Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.
This is a continuation of a topic that has split off from another
thread. i thought it may benefit from having it's own thread. On that thread there have been assertions about inherent euphonic colorations of vinyl. "You haven't noticed 'the' superior quality, you've noticed a quality that you consider to sound superior. This could be the different mastering used for LPs compared to CDs, or it could be inherent sound qualities added by the vinyl medium and playback devices, or it could be both." Steven Sullivan "For live recordings, a 'clean' digital 2-channel recording will capture the original 'ambience' as well as the master tape did (which is to say, only moderately well, given the limits of 2-channel) -- but transcribing that to LP will actually ADD some spurious, if pleasing to some, 'ambience' of its own, via euphonic distortion inherent in vinyl playback." Steven Sullivan And those assertions have been challenged. "Please tell us how you know about this distortion that is "inherent" in LP playback. What playback equipment have you used to determine this? Please be specific: turntables, pickup arms, phono cartridges, phono preamplifiers. Because you claim this playback characteristic is "inherent," you must have experimented with more than one playback system. Did you conduct any measurements which document your claim? If so, please share. Have you mastered any LPs yourself, or participated in the LP mastering process, that further establishes the veracity of your claim? If so, are these recordings that we can purchase and listen to ourselves? I'd also be interested in what physical properties of LP playback result in this "inherent" result. Surely, you must have a theory or two. Or, as I suspect, is this claim simply opinion stated as fact?" C.Leeds OK.... My two cents. Inherent colorations: Yep, they do exist. Surface noise. If you have a source signal that excedes the dynamic range that the medium will allow (somewhere in the 75-80 db range) You will hear the surface noise during the quitest passages of the music. Surface noise does have some specific characteristics that gives it a distinctive sound which allows much lower level musical information to be heard through that noise. But it is fair to say in cases of extreme dynamic range from the source one cannot avoid audible surface noise. That is an 'inherent' coloration. Another alleged inherent coloration is channel cross talk. My cartridge, a Koetsu Rosewood Signature, has a measured channel separation of just over 30db. I don't know what the measured thresholds of audibility are for channel separation. I also don't know what the maximum channel separation achievable is in vinyl production and playback although I do know there are cartridges that have greater meausred channel separation than mine. I do know on my system with test records the effects of cross talk seem to be inaudible in as much as I can get a clean signal out of one channel without hearing any of the crosstalk from the other channel from the listening position. To the best of my knowledge the lowest measured wow,flutter and rumble found in vinyl playback fall under the thresholds of human hearing. So while these are inherent colorations they apparently are not audible in SOTA vinyl playback. Euphonic colorations: Yep, they do exist as well. I should know, I paid about 15K for them in my TT rig. I don't have any hard data to back up my assertion. My assertion is based on side by side blind comparisons between the TT rig I eventually bought (The Forsell Air Reference with the flywheel) (I eventually bought the same make and model not the same physical rig) and one that was famous for being SOTA in the elimination of TT rig colorations (the Rockport Sirius III). I am confident that they sounded substantially different. The differences were easily identifiable under blind conditions. Based on their designs I am fairly confident that the Rockport Sirius III was the less colored of the two rigs. I very much prefered the Forsell. IMO that is evidence of euphonic colorations present in the Forsell. Inherent euphomic colorations: I have listed the inherent colorations that I know of. I have seen claims that both colorations can be euphonic. I have not seen any contolled listening tests that support that assertion. Maybe in some form and in some proportion they can be euphonic.Maybe not. To date it seems like a theory at best given the lack of meaningful supporting evidence. It strikes me as a reasonable theory. But I think it is a fact that at certain levels and above, those colorations (we are talking levels well above the inherent limitations of the medium) those colorations become inarguably bad ones. It is entirely possible that like any spice, these colorations added in moderation with taste can be euphonic and like any spice when added in excess spoil the dish. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
;836350]This is a continuation of a topic that has split off from another
thread. i thought it may benefit from having it's own thread. On that thread there have been assertions about inherent euphonic colorations of vinyl. snip Euphonic colorations: Yep, they do exist as well. I should know, I paid about 15K for them in my TT rig. I don't have any hard data to back up my assertion. My assertion is based on side by side blind comparisons between the TT rig I eventually bought (The Forsell Air Reference with the flywheel) (I eventually bought the same make and model not the same physical rig) and one that was famous for being SOTA in the elimination of TT rig colorations (the Rockport Sirius III). I am confident that they sounded substantially different. The differences were easily identifiable under blind conditions. Based on their designs I am fairly confident that the Rockport Sirius III was the less colored of the two rigs. I very much prefered the Forsell. IMO that is evidence of euphonic colorations present in the Forsell. QUOTE] You do indeed hit the nail on the head here, whether by intention or not. In forty years as an audiophile, I have never heard two vinyl rigs which sounded the same. I agree that the Rockport is one of the 'cleanest' I've ever heard, but the basic point is that they *all* sound different, hence they are *all* distorted - though there are of course common themes of treble splash, inner groove distortion, tracing distortion and surface noise, which are inherent to the medium. The Forsell also has an excellent reputation from a purely technical point of view, so a purchaser of the Sirius could fairly argue that his purchase had the euphonic distortions, this being a matter of taste rather than absolute superiority. OTOH, just to rhrow fuel on the flames, most decent CD players, even with widely different DAC technology and output circuitry, sound *identical* in blind testing, which suggests that they do *not* suffer from audible disortion. |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.
"ScottW" wrote in message
On Oct 21, 3:17 pm, wrote: Another alleged inherent coloration is channel cross talk. My cartridge, a Koetsu Rosewood Signature, has a measured channel separation of just over 30db. The spec is 25 db @ 1kHz. http://www.koetsuusa.com/koetsu_products2.php IME experience all carts have declining channel separation with frequency. For example, mine is spec'd at 31 db @ 1 kHz and 21 db @ 10 kHz. I think you'd find it to be easily audible if you disable the primary channel so it doesn't mask the crosstalk. If you're playing a 90 db tone in one channel, the 60 db crosstalk won't be hard to hear if the primary channel is muted. I don't particularly find the lack of perfect channel separation an impediment to good vinyl mastering engineers creating a very convincing image. I agree. It is difficult or impossible to achieve large amounts of separation acoustically. If you can't achieve separation acoustically, then there will not be high seperation in accurate recordings of the acoustical situation. The important point is that the natural acoustical context of a live performance does not have large amounts of separation. The far greater impediment to achieving a reliable stereo image with vinyl is the fact that the relative phase and amplitude of the two channels are being constantly being changed by the low frequency oscillations of the tone arm with respect to the surface of the LP. Those who favor the LP may be mistakenly perceiving these distortions as an enhanced stereo image. |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.
wrote in message
This is a continuation of a topic that has split off from another thread. i thought it may benefit from having it's own thread. On that thread there have been assertions about inherent euphonic colorations of vinyl. "You haven't noticed 'the' superior quality, you've noticed a quality that you consider to sound superior. This could be the different mastering used for LPs compared to CDs, or it could be inherent sound qualities added by the vinyl medium and playback devices, or it could be both." I'll vote for both. The fact of the matter is that just about everybody has abandoned vinyl but a few. The preference has to be based on the perception of a desired sound quality, not better sonic accuracy. "For live recordings, a 'clean' digital 2-channel recording will capture the original 'ambience' as well as the master tape did (which is to say, only moderately well, given the limits of 2-channel) -- but transcribing that to LP will actually ADD some spurious, if pleasing to some, 'ambience' of its own, via euphonic distortion inherent in vinyl playback." I do a ton of digital 2-channel live recording using a good-quality coincident pair. It works. And those assertions have been challenged. Of course! ;-) "Please tell us how you know about this distortion that is "inherent" in LP playback. Please compare http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/image...raph-large.gif Note that this graphic shows a 1 KHz tone, with the second harmonic about 20 dB down, which I call 10% second harmonic nonlinear distortion. 10% distortion is a lot of distortion by any standard. to: http://www.pcavtech.com/play-rec/rega-2/grado-SNR.gif Note that this graphic shows a 300 Hz tone, with the second and third harmonics each 40-45 dB down, which I call less than one percent second and third harmonic distortion. What playback equipment have you used to determine this? Looking at the two examples, it appears that we have quite a range of equipment. The PCAVTech equipment is obviously very humble - Turntable was a Rega Planar 2 with RB-100 Tone Arm. Test media was the HFN Test LP . Preamp was a Conrad Johnson CJ-2. The cartridge was either a Shure M44-7 or a Rega Silver. Kinda doesn't matter, their performance is not that dissimilar. The hometheaterhifi.com equipment a McIntosh MT10 Turntable with factory cartridge (made by Clearaudio), seems to be very elegant. It seems to have been set up with great care. Please be specific: turntables, pickup arms, phono cartridges, phono preamplifiers. Because you claim this playback characteristic is "inherent," you must have experimented with more than one playback system. Did you conduct any measurements which document your claim? I've done this kind of test many times over the decades, and the results I posted at http://www.pcavtech.com/play-rec/rega-2/index.htm are very typical of a wide range of equipment. I don't think I could get as good performance out of a $100 plastic USB turntable/arm/cartrdige, but maybe I'm saying that in a state of ignorace and negative prejudice. ;-) The real surprise is the seemingly poor performance posted at http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/image...raph-large.gif I call that really poor performance, and we don't even have a frequency response curve that actually involves playing vinyl. IME you don't get 7-10% THD by accident - that equipment had to be intentionally designed to perform that poorly. |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.
On Oct 22, 3:46�am, ScottW wrote:
On Oct 21, 3:17�pm, wrote: Another alleged inherent coloration is channel cross talk. My cartridge, a Koetsu Rosewood Signature, has a measured channel separation of just over 30db. �The spec is 25 db @ 1kHz.http://www.koetsuusa.com/koetsu_products2.php We have a case of conflicting specs here. http://pachome2.pacific.net.sg/~angmelvin/Range.html I doubt either distributor is doing independent measurments. One of them is simply mistaken. IME experience all carts have declining channel separation with frequency. For example, mine is spec'd at 31 db @ 1 kHz and 21 db @ 10 kHz. �I think you'd find it to be easily audible if you disable the primary channel so it doesn't mask the crosstalk. If you're playing a 90 db tone in one channel, the 60 db crosstalk won't be hard to hear if the primary channel is muted. Actually with my test records I can hear pure cross talk when adjusting the azimuth of my stylus. Yes I can hear it. That's how I adjust for cross talk, by slowly turning the azimuth until it is at it's lowest level. The difference in level compared to the actual signal when I switch back to stereo to hear the full signal is enormous. And as I stated, I can't hear the opposite channel on the test tones that play one channel. So it seems the cross talk is sufficiently masked enough to not call direct attention to itself. A lot of different distortions become audible when they are separated from the whole signal. The important question is what is their effect when they are fully integrated not isolated. I don't particularly find the lack of perfect channel separation an impediment to good vinyl mastering engineers creating a very convincing image. It has been my observation that by reducing cross talk as much as possible with proper azimuth adjustment one improves the sound stage in every way. So if this cross talk is in fact a euphonic coloration that enhances the sense of space on LPs it clearly has to the right amount. An amount that is at most near the minimum threshold allowed by the technology. |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.
wrote in message ...
This is a continuation of a topic that has split off from another thread. i thought it may benefit from having it's own thread. On that thread there have been assertions about inherent euphonic colorations of vinyl. "You haven't noticed 'the' superior quality, you've noticed a quality that you consider to sound superior. This could be the different mastering used for LPs compared to CDs, or it could be inherent sound qualities added by the vinyl medium and playback devices, or it could be both." Steven Sullivan "For live recordings, a 'clean' digital 2-channel recording will capture the original 'ambience' as well as the master tape did (which is to say, only moderately well, given the limits of 2-channel) -- but transcribing that to LP will actually ADD some spurious, if pleasing to some, 'ambience' of its own, via euphonic distortion inherent in vinyl playback." Steven Sullivan And those assertions have been challenged. "Please tell us how you know about this distortion that is "inherent" in LP playback. What playback equipment have you used to determine this? Please be specific: turntables, pickup arms, phono cartridges, phono preamplifiers. Because you claim this playback characteristic is "inherent," you must have experimented with more than one playback system. Did you conduct any measurements which document your claim? If so, please share. Have you mastered any LPs yourself, or participated in the LP mastering process, that further establishes the veracity of your claim? If so, are these recordings that we can purchase and listen to ourselves? I'd also be interested in what physical properties of LP playback result in this "inherent" result. Surely, you must have a theory or two. Or, as I suspect, is this claim simply opinion stated as fact?" C.Leeds OK.... My two cents. Inherent colorations: Yep, they do exist. Surface noise. If you have a source signal that excedes the dynamic range that the medium will allow (somewhere in the 75-80 db range) You will hear the surface noise during the quitest passages of the music. Surface noise does have some specific characteristics that gives it a distinctive sound which allows much lower level musical information to be heard through that noise. But it is fair to say in cases of extreme dynamic range from the source one cannot avoid audible surface noise. That is an 'inherent' coloration. Another alleged inherent coloration is channel cross talk. My cartridge, a Koetsu Rosewood Signature, has a measured channel separation of just over 30db. I don't know what the measured thresholds of audibility are for channel separation. I also don't know what the maximum channel separation achievable is in vinyl production and playback although I do know there are cartridges that have greater meausred channel separation than mine. I do know on my system with test records the effects of cross talk seem to be inaudible in as much as I can get a clean signal out of one channel without hearing any of the crosstalk from the other channel from the listening position. To the best of my knowledge the lowest measured wow,flutter and rumble found in vinyl playback fall under the thresholds of human hearing. So while these are inherent colorations they apparently are not audible in SOTA vinyl playback. Euphonic colorations: Yep, they do exist as well. I should know, I paid about 15K for them in my TT rig. I don't have any hard data to back up my assertion. My assertion is based on side by side blind comparisons between the TT rig I eventually bought (The Forsell Air Reference with the flywheel) (I eventually bought the same make and model not the same physical rig) and one that was famous for being SOTA in the elimination of TT rig colorations (the Rockport Sirius III). I am confident that they sounded substantially different. The differences were easily identifiable under blind conditions. Based on their designs I am fairly confident that the Rockport Sirius III was the less colored of the two rigs. I very much prefered the Forsell. IMO that is evidence of euphonic colorations present in the Forsell. Inherent euphomic colorations: I have listed the inherent colorations that I know of. I have seen claims that both colorations can be euphonic. I have not seen any contolled listening tests that support that assertion. Maybe in some form and in some proportion they can be euphonic.Maybe not. To date it seems like a theory at best given the lack of meaningful supporting evidence. It strikes me as a reasonable theory. But I think it is a fact that at certain levels and above, those colorations (we are talking levels well above the inherent limitations of the medium) those colorations become inarguably bad ones. It is entirely possible that like any spice, these colorations added in moderation with taste can be euphonic and like any spice when added in excess spoil the dish. In addition to all the above, don't forget that all pick-up cartridge have harmonic distortions of the order of 2-3%, some higher, some perhaps a little lower. Considering that an analogue tape machine will also have 3% distortion (that's how peak level is defined, the 3% distortion point) and I have no idea how much distortion the cutter itself has, plus springback on the lacquer which leads to harmonic distortion, the total is considerable. That's another form of inherent coloration. S. -- http://audiopages.googlepages.com |
#7
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.
On Oct 22, 3:26*pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in message This is a continuation of a topic that has split off from another thread. i thought it may benefit from having it's own thread. On that thread there have been assertions about inherent euphonic colorations of vinyl. "You haven't noticed 'the' superior quality, you've noticed a quality that you consider to sound superior. This could be the different mastering used for LPs compared to CDs, or it could be inherent sound qualities added by the vinyl medium and playback devices, or it could be both." I'll vote for both. I think that is a reasonable "vote." I certainly would vote for the mastering. I have to say I am still on the fence on the inherent euphonic distortions. OTOH it seems you are not considering the possibility of euphonic distortions that are not neccessarily inherent in vinyl playback may be in play as well. I can vouch for those in my system. For whatever vouching is worth. The fact of the matter is that just about everybody has abandoned vinyl but a few. *The preference has to be based on the perception of a desired sound quality, not better sonic accuracy. I think this is a classic case of.... 6. Confusing association with causation This is similar to the post- hoc fallacy in that it assumes cause and effect for two variables simply because they are correlated, although the relationship here is not strictly that of one variable following the other in time. This fallacy is often used to give a statistical correlation a causal interpretation. For example, during the 1990s both religious attendance and illegal drug use have been on the rise. It would be a fallacy to conclude that therefore, religious attendance causes illegal drug use. It is also possible that drug use leads to an increase in religious attendance, or that both drug use and religious attendance are increased by a third variable, such as an increase in societal unrest. It is also possible that both variables are independent of one another, and it is mere coincidence that they are both increasing at the same time. A corollary to this is the invocation of this logical fallacy to argue that an association does not represent causation, rather it is more accurate to say that correlation does not necessarily mean causation, but it can. Also, multiple independent correlations can point reliably to a causation, and is a reasonable line of argument. http://www.theskepticsguide.org/logicalfallacies.asp "Please tell us how you know about this distortion that is "inherent" in LP playback. Please compare http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/image...8/vinyl-vs-cd-... Note that this graphic shows a 1 KHz tone, with the second harmonic about 20 dB down, which I call 10% second harmonic nonlinear distortion. *10% distortion is a lot of distortion by any standard. Looks to me like a 40db difference. Maybe I am reading it incorrectly. But more importantly, how do you differentiate the distortion that is inherent from the distortion that is unique to that particular rig and the test record? to: http://www.pcavtech.com/play-rec/rega-2/grado-SNR.gif Note that this graphic shows a 300 Hz tone, with the second and third harmonics each 40-45 dB down, which I call less than one percent *second and third harmonic distortion. OK. But again, how do you tell the difference between the inherent distortion in the medium and the distortion that is unique to your rig and the test record? *What playback equipment have you used to determine this? Looking at the two examples, it appears that we have quite a range of equipment. I don't agree at all. I would argue that neither rig would be found to be SOTA. If you are looking for the thresholds of the medium I think you have to start with a disc cut at one of the handful of state of the art mastering studios and you would have to use a Rockport Sirius III or the top model Continuum or maybe the top model Transrotor rig. One may have to use several such assults on the state of the art and sift out the common distortions. I suspect one would need measurements that are far more specific than levels of harmonic distortion. The PCAVTech equipment is obviously very humble - Turntable was a Rega Planar 2 with RB-100 Tone Arm. Test media was the HFN Test LP . Preamp was a Conrad Johnson CJ-2. The cartridge was *either a Shure M44-7 or a Rega Silver. Kinda doesn't matter, their performance is not that dissimilar. I think it matters tremendously. The hometheaterhifi.com equipment *a McIntosh MT10 Turntable with factory cartridge (made by Clearaudio), seems to be very elegant. It seems to have been set up with great care. I'm sure it was. Please be specific: turntables, pickup arms, phono cartridges, phono preamplifiers. Because you claim this playback characteristic is "inherent," you must have experimented with more than one playback system. Did you conduct any measurements which document your claim? I've done this kind of test many times over the decades, and the results I posted athttp://www.pcavtech.com/play-rec/rega-2/index.htm* are very typical of a wide range of equipment. I don't think I could get as good performance out of a $100 plastic USB turntable/arm/cartrdige, but maybe I'm saying that in a state of ignorace and negative prejudice. ;-) I think that is a possibility. If one really wants to get a handle on inherent colorations one has to be extremely careful to differentiate colorations that are inherent from those that are unique to the rig and test record. The real surprise is the seemingly poor performance posted athttp://www.hometheaterhifi.com/images/stories/april-2008/vinyl-vs-cd-... I call that really poor performance, and we don't even have a frequency response curve that actually involves playing vinyl. But aren't you making a qualitative judgement without even knowing what it sounds like? IME you don't get 7-10% THD by accident - that equipment had to be intentionally designed to perform that poorly. If that is the case then clearly we have something more than just "inherent" distortion present don't we? |
#8
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.
On Oct 22, 3:35�pm, "Serge Auckland"
wrote: In addition to all the above, don't forget that all pick-up cartridge have harmonic distortions of the order of 2-3%, some higher, some perhaps a little lower. Considering that an analogue tape machine will also have 3% distortion (that's how peak level is defined, the 3% distortion point) and I have no idea how much distortion the cutter itself has, plus springback on the lacquer which leads to harmonic distortion, the total is considerable. That's another form of inherent coloration. S. --http://audiopages.googlepages.com- Hide quoted text - A valid point. But how much of that harmonic distortion is audible? |
#9
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.
wrote in message
It has been my observation that by reducing cross talk as much as possible with proper azimuth adjustment one improves the sound stage in every way. That would be an example of proof by assertion. However, given the basic poor performance of the LP format, and its acute sensitivity to slight mechanical maladjustment, I'm prone to believe your claim. |
#10
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.
wrote in message ...
On Oct 22, 3:35�pm, "Serge Auckland" wrote: In addition to all the above, don't forget that all pick-up cartridge have harmonic distortions of the order of 2-3%, some higher, some perhaps a little lower. Considering that an analogue tape machine will also have 3% distortion (that's how peak level is defined, the 3% distortion point) and I have no idea how much distortion the cutter itself has, plus springback on the lacquer which leads to harmonic distortion, the total is considerable. That's another form of inherent coloration. S. --http://audiopages.googlepages.com- Hide quoted text - A valid point. But how much of that harmonic distortion is audible? It's hard to say as it depends on many factors. However, tests done on harmonic distortion that I recall reading many years ago indicated that 1% was the lower limit for audibility, but it depended on frequency and masking by other sounds. As I recall, that was the origin of the 0.1% distortion desiderata for amplifiers as it was 10x better than was likely to be audible, and could therefore be comfortably taken as being completely inaudible under all circumstances. Nothing in the intervening 50 years or so has made this invalid as far as I know. As to vinyl, I suppose one could cut a record from an unequalised digital master and similarly produce a CD and compare the two. However, the limited dynamic range that would result from having necessarily to cut from an unequalised master would not be a valid comparison with "real world" LPs. Practical LPs are cut from masters specially equalised and compressed to get the best subjective result from the limited medium. There is also a great deal of skill (art rather than science) on the part of the Cutting Engineer who will try and balance the conflicting requirements of noise against level, frequency response against level against distortion, level against playing time and pre-echo, level against playability by less sophisticated record players, managing stereo difference i.e stylus vertical movement, and possibly other things I haven't thought of. Can you imaging someone starting out today, with no knowledge of vinyl, and trying to invent a mechanical engraving system to reproduce Hi-Fi sound? I think anyone would conclude it's just not possible, and yet...... S. -- http://audiopages.googlepages.com |
#11
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.
On Oct 23, 6:15�am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in message It has been my observation that by reducing cross talk as much as possible with proper azimuth adjustment one improves the sound stage in every way. That would be an example of proof by assertion. No it's merely an observation. Not any claim of universal fact. Scott W. has just suggested the improved sound stage is due to better channel balanced which may be achieved through the same adjustment. He may be right. I'm just reporting what I did and the results. However, given the basic poor performance of the LP format, and its acute sensitivity to slight mechanical maladjustment, I'm prone to believe your claim. Poor performance? That depends on one's criteria for excellenct performance. If one is judging excellence on a purely aesthetic meter we always have to consider the effects of one's prejudices. They can in some instances totally dominate a person's opinion on aesthetic merits. |
#12
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.
On Oct 23, 8:21�am, "Serge Auckland"
wrote: wrote in ... On Oct 22, 3:35 pm, "Serge Auckland" wrote: In addition to all the above, don't forget that all pick-up cartridge have harmonic distortions of the order of 2-3%, some higher, some perhaps a little lower. Considering that an analogue tape machine will also have 3% distortion (that's how peak level is defined, the 3% distortion point) and I have no idea how much distortion the cutter itself has, plus springback on the lacquer which leads to harmonic distortion, the total is considerable. That's another form of inherent coloration. S. --http://audiopages.googlepages.com-Hide quoted text - A valid point. But how much of that harmonic distortion is audible? It's hard to say as it depends on many factors. However, tests done on harmonic distortion that I recall reading many years ago indicated that 1% was the lower limit for audibility, but it depended on frequency and masking by other sounds. As I recall, that was the origin of the 0.1% distortion desiderata for amplifiers as it was 10x better than was likely to be audible, and could therefore be comfortably taken as being completely inaudible under all circumstances. Nothing in the intervening 50 years or so has made this invalid as far as I know. So it stands to reason that this may actually be a source of euphonic distortion in vinyl playback. As to vinyl, I suppose one could cut a record from an unequalised digital master and similarly produce a CD and compare the two. However, the limited dynamic range that would result from having necessarily to cut from an unequalised master would not be a valid comparison with "real world" LPs. Actually James Boyk did something quite similar. He made a comparison pachage with his recording of Pictures at an Exhibition. He took the direct feed from the mic preamp and recorded it both in analog and hi rez digital. From the analog tapes he cut both a CD and an LP with xero signal proccessing other than the obvious RIAA EQ for the LP and A/D conversion for the CD. He included the digital recording on the CD for a comparison between the digital and analog recorders. Practical LPs are cut from masters specially equalised and compressed to get the best subjective result from the limited medium. I'm not sure what you mean by a "practical" LP. I can tell you though that I own a good many LPs that have not been compressed at all. OTOH unfortunately I own a good many CDs that have been compressed to death. It is a sad state of affairs in today's music industry. There is also a great deal of skill (art rather than science) on the part of the Cutting Engineer who will try and balance the conflicting requirements of noise against level, frequency response against level against distortion, level against playing time and pre-echo, level against playability by less sophisticated record players, managing stereo difference i.e stylus vertical movement, and possibly other things I haven't thought of. I can't argue with that. It is a job that takes tremendous skill to do well, so I am told. Can you imaging someone starting out today, with no knowledge of vinyl, and trying to invent a mechanical engraving system to reproduce Hi-Fi sound? I think anyone would conclude it's just not possible, and yet...... And yet... I remember back when I first got into CDs back in 84. It was the begining of my persuit of the hobby of high end audio. I thought the idea of dragging a rock over a piece of plastic to make a sound seemed pretty absurd in the face of this new digital technology. And yet.... to this day I am still for the most part getting my best sound from dragging a rock over a piece of plastic. |
#13
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.
|
#14
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.
wrote in message
On Oct 23, 6:15�am, "Arny Krueger" wrote: wrote in message It has been my observation that by reducing cross talk as much as possible with proper azimuth adjustment one improves the sound stage in every way. That would be an example of proof by assertion. No it's merely an observation. In turn, all of the findings of science and technology are observations. E = MC squared is an observation. All preferences are observations. All facts are observations. IOW, calling something an observation is like saying that water is wet. It's a truism. Not any claim of universal fact. There are no universal facts. There are only the current set of findings and observations. Scott W. has just suggested the improved sound stage is due to better channel balanced which may be achieved through the same adjustment. He may be right. I'm just reporting what I did and the results. But, we don't know how reliable your account of the results are. If you're going to dismiss 100% of my findings because they disagree with your beliefs, then your observations deserve nothing more. However, given the basic poor performance of the LP format, and its acute sensitivity to slight mechanical maladjustment, I'm prone to believe your claim. Poor performance? Call it an observation. That depends on one's criteria for excellent performance. In the end we have two extreme cases. In one extreme case, the criteria for excellent performance is whatever flies into my head at that instant. In the other extreme, the criteria for excellent performance is sonic performance that is completely and utterly indistinguishable from the original live performance. In the case of stereo recorded media, we don't have to go all the way back to the original live performance, because recording and playing back stereo is all about just 4 electrical signals. The 4 electrical signals a (1-2) The line-level stereo signal that we wish to record and play back, such as the output of a mixing console (as in Sheffield), a digital recorder (as in Telarc and current practice,) or a high quality analog tape recorder (as in the extreme majority of recordings originally released before 1980. (3-4) the stereo signal that appears at the line-level electrical outputs of the media playback facility. (a) Bottom line, if nobody can reliably distinguish 1-2 from 3-4 by means of just listening to level-matched, time-synched signals in a bias-controlled test, then we should all be able to agree that we have excellent performance. (b) Given that examples of (a) are not uncommon, if anybody can reliably distinguish 1-2 from 3-4 by means of just listening to level-matched, time-synched signals in a bias-controlled test, then we should all be able to agree that we don't have excellent performance. [I think that most readers of RAHE in recent years can fill in the rest of this post, so I shan't waste the bandwidth by actually typing it and sending it in.] |
#15
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.
"ScottW" wrote in message
On Oct 22, 3:35 pm, wrote: It has been my observation that by reducing cross talk as much as possible with proper azimuth adjustment one improves the sound stage in every way. Since picking at the logic in statements has become so common around here, I feel that I am remiss by not pointing out that aside from documented proof that the claimant actually knows "every way" that the sound stage could be improved, the statement is obviously false. ;-) Also, the word "improves" has a number of logical problems. One would be the standard by which improvement is being judged, which is far from being clear. Secondly even given a proper standard, there is the matter of how conformance to that standard is judged. Since human bias might intrude, it is possible that bias-controlled testing would be the only reasonable means. ;-) So if this cross talk is in fact a euphonic coloration that enhances the sense of space on LPs it clearly has to the right amount. It is clear that cross talk is not always an euphonic coloration, because the extreme case of cross talk would transform every stereo recording into mono. OTOH, perhaps I am being presumptuous in thinking that the author would not want all of his stereo recordings turned into mono. ;-) Then there is the unsupported claim that "...the sense of space on LPs clearly has to the right amount..." Fool that I am, I believe that the sense of space at the original performance is the only sense of space that clearly has to be the right amount. ;-) An amount that is at most near the minimum threshold allowed by the technology. Which technology is "the technology". ;-) I think you'll find that the crosstalk method of alignment also serves to optimize channel balance which is, IMO, the reason for improved sound stage. Not a properly applied amount of crosstalk. Getting serious for just a moment, it is the sense of space at the original performance that is the only right amount. Unfortunately, the sense of space at the original performance is not just one thing, it varies with the location and orientation of the observer's ears. I find no general agreement about which seat is the best seat in the house. Therefore, using one's perceptions of the sound stage as a technical standard for making technical adjustments is highly subjective and inexact to say the least. |
#16
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.
"Serge Auckland" wrote in
message wrote in message ... A valid point. But how much of that harmonic distortion is audible? Harmonic distortion is not audible nor is it the intent that it be audible. Harmonic distortion is an abstract means that is commonly, but often erroneously used to characterize something that *IS* relevant, which is nonlinear distortion. The general rule is that nonlinear distortion that would produce 0.1% THD if you properly chose to characterize it that way, can cause reliably audible consequence. It's hard to say as it depends on many factors. However, tests done on harmonic distortion that I recall reading many years ago indicated that 1% was the lower limit for audibility, but it depended on frequency and masking by other sounds. The 1% rule is easy to debunk on the grounds that it can easily be too high. As I recall, that was the origin of the 0.1% distortion desiderata for amplifiers as it was 10x better than was likely to be audible, and could therefore be comfortably taken as being completely inaudible under all circumstances. Actually, if I get to pick the music, there is a high probability that nonlinear distortion of 0.1% in the 20-20 KHz range would likely be objectionable to you, even if you were listening to a good car radio at 70 mph. As to vinyl, I suppose one could cut a record from an unequalised digital master and similarly produce a CD and compare the two. Vinyl is so limited in terms of dynamic range that many if not most digital masters would require further processing if a good-sounding LP were the desired outcome. It is perfectly trivial to create a digital master that would damage most LP cutting equipment if not operated by an expert. The expert would start out by changing the master. Producing an acceptable LP from an unaltered digital master of ordinary music might be impossible. However, the limited dynamic range that would result from having necessarily to cut from an unequalised master would not be a valid comparison with "real world" LPs. Agreed. Practical LPs are cut from masters specially equalised and compressed to get the best subjective result from the limited medium. There is also a great deal of skill (art rather than science) on the part of the Cutting Engineer who will try and balance the conflicting requirements of noise against level, frequency response against level against distortion, level against playing time and pre-echo, level against playability by less sophisticated record players, managing stereo difference i.e stylus vertical movement, and possibly other things I haven't thought of. Agreed. If we want to compare the LP format to the CD format, we first have to bias the test to favor the LP. Obviously, unbiased comparisons of the two are impossible. |
#17
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.
wrote in message
"Please tell us how you know about this distortion that is "inherent" in LP playback. Please compare http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/image...8/vinyl-vs-cd-... Note that this graphic shows a 1 KHz tone, with the second harmonic about 20 dB down, which I call 10% second harmonic nonlinear distortion. 10% distortion is a lot of distortion by any standard. As you point out, I was mislead by the author's commentary. The difference is just about exactly 40 dB, which is still very poor performance for a modern playback device. The accompanying text talks about 7-10% THD+N which mislead me. But more importantly, how do you differentiate the distortion that is inherent from the distortion that is unique to that particular rig and the test record? One presumes competence on the part of the person doing the test - that they used an adequate test record. to: http://www.pcavtech.com/play-rec/rega-2/grado-SNR.gif Note that this graphic shows a 300 Hz tone, with the second and third harmonics each 40-45 dB down, which I call less than one percent second and third harmonic distortion. OK. But again, how do you tell the difference between the inherent distortion in the medium and the distortion that is unique to your rig and the test record? I used a SOTA test record. My modest rig outperformed a highly-expensive rig. Actually, your point is well taken. The poor technical performance is partially due to the test record in the sense that as a rule, no test like this ever obtains significantly better results, because after all, this is LP playback. Note that while my test results are still signficantly better - almost 6 dB better, they are in the same rather pathetic range. What playback equipment have you used to determine this? Looking at the two examples, it appears that we have quite a range of equipment. I don't agree at all. I would argue that neither rig would be found to be SOTA. You've missed the point - the cheaper rig which most would agree is far less SOTA than the more expensive one, outperformed the more expensive rig by a signficant margin. If you are looking for the thresholds of the medium I think you have to start with a disc cut at one of the handful of state of the art mastering studios and you would have to use a Rockport Sirius III or the top model Continuum or maybe the top model Transrotor rig. Persons with such equipment are free to publish their results. They haven't, and that is because their results won't be signficantly better (i.e., 10 times better) than either of the above tests. The PCAVTech equipment is obviously very humble - Turntable was a Rega Planar 2 with RB-100 Tone Arm. Test media was the HFN Test LP . Preamp was a Conrad Johnson CJ-2. The cartridge was either a Shure M44-7 or a Rega Silver. Kinda doesn't matter, their performance is not that dissimilar. I think it matters tremendously. The hometheaterhifi.com equipment a McIntosh MT10 Turntable with factory cartridge (made by Clearaudio), seems to be very elegant. It seems to have been set up with great care. I'm sure it was. Please be specific: turntables, pickup arms, phono cartridges, phono preamplifiers. Because you claim this playback characteristic is "inherent," you must have experimented with more than one playback system. Did you conduct any measurements which document your claim? I've done this kind of test many times over the decades, and the results I posted athttp://www.pcavtech.com/play-rec/rega-2/index.htm are very typical of a wide range of equipment. I don't think I could get as good performance out of a $100 plastic USB turntable/arm/cartrdige, but maybe I'm saying that in a state of ignorace and negative prejudice. ;-) I think that is a possibility. If one really wants to get a handle on inherent colorations one has to be extremely careful to differentiate colorations that are inherent from those that are unique to the rig and test record. But, I've already show that a humble, apparently outdated rig can outperform a modern, far more apparently sophisticated expensive one. If you check the timing of the tests, my test predated the test of the expensive rig by about 7 years. The real surprise is the seemingly poor performance posted athttp://www.hometheaterhifi.com/images/stories/april-2008/vinyl-vs-cd-... I call that really poor performance, and we don't even have a frequency response curve that actually involves playing vinyl. But aren't you making a qualitative judgement without even knowing what it sounds like? We already know what both rigs sound like - they sound like vinyl, with audible tics, timbre changes both static and dynamic, pops, rumble, hiss, and distortion. |
#18
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
... Snipped As I recall, that was the origin of the 0.1% distortion desiderata for amplifiers as it was 10x better than was likely to be audible, and could therefore be comfortably taken as being completely inaudible under all circumstances. Actually, if I get to pick the music, there is a high probability that nonlinear distortion of 0.1% in the 20-20 KHz range would likely be objectionable to you, even if you were listening to a good car radio at 70 mph. This is interesting:- What music would have 0.1% distortion that's audible? That's 60dB down on peak, so I would be very surprised to be able to hear anything 60dB down on programme, especially when correlated to the programme. S. -- http://audiopages.googlepages.com |
#19
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.
Arny Krueger wrote:
We already know what both rigs sound like - they sound like vinyl, with audible tics, timbre changes both static and dynamic, pops, rumble, hiss, and distortion. As this lengthy thread has demonstrated, there have been no reliable primary sources shown here to substantiate that this is inherently what vinyl sounds like. It's just an oft-repeated canard. |
#20
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.
"C. Leeds" wrote in message
... Arny Krueger wrote: We already know what both rigs sound like - they sound like vinyl, with audible tics, timbre changes both static and dynamic, pops, rumble, hiss, and distortion. As this lengthy thread has demonstrated, there have been no reliable primary sources shown here to substantiate that this is inherently what vinyl sounds like. So all those JAES articles that Stephen cited are what, secondary sources? Where do they teach that sort of thinking as good academic research? Have you even looked at their abstracts? Do you know who their authors were? It's just an oft-repeated canard. It is all a trivially-demonstrable fact. I challenge you to post a digital transcription of a LP that contains no detectible evidence of *any* of the problems mentioned above. |
#21
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.
On Oct 23, 5:47�pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
Vinyl is so limited in terms of dynamic range that many if not most digital masters would require further processing if a good-sounding LP were the desired outcome. It is perfectly trivial to create a digital master that would damage most LP cutting equipment if not operated by an expert. The expert would start out by changing the master. Producing an acceptable LP from an unaltered digital master of ordinary music might be impossible. To the best of my knowledge there are very few commercial recordings that have an excess of 75 db dynamic range. This is rarely an issue at all. |
#22
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.
On Oct 23, 5:47�pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in message "Please tell us how you know about this distortion that is "inherent" in LP playback. Please compare http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/image...8/vinyl-vs-cd-... Note that this graphic shows a 1 KHz tone, with the second harmonic about 20 dB down, which I call 10% second harmonic nonlinear distortion. 10% �distortion is a lot of distortion by any standard. As you point out, I was mislead by the author's commentary. The difference is just about exactly 40 dB, which is still very poor performance for a modern playback device. The accompanying text talks about 7-10% THD+N which mislead me. �But more importantly, how do you differentiate the distortion that is inherent from the distortion that is unique to that particular rig and the test record? One presumes competence on the part of the person doing the test - that they used an adequate test record. I find that presumption to be unacceptable. One cannot draw such universal conclusions about the inherent colorations of the medium based on such a limited sampling. to: http://www.pcavtech.com/play-rec/rega-2/grado-SNR.gif Note that this graphic shows a 300 Hz tone, with the second and third harmonics each 40-45 dB down, which I call less than one percent second and third harmonic distortion. OK. But again, how do you tell the difference between the inherent distortion in the medium and the distortion that is unique to your rig and the test record? I used a SOTA test record. �My modest rig �outperformed a highly-expensive rig. I disagree. The test record you used was not cut on the latest most advanced cutting lathes and does not represent the state of the art of vinyl mastering. Actually, your point is well taken. The poor technical performance is partially due to the test record �in the sense that as a rule, no test like this ever obtains significantly better results, because after all, this is LP playback. This is a faulty logical argument. 18. Tautology A tautology is an argument that utilizes circular reasoning, which means that the conclusion is also its own premise. The structure of such arguments is A=B therefore A=B, although the premise and conclusion might be formulated differently so it is not immediately apparent as such. For example, saying that therapeutic touch works because it manipulates the life force is a tautology because the definition of therapeutic touch is the alleged manipulation (without touching) of the life force. Note that while my test results are still signficantly better - almost 6 dB better, �they are in the same rather pathetic range. It still tells us very little about what distortions are inherent in the technology and what distortions are unique to each device. It does tell us that one device clearly must have some distortion that is not inherent in the medium. We have no way of determining how much of that measured distortion is inherent in the medium and how much is added by the specific propperties of that rig and that test record. We simply can deduct that at least some of it is indeed added by that specific rig and/or that specific test record. This leaves us with your rig, The one with the lower measured distortion. One would have to presume that your rig and test record are both SOTA and free from any of the added distortion we can deduct is likely present in the other rig and test record to assume that these measurments are purely a measurement of only the inherent colorations of the medium. I think this would be a terribly irrational presumption with no foundation. This leaves us in the same situation we started. We don't know how much of the measured distortion in either test is inherent in the medium. You simply can't determine this just by these two examples. What playback equipment have you used to determine this? Looking at the two examples, it appears that we have quite a range of equipment. I don't agree at all. I would argue that neither rig would be found to be SOTA. You've missed the point - the cheaper �rig which most would agree is far less SOTA than the more expensive one, outperformed the more expensive rig by a signficant margin. My point is that one cannot deduct from these two sets of measurements what distortions are inherent in the medium. This was never about the subjective evaluation of additional distortions that are unique to each rig. That is an entirely different subject. If you are looking for the thresholds of the medium I think you have to start with a disc cut at one of the handful of state of the art mastering studios and you would have to use a Rockport Sirius III or the top model Continuum or maybe the top model Transrotor rig. Persons with such equipment are free to publish their results. They haven't, and that is because their results won't be signficantly better (i.e., 10 times better) than either of the above tests. This is a faulty argument. 12. Non-Sequitur In Latin this term translates to "doesn't follow". This refers to an argument in which the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises. In other words, a logical connection is implied where none exists. The PCAVTech equipment is obviously very humble - Turntable was a Rega Planar 2 with RB-100 Tone Arm. Test media was the HFN Test LP . Preamp was a Conrad Johnson CJ-2. The cartridge was either a Shure M44-7 or a Rega Silver. Kinda doesn't matter, their performance is not that dissimilar. I think it matters tremendously. The hometheaterhifi.com equipment a McIntosh MT10 Turntable with factory cartridge (made by Clearaudio), seems to be very elegant. It seems to have been set up with great care. I'm sure it was. Please be specific: turntables, pickup arms, phono cartridges, phono preamplifiers. Because you claim this playback characteristic is "inherent," you must have experimented with more than one playback system. Did you conduct any measurements which document your claim? I've done this kind of test many times over the decades, and the results I posted athttp://www.pcavtech.com/play-rec/rega-2/index.htmare very typical of a wide range of equipment. I don't think I could get as good performance out of a $100 plastic USB turntable/arm/cartrdige, but maybe I'm saying that in a state of ignorace and negative prejudice. ;-) I think that is a possibility. If one really wants to get a handle on inherent colorations one has to be extremely careful to differentiate colorations that are inherent from those that are unique to the rig and test record. But, I've already show that a humble, apparently outdated rig can outperform a modern, far more apparently sophisticated expensive one. � If you check the timing of the tests, my test predated the test of the expensive rig by about 7 years. It tells nothing about what measured distortions in your rig and your test record are inherent in the medium and what distortions are not inherent in the medium. The real surprise is the seemingly poor performance posted athttp://www.hometheaterhifi.com/images/stories/april-2008/vinyl-vs-cd-... I call that really poor performance, and we don't even have a frequency response curve that actually involves playing vinyl. But aren't you making a qualitative judgement without even knowing what it sounds like? We already know what both rigs sound like No we don't. You have some idea what one of them sounds like under sighted conditions with your personal sound system which makes your opinions limited in scope and subject to your biases. Neither one of us has even listened to the other rig. |
#23
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.
Arny Krueger wrote:
- Improved sound quality is what initially sold the CD....It wasn't cost, because both the players and the discs were far more expensive. I answered: Don't be silly. Even the very earliest CD players were far less expensive than the best turntable rigs of the era. Arny responds: when talking about prices, I'm talking about LP playback equipment with top-of-the line Thorens and Linn turntables, etc. Arny, I don't know what you paid for your first Sony CD player. "Early adopters" of new technology often pay inflated prices in exchange for "bragging rights" about being the first kid on the block with a new toy. But here are some facts, using list prices. The Sony CDP-101 first sold for $900. According to the 1984 Audio magazine equipment directory, the Linn LP12 cost $794. At Ittok pickup arm was $520. To make them work, you'd still need a phono cartridge and a phono preamplifier. So you can't claim that the earliest CD players were expensive compared to LP rigs. They weren't; they were cheap by comparison. They still are. Many people in their 40's were not even teenagers at the time. What can they remember if it never happened to them? They can look it up, Arny. |
#24
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.
wrote in message
... On Oct 23, 5:47�pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote: Vinyl is so limited in terms of dynamic range that many if not most digital masters would require further processing if a good-sounding LP were the desired outcome. It is perfectly trivial to create a digital master that would damage most LP cutting equipment if not operated by an expert. The expert would start out by changing the master. Producing an acceptable LP from an unaltered digital master of ordinary music might be impossible. To the best of my knowledge there are very few commercial recordings that have an excess of 75 db dynamic range. If we consider the results posted at www.hometheatrehifi.com, their LP system tests show 22 dB audio-band dynamic range, which is far worse than a typical uncompressed classical CD which has 65 dB or better audio-band dynamic range. Butt audio-band dynamic range is not the LP format's weakest link. Dynamic range at high frequencies the far more significant weakness of the LP format. High frequencies within the audio band is where modern CDs would likely need the most *adjustment* if they were to be recorded on a LP without damaging the cutter head. |
#25
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.
"Serge Auckland" wrote in message
... "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... Snipped As I recall, that was the origin of the 0.1% distortion desiderata for amplifiers as it was 10x better than was likely to be audible, and could therefore be comfortably taken as being completely inaudible under all circumstances. Actually, if I get to pick the music, there is a high probability that nonlinear distortion of 0.1% in the 20-20 KHz range would likely be objectionable to you, even if you were listening to a good car radio at 70 mph. This is interesting:- What music would have 0.1% distortion that's audible? That's 60dB down on peak, so I would be very surprised to be able to hear anything 60dB down on programme, especially when correlated to the programme. The undistorted music would be composed of instruments that are very rich in high frequency overtones, such as certain percussion and brass instruments. The nonlinear distortion would be effective in the top octave of the normal audio band - 10 KHz and up. This is a range where the nonlinear distortion of most equipment is increasing because of decreasing open loop gain (amplifiers) or tracking distortion (LP). Now for a good power amplifier, this distortion increase might be from 0.005% at 2 KHz to 0.02% at 20 KHz. Still not a serious issue. For SET amplifiers and LP playback, the distortion increase might be from a little less than 1% to 5-10% or more. Potentially a very serious issue. The relevant psychoacoustic effect makes the ear far less sensitive to the high frequency overtones than it is to the IM spurious responses which show up at lower frequencies where the ear is far more sensitive. Note that the ear is about 20 dB more sensitive in the 2.5 to 5 KHz range than it is in the 10-20 KHz range. So psychoacoustically, our 0.1 % nonlinear distortion is perceived as being more like 1% nonlinear distortion. I believe that there is little controversy among many of us over the idea that nonlinear distortion in the 1% range can be reliably detected. This is particularly true when the spurious responses are aharmonic, which IM is very likely to be. |
#26
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.
"C. Leeds" wrote in message
... Arny Krueger wrote: Improved sound quality is what initially sold the CD....It wasn't cost, because both the players and the discs were far more expensive. I answered: Don't be silly. Even the very earliest CD players were far less expensive than the best turntable rigs of the era. Arny responds: when talking about prices, I'm talking about LP playback equipment with top-of-the line Thorens and Linn turntables, etc. Arny, I don't know what you paid for your first Sony CD player. $936 including tax. "Early adopters" of new technology often pay inflated prices in exchange for "bragging rights" about being the first kid on the block with a new toy. Or, people go so frustrated with the LP that they were willing to pay any reasonable price to get something better. Done deal! But here are some facts, using list prices. How about some real world numbers? The Sony CDP-101 first sold for $900. According to the 1984 Audio magazine equipment directory, the Linn LP12 cost $794. At Ittok pickup arm was $520. Those were list prices. The CDP 101 being new sold for list for the first few months. I know a number of people who had LP12s, but none of them paid list price for them. My TD 125/SM3 3009/Shure V-15 4 system cost me far less than my CDP 101. If anybody wanted a CDP 101, they paid the store's price for the first few months. There was nothing that sold for appreciably less. If they wanted a LP playback system, they had unending choices at a wide variety of price points. To make them work, you'd still need a phono cartridge and a phono preamplifier. In those days the nearest phono preamp was as close as the nearest preamp, integrated amp or receiver. Incremental cost = zero. Very good Shure cartridges were under $100. So you can't claim that the earliest CD players were expensive compared to LP rigs. Sure I can, especially if I'm not so bold as to claim that everybody paid list price for everything, and that everybody had a very expensive LP playback system. The average audiophile in the early 80s was using something like a Dual turntable/cartridge combo that cost less than $200, $300 at the most. And BTW there's no evidence that they were losing out on significant amounts of technical performance by doing so. I admit it - overspent on my Thorens/Shure rig. They weren't; they were cheap by comparison. They still are. It appears that the high price of many LP playback systems can't be justified on technical grounds. The current pricing of a sonically-transparent CD player is so low that its not even worthy of discussion. Many people in their 40's were not even teenagers at the time. What can they remember if it never happened to them? They can look it up, Arny. If they can't look up JAES papers, how can we reasonably expect them to look up old copies of Audio. BTW, I learned a lot about LP technology from old copies of Audio, because they used to echo the interesting parts of some JAES papers. |
#27
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.
On Oct 23, 5:47�pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"ScottW" wrote in message On Oct 22, 3:35 pm, wrote: It has been my observation that by reducing cross talk as much as possible with proper azimuth adjustment one improves the sound stage in every way. Since picking at the logic in statements has become so common around here, I feel that I am remiss by not pointing out that aside from documented proof that the claimant actually knows "every way" that the sound stage could be improved, the statement is obviously false. ;-) Also, the word "improves" �has a number of logical problems. One would be the standard by which improvement is being judged, which is far from being clear. Secondly even given a proper standard, there is the matter of how conformance to that standard is judged. Since human bias might intrude, it is possible that bias-controlled testing would be the only reasonable means. ;-) That is all true and well worth pointing out. The improvements I noted were indeed subjective and made under sighted conditions. So if this cross talk is in fact a euphonic coloration that enhances the sense of space on LPs it clearly has to the right amount. It is clear that cross talk is not always an euphonic coloration, because the extreme case of cross talk would transform every stereo recording into mono. �OTOH, perhaps I am being presumptuous in thinking that the author would not want all of his stereo recordings turned into mono. ;-) You are correct. Then there is the unsupported claim that "...the sense of space on LPs clearly has to the right amount..." �Fool that I am, I believe that the sense of space at the original performance is the only sense of space that clearly has to be the right amount. ;-) actually I was refering to the crosstalk when I said "right amount." I pretty much agree with your opinion that the sense of space at the original performance is "the right amount" for the playback. I don't think one could go terribly wrong with that if they are looking for an illusion of live music. �An amount that is at most near the minimum threshold allowed by the technology. Which technology is "the technology". ;-) The production and playback of vinyl. I think you'll find that the crosstalk method of alignment also serves to optimize channel balance which is, IMO, the reason for improved sound stage. �Not a properly applied amount of crosstalk. Getting serious for just a moment, �it is the sense of space at the original performance that is the only right amount. No it is the only "accurate" amount. One would not be "wrong" to use a different reference to judge excellence. I think you and I are actually on the same page here as to what we would like to achieve but that is hardly a universal standard by which all audiophiles are forced to judge a sense of space. There are many a DSP that allows one to vary that sense of space to one's personal taste. No one is wrong for using such a device. It is a personal choice. Unfortunately, the sense of space at the original performance is not just one thing, it varies with the location and orientation of the observer's ears. I find no general agreement about which seat is the best seat in the house. Therefore, using one's perceptions of the sound stage as a technical standard for making technical adjustments is highly subjective and inexact to say the least. You make a very important point. No recording captures an "original acoustic event" in total. At best all a recording engineer can to is make a recording that when played back creates a less than perfect illusion of the original event from a single particular listening position. That is one of many aesthetic choices made by a skilled recording engineer. |
#28
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.
On Oct 24, 7:23�am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"C. Leeds" wrote in message ... Arny Krueger wrote: We already know what both rigs sound like - they sound like vinyl, with audible tics, timbre changes both static �and dynamic, pops, rumble, hiss, and distortion. As this lengthy thread has demonstrated, there have been no reliable primary sources shown here to substantiate that this is inherently what vinyl sounds like. So all those JAES articles that Stephen cited are what, secondary sources? They are references to papers with no established relevance to the subject of inherent euphonic colorations of vinyl. If one were to at least quote a passage from any of the cited papers, those of us who don't have them in their possesion can at least see if they actually address the issue being discussed. Where do they teach that sort of thinking as good academic research? Have you even looked at their abstracts? No. so we have no way of knowing their relevance to the subject of inherent euphonic colorations of vinyl Do you know who their authors were? Wasn't that information included in the citations? |
#29
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.
wrote in message
... On Oct 23, 5:47�pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote: wrote in message "Please tell us how you know about this distortion that is "inherent" in LP playback. Please compare http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/image...8/vinyl-vs-cd-... Note that this graphic shows a 1 KHz tone, with the second harmonic about 20 dB down, which I call 10% second harmonic nonlinear distortion. 10% �distortion is a lot of distortion by any standard. As you point out, I was mislead by the author's commentary. The difference is just about exactly 40 dB, which is still very poor performance for a modern playback device. The accompanying text talks about 7-10% THD+N which mislead me. �But more importantly, how do you differentiate the distortion that is inherent from the distortion that is unique to that particular rig and the test record? One presumes competence on the part of the person doing the test - that they used an adequate test record. I find that presumption to be unacceptable. I find flat, unjustified, unsupported dismissal of the work of a well-known technician to be unacceptable. One cannot draw such universal conclusions about the inherent colorations of the medium based on such a limited sampling. Scott, that would be proof positive that you haven't bothered to do your reading. You asked for the references, which makes you responsible for reviewing them before you dismiss them. to: http://www.pcavtech.com/play-rec/rega-2/grado-SNR.gif Note that this graphic shows a 300 Hz tone, with the second and third harmonics each 40-45 dB down, which I call less than one percent second and third harmonic distortion. OK. But again, how do you tell the difference between the inherent distortion in the medium and the distortion that is unique to your rig and the test record? I used a SOTA test record. �My modest rig �outperformed a highly-expensive rig. I disagree. The test record you used was not cut on the latest most advanced cutting lathes and does not represent the state of the art of vinyl mastering. Prove it. Actually, your point is well taken. The poor technical performance is partially due to the test record �in the sense that as a rule, no test like this ever obtains significantly better results, because after all, this is LP playback. This is a faulty logical argument. Only if one has not done his homework. 18. Tautology A tautology is an argument that utilizes circular reasoning, which means that the conclusion is also its own premise. It's only a tautology to people who are unfamiliar with the technical literature of LP technology. References to a goodly sample of that literature has been posted here in good bibliographical style. Pretending it doesn't exist would not appear to be a well-justified course of action. Note that while my test results are still signficantly better - almost 6 dB better. IOW, they are in the same rather pathetic range. It still tells us very little about what distortions are inherent in the technology and what distortions are unique to each device. The only people who know little about what distortions are inherent in the various aspects LP technology are those who have at this point intentionally ignored the supplied references to the technical literature of LP technology. The two samples of real-world performance at hand are representative of what the LP format does, and is consistent with a body of knowledge that is available to the general public and has been published over the past 40 years. Anybody who thinks they can obtain better performance from their LP playback systems need only invest in one or more test records and make effective use of a reasonably up-to-date PC or Mac. Thus, it is up to them to obtain reliable evidence that supports their beliefs or have their beliefs dismissed on the ground that they are unwilling to provide reasonable support for their beliefs. |
#30
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.
On Oct 23, 3:35�pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in message On Oct 23, 6:15 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote: wrote in message It has been my observation that by reducing cross talk as much as possible with proper azimuth adjustment one improves the sound stage in every way. That would be an example of proof by assertion. No it's merely an observation. In turn, all of the findings of science and technology are observations. E = MC squared is an observation. I think you have it backwards there. Einstien hypothesized E=MC squared well before it was ever observed. All preferences are observations. Not really. Preferences are subjective evaluations. They may be based on observation. They may be based on other things like prejudice. But they are not really an observation. All facts are observations. Not at all. we have a whole world of mathematical facts and linguistic facts that are anything but observations. Scott W. has just suggested the improved sound stage is due to better channel balanced which may be achieved through the same adjustment. He may be right. I'm just reporting what I did and the results. But, we don't know how reliable your account of the results are. If you're going to dismiss 100% of my findings because they disagree with your beliefs, then your observations deserve nothing more. That is true. I could be mistaken. Or I could be giving a personal opinion on the quality of the soundstage which may not jive with other peoples' qualitative opinions. That is why I assert my observations based on listening as my observations based on listening. Nothing more nothing less. However, given the basic poor performance of the LP format, and its acute sensitivity to slight mechanical maladjustment, I'm prone to believe your claim. Poor performance? Call it an observation. I will call it the same thing I called it for myself and I call it for all others. It is your "subjective evaluation. It may be based on observation. It may be based on other things like prejudice. but it is not really an observation." That depends on one's criteria for excellent performance. In the end we have two extreme cases. In one extreme case, the criteria for excellent performance is whatever flies into my head at that instant. In the other extreme, the criteria for excellent performance is sonic performance that is completely and utterly indistinguishable from the original live performance. I completely disagree with this premise. it is yet another case of faulty logic. 9. False Dichotomy Arbitrarily reducing a set of many possibilities to only two. For example, evolution is not possible, therefore we must have been created (assumes these are the only two possibilities). Ultimately when one talks about "excellence" there is at least one leap from the objective world to the world of pure subjectivity. One can objectively say something is bigger than another or faster than another or hotter than another etc. But as soon as you say something is "better" then you have to have made a subjective choice of a reference by which you measure. You have picked two out of a nearly unlimited number of possible goals and arbitrarily claimed that they are extremes. One of them simply isn't a point of reference at all. The other is merely one of many possible points of reference. On a practical level you have cited a point of reference/goal a "sonic performance that is completely and utterly indistinguishable from the original live performance." that is simply not available as a practical reference for audiophiles like myself who are simply looking to get the best sound out of their favorite commercial recordings. In the case of stereo recorded media, we don't have to go all the way back to the original live performance, because recording and playing back stereo is all about just 4 electrical signals. � If one's goal is to get "sonic performance that is completely and utterly indistinguishable from the original live performance." one can not possibly cut to the half way point of the stereo chain and now call that the reference. The electrical signals you refer to are in fact not the same as the "original live performance." Not even close. The original live performance was a complex series of sound waves that took place in a three dimensional space. These signals you speak of are nothing more than a couple one dimensional electrical waves. They are anything but the same as the original performance. Once the original perfomance happens it is lost. If *you* wish to use an electrical signal as a point of reference by which to judge excellence that is a choice you get to make. I have no problem with *your* aesthetic goals. But make no mistake about it, you have just abandoned your reference of the "original performance" and put an intermediate electrical signal with all the baggage it carries from the inherent colorations of the hardware, the inherent limitations of stereo recording and playback and most significantly all the aesthetic choices made by the recording engineer in place of the "original perfomance" as your reference. Now this is a choice any audiophile may make. But it would be a profound mistake to believe these two points of reference are interchangable or indistinguishable. They are not. |
#31
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.
On Oct 24, 2:33�pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in message ... On Oct 23, 5:47 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote: Vinyl is so limited in terms of dynamic range that many if not most digital masters would require further processing if a good-sounding LP were the desired outcome. It is perfectly trivial to create a digital master that would damage most LP cutting equipment if not operated by an expert. The expert would start out by changing the master. Producing an acceptable LP from an unaltered digital master of ordinary music might be impossible. To the best of my knowledge there are very few commercial recordings that have an excess of 75 db dynamic range. If we consider the results posted at �www.hometheatrehifi.com, their LP system tests show 22 dB audio-band dynamic range, The link doesn't work but any claim that the inherent dynamic range of medium is 22db would simply be eroneous. By most accounts from those involved with state of the art vinyl reproduction report that the inherent dynamic range ia anywhere from 75 to 80 db. Also we have to remember the noise floor of vinyl has a specific sonic signature which allows for hearing signals well below the noise floor. If their rig is only able to achieve 22db dynamic range it has some serious problems. which is far worse than a typical uncompressed classical CD which has 65 dB or better audio-band dynamic range. 65 db is well within the inherent limitations of vinyl. It's also extremely dynamic by recording standards. You will find the vast majority of commercial recordings have far less dynamic range. Not to say we shouldn't try to accomedate recordings with exceptionally wide dynamic ranges. Butt audio-band dynamic range is not the LP format's weakest link. Dynamic range at high frequencies the far more significant weakness of the LP format. That is true. Things like cymbal crashes with close microphone techniques and other such signals are an issue with vinyl. The cutting engineer will likely use a limiter if that kind of high frequency energy is in the signal. |
#32
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.
On Oct 24, 5:26�pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in message ... On Oct 23, 5:47 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote: wrote in message "Please tell us how you know about this distortion that is "inherent" in LP playback. Please compare http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/image...8/vinyl-vs-cd-... Note that this graphic shows a 1 KHz tone, with the second harmonic about 20 dB down, which I call 10% second harmonic nonlinear distortion. 10% distortion is a lot of distortion by any standard. As you point out, I was mislead by the author's commentary. The difference is just about exactly 40 dB, which is still very poor performance for a modern playback device. The accompanying text talks about 7-10% THD+N which mislead me. But more importantly, how do you differentiate the distortion that is inherent from the distortion that is unique to that particular rig and the test record? One presumes competence on the part of the person doing the test - that they used an adequate test record. I find that presumption to be unacceptable. I find flat, unjustified, unsupported dismissal of the work of a well-known technician to be unacceptable. I do too but that isn't what I have done. I have pointed out that the test results are due in no small part to the added didtortions of the test record and the rig being tested. There is no way to look at the results on their face and determine what portion of the measured distortion is an inherent distortion of the medium and what portion is not. I don't believe any calim is made by the authors as to what portion of the distortion they measured is inherent in the medium. I have not dismissed their work. One cannot draw such universal conclusions about the inherent colorations of the medium based on such a limited sampling. Scott, that would be proof positive that you haven't bothered to do your reading. You asked for the references, which makes you responsible for reviewing them before you dismiss them. I'm not sure what your point is here but I did read the article cited that reported the tests with the McIntosh TT. Please feel free to cite any specific excerpts that you feel will show what portion of the measured distortion in that test is inherent in the medium and what portion is not. I apologize in advance for anything I may have missed. to: http://www.pcavtech.com/play-rec/rega-2/grado-SNR.gif Note that this graphic shows a 300 Hz tone, with the second and third harmonics each 40-45 dB down, which I call less than one percent second and third harmonic distortion. OK. But again, how do you tell the difference between the inherent distortion in the medium and the distortion that is unique to your rig and the test record? I used a SOTA test record. My modest rig outperformed a highly-expensive rig. I disagree. The test record you used was not cut on the latest most advanced cutting lathes and does not represent the state of the art of vinyl mastering. Prove it. HiFi News and record review test record correct? The one cut back in the late 60s right? |
#34
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.
wrote in message ...
On Oct 24, 5:26?pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote: ... I disagree. The test record you used was not cut on the latest most advanced cutting lathes and does not represent the state of the art of vinyl mastering. Prove it. HiFi News and record review test record correct? The one cut back in the late 60s right? Wrong again. The HFN test record was been recut in recent times. I have one of the newly cut versions. Here is a discussion of the more recent version of the HFN test record: http://www.tnt-audio.com/accessories/hfnrrdisc_e.html |
#35
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.
wrote in message ...
On Oct 23, 3:35?pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote: wrote in message On Oct 23, 6:15 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote: wrote in message It has been my observation that by reducing cross talk as much as possible with proper azimuth adjustment one improves the sound stage in every way. That would be an example of proof by assertion. No it's merely an observation. In turn, all of the findings of science and technology are observations. E = MC squared is an observation. I think you have it backwards there. Einstien hypothesized E=MC squared well before it was ever observed. At this point, both the hypothesis and the observation are ancient history. To say otherwise would seem to be liveing in the past and ignoring everything that happened after an arbitrary time of arbitrary choice. However, even the hypothesis was a kind of observation. It was a mathematical observation. All preferences are observations. Not really. Sure they are, they are observations of a state of mind. Preferences are subjective evaluations. That does not keep them from being observations. Here we see a very basic kind of logical error. I say, "there's a cat". You say, "Its not a cat, its a mammal". Obviously the idea the the animal that we see is both a cat and a mammal has escaped you. At this point I dispair of ever agreeing with you about anything, so I quit. |
#36
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.
Steven Sullivan wrote:
wrote: On Oct 24, 2:33???pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote: wrote in message ... On Oct 23, 5:47 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote: Vinyl is so limited in terms of dynamic range that many if not most digital masters would require further processing if a good-sounding LP were the desired outcome. It is perfectly trivial to create a digital master that would damage most LP cutting equipment if not operated by an expert. The expert would start out by changing the master. Producing an acceptable LP from an unaltered digital master of ordinary music might be impossible. To the best of my knowledge there are very few commercial recordings that have an excess of 75 db dynamic range. If we consider the results posted at ???www.hometheatrehifi.com, their LP system tests show 22 dB audio-band dynamic range, The link doesn't work Even with *just* the information 'www.hometheatrehifi.com" it's possible to find the articles in question quickly. www.hometheatrehifi.com takes you to the Secrets portal, where one of the prominent tabs is 'Technical Articles'. Click n that, and you are taken directly to the first of the LP vs CD articles in the series. Why do some here seem to often need to be led 'by hand' to references and information they could easly find themselves, if they were really interested in doing so? http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/ http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/featu...parts-1-4.html |
#37
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.
wrote in message ...
On Oct 24, 5:26?pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote: HiFi News and record review test record correct? The one cut back in the late 60s right? Ahh, I found the reference I couldn't find while researching my previous response, just a few minutes ago. At least two new versions of the HFN test record have been cut in recent times , following the only one that you seem to know exists from the 1960s. The 1996 version: http://www.tnt-audio.com/accessories/hfnrrdisc_e.html The Y2K version: http://www.garage-a-records.com/hifinews.html I have the more recent version. I have two of them, one that I use for setup, and one that I only use for critical tests. They were purchased a few months before I ran my www.pcavtech.com tests back in 2001. The reserved version produces similar results, only a bit less surface noise. I have a library of test records going back to the 1960s. In general, they produce similar results. The problem is with the LP medium at a very basic level, and any such new production methods as have been claimed to have been innovated in recent times, in general are futile. |
#38
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.
wrote in message
... On Oct 24, 2:33�pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote: wrote in message ... On Oct 23, 5:47 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote: Vinyl is so limited in terms of dynamic range that many if not most digital masters would require further processing if a good-sounding LP were the desired outcome. It is perfectly trivial to create a digital master that would damage most LP cutting equipment if not operated by an expert. The expert would start out by changing the master. Producing an acceptable LP from an unaltered digital master of ordinary music might be impossible. To the best of my knowledge there are very few commercial recordings that have an excess of 75 db dynamic range. If we consider the results posted at �www.hometheatrehifi.com, their LP system tests show 22 dB audio-band dynamic range, The link doesn't work but any claim that the inherent dynamic range of medium is 22db would simply be erroneous. Not really. http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/featu...s-6---8_2.html shows even worse results than that. Test results with the Manly Preamp and MacIntosh MT10 Turntable/Arm/Cartdige show 20% THD+N, which corresponds to 13 dB dyanamic range. These results were obtained using the same standard that they used for evaluating CD players, to make the comparison an apples-to-apples comparison. There is a long-standing convention of using a relaxed standard for testing LP noise and distortion, which I used in my PCAVTech tests. As a rule, broadband measurements of LP Noise and distortion is performed using a roll-off that is very steep, starting just below the test frequency. Since the LP has relatively large amounts of noise below 200 Hz, this provides better results for THD+N. By most accounts from those involved with state of the art vinyl reproduction report that the inherent dynamic range ia anywhere from 75 to 80 db. It's not a matter of the state of the art, its a matter of a biased criteria. The biased criteria has been in use for at least 40 years. It's a tradition. I used it without thinking. Also we have to remember the noise floor of vinyl has a specific sonic signature which allows for hearing signals well below the noise floor. This is also true for the CD format, even though its broadband noise floor is far lower. So, this is a moot point. Furthermore, the noise floor of the CD format is commonly manipulated to improve the subjectively weighted dynamic range into the 120 dB range. If their rig is only able to achieve 22db dynamic range it has some serious problems. No, there are very serious dynamic range problems with the LP format as compared to even 30-year-old digital formats. Low frequency noise and high frequency dynamic range are serious problems. We've been sweeping those problems under the rug for decades with biased measurement techniques. which is far worse than a typical uncompressed classical CD which has 65 dB or better audio-band dynamic range. 65 db is well within the inherent limitations of vinyl. Not if noise below 200 Hz is treated the same as we treat it when characterizing the CD format. It's also extremely dynamic by recording standards. That would appear to be a meaningless statement. You will find the vast majority of commercial recordings have far less dynamic range. Actually, 65 dB dynamic range is easy to achieve. Of course its possible to compress program material so that it has zero dynamic range, but that's an artistic choice, not a characteristic of CD technology. Not to say we shouldn't try to accomedate recordings with exceptionally wide dynamic ranges. If you want to accomodate wide dynamic range, you are forced out of the LP format. Butt audio-band dynamic range is not the LP format's weakest link. Dynamic range at high frequencies the far more significant weakness of the LP format. That is true. Things like cymbal crashes with close microphone techniques and other such signals are an issue with vinyl. The cutting engineer will likely use a limiter if that kind of high frequency energy is in the signal. And the effects of the limiter will be audible and some sparkle and liveness will be sacrificed to accomodate the technical limitations of the LP format. |
#39
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
... wrote: Why do some here seem to often need to be led 'by hand' to references and information they could easily find themselves, if they were really interested in doing so? Good question. There seems to be a lot of resistance among certain people towards ideas that have been in the well-established technical literature of audio technology for decades. For example, we were initially told: "I think you'll find this group nowadays largely populated with folks quoting "settled science", "trusted authorities", "well-proven" etc. in support of the conventional wisdom. But when you ask for specifics, suddenly conventional wisdom seems more like pass-along verities than it does science." This was followed up with no less than 20 relevant citations from the JAES, which is a well-known, relevant, generally-accepted independently-refereed academic journal. These articles catalog the inherent technical problems with vinyl, the audible tics, timbre changes both static and dynamic, pops, rumble, hiss, noise and distortion. There is no evidence that these same people have even read the abstracts of these articles, let alone studied the articles for themselves and understood their contents and application. We were then told that: "There have been no reliable primary sources shown here to substantiate that this is inherently what vinyl sounds like." One wonders what could be meant by "primary sources" and "substantiate". :-( |
#40
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.
On Oct 25, 5:26�pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in message ... On Oct 24, 2:33 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote: wrote in message ... On Oct 23, 5:47 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote: Vinyl is so limited in terms of dynamic range that many if not most digital masters would require further processing if a good-sounding LP were the desired outcome. It is perfectly trivial to create a digital master that would damage most LP cutting equipment if not operated by an expert. The expert would start out by changing the master. Producing an acceptable LP from an unaltered digital master of ordinary music might be impossible. To the best of my knowledge there are very few commercial recordings that have an excess of 75 db dynamic range. If we consider the results posted atwww.hometheatrehifi.com, their LP system tests show 22 dB audio-band dynamic range, The link doesn't work but any claim that the inherent dynamic range of medium is 22db would simply be erroneous. Not really. http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/featu...s/vinyl-vs.-cd... Thank goodness we now have a working link. I have combed the article and I must say I don't see any claim that the tests show a 22 dB dynamic range. shows even worse results than that. Test results with the Manly Preamp and MacIntosh MT10 Turntable/Arm/Cartdige show �20% THD+N, which corresponds to 13 dB dyanamic range. Harmonic distortion is not a measure of dynamic range. 20% THD+N does not have any direct corlation to the dynamic range of any system. Your conclusion that this leads to a measured dynamic range of 13 Db is completely eroneous. By most accounts from those involved with state of the art vinyl reproduction report that the inherent dynamic range ia anywhere from 75 to 80 db. It's not a matter of the state of the art, its a matter of a biased criteria. �The biased criteria has been in use for at least 40 years. It's a tradition. I used it without thinking. They have been used eroneously IYO? Also we have to remember the noise floor of vinyl has a specific sonic signature which allows for hearing signals well below the noise floor. This is also true for the CD format, Irrelevant. We are talking about the colorations of vinyl, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic. If their rig is only able to achieve 22db dynamic range it has some serious problems. No, there are very serious dynamic range problems with the LP format as compared to even 30-year-old digital formats. No. The inherent dynamic range is somewhere in the 75 dB range. Low frequency noise and high frequency dynamic range are serious problems. We've been sweeping those problems under the rug for decades with biased measurement techniques. The low frrequency noise is a problem. It's seriousness is a matter of opinion. One the one hand it leads to an arguably misleading poor measured performance for dynamic range since most of the musical material is spead well beyond the limited spectrum of this inherent noise and therefore allows for one to hear musical information way below the measured noise floor of vinyl. OTOH this does come at the price of audible surface noise during the quietest passages. The degree to which this bothers a listener is a function of the biases and sensitivities of each individual listener. which is far worse than a typical uncompressed classical CD which has 65 dB or better audio-band dynamic range. 65 db is well within the inherent limitations of vinyl. Not if noise below 200 Hz is treated the same as we treat it when characterizing the CD format. But it is if one is actually considering music with a dynamic range of 65 dB being transcribed to vinyl. It can be done and has been done with out any compression. In listening to music the accurate portrayal of the dynamics in the music is what matters and vinyl is quite capable of doing that with the vast majority of commercial recordings. It's also extremely dynamic by recording standards. That would appear to be a meaningless statement. No it is an accurate statement. You will be hard pressed to find any studio recordings with a dynamic range greater than 25dB much less 65 dB. You will find very few live recordings that excede 65 dB dynamic range. You will find the vast majority of commercial recordings have far less dynamic range. Actually, 65 dB dynamic range is easy to achieve. �Of course its possible to compress program material so that it has zero dynamic range, but that's an artistic choice, not a characteristic of CD technology. That is irrelevant to my point. Not to say we shouldn't try to accomedate recordings with exceptionally wide dynamic ranges. If you want to accomodate wide dynamic range, you are forced out of the LP format. Not really. I can name literally hundreds of LPs produced with no compression that have very dynamic original material. Butt audio-band dynamic range is not the LP format's weakest link. Dynamic range at high frequencies the far more significant weakness of the LP format. That is true. Things like cymbal crashes with close microphone techniques and other such signals are an issue with vinyl. The cutting engineer will likely use a limiter if that kind of high frequency energy is in the signal. And the effects of the limiter will be audible and some sparkle and liveness will be sacrificed to accomodate the technical limitations of the LP format In some rare cases, yes. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Updated Vinyl Catalog-30,555 Vinyl Records FS | Marketplace | |||
Canadian Vinyl Store-29,930 Vinyl Records FS | Marketplace | |||
Euphonic versus accurate | High End Audio |