Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default Quote without comment

"Robert Orban" wrote in message
news
Through hard experience I've found that with
recordings of this vintage, it really pays to find
sealed, unplayed copies even if one has to wait for them
to show up on eBay and even if one has to pay more. There
were a *lot* of bad phono playback systems in the late
60s, and even one play through some of them could audibly
damage the vinyl.


Finally, after doing this a hundred times or so I have to
observe that the audio quality of the run of the mill
vinyl from that era was pretty bad. It got a lot better
starting in mid-1969, probably because a new generation
of disc cutters was just coming on line.


I find
incomprehensible the affection that some people evidently
have for the audio quality of vinyl from that era.


Bob Orban


Who is Robert Orban?

Robert Orban is one of the most productive minds in the audio industry, and
has been so for the past 30-40 years.

http://www.orban.com/about/timeline/

Patents:
3,980,828 Reverberation system with extended frequency response
4,103,243 Method and system for controlling peak signal levels in a
bandlimited recording or transmission system employing high-frequency
pre-emphasis
4,208,548 Apparatus and method for peak-limiting audio frequency signals
4,228,368 Polarity correcting circuit
4,241,266 Peak-limiting apparatus for audio signal
4,249,042 Multiband cross-coupled compressor with overshoot protection
circuit
4,412,100 Multiband signal processor
4,460,871 Multiband cross-coupled compressor with overshoot protection
circuit
4,495,643 Audio peak limiter using Hilbert transforms
4,525,857 Crossover network
4,674,122 Encoding for the FMX companding system
4,837,824 Stereophonic image widening circuit
4,888,789 Adjustable equalizer for compensating for high frequency rolloff
and typical AM receivers
5,050,217 Dynamic noise reduction and spectral restoration system
5,168,526 Distortion-cancellation circuit for audio peak limiting
5,282,252 Audio equalizer providing reciprocal equalization plus
infinite-depth notch
5,444,788 Audio compressor combining feedback and feedfoward sidechain
processing
5,574,791 Combined de-esser and high-frequency enhancer using single pair of
level detectors
6,337,999 Oversampled differential clipper
6,434,241 Controlling the peak levels of the FM composite signal by
half-cosine interpolation
Papers:
A Short History of Transmission Audio Processing in the United States
http://www.bext.com/histproc.htm






  #2   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes
Clyde Slick Clyde Slick is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,545
Default Quote without comment

On 29 Aug, 15:13, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Robert Orban" wrote in message

news


Through hard experience I've found that with
recordings of this vintage, it really pays to find
sealed, unplayed copies even if one has to wait for them
to show up on eBay and even if one has to pay more. There
were a *lot* of bad phono playback systems in the late
60s, and even one play through some of them could audibly
damage the vinyl.
Finally, after doing this a hundred times or so I have to
observe that the audio quality of the run of the mill
vinyl from that era was pretty bad. It got a lot better
starting in mid-1969, probably because a new generation
of disc cutters was just coming on line.
I find
incomprehensible the affection that some people evidently
have for the audio quality of vinyl from that era.
Bob Orban


Who is Robert Orban?

Robert Orban is one of the most productive minds in the audio industry, and
has been so for the past 30-40 years.

http://www.orban.com/about/timeline/

Patents:
3,980,828 Reverberation system with extended frequency response
4,103,243 Method and system for controlling peak signal levels in a
bandlimited recording or transmission system employing high-frequency
pre-emphasis
4,208,548 Apparatus and method for peak-limiting audio frequency signals
4,228,368 Polarity correcting circuit
4,241,266 Peak-limiting apparatus for audio signal
4,249,042 Multiband cross-coupled compressor with overshoot protection
circuit
4,412,100 Multiband signal processor
4,460,871 Multiband cross-coupled compressor with overshoot protection
circuit
4,495,643 Audio peak limiter using Hilbert transforms
4,525,857 Crossover network
4,674,122 Encoding for the FMX companding system
4,837,824 Stereophonic image widening circuit
4,888,789 Adjustable equalizer for compensating for high frequency rolloff
and typical AM receivers
5,050,217 Dynamic noise reduction and spectral restoration system
5,168,526 Distortion-cancellation circuit for audio peak limiting
5,282,252 Audio equalizer providing reciprocal equalization plus
infinite-depth notch
5,444,788 Audio compressor combining feedback and feedfoward sidechain
processing
5,574,791 Combined de-esser and high-frequency enhancer using single pair of
level detectors
6,337,999 Oversampled differential clipper
6,434,241 Controlling the peak levels of the FM composite signal by
half-cosine interpolation
Papers:
A Short History of Transmission Audio Processing in the United Stateshttp://www.bext.com/histproc.htm


yea, alright, but what about a patent for the Omni ashtray?
been there, done that?

  #3   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default Quote without comment

"MiNe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Robert Orban" wrote in
message
news
Through hard experience I've found that with
recordings of this vintage, it really pays to find
sealed, unplayed copies even if one has to wait for them
to show up on eBay and even if one has to pay more.
There were a *lot* of bad phono playback systems in the
late 60s, and even one play through some of them could
audibly damage the vinyl.


Finally, after doing this a hundred times or so I have
to observe that the audio quality of the run of the mill
vinyl from that era was pretty bad. It got a lot better
starting in mid-1969, probably because a new generation
of disc cutters was just coming on line.


I find
incomprehensible the affection that some people
evidently have for the audio quality of vinyl from that
era.


Bob Orban


Who is Robert Orban?


Nice appeal to authority.


If you and Jen promise to never appeal to authority, personal or otherwise,
I'll do the same. ;-)

Was someone arguing in favor of
damaged, poor-quality vinyl?


Nice job of missing the point of the second paragraph, Stephen.
"Distractions R U", right? ;-)

It should be pretty obvious to an unbiased reader (not Stephen or Jen for
example) that the second paragraph refers to undamaged, even completely
virgin LPs. The point of the first paragraph is that Orban has very high
standards for choosing and preparing LPs for digitizing. But even given
that, the LP format still falls way short of modern standards for quality
audio.


  #4   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes
jakdedert jakdedert is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 672
Default Quote without comment

MiNe 109 wrote:
snip
Finally, after doing this a hundred times or so I have to
observe that the audio quality of the run of the mill
vinyl from that era was pretty bad. It got a lot better
starting in mid-1969, probably because a new generation
of disc cutters was just coming on line.
I find
incomprehensible the affection that some people evidently
have for the audio quality of vinyl from that era.
Bob Orban

Who is Robert Orban?


Nice appeal to authority. Was someone arguing in favor of damaged,
poor-quality vinyl?

I dunno. I didn't read the thread which provoked the above. My
experience in the 60's/70's was that the vast majority of vinyl records
(the only kind available, of course) were real crap, quality wise. If
one wanted a quiet, clean copy of a given suite of music, it was
necessary to buy multiple copies and transfer immediately to tape. I
never--repeat, NEVER--heard a completely pop-free album in my entire
life...and I was a dealer.

Still, there is that nostalgia for the 'good ol' days' that persists and
grows.

jak

Stephen.


  #5   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default Quote without comment

"jakdedert" wrote in message

MiNe 109 wrote:



snip
Finally, after doing this a hundred times or so I have
to observe that the audio quality of the run of the
mill vinyl from that era was pretty bad. It got a lot
better starting in mid-1969, probably because a new
generation of disc cutters was just coming on line.
I find
incomprehensible the affection that some people
evidently have for the audio quality of vinyl from
that era. Bob Orban
Who is Robert Orban?


Nice appeal to authority. Was someone arguing in favor
of damaged, poor-quality vinyl?


I dunno. I didn't read the thread which provoked the
above.



You can find it he

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...b8d154c20e0ebf

My experience in the 60's/70's was that the vast
majority of vinyl records (the only kind available, of
course) were real crap, quality wise.


In the US, particularly true. I spent a year in Germany near the end of the
60s and the quality of LPs was considerably better over there. But the
inherent limitations of the LP format still intruded, big time.

If one wanted a
quiet, clean copy of a given suite of music, it was
necessary to buy multiple copies and transfer immediately
to tape.


Hence my Revox A-77 in the day.

I never--repeat, NEVER--heard a completely
pop-free album in my entire life...and I was a dealer.


Even the enhanced quality of european pressings didn't totally erase that
problem.

Still, there is that nostalgia for the 'good ol' days'
that persists and grows.


I think that in the end, it will be yet another boomer thing that dies with
that generation.




  #6   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes
George M. Middius George M. Middius is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,173
Default Quote without comment



jakdedert said:

Still, there is that nostalgia for the 'good ol' days' that persists and
grows.


You're fueling the Krooborg's jihad.



  #7   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes
Jenn Jenn is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,021
Default Quote without comment

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Robert Orban" wrote in message
news
Through hard experience I've found that with
recordings of this vintage, it really pays to find
sealed, unplayed copies even if one has to wait for them
to show up on eBay and even if one has to pay more. There
were a *lot* of bad phono playback systems in the late
60s, and even one play through some of them could audibly
damage the vinyl.


Finally, after doing this a hundred times or so I have to
observe that the audio quality of the run of the mill
vinyl from that era was pretty bad. It got a lot better
starting in mid-1969, probably because a new generation
of disc cutters was just coming on line.


I find
incomprehensible the affection that some people evidently
have for the audio quality of vinyl from that era.


Bob Orban


I don't find a whole lot to disagree with here. There was a lot of junk
out there, as there is presently in digital. Just about all Columbia
and DGG was very bad in the 60s. A shame considering the performances
they recorded. Most of Mercury, Decca, EMI, Harmonia Mundi, and much of
RCA sounded terrific on the other hand.
  #8   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default Quote without comment

"MiNe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
jakdedert wrote:

MiNe 109 wrote:
snip
Finally, after doing this a hundred times or so I
have to observe that the audio quality of the run of
the mill vinyl from that era was pretty bad. It got a
lot better starting in mid-1969, probably because a
new generation of disc cutters was just coming on
line.
I find
incomprehensible the affection that some people
evidently have for the audio quality of vinyl from
that era.
Bob Orban
Who is Robert Orban?

Nice appeal to authority. Was someone arguing in favor
of damaged, poor-quality vinyl?

I dunno. I didn't read the thread which provoked the
above. My experience in the 60's/70's was that the vast
majority of vinyl records (the only kind available, of
course) were real crap, quality wise. If one wanted a
quiet, clean copy of a given suite of music, it was
necessary to buy multiple copies and transfer
immediately to tape. I never--repeat, NEVER--heard a
completely pop-free album in my entire life...and I was
a dealer.


I swore off classical lps after a bad stretch of DGs in
the early eighties. After that, the decision was made for
me!


So you never play classical LPs any more?

Still, there is that nostalgia for the 'good ol' days'
that persists and grows.


Can't have that.


Actually, desipite all the phoney angst we hear from vinylistas, there's no
problem with sentimentality at all.

The problem comes when a tiny minority of vinyl bigots confuse
sentimentality for LP's well-known audible foilbles with improved sound
quality and realism.


  #9   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default Quote without comment

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Robert Orban" wrote in
message
news
Through hard experience I've found that with
recordings of this vintage, it really pays to find
sealed, unplayed copies even if one has to wait for them
to show up on eBay and even if one has to pay more.
There were a *lot* of bad phono playback systems in the
late 60s, and even one play through some of them could
audibly damage the vinyl.


Finally, after doing this a hundred times or so I have
to observe that the audio quality of the run of the mill
vinyl from that era was pretty bad. It got a lot better
starting in mid-1969, probably because a new generation
of disc cutters was just coming on line.


I find
incomprehensible the affection that some people
evidently have for the audio quality of vinyl from that
era.


Bob Orban


I don't find a whole lot to disagree with here.


Except when you start free-associating with the usual vinylista propaganda
about certain LPs sounding more realistic than any CD.

There
was a lot of junk out there, as there is presently in
digital.


The difference is that the junk problem with the LP could never be
adequately solved. The junk problem with CDs is simply that there's no
accounting for taste.

Just about all Columbia and DGG was very bad in
the 60s. A shame considering the performances they
recorded. Most of Mercury, Decca, EMI, Harmonia Mundi,
and much of RCA sounded terrific on the other hand.


Still had the usual litany of vinyl noises, distortion and coloration.


  #10   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default Quote without comment

"MiNe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MiNe 109" wrote in message

In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"Robert Orban" wrote in
message
news
Through hard experience I've found that with
recordings of this vintage, it really pays to find
sealed, unplayed copies even if one has to wait for
them to show up on eBay and even if one has to pay
more. There were a *lot* of bad phono playback
systems in the late 60s, and even one play through
some of them could audibly damage the vinyl.


Finally, after doing this a hundred times or so I have
to observe that the audio quality of the run of the
mill vinyl from that era was pretty bad. It got a lot
better starting in mid-1969, probably because a new
generation of disc cutters was just coming on line.


I find
incomprehensible the affection that some people
evidently have for the audio quality of vinyl from
that era.


Bob Orban


Who is Robert Orban?


Nice appeal to authority.


If you and Jen promise to never appeal to authority,
personal or otherwise, I'll do the same. ;-)


Appeals to authority are usually in service of an
argument.

Was someone arguing in favor of
damaged, poor-quality vinyl?


Nice job of missing the point of the second paragraph,
Stephen. "Distractions R U", right? ;-)


Most lps were junk. Who was saying otherwise?


Come on Stephen, the truth is that compared to a well-made digital
recording, the very best LP ever made was still, noisy, colored, and
distorted junk.

It should be pretty obvious to an unbiased reader (not
Stephen or Jen for example) that the second paragraph
refers to undamaged, even completely virgin LPs. The
point of the first paragraph is that Orban has very high
standards for choosing and preparing LPs for digitizing.
But even given that, the LP format still falls way short
of modern standards for quality audio.


The first paragraph doesn't mention digitizing at all.


Come on Stephen, I posted a link to the whole post. The original post on
RAO could be linked to the OP I quoted on RAP in two clicks. Can you
possibly bring yourself to judge a statement in its proper context?

Still, in cases of deteriorated or missing original
master tapes, an LP transfer might be the best way to
hear a specific recording.


In the absence of superior options which often abound, we sometimes must get
desperate and dab some makeup on LP's sonic piggishness, in order to just
enjoy the music.




  #11   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes
Jenn Jenn is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,021
Default Quote without comment

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Robert Orban" wrote in
message
news
Through hard experience I've found that with
recordings of this vintage, it really pays to find
sealed, unplayed copies even if one has to wait for them
to show up on eBay and even if one has to pay more.
There were a *lot* of bad phono playback systems in the
late 60s, and even one play through some of them could
audibly damage the vinyl.

Finally, after doing this a hundred times or so I have
to observe that the audio quality of the run of the mill
vinyl from that era was pretty bad. It got a lot better
starting in mid-1969, probably because a new generation
of disc cutters was just coming on line.

I find
incomprehensible the affection that some people
evidently have for the audio quality of vinyl from that
era.

Bob Orban


I don't find a whole lot to disagree with here.


Except when you start free-associating with the usual vinylista propaganda
about certain LPs sounding more realistic than any CD.


What does that have to do with your quote?


There
was a lot of junk out there, as there is presently in
digital.


The difference is that the junk problem with the LP could never be
adequately solved. The junk problem with CDs is simply that there's no
accounting for taste.


Whatever. There are bad LPs and there are bad CDs. So?


Just about all Columbia and DGG was very bad in
the 60s. A shame considering the performances they
recorded. Most of Mercury, Decca, EMI, Harmonia Mundi,
and much of RCA sounded terrific on the other hand.


Still had the usual litany of vinyl noises, distortion and coloration.


And many sounded more like music than any CD I've heard. That's based on
the highest authority for the purposes of my music listening: my ears.
  #12   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default Quote without comment

"MiNe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MiNe 109" wrote in message

In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"MiNe 109" wrote in
message

In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"Robert Orban" wrote in
message
news
Through hard experience I've found that with
recordings of this vintage, it really pays to find
sealed, unplayed copies even if one has to wait for
them to show up on eBay and even if one has to pay
more. There were a *lot* of bad phono playback
systems in the late 60s, and even one play through
some of them could audibly damage the vinyl.

Finally, after doing this a hundred times or so I
have to observe that the audio quality of the run
of the mill vinyl from that era was pretty bad. It
got a lot better starting in mid-1969, probably
because a new generation of disc cutters was just
coming on line.

I find
incomprehensible the affection that some people
evidently have for the audio quality of vinyl from
that era.

Bob Orban

Who is Robert Orban?

Nice appeal to authority.

If you and Jen promise to never appeal to authority,
personal or otherwise, I'll do the same. ;-)

Appeals to authority are usually in service of an
argument.

Was someone arguing in favor of
damaged, poor-quality vinyl?

Nice job of missing the point of the second paragraph,
Stephen. "Distractions R U", right? ;-)

Most lps were junk. Who was saying otherwise?


Come on Stephen, the truth is that compared to a
well-made digital recording, the very best LP ever made
was still, noisy, colored, and distorted junk.


That's an opinion.


No, that's a fact to just about everybody with the proverbial brain, and its
a fact to a great many more. Fact is there is this tiny noisy minority who
are sort of like the audio world's version of extremely pierced people. They
mostly want to be thought of as being special. Many will take up any number
of completely anti-factual not to mention illogical positions to get the
special attention that they crave.

As for "still," one spins vinyl.


Naah, compared to the CD that spins at 300 rpm and up, the 33 rpm LP is
standing still.

It should be pretty obvious to an unbiased reader (not
Stephen or Jen for example) that the second paragraph
refers to undamaged, even completely virgin LPs. The
point of the first paragraph is that Orban has very
high standards for choosing and preparing LPs for
digitizing. But even given that, the LP format still
falls way short of modern standards for quality audio.


The first paragraph doesn't mention digitizing at all.


Come on Stephen, I posted a link to the whole post. The
original post on RAO could be linked to the OP I quoted
on RAP in two clicks. Can you possibly bring yourself to
judge a statement in its proper context?


That brings up the question of why you crossposted while
suppressing the group in which it originated.


The supression exists only in your mind, Stephen. Knowlegable persons used
google to trace the post id, and quickly found out everything there was to
know. Need a google 101 course, Stephen?


Still, in cases of deteriorated or missing original
master tapes, an LP transfer might be the best way to
hear a specific recording.


In the absence of superior options which often abound,
we sometimes must get desperate and dab some makeup on
LP's sonic piggishness, in order to just enjoy the music.


Straight transfers, a little de-clicking, and there you
are.


I can see that even with the link to Orban's OP staring you in the face
Stephen, you are caught flat on your feet, and have hung yourself out to
dry. Here it is again:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...b8d154c20e0ebf


  #13   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default Quote without comment

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"Robert Orban" wrote in
message
news
Through hard experience I've found that with
recordings of this vintage, it really pays to find
sealed, unplayed copies even if one has to wait for
them to show up on eBay and even if one has to pay
more. There were a *lot* of bad phono playback
systems in the late 60s, and even one play through
some of them could audibly damage the vinyl.

Finally, after doing this a hundred times or so I have
to observe that the audio quality of the run of the
mill vinyl from that era was pretty bad. It got a lot
better starting in mid-1969, probably because a new
generation of disc cutters was just coming on line.

I find
incomprehensible the affection that some people
evidently have for the audio quality of vinyl from
that era.

Bob Orban

I don't find a whole lot to disagree with here.


Except when you start free-associating with the usual
vinylista propaganda about certain LPs sounding more
realistic than any CD.


What does that have to do with your quote?


There
was a lot of junk out there, as there is presently in
digital.


The difference is that the junk problem with the LP
could never be adequately solved. The junk problem with
CDs is simply that there's no accounting for taste.


Whatever. There are bad LPs and there are bad CDs. So?


Just about all Columbia and DGG was very bad in
the 60s. A shame considering the performances they
recorded. Most of Mercury, Decca, EMI, Harmonia Mundi,
and much of RCA sounded terrific on the other hand.


Still had the usual litany of vinyl noises, distortion
and coloration.


And many sounded more like music than any CD I've heard.


Jen, even with the usual litany of vinyl noises, distortion
and coloration? I seriously doubt it. More like you're a hopeless romantic,
as demonstrated by how you throw good money after bad for overpriced vinyl
players.

That's based on the highest authority for the purposes of
my music listening: my ears.


No doubt damaged by exposure to too much live music way too loud.


  #14   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default Quote without comment

"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
oups.com

Some people prefer the treble digital artifacts of CD.


There ain't no such thing.


  #15   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tubes
John Byrns John Byrns is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,441
Default Quote without comment

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

It should be pretty obvious to an unbiased reader (not Stephen or Jen for
example) that the second paragraph refers to undamaged, even completely
virgin LPs. The point of the first paragraph is that Orban has very high
standards for choosing and preparing LPs for digitizing. But even given
that, the LP format still falls way short of modern standards for quality
audio.


Arny, every time I read one of your posts I get the impression that all
you listen to is the equipment and technology, and and that you rarely
listen to the music. There is much great and worthwhile music that
comes to us by way 78s, a format with even lower standards than the LPs
you so decry.

Your listing of Bob Orban's patents is very impressive, and I have
always admired and respected Bob's inventiveness and creativity. But
while several of Bob's inventions are indispensable, most of them are
sort of like guns, in that they are not always used for their intended
purpose and are also often used for evil, as they commonly are in
today's audio world.

Bob himself seems to espouse this philosophy of misuse in his post
describing the extensive processing he does to the sound of the original
LP when transferring it to digital. I would be happier with a basically
straight transfer from LP to digital, with the only special processing
applied being some modest declicking.


Regards,

John Byrns

--
Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/


  #16   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tubes
George M. Middius George M. Middius is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,173
Default Quote without comment



John Byrns said to SnottyBorg:

It should be pretty obvious to an unbiased reader (not Stephen or Jen for


Arny, every time I read one of your posts I get the impression that all
you listen to is the equipment and technology, and and that you rarely
listen to the music.


Well, naturally. Arnii has no procedures for "testing" music. He lives
to "test" equipment. All "tests" to date have prooved™ there is no
"relaibley percievable" difference between Krooger's audio krap and the
high-priced stuff Krooger can't afford.

There is much great and worthwhile music that
comes to us by way 78s, a format with even lower standards than the LPs
you so decry.


"Music is irrelevant to audio."
-- A. Krooger (1998, 2001, 2003, 2004, 2006)



  #17   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default Quote without comment

"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
oups.com
On Aug 29, 9:04 am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"MiNe 109" wrote in message





In article
,
jakdedert wrote:


MiNe 109 wrote:
snip
Finally, after doing this a hundred times or so I
have to observe that the audio quality of the run of
the mill vinyl from that era was pretty bad. It got
a lot better starting in mid-1969, probably because
a new generation of disc cutters was just coming on
line.
I find
incomprehensible the affection that some people
evidently have for the audio quality of vinyl from
that era.
Bob Orban
Who is Robert Orban?


Nice appeal to authority. Was someone arguing in favor
of damaged, poor-quality vinyl?


I dunno. I didn't read the thread which provoked the
above. My experience in the 60's/70's was that the
vast majority of vinyl records (the only kind
available, of course) were real crap, quality wise.
If one wanted a quiet, clean copy of a given suite of
music, it was necessary to buy multiple copies and
transfer immediately to tape. I never--repeat,
NEVER--heard a completely pop-free album in my entire
life...and I was a dealer.
I swore off classical lps after a bad stretch of DGs in
the early eighties. After that, the decision was made
for me!


So you never play classical LPs any more?

Still, there is that nostalgia for the 'good ol' days'
that persists and grows.
Can't have that.


Actually, desipite all the phoney angst we hear from
vinylistas, there's no problem with sentimentality at
all.

The problem comes when a tiny minority of vinyl bigots
confuse sentimentality for LP's well-known audible
foilbles with improved sound quality and realism.


The fact is is that when best practices were followed
throughout the chain, vinyl wasn't too bad, but it was
never intended to equal 30 ips half inch half track,


Vinyl was never intended to equal 30 ips half track?

Ask Doug Sax!

and it never did.


Doug Sax thought differently. Hence: Sheffield Records.

To this day GOOD analog tape is the gold
standard of recording, and neither vinyl nor CD equals it.


Both are arguable, but that that the CD format sonically surpasses analog
tape is fact.

There was some pretty good vinyl at times. Most of it was
mediocre, even classical releases, and much terrible.
Most CDs are mediocre and the digitization rate is not
adequate for best results especially in the treble. The
rule of analog accuracy is five times bandwidth, as every
old Tektronix catalog stated, but a 23 kHz brick wall
for 20 kHz repro is obvious horse**** on its face.


No one is advocating vinyl today as a primary release
format. But antivinyl activism fails on the basis of
confusing sunk costs with marginal costs:


http://isteve.blogspot.com/2007/08/w...t-fallacy.html


Relevance to vinyl?????????????/

Vinyl is the BEST source of much of the 100+ year library
of recorded sound which mankind possesses.


Not really. There is no 100+ year library of recorded sound on vinyl simply
because vinyl wasn't available and/or wasn't commonly used for something
like the first half of those 100 years.

Other than oddities like those Sheffield Records direct-disc recordings,
virtually all of the recordings that were made on vinyl were first recorded
on magnetic tape. If they are valuable but aren't available on tape, then
someone screwed up.

If you want
to hear the voice of people long dead (or living people
in historical context if they are even modestly old) and
the sounds of music as it was played decades ago, as a
"consumer", vinyl is often it.


Bad history.

Many LPs were never
reissued as CDs and many others were poorly done.


Bad history. Virtually all vinyl LPs were transcribed from tape. Before
LPs there were 78s, and 78s were generally recorded on far harder substances
than vinyl.

Even
many of the latest releases on CD are from less than
excellent masters and sound worse than extant vinyl.


That's an archiving problem, not a technical situation. If people threw away
their master tapes, that's too bad.

Therefore vinyl playback is not an otiose matter at all.


Thus, the use of vinyl masters is a testimonial to the human propensity to
screw up.


  #18   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tubes
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default Quote without comment

"John Byrns" wrote in message


In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:


It should be pretty obvious to an unbiased reader (not
Stephen or Jen for example) that the second paragraph
refers to undamaged, even completely virgin LPs. The
point of the first paragraph is that Orban has very high
standards for choosing and preparing LPs for digitizing.
But even given that, the LP format still falls way short
of modern standards for quality audio.


Arny, every time I read one of your posts I get the
impression that all you listen to is the equipment and
technology, and and that you rarely listen to the music.


John, it is just your prejudices and biases working overtime, it would seem.

There is much great and worthwhile music that comes to us
by way 78s, a format with even lower standards than the
LPs you so decry.


Agreed, but that isn't what I was talking about. What's unclear about "the
LP format still falls way short
of modern standards for quality audio" .

Can you distinguish between audio and music?

I can.

Your listing of Bob Orban's patents is very impressive,
and I have always admired and respected Bob's
inventiveness and creativity. But while several of Bob's
inventions are indispensable, most of them are sort of
like guns, in that they are not always used for their
intended purpose and are also often used for evil, as
they commonly are in today's audio world.


Agreed. But, I don't see mankind stopping the manufacture and development of
weapons, any time soon. And, when someone shoots someone else, rarely if
ever is the weapons manufacturer or developer held responsibile. If you want
to make up your own laws, be my guest but not my guide!

Bob himself seems to espouse this philosophy of misuse in
his post describing the extensive processing he does to
the sound of the original LP when transferring it to
digital.


That's a reach!

I would be happier with a basically straight
transfer from LP to digital, with the only special
processing applied being some modest declicking.


I'd like to get away with that more often in the work I do. Trouble is, most
if not all of the LPs I end uptranscribing seem to need more processing than
that.


  #19   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tubes
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default Quote without comment

"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
ups.com
It should be pretty obvious to an unbiased reader (not
Stephen or Jen for example) that the second paragraph
refers to undamaged, even completely virgin LPs. The
point of the first paragraph is that Orban has very
high standards for choosing and preparing LPs for
digitizing. But even given that, the LP format still
falls way short of modern standards for quality audio.


I submit the CD does too. And in the case of pop music
made after 1965 or so, we shouldn't have to go from a
vinyl release but the original two track tape masters.


Two track masters have been generally used since about a decade before 1965.


  #20   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default Quote without comment

"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
oups.com
Actually, desipite all the phoney angst we hear from
vinylistas, there's no problem with sentimentality at
all.

The problem comes when a tiny minority of vinyl bigots
confuse sentimentality for LP's well-known audible
foilbles with improved sound quality and realism.


If improved sound quality and realism were the standard
the CD would be superceded.


Trouble is the absence of properly-done listening tests where the CD format
has been found to change sound quality.




  #21   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default Quote without comment

"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
ups.com
On Aug 29, 10:28 am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message

oups.com

Some people prefer the treble digital artifacts of CD.


There ain't no such thing.


But, unfortunately, there are. CD sample rate is NOT high
enough,


Prove it. In fact a sample rate as low as 32 KHz can give transparent
reproduction of just about every kind of music there is.

and that's the consensus view of hundreds of pros
as well as in compliance with the generally accepted
rules of bandwidth.


100's of pros? OK, so there is a tiny fraction of poorly-informed pros out
there. So what?

You want a lot of headroom of
bandwidth-five times was the precision analog rule.


Bret you're conflating headroom with bandwidth. They aren't the same. They
are orthogonal. Know what that means?

In
practice you probably don't need a 100 kHz Nyquist wall,
and as you pointed out earlier it means excessive use of
available file size and throughput, but having the brick
wall at 30-40 kHz is just common sense at modern data
density rates.


That sort of nonsense is supported by neither scientific test, nor the
consensus of the 100's of millions of listeners, musicians, and production
people.

SACD and DVD-A are available and should be the standard
today, with a CD layer for compatibility. It's not
terribly expensive.


It's a waste of good bandwidth. SACD and DVD were failures in the
mainstream marketplace because they had no reliably perceptible benefits.


  #22   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes
John Byrns John Byrns is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,441
Default Quote without comment

In article . com,
Bret Ludwig wrote:

On Aug 29, 10:28 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message

oups.com

Some people prefer the treble digital artifacts of CD.


There ain't no such thing.


But, unfortunately, there are. CD sample rate is NOT high enough, and
that's the consensus view of hundreds of pros as well as in compliance
with the generally accepted rules of bandwidth.


Exactly what is the CD sample rate not high enough for, and how do you
justify that statement? If the audio is first run through a 20 kHz
brick-wall filter the CD sample rate is plenty high. Brick-wall filters
can be built with today's digital techniques that do not contribute
phase distortion to the filtered signal. Done right CD is the ultimate
format for consumer audio, unfortunately we are well down the road
toward abandoning it in favor of low bit rate mp3s and other similar
formats.


Regards,

John Byrns

--
Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/
  #23   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes
ScottW ScottW is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,253
Default Quote without comment

On Aug 29, 10:37 am, John Byrns wrote:
In article . com,
Bret Ludwig wrote:

On Aug 29, 10:28 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message


roups.com


Some people prefer the treble digital artifacts of CD.


There ain't no such thing.


But, unfortunately, there are. CD sample rate is NOT high enough, and
that's the consensus view of hundreds of pros as well as in compliance
with the generally accepted rules of bandwidth.


Exactly what is the CD sample rate not high enough for, and how do you
justify that statement? If the audio is first run through a 20 kHz
brick-wall filter the CD sample rate is plenty high. Brick-wall filters
can be built with today's digital techniques that do not contribute
phase distortion to the filtered signal.


How does one implement an anti-aliasing filter on the
input before a signal is digitized.....digitally?


ScottW

  #24   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default Quote without comment

"John Byrns" wrote in message

In article
. com,
Bret Ludwig wrote:

On Aug 29, 10:28 am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message

oups.com

Some people prefer the treble digital artifacts of CD.

There ain't no such thing.


But, unfortunately, there are. CD sample rate is NOT
high enough, and that's the consensus view of hundreds
of pros as well as in compliance with the generally
accepted rules of bandwidth.


Exactly what is the CD sample rate not high enough for,


A very relevant question.

The SACD and DVD-A advocates have missed a tremendous sales demonstration
opportunity.

All they have to do is set up a booth or room at the AES or some high end
show (e.g. HE 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008...), composed of one
of their new and nifty players playing one of their new and nifty discs
thorugh a great audio system in a great room. Of course, there would be a
back-to-back 16/44 KHz converter pair (example: Midiman's Flying Cow)
operating at unity gain and with minimal delay, that listeners could switch
in and out of the signal path. A blind demonstration facility would be an
available option.

If 44 KHz sampling and 21 KHz brick wall filters were the sonic problem that
Bret and so many others claim, the difference should be immediately obvious,
blind test or not.

and how do you justify that statement?


I suspect that engineers from Sony, Philips, Pioneer, and Panasonic already
did this test, at the very least. They didn't hear a difference, and hence
all the obfuscation that we've had to this day.

If the audio is
first run through a 20 kHz brick-wall filter the CD
sample rate is plenty high.


Agreed, and it takes a brick wall filter at less than 16 KHz to be audible
with a general sampling of music.

Brick-wall filters can be
built with today's digital techniques that do not
contribute phase distortion to the filtered signal.


Agreed. And converters that include these filters are a few bucks, at the
most.

Done
right CD is the ultimate format for consumer audio,


It's overkill!



  #25   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default Quote without comment

"ScottW" wrote in message
ups.com
On Aug 29, 10:37 am, John Byrns
wrote:
In article
. com,
Bret Ludwig wrote:

On Aug 29, 10:28 am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message


oups.com


Some people prefer the treble digital artifacts of CD.


There ain't no such thing.


But, unfortunately, there are. CD sample rate is NOT
high enough, and that's the consensus view of hundreds
of pros as well as in compliance with the generally
accepted rules of bandwidth.


Exactly what is the CD sample rate not high enough for,
and how do you justify that statement? If the audio is
first run through a 20 kHz brick-wall filter the CD
sample rate is plenty high. Brick-wall filters can be
built with today's digital techniques that do not
contribute phase distortion to the filtered signal.


How does one implement an anti-aliasing filter on the
input before a signal is digitized.....digitally?


Before oversampling, brick-wall filtering was done in the analog domain,
with complex filters.

The brick wall filter in the CDP-101 had about 100 components (mostly coils
and capacitors) for 2
channels.

What oversampling does is put the brick-wall filter into the digital domain,
but running at a far higher sample rate then say 44 KHz. Relatively simple
analog filters running at far higher frequencies are then sufficient.




  #26   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes
John Byrns John Byrns is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,441
Default Quote without comment

In article . com,
ScottW wrote:

On Aug 29, 10:37 am, John Byrns wrote:
In article . com,
Bret Ludwig wrote:

On Aug 29, 10:28 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message


roups.com


Some people prefer the treble digital artifacts of CD.


There ain't no such thing.


But, unfortunately, there are. CD sample rate is NOT high enough, and
that's the consensus view of hundreds of pros as well as in compliance
with the generally accepted rules of bandwidth.


Exactly what is the CD sample rate not high enough for, and how do you
justify that statement? If the audio is first run through a 20 kHz
brick-wall filter the CD sample rate is plenty high. Brick-wall filters
can be built with today's digital techniques that do not contribute
phase distortion to the filtered signal.


How does one implement an anti-aliasing filter on the
input before a signal is digitized.....digitally?


By oversampling sufficiently that the required analog filter has
negligible impact.


Regards,

John Byrns

--
Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/
  #27   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes
John Byrns John Byrns is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,441
Default Quote without comment

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"John Byrns" wrote in message

In article
. com,
Bret Ludwig wrote:

On Aug 29, 10:28 am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message

oups.com

Some people prefer the treble digital artifacts of CD.

There ain't no such thing.

But, unfortunately, there are. CD sample rate is NOT
high enough, and that's the consensus view of hundreds
of pros as well as in compliance with the generally
accepted rules of bandwidth.


Exactly what is the CD sample rate not high enough for,


A very relevant question.

The SACD and DVD-A advocates have missed a tremendous sales demonstration
opportunity.

All they have to do is set up a booth or room at the AES or some high end
show (e.g. HE 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008...), composed of one
of their new and nifty players playing one of their new and nifty discs
thorugh a great audio system in a great room. Of course, there would be a
back-to-back 16/44 KHz converter pair (example: Midiman's Flying Cow)
operating at unity gain and with minimal delay, that listeners could switch
in and out of the signal path. A blind demonstration facility would be an
available option.

If 44 KHz sampling and 21 KHz brick wall filters were the sonic problem that
Bret and so many others claim, the difference should be immediately obvious,
blind test or not.

and how do you justify that statement?


I suspect that engineers from Sony, Philips, Pioneer, and Panasonic already
did this test, at the very least. They didn't hear a difference, and hence
all the obfuscation that we've had to this day.

If the audio is
first run through a 20 kHz brick-wall filter the CD
sample rate is plenty high.


Agreed, and it takes a brick wall filter at less than 16 KHz to be audible
with a general sampling of music.

Brick-wall filters can be
built with today's digital techniques that do not
contribute phase distortion to the filtered signal.


Agreed. And converters that include these filters are a few bucks, at the
most.

Done
right CD is the ultimate format for consumer audio,


It's overkill!


The "ultimate" is always overkill to some extent, by definition.


Regards,

John Byrns

--
Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/
  #28   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes
[email protected] dpierce@cartchunk.org is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 402
Default Quote without comment

On Aug 29, 1:56 pm, ScottW wrote:
On Aug 29, 10:37 am, John Byrns wrote:
Exactly what is the CD sample rate not high enough for, and how do you
justify that statement? If the audio is first run through a 20 kHz
brick-wall filter the CD sample rate is plenty high. Brick-wall filters
can be built with today's digital techniques that do not contribute
phase distortion to the filtered signal.


How does one implement an anti-aliasing filter on the
input before a signal is digitized.....digitally?


Yes, in essence.

Put in a VERY gentle analog filter whose low-pass is at,
say, 64x that of your base sample rate. Oversample the
A/D at 64x your final sample rate, e.g., 2.822 MHz, and
then do your real anti-aliasing filtering entirely in the
digital domain. You can now build yourself a very nice
filter at 20+ kHz that has in-band response anomolies
of under +-.1 dB, excellent phase repsonse and more.

Same thing for the output reconstruction filter: oversample
the stream, do your filtering digitally, then convert and follow
with a final very gentle analog filter. Those analog filters
now need not be at the top of the bandwidth, they can be
32x higher, far above the 5 times limit that Ludwig is
wagging about.

It, by the way, has been routinely this for the last couple
of decades in one form or another.


  #29   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tubes
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default Quote without comment

"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
ups.com

I submit the CD does too. And in the case of pop music
made after 1965 or so, we shouldn't have to go from a
vinyl release but the original two track tape masters.


Two track masters have been generally used since about a
decade before 1965.


Since most releases then were mono, they were one track
masters.


Dirty little secret Bret - people were recording stereo for years before
stereo LPs became available.

Mono LPs were available until well into the rock era.


Irrelevant to how they were recorded.

And in fact most people prefer mono Beatles and
Stones LPs (of that era) sonically.


OK, so their engineers didn't always know how to mix properly.

Say it to yourself as many times as it takes Bret - music and audio are two
different things that often converge, but it ain't necessarily so all of the
time.


  #30   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default Quote without comment

"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
oups.com
The problem comes when a tiny minority of vinyl bigots
confuse sentimentality for LP's well-known audible
foilbles with improved sound quality and realism.
The fact is is that when best practices were followed
throughout the chain, vinyl wasn't too bad, but it was
never intended to equal 30 ips half inch half track,


Vinyl was never intended to equal 30 ips half track?

Ask Doug Sax!

and it never did.


Doug Sax thought differently. Hence: Sheffield Records.


Doug never said LP was BETTER than pro tape, but that it
wasn't better than the live signal feed, and that saving
a step in the chain would mean better fidelity. In fact
it did.


Time to use a little logic Bret. If something degrades the sound of a
medium, then its accuracy is equal or less than that medium. For example,
people cut lots of very successful LPs from digital masters that were less
than 44 KHz and 16 bits.

To this day GOOD analog tape is the gold
standard of recording, and neither vinyl nor CD equals
it.


Both are arguable, but that that the CD format sonically
surpasses analog tape is fact.


Not good pro analog tape, it does not.


I know better because I've heard it.

Pro highbit digital formats, whether tape or hard drive, do.


Note to Bret: Highbit is digital, not analog. I clearly said analog tape.

Vinyl is the BEST source of much of the 100+ year
library of recorded sound which mankind possesses.


Not really. There is no 100+ year library of recorded
sound on vinyl simply because vinyl wasn't available
and/or wasn't commonly used for something like the first
half of those 100 years.


In a lot of cases, transcriptions were made of earlier
material onto vinyl and the vinyl is all that survives,


Then a lot of quality was lost due to carelessness. Bret, this is about
technology not occasional lapses.

or the old acetates and wax has further deteriorated by
time and more playing.


True to this day, in which case transcription to digital is the rule.

In others, the tapes have not survived or have not aged well.


Bret why can't you admit it - that you made a mistake and said that vinyl
has been around for 100 years. Heck, PVC wasn't even invented until the
1920s! And, PVC was not in general use until the 1950s because it was soft
and would be destroyed by a lot of the 78 rpm playback equipment that was
widely used.

Give us your assessment, Arny, of Sticky Shed Syndrome
sometime;-)


It is a problem that is generally reversible. You bake the tapes in a warm
oven and drive off the moisture.

Other than oddities like those Sheffield Records
direct-disc recordings, virtually all of the recordings
that were made on vinyl were first recorded on magnetic
tape. If they are valuable but aren't available on tape,
then someone screwed up.


Yes Arny, they did. In some cases that someone was the
tape makers. Other times the record companies, the vault
people, or any of dozens of others.


There was no amount of not screwing up that would result in Vinyl best the
BEST source of much of the 100+ year library of recorded sound which mankind
possesses, because prior to about 58 years ago there were very few vinyl
recordings being made and distributed.

Vinyl is a screwed-up enough medium that transcribing shellac and wax
recordings to it would result in a sound quality loss.





  #31   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default Quote without comment

"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
ups.com
But, unfortunately, there are. CD sample rate is NOT
high enough, and that's the consensus view of hundreds
of pros as well as in compliance with the generally
accepted rules of bandwidth.
Exactly what is the CD sample rate not high enough for,


A very relevant question.

The SACD and DVD-A advocates have missed a tremendous
sales demonstration opportunity.

All they have to do is set up a booth or room at the AES
or some high end show (e.g. HE 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005,
2006, 2007, 2008...), composed of one of their new and
nifty players playing one of their new and nifty discs
thorugh a great audio system in a great room. Of course,
there would be a back-to-back 16/44 KHz converter pair
(example: Midiman's Flying Cow) operating at unity gain
and with minimal delay, that listeners could switch in
and out of the signal path. A blind demonstration
facility would be an available option.


I have an mechanical engineer friend that worked on the
Orenda engine project (basically an aluminum BB Chevy
certified as an aircraft engine.) He was assigned the
cylinder heads, which had to have two spark plugs per
cylinder. He immediately sent off a memo stating that he
felt that this would decrease reliability by making
another stress riser to form cracks. They wrote the
Canada Transport people and they wrote back: It's not our
job to prove that two ignition systems are more reliable:
it's your job to prove they are less reliable. it's our
job to determine what constitutes proof. And since there
are thirty thousand airplanes with dual ignition in
Canada we will have to make change over if you do, we
will require really good proof. Now if you would like to
continue.....


This relates to the audio topic how???????????????


  #32   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tubes
robert casey robert casey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 340
Default Quote without comment



I submit the CD does too. And in the case of pop music made after
1965 or so, we shouldn't have to go from a vinyl release but the
original two track tape masters.


This assumes that those tapes were kept in good enviroments all this
time. And that the tape was of good quality and was able to last
without chemical breakdown and such.
  #33   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes
robert casey robert casey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 340
Default Quote without comment


I don't find a whole lot to disagree with here. There was a lot of junk
out there, as there is presently in digital. Just about all Columbia
and DGG was very bad in the 60s. A shame considering the performances
they recorded. Most of Mercury, Decca, EMI, Harmonia Mundi, and much of
RCA sounded terrific on the other hand.


Bell Records LPs tended to sound distorted. Their 45s were absolute crap.

Heard that they used a version of vinyl that was supposed to sound
really good on the first play, but sounded like crap on subsequent
plays... Disposable music?... Well, some of it was....
  #34   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tubes
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default Quote without comment

Robert Casey wrote:

I submit the CD does too. And in the case of pop music made after
1965 or so, we shouldn't have to go from a vinyl release but the
original two track tape masters.


This assumes that those tapes were kept in good enviroments all this
time. And that the tape was of good quality and was able to last
without chemical breakdown and such.


And they weren't bulk-erased by the label in order to re-use the tape,
or shredded by the musician's angry ex-wife or misfiled in the archive
never to be seen again.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  #35   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes
Mr.T Mr.T is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,108
Default Quote without comment


"MiNe 109" wrote in message
...
Was someone arguing in favor of damaged,
poor-quality vinyl?


Unfortunately that was just the new stuff!

MrT.




  #36   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes
Mr.T Mr.T is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,108
Default Quote without comment


"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
It should be pretty obvious to an unbiased reader (not Stephen or Jen for
example) that the second paragraph refers to undamaged, even completely
virgin LPs. The point of the first paragraph is that Orban has very high
standards for choosing and preparing LPs for digitizing. But even given
that, the LP format still falls way short of modern standards for quality
audio.


And that debate was finished a decade or two ago for *intelligent* people.

Anyone may still PREFER to listen to anything they like, the problem they
have is accepting that they may PREFER something that is actually INFERIOR
to the original sound. Hence their continued need to convince themselves.

Such people even prefer vinyl, and valve amps to live music concerts without
PA, but I don't see so many debates on that issue. Even they have trouble
arguing that case :-)

MrT.


  #37   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tubes
Mr.T Mr.T is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,108
Default Quote without comment


"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
I submit the CD does too. And in the case of pop music
made after 1965 or so, we shouldn't have to go from a
vinyl release but the original two track tape masters.


Two track masters have been generally used since about a decade before

1965.

But unless the owner of the tapes and/or copyright holder wishes to release
to CD, how is a simple LP owner going to get a hold of them?

Also another fact, I have copied an LP to CD for the original recording
artist, where the record label/recording studio had lost the original master
tapes. That is certainly not an isolated incident either, unfortunately.

MrT.


  #38   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes
Jenn Jenn is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,021
Default Quote without comment

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message
.
net
In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"Robert Orban" wrote in
message
news
Through hard experience I've found that with
recordings of this vintage, it really pays to find
sealed, unplayed copies even if one has to wait for
them to show up on eBay and even if one has to pay
more. There were a *lot* of bad phono playback
systems in the late 60s, and even one play through
some of them could audibly damage the vinyl.

Finally, after doing this a hundred times or so I have
to observe that the audio quality of the run of the
mill vinyl from that era was pretty bad. It got a lot
better starting in mid-1969, probably because a new
generation of disc cutters was just coming on line.

I find
incomprehensible the affection that some people
evidently have for the audio quality of vinyl from
that era.

Bob Orban

I don't find a whole lot to disagree with here.

Except when you start free-associating with the usual
vinylista propaganda about certain LPs sounding more
realistic than any CD.


What does that have to do with your quote?


There
was a lot of junk out there, as there is presently in
digital.

The difference is that the junk problem with the LP
could never be adequately solved. The junk problem with
CDs is simply that there's no accounting for taste.


Whatever. There are bad LPs and there are bad CDs. So?


Just about all Columbia and DGG was very bad in
the 60s. A shame considering the performances they
recorded. Most of Mercury, Decca, EMI, Harmonia Mundi,
and much of RCA sounded terrific on the other hand.


Still had the usual litany of vinyl noises, distortion
and coloration.


And many sounded more like music than any CD I've heard.


Jen, even with the usual litany of vinyl noises, distortion
and coloration? I seriously doubt it. More like you're a hopeless romantic,
as demonstrated by how you throw good money after bad for overpriced vinyl
players.


Yes, that must be it.

My name is Jenn, btw.)


That's based on the highest authority for the purposes of
my music listening: my ears.


No doubt damaged by exposure to too much live music way too loud.


Yes, I'm sure.
  #39   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes
Jenn Jenn is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,021
Default Quote without comment

In article . com,
Bret Ludwig wrote:

On Aug 29, 10:28 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Jenn" wrote in

odigy.net



In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:


"Jenn" wrote in
message

.net
In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:


"Robert Orban" wrote in
message
news5mdndg4J_p6UzLbnZ2dnUVZ_gednZ2d@giganews .com


Through hard experience I've found that with
recordings of this vintage, it really pays to find
sealed, unplayed copies even if one has to wait for
them to show up on eBay and even if one has to pay
more. There were a *lot* of bad phono playback
systems in the late 60s, and even one play through
some of them could audibly damage the vinyl.


Finally, after doing this a hundred times or so I have
to observe that the audio quality of the run of the
mill vinyl from that era was pretty bad. It got a lot
better starting in mid-1969, probably because a new
generation of disc cutters was just coming on line.


I find
incomprehensible the affection that some people
evidently have for the audio quality of vinyl from
that era.


Bob Orban


I don't find a whole lot to disagree with here.


Except when you start free-associating with the usual
vinylista propaganda about certain LPs sounding more
realistic than any CD.


What does that have to do with your quote?


There
was a lot of junk out there, as there is presently in
digital.


The difference is that the junk problem with the LP
could never be adequately solved. The junk problem with
CDs is simply that there's no accounting for taste.


Whatever. There are bad LPs and there are bad CDs. So?


Just about all Columbia and DGG was very bad in
the 60s. A shame considering the performances they
recorded. Most of Mercury, Decca, EMI, Harmonia Mundi,
and much of RCA sounded terrific on the other hand.
Still had the usual litany of vinyl noises, distortion
and coloration.
And many sounded more like music than any CD I've heard.


Jen, even with the usual litany of vinyl noises, distortion
and coloration? I seriously doubt it. More like you're a hopeless
romantic,
as demonstrated by how you throw good money after bad for overpriced vinyl
players.

That's based on the highest authority for the purposes of
my music listening: my ears.


No doubt damaged by exposure to too much live music way too loud.


It is a fact classical musicians suffer even more hearing damage than
rock musicians in many cases.


No, it's not. You're really saying that the average classical musician
suffers more hearing damage than the average rock band musician?
  #40   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes
Mr.T Mr.T is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,108
Default Quote without comment


"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
My experience in the 60's/70's was that the vast
majority of vinyl records (the only kind available, of
course) were real crap, quality wise.


In the US, particularly true. I spent a year in Germany near the end of

the
60s and the quality of LPs was considerably better over there. But the
inherent limitations of the LP format still intruded, big time.


Yes, and Japanese pressings.
You can imagine how bad Australian pressings of US artists were, that I even
imported US pressings where necessary :-(
I still have a number of identical recodings from both countries, and the US
pressings were almost always better.
And yet we get people in Australia who still prefer vinyl too.
In fact the worse it sounds, the better they seem to like it :-)

Hence my Revox A-77 in the day.


My choice too. And I'm so pleased I don't have to bother with the tape costs
any more though! Or the inconvenience of all that tape handling.
Not to mention the initial cost of buying the Revox or that other popular
choice for many, the Nakamichi 1000 or Dragon etc.
PLUS the cost of the turntable/tone arm/cartridge and stylus replacements!

Now that a $30 CD player sounds better, it really makes a lot of people
think it must be impossible.
Hurray for technology I say.

I think that in the end, it will be yet another boomer thing that dies

with
that generation.


One can hope, but there will always be a few people with a need to confront
reality somehow.

MrT.


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
Quote without comment Arny Krueger Audio Opinions 188 September 10th 07 10:35 AM
Quote without comment Arny Krueger Tech 190 September 10th 07 10:35 AM
quote [email protected] Car Audio 6 March 14th 06 03:11 AM
A quote Lionel Audio Opinions 4 September 11th 05 06:02 PM
Quote: Wikpedia Arny Krueger Audio Opinions 4 December 22nd 04 06:09 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:41 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"