Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#41
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The truth about accuracy of CD v. LP
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 28 Feb 2006 00:26:31 GMT, wrote: bob wrote: wrote: bob wrote: I believe that the master tape represents the intentions of its producers, and that CD better preserves the sound of that master tape than LP. What more do you want? Well, i find the first half of your answer quite direct and completely relevant to my assertions on the objectivists POV. I find the second half a bit dodgey. I am not talking about what CDs and LPs can do but what has actually been done. "CD better preserves the sound of that master tape than LP" is IMO a substantially different claim then "Commercial CDs have preserved the sound of master tapes provided no tinkering has been done with the master tape better than LPs have regardless of the playback equipment." The difference is the first is not refering to real world instances and the second is. And it is the real world availablity of commercial CDs and LPs that the audiophile has to deal with. Oh, is that what this is about? Something made me think you were talking about the *accuracy* of CDs and LPs. Like the title of your thread? I am. Not exactly truth in advertising, I'd say. Why? Because I was talking about actual real world commercially released Lps and Cds? You know, the things we actually listen to? No, it's because you shift your ground and compare apples with nutmegs. Absolutely not. You grab at the possibility that *some* CDs have been badly made on one side of your argument, 1. I haven't made any argument here *yet* I have only tried to get an accuate objectivist POV so far. By the way we are not talking about a *posibility* here but a *reality.* And I have been focused on realities rather than possibilities because realities are what audiophiles have to deal with in the end. and then use direct-cut 'audiophile specials' as examples of 'real world' vinyl. 1. Direct cut audiophile LPs are "real world" examples of LPs. They really do exist. 2. I have only discussed them becaus ofe eroneous claims that have been made about *all* LPs beeing made from masters that have been adjusted for the purpose of cutting LPs. By the way I have not exclusively pointed to D2Ds. I have also cited reissues made from master tapes. Again, I have not made any pro LP arguments yet. I have only corrected eroneous claims. If you *genuinely* want to compare CD to LP, then you must either choose the very best of which each medium is capable, or stick to standard 'mainstream' commercial output. If the latter, then LP vanishes without trace - which you tacitly admit by your biased argument. Sorry but you do not get to dictate the rules of comparing LPs and CDs. I will spell out how I compare them and how I reached my position on their merits. You can complain then about my choices but you don't get to tell me what initial choices I have to make about comparing them. This would be akin to my comparing 1970s 'Music for Pleasure' vinyl to JVC XRCDs, to the exclusion of everything else. No it wouldn't. There is nothing unfair about how I compare Cds and LPs. Nothing. But I suggest you reserve judgement till I actually talk about it. Don't get so worked up over my fact finding questions about other peoples' beliefs just because I make a few corrections on facts I know about. In that case, I think I'll just take a pass on *your* views, then. Fine with me. I can't imagine anything less interesting than your opinion about the quality of commercially available CDs. Really? You'd rather argue about theoretical capacities than discuss the qualities of real world commercial releases? How does that help you as an audiophile? Does it make a lousy sounding CD sound better to you to think about how many bits the format has? The point is that *any* reasonably well made CD is pretty much dead on the theoretical capacity of the medium (and - aside from treble extension - exceeds the capability of any analogue master tape), whereas LP requires heroic efforts such as direct-cutting with less than fifteen minutes of music per side, in order to demonstrate its capability. well that is a worth while assertion to consider since it does involve rel world Cds and Lps although there is a slefserving qualification, that being a "reasonably well made" CD. Now if you have a means of finding out which ones were "reasonably well made" and which ones were not.... It certainly can be investigated to a degree but there are things that you simply will not know about a lot of LPs and CDs. But I will get into that later as well. That's not 'real world' Scott - and you know it. Please don't tell me what I know until you collect the million dollar challenge from Randi for showing you can read minds. The "real world" for audiophiles is the vast catalog of commercail releases of CDs and LPs the world over. by the way, one does not need to find a D2D to find an Lp that has not had to have the mastr adjusted for the pupose of cutting it. I'm not really sure why you are fixating on D2Ds. Indeed, your risible reference to Sheffield Labs as a 'real commercial company' is a complete giveaway. Ridiculous. I cited the Shefields *along with other LPs* only to show that certain claims made about *all* Lps were eroneous. Nothing more nothing less. 'Real world' vinyl is full-speed mastered from a tape cutting master, has its bass summed to mono below 100Hz and rolled off below 40 Hz, has its dynamic range compressed to lift the 'low level' detail above surface noise and soft-clip sharp peaks, and has its treble rolled off above 13-15 kHz to protect the cutter head. That's the *real* world of commercial vinyl, in the same way that a straight transfer of the master tape to the glass master is the *real* world of commercial CD. Wrong. Real worl vinyl is *any* vinyl that really exists from the best to the worst.That goes way beyond the scope you are trying to set here. It seems you want to argue the best vinyl out of existance to justify your beliefs. That would be quite unfair and unreasonable for anyone genuinely interested in what is better. In CD, mastering basically involves not degrading the sound of the master tape on the way to the pressed CD, whereas in LP it involves many 'dark arts' to squeeze as much as possible of the master tape onto a medium which can only a encompass a part of the master tape sound. This has nothing to do with which medium you may prefer, but it certainly *does* have to do with the thread title. This is not an accurate view of the art of mastering. Not even close. It is a belief that IMO has lead to a large number of highly compramised CDs which IMO is a root cause for many a preference for vinyl. It does strike me as ironic that those who are willing to have a blind faith in CD superiority are willing to do so to the point that it would lead to an inferior product. Excellent mastering is not a simple thing for either Lps or CDs. Scott |
#42
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The truth about accuracy of CD v. LP
chung wrote:
If the discussion is about real world availability of commercial CD's and LP's that the audiophile has to deal with It is about real world commercial releases on both formats period. I have many Lps and CDs that are out of print but they still work. They don't cease to be real world LPs and CDs once they go out of print. (and not about accuracy of the media and the underlying technologies), It is about that too but only in terms of real world commercial releases sine *that* is what we have as audiophiles. that it should be a short discussion. In the real world, almost all new music performances are on CD's. Only a tiny minority is available on LP's. Well not entirely true but with that mind set one should not be listening to anything recorded in years past. that would be tragic. Not much sense in comparing, since if you want to listen to those new performances, you're stuck with listening to CD's. That is a legitimate issue. But there is more to music than this year's releases don't you think? OTOH as a big Neil Young fan I found a comparison between the LP (yes it was released on LP) and the CD of his latest release to be quite telling. On another note many of the best CDs I have ever heard have been reissues. The scope extends past this years titles. Scott |
#43
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The truth about accuracy of CD v. LP
"---MIKE---" wrote in message
... Scott wrote: Actually they all will insert some form of EQ. Mike wrote: These modifications are not necessary when producing a CD. This means that the LP cutting master can't possibly be identical to the master tape for a CD. Scott replied: But it can and many are. Sometimes for ambitious reasons sometimes for the wrong reason. You contradict yourself. If they ALL insert some form of EQ (RIAA) then your last statement can't be correct. LP Master tapes MUST be equalized. Exactly. And then your phone pre-amp has to offer the reverse equalization, and since none can expected to be exactly accurate reversals or neutral, the master tape is yet another step removed from what you can hear on any LP. |
#46
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The truth about accuracy of CD v. LP
|
#47
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The truth about accuracy of CD v. LP
Steven Sullivan wrote:
wrote: wrote: 3. Objectivists believe that CDs in the cases that no tweaking has been done by the mastering engineers always present a more accurate sounding version of that master than any LP played back on any TT rig and thus will offer a more accurate representation of the artists/producer/ engineer's intentions as well as a more accurate reproduction of the master. I doubt that you can find such a thing as a recording that has not been tweaked. but the end result with a CD is that what is on the master tape is what is on the CD. Well, the digital master derived from an analog master tape can actually end up being rather different from the original master, if it has been tweaked during remastering. I doubt today's crop of highly compressed, low-dynamic-range remasters sound the same as their original master tapes. If it's remastered and tweaked, then we now have a new master that is used to make CD's from and the CD will be an exact clone of that master. Given the limitations of LP such an outcome is almost impossible unless the album being made is very short. Assuming no changes to the master to make an LP that would be 15 minutes or less per side, you still have something that is a generation removed from the master. You also have the added noise from the stylus tracking the grooves. To the extent a remaster has been 'tweaked' it represents some remastering engineer's or producer's idea of how the recording *should* sound. This might be with reference to an LP, or to modern fads (e.g. louder than loud), or to the engineer's personal conception of 'good sound'. Which is true for either LP or CD. They may justify this by saying they are only 'trying to be faithful to the master' but that's a bit of malarkey unless the master's actually *damaged*. Let us know if you will ever concede that LP is iherently inferior to CD. Depending on how terms are defined, that may not be necessary, or could even be wrong. I don't see how something that is at least one generation away from the source, unless it's a D2D can ever be equal to a CD which is an exact clone of the material that it is derived from. If part of what gives you pleasure about LP is the process of using a turntable, a CD will never be superior. But then we're no longer talking about the accuracy of the 2 media and all bets are off. |
#48
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The truth about accuracy of CD v. LP
---MIKE--- wrote:
Scott wrote: Actually they all will insert some form of EQ. Mike wrote: These modifications are not necessary when producing a CD. This means that the LP cutting master can't possibly be identical to the master tape for a CD. Scott replied: But it can and many are. Sometimes for ambitious reasons sometimes for the wrong reason. You contradict yourself. No, not at all. If they ALL insert some form of EQ (RIAA) then your last statement can't be correct. Look, I have already explained this. The RIAA curve is a part of the LP format just as digitization is a part of the CD format. This is completely different from tweeking a master so it can be cut on LP. The claim was made that you can't use the same master for both LPs and CDs because LPs need to tweek a master to cut an LP. The fact is there are CDs and LPs that were cut from the same master with no tweaking. Do the things that are needed to transfer master to either format is something entirely different. LP Master tapes MUST be equalized. They must go through the RIAA equalization and then be played through a phono preamp to reconstruct the curve to a flat response. Master tapes must be converted to digital and then reconverted to analog to be played. Thsi does not prevent either from being made from the same source. the big point being that you can compare them to the original source for accuracy should one choose to do so. Scott |
#49
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The truth about accuracy of CD v. LP
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 2 Mar 2006 00:28:20 GMT, (---MIKE---) wrote: Scott wrote: Actually they all will insert some form of EQ. Mike wrote: These modifications are not necessary when producing a CD. This means that the LP cutting master can't possibly be identical to the master tape for a CD. Scott replied: But it can and many are. Sometimes for ambitious reasons sometimes for the wrong reason. You contradict yourself. If they ALL insert some form of EQ (RIAA) then your last statement can't be correct. LP Master tapes MUST be equalized. While I generally support the argument that anyone using a 'flat' cutting master is not getting the best possible sound from an LP, it's not reasonable to describe RIAA pre-emphasis as 'EQ', because *all* vinyl replay systems have the corresponding RIAA de-emphasis, the net effect being flat. Thank you. It's certainly *possible* to run a mixdown master straight into a cutting lathe - but you'll have a 'long playing' record with less than ten minutes of music per side, and you'll need to be careful that you don't totally lose the groove with off-centre bass notes, or melt the cutter head with heavy cymbal work. Well, Steve Hoffman and Kevin Grey have managed to get more than that on each side for their top 100 Jazz series and they are cutting at 45 rpm. Chances are too, that the resultant LP will only be playable by a Shure V15..... My Koetsu Rosewood signature has no trouble tracking these records or any of the other records I have that were not tweaked for the purpose of cutting. Scott |
#50
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The truth about accuracy of CD v. LP
Ok. I have spent enough time getting feedback from objectivists
regarding their views on the accuracy of CDs in the real word. So it's high time to state my case. 1. Live music in a goo acoustic space is my genereal reference. james Boyk says it better than I can. "What interest me in audio is perception, not technology. One perception often lost in all the getting and spending is that live sound is beautiful, while reproduced sound rarely is." http://www.its.caltech.edu/~boyk/ear.htm It is the *intrinsic* beauty of live music that I seek when I listen to recordings of acoustic music. I know what it is. It is easily recognizable when I hear live music and it is recognizably missing in most playback. When it is there it is amazing. It is a matter of degree not a black and white issue though. OK my views on CDs vs.LPs as they help me achieve my goals in audio. 1. All else being equal IME LPs offer more of the intrinsic beauty than CDs. I base this on comparisons of CDs and LPs made from the same source by the same team of mastering enginees and producers. One example I cited was the James Boyk recording of Pictures at an Exhibition. i have also made the comparison with a number of oferings fom Classics and APO. The diffeences were not huge but I did favor the LPs. 2. The best sounding LPs sound better to me than the best sounding CDs I have heard. Granted there is a limited sampling to sure and one can claim I am comparing apples to oranges here but I am comparing the best of the best on both sides. All in all it seems fair if one wants to know which is providing the very best. 3. By and large when I compare the many CDs and LPs of a given title an LP will usually sound the best. It used to be almost all of the time but now it is about 70 to 80 percent of the time. As for accuracy. Well I have a number of opinions on that but lets start with the asertions below. wrote: Perhaps a beaten horse but still a hot topic. Before going into my views on the subject v. the views of objectivists I would like to pose some of my impressions about objectivist views to objectivists. Just to get a fair representation of those views I would like to hear from objectivists on the accuracy of my impressions . It is my impression that 1. objectivists believe that commerical CDs from thier intorduction to the market place to the present are audibly transparent transfers of the signal used to make them. Some objectivists agree with this some acknowledged that in some cases AD/converters and manufacturing can muk up the sound. IMO this is a very very common problem with CDs. Cds have often been considered harsh and strident and lacking in dimensionality and lower level harmonic detail by many who prefer LPs. It has been my experience as well. The claims that A/D converters are audibly transparent seems to me to be n eroneous one. "As Mrs. Cozart Fine and I began our evaluation sessions in April 1989, it becamevery clear to us that the A/D conversion process was a very critical step in our produc-tion work. As the producer once described it, the sounds from different converters wereall different "bowls of soup"." http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache...&cd=2&ie=UTF-8 2. Objectivists blame any faults of commercial CD sound to the poor quality of the original recordings or bad choices made by mastering engineers but never blame the actual digital conversion or manugfacturing of those CDs. Some objectivists agreed with this assertion as well. While I agree it is a common cause of some serious problems, especially in the past 10 years i don't agree that it is the only problem as claimed above. 3. Objectivists believe that CDs in the cases that no tweaking has been done by the mastering engineers always present a more accurate sounding version of that master than any LP played back on any TT rig and thus will offer a more accurate representation of the artists/producer/ engineer's intentions as well as a more accurate reproduction of the master. Again It seems that the objectivists largely agreed with this. Up to the intent of the artist/engineers/producers. And while I suspect it is often true I think there is ample reason to believe it is often not true. of course i am not speaking in terms of measured performance but of subjective compaisons. many noted mastering engineers such as Doug Sax and Bernie Grundman have claimed as much. They, unlike the rest of us , actually have made direct comparisons to draw their conclusions. 4. Objectivists believe the often cited preference for LPs to CDs when not a result of mastering differences is often the result of euphonic colorations inherent in LPs as a medium and that while some may like them they are never more accurate to the master tape or even the original sound of a live recording. Again I disagree based on cliams made by actual mastering and recording engineers of the very LPs and CDs I have often compared of the same titles. Audible acuracy is subjective and if an added distortion seems to comensate for something that is lost then that add distortion will make something more accurate to the original as far as our perceptions go. And that is what interests me. 5. Objectivists believe the primary source of preferences for LPs over CDs by vinyl enthusiasts is mostly a result of biases. Let me know if I am making any misrepresentations of objectivists beliefs on this subject. ok not a big issue really. But lets talk about accuracy It seems to me that a number of objectivists seem to think a master recording is the proper reference for audio. Aside from my position that the common belief that if it isi on CD and hasn't been mukked with that CDs will be more accurate to the master than LPs is often eroneous and that many many CDs are inroducing very ugly colorations that make their distortions more problematic in many many cases, setting up a master tape as a reference can be a very misguided idea. Why set it up as a reference/ Because it represents the artists intentions? How? 1. You are setting up playback as a reference for playback. master tapes have no sound of their own. They have to be played back. The artists recorded over mics (transducers) and listened back over another set of transducers. It is a troublesome reference. here is yet another problem. Many artists/enginees/ producers did not use the master tape to judge the product. In popular music final judgement was largly based on test pressings of the LP. IOW the LP was the reference. Matser tapes were tweaked to get the "artists/engineers/producers intentions" for the actual final product. One can easily go to a master tape, depending on what tape is chosen and get nothing like what the artists intended. The fact is mastering old mateil is not simple. choosing the right master tape is essential and having the artists/engineers present to guide the reissue is also very important if one is so worried about intent of artsists and the like. Most, almost all CDs were not made this way. OTOH just about all LPs form the advent of the medum to the 80s were. Ironically, if intent matters to you then many many LPs are more accuratce. Consider what Rudy Van Gelder says about the subject for a moment. But is accuracy to the master tape the be all end all? Obviously not in many cases. Is accuracy to the artists/engineers/producers intent always the be all end all? in many cases I' say no. Have any of you heard the Led Zeppelin reissues supervised by Jimi Page? Ear bleeding trebble to say the least. should I like that better cause Jimi Page does? Bottom line. There are too many variables that havegone into the making of LPs and CDs to make any reasonableblanket claims about accuracy to the master. We do not have access to masters and so it is difficult for us to make our own comparisons. This along with the fact that when one uses a master as a reference one has to use playback as a reference amkes master tapes an unvarifiable, some what arbitrary and inherently compramised reference. The bottom line is my goal is to get as much of the intrinsic beauty of live music in my playback. The way I make this call is by simply listening and comparing. My conclusions were based on that. Thsoe conclusions being... 1. All else being equal IME LPs offer more of the intrinsic beauty than CDs. I base this on comparisons of CDs and LPs made from the same source by the same team of mastering enginees and producers. One example I cited was the James Boyk recording of Pictures at an Exhibition. i have also made the comparison with a number of oferings fom Classics and APO. The diffeences were not huge but I did favor the LPs. 2. The best sounding LPs sound better to me than the best sounding CDs I have heard. Granted there is a limited sampling to sure and one can claim I am comparing apples to oranges here but I am comparing the best of the best on both sides. All in all it seems fair if one wants to know which is providing the very best. 3. By and large when I compare the many CDs and LPs of a given title an LP will usually sound the best. It used to be almost all of the time but now it is about 70 to 80 percent of the time. I think it is odd to adjust one's preferences to one's expectations. I think many objectivists have done so by wrongly expecting CDs to be accurate to the master, believing that the master is always a reasonable and meaningful reference to begin with and thinking all problems one hears from Cds should be accepted becasue the technology is "superior" and that it is right even if it is not pretty. It makes more sense to simply evaluate the playback on the merits of the sound. Scott |
#51
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The truth about accuracy of CD v. LP
|
#52
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The truth about accuracy of CD v. LP
bob wrote:
wrote: snip all Shorter Scott: 1. To me, the euphonic distortions of digital are beautiful. 2. Lots of recordings are badly made. 3. It's all digital's fault. Wow, you managed to get everything wrong. Extremely wrong. (And no, I am not talking about you mistakenly saying digital when you obviously meant analog) At least you were brief. Given how well I represented the views of objectists and how badly you represented mine it ought to give you cause to take another look with the blinders removed. I have always believed in any debate or disagreement that the ability to accurately present the opposing position says so much about one's overall understanding of the issue. If you can't even come close to getting my views right even when they are put right in front of you how can you begin to form a meaningful opinion about them? Scott |
#53
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The truth about accuracy of CD v. LP
On 4 Mar 2006 19:20:14 GMT, "bob" wrote:
wrote: snip all Shorter Scott: 1. To me, the euphonic distortions of digital are beautiful. 2. Lots of recordings are badly made. 3. It's all digital's fault. I presume that 1. above should have been "To me, the euphonic distortions of analog are beautiful." I think Scott actually thinks that the euphonic distortions of analogue somehow make the sound more 'realistic', to him at least. However, 2 and 3 seem to be accurate - even though Scott *very* carefully edits highlights from reality to argue this case. Scott does appear to think that because *some* CDs were badly mastered and/or used poor ADCs back in the '80s, the base technology is somehow inferior to vinyl. To someone who was buying the garbage that mostly passed for vinyl in the '70s, that's absolutely hilarious. And yes, I also bought a lot of superb Sheffields etc in the same period, but that doesn't make vinyl more accurate than CD. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#54
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The truth about accuracy of CD v. LP
Steven Sullivan wrote:
wrote: Ok. I have spent enough time getting feedback from objectivists regarding their views on the accuracy of CDs in the real word. So it's high time to state my case. 1. Live music in a goo acoustic space is my genereal reference. james Boyk says it better than I can. "What interest me in audio is perception, not technology. One perception often lost in all the getting and spending is that live sound is beautiful, while reproduced sound rarely is." http://www.its.caltech.edu/~boyk/ear.htm It is the *intrinsic* beauty of live music that I seek when I listen to recordings of acoustic music. I know what it is. It is easily recognizable when I hear live music and it is recognizably missing in most playback. When it is there it is amazing. It is a matter of degree not a black and white issue though. Live music is not 'intrinsically' beautiful. It beggars belief to imply that live sound can't be downright *ugly*, either due to acoustics, playing, or the music itself. Well gosh Steve, I didn't know I had to explain the obvious to such a smart group of people. Of course, live music played badly or played in a poor acoustic space is ugly. It's inaudible if the listener is deaf too. It's all for nothing if the listener is struck by lightning and dies on the spot as well. Are there any other obvious things that need explaining? This sort of vague 'standard' is no sort of standard at all. wrong. You have to tke my position out of context to challenge it. Sad. It's just a subjective call, again. It's always a subjective call when aesthetics are involved. Scott |
#55
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The truth about accuracy of CD v. LP
I don't know how true this is but I used to hear that it was necessary
to compensate for the slower speed at the inner grooves of an LP. This compensation could be a boost in the higher frequencies or a boost in the overall levels. Does anyone know about this? ---MIKE--- In the White Mountains of New Hampshire (44=B0 15' N - Elevation 1580') |
#56
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The truth about accuracy of CD v. LP
In article ,
wrote: Ok. I have spent enough time getting feedback from objectivists regarding their views on the accuracy of CDs in the real word. So it's high time to state my case. 1. Live music in a goo acoustic space is my genereal reference. james Boyk says it better than I can. "What interest me in audio is perception, not technology. One perception often lost in all the getting and spending is that live sound is beautiful, while reproduced sound rarely is." http://www.its.caltech.edu/~boyk/ear.htm It is the *intrinsic* beauty of live music that I seek when I listen to recordings of acoustic music. I know what it is. It is easily recognizable when I hear live music and it is recognizably missing in most playback. When it is there it is amazing. It is a matter of degree not a black and white issue though. OK my views on CDs vs.LPs as they help me achieve my goals in audio. 1. All else being equal IME LPs offer more of the intrinsic beauty than CDs. I base this on comparisons of CDs and LPs made from the same source by the same team of mastering enginees and producers. One example I cited was the James Boyk recording of Pictures at an Exhibition. i have also made the comparison with a number of oferings fom Classics and APO. The diffeences were not huge but I did favor the LPs. 2. The best sounding LPs sound better to me than the best sounding CDs I have heard. Granted there is a limited sampling to sure and one can claim I am comparing apples to oranges here but I am comparing the best of the best on both sides. All in all it seems fair if one wants to know which is providing the very best. 3. By and large when I compare the many CDs and LPs of a given title an LP will usually sound the best. It used to be almost all of the time but now it is about 70 to 80 percent of the time. snip Thanks, Scott, for eloquently summing up my thoughts on this topic. By the way, I just received Boyk's LP of Debussy, Stravinsky, et al. FANTASTIC! I had all of his LPs before I sold my collection in '95, so I'm in the process of getting them again. |
#57
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The truth about accuracy of CD v. LP
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 4 Mar 2006 19:20:14 GMT, "bob" wrote: wrote: snip all Shorter Scott: 1. To me, the euphonic distortions of digital are beautiful. 2. Lots of recordings are badly made. 3. It's all digital's fault. I presume that 1. above should have been "To me, the euphonic distortions of analog are beautiful." I think Scott actually thinks that the euphonic distortions of analogue somehow make the sound more 'realistic', to him at least. You really need to collect that million dollars from Randi before you go into what you think i think. Maybe you will do better just reading what i write and understanding it. However, 2 and 3 seem to be accurate - even though Scott *very* carefully edits highlights from reality to argue this case. Scott does appear to think that because *some* CDs were badly mastered and/or used poor ADCs back in the '80s, the base technology is somehow inferior to vinyl. Well you got most of that wrong. Still amazes me when i spell out exactly what I believe in very simple language. I do think a lot not just some commercial Cds have been badly mastered and/or used ADCs that colored the sound not to mention othe problems that can be found in the making of many commercial CDs. I do not believe this is unique to the eighties nor do I think it is a reflection of the base technology. so once again we have an objctivist either misunderstnading a simply stated position or misrepresenting it as a basis for an argument. Weak, very weak. To someone who was buying the garbage that mostly passed for vinyl in the '70s, that's absolutely hilarious. And yes, I also bought a lot of superb Sheffields etc in the same period, but that doesn't make vinyl more accurate than CD. Although I find the claim rather bizzarre I have to agree with your claim that your puchases of superb Sheffields does not make vinyl more accurate than CD. I suggest you reread what I did say about the accuracy of CDs and LPs in real world applications and try to understand it. I do not make any mention of which is more accurate but which has been more accurate in real world applications. I also do not mention your buying habbits as a cause of anything Scott |
#58
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The truth about accuracy of CD v. LP
http://www.sickoftalk.com/whyvinyl_two.html
Part way down the page is the info you are asking about. http://www.sickoftalk.com/whyvinyl.html And here is other useful explanations of how records are made. I do however disagree with his reasons for why vinyl is better or that it is better. In this article he mentions that reference discs are cut to allow producers to see how the transfer to LP will sound compared to the master tape. If vinyl were so much superior, why wouldn't it sound like the master tape? Well because of all the EQ, varying frequency response and other factors not to mention to modest S/N values of vinyl. Dennis "---MIKE---" wrote in message ... I don't know how true this is but I used to hear that it was necessary to compensate for the slower speed at the inner grooves of an LP. This compensation could be a boost in the higher frequencies or a boost in the overall levels. Does anyone know about this? ---MIKE--- In the White Mountains of New Hampshire (44° 15' N - Elevation 1580') |
#59
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The truth about accuracy of CD v. LP
Jenn wrote:
In article , wrote: Ok. I have spent enough time getting feedback from objectivists regarding their views on the accuracy of CDs in the real word. So it's high time to state my case. 1. Live music in a goo acoustic space is my genereal reference. james Boyk says it better than I can. "What interest me in audio is perception, not technology. One perception often lost in all the getting and spending is that live sound is beautiful, while reproduced sound rarely is." http://www.its.caltech.edu/~boyk/ear.htm It is the *intrinsic* beauty of live music that I seek when I listen to recordings of acoustic music. I know what it is. It is easily recognizable when I hear live music and it is recognizably missing in most playback. When it is there it is amazing. It is a matter of degree not a black and white issue though. OK my views on CDs vs.LPs as they help me achieve my goals in audio. 1. All else being equal IME LPs offer more of the intrinsic beauty than CDs. I base this on comparisons of CDs and LPs made from the same source by the same team of mastering enginees and producers. One example I cited was the James Boyk recording of Pictures at an Exhibition. i have also made the comparison with a number of oferings fom Classics and APO. The diffeences were not huge but I did favor the LPs. 2. The best sounding LPs sound better to me than the best sounding CDs I have heard. Granted there is a limited sampling to sure and one can claim I am comparing apples to oranges here but I am comparing the best of the best on both sides. All in all it seems fair if one wants to know which is providing the very best. 3. By and large when I compare the many CDs and LPs of a given title an LP will usually sound the best. It used to be almost all of the time but now it is about 70 to 80 percent of the time. snip Thanks, Scott, for eloquently summing up my thoughts on this topic. By the way, I just received Boyk's LP of Debussy, Stravinsky, et al. FANTASTIC! I had all of his LPs before I sold my collection in '95, so I'm in the process of getting them again. If great piano is what you are after I highly recomend the following. Nojima plays Ravel Reference Recordings RR-25 Nojima plays Liszt Reference Recordings RR-35 They are amoung the best sounding piano recordings I have ever heard. While different than the Performance recordings they don't really give up anything in sonics. I don' know how they landed this amazing artist. Nojima's performances on these records is second to none. This is quite rare for an audiophile label. These rcords are that rare combination of world class sound and world class performance of great music. Debussy & Ravel Piano works Ivan Moravec Athena ALSY-10002 Great sound, ruly great sound. Ivan Moravec is far and away my favorite pianist. Maybe I am mising something or am out of touch but I think this guy plays circles around the most acclaimed pianists. Also check out his Beethoven sonatas available on (gasp) CD. I think I have heard all the staples when it comes to the "definitive versions" of these works. I think the Moravec performances leave them all deep in the dust. Scott |
#60
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The truth about accuracy of CD v. LP
Steven Sullivan wrote:
wrote: Ok. I have spent enough time getting feedback from objectivists regarding their views on the accuracy of CDs in the real word. So it's high time to state my case. 1. Live music in a goo acoustic space is my genereal reference. james Boyk says it better than I can. "What interest me in audio is perception, not technology. One perception often lost in all the getting and spending is that live sound is beautiful, while reproduced sound rarely is." http://www.its.caltech.edu/~boyk/ear.htm It is the *intrinsic* beauty of live music that I seek when I listen to recordings of acoustic music. I know what it is. It is easily recognizable when I hear live music and it is recognizably missing in most playback. When it is there it is amazing. It is a matter of degree not a black and white issue though. Live music is not 'intrinsically' beautiful. It beggars belief to imply that live sound can't be downright *ugly*, either due to acoustics, playing, or the music itself. This sort of vague 'standard' is no sort of standard at all. It's just a subjective call, again. And, of course, one of the reasons why *sometimes* live music is beautiful is because it is visually beautiful. Reproduced music, played on audio systems, can never capture that visual beauty. I attended a concert performed by an excellent college orchestra last Friday, and indeed, it was beautiful. The great hall, the great atmosphere, and the young musicians who are also some of the brightest students in the world, all add to the intrinsic beauty of live music. |
#61
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The truth about accuracy of CD v. LP
bob wrote:
wrote: snip all Shorter Scott: 1. To me, the euphonic distortions of digital are beautiful. 2. Lots of recordings are badly made. 3. It's all digital's fault. bob Add (4): 4. Any attempt to summarize my (Scott's) position by objectivists will fail. |
#62
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The truth about accuracy of CD v. LP
"---MIKE---" wrote in message
... I don't know how true this is but I used to hear that it was necessary to compensate for the slower speed at the inner grooves of an LP. This compensation could be a boost in the higher frequencies or a boost in the overall levels. Does anyone know about this? If that was the case, it would be done in the mastering process--not during playback. Norm Strong |
#63
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The truth about accuracy of CD v. LP
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 4 Mar 2006 19:20:14 GMT, "bob" wrote: wrote: snip all Shorter Scott: 1. To me, the euphonic distortions of digital are beautiful. 2. Lots of recordings are badly made. 3. It's all digital's fault. I presume that 1. above should have been "To me, the euphonic distortions of analog are beautiful." Yep. I think Scott actually thinks that the euphonic distortions of analogue somehow make the sound more 'realistic', to him at least. In the post in question, he specifically refers to the "intrinsic beauty" of vinyl, which is why I used that term. Most of his post typically obfuscates the distinction between accuracy and realism, which is why neither it nor this whole thread tells us anything we haven't heard before. bob |
#64
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The truth about accuracy of CD v. LP
|
#65
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The truth about accuracy of CD v. LP
chung wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote: wrote: Ok. I have spent enough time getting feedback from objectivists regarding their views on the accuracy of CDs in the real word. So it's high time to state my case. 1. Live music in a goo acoustic space is my genereal reference. james Boyk says it better than I can. "What interest me in audio is perception, not technology. One perception often lost in all the getting and spending is that live sound is beautiful, while reproduced sound rarely is." http://www.its.caltech.edu/~boyk/ear.htm It is the *intrinsic* beauty of live music that I seek when I listen to recordings of acoustic music. I know what it is. It is easily recognizable when I hear live music and it is recognizably missing in most playback. When it is there it is amazing. It is a matter of degree not a black and white issue though. Live music is not 'intrinsically' beautiful. It beggars belief to imply that live sound can't be downright *ugly*, either due to acoustics, playing, or the music itself. This sort of vague 'standard' is no sort of standard at all. It's just a subjective call, again. And, of course, one of the reasons why *sometimes* live music is beautiful is because it is visually beautiful. Reproduced music, played on audio systems, can never capture that visual beauty. I attended a concert performed by an excellent college orchestra last Friday, and indeed, it was beautiful. The great hall, the great atmosphere, and the young musicians who are also some of the brightest students in the world, all add to the intrinsic beauty of live music. I would agree that a part of the pleasure of live music is to see it performed. Especially in rock music. But When I close my eyes from time to time at a live concert i don't find it sounding any less beautiful. Scott |
#66
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The truth about accuracy of CD v. LP
Dennis Moore wrote:
http://www.sickoftalk.com/whyvinyl_two.html Part way down the page is the info you are asking about. http://www.sickoftalk.com/whyvinyl.html The attempted explanation of what CD sound is on that page is wrong. The writer clearly does not know anything about digital audio. His description of the vinyl sound is also laughable (e.g. "no information is lost"). It's amazing how vinylphiles keep getting basic stuff wrong, even now. And here is other useful explanations of how records are made. I do however disagree with his reasons for why vinyl is better or that it is better. |
#67
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The truth about accuracy of CD v. LP
In article , chung
wrote: Steven Sullivan wrote: wrote: Ok. I have spent enough time getting feedback from objectivists regarding their views on the accuracy of CDs in the real word. So it's high time to state my case. 1. Live music in a goo acoustic space is my genereal reference. james Boyk says it better than I can. "What interest me in audio is perception, not technology. One perception often lost in all the getting and spending is that live sound is beautiful, while reproduced sound rarely is." http://www.its.caltech.edu/~boyk/ear.htm It is the *intrinsic* beauty of live music that I seek when I listen to recordings of acoustic music. I know what it is. It is easily recognizable when I hear live music and it is recognizably missing in most playback. When it is there it is amazing. It is a matter of degree not a black and white issue though. Live music is not 'intrinsically' beautiful. It beggars belief to imply that live sound can't be downright *ugly*, either due to acoustics, playing, or the music itself. This sort of vague 'standard' is no sort of standard at all. It's just a subjective call, again. And, of course, one of the reasons why *sometimes* live music is beautiful is because it is visually beautiful. Reproduced music, played on audio systems, can never capture that visual beauty. I attended a concert performed by an excellent college orchestra last Friday, and indeed, it was beautiful. The great hall, the great atmosphere, and the young musicians who are also some of the brightest students in the world, all add to the intrinsic beauty of live music. Chung, if you don't mind me asking, what was the orchestra and where was the hall? I'm glad that you liked the concert. Feel free to email if this is too off topic for the group. Jenn |
#68
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The truth about accuracy of CD v. LP
In article ,
wrote: Jenn wrote: In article , wrote: Ok. I have spent enough time getting feedback from objectivists regarding their views on the accuracy of CDs in the real word. So it's high time to state my case. 1. Live music in a goo acoustic space is my genereal reference. james Boyk says it better than I can. "What interest me in audio is perception, not technology. One perception often lost in all the getting and spending is that live sound is beautiful, while reproduced sound rarely is." http://www.its.caltech.edu/~boyk/ear.htm It is the *intrinsic* beauty of live music that I seek when I listen to recordings of acoustic music. I know what it is. It is easily recognizable when I hear live music and it is recognizably missing in most playback. When it is there it is amazing. It is a matter of degree not a black and white issue though. OK my views on CDs vs.LPs as they help me achieve my goals in audio. 1. All else being equal IME LPs offer more of the intrinsic beauty than CDs. I base this on comparisons of CDs and LPs made from the same source by the same team of mastering enginees and producers. One example I cited was the James Boyk recording of Pictures at an Exhibition. i have also made the comparison with a number of oferings fom Classics and APO. The diffeences were not huge but I did favor the LPs. 2. The best sounding LPs sound better to me than the best sounding CDs I have heard. Granted there is a limited sampling to sure and one can claim I am comparing apples to oranges here but I am comparing the best of the best on both sides. All in all it seems fair if one wants to know which is providing the very best. 3. By and large when I compare the many CDs and LPs of a given title an LP will usually sound the best. It used to be almost all of the time but now it is about 70 to 80 percent of the time. snip Thanks, Scott, for eloquently summing up my thoughts on this topic. By the way, I just received Boyk's LP of Debussy, Stravinsky, et al. FANTASTIC! I had all of his LPs before I sold my collection in '95, so I'm in the process of getting them again. If great piano is what you are after I highly recomend the following. Nojima plays Ravel Reference Recordings RR-25 Got it, love it! Nojima plays Liszt Reference Recordings RR-35 Got it, love it! They are amoung the best sounding piano recordings I have ever heard. While different than the Performance recordings they don't really give up anything in sonics. I don' know how they landed this amazing artist. Nojima's performances on these records is second to none. This is quite rare for an audiophile label. These rcords are that rare combination of world class sound and world class performance of great music. Debussy & Ravel Piano works Ivan Moravec Athena ALSY-10002 Great sound, ruly great sound. Ivan Moravec is far and away my favorite pianist. Maybe I am mising something or am out of touch but I think this guy plays circles around the most acclaimed pianists. Also check out his Beethoven sonatas available on (gasp) CD. I think I have heard all the staples when it comes to the "definitive versions" of these works. I think the Moravec performances leave them all deep in the dust. Thanks for this tip. I've heard of Moravec, of course, but I've not heard his playing. Scott |
#69
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The truth about accuracy of CD v. LP
wrote:
chung wrote: bob wrote: wrote: snip all Shorter Scott: 1. To me, the euphonic distortions of digital are beautiful. 2. Lots of recordings are badly made. 3. It's all digital's fault. bob Add (4): 4. Any attempt to summarize my (Scott's) position by objectivists will fail. So far they have failed. What makes you think we were trying? I find it odd that such a smart group of people would feel compelled to summarize a *summary* of my views. Why can't you guys just take *my* summary for what it is? Because it was too long to read? Why do you guys continue misrepresent my views? Do you not understand them or are you misrepresenting them on purpose? Like I said before, in any debate or disagreement, if one side can accurately represent the opposing view (like I did with the objectivist POV) Yeah, right. Try again, some time. but the other side can't or wont do the same, it speaks volumes over who has the better grasp of the merits of the issue. If you can't undestand or acknowledge my position on this issue you can't begin to make any kind of meaningful or valuable critique of it. So lets see if you can take the first step and do as good a job of stating my position as I did of stating the objectiist position in your own words. Should be easy since it is right there in front of you. My point was not to summarize you. It was simply to note that you offered nothing new, and that once again you appear to be someone who likes the *sound* of vinyl and needs somehow to rationalize or justify that preference. I'm surprised that I have to spell this out for you. bob |
#70
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The truth about accuracy of CD v. LP
wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote: In article , wrote: OK, now we've established that our opinions differ. That was established long long agao. Sorry i didn't give you anything to attack. End of yet another pointless exercise. Pointless? Examining and trying to understand different POVs is pointless? I suppose for those who believe they already know it all and are right about everything. What new thng did you actually learn? There was nothing that hadn't been covered endlessly before and the truth is still the truth, LP is technically inferior to CD, in every aspect. It still remains the case that CD is *vastly* more accurate than LP in technical terms, Let's throw a parade in honor of all those that find this important rather than what their CDs and LPs actually sound like. They sound like they are supposed to, like the master tape, and like the engineer intended. That they don' have the gobs of added noise and distorton found on LP's is considered a benefit by most people. and that virtually all of the 'magic' of LP can be retained by recording it to CD-R, rather proving the point. I don't believe in magic. Sorry to disappoint you. I am currious to know which LPs you found to be better than their CD counterparts. I have a hunch you can't name any. Most likely because there are so few. Tell you what I'll throw you a bone to chew on. LPs are superior because they have infinite resolution since they are analog and have no steps like digital. Now you can have fun. What's fun about the same old misstatements and distortions. |
#71
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The truth about accuracy of CD v. LP
On 8 Mar 2006 00:48:33 GMT, wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote: In article , wrote: OK my views on CDs vs.LPs as they help me achieve my goals in audio. 1. All else being equal IME LPs offer more of the intrinsic beauty than CDs. I base this on comparisons of CDs and LPs made from the same source by the same team of mastering enginees and producers. One example I cited was the James Boyk recording of Pictures at an Exhibition. i have also made the comparison with a number of oferings fom Classics and APO. The diffeences were not huge but I did favor the LPs. I have made similar comparisons, and I favour CD. 2. The best sounding LPs sound better to me than the best sounding CDs I have heard. Granted there is a limited sampling to sure and one can claim I am comparing apples to oranges here but I am comparing the best of the best on both sides. All in all it seems fair if one wants to know which is providing the very best. The best sounding CDs sound better to me than the best sounding LPs I have heard. Granted there is a limited sampling to sure and one can claim I am comparing apples to oranges here but I am comparing the best of the best on both sides. All in all it seems fair if one wants to know which is providing the very best. Very clever. What next? I know you are but what am I? Simply an illustration that mere opinion cuts both ways. Do you have nothing of *substance* to argue? 3. By and large when I compare the many CDs and LPs of a given title an LP will usually sound the best. It used to be almost all of the time but now it is about 70 to 80 percent of the time. By and large when I compare the many CDs and LPs of a given title an CD will usually sound the best. Not always, but certainly at least 3 out of 4 times. Really? Which LPs did you prefer? The Andre Previn 'Planets' and the Sheffield 'The James Version' (Treasury edition, not direct-cut, which is superior - but a different performance in my copy). Can't actually think of any others offhand, but there have been a few, maybe as many as a dozen over the years. On reflection, make that at least 99 times out of 100 I prefer the CD. I have of course bought some badly made CDs, but that's no reflection on the medium, as I've also bought many badly made LPs. OK, now we've established that our opinions differ. That was established long long agao. Sorry i didn't give you anything to attack. Sorry you thought that was the point of your exercise. End of yet another pointless exercise. Pointless? Examining and trying to understand different POVs is pointless? I suppose for those who believe they already know it all and are right about everything. Scott, we *know* your POV, and you know ours, the curiosity was simply to where this red herring of yours was swimming. It still remains the case that CD is *vastly* more accurate than LP in technical terms, Let's throw a parade in honor of all those that find this important rather than what their CDs and LPs actually sound like. That pretty much *defines* what CDs sound like, i.e. the master tape. Remember the thread title - this isn't about *preference*. and that virtually all of the 'magic' of LP can be retained by recording it to CD-R, rather proving the point. I don't believe in magic. Sorry to disappoint you. Not disappointed, but certainly surprised! The term 'magic' here is of course just a convenient wrapper for all these sonic attributes that you prefer about LP - and which transfer accurately to CD-R. How typical of you to attempt such a smoke and mirrors deflection from the core of the debate. I am currious to know which LPs you found to be better than their CD counterparts. I have a hunch you can't name any. As ever, your hunch is wrong. Tell you what I'll throw you a bone to chew on. LPs are superior because they have infinite resolution since they are analog and have no steps like digital. Now you can have fun. Nah, I know you don't believe that, and hopefully there aren't many left who do. For those in doubt, the resolution of any linear system is defined by its noise floor. Digital audio, while quantised, has no 'steps' because of dither applied at the point of A/D conversion. The resolution of CD is generally limited by the noise floor of the master tape, otherwise it would be about ten times finer than that of vinyl. Base figures for this are a noise floor of -75dB for the very finest direct-cut vinyl (more like -65 dB on most commercial recordings), 75-80dB for the very best master tapes (basically microphone noise on digital masters) and 93dB for CD (not the commonly quoted 96dB, because of dither). -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#72
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The truth about accuracy of CD v. LP
Chung wrote:
Dennis Moore wrote: http://www.sickoftalk.com/whyvinyl_two.html Part way down the page is the info you are asking about. http://www.sickoftalk.com/whyvinyl.html The attempted explanation of what CD sound is on that page is wrong. The writer clearly does not know anything about digital audio. His description of the vinyl sound is also laughable (e.g. "no information is lost"). It's amazing how vinylphiles keep getting basic stuff wrong, even now. and of course, the ignoramus-about-digital who wrote that page until recently sold his services as a one-man vinyl pressing plant. http://www.sickoftalk.com/info_contact.html -- -S "If men were angels, no government would be necessary." - James Madison (1788) |
#73
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The truth about accuracy of CD v. LP
|
#74
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The truth about accuracy of CD v. LP
Chung wrote:
Dennis Moore wrote: http://www.sickoftalk.com/whyvinyl_two.html Part way down the page is the info you are asking about. http://www.sickoftalk.com/whyvinyl.html The attempted explanation of what CD sound is on that page is wrong. The writer clearly does not know anything about digital audio. His description of the vinyl sound is also laughable (e.g. "no information is lost"). It's amazing how vinylphiles keep getting basic stuff wrong, even now. Hey it goes both ways. Digifiles keep getting basic stuff wrong too. even here on RAHE. Does it really matter though? personally I am more worried about the people making CDs and LPs getting it right. Scott |
#76
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The truth about accuracy of CD v. LP
"---MIKE---"
wrote in message . I don't know how true this is but I used to hear that it was necessary to compensate for the slower speed at the inner grooves of an LP. This compensation could be a boost in the higher frequencies or a boost in the overall levels. Does anyone know about this? If that was the case, it would be done in the mastering process--not during playback. Norm Strong I was referring to the mastering process. This boost would partially account for the inner groove distortion because it would be more difficult for the cartridge to track. ---MIKE--- In the White Mountains of New Hampshire (44=B0 15' N - Elevation 1580') |
#77
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The truth about accuracy of CD v. LP
wrote:
wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: In article , wrote: OK, now we've established that our opinions differ. That was established long long agao. Sorry i didn't give you anything to attack. End of yet another pointless exercise. Pointless? Examining and trying to understand different POVs is pointless? I suppose for those who believe they already know it all and are right about everything. What new thng did you actually learn? That in moments of noncombativeness, some objectivists actually were aware fo the real world shortcomings of so many commercial CDs including failings in the digitization an manufacturing of them. Others, such as yourself hava a completely unrealistic idealized impression of CDs no matter how bad any number of them sound and some, like yourself are willing to accept such bad sound under the mistaken belief that because it is CD it is always more "accurate" to the master tape and more true to the intentions of the people who made the recording. The reasoning behind that belief is fataly flawed on so many levels. 1. The presumption that the transfer was transparent 2. The presumption that the right choices were made in picking and playing "the" master tape 3 The presumption that the mastering engineer did a good job 4. The presumption that the chosen master tape best represents the artists' intentions despite the fact that LP test pressings were so often the final arbitrator of artist intentions.5. The presumtion that using a master tape as a reference is meaningful given the fact that one cannot use a master tape as a reference without also using a playback system as part of that reference thereby setting up playback as a reference for playback. 6. The ignored fact that you have no access to that original master or to the actual sound that the artists used to judge their work given that they all listened to playback systems you cannot access. Sorry, but I find your idea of master tapes as a reference to be very unreasonable, very arbitrary, and very impractical. I find the notion that we should accept commercial CDs as definitive versions of any given recording because they are "supposed' to be more accurate a very poorly reasoned premise for anyone genuinely interested in the aestheic experience of listenng to music. There was nothing that hadn't been covered endlessly before and the truth is still the truth, LP is technically inferior to CD, in every aspect. It appears you missed much of the discussion. It still remains the case that CD is *vastly* more accurate than LP in technical terms, Let's throw a parade in honor of all those that find this important rather than what their CDs and LPs actually sound like. They sound like they are supposed to, like the master tape, and like the engineer intended. You definitely missed most of the discussion. maybe if you wont listen to me you will listen to some of the pros that actually compare the master tapes to th final products be they CD or LP. http://www.allaboutjazz.com/iviews/vangelder.htm "AAJ: Please discuss your approach to the new Rudy Van Gelder Edition Blue Notes in terms of working with the stereo and mono tapes and deciding which format to use for the new master. RVG: My approach was totally different from what I had heard in the previous CDs. This was first time I had any opportunity to deal with those tapes. Once or twice they sent to me both the mono and stereo versions, which I described to you a minute ago, and the mono would sound much better for obvious reasons, because no one who had been involved in the creation of the original session had ever listened to stereo, but everyone had listened to mono. So I tried to convince them to release the mono version even though it had previously been issued as stereo because I felt that the mono version sounded as if Alfred would have wanted it to be that way. And that is really my goal here. However, there are plenty of albums in this series that are in very good stereo. Until now no one has heard my version of what these early recordings should sound like on CD. " OK here s a great recording engineer making it very clear that all prevous CD releases of his famous and amazing Blue Note Jazz recordings were not what they "should sound like." your presumpton that if it is CD it is accurate and true to the artists' and engineers' intention obviously doesn't hold water as a rule. OTOH Rudy Van Gelder not only was there for the making of those much values original LPs he mastered them. If intent is really an issue how could you possibly assume that CDs are always or even often the better representation of that intent now that you know this? http://www.classicrecs.com/frames/be...s_frameset.htm The first question to ask is, "Which master tape to use?" The answer is somewhat involved and can vary, depending on the objectives of the reissue project. If the goal is to recreate the sound of the original release as closely as possible, then finding the so-called "production master tape" makes sense. However, there are some caveats to consider. The production master tape may have been generated from a previous source, closer to the original performance. This earlier generation tape is often referred to as the "session tape" or "edited work part." In most cases, it is the same tape that was used during the recording sessions. The differences between session tapes and production masters can be slight. Or they may be significant. In any case, an increase in noise level of at least three dbs can be expected in any analog tape transfer. In the early days of high fidelity, most major labels used production master tapes to cut their original records. This was due in part to the session tapes being "doctored" to correct recording problems in post-production. It also simplified the engineer's task of cutting the record. Since no further changes were made during this stage, the cutter was simply referred to as a "transcription engineer." One has to remember that this was years before the advent of so-called "mastering engineers." Obviously, the question of which tape to use is a complicated one. The solutions can be equally problematic. For example, production masters were often compressed dynamically during the transfer of the edited work parts. Although this proved helpful during the cutting process, it also negatively affected sound quality. Furthermore, cutter heads during those first years contained all sorts of anomalies. They peaked at certain levels instead of maintaining an even response. As a result, certain unwanted frequencies were unavoidably highlighted. In addition, most of the early cutter heads were unable to effectively handle the entire dynamic range of the original session tapes. Therefore, to avoid cutter head problems, overall sound quality was often compromised to achieve a flat transfer without equalization. Do you have any idea how many Cds were mastered from tapes that were specifically made for LP cutting and thereby are anything but more accurate to the intentions? http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache...&cd=2&ie=UTF-8 "As Mrs. Cozart Fine and I began our evaluation sessions in April 1989, it becamevery clear to us that the A/D conversion process was a very critical step in our produc-tion work. As the producer once described it, the sounds from different converters wereall different "bowls of soup". So much for all CDs being transparent copies of the master tapes. How many of these colored A/D converters were used to make any number of the Cds you own and believe to be perfect copies. " As we compared the various digital converters to the playback of theactual analog source, we found that the soundstage of the orchestra was alwaysreduced in width when listening to the digital chain. We also found that many A/D con-verters exhibited a strident string sound, unnatural sounding midrange, and a loss of airor ambience around the instruments" Funny. it was the subjectivists/"vinylphiles" that noticed this first while guys like you asumed that this was how it was "supposed" to sound. ".As a production team, we had a golden rule: In every step of the productionprocess, always compare back to the original source to ensure that it remains true" Hmm. they follow your philosophy. How many of you r CDs do you really think were made with this degree of care? The interesting thing here is that these CDs were widely embrassed by "vinylfiles" as a desert Island in a sea of crappy sounding CDs. But they were the one using their ears and not their presumptions to pass judgement. "After many listening sessions during which we evaluated A/D converters, we finallyselected the DCS-900 as being most true to the original source. Employing 128 timesoversampling technology, this converter had a convincing solidity of sound and a bettersoundstage presentation of the orchestra in comparison to its competition at the time." " It was quite evident that the tube playbacks had awarmer, "golden" sound with better harmonic relationships to the musical instruments.The transistorized playback electronics had a slightly thinner sound, not as rich, with a slightly metallic, "silver" sound. Even though the tubetape machine gave us a slightly higher noise level, it was an easy choice to justify its usefor the project." " Not only was the recreation of the soundfield superior to the transistorelectronics, the tube equipment also gave us the exact reciprocal of the original record-ing equalization curve for playback." "In January 1990, we added a final improvement to the digital chain which made asubstantial improvement. Thanks to Gotham Audio in New York, we were able to demothe prototype Harmonia Mundi BW 102/49 Redithering Module. This unit uses anadvanced noise shaping algorithm which significantly increased our low level signal res-olution and detail." oh yeah, all CDs are perfect copies of master tapes. NOT. " After several experiments with digital cloning, wedecided that all CD's manufactured would be made from first generation digital masters.In order to preserve the depth and width of the soundstage, we found that the less digi-tal processing, the better." " As an additional quality check, werequested that the CD manufacturing plant send us a test CD before full scale replicationwas accomplished. This turned out to be an important decision. Once we received thereference CD back from the plant, we carefully set up a listening comparison between itand a 1630 digital clone of theDIGITAL MASTERING OF THE MERCURY LIVING PRESENCE RECORDINGSPage 4master. Both of the digital sources were switched at the input of the D/A converter toeliminate any converter-induced differences. To our surprise, the CD was harsher andmore "digital" sounding, with less depth in the low frequencies, than the 1630.Upon further investigation, it turned out that the plant had three different laserbeam recorders and that one of them sounded different than the other two." Now that you know what goes into the making of a really good CD how can you presume that all commercial CDs are what they are supposed to be? That they don' have the gobs of added noise and distorton found on LP's is considered a benefit by most people. and that virtually all of the 'magic' of LP can be retained by recording it to CD-R, rather proving the point. I don't believe in magic. Sorry to disappoint you. I am currious to know which LPs you found to be better than their CD counterparts. I have a hunch you can't name any. Most likely because there are so few. No, quite the opposite IME. But I don't assume that CDs are perfect and must be accepted as definitive just because they are CDs. I just listen and judge based on my goals for audio. Tell you what I'll throw you a bone to chew on. LPs are superior because they have infinite resolution since they are analog and have no steps like digital. Now you can have fun. What's fun about the same old misstatements and distortions. It might make you feel better about your own beliefs no matter how misguided and untrue they may be. You can pretend you know more than the "vinylphiles." Scott |
#78
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The truth about accuracy of CD v. LP
bob wrote:
wrote: chung wrote: bob wrote: wrote: snip all Shorter Scott: 1. To me, the euphonic distortions of digital are beautiful. 2. Lots of recordings are badly made. 3. It's all digital's fault. bob Add (4): 4. Any attempt to summarize my (Scott's) position by objectivists will fail. So far they have failed. What makes you think we were trying? I find it odd that such a smart group of people would feel compelled to summarize a *summary* of my views. Why can't you guys just take *my* summary for what it is? Because it was too long to read? Why do you guys continue misrepresent my views? Do you not understand them or are you misrepresenting them on purpose? Like I said before, in any debate or disagreement, if one side can accurately represent the opposing view (like I did with the objectivist POV) Yeah, right. Try again, some time. When even the 'mainstream' audiophile press asserts that 'objectivists' believe 'all amps sound the same' and the 'digital is perfect', there's not much hope for rapproachment on accurate representation of views. My point was not to summarize you. It was simply to note that you offered nothing new, and that once again you appear to be someone who likes the *sound* of vinyl and needs somehow to rationalize or justify that preference. I'm surprised that I have to spell this out for you. I wonder why Scott thinks people *should* care that much about what his views are? -- -S "If men were angels, no government would be necessary." - James Madison (1788) |
#79
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The truth about accuracy of CD v. LP
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
Tell you what I'll throw you a bone to chew on. LPs are superior because they have infinite resolution since they are analog and have no steps like digital. Now you can have fun. Nah, I know you don't believe that, and hopefully there aren't many left who do. Unfortunately, some who do are published in nationally-circulated magazines about audio , as well as on the Web: http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-7860_7-6443696-1.html So such rubbish is going to continue to propagate amongst vinylphiles. Why don't they police themselves? -- -S "If men were angels, no government would be necessary." - James Madison (1788) |
#80
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The truth about accuracy of CD v. LP
wrote:
wrote: Why can't you guys just take *my* summary for what it is? Why do you guys continue misrepresent my views? Probably for some of the same reasons you do the same. Do you not understand them or are you misrepresenting them on purpose? Ditto. Like I said before, in any debate or disagreement, if one side can accurately represent the opposing view (like I did with the objectivist POV) That's YOUR opinion. Actually it was the opinion of almost every objectivist that responded. so you will have to take up *your* differences with *them.* I think, in fact, your "representations" hardly represented anything remotely accurate and were so from a reasonable representation I quite deliberately and expressely stayed away from that side of the discussion. Again, I suggest you take that up with your fellow objectivists that largely agreed with the content of that initial post. OTOH you could stop posturing and just point out what is actually wrong with my initial post since all I was trying to o was get a fair perspective on the subject from objectivists. That there were those that may have agreed with your representation speaks only to the fact that you found someone who claims to represent that view that happened to agree with you, that's all. yeah RAHE objectivist regulars. A significant portion of us decided not to wrestle in that mud, however. Oh? who else are you speaking for. For someone who wants to avoid wrestling in the mud jumping in at this point with all this hand waving without any substance is an odd thing to do. And other than pointing it out, I shan't either. You just did.Unsupported mud slinging noted. When you have something to say on the matter of substance get back to us. "I think, in fact, your "representations" hardly represented anything remotely accurate and were so from a reasonable representation I quite deliberately and expressely stayed away from that side of the discussion." This post is a poster child for posturing without substance. anytime you want to do something useful like explicitly telling us what is wrong with my initial post and what you think shoudl represent an objectivist POV on the subject get back to us. Scott |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
THE TRUTH ABOUT SPEAKER WIRE | Tech | |||
Share Your Snake Oil Story... | Pro Audio | |||
Share Your Snake Oil Story... | Audio Opinions | |||
Is THD really the Science of Accuracy? | Vacuum Tubes | |||
ADAM P11a vs Truth Audio TA-1 monitors (not Behringer) | Pro Audio |