Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#81
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
High resolution Recording available on line?
On Aug 12, 5:20 pm, George Graves wrote:
On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 14:07:49 -0700, Cheapskate wrote (in article ): In article , George Graves wrote: So? The aim of High-Fidelity is to make the music sound REAL in one's listen room. If it takes certain kinds of distortion to achieve that illusion, then I'm all for it. If it takes certain distortions to make you happy, it's not High-Fidelity by definition. Fidelity: 'the degree of exactness with which something is copied or reproduced.' You conveniently failed to quote where I said that even though perfect reproduction is the GOAL, its an impossible one and that being the case, the next best thing - all that we can currently aspire to - is make the music sound as real as possible in our systems. And in the case of modern technology, sounding "real" and "a perfect straight-wire" from microphone to speaker aren't really the same thing. It seems to me that in this hobby there are two basic "camps": One camp is the "prefect straight-wire" crowd, i.e. what is important is what goes in should be exactly what comes out. The other camp is the "it should like music, no matter what" group. This crowd wants the end result to sound as much like live acoustic music has a possibility of sounding, regardless of any distortion that happens in the chain. I'm firmly in the later group. I want recordings to sound like my Baranik and my Conn and I want LJ's Martin to sound like a Martin and Isaac Stern's Strad to sound like a Strad. I don't care what happens in the system or software as long as it gets as close as possible to that result. If it's distortion, why should I care? But there's room for all of us IMO. Jenn |
#82
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
High resolution Recording available on line?
On Aug 13, 7:02 pm, Jenn wrote:
It seems to me that in this hobby there are two basic "camps": One camp is the "prefect straight-wire" crowd, i.e. what is important is what goes in should be exactly what comes out. The other camp is the "it should like music, no matter what" group. This crowd wants the end result to sound as much like live acoustic music has a possibility of sounding, regardless of any distortion that happens in the chain. Well, actually, there's another camp, represented by those, of which we have an example here, who consider their personal viewpoint to be so unassailable in a global sense, that they are willing to trot out bogus pseudo-technical "arguments" to support their personal viewpoint. CLaims such as "dither does not happen during recording" and "PCM is incapable of capturing ambience below the quantization error" and "ditther is the random manipulation of the bottom two or thee bits to keep them moving around to mask the quantization distortion" and, my favorite, "give me a successive approximation register and I'll build you a DAC" are, unfortunately, a classic existence proof of this camp. They use a poor understanding of basic principles to attempt to prove the superiority of their viewpoint. Myself, I could care less what George or Jenn or Arny LIKE, because it's not important to anyone but themslevs. But to propogate the kind of pseudo scientific claptrap we see here is simply unproductive, confuses the whole affair with irrelevant and incorrect ideas, and only serves to erode the credibility of the person wielding that clumsy club. |
#83
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
High resolution Recording available on line?
On Aug 13, 6:49 pm, George Graves wrote:
As I said before, I'm not asking anyone to believe me. Find these things out for yourself. Don't take my word or anybody's word, for that matter. Okay, sure thing, George. You said: "analog can capture ambience that's well below the noise floor of the recording. PCM cannot." And I found out that you're wrong. Blesser, Vanderkooy Lip****z and other found that out as well. Decades ago. You also said: "dithering is merely the random manipulation of the two or three LSBs added in the CD mastering stage (not during recording)" And I also found out that you were wrong. Dither IS applied during recording. You further said: "They have to actually introduce noise in an effort to keep these bits moving to mask that error." And yet again I found out you were wrong. Dithering does not mask quantization error, it eliminates it. So, George, 'nuf said? |
#84
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
High resolution Recording available on line?
On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 15:55:25 -0700, Randy Yates wrote
(in article ): George Graves writes: [...] The recordings that I have made have been made several ways: Direct to CD from the microphone feed, [...] You had to use an A/D converter, at a minimum. Which converter did you use? The one in the TASCAM SDRW-700P |
#85
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
High resolution Recording available on line?
On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 16:00:15 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "George Graves" wrote in message On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 10:15:52 -0700, Serge Auckland wrote (in article ): "George Graves" wrote in message ... On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 18:12:25 -0700, Serge Auckland wrote (in article ): "George Graves" wrote in message ... On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 08:59:43 -0700, Serge Auckland wrote (in article ): CD is NOT a perfect storage medium. It isn't and it doesn't have to be. If it were, it would involve the listener more like real music involves the listener, The CD format involves most people more like real music than the LP format. Easy to say, harder to prove. It's like saying that more people Like Windows-based PCs than like Linux-based PCs because Windows is used of Linux more than a hundred to one. The truth is that 99% of the computer users in the world have NEVER even seen Linux. That's hardly making a choice. Support for this is the fact that the general music-loving public has abandoned the LP format in droves, to the point where the LP went from almost 100% of the market for recorded music to less than 1%. Also note that the barely 1% of the market that the LP has recently held was highly dependent on the dance music market and a destructive process call "scratching". IOW, it was irrelevant to music listening as we know it. Scratching is disappearing because it has been replaced by digital processing. The LP market segment has dropped significantly further in recent days for this reason. Again, you are making an assumption that people actually made a conscious choice of CD over LP. They didn't. as I illustrated above, most CD buyers never even consider vinyl. The go to CD for it's ubiquity, it's convenience, and the fact that it's where the "new" music is. Also, if you think that DJ dance music is what keeps vinyl afloat, you are seriously wrong. Like I mentioned in another post. There are more fine turnatables, arms and cartridges available today than there were in vinyl's "heyday". All that has disappeared in the 22 years since CD was launched globally are the cheap, mass market turntables. For instance, Thorens has more models on the market today than ever before in history. Companies like VPI, ProJect, Clear Audio, Music Hall, are flourishing. SME, who, in vinyl's heyday, made only tone-arms now has 4 models of turntable in their line-up ranging in price for eight to thirty THOUSAND dollars. New makers (Like Funk audio) are showing up with new designs all the time. A substantial number of SOMEBODY is buying these 'tables, arms and cartridges. This tells me that your conclusions are at best based on outdates information and at worst are wishful thinking on your part. and to an awful lot of people, me included, it doesn't. Less than 1% of the market for prerecorded music, and slipping no longer constitutes "an awful lot of people". See above. You are wrong here. The percentage might be low, but that percentage represents an awful lot of people. George, what you are saying above is that you (and of course many others) prefer something that gives you the emotional reaction you want, even though it is demonstrably flawed technically. Sure. That's what I am saying. Perfection ain't possible so I substitute the illusion of perfection (or as close as that illusion will allow me to get). Note that liking art as manifested in a flawed medium is a person's right, and it is a right that is exercised very frequently. A person who says that all charcoal drawings are more realistic and detailed than high quality modern photographs would not be taken seriously. No, they wouldn't. OTOH, a person who finds a certain charcoal drawing of a person captures their idea of the essence of that person in a way that is more meaningful to them, is a completely understandable situation. Maybe a bit sentimental or romantic, but we are now in the world of emotion and fond memories, and everybody understands that this is not a technological judgement or a scientific fact. Your posts have confused the worlds of emotion and scientific fact. I don't think so. Music is emotional and the science is in service to the music. 16/44.1 has been repeatedly shown to be an audibly "perfect" medium, in that what goes in comes out, to limits which are very much below audibility thresholds. Agreed. If agree that the emotional efect of a recording is dependent on how well it duplicates the actual origional sound, then we are forced to abandon the LP format, except as an archival medium. Even the much-maligned MP3 can produce audibly transparent results at high bit rates, say 320kbps, hence providing 4:1 data reduction with no reduction in perceived quality. So it seems. I find that most people won't notice that a CD was cut from a 192 Kb MP3 as opposed to a 44/16 or higher .wav file. First of all, few of my LPs are made from digital masters and frankly, those that were (like a couple of Telarcs that I own) were mastered from early Soundstream recordings, and frankly (except for the prodigious bass - an early Telarc "trademark") they don't sound very good. A minority opinion, even among LP lovers. In the days when the LP was all we had, Telarc LPs were usually prized by the majority of music lovers who heard them. Sure. The bass drum whacks on the Frederick Fennell/Holst "Two Suites for Military Band" album was unprecedented. We all bought it. But go back to that LP (I still have mine) and compare it to Fennell's earlier recording of these same works (on Mercury vinyl and still in print) and compare the high-frequency content. The Telarc sounds fuzzy and the Mercury doesn't. I heard digital copies of the masters at an AES convention at New York City's Waldorff-Astoria at the time and noticed the dirty top-end then too. It was a characteristic of all Telarcs with the Soundstream logo on them - one can even hear it on CDs made from these early digital efforts. BTW, those bass drum whacks on CD release of the Holst? They aren't nearly as impressive as they are on the vinyl record. Neither do CDs made from vinyl. They do NOT sound exactly like the LP to me. Avoidance of bias controls noted. In short, the emperor has no clothes and there are still a few of us that see (hear?) that. The right word choice was in fact, see. The use of the word hear is properly written here, as being highly questionable. Actually, there's no question at all. The LP format is a far more audibly flawed medium than the CD. It just sounds less like live music from acoustical instrumants played in a real space than does LP. It's been a long time since I thought about the digital process, and yes, I misspoke about dithering because frankly, I haven't read much about it and was relying on memory from 20 years ago and I should have refreshed my facts before relying on memory but laziness, you know... No, what I see is a true statement of someone's state of mind which was based on misapprehensions. When I was learning about PCM, dithering, apparently, wasn't being used much and I paid little attention to it. I don't know when that could have been, as dithering is about as old if not older thandigital encoding of analog signals itself. Dithering was even explored in the early days of quality audio as a means to manage sonic defects caused by crossover in class B tubed power amps, for example. BTW, it works, but at a cost in dynamic range. Perhaps, but It isn't talked about in any of the PCM texts that I was familiar with. I never actually heard the term until about 1990. |
#86
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
High resolution Recording available on line?
On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 16:02:59 -0700, Jenn wrote
(in article ): On Aug 12, 5:20 pm, George Graves wrote: On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 14:07:49 -0700, Cheapskate wrote (in article ): In article , George Graves wrote: So? The aim of High-Fidelity is to make the music sound REAL in one's listen room. If it takes certain kinds of distortion to achieve that illusion, then I'm all for it. If it takes certain distortions to make you happy, it's not High-Fidelity by definition. Fidelity: 'the degree of exactness with which something is copied or reproduced.' You conveniently failed to quote where I said that even though perfect reproduction is the GOAL, its an impossible one and that being the case, the next best thing - all that we can currently aspire to - is make the music sound as real as possible in our systems. And in the case of modern technology, sounding "real" and "a perfect straight-wire" from microphone to speaker aren't really the same thing. It seems to me that in this hobby there are two basic "camps": One camp is the "prefect straight-wire" crowd, i.e. what is important is what goes in should be exactly what comes out. The other camp is the "it should like music, no matter what" group. This crowd wants the end result to sound as much like live acoustic music has a possibility of sounding, regardless of any distortion that happens in the chain. I'm firmly in the later group. I want recordings to sound like my Baranik and my Conn and I want LJ's Martin to sound like a Martin and Isaac Stern's Strad to sound like a Strad. I don't care what happens in the system or software as long as it gets as close as possible to that result. If it's distortion, why should I care? But there's room for all of us IMO. I agree. I got into this "hobby" very early in life (built my first integrated amplifier kit (Knight-kit 18 watt mono amp) when I was 11) because I found myself in love with romantic era classical music and further I found that part of it was the sound of a symphony orchestra. I simply went ga-ga for it. Reproducing that sound became a life-long passion, one that is still with me a half-century later. Not to name drop, but one of my closest friends is J Gordon Holt, the founder of Stereophile Magazine. I remember something he told me many years ago. "George, the music's the thing. Technology must be in service to the music, not the other way 'round. When one puts the music first, one cannot go too far wrong." In other words, the technical aspects of the equipment are secondary to the illusion of real music playing in one's living room. To me, Gordon's words still ring true. Arny Kruger and others are plainly in the other camp and that's fine. Like you said, there's room for all of us. |
#87
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
High resolution Recording available on line?
On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 15:50:50 -0700, Randy Yates wrote
(in article ): George Graves writes: [...] Theoretically you are correct. In practise, I'm not so sure. I've heard 3-bit quantization of voice and it's terribly distorted. Maybe you can explain why a 16-bit system quantizing a low-level signal that only utilizes the 3 least significant bits would be any less distorted. Do you mean noisy? Noise and distortion are two different things. Assuming you mean noisy, then of course 3 bits sounds noisy, just like recording a signal at 70 dB below full-scale on your Otari is going to sound noisy on playback as well. Representing a signal at X dB below full-scale results in an X-dB decrease in SNR, whether the representation is digital or analog. Why is this relevent? Study the topic for a few decades and then we can discuss it intelligently. At this point, you should be asking questions and learning rather than making incorrect assertions. Like I said in another thread. I know all about Nyquist sampling theory, Reed-Solomon error correction and interpolation, and I'm reasonably sure that I still remember how to design a workable D/A converter using a differential amplifier, a successive approximation register and a hand full of resistors. The fact that I only had a hazy recollection of how dither works (and didn't check my facts before I posted) is out of laziness and is my bad. I apologize for that. You make my point for me. Successive-approximation is a technique used in A/D converters, not D/A converters. Yes, you are right. Most D/As use a R-2-R network or a summing network and a constant voltage reference to extract a stair-step waveform. A/D uses a SAR. I believe you may know a little about these topics, but I don't think you have an engineering-level understanding. In case I'm wrong, here are a few questions to test you: 0. What is the definition of a linear quantizer? Turning a continuous waveform into a series of digital words that define the amplitude of the sampled waveform at 1/sampling rate (Fs). 1. What is the maximum bandwidth of the ouptut of a linear quantizer operating at Fs samples/second in the most general case? 1/2 Fs according to Nyquist. 2. Is there a relationship between sample rate and total quantization noise power? If so, what is it? I'm not sure that I understand the question. If you are talking about aliasing noise, the input must be filtered of any information above 1/2 Fs to prevent aliasing noise. 3. Can oversampling without noise-shaping be used to increase the resolution of a linear quantizer? No, I don't think so. As I recall, introducing band-limited white noise across the passband and then sampling at a higher than Nyquist Fs can increase signal-to-noise ratios to levels above that obtained at merely sampling at the required rate at a given number of bits , IF the resultant converter output is digitally filtered to the input signal's bandwidth. 4. What is the difference between oversampling and interpolation? Does interpolation increase the resolution of a signal? Oversampling is the practice of processing digital signals at Fs higher than Nyquist. In audio, this is usually either 88.2KHz, 96KHz or in some cases, 192KHz. Interpolation is "guessing" about what what's missing in a digital bit stream. It's usually applied to digital bitstreams when error correction has failed. 5. Reed-Solomon error correction operates in an arithmetic system. Name this arithmetic system and provide four of its properties. Do you mean polynomial arithmetic? I'm sorry, I don't remember enough math to answer the last part. I do know that R-S works by converting the data sent into a polynomial number and the sum parts of the polynomial are unique for each value. By applying the polynomial for each value, that value can usually be reconstructed if it is partially or wholly compromised. Jesus, I haven't thought about any of this stuff since I worked with DSP in the early eighties! |
#88
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
High resolution Recording available on line?
On Aug 13, 10:19 pm, George Graves wrote:
Dithering was even explored in the early days of quality audio as a means to manage sonic defects caused by crossover in class B tubed power amps, for example. BTW, it works, but at a cost in dynamic range. Perhaps, but It isn't talked about in any of the PCM texts that I was familiar with. I never actually heard the term until about 1990. Earlier you made, in essence, the claim that you were at least familiar with the engineering principles behind the topic, even going so far as claiming that your could make a D/A converter out of a successive approximation register (a rather extraordinary claim in and of itself). And, once again, you deomstrate here, in fact, exactly how LITTLE you know, and much of that is wrong. Blesser described the principles behind, the necessity of AND the practice of using dither for digital audio in his 1978 article which I have cited elsewhere. That's 12 years before you actually heard ot it. How about Schuchmann, "Dither Signals and Their Effect on Quantization Noise?" He has you beat by about a quarter of a century, having published that in a 1964 IEEE journal. You seem to have made the assumption that what YOU didn't know about, no one else knew about either. You seem to assume that what you are ignorant of, the rest of the world is as well. Unfortunately for your position, the quantization noise and distortion was a solved problem long before you became aware of it. Yet you insist on using it as a strawman argument to bolster your personal opinion. If you don't like CD, you should have just said so and moved on. Instead, you decided to reveal exactly how much you DON'T know and, in the process, pretty much trashed whatever credibility you might have originally enjoyed. |
#89
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
High resolution Recording available on line?
On Aug 13, 4:00 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
The CD format involves most people more like real music than the LP format. Support for this is the fact that the general music-loving public has abandoned the LP format in droves, to the point where the LP went from almost 100% of the market for recorded music to less than 1%. This doesn't show the extent to which either format involes people like real music at all, of course. Also note that the barely 1% of the market that the LP has recently held was highly dependent on the dance music market and a destructive process call "scratching". IOW, it was irrelevant to music listening as we know it. Scratching is disappearing because it has been replaced by digital processing. The LP market segment has dropped significantly further in recent days for this reason. IIRC, vinyl sales are increasing while the general trend is that physical media sales continue to decline. Jenn |
#90
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
High resolution Recording available on line?
"George Graves" wrote in message
On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 17:17:56 -0700, Randy Yates wrote (in article ): George Graves writes: [...] Since ALL CDs seem to exhibit this lack of imaging and reduced sound-stage on any player, I'd have to disagree. Don't you find it a bit odd that 25 years of experience in digital audio by mastering, electronic design, and research engineers have not noticed this purported flaw? Because many experienced listeners HAVE noticed it. More properly stated, they have thought that they noticed it. However, they all fail to reliably detect the interposition of 44/16 digitization and reconstruction in listening tests that make detection 100% contingent on reliably hearing a difference, and nothing else. Here's the bottom line. Recording and distributing music performances is a BUSINESS. My first thought is "so what"? We're talking science here. Science doesn't care about business. It is what it is. CD is lucrative Because it can easily be excellent-sounding given good source material, reliable and economical to produce and use. and 99% of the market doesn't care about the things we have been dicussing because most have never even heard live, un-amplified music That would be hyperbole. I record competitions of various musical groups. They are participated in, and spectated by 100's of people. The music is 100% live and acoustical. I'd guess that at least 25 % of all the students participate or otherwise attend these events. Furthermore there is nothing necessarily irrelevant amplified music. In most cases each instrument has its own amplifier, so there is no intermodulation. The electronic amplfication is just an extension of the acoustic amplification built into acoustical instruments. or don't care about the differences or the shortcomings of any particular medium. I don't read minds so well these days, so I can neither say nor agree with claims that can only be determined by means of mind reading. Remember, the business will go where the dollars are. In the ten or so years before CD, the music industry was perfectly content to change their business from vinyl to analog cassette and you know bad those were! I see analog cassette as a medium with a different mix of audible deficiencies than LP's audible deficiencies. Neither is anywhere as sonically transparent as the CD format. That is easy to determine in listening tests. The CD was a godsend. The little silver discs caught on big-time with the public for a variety of mostly practical reasons One of those practical reasons was reliable delivery of higher quality sound, as measured by just about any means, and as heard by just about every music lover. most having little or nothing to do with ultimate sound quality. That seems very improbable. I know its an article of faith among a tiny noisy minority of people, many of whom have already lost a lot of their ability to hear due to age. They were cheap to make and could be sold for a premium. Actually, CDs were more costly to make than LPs until several years after introduction. Of course the industry went for them. Who cared that less than one percent of the buying public noticed that the emperor had no clothes? Thoughtful persons such as myself entertained such thoughts and assertions as being a possibility until thoroughly proven to be false. They aren't important to the business. In fact the sound quality of LPs went through significant evoluationary improvement throughout their commercial life. If the industy were as insensitive to customer desires for sound quality as is being claimed here, this would have never happened. But, it did. Therefore the model of the music industry as being willing to compromise quality for profits is false. It wouldn't surprise me to see the industry announce, in the next few years, a total stop to the production of CDs in favor of direct internet sales of all music (MP3 at 128 or 192 KB/s, of course. It might happen. If that happens, my claim that 44/16 is an overkill format will be supported in a real and tangible way. Low bit rates equal smaller files)). It's cheaper for the music companies because they don't have to manufacture or ship anything. And again, 99% of all listeners won't notice or care. Most of the world listens to pop music. It turns out that a fantastic percentage of all audiophiles, even high end audiophiles listen to pop music. Therefore the inclusion of pop music as a detriment to a desire for sound quality is incorrect. What would they know or care about soundstage, distortion or artifacts? Contrary to popular belief, pop music is on occasion performed live, with a lifelike soundstage and low distortion, and a total freedom of media-related artifacts at the time of performance. Only audiophiles care about those things and there are fewer of us every year (as this forum aptly proves). I suspect that the american taste in media and reproduction has gone through a lot of changes as one generation dies off and the next generation rises to preminence. There are plenty of audiophiles, its just that many of them listen to portable devices or watch video along with their music. As to mastering engineers and design engineers, they have to make a living. What they honestly believe and what they do everyday to please their clients may not be the same thing at all. I personally know a number of "famous" recording engineers and mastering engineers and I find most (but not all) agree with me on a personal level. You'd be surprised at what one "household name" (in the audio community, anyway) mastering specialist told me about his opinions of CD. I can't tell you his name because I don't have his permission. But his words were harsh. He listens only to SACD at home, now. A small exception does not prove anything. Who would have us believe: you, or literally tens of thousands of other people who are or have been specialists in the field? I'm not asking anyone to believe me about anything. I have stated what I have found to be true, and if you don't believe me, then you can stand over there with the rest of the 99% :- No, one need not believe the usual old wive's tales about digital audio to be an audiophile. It makes no difference to me. I don't even take exception to nor hold a grudge against you because we don't see eye-to-eye on this (or any issue). Agreed. But George, it is too bad that you feel compelled to comfort yourself by telling techno-myths. These are extraordinary claims, and I don't think you should expect anyone to believe them until you can reliably distinuguish CD outputs from these other sources via blind testing. As I said before, I'm not asking anyone to believe me. The fact that you go on and on about this stuff, and repeat the same misapprehensions says that you would like to enlarge the circle of people who still believe you. Find these things out for yourself. Don't take my word or anybody's word, for that matter. Now I agree with that. Thing is, any scientific investigation is going to disprove the usual techno-myths about digital audio. |
#91
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
High resolution Recording available on line?
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
Arny Krueger wrote: "George Graves" wrote in message Then where does that ambience go? If it is part of a recording, then it goes onto the CD and also comes off of it. The CD format is far more capable of recording and reproducing low level ambience than typical listening rooms, recording studios and concert halls. This is because the dynamic range of all those places is far less than that of the CD format. Maybe George is referring to the crosstalk and phase-related 'ambience' that's one of the euphonic colorations of vinyl playback? Don't forget the FM distortion, AM distortion, and amplitude modulation due to the inevitable record warps. There's something self-contradictory about preferring to hear music with clearly audible noise and distortion added. |
#92
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
High resolution Recording available on line?
Arny Krueger wrote:
"George Graves" wrote in message On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 10:15:52 -0700, Serge Auckland wrote (in article ): "George Graves" wrote in message ... On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 18:12:25 -0700, Serge Auckland wrote (in article ): "George Graves" wrote in message ... On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 08:59:43 -0700, Serge Auckland wrote (in article ): CD is NOT a perfect storage medium. It isn't and it doesn't have to be. Neither, of cousrre, is the LP, nor does it have to be. It only has to be 'good enough' to please enough users to remain a viable product. ___ -S "As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy, metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason |
#93
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
High resolution Recording available on line?
"George Graves" wrote in message
... Since ALL CDs seem to exhibit this lack of imaging and reduced sound-stage on any player, I'd have to disagree. The recordings that I have made have been made several ways: Direct to CD from the microphone feed, direct to DAT and then to CD and to analog tape and then to CD and recently, direct to Hi-MD Mini-Disc (16-bit/44.1 linear PCM to 1 Gigabyte Hi-MD Discs and then to CD. All with the same results. Not as good imaging as my half-track 15ips Otari MX5050 produces from the same equipment. Commercial CDs exhibit the exact, same phenomenon. Recordings that should image well, do not. carefully recorded with only two mikes on the orchestra from Telarcs, Sony's EMI etc. all exhibit vague imaging. If I had seen only the above, what comes to my mind is that "everyone is out of step but Johnny". Perhaps CD gets it right and all the others wrong; namely that's the way the imaging should be. Since you have made all those recordings and are evidently very familiar with the real thing, it doesn't seem possible to come to such a conclusion, nevertheless it's still very tempting to do so. It also sticks in my mind that imaging is enhanced by the _visual_ presentation when experiencing the real thing. |
#94
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
High resolution Recording available on line?
George Graves wrote:
On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 17:17:10 -0700, Cheapskate wrote (in article ): In article , George Graves wrote: Fair enough, but Hi-Fi isn't really about "perfect reproduction", that's an impossible goal (a laudable goal and a point of reference, but an impossible goal). It's about the next best thing which seems to me to be bringing the emotional impact of the actual musical performance home by recreating the live sound field as closely as possible. If that can be accomplished by being technically perfect, then I'm all for technical perfection. Many here might be able to show that 16/44.1 PCM is theoretically technically perfect, but the fact that it doesn't bring home (to more than a few people) either the intellectual or the emotional connection with the music that music lovers say they want from their stereo systems, tells me that there is still something about it (CD) that's not quite right. Have you even the vaguest inkling of how many people in the world there are who enjoy an intellectual emotional connection with the music they play on their CD or other digital format based systems? You arrogantly claim this number is no more than a few. You claim your assertion to be 'fact.' You misunderstand me. And upon rereading what I wrote, I see why. When I said "PCM is theoretically technically perfect, but the fact that it doesn't bring home (to more than a few people) either the intellectual or the emotional connection with the music..." what I was saying is that "more than a few people" find CD unsatisfying in this regard. "More than a few" stills seems to be a vast minority. I daresay 'more than a few' have heard high quality LP playback, and still find CD very satisfying. More than a few have said as much on the various audiophile discussion forums I've been frequenting for years. In the end: so what? If the two media sound inherently different, then it is purely a *preference* we're arguing. (I have even seen some clearly deranged souls state that they've heard good sounding CDs *and* good-sounding LPs, suggesting that both media can offer 'euphony'. Inconceivable!) IME, the downfall of the LPphile is *always* when they try to justify their preference for vinyl sound -- and even moreso, their dislike of CD sound -- in technical terms. As you have done. Here you just answered your own question. Turntables and vinyl not only still exist, the market flourishes. I can buy many more fine turntables, arms and cartridges at any price point from several hundred dollars to $25,000 or more than I could during vinyl's "heyday". The only thing that has disappeared after 23 years of CD is the cheap, mass market turntable because the masses find CD better suited to their needs. Actually you can buy TTs for as little as $135 at Best Buy. Some even have USB out for transferring LP to digital. I can't keep repeating the same answer over and over again. The average music buyer DOESN'T CARE about sound. And the "non average' music buyer -- the 'audiophile' -- can still prefere CD to LP. And 'more than a few do'. So? ___ -S "As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy, metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason |
#95
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
High resolution Recording available on line?
Arny Krueger wrote:
"George Graves" wrote in message On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 14:10:35 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): I agree, but nobody here is blindly assuming any such thing. The relevant facts are easy to collect, and this has been done many times. The results are consistently obtained. 44/16 digital is indistinguishable from the proverbial straight wire when reproducing music or speech in any kind of reasonable listening test that addresses listener bias. The kind of test you describe is (almost) impossible and certainly impractical. That's news to me. First of all, nobody can listen to an LP and not know its an LP whether they've been told or not or whether they can see the apparatus or not. Clicks and pops, vinyl rush on the lead-in grooves, etc. will give the game away every time (of course, you could fake those sounds somehow and mix them in with the CD, but who has facilities to do that?). You've missed the point. The key part of a test like this is the fact that any real-world audio signal regardless of source can be digitized and converted back to analog in real time with negligable delays. You then compare the source to the version of it that has been digitized and converted back to analog. Nobody can reliably hear a difference. And oddly enough, George claims to have done blind comparison of CD to LP, in this very thread, after I asked him if he'd ever compared an LP to a digital copy of an LP. ___ -S "As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy, metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason |
#96
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
High resolution Recording available on line?
ScottW wrote:
wrote in message ... On Aug 13, 7:02 pm, Jenn wrote: It seems to me that in this hobby there are two basic "camps": One camp is the "prefect straight-wire" crowd, i.e. what is important is what goes in should be exactly what comes out. The other camp is the "it should like music, no matter what" group. This crowd wants the end result to sound as much like live acoustic music has a possibility of sounding, regardless of any distortion that happens in the chain. Well, actually, there's another camp, represented by those, of which we have an example here, who consider their personal viewpoint to be so unassailable in a global sense, that they are willing to trot out bogus pseudo-technical "arguments" to support their personal viewpoint. CLaims such as "dither does not happen during recording" and "PCM is incapable of capturing ambience below the quantization error" and "ditther is the random manipulation of the bottom two or thee bits to keep them moving around to mask the quantization distortion" and, my favorite, "give me a successive approximation register and I'll build you a DAC" are, unfortunately, a classic existence proof of this camp. They use a poor understanding of basic principles to attempt to prove the superiority of their viewpoint. Myself, I could care less what George or Jenn or Arny LIKE, because it's not important to anyone but themslevs. I agree that a lot of people stumble trying to justify their subjective preferences in a technical sense. But it is clear that a system for quantifying perceived sound quality does not yet exist. True, but it's not like we know *nothing* about that, either. Far from it. Aside from the Gedlee stuff, there's also Floyd Toole's and colleagues' years of work on loudspeaker and room sound at the NRC and at Harman. Toole published a summary of sorts in JAES last year, it's fascinating reading: http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=13686 ___ -S "As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy, metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason |
#97
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
High resolution Recording available on line?
On Aug 14, 4:06 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
That would be hyperbole. I record competitions of various musical groups. They are participated in, and spectated by 100's of people. The music is 100% live and acoustical. I'd guess that at least 25 % of all the students participate or otherwise attend these events. About 21% in 1988, about 14% last year FYI. Jenn |
#98
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
High resolution Recording available on line?
"George Graves" wrote in message
On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 17:17:10 -0700, Cheapskate wrote (in article ): In article , George Graves wrote: Many here might be able to show that the fact that it doesn't bring home (to more than a few people) either the intellectual or the emotional connection with the music that music lovers say they want from their stereo systems, tells me that there is still something about it (CD) that's not quite right. Have you even the vaguest inkling of how many people in the world there are who enjoy an intellectual emotional connection with the music they play on their CD or other digital format based systems? You arrogantly claim this number is no more than a few. You claim your assertion to be 'fact.' The more probable interpretation of the available facts is that although it is relatively easy to show that the 44/16 format is sonically transparent, there are a few people who for other reason or unreason, choose to prefer music processed by a legacy EFX system called the LP format. Where are those music lovers absolutely bereft of any connection to the music they listen to, pining for an emotional response to the music which they are just not experiencing? Their number must, logically, be legion. In fact they are a tiny but noisy minority. We've been subjected to years of hype about the LP format coming back due to increasing sales, but that has come to an end. All along we suspected that the increasing sales were due to the LP's then-unique ability to be "scratched" by dance club DJs. Now that electronic scratching products are available, the LP sales are falling away pretty quickly. Show them to us, point them out, enlighten us. Turntables and vinyl still exist. Why do we not see a vast sea of dissatisfied humanity jostling for admission to the few places where such arcana can still be purchased? Actually, buying vinyl and vinyl playback hardware is pretty easy. Here you just answered your own question. Turntables and vinyl not only still exist, the market flourishes. I can buy many more fine turntables, arms and cartridges at any price point from several hundred dollars to $25,000 or more than I could during vinyl's "heyday". High prices are symptomatic of low production numbers and people who acquire expensive arcane equipment as status symbols. The only thing that has disappeared after 23 years of CD is the cheap, mass market turntable because the masses find CD better suited to their needs. Cheap turntables most definately did not disappear. They are what you find in dance clubs, for example. At one time more cheap turntables were sold in music stores to DJs, than electric guitars. When the CD was first introduced, CD players and CDs were very much in the minority relative to LPs and turntables. Why didn't everyone who bought a CD player and some CDs abandon the format in disgust upon listening, and apologetically sidle across their living room floor to their beloved turntable and LP collection and lovingly stroke them begging for forgiveness? Good question. In fact the CD flourished right from the start, even though the availability of titles was miniscule and player and media prices were high. Because they didn't care? Or found the practicality of the CD more than compensatory for any sonic drawbacks (that most wouldn't notice anyway) that CD might bring to the table? Here we see a rendition of those who for some reason prefer retro technolgy despite its well known sonic difficulties, being portrayed as heros. Note that the one doing the portraying is one of those who prefers the LP. It looks like someone is patting themselves on the back, no? Why did they instead, swiftly place an ad in the buy-and-sell for their turntable et. al., hoping some sucker - I mean appreciative connoisseur - would take it off their hands for a good price before the market was flooded with people trying to do likewise? I can't keep repeating the same answer over and over again. The average music buyer DOESN'T CARE about sound. Repeating something that is improbable and unbelievable not to mention self-congratulatory, does not make it true. The average music buyer does care about sound. The era of LP supremacy was rife with complaints about poor sound quality and poor quality control. Returns were such a problem for music stores that they had to formulate new policies. LP playback equipment was delicate, and required touchy adjustments and replacment of expensive diamond styli. The media itself could easily degrade if not stored and played carefully. Magazines that catered to audiophiles and music lovers had page after page of advertisements for record cleaning devices, any number of which I personally invested in and used religiously. But they do care when their favorite record gets scratched or so noisy that they can't listen to it any more. The practical side of CD; it's convenient size, the fact that it doesn't deteriorate with every play, the fact that with minimal care they won't get scratched or noisy are far more important to the average consumer than are any shortcomings of the CD that someone like me might find annoying. Interesting that the alleged sonic shortcomings of the CD are impossible to find in bias-controlled, level-matched, time-synched listening tests. |
#99
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
High resolution Recording available on line?
"Jenn" wrote in message
It seems to me that in this hobby there are two basic "camps": One camp is the "prefect straight-wire" crowd, i.e. what is important is what goes in should be exactly what comes out. The other camp is the "it should like music, no matter what" group. This crowd wants the end result to sound as much like live acoustic music has a possibility of sounding, regardless of any distortion that happens in the chain. The first group believes that purity is of the essence. That is, realism is faciliated by minimizing added noise and distortion. The second group seems to believe that something is more impure can somehow more closely resemble the original than something that is more pure. If audio were strawberry preserves the first group would probably make freezer jam, and avoid most cooking and other additives that degrade the flavor of fresh, ripe strawberries. The second group would be willing to overlook the use of various synthetic additives and artificial flavorings, if the results tickle their palates. As a live recordist, my position is similar to that of a person who has their own strawberry patch, as well as their own kitchen. Most musicians lack both. I've found that the first approach is more effective. |
#100
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
High resolution Recording available on line?
"Jenn" wrote in message
On Aug 14, 4:06 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote: That would be hyperbole. I record competitions of various musical groups. They are participated in, and spectated by 100's of people. The music is 100% live and acoustical. I'd guess that at least 25 % of all the students participate or otherwise attend these events. About 21% in 1988, about 14% last year FYI. Compare this to George's 1% or so. |
#101
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
High resolution Recording available on line?
"Jenn" wrote in message
On Aug 13, 4:00 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote: The CD format involves most people more like real music than the LP format. Support for this is the fact that the general music-loving public has abandoned the LP format in droves, to the point where the LP went from almost 100% of the market for recorded music to less than 1%. This doesn't show the extent to which either format involves people like real music at all, of course. Only if one can swallow the improbable idea that most people don't care whether recordings sound realistic to them or not. Also note that the barely 1% of the market that the LP has recently held was highly dependent on the dance music market and a destructive process call "scratching". IOW, it was irrelevant to music listening as we know it. Scratching is disappearing because it has been replaced by digital processing. The LP market segment has dropped significantly further in recent days for this reason. IIRC, vinyl sales are increasing while the general trend is that physical media sales continue to decline. Your information is out of date. The RIAA says that LP sales dropped by about 30% in 2006. That's is a far bigger drop than CD sales experienced. Here's the latest stats from the horse's mouth: http://76.74.24.142/6BC7251F-5E09-53...8C37FB6AE8.pdf |
#102
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
High resolution Recording available on line?
On Aug 14, 7:03 pm, Jenn wrote:
IIRC, vinyl sales are increasing while the general trend is that physical media sales continue to decline. RIAA data indicates that vinyl's market share has stagnated, even as the bottom has dropped out of CDs. Which means that vinyl sales are falling too, and about as fast. bob |
#103
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
High resolution Recording available on line?
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
... "Jenn" wrote in message On Aug 13, 4:00 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote: The CD format involves most people more like real music than the LP format. Support for this is the fact that the general music-loving public has abandoned the LP format in droves, to the point where the LP went from almost 100% of the market for recorded music to less than 1%. This doesn't show the extent to which either format involves people like real music at all, of course. Only if one can swallow the improbable idea that most people don't care whether recordings sound realistic to them or not. Also note that the barely 1% of the market that the LP has recently held was highly dependent on the dance music market and a destructive process call "scratching". IOW, it was irrelevant to music listening as we know it. Scratching is disappearing because it has been replaced by digital processing. The LP market segment has dropped significantly further in recent days for this reason. IIRC, vinyl sales are increasing while the general trend is that physical media sales continue to decline. Your information is out of date. The RIAA says that LP sales dropped by about 30% in 2006. I think you misread as that appears to be music video. LP sales are lumped in with cassettes, DVD-A, and SACD so your reference does not clearly show your claim. This article disagrees over a longer period. https://tv.ku.edu/news/2006/02/27/vi...cord-industry/ So does this re 2005 to 2006. http://www.usatoday.com/money/media/...nyl-usat_x.htm This NPR clip also disagrees...sales driven by vinyl to MP3 recorder! Now that is a twist. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=9598796 ScottW |
#104
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
High resolution Recording available on line?
On Aug 14, 7:52 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Jenn" wrote in message It seems to me that in this hobby there are two basic "camps": One camp is the "prefect straight-wire" crowd, i.e. what is important is what goes in should be exactly what comes out. The other camp is the "it should like music, no matter what" group. This crowd wants the end result to sound as much like live acoustic music has a possibility of sounding, regardless of any distortion that happens in the chain. The first group believes that purity is of the essence. That is, realism is faciliated by minimizing added noise and distortion. The second group seems to believe that something is more impure can somehow more closely resemble the original than something that is more pure. If audio were strawberry preserves the first group would probably make freezer jam, and avoid most cooking and other additives that degrade the flavor of fresh, ripe strawberries. The second group would be willing to overlook the use of various synthetic additives and artificial flavorings, if the results tickle their palates. What is the purpose of the preserves? Answer: to "tickle the palate". As a live recordist, my position is similar to that of a person who has their own strawberry patch, as well as their own kitchen. Most musicians lack both. How so? Jenn |
#105
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
High resolution Recording available on line?
On Aug 14, 7:53 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Jenn" wrote in message On Aug 14, 4:06 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote: That would be hyperbole. I record competitions of various musical groups. They are participated in, and spectated by 100's of people. The music is 100% live and acoustical. I'd guess that at least 25 % of all the students participate or otherwise attend these events. About 21% in 1988, about 14% last year FYI. Compare this to George's 1% or so. He didn't say 1% hadn't heard this music, he said "most". Jenn |
#106
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
High resolution Recording available on line?
On Aug 14, 7:56 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Jenn" wrote in message On Aug 13, 4:00 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote: The CD format involves most people more like real music than the LP format. Support for this is the fact that the general music-loving public has abandoned the LP format in droves, to the point where the LP went from almost 100% of the market for recorded music to less than 1%. This doesn't show the extent to which either format involves people like real music at all, of course. Only if one can swallow the improbable idea that most people don't care whether recordings sound realistic to them or not. Not at all. First, there are several reasons why CD surplanted the LP besides the "sounds like real music" factor that you sited, such as convenience, portability, the fact that the vast majority of people never took care of their LPs as the typical audiophile does, marketing, etc. Second, I don't believe that most people would list "sounds realistic" as their top priority. Perform a little experiment: as 20 or so random people (NOT audiophiles or sound people) what their top couple of priorities in home audio are, and I'll bet you they list things like "good bass" and "plays loud" before they ever get to "sounds realistic". I do this with my classes every now and then, and almost no one lists "sounds realistic". Also note that the barely 1% of the market that the LP has recently held was highly dependent on the dance music market and a destructive process call "scratching". IOW, it was irrelevant to music listening as we know it. Scratching is disappearing because it has been replaced by digital processing. The LP market segment has dropped significantly further in recent days for this reason. IIRC, vinyl sales are increasing while the general trend is that physical media sales continue to decline. Your information is out of date. The RIAA says that LP sales dropped by about 30% in 2006. That's is a far bigger drop than CD sales experienced. Here's the latest stats from the horse's mouth: http://76.74.24.142/6BC7251F-5E09-53...8C37FB6AE8.pdf 2006 is the last available RIAA data. Other data from other sources from 2007 show different trends. I saw some data from the music retailers associations such as ERA, NRMCA, etc that supports my statement. I'll dig it out later today and post it. There are also casual accounts of vinyl regaining some market share, such as http://www.npr.org/templates/dmg/pop...fier=&mtype=WM Jenn |
#107
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
High resolution Recording available on line?
On Aug 15, 6:38 pm, "ScottW" wrote:
This article disagrees over a longer period. https://tv.ku.edu/news/2006/02/27/vi...spite-lagging-... From the article: "According to the Recording Industry Association of America, vinyl sales have doubled in percentage of music sales since 2000 to become a $110-million-dollar industry. Since that same year, overall music sales dropped to $12.2 billion from $14.4 billion, a plunge that the vinyl industry escaped without a scratch." This is simply wrong, as the RIAA's own numbers show. Market share was 0.5% in 2000, and 0.7% in 2005. So, even cherry-picking two years that appear* to give you a clear increase, it doesn't come close to doubling. And the growth in sales--if there was any*--was even smaller, given that the overall music market was shrinking at the time. *I said "if there was any" because the difference between those two market share numbers is statistically insignificant. Vinyl's market share in the RIAA Consumer Survey has fluctuated between 0.5% and 0.7% for more than a decade (with the exception of a single, obvious outlier). It's not rising; it's stagnant. So does this re 2005 to 2006. http://www.usatoday.com/money/media/...nyl-usat_x.htm LOL! The same article notes that vinyl sales--using the very same metric--were down over 40% since 2000. This NPR clip also disagrees...sales driven by vinyl to MP3 recorder! Now that is a twist.http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=9598796 It would be if it had any evidence to support it. But this report doesn't even cite a source for its claim that vinyl sales are rising. The one industry spokesman he talks to admits to having no idea how many vinyl albums are sold, because his organization doesn't track it. So far in this thread we've heard technical claims about the inferiority of digital that were wrong, and economic claims about the sale of LPs that were wrong. Anybody for "Vinyl Cures Cancer!"? bob |
#108
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
High resolution Recording available on line?
Jenn a écrit :
On Aug 14, 7:56 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message On Aug 13, 4:00 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote: The CD format involves most people more like real music than the LP format. Support for this is the fact that the general music-loving public has abandoned the LP format in droves, to the point where the LP went from almost 100% of the market for recorded music to less than 1%. This doesn't show the extent to which either format involves people like real music at all, of course. Only if one can swallow the improbable idea that most people don't care whether recordings sound realistic to them or not. Not at all. First, there are several reasons why CD surplanted the LP besides the "sounds like real music" factor that you sited, such as convenience, portability, the fact that the vast majority of people never took care of their LPs as the typical audiophile does, marketing, etc. Second, I don't believe that most people would list "sounds realistic" as their top priority. Perform a little experiment: as 20 or so random people (NOT audiophiles or sound people) what their top couple of priorities in home audio are, and I'll bet you they list things like "good bass" and "plays loud" before they ever get to "sounds realistic". I do this with my classes every now and then, and almost no one lists "sounds realistic". Also note that the barely 1% of the market that the LP has recently held was highly dependent on the dance music market and a destructive process call "scratching". IOW, it was irrelevant to music listening as we know it. Scratching is disappearing because it has been replaced by digital processing. The LP market segment has dropped significantly further in recent days for this reason. IIRC, vinyl sales are increasing while the general trend is that physical media sales continue to decline. Your information is out of date. The RIAA says that LP sales dropped by about 30% in 2006. That's is a far bigger drop than CD sales experienced. Here's the latest stats from the horse's mouth: http://76.74.24.142/6BC7251F-5E09-53...8C37FB6AE8.pdf 2006 is the last available RIAA data. Other data from other sources from 2007 show different trends. I saw some data from the music retailers associations such as ERA, NRMCA, etc that supports my statement. I'll dig it out later today and post it. There are also casual accounts of vinyl regaining some market share, such as http://www.npr.org/templates/dmg/pop...fier=&mtype=WM Jenn I would like to know how come that according to some Lp sales are dropping while in Montreal,Qc in the last year 5 new store opened that sell what... LP several of them are import. About 70% of what they carry is LP and the rest is SACD. How come more and more turntable are appearing in the Montreal area Hi-Fi dealers --Kebecson, AudioShop, AudioClub, Filtronique-- (I am not talking of Best Buy or Future shop but real HI-FI dealers). Visit any of those dealers and they will tell you that when it come to music you have Live music, music on Vinyl and little behind SACD. For them CD is not musical enought. Jocelyn Major Proud son of Leo Major DCM & Bar |
#109
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
High resolution Recording available on line?
Hello George,
I have created a pdf of the "solutions" to these questions and placed them on-line: http://www.digitalsignallabs.com/qtest.pdf I "graded" your responses assuming each question was worth 10 points. See the comments below. George Graves writes: 0. What is the definition of a linear quantizer? Turning a continuous waveform into a series of digital words that define the amplitude of the sampled waveform at 1/sampling rate (Fs). 5/10 This is not too precise as you say nothing about what distinguishes a linear quantizer from other quantizers. Note also that the sampling rate has nothing to do with it. 1. What is the maximum bandwidth of the ouptut of a linear quantizer operating at Fs samples/second in the most general case? 1/2 Fs according to Nyquist. 0/10. This was a sort of trick question. I had hoped that the phrase "general case" would tip you off that this isn't a normal question. 2. Is there a relationship between sample rate and total quantization noise power? If so, what is it? I'm not sure that I understand the question. If you are talking about aliasing noise, the input must be filtered of any information above 1/2 Fs to prevent aliasing noise. 0/10. This is a very important concept when working with digital signals and belies a very weak understanding of such signals. Quantization noise and aliasing are two completely different things. 3. Can oversampling without noise-shaping be used to increase the resolution of a linear quantizer? No, I don't think so. As I recall, introducing band-limited white noise across the passband and then sampling at a higher than Nyquist Fs can increase signal-to-noise ratios to levels above that obtained at merely sampling at the required rate at a given number of bits , IF the resultant converter output is digitally filtered to the input signal's bandwidth. 9/10. Wow. Well, first you say no, but then you say yes. 1 point off for contradicting yourself. 4. What is the difference between oversampling and interpolation? Does interpolation increase the resolution of a signal? Oversampling is the practice of processing digital signals at Fs higher than Nyquist. In audio, this is usually either 88.2KHz, 96KHz or in some cases, 192KHz. Interpolation is "guessing" about what what's missing in a digital bit stream. It's usually applied to digital bitstreams when error correction has failed. 6/10. You got oversampling, and interpolation does have the meaning that you describe in some contexts. However, this isn't one of them. It should have been clear that I meant the kind of interplation that increases the sample rate. Also note that in this case the missing samples aren't "guessed" at all - they are completely, unambiguously determined. 5. Reed-Solomon error correction operates in an arithmetic system. Name this arithmetic system and provide four of its properties. Do you mean polynomial arithmetic? I'm sorry, I don't remember enough math to answer the last part. I do know that R-S works by converting the data sent into a polynomial number and the sum parts of the polynomial are unique for each value. By applying the polynomial for each value, that value can usually be reconstructed if it is partially or wholly compromised. 2/10. The fact you remembered it's polynomial arithmetic is worth a couple of points. Total: 22/60. -------------- It appears to me that you think you know more about these subjects than you actually do. It is certainly NOT the case in my opinion that "you know all about them." I will say the same thing that several other folks have already stated: If you want to claim that you simply like LPs better than CDs, I wouldn't have any problem whatsoever with that. However, your attempts to justify your preferences with scientific arguments are, quite simply, wrong, and are based on some fairly serious misunderstandings and lack of knowledge on your part. Hey, I'm an aging engineer myself (turning 50 this year), but I try very hard to keep up my knowledge. So if you want to bone up on these topics, and then think you have some scientific bases for your preferences, I'd love to talk more. -- % Randy Yates % "...the answer lies within your soul %% Fuquay-Varina, NC % 'cause no one knows which side %%% 919-577-9882 % the coin will fall." %%%% % 'Big Wheels', *Out of the Blue*, ELO http://home.earthlink.net/~yatescr |
#110
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
High resolution Recording available on line?
Jocelyn Major wrote:
I would like to know how come that according to some Lp sales are dropping while in Montreal,Qc in the last year 5 new store opened that sell what... LP several of them are import. About 70% of what they carry is LP and the rest is SACD. How come more and more turntable are appearing in the Montreal area Hi-Fi dealers --Kebecson, AudioShop, AudioClub, Filtronique-- (I am not talking of Best Buy or Future shop but real HI-FI dealers). Visit any of those dealers and they will tell you that when it come to music you have Live music, music on Vinyl and little behind SACD. For them CD is not musical enought. Nor are its profit margins wide enough. ___ -S "As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy, metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason |
#111
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
High resolution Recording available on line?
"Jenn" wrote in message
... On Aug 14, 7:53 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message On Aug 14, 4:06 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote: That would be hyperbole. I record competitions of various musical groups. They are participated in, and spectated by 100's of people. The music is 100% live and acoustical. I'd guess that at least 25 % of all the students participate or otherwise attend these events. About 21% in 1988, about 14% last year FYI. Compare this to George's 1% or so. He didn't say 1% hadn't heard this music, he said "most". Actually he said: "...99% of the market doesn't care about the things we have been discussing because most have never even heard live, un-amplified music or don't care about the differences or the shortcomings of any particular medium." |
#112
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
High resolution Recording available on line?
"Jocelyn Major" wrote in message
... I would like to know how come that according to some Lp sales are dropping They are, on the large scale. while in Montreal,Qc in the last year 5 new store opened that sell what... LP several of them are import. An exception does not prove a well-documented rule. Besides, it doesn't cost a lot to open a shop - let's see how many of them are around in a few years. About 70% of what they carry is LP and the rest is SACD. How come more and more turntable are appearing in the Montreal area Hi-Fi dealers --Kebecson, AudioShop, AudioClub, Filtronique-- (I am not talking of Best Buy or Future shop but real HI-FI dealers). It looks like a number of new turntable products are coming on the market, trying to appeal to people who want to digitize their collections. Visit any of those dealers and they will tell you that when it come to music you have Live music, music on Vinyl and little behind SACD. For them CD is not musical enough. I've long ago learned not believe everything that a saleman would tell me. |
#113
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
High resolution Recording available on line?
"Jenn" wrote in message
... On Aug 14, 7:52 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message It seems to me that in this hobby there are two basic "camps": One camp is the "prefect straight-wire" crowd, i.e. what is important is what goes in should be exactly what comes out. The other camp is the "it should like music, no matter what" group. This crowd wants the end result to sound as much like live acoustic music has a possibility of sounding, regardless of any distortion that happens in the chain. The first group believes that purity is of the essence. That is, realism is faciliated by minimizing added noise and distortion. The second group seems to believe that something is more impure can somehow more closely resemble the original than something that is more pure. If audio were strawberry preserves the first group would probably make freezer jam, and avoid most cooking and other additives that degrade the flavor of fresh, ripe strawberries. The second group would be willing to overlook the use of various synthetic additives and artificial flavorings, if the results tickle their palates. What is the purpose of the preserves? Answer: to "tickle the palate". So then Jenn you favor the use of synthesis and artifical additives to *enhance flavor*? As a live recordist, my position is similar to that of a person who has their own strawberry patch, as well as their own kitchen. Most musicians lack both. How so? I have plenty of live music to record, and I have the ready means to do so, and do so. |
#114
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
High resolution Recording available on line?
On Aug 15, 11:01 pm, Jocelyn Major wrote:
I would like to know how come that according to some Lp sales are dropping Just to be clear, nobody really knows how much vinyl is being sold, because nobody keeps track of it. The best source on this is probably the RIAA Consumer Survey (because it should capture the small producers and distribution outlets where most vinyl gets sold nowadays). In that survey, vinyl maintains a stable market share in a declining market. But that's only a very rough estimate, and it's possible that vinyl sales are inching up rather than down (but only inching). The real question is, why do vinylphiles keep bringing this up, when there's no hard data to support their claim of higher sales? while in Montreal,Qc in the last year 5 new store opened that sell what... LP several of them are import. About 70% of what they carry is LP and the rest is SACD. Five new stores whose inventory is 70% LP/30% SACD? Are you sure you're not exaggerating just a little bit? How come more and more turntable are appearing in the Montreal area Hi-Fi dealers --Kebecson, AudioShop, AudioClub, Filtronique-- (I am not talking of Best Buy or Future shop but real HI-FI dealers). Could be several reasons. Turntable sales could be up without vinyl sales being up. (Boomers digging out their old music, people buying used records, etc.) Also, turntables are one area where boutique dealers would have a clear comparative advantage--there are fewer alternative outlets, auditions are more critical, and advice and expertise are more valuable than for some other components. Visit any of those dealers and they will tell you that when it come to music you have Live music, music on Vinyl and little behind SACD. For them CD is not musical enought. Here's a hint: What salesmen say is a pretty good indication of what salesmen sell. It really shouldn't be taken as anything more than that. bob |
#115
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
High resolution Recording available on line?
ScottW wrote:
"bob" wrote in message ... On Aug 15, 6:38 pm, "ScottW" wrote: This article disagrees over a longer period. https://tv.ku.edu/news/2006/02/27/vi...spite-lagging-... From the article: "According to the Recording Industry Association of America, vinyl sales have doubled in percentage of music sales since 2000 to become a $110-million-dollar industry. Since that same year, overall music sales dropped to $12.2 billion from $14.4 billion, a plunge that the vinyl industry escaped without a scratch." This is simply wrong, as the RIAA's own numbers show. Market share was 0.5% in 2000, and 0.7% in 2005. Yes, but 0.5% of 14.4 is .072 while 0.7% of 14.4B is .085 showing by your own numbers that vinyl did escape the decline...without a scratch. Actually, it would be 0.7% of *12.2* that equals 0.0854 billion ($85.4 million). It's an increase in percentage but not a doubling of the percentage. And it's an increase of ~$13 million in sales over 5 years... LPs cost something like $25 a pop these days...do the math and figure out how much that means in terms of actual units shifted. Vinyl sales had already suffered a catastrophic decline, decades ago. 'Doubling in percentage' *sounds* impressive, but in this case the baseline percentage is so low, it's more like bragging that $2 versus $1 marks a '100% increase' in revenues. Sales figures are always questionable, but it is clear. Vinyl is hanging on. It is also clear to those of us who enjoy it, that the SOTA vinyl producers are producing a superior product today. I'd think they'd have to, to compete with CD. ___ -S "As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy, metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason |
#116
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
High resolution Recording available on line?
On Aug 14, 7:56 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
The RIAA says that LP sales dropped by about 30% in 2006. That's is a far bigger drop than CD sales experienced. Here's the latest stats from the horse's mouth: http://76.74.24.142/6BC7251F-5E09-53...8C37FB6AE8.pdf Here in Victoria B.C. Canada a local radio station is running a web poll asking "What format do you use most often as your source for recorded music?". Current results are Vinyl - 3% Cassette - 4% CD - 75% MP-3 - 19% The station is a talk show format (CFAX 1070) attracting an older audience I would assume. http://www.cfax1070.com/polls.php As a web poll it's not terribly credible (no random sample) but might be interesting to some. Ed Seedhouse Victoria B.C. |
#117
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
High resolution Recording available on line?
On Aug 16, 3:58 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Jenn" wrote in message ... On Aug 14, 7:53 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message On Aug 14, 4:06 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote: That would be hyperbole. I record competitions of various musical groups. They are participated in, and spectated by 100's of people. The music is 100% live and acoustical. I'd guess that at least 25 % of all the students participate or otherwise attend these events. About 21% in 1988, about 14% last year FYI. Compare this to George's 1% or so. He didn't say 1% hadn't heard this music, he said "most". Actually he said: "...99% of the market doesn't care about the things we have been discussing because most have never even heard live, un-amplified music or don't care about the differences or the shortcomings of any particular medium." That's correct; he said most haven't this music. Jenn |
#118
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
High resolution Recording available on line?
On Aug 16, 4:00 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Jenn" wrote in message ... On Aug 14, 7:52 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message It seems to me that in this hobby there are two basic "camps": One camp is the "prefect straight-wire" crowd, i.e. what is important is what goes in should be exactly what comes out. The other camp is the "it should like music, no matter what" group. This crowd wants the end result to sound as much like live acoustic music has a possibility of sounding, regardless of any distortion that happens in the chain. The first group believes that purity is of the essence. That is, realism is faciliated by minimizing added noise and distortion. The second group seems to believe that something is more impure can somehow more closely resemble the original than something that is more pure. If audio were strawberry preserves the first group would probably make freezer jam, and avoid most cooking and other additives that degrade the flavor of fresh, ripe strawberries. The second group would be willing to overlook the use of various synthetic additives and artificial flavorings, if the results tickle their palates. What is the purpose of the preserves? Answer: to "tickle the palate". So then Jenn you favor the use of synthesis and artifical additives to *enhance flavor*? I prefer what "tastes" best to me. As a live recordist, my position is similar to that of a person who has their own strawberry patch, as well as their own kitchen. Most musicians lack both. How so? I have plenty of live music to record, and I have the ready means to do so, and do so. As do many musicians, of course. But it's quite beside the point. One should listen to what pleases one the most. It seems so simple. What pleases me is the closest approximation of live acoustic that I can get. Sometimes that's an LP, sometimes it's a CD. How either medium got to sound so good is interesting to me, but not really important at the end of the day. Better to just relax, listen, and enjoy ;-) Jenn |
#119
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
High resolution Recording available on line?
Jenn writes:
On Aug 16, 4:00 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote: [...] I have plenty of live music to record, and I have the ready means to do so, and do so. As do many musicians, of course. But it's quite beside the point. No, it is not beside the point. The main point being debated in this discussion has been whether or not LPs are more accurate than CDs. Having live music available and the means to record it and compare the digital, recorded version to the original is very, very relevent to this point. The reference point is reality (live music). However, your comments did prompt me to highlight the distinction between *making music* and *listening to music*. It is all well-and-good to listen to whatever pleases you the most, but listening to anything other than what the musician and recording engineer intended you to hear is essentially making your own music. For example, I can put my Pink Floyd "Dark Side of the Moon" through a bass doubler (octave extender) and obtain a fantastic and entertaining result. However, that is not the music that Pink Floyd and their recording engineer intended me to hear. I've added something to it - I'm "making" music. So it is also the same with a medium that modifies the original studio signal - if you prefer to listen to that medium, then you are making your own music vis-a-vis your choice of the medium. When you choose a medium that most accurately relays the recorded signal, then you're not making music anymore but rather are listening to what someone else has created. I think this is a very important point that bears bringing out. -- % Randy Yates % "Though you ride on the wheels of tomorrow, %% Fuquay-Varina, NC % you still wander the fields of your %%% 919-577-9882 % sorrow." %%%% % '21st Century Man', *Time*, ELO http://home.earthlink.net/~yatescr |
#120
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
High resolution Recording available on line?
"Jenn" wrote in message
... On Aug 16, 3:58 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message ... On Aug 14, 7:53 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message On Aug 14, 4:06 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote: That would be hyperbole. I record competitions of various musical groups. They are participated in, and spectated by 100's of people. The music is 100% live and acoustical. I'd guess that at least 25 % of all the students participate or otherwise attend these events. About 21% in 1988, about 14% last year FYI. Compare this to George's 1% or so. He didn't say 1% hadn't heard this music, he said "most". Actually he said: "...99% of the market doesn't care about the things we have been discussing because most have never even heard live, un-amplified music or don't care about the differences or the shortcomings of any particular medium." That's correct; he said most haven't this music. His criteria is disconnected from the facts. He's demanding proof that most people have heard live music to explain the fact that 99% of them have stopped buying analog media. You and I have agreed that 14% have heard live music just last year by just one means. Obviously other means and other times are equally relevant. About 99% of all music lovers deep-sixed analog media for digital. At least 14% of those people have heard live acoustic music in just the past year, due to just one fact - their relationship to the US educational system. There are other ways that people hear live music (go to church, go to concerts for example). The idea that hearing live music someone predisposes people to choose analog media over digital just doesn't make sense. It's based on personal prejudice and wishful thinking on the part of people who assert it. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
FS: SDAT SB-E850 w/Vifa PL27TG-35-06 High Resolution Tweeter Upgrade | Marketplace | |||
Nesa one high resolution audio ologram | High End Audio | |||
The nesa one high resolution analogue matrix surround | High End Audio | |||
Q: Very High Resolution Microphones | Pro Audio | |||
FA: DH Labs Silver Sonic Q-10 high resolution loudspeaker cable | Marketplace |