, and reproduction of said intentions, and an abundance of concepts which are well described by words like "reference" and "accuracy". Mike |
|
#33
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
The truth about accuracy of CD v. LP
This has been brought up before but I will be more specific. An LP MUST
be equalized to the RIAA curve. All decent playback systems will insert the reciprocal RIAA curve. If the LP is not so equalized, it will not sound right when played back. Also, stereo LPs have the bass channels combined to mono to prevent the cutter from bottoming on heavy bass. These modifications are not necessary when producing a CD. This means that the LP cutting master can't possibly be identical to the master tape for a CD. ---MIKE--- In the White Mountains of New Hampshire (44=B0 15' N - Elevation 1580') |
|
#34
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
The truth about accuracy of CD v. LP
|
|
#35
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
The truth about accuracy of CD v. LP
wrote:
bob wrote: wrote: Music is not hard science---right? Right. Which is why using scientific terms like "reference" and "accuracy" to discuss musicians' intentions is pseudoscience. bob "reference" and "accuracy" are not scientific terms. Music is neither science nor pseudoscience; I wasn't referring to music; I was referring to your assertions about audio. however, it does involve human intentions, communication of said intentions, and reproduction of said intentions, and an abundance of concepts which are well described by words like "reference" and "accuracy". Yeah, right. These are technical terms in audio, which subjectivists insist on misusing in order to give their baseless opinions a scientific gloss. Hence, pseudoscience. bob |
|
#36
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
The truth about accuracy of CD v. LP
bob wrote:
wrote: bob wrote: I believe that the master tape represents the intentions of its producers, and that CD better preserves the sound of that master tape than LP. What more do you want? Well, i find the first half of your answer quite direct and completely relevant to my assertions on the objectivists POV. I find the second half a bit dodgey. I am not talking about what CDs and LPs can do but what has actually been done. "CD better preserves the sound of that master tape than LP" is IMO a substantially different claim then "Commercial CDs have preserved the sound of master tapes provided no tinkering has been done with the master tape better than LPs have regardless of the playback equipment." The difference is the first is not refering to real world instances and the second is. And it is the real world availablity of commercial CDs and LPs that the audiophile has to deal with. Oh, is that what this is about? Something made me think you were talking about the *accuracy* of CDs and LPs. Like the title of your thread? I am. Not exactly truth in advertising, I'd say. Why? Because I was talking about actual real world commercially released Lps and Cds? You know, the things we actually listen to? In that case, I think I'll just take a pass on *your* views, then. Fine with me. I can't imagine anything less interesting than your opinion about the quality of commercially available CDs. Really? You'd rather argue about theoretical capacities than discuss the qualities of real world commercial releases? How does that help you as an audiophile? Does it make a lousy sounding CD sound better to you to think about how many bits the format has? Scott |
|
#37
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
The truth about accuracy of CD v. LP
---MIKE--- wrote:
This has been brought up before but I will be more specific. An LP MUST be equalized to the RIAA curve. I'm not sure why you are rying to be more specific. I already know that. All decent playback systems will insert the reciprocal RIAA curve. Actually they all will insert some form of EQ with a reciprical EQ in the phono stage of the preamp. Decent or not. If the LP is not so equalized, it will not sound right when played back. If? You know of any that are not? Also, stereo LPs have the bass channels combined to mono to prevent the cutter from bottoming on heavy bass. Most, not all.Not that i see this as a big issue. These modifications are not necessary when producing a CD. This means that the LP cutting master can't possibly be identical to the master tape for a CD. But it can and many are. Sometimes for ambitious reasons sometimes for the wrong reasons. Scott |
|
#38
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
The truth about accuracy of CD v. LP
bob wrote:
wrote: bob wrote: I believe that the master tape represents the intentions of its producers, and that CD better preserves the sound of that master tape than LP. What more do you want? Well, i find the first half of your answer quite direct and completely relevant to my assertions on the objectivists POV. I find the second half a bit dodgey. I am not talking about what CDs and LPs can do but what has actually been done. "CD better preserves the sound of that master tape than LP" is IMO a substantially different claim then "Commercial CDs have preserved the sound of master tapes provided no tinkering has been done with the master tape better than LPs have regardless of the playback equipment." The difference is the first is not refering to real world instances and the second is. And it is the real world availablity of commercial CDs and LPs that the audiophile has to deal with. Oh, is that what this is about? Something made me think you were talking about the *accuracy* of CDs and LPs. Like the title of your thread? Not exactly truth in advertising, I'd say. In that case, I think I'll just take a pass on *your* views, then. I can't imagine anything less interesting than your opinion about the quality of commercially available CDs. bob If the discussion is about real world availability of commercial CD's and LP's that the audiophile has to deal with (and not about accuracy of the media and the underlying technologies), that it should be a short discussion. In the real world, almost all new music performances are on CD's. Only a tiny minority is available on LP's. Not much sense in comparing, since if you want to listen to those new performances, you're stuck with listening to CD's. |
|
#39
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
The truth about accuracy of CD v. LP
wrote:
wrote: A thought I've had: could we say that the ear/brain system is highly tuned to the types of sounds which normally occur in nature, and can recognize sounds which, in some way, don't correspond to natural occurances? You're basically talking about training, which can be formal or informal. Well, actually I'm considering whether the "training" we all receive by growing up as human beings, not to mention the genetic wiring of our brains, means we are attuned to the kinds of sounds which occur in "nature".. that is, the kinds of sounds which were normal and commonplace during our evolution. Then I'm looking at audio reproduction, and wondering if things like the distortion caused by speakers, or the resonances, vibrations, and distortions of vinyl, would be perceived as "natural" sounds, or not. For example, a hobby of mine is digital sound synthesis. Using a program called Csound, I write digital "instruments". some of them are meant to imitate real acoustic instruments, while others are purely electronic-sounding. A guy named Perry Cook is leading the way in digital modeling of acoustic instruments, and Csound incorporates some of his models. I know about Perry's work. In fact, I used to sing right next to him in a church choir while he was a doctoral student at Stanford. He sings a wonderful bass. Neat! He sure is a master of the math. I have one of his books. A great explanation of the math. Anyway, I've had a chance to play with these digital instruments, and in particular notice what types of sounds seem "real" and which seem "electronic" (not like something occuring in the physical world). I've noticed a few things. Tonal balance needs to be right. Some sounds have too much highs or too little highs.. they don't sound like something that could occur physically. Humans have an intuition about natural events, like two things bonking together. You are going to hear a lot of high frequencies when two rocks hit each other, but not *too* much high frequencies. I've never been fooled by these synthetic systems, but they are fun. If enough could be controlled, perhaps I would, but it's not there yet and may never be. But that is not terribly germane to a REproduction of an acoustic event. I thought that's what the subject was here. Yeah, the subject (for me anyway) is what makes a reproduction sound more real or natural than another one. Just as you mention, putting several copies of an instrument together, and detuning them slightly especially with random tuning fluctuations, makes a much richer sound that resembles something real. Nevertheless, this effect never gets away from an "artificial sound." Listen to a recording of a real instrument and Wow! you know right away you are listening to a real thing, and that the electronic sounds are not like something in the physical world. I'm not so sure about that. Some organs I've heard are so hiddeous that I might prefer an good electronic counterfeit, because I swore they sounded like an electronic until I found out it was pipes buried in a distant chamber and so there was little actual effect of pipes in 3 dimensional space. I thought this discussion was about better quality than that. What's interesting to me about an organ in 3 dimensional acoustic space, is that it is a complex system, but a physical one. I don't think 'random' or 'distortion' is a good term here. That's because when you add randomness to electronic sounds, you don't get "real-sounding" sounds. You get richer sounds, yes, but you don't come anywhere close to crossing that real/artifical divide. I suspect that's because the ear/brain knows pretty well what complexity results from real (complex) physical models, and what complexity has been inserted after the fact via some algorithm. Words fail, but those terms were used freely by John Brombaugh when I worked for him to describe these effects. He's arguably themost infuential organ builder in the last 35 years who received several patents designing electronic organs before he gave up in frustration in order to build historically inspired tracker instruments. Arguing about semantics isn't productive. Use the Google to find out more about him and his many associates that started their own workshops after learning from him. I don't see this as a semantic argument. Two posts above you wrote this: ----------------------------------------------------------------- The distortions of LP can be pleasant in the same sense that a certain degree of randomness is necessary to make a musical sound. This is why electronic organs fail miserably in comparison to pipes: i.e. they don't have the randomess that a mass of pipes in 3 dimensional acoustic space have, and technically, this is 'distortion.' (for lack of a better term in this context) Simularly, saying that fifth's on harpsichords are a stable interval ignores the fact that in tuning, one tunes the beats produced immediately after the pluck, not to the after ring, which has more inharmonicity, and thus is part of the 'randomness' I mentioned that makes a musical sound more interesting. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- You are talking about what sounds pleasant and suggesting that LP sounds pleasant for reasons having to do with the distortion. I'm interested in this idea.. and I'm simply pointing out that different physical systems will be perceived differently. I'm also pointing out that these systems (an acoustic space, or a harpsichord string) have very complex behavior, but this behavior occurs as the spinning out of a physical system acting according to phsycial laws. I'm curious to know if this kind of system corresponds to anything we evolved to detect.. or is it something totally new? If the distortions of LP correspond to systems we evolved to detect, perhaps that explains why they are "pleasant". Consider audio: it's an illusion in that it doesn't recreate the same soundfield (two channel, anyway), and it tries to portray several instruments scattered in space, but in reality all the sounds are coming from some paper/cloth/whatever cones positioned on the left and right side. Perhaps this is one reason we can't be completely fooled. At best, it can only be aproximated like an asymptote. Our ears are filters that have properties that are getting better mapped out every day in research. The subjectivist wing of high end audio contributes NOTHING to this. Zero. In fact, their contribution is negative to understanding the subject better. Simularly, saying that fifth's on harpsichords are a stable interval ignores the fact that in tuning, one tunes the beats produced immediately after the pluck, not to the after ring, which has more inharmonicity, and thus is part of the 'randomness' I mentioned that makes a musical sound more interesting. Since all reproduced music is sadly lacking in realism and musicality compared to a live acoustic event, some people prefer to add random-like distortions to their setup as a compromise. Okay, that's one theory.. that we prefer analog because it adds random-like distortion. But what's curious is that you can easily find recording engineers who spend a lot of time in concert halls, then make recordings of those same performances, in both digital and analog form.. so they have plenty of experience with the choices involved.. and for their ears, analog is a better representation of the musical event, as a fairly clear general trend. That's simply not a factual statement, sorry. They are a small minority, even in the highest quality circles. Maybe you need to get out more. Ha! Actually, if I 'got out more', all I would do is run into more engineers who find analog to better reproduce the musical experience. I said they are easy to find, and they are. They are also very sane, intelligent, perceptive people who are often masters of musical knowledge. And as I said above, "randomness" doesn't make things real.. it makes them more complex, but I think a better word for what you are describing is "complex" -- that is, complex, but very real, physical models. The after ring is not random, it is the consequence of a real, and complex, physical system acting as it acts. I'm not going to debate semantics. Words fail. See above. I can tell you from experience that adding random fluctuations of frequency to a sustained tone or interval does *not* make it sound real. It sounds richer, yes, but not real. Random is not added. It is uncontrolled. It just IS. I have no idea what this means. Consider the after ring of a harpsichord. A lot can be done by the voicer to infulence it the way he likes, thickness of the soundboard, bracing of the frame, type of wood, bridge, string choice, etc., but not everything. But these effects are huge compared to the difference between well designed audio electronics. It is amazing to me how many people simply don't understand that. Perhaps the fact that analog is a complex and physical system adds just the right kind of distortion. (as opposed to digital models) For REproduction systems, the goal is NO distortion, unless you want to add it. Frankly, I'm sick to death of claims or insinuations that these approaches to music reproduction are 'more accurate' with any qualifying conditional statements by the person making them. It's just a civilized courtesy to do so. If you accept that different people are listening for different things, then ALL statements about the ability of an audio system to create authentic reproductions of sound are *relative* to what that person listens for. I know you would like qualitifications, but they really aren't necessary. Every single statement anyone makes about what audio systems best reproduce musc, is truest to the orignal---in short, is "accurate"---has an implicit qualification, "Relative to what I listen for." A REproduction system has an input and an output that can be compared, quatitatively (measurements) and qualtatively. (just listening i.e. - blind) You can make correlations between to the two and use simple logic to determine what is likely true and not true. You are talking about what you LIKE. That's okay, but don't confuse the two. All true advancements in audio have been by the above method, despite the insistence of the handwaving mythology believers. Audio mythology is ersatz, sorry. The said approach is also very unweildy in the sense that the user has quite limited and relatively imprecise control over how a system behaves. I gave up on it because assuming a reproduction system is a musical instrument might be good for one handful (at best) of recordings, but terrible for another and I'm not content to listen only to recordings that might have the best sound, The curious thing is that for some of us, using analog means is not unweildy.. it is not an attempt to create distortions that compensate for flaws in recordings.. it is simply the best way to reproduce music. They are not created per se. They just ARE. And people like them, including myself at times, which is fine. It is not accurate in terms of signal processing. That's the evidence. What's the problem here? Are you having trouble admitting that you just LIKE something? I do like analog. And I also think it sounds more like live music. As far as I can tell, it is the objectivists who have the difficulty admitting these are two distinct experiences. Is there something the matter with that? Why? I find all this beating around the bush quite strange and a waste of time. I've been there, I know the experience, and it's so full of cul-de-sacs that one ends up doing virtually nothing but chasing their own tail. With audio, I'm looking for general progress in REcreating realism of acoustic events and discovering the new things that go there that are better than before. If I want to please myself with music to a greater degree, I ultimately turn off the stereo, play my instruments and/or go to a concert. True, I'm fortunate to be able to play, something that not everybody can do, but I want to LEARN first and foremost. You may differ. As Dick Pierce put it earlier, the results are what is important. And being correctly informed makes a difference. I would really like to hear a CD processed through DSP such that it sounds like analog. That would be wonderful. I'm also going to be making CD-R recordings of some of my records, so we'll see. Just record an LP to a CD with a very good soundcard. Lynx Two is the best I know of, but probably not necessary. It should go without saying, but make sure any comparison is blind, level matched, time synched, and has a bull detector if you want it to carry any significance beyond yourself. As you said, "we'll see." (emphasis mine) I'm not going to make a comparison, at least not planning to now. I'm just going to put the recording in my iPod, go to a quiet space, and enjoy the music. If I find myself enjoying it as much as I ever do listening directly to vinyl, that's all the evidence I need. Enjoy the music. Yup! Mike |
|
#40
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
The truth about accuracy of CD v. LP
Scott wrote:
Actually they all will insert some form of EQ. Mike wrote: These modifications are not necessary when producing a CD. This means that the LP cutting master can't possibly be identical to the master tape for a CD. Scott replied: But it can and many are. Sometimes for ambitious reasons sometimes for the wrong reason. You contradict yourself. If they ALL insert some form of EQ (RIAA) then your last statement can't be correct. LP Master tapes MUST be equalized. ---MIKE--- In the White Mountains of New Hampshire (44=B0 15' N - Elevation 1580') |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| THE TRUTH ABOUT SPEAKER WIRE | Tech | |||
| Share Your Snake Oil Story... | Pro Audio | |||
| Share Your Snake Oil Story... | Audio Opinions | |||
| Is THD really the Science of Accuracy? | Vacuum Tubes | |||
| ADAM P11a vs Truth Audio TA-1 monitors (not Behringer) | Pro Audio | |||
Linear Mode
