Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
ST ST is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 41
Default How pure is the signal when it reaches our ears?

Recently, I saw an oscilloscope screen capture of digital and vinyl signal =
in a forum. The vinyl signal as expected was wobbling and jittery. It was c=
oncluded for that reason that digital playback is more accurate representat=
ion of real sound as it preserves and plays back the original signal almost=
unaltered.


However, in real life, how much of vinyl signal is distorted compared to th=
e actual sound waves arriving at the ear's canal? We are talking about the =
most fluid medium (air) that stands in between our ears and the source. Unl=
ike a wire, the air that transmit the waves to our ears relies on the vibra=
ting particles of air. The air's density varies every inch. It is the most=
unstable medium to transfer any audio signal accurately. Signal reaching o=
ur ears may very well be wobbling and jittery like seen in the oscilloscope=
..

A simple speaker's measurement of loudness itself reveals at any other dist=
ance of 1 meter it varies so much that the measurement becomes so much mean=
ingless for a proper evaluation of speakers. That's exactly the reason why =
some manufacturers are not publishing the technical specs other than what's=
can be measured by point to point wired measurements. That medium (wires) =
is stable and repeatable but not the measurements involving signals traveli=
ng through the air which varies with temperature, pressure, wind and many o=
thers factors.

We are actually listening to wavy, wobbly and jittery signal all the time. =
That's natural. Vinyl signal maybe be distorted but it may be the correct r=
epresentation of the way real signal reaching our ears or at least make it =
as close as what actually reaches our ears in live sound.

ST

  #2   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Ed Presson[_2_] Ed Presson[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 33
Default How pure is the signal when it reaches our ears?

"ST" wrote in message ...

Recently, I saw an oscilloscope screen capture of digital and vinyl signal
in a forum. The vinyl signal as expected was wobbling and jittery. It was
concluded for that reason that digital playback is more accurate
representation of real sound as it preserves and plays back the original
signal almost unaltered.


However, in real life, how much of vinyl signal is distorted compared to the
actual sound waves arriving at the ear's canal? We are talking about the
most fluid medium (air) that stands in between our ears and the source.
Unlike a wire, the air that transmit the waves to our ears relies on the
vibrating particles of air. The air's density varies every inch. It is the
most unstable medium to transfer any audio signal accurately. Signal
reaching our ears may very well be wobbling and jittery like seen in the
oscilloscope.

A simple speaker's measurement of loudness itself reveals at any other
distance of 1 meter it varies so much that the measurement becomes so much
meaningless for a proper evaluation of speakers. That's exactly the reason
why some manufacturers are not publishing the technical specs other than
what's can be measured by point to point wired measurements. That medium
(wires) is stable and repeatable but not the measurements involving signals
traveling through the air which varies with temperature, pressure, wind and
many others factors.

We are actually listening to wavy, wobbly and jittery signal all the time.
That's natural. Vinyl signal maybe be distorted but it may be the correct
representation of the way real signal reaching our ears or at least make it
as close as what actually reaches our ears in live sound.

ST

This view seems to ignore that the wavy, wobbly, and jittery signal that
arrives the ear from the vinyl will be subject to further wavy, wobbly, and
jittery distortion once it leaves the speaker resulting in even more
distortion. Somehow, I doubt that results in a closer representation of
live sound. Perhaps I've misunderstood the OP.

Ed Presson


  #3   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Oregonian Haruspex Oregonian Haruspex is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13
Default How pure is the signal when it reaches our ears?

On 2013-12-29 19:19:45 +0000, ST said:


We are actually listening to wavy, wobbly and jittery signal all the
time. That's natural. Vinyl signal maybe be distorted but it may be the
correct representation of the way real signal reaching our ears or at
least make it as close as what actually reaches our ears in live sound.

ST


That sounds highly dubious at best. One way to tell for sure is to
acquire a recent high-grade recording that has been printed to a CD and
pressed to vinyl in the same form, mic up your listening room with some
lab-grade mics, and play each of them over the same system. I but you
can predict the outcome quite accurately.
  #4   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
ST[_2_] ST[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8
Default How pure is the signal when it reaches our ears?

On Saturday, January 4, 2014 11:14:59 PM UTC+8, Oregonian Haruspex wrote:
On 2013-12-29 19:19:45 +0000, ST said:

......
=20
That sounds highly dubious at best. One way to tell for sure is to=20
=20
acquire a recent high-grade recording that has been printed to a CD and=

=20
=20
pressed to vinyl in the same form, mic up your listening room with some=

=20
=20
lab-grade mics, and play each of them over the same system. I but you=20
=20
can predict the outcome quite accurately.


[For some unknown reasons, my replies being rejected at the server level. I=
am trying once more ( maybe my fifth or sixth time) to reply. Now I am usi=
ng a new account and hope it reaches the mod.]


That is the kind of evidence I am looking for. Technically, is it possible =
to press exact replica of CD version on vinyl?=20


On Wednesday, January 1, 2014 4:58:25 AM UTC+8, Ed Presson wrote:




This view seems to ignore that the wavy, wobbly, and jittery signal that

arrives the ear from the vinyl will be subject to further wavy, wobbly, =

and

jittery distortion once it leaves the speaker resulting in even more

distortion. Somehow, I doubt that results in a closer representation of

live sound. Perhaps I've misunderstood the OP.



Ed Presson


Yes, the loudspeakers contribute a fair share of distortion but what matte=
rs here is how much of the sound wave is closer to the live performance whe=
n reaching the ears. Too much distortion in vinyl degrades the sound, but h=
ere I am referring to the correct balance. I do agree some digital recordin=
gs are very good. In most cases, I can't make out whether it is vinyl or di=
gital. I do not play vinyl but AB'ing the very best of both formats, I find=
vinyl is musically more pleasant.

I started this thread because all the discussions about vinyl and digital =
is based on the ability of each medium to capture and replay the signal as =
close to the original sound recorded at source but not the actual signal qu=
ality heard which is wobbling and jittery when reaching our ears.

At close range, microphones capture a fraction of the total sound. In live=
music, a bigger slice of the sound of instruments reaches our ears, althou=
gh there too only a fraction of the entire sound reaches the ears, but the =
mix is entirely different compared to what's heard at close range. The di=
fference here is the whole sound loses it original wave shape by interactin=
g with other factors creating it own cocktail of coloration when it arrives=
at our ears.

Maybe, vinyl with his own distortion makes the sound natural when it arriv=
es to our ears. So far, I have not seen actual measurement of live vs digit=
al vs vinyl measured at the ear level which hopefully provides a better und=
erstanding about the real sound quality that matters to us for musical enjo=
yment (not accuracy).

  #5   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
news news is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2
Default How pure is the signal when it reaches our ears?

"ST" wrote in message ...

---------SNIP-------
A simple speaker's measurement of loudness itself reveals at any other
distance of 1 meter it varies so much that the measurement becomes so
much meaningless for a proper evaluation of speakers. That's exactly the
reason why some manufacturers are not publishing the technical specs other
than what's can be measured by point to point wired measurements. That
medium (wires) is stable and repeatable but not the measurements involving
signals traveling through the air which varies with temperature, pressure,
wind and many others factors.


We are actually listening to wavy, wobbly and jittery signal all the time.
That's natural. Vinyl signal maybe be distorted but it may be the correct
representation of the way real signal reaching our ears or at least make

it as close as what actually reaches our ears in live sound.


ST



In your listening room, There are not going to be fans blowing because they
make audible and electrical noise. There maybe a gradient temperature
difference across the room, but they are not likely to be large temp
differences. There could be air conditioning or up north a furnace running.
Some listeners will turn off heating and cooling systems again to reduce
background noise, and possible electrical interference. You can close
windows too to block outside noise from getting into your listening area and
again this will reduce temp differences. The temperature differences will
cause slight air currents. The air pressure in the room is not going to
change much unless there is blowing air or large temperature differences.

These possible sources of air differences occur everywhere and as a listener
you can reduce the number of changes. Everywhere you go and hear something
or talk to someone; this is going on. I wouldn't doubt that our brains have
adapted to this. I think your barking up the wrong tree.

Shaun


  #6   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
ST[_2_] ST[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8
Default How pure is the signal when it reaches our ears?

On Sunday, 19 January 2014 21:43:16 UTC+8, news wrote:
"ST" wrote in message ...

=20


I wouldn't doubt that our brains have=20
=20
adapted to this. I think your barking up the wrong tree.
=20
=20
=20
Shaun


I thought I explained it in the last post. We are used to listening distort=
ed sound all the time. No clean signal as captured by the microphones at cl=
ose distance ever reaches our ears under normal circumstances. You are repe=
ating what I already said earlier. So I am asking again; is it possible tha=
t is giving the right mix of distortion compared to digital. What kind of m=
easurements would prove or disprove this?




  #7   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Scott[_6_] Scott[_6_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 642
Default How pure is the signal when it reaches our ears?

On Tuesday, January 21, 2014 4:25:25 AM UTC-8, ST wrote:
On Sunday, 19 January 2014 21:43:16 UTC+8, news wrote:

"ST" wrote in message ...






I wouldn't doubt that our brains have




adapted to this. I think your barking up the wrong tree.








Shaun




I thought I explained it in the last post. We are used to listening distorted sound all the time. No clean signal as captured by the microphones at close distance ever reaches our ears under normal circumstances. You are repeating what I already said earlier. So I am asking again; is it possible that is giving the right mix of distortion compared to digital. What kind of measurements would prove or disprove this?


What about hi res recordings run through low distortion SS electronics and played back through low distortion headphones? Seems like that ought to be a pretty low distortion recording and playback system. It is also fairly "normal" too.

  #8   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
ST[_2_] ST[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8
Default How pure is the signal when it reaches our ears?

On Wednesday, 22 January 2014 01:00:57 UTC+8, ScottW wrote:
On Sunday, December 29, 2013 11:19:45 AM UTC-8, ST wrote:

.....
=20
I offer a counter and equally substantiated rebuttal to your argument.
=20
=20
=20
Hogwash.
=20
=20
=20
ScottW


That will do. I am sure I will convince myself that I need not pay attentio=
n to vinyl.


The last vinyl I played was in the 70s. Never bothered to keep any of them =
and always looked down those who preached that there's something magical in=
vinyl.=20

That did not make me to be closed mind about vinyl or tape. I often get inv=
ited to listen to the best of digital and vinyl and on the few occasions th=
at I took part, I found vinyl was preferable (much to my dismay). But I tho=
ught it must be due to other factors until I saw the video and asked myself=
the question I had asked here.



  #9   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
KH KH is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 137
Default How pure is the signal when it reaches our ears?

On 1/21/2014 6:53 PM, ST wrote:
On Wednesday, 22 January 2014 01:00:57 UTC+8, ScottW wrote:
On Sunday, December 29, 2013 11:19:45 AM UTC-8, ST wrote:

....

I offer a counter and equally substantiated rebuttal to your argument.

Hogwash.

ScottW


That will do. I am sure I will convince myself that I need not pay attention to vinyl.


The last vinyl I played was in the 70s. Never bothered to keep any of them and always looked down those who preached that there's something magical in vinyl.

That did not make me to be closed mind about vinyl or tape. I often get invited to listen to the best of digital and vinyl and on the few occasions that I took part, I found vinyl was preferable (much to my dismay). But I thought it must be due to other factors until I saw the video and asked myself the question I had asked here.


Well, the point is that once leaving the amplifier, all signals are
analog. Whatever front end you use, your speakers are oblivious, and
the physics of sound transmission from speaker to ear - for any given
room and ear - are identical irrespective of whether the signal started
as analog or digital.

So unless I misread your post, you need to posit some mechanism whereby
the acoustic propagation from the speaker can change based on what front
end is used. I know of no such mechanism. Obviously the signal
reproduced by the speaker can be affected by distortions in the playback
medium, but the attenuation/transformation of the acoustic once leaving
the loudspeaker is identical.

So whatever "wigglyness" happens between the speaker and your ear
happens to all such signals irrespective of origin.

Keith

  #10   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
ST[_2_] ST[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8
Default How pure is the signal when it reaches our ears?

On Wednesday, 22 January 2014 11:12:32 UTC+8, KH wrote:
...
Well, the point is that once leaving the amplifier, all signals are

analog. Whatever front end you use, your speakers are oblivious, and

the physics of sound transmission from speaker to ear - for any given

room and ear - are identical irrespective of whether the signal started

as analog or digital.



Agreed. But the recorded sound is subjected to further distortion with vinyl. That’s where the difference lies. The accepted practice when recording music is to place the microphones close to the source so that the distortion (reverberation) is avoided. The sound together with the distortion is actually what we hear all the time once it leaves the source. Here the term distortion is used to refer to anything that alters the original signal.

Therefore, the sound played back using the loudspeakers' should sound identical to the source because it also goes through the same impediment while travelling from the speakers to the ears.(Please ignore other limitations for now. I know recorded sound can never sound like live sound).

That brings us to another question; what was captured by the microphones?. We assume that all the sound emitted from the source is capable of being captured by the microphone. In reality, the microphones capture only a tiny fraction of the sound. So too our ears. The only difference here is the distance AND the inherent defects of our hearing mechanism. This is followed by the brain that is capable of doing the filtering such as ignoring the early reverberation. The ear hears a fraction of a bigger “distorted” sound, where else the microphones hear a fraction of clean undistorted sound at close distance. Finally, recording engineers add the right amount of “distortion” (reverberation) to make the sound to be correct to our ears.

Now going back to the playback, in either digital or analogue, what's happens is the tiny energy which is probably less than 0.001% (maybe a couple of more 0s?) of the original sound now amplified to represent the actual sound. In the case of vinyl, the amplification contains further distortion due to the mechanical process. Such distortion escapes digital. Now, which of these two versions would arrive to our ears with the right amount of “distortion” as heard by us in the live event? What kind of measurement we should take into consideration when judging sound quality as perceived by us. Here, I am referring to what the ears hear and matters to us. Not the measurements using oscilloscope or instruments which is not what we are hearing in real life.




So whatever "wigglyness" happens between the speaker and your ear

happens to all such signals irrespective of origin.


Agreed. Since “wigglyness” is part of the equation which is important to our subjective assessment of sound then why are we eliminating them in vinyl vs digital discussion by showing proof such as the video mentioned in the first post. Common argument used to be that analogue (vinyl) is too distorted to be accepted as preferred sound when the reality is “distorted” sound is what we hear. Shouldn’t the question be how much and what type “distortion” is needed for more realistic recorded sound playback? Is vinyl somehow getting it right?

p.s. I do not play vinyl.



  #11   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
KH KH is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 137
Default How pure is the signal when it reaches our ears?

On 1/22/2014 5:14 AM, ST wrote:
On Wednesday, 22 January 2014 11:12:32 UTC+8, KH wrote:
...
Well, the point is that once leaving the amplifier, all signals are
analog. Whatever front end you use, your speakers are oblivious, and
the physics of sound transmission from speaker to ear - for any given
room and ear - are identical irrespective of whether the signal started
as analog or digital.


Agreed. But the recorded sound is subjected to further distortion with vinyl. That’s where the difference lies.


But that difference has nothing to do with acoustic wave propagation.

The accepted practice when recording music is to place the microphones close to the source so that the distortion (reverberation) is avoided.


You'll likely encounter some strong opposing opinions on that one.

The sound together with the distortion is actually what we hear all the time once it leaves the source. Here the term distortion is used to refer to anything that alters the original signal.
Therefore, the sound played back using the loudspeakers' should sound identical to the source because it also goes through the same impediment while travelling from the speakers to the ears.


This is where there is confusion. Air is not an "impediment" through
which the sound has to traverse. The movement of air *is* the sound.
Acoustical instruments are designed for their radiation pattern as well
as tone, and that is part and parcel of the sound that you hear. Hence
the argument against close-miking.

(Please ignore other limitations for now. I know rec orded sound can never sound like live sound).
That brings us to another question; what was captured by the microphones?. We assume that all the sound emitted from the source is capable of being captured by the microphone.


No, "we" don't assume that at all. Why would anyone assume that?

In reality, the microphones capture only a tiny fraction of the sound. So too our ears.


In reality, they capture a great deal of the sound, as do our ears. I
don't know where you get the idea that they are so inefficient. They do
not, however, capture directional information with the exception of
left/right information.

The only difference here is the distance AND the inherent defects of our hearing mechanism. This is followed by the brain that is capable of doing the filtering such as ignoring the early reverberation. The ear hears a fraction of a bigger “distorted” sound, where else the microphones hear a fraction of clean undistorted sound at close distance. Finally, recording engineers add the right amount of “distortion” (reverberation) to make the sound to be correct to our ears.
Now going back to the playback, in either digital or analogue, what's happens is the tiny energy which is probably less than 0.001% (maybe a couple of more 0s?) of the original sound now amplified to represent the actual sound. In the case of vinyl, the amplification contains further distortion due to the mechanical process. Such distortion escapes digital. Now, which of these two versions would arrive to our ears with the right amount of “distortion” as heard by us in the live event? What kind of measurement we should take into consideration when judging sound quality as perceived by us. Here, I am referring to what the ears hear and matters to us. Not the measurements using oscilloscope or instruments which is not what we are hearing in real life.


You need to do some research on HRTF - that is the huge difference
between ears and microphones. Adding reverb does create a sense of
space by adding delayed sound simulating, to an extent, the reverberant
field in a live venue. Vinyl and vinyl playback systems do add, to
varying degrees, some phasiness that can create a similar effect.


So whatever "wigglyness" happens between the speaker and your ear
happens to all such signals irrespective of origin.


Agreed. Since “wigglyness” is part of the equation which is important to our subjective assessment of sound then why are we eliminating them in vinyl vs digital discussion by showing proof such as the video mentioned in the first post. Common argument used to be that analogue (vinyl) is too distorted to be accepted as preferred sound when the reality is “distorted” sound is what we hear. Shouldn’t the question be how much and what type “distortion” is needed for more realistic recorded sound playback? Is vinyl somehow getting it right?


This "common argument" is likely what Scott was calling "Hogwash" on.
When you sit in a concert hall and listen to, just for e.g. a string
quartet, *nothing* you hear is "distorted" by the intervening air.
You're hearing instruments as they were designed to sound, augmented by
the reverberant field they set up in the concert hall. It's simply a
false assumption that what you hear is a distortion because the "signal
is wiggly". That reverberant field, in conjunction with your HRTF, is
what allows you to spacially locate each instrument in 3-D. That is the
design of the human hearing system. The reverberant field is not
"distortion", it's just reality.

The differences between vinyl and digital happen way upstream and are an
artifact of bandwidth limitations, filtering, and electromechanical
transduction issues, among others. Not due to "distortion in the air".

p.s. I do not play vinyl.


I seldom do either.

  #12   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
ST[_2_] ST[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8
Default How pure is the signal when it reaches our ears?

On Thursday, 23 January 2014 01:29:18 UTC+8, ScottW wrote:


I never said that. I enjoy vinyl a great deal. But vinyl as a format is not

prone to some unique distortion that makes all vinyl appealing or realistic.


Neither am I. I am saying the sound reaching our ears is not perfect and probably more distorted than viny and therefore we need to rethink measurements taken at source and move closer to the ears to see what’s actually reaching us.


My old Quad 63s sung with vinyl, CDs...not

so much.

My Orions can bring live music into the room (something few rooms can handle and

mine is no exception) but they also bring all of vinyls defects up close and

personal.



Subjective preference at play again. Did you know all amplifiers sound the same? ) This is exactly the reason why I said the method of measuring audio performance at source is not accurate to reflect the reality of subjective preference. Under level matched AB, the PassLab and Classe all sound alike. But in reality I have a strong preference towards one. So why the Quad treats vinyl and CD differently?



Only the absolute best of the best vinyl passes that test. The quality you

probably heard in a demonstration is sadly, kind of rare and as the masters of

vinyl grow old and retire, it's not likely to change.



Not really. I was thinking my preference could be due to the past acquaintance. But after seeing more and more youngsters showing preference to vinyl I am not sure of anything anymore. The latest craze - here at (Daft Punk: CD versus vinyl comparison video).


Transparency isn't always ideal

for the finished product. I suspect Neil isn't happy with his voice being too

accurately reproduced .



That’s because we don’t listen to transparent sound. What was your first impression of your own recorded voice? Why? Does it sound natural to you?


On Thursday, 23 January 2014 02:08:53 UTC+8, KH wrote:
On 1/22/2014 5:14 AM, ST wrote:


But that difference has nothing to do with acoustic wave propagation.


I think we are not on the same wavelength here. Acoustic wave propagation is not the issue here. I am talking about the final product reaching the ears.


You'll likely encounter some strong opposing opinions on that one.


Absolutely. I would accept if they can show me the best of concert recordings made with just one or two microphones placed at the best seat in the concert where you seat. The trouble with audio recordings is that we are unable to record as how we hear them. I can take out a camcorder or even a 3D camcorder and shoot from where I seat and the playback seems to be natural. But I can’t do that with audio. I can’t take a microphone and place it where I stand and expect to hear the same sound on playback. What did the microphone miss or added and why the sound is so far away and fuzzy.?


This is where there is confusion. Air is not an "impediment" through

which the sound has to traverse. The movement of air *is* the sound.

Acoustical instruments are designed for their radiation pattern as well

as tone, and that is part and parcel of the sound that you hear. Hence

the argument against close-miking.



Please help me out here. Will the oscilloscope signal show note A as an exact 440Hz with the harmonics or is it going to be look different depending on the location of the microphone ?



(Please ignore other limitations for now. I know rec orded sound can never sound like live sound).


That brings us to another question; what was captured by the microphones?. We assume that all the sound emitted from the source is capable of being captured by the microphone.




In reality, they capture a great deal of the sound, as do our ears. I

don't know where you get the idea that they are so inefficient.


No. I said mics are more efficient than our ears. This is another part that I am not clear of. When you pluck the guitar string the kinetic energy converts to sound. The sound travels through the oscillation of air particle like an expending bubble getting bigger and bigger as it move farther away than the source. Just like a ripple in the pond. The waves loses shape and intensity as it move away from the centre. A microphone captures only a small area of the bubble/waves and misses more than 99% of it. So why are you saying it captures a great deal? If you compared to what our ears are capturing then you are right. The fact is both captures only a tiny fraction of the original energy.



Adding reverb does create a sense of

space by adding delayed sound simulating, to an extent, the reverberant

field in a live venue. Vinyl and vinyl playback systems do add, to

varying degrees, some phasiness that can create a similar effect.



We are getting somewhere here. Vinyl adds something. What it adds and how much it alters the original sound can only be measured near our ears to see how much it is closer to live event. Do you agree?



This "common argument" is likely what Scott was calling "Hogwash" on.

When you sit in a concert hall and listen to, just for e.g. a string

quartet, *nothing* you hear is "distorted" by the intervening air.

Air “distorts”. It damps the higher frequencies. Hotter air lifts sound higher. Maybe, a room filled with carbon monoxide will sound different from a room filled with oxygen due to density and weight of the molecules. All mediums “distort” otherwise the sound would travel at same loudness forever around the earth. The transfer of energy involves loses.



On Friday, 24 January 2014 01:08:14 UTC+8, ScottW wrote:

But these bizarre theories of distortion based upon a video are simply without merit.


The video was created by a strong advocate of the virtues of digital over analogue. He demonstrated what vinyl does to a 1kHz signal. It looked so bad as compared to the original signal which made me wonder how can vinyl even sound like how they do. You can see the video here at tinyurl.com/cdvsvinyl. Then a thought came to me the original sound reaching our ears may be too distorted that a vinyl inherent defects is not affecting it.

p.s. To mod, I thought there was some rules about including links in the posting but I cant find it in guidelines. Please delete the link if it is in breach of the guidelines. Thank you.

  #13   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
news news is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default How pure is the signal when it reaches our ears?

"ST" wrote in message ...

On Saturday, January 4, 2014 11:14:59 PM UTC+8, Oregonian Haruspex wrote:
On 2013-12-29 19:19:45 +0000, ST said:

.......

That sounds highly dubious at best. One way to tell for sure is to

acquire a recent high-grade recording that has been printed to a CD and

pressed to vinyl in the same form, mic up your listening room with some

lab-grade mics, and play each of them over the same system. I but you

can predict the outcome quite accurately.


[For some unknown reasons, my replies being rejected at the server level. I
am trying once more ( maybe my fifth or sixth time) to reply. Now I am
using a new account and hope it reaches the mod.]



That is the kind of evidence I am looking for. Technically, is it possible
to press exact replica of CD version on vinyl?



On Wednesday, January 1, 2014 4:58:25 AM UTC+8, Ed Presson wrote:





This view seems to ignore that the wavy, wobbly, and jittery signal that

arrives the ear from the vinyl will be subject to further wavy, wobbly,
and

jittery distortion once it leaves the speaker resulting in even more

distortion. Somehow, I doubt that results in a closer representation of

live sound. Perhaps I've misunderstood the OP.



Ed Presson


Yes, the loudspeakers contribute a fair share of distortion but what
matters here is how much of the sound wave is closer to the live
performance when reaching the ears. Too much distortion in vinyl degrades
the sound, but here I am referring to the correct balance. I do agree some
digital recordings are very good. In most cases, I can't make out whether

it is vinyl or digital. I do not play vinyl but AB'ing the very best of
both formats, I find vinyl is musically more pleasant.


I started this thread because all the discussions about vinyl and digital
is based on the ability of each medium to capture and replay the signal as
close to the original sound recorded at source but not the actual signal
quality heard which is wobbling and jittery when reaching our ears.


At close range, microphones capture a fraction of the total sound. In live
music, a bigger slice of the sound of instruments reaches our ears,
although there too only a fraction of the entire sound reaches the ears,
but the mix is entirely different compared to what's heard at close range.
The difference here is the whole sound loses it original wave shape by
interacting with other factors creating it own cocktail of coloration when
it arrives at our ears.


Maybe, vinyl with his own distortion makes the sound natural when it
arrives to our ears. So far, I have not seen actual measurement of live vs
digital vs vinyl measured at the ear level which hopefully provides a
better understanding about the real sound quality that matters to us for
musical enjoyment (not accuracy).


I think it was back 10 to 20 years ago and before, they would tailor the
sound recordings to produce a Master recording to fit onto a record without
overcutting into adjacent tracks (grooves). That final master was then used
to produce the CD. This made CDs back then not sound as good as they could
because the used the vinyl master to make the CDs as well. Now many
recording companies are making Master Recordings for CDs and if they want to
cut some vinyl too, they would have to make a separate vinyl master that
would cut out some of the bass and use some compression to reduce the really
loud parts so that the record cutter doesn't cut into adjacent grooves.

So the answer is NO, a CD recording and a Vinyl recording will not be quite
the same!

I have also used an oscilloscope with a mic to view pure tones that I was
making with a homemade circuit. It didn't wobble or jump up and down.
There was a little bit of movement, but very little. This was along time
ago, like 1994.

As for air density changing every few centimeters in a calm room, I don't
think so. Air and any gas evenly disperses itself in its give area; in this
case a room. The atmospheric pressure is the force exerted on the walls and
everything else in the room by the air molecules bumping against everything.

Shaun
  #14   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Scott[_6_] Scott[_6_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 642
Default How pure is the signal when it reaches our ears?

On Saturday, January 25, 2014 6:15:56 AM UTC-8, news wrote:
"ST" wrote in message ...

=20
=20
=20
On Saturday, January 4, 2014 11:14:59 PM UTC+8, Oregonian Haruspex wrote=

:
=20
On 2013-12-29 19:19:45 +0000, ST said:

=20
......
=20

=20
That sounds highly dubious at best. One way to tell for sure is to

=20

=20
acquire a recent high-grade recording that has been printed to a CD and

=20

=20
pressed to vinyl in the same form, mic up your listening room with some

=20

=20
lab-grade mics, and play each of them over the same system. I but you

=20

=20
can predict the outcome quite accurately.

=20
=20
=20
[For some unknown reasons, my replies being rejected at the server level=

.. I=20
=20
am trying once more ( maybe my fifth or sixth time) to reply. Now I am=

=20
=20
using a new account and hope it reaches the mod.]

=20
=20
=20
=20
=20
That is the kind of evidence I am looking for. Technically, is it possib=

le=20
=20
to press exact replica of CD version on vinyl?

=20
=20
=20
=20
=20
On Wednesday, January 1, 2014 4:58:25 AM UTC+8, Ed Presson wrote:

=20
=20
=20
=20
=20
=20
=20
=20
=20
This view seems to ignore that the wavy, wobbly, and jittery signal tha=

t
=20

=20
arrives the ear from the vinyl will be subject to further wavy, wobbly,=

=20
=20
and

=20

=20
jittery distortion once it leaves the speaker resulting in even more

=20

=20
distortion. Somehow, I doubt that results in a closer representation o=

f
=20

=20
live sound. Perhaps I've misunderstood the OP.

=20

=20

=20

=20
Ed Presson

=20
=20
=20
Yes, the loudspeakers contribute a fair share of distortion but what=20

=20
matters here is how much of the sound wave is closer to the live=20

=20
performance when reaching the ears. Too much distortion in vinyl degrad=

es=20
=20
the sound, but here I am referring to the correct balance. I do agree s=

ome=20
=20
digital recordings are very good. In most cases, I can't make out whe=

ther=20
=20
it is vinyl or digital. I do not play vinyl but AB'ing the very best of=

=20
=20
both formats, I find vinyl is musically more pleasant.

=20
=20
=20
I started this thread because all the discussions about vinyl and digit=

al=20
=20
is based on the ability of each medium to capture and replay the signal=

as=20
=20
close to the original sound recorded at source but not the actual signa=

l=20
=20
quality heard which is wobbling and jittery when reaching our ears.

=20
=20
=20
At close range, microphones capture a fraction of the total sound. In l=

ive=20
=20
music, a bigger slice of the sound of instruments reaches our ears,=20

=20
although there too only a fraction of the entire sound reaches the ears=

,=20
=20
but the mix is entirely different compared to what's heard at close ran=

ge.=20
=20
The difference here is the whole sound loses it original wave shape by=

=20
=20
interacting with other factors creating it own cocktail of coloration w=

hen=20
=20
it arrives at our ears.

=20
=20
=20
Maybe, vinyl with his own distortion makes the sound natural when it=20

=20
arrives to our ears. So far, I have not seen actual measurement of live=

vs=20
=20
digital vs vinyl measured at the ear level which hopefully provides a=

=20
=20
better understanding about the real sound quality that matters to us fo=

r=20
=20
musical enjoyment (not accuracy).

=20
=20
=20
I think it was back 10 to 20 years ago and before, they would tailor the=

=20
=20
sound recordings to produce a Master recording to fit onto a record witho=

ut=20
=20
overcutting into adjacent tracks (grooves). That final master was then u=

sed=20
=20
to produce the CD. This made CDs back then not sound as good as they cou=

ld=20
=20
because the used the vinyl master to make the CDs as well.=20



This makes no sense. This was one of the most common explanations offered a=
s to why some of us find fault with so many CDs. But if we prefer the vinyl=
version cut from the same master it hardly explains what we don't like abo=
ut a CD cut from the same master. Further more, while this was done with so=
me LPs it was hardly done with all of them. Many LPs have been cut directly=
from original masters with none of the assumed rolling of the high frequen=
cies or folding of the bass to mono.=20


Now many=20
=20
recording companies are making Master Recordings for CDs and if they want=

to=20
=20
cut some vinyl too, they would have to make a separate vinyl master that=

=20
=20
would cut out some of the bass and use some compression to reduce the rea=

lly=20
=20
loud parts so that the record cutter doesn't cut into adjacent grooves.



No. The compression added to the CD mastering to make it as loud as possibl=
e actually is a potential problem. So with many new recordings they have to=
go to the original uncompressed master tape and cut from that or at least =
a copy of it. They don't have to cut out the bass. This is one reason why w=
e find so many people preferring the vinyl version of many new releases ove=
r the CD versions.=20


=20
=20
=20
So the answer is NO, a CD recording and a Vinyl recording will not be qui=

te=20
=20
the same!


Except when they are. There are a number of well documented examples.


  #15   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
ST[_2_] ST[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8
Default How pure is the signal when it reaches our ears?

On Saturday, 25 January 2014 22:15:56 UTC+8, news wrote:


As for air density changing every few centimeters in a calm room, I don't

think so. Air and any gas evenly disperses itself in its give area; in this

case a room. The atmospheric pressure is the force exerted on the walls and

everything else in the room by the air molecules bumping against everything.



Shaun


Unless, the air in the room stands still and conducts sound as linear and consistence like wires.


  #16   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
ST ST is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 41
Default How pure is the signal when it reaches our ears?

On Saturday, January 25, 2014 10:15:56 PM UTC+8, news wrote:
As for air density changing every few centimeters in a calm room, I don'=

t=20
=20
think so. Air and any gas evenly disperses itself in its give area; in t=

his=20
=20
case a room. The atmospheric pressure is the force exerted on the walls =

and=20
=20
everything else in the room by the air molecules bumping against everythi=

ng.
=20
=20
=20
Shaun


But they don't stand still. They move around. Air is a poor conductor of so=
und. Just like a ripple which can be seen clearly in calm pond. The air sme=
ars the ripples by its movement. Your measurement at source of the sound an=
d at the receiving end of the ears is not going to be the same at longer di=
stance.

  #17   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Scott[_6_] Scott[_6_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 642
Default How pure is the signal when it reaches our ears?

On Monday, January 27, 2014 9:03:29 AM UTC-8, ScottW wrote:
On Saturday, January 25, 2014 9:34:08 AM UTC-8, Scott wrote:
=20
=20
=20
=20

=20
=20

=20
=20

=20
No. The compression added to the CD mastering to make it as loud as pos=

sible actually is a potential problem. So with many new recordings they hav=
e to go to the original uncompressed master tape and cut from that or at le=
ast a copy of it. They don't have to cut out the bass. This is one reason w=
hy we find so many people preferring the vinyl version of many new releases=
over the CD versions.=20
=20
=20
=20
=20
=20
Well...some people providing mastering services for vinyl do provide repe=

ated warnings about the limitations of vinyl and FR vs playing time and tra=
cking.


As well they should. But unless we are talking about the extreme cases of b=
rick walled mastering it is quite possible to cut a record from an original=
master without rolling the highs or bass. There are plenty of examples.=20


=20
=20
=20
http://www.saemastering.com/VinylMasteringFAQs.php
=20
=20
=20
"Can you cut it extremely loud and with lots of bass?
=20
The oldest request. The only change has been the amount of volume and bas=

s. The less time per side is always better for more volume and more bass. =
Also, short 6 to 8 minute sides for a 12" record should be considered for =
cutting at 45rpm. Yes, I've cut them very loud and punchy. Mistracking does=
become a concern.
=20



And there you have it. Yes, it can be done. Buyer beware. Your equipment ma=
y not be up to the task of playing it back.


=20
=20
What do you mean by "mistracking"?
=20
The ability of the playback stylus to follow the groove path. Poor turnt=

able
=20
alignment or a worn stylus hinders the ability of the playback stylus to =

follow the groove path. The common result is distortion and sometimes skipp=
ing in extreme cases. Different types of playback systems track and sound d=
ifferent.
=20
=20


And this should not be an issue if we are talking high end audio.=20

=20
=20
Can you cut my master flat?
=20
Sure, but you may not be happy with the results. Mistracking can result f=

rom excessive levels. For example bad sibilance or bright cymbals may resul=
t in groove modulations too complex to track on even the best playback syst=
ems. Excessive bass can result in skipping. Disc cutting engineers take thi=
s into account and use their judgement for the best playback results for di=
fferent systems. Besides, you will hear a difference as the cartridge appro=
aches the inner diameter of the disc. This is called "Diameter Loss".


Again, in cases of brick walling this can be an issue. Nothing new here. So=
yeah it can be done and if your master has a DR of 4 or less the results w=
ill stink. But it will stink anyway.

=20
=20

=20
=20

=20
=20

=20
=20

=20
=20

=20
=20

=20
=20

=20
=20

=20
=20

=20
=20

=20
=20

=20
So the answer is NO, a CD recording and a Vinyl recording will not be=

quite=20
=20
the same!

=20
=20

=20
=20

=20
=20

=20
Except when they are. There are a number of well documented examples.

=20
=20
=20
Exceptions do not make a rule.


Who said anything about a rule? I said there are exceptions and many of the=
m are well documented. That is a fact not a rule.


IME, few versions of CD and vinyl are the same.
=20
Labels like Classic Records and Analogue productions have in large part m=

ade a living with meticulous and often superior (even with the constraints =
of vinyl) mastering of reissues on vinyl.
=20
I don't think they'd be enjoying the success they have just releasing vin=

yl that sounds the same as already available (and much cheaper) CD versions=
..



Let's not confuse mastered the same with sounds the same. I have several ex=
amples of CDs and LPs that were mastered he same but they sound different a=
s they should. My vinyl playback gear is hardly perfectly transparent. I wo=
uldn't want it to be.
The fact is that the audiophile labels you mention above and several other=
s have actually managed to cut many LPs of many great titles without using =
any compression, without *needing to roll the highs or bass. (this is not t=
o say that no EQ is applied to make for better sound) And they do it withou=
t folding the bass to mono. Many of these labels do the same titles on LP, =
CD and SACD. Do you think they are deliberately sabotaging the CDs and SACD=
s to make the vinyl sound better so as to boost the success of their vinyl =
sales? =20


  #18   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Scott[_6_] Scott[_6_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 642
Default How pure is the signal when it reaches our ears?

On Monday, January 27, 2014 7:05:52 PM UTC-8, ScottW wrote:
On Monday, January 27, 2014 12:24:40 PM UTC-8, Scott wrote:

On Monday, January 27, 2014 9:03:29 AM UTC-8, ScottW wrote:




On Saturday, January 25, 2014 9:34:08 AM UTC-8, Scott wrote:








































No. The compression added to the CD mastering to make it as loud as possible actually is a potential problem. So with many new recordings they have to go to the original uncompressed master tape and cut from that or at least a copy of it. They don't have to cut out the bass. This is one reason why we find so many people preferring the vinyl version of many new releases over the CD versions.
























Well...some people providing mastering services for vinyl do provide repeated warnings about the limitations of vinyl and FR vs playing time and tracking.












As well they should. But unless we are talking about the extreme cases of brick walled mastering it is quite possible to cut a record from an original master without rolling the highs or bass. There are plenty of examples..




I have no idea why a brick walled master would not be able to be cut on vinyl.


It's harder because everything is maxed out from top to bottom.


It will just have to be at a level that is trackable with such nasty high frequency hash created by clipping.


That is one way of dealing with it but a clipped digital signal is not something you want to try to cut into a lacquer at any level.



Unlike digital, vinyls peak levels are a function of frequency due to print through and trackability. If one wants to cut an album with flat frequency response they will simply sacrifice dynamic range having to keep peak levels at the limits reasonable. Few recording engineers choose to do this instead tweaking the low and high ends. Bass is often made mono (no big deal as very low bass in a room lacks direction) to improve tracking and reduce amplitude.


this does happen. How regularly it happens is debatable. It also depends on what records you are buying.



Also common to rolloff deep bass and add a slight mid bass bump to get a perceived solid bass content. Lots of people with systems that don't have deep bass find this particularly pleasing over a flat CD.


I often find it pleasing even with deep bass. But then true deep bass is something in and of itself that is often not on a recording to begin with.



Rolling off highs above 14k is rarely noticed by anybody.



yep. Not much music up there anyway







http://www.saemastering.com/VinylMasteringFAQs.php






"Can you cut it extremely loud and with lots of bass?








The oldest request. The only change has been the amount of volume and bass. The less time per side is always better for more volume and more bass. Also, short 6 to 8 minute sides for a 12" record should be considered for cutting at 45rpm. Yes, I've cut them very loud and punchy. Mistracking does become a concern.
















And there you have it. Yes, it can be done. Buyer beware. Your equipment may not be up to the task of playing it back.




Nor may that be the best way to produce the most satisfying results.

I think a few compromises to increase dynamic range is worth considering.


What dynamic range? The question posed was can a record be cut "extremely loud and with lots of bass." Yes it can be done but it will suck.









What do you mean by "mistracking"?








The ability of the playback stylus to follow the groove path. Poor turntable








alignment or a worn stylus hinders the ability of the playback stylus to follow the groove path. The common result is distortion and sometimes skipping in extreme cases. Different types of playback systems track and sound different.








And this should not be an issue if we are talking high end audio.




Not every record company presumes their product is going to spin exclusively on a Forsell with Koetsu cart. I'd say none of the DJ caterers presume anything like it.



And this does speak to my point that these things do depend on what records you are buying. The folks who are actually cutting records from master tapes without compression, or rolling the highs or lows are doing so with the idea that the end user will be using gear that can deal with such records.

















Can you cut my master flat?








Sure, but you may not be happy with the results. Mistracking can result from excessive levels. For example bad sibilance or bright cymbals may result in groove modulations too complex to track on even the best playback systems. Excessive bass can result in skipping. Disc cutting engineers take this into account and use their judgement for the best playback results for different systems. Besides, you will hear a difference as the cartridge approaches the inner diameter of the disc. This is called "Diameter Loss".






Again, in cases of brick walling this can be an issue. Nothing new here.. So yeah it can be done and if your master has a DR of 4 or less the results will stink. But it will stink anyway.




Untrackable peaks on vinyl have nothing to do with brick walling.



Sure they do. Digital clipping makes for near certain mistracking.

I'm not even sure why you bring this up unless you presume your vinyl was digitally mastered.....



*I* didn't bring it up. I was responding to your post with all the quotes from http://www.saemastering.com/VinylMasteringFAQs.php


but even then modern digital mastering equipment has nearly infinite bit capability so brickwalling should never come into play.


Well the FAQs you quoted are all about cutting vinyl from brickwalled master tapes. So whether or not it *should* come into play is neither here nor there when addressing the answers to those FAQs.


They should be able to do all their mastering, compress it as much as they like for "loudness" and convert to 16 bits without clipping anything.


Shoulda coulda woulda. Those FAQs are about dealing with what does happen (mastering from brickwalled sources) not with what should have happened or could have happened. What often does happen is we end up with commerical recordings that have been brickwalled to death. It's not an issue to master such recordings to CD. There can be some issues mastering that kind of a signal to vinyl. Ironically when we are talking about high quality uncompressed masters it's easier to cut to vinyl.



Regardless, this should not be an issue if we are talking high end audio.









So the answer is NO, a CD recording and a Vinyl recording will not be quite








the same!






Except when they are. There are a number of well documented examples.






Exceptions do not make a rule.




Who said anything about a rule? I said there are exceptions and many of them are well documented. That is a fact not a rule.




IME, few versions of CD and vinyl are the same.




Labels like Classic Records and Analogue productions have in large part made a living with meticulous and often superior (even with the constraints of vinyl) mastering of reissues on vinyl.








I don't think they'd be enjoying the success they have just releasing vinyl that sounds the same as already available (and much cheaper) CD versions.






Let's not confuse mastered the same with sounds the same. I have several examples of CDs and LPs that were mastered he same but they sound different as they should. My vinyl playback gear is hardly perfectly transparent. I wouldn't want it to be.




Possibly due to the limiters and filters inherent in the lathes. A step the CD recording never sees.


Nope. They are not "inherent" on the lathes. They are either being used or not being used. I can name literally hundreds of records that were cut with no use of any limiters.











The fact is that the audiophile labels you mention above and several others have actually managed to cut many LPs of many great titles without using any compression, without *needing to roll the highs or bass. (this is not to say that no EQ is applied to make for better sound) And they do it without folding the bass to mono. Many of these labels do the same titles on LP, CD and SACD. Do you think they are deliberately sabotaging the CDs and SACDs to make the vinyl sound better so as to boost the success of their vinyl sales?




No, I think they tweak the recording on vinyl to make it sound good on vinyl playback systems.


Why do you think that?

As far as folding the bass to mono...you shouldn't notice if they did it right as it's only the deep bass which provides the most benefit and which has no perceived direction.


It's not a question of noticing it. The companies making these records are stating that they are not doing it. If they are lying it would be quite easy to catch them at it since it is easy enough to determine if the bass is mono or stereo.


I have a Classic records vinyl and HD CD and they don't sound the same. I don't think they are mastered the same nor do I think they should be.



I am sure they don't sound the same. I am not so sure about the mastering being different. Bernie Grundman who cut most of the vinyl for Classics has made it quite clear that he never used compression or limiters and never folded the bass to mono and in most cases used minimal EQ. If the HDCDs were mastered differently it was due to a different mastering engineer having different taste in EQ. It was not due to any inherent limitations of what can and can not be cut to vinyl.


  #19   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Scott[_6_] Scott[_6_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 642
Default How pure is the signal when it reaches our ears?

On Tuesday, January 28, 2014 10:13:37 AM UTC-8, ScottW wrote:
On Tuesday, January 28, 2014 4:41:48 AM UTC-8, Scott wrote:





I have no idea why a brick walled master would not be able to be cut on vinyl.






It's harder because everything is maxed out from top to bottom.




Maxed out in the digital domain. The analog level is easily set within cutters limits. It's probably actually easier to get an optimal level with such a low dynamic range signal.


The very FAQ you cited seems to disagree with this assertion













It will just have to be at a level that is trackable with such nasty high frequency hash created by clipping.






That is one way of dealing with it but a clipped digital signal is not something you want to try to cut into a lacquer at any level.






Of course, garbage in = garbage out. I'm trying to focus on what one can technically do without more harm.



It's not just garbage it's a hard angle in the wave. Clearly this is going to be an issue in cutting.

















Unlike digital, vinyls peak levels are a function of frequency due to print through and trackability. If one wants to cut an album with flat frequency response they will simply sacrifice dynamic range having to keep peak levels at the limits reasonable. Few recording engineers choose to do this instead tweaking the low and high ends. Bass is often made mono (no big deal as very low bass in a room lacks direction) to improve tracking and reduce amplitude.








this does happen. How regularly it happens is debatable. It also depends on


what records you are buying.




Seems to be discussed as std practice on vinyl mastering tutorials and FAQs.


It may seem to be discussed as such on mastering tutorials and FAQs (although not on the one *you* cited) but in my many conversations with actual mastering engineers they tend to write this stuff off as extremely uncommon to the point of being urban legend.


















Also common to rolloff deep bass and add a slight mid bass bump to get a perceived solid bass content. Lots of people with systems that don't have deep bass find this particularly pleasing over a flat CD.








I often find it pleasing even with deep bass. But then true deep bass is something in and of itself that is often not on a recording to begin with..




It's not often on a record for very good technical limitations of the format.

Those limitations don't apply to CD but recording engineers still estimate the optimal system response of their target market and tweek accordingly.

Seems that all but the purest of classical recordings don't presume flat to sub 40 hz response from their target audience.


I don't think this is a CD/LP issue as much as it is a basic recording technique issue.



If from nothing else, one can get a clue from the monitor setups boasted of in literature on mixing booths. Articles published in sound on sound about the problems they routinely find in studios show how little attention to flat bass response is made in many studios. In fact they often recommend simple near field setups with small monitors claiming people using systems they expect to have good bass response (but don't) cause more harm than good as they try to push deep bass out of it.


Again this is a recording issue not a format issue.







Rolling off highs above 14k is rarely noticed by anybody.






yep. Not much music up there anyway








http://www.saemastering.com/VinylMasteringFAQs.php




"Can you cut it extremely loud and with lots of bass?






The oldest request. The only change has been the amount of volume and bass. The less time per side is always better for more volume and more bass. Also, short 6 to 8 minute sides for a 12" record should be considered for cutting at 45rpm. Yes, I've cut them very loud and punchy. Mistracking does become a concern.






And there you have it. Yes, it can be done. Buyer beware. Your equipment may not be up to the task of playing it back.






Nor may that be the best way to produce the most satisfying results.


I think a few compromises to increase dynamic range is worth considering.








What dynamic range? The question posed was can a record be cut "extremely loud and with lots of bass." Yes it can be done but it will suck.




The dynamic range of vinyl media is limited at high and low freq.



The dynamic range of either LP or CD is rarely an issue as both far exceed all but a few rare recordings. If you are looking for inherent limitations of either media I think you need to look somewhere else.



That is the bottom line. These assertions have to many subjective caveats for me.



My assertions have been purely objective in nature.









Untrackable peaks on vinyl have nothing to do with brick walling.




Sure they do. Digital clipping makes for near certain mistracking.








I'm not even sure why you bring this up unless you presume your vinyl was digitally mastered.....






*I* didn't bring it up. I was responding to your post with all the quotes from http://www.saemastering.com/VinylMasteringFAQs.php












but even then modern digital mastering equipment has nearly infinite bit capability so brickwalling should never come into play.








Well the FAQs you quoted are all about cutting vinyl from brickwalled master tapes.






No...it's just some basic guidance on mastering for vinyl. No mention of "brickwalled" master tapes that I see.



"A rose by any other name" All the quotes were about cutting "extremely loud" source signals. IOW brick walled source signals. Not interested in a semantic argument here.









So whether or not it *should* come into play is neither here nor there when addressing the answers to those FAQs.




These basic FAQs are repeated all over the web by those offering mastering services without mention of brickwalling.



Again not interested in semantics. The quotes speak for themselves. "extremely loud" is brick walled.











They should be able to do all their mastering, compress it as much as they like for "loudness" and convert to 16 bits without clipping anything.












Labels like Classic Records and Analogue productions have in large part made a living with meticulous and often superior (even with the constraints of vinyl) mastering of reissues on vinyl.








I don't think they'd be enjoying the success they have just releasing vinyl that sounds the same as already available (and much cheaper) CD versions.








Let's not confuse mastered the same with sounds the same. I have several examples of CDs and LPs that were mastered he same but they sound different as they should. My vinyl playback gear is hardly perfectly transparent. I wouldn't want it to be.






Possibly due to the limiters and filters inherent in the lathes. A step the CD recording never sees.








Nope. They are not "inherent" on the lathes. They are either being used or not being used. I can name literally hundreds of records that were cut with no use of any limiters.






Then they were meticulous in their evaluation and limiting of HF content in the master. You can't get parts for these lathes and no one would be foolish enough to risk overloading their cutting heads.



Why would you think that they would be anything but meticulous? Have you ever had the chance to talk to any of the guys out there cutting lacquers? I suggest talking to guys like Kevin Gray, Chris Bellman or Bernie Grundman. They are very good at clearing these kinds of things up.



http://www.resolutionmag.com/pdfs/KNOWHOW/VINYLA~1.PDF



"The vinyl disc doesn't have the full usable dynamic range of modern digital media and this has to be borne in

mind when mixing for it. If you make the right adjustments during mixing, the transfer to disc can be a relatively

painless process. Otherwise you leave it to the skill of the cutting engineer to realise your mix on disc; he will

have to apply what processing he needs to achieve that with no guarantee that it is true to what you had in mind

when mixing."



this is sage advice. But it doesn't tell us about what went into the actual cutting of any given LP






The fact is that the audiophile labels you mention above and several others have actually managed to cut many LPs of many great titles without using any compression, without *needing to roll the highs or bass. (this is not to say that no EQ is applied to make for better sound) And they do it without folding the bass to mono. Many of these labels do the same titles on LP, CD and SACD. Do you think they are deliberately sabotaging the CDs and SACDs to make the vinyl sound better so as to boost the success of their vinyl sales?






No, I think they tweak the recording on vinyl to make it sound good on vinyl playback systems.








Why do you think that?




Because they sound great.



That is circular logic. Do you have any reason that will stand up to scrutiny?







As far as folding the bass to mono...you shouldn't notice if they did it right as it's only the deep bass which provides the most benefit and which has no perceived direction.








It's not a question of noticing it. The companies making these records are stating that they are not doing it. If they are lying it would be quite easy to catch them at it since it is easy enough to determine if the bass is mono or stereo.




Why would they make such a claim?


I'm thinking because it's true...

Low frequency bass peak level capability is significantly greater in mono. There is no perceived directionality to these frequencies so there is no reason not to do it.

A superior result can be had by doing it.


How do you know? Have you done any blind comparisons to varify this subjective opinion?



Sounds like another crock of BS to keep the audiophools off their backs to me.


Sorry if you are finding these basic verifiable facts about how actual records are cut by these labels. Don't know what else to tell you. again you might try talking to some of these cutting engineers before declaring their methodologies to be BS.



Note: We're not talking about folding everything below 400 hz to mono.

Sub 100 is fine even though most say anything up to 200 lacks direction.



I am aware of the urban legends of folding the bass to mono to cut lacquers.. I believe the typical roll off point was actually said to be 60 hz. I think you are also very much over simplifying the issue of mono vs. stereo bass.



RTI does the cutting for Classic. Their guidance is here.



http://www.recordtech.com/prodsounds.htm



"The moral for engineers is: If you are looking for hot levels or long sides, don't pan instruments like drums and percussion hard left and right. Keep the bass and bass drum in the center, and keep everything in phase. An out of phase snare or bass drum can wreak havoc. Use an oscilloscope if possible!"



You do realize they are talking about recordings? Perhaps you are also aware that they often cut LPs at 45rpm with very short sides? Ever wonder why?



  #20   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Scott[_6_] Scott[_6_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 642
Default How pure is the signal when it reaches our ears?

On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 9:57:54 AM UTC-8, ScottW wrote:
On Tuesday, January 28, 2014 11:06:43 AM UTC-8, Scott wrote:
=20
On Tuesday, January 28, 2014 10:13:37 AM UTC-8, ScottW wrote:

=20
=20

=20
On Tuesday, January 28, 2014 4:41:48 AM UTC-8, Scott wrote:

=20
=20
=20
=20

=20
I have no idea why a brick walled master would not be able to be =

cut on vinyl.
=20
=20
=20
=20

=20
It's harder because everything is maxed out from top to bottom.

=20
=20
=20
=20

=20
Maxed out in the digital domain. The analog level is easily set with=

in cutters limits. It's probably actually easier to get an optimal level w=
ith such a low dynamic range signal.
=20
=20

=20
=20

=20
=20

=20
The very FAQ you cited seems to disagree with this assertion

=20
=20
=20
Please be specific as I don't see what you're referring to.


No need to be specific since it is pretty much everything you quoted.


=20
=20
=20
=20

=20
=20
=20
=20

=20
It will just have to be at a level that is trackable with such na=

sty high frequency hash created by clipping.=20
=20
=20
=20
=20

=20
That is one way of dealing with it but a clipped digital signal is =

not something you want to try to cut into a lacquer at any level.=20
=20
=20

=20
Of course, garbage in =3D garbage out. I'm trying to focus on what o=

ne can technically do without more harm.
=20
=20

=20
It's not just garbage it's a hard angle in the wave. Clearly this is go=

ing to be an issue in cutting.
=20
=20
=20
Yes, it will be filtered again at the cutter...even after reconstruction =

filtering in the DAC. You do realize that this filter limits DAC HF output=
of even digitally clipped signals?


How does the cutter filter clipped signals?=20


=20
=20

=20
=20
=20
=20

=20
Unlike digital, vinyls peak levels are a function of frequency du=

e to print through and trackability. If one wants to cut an album with fla=
t frequency response they will simply sacrifice dynamic range having to ke=
ep peak levels at the limits reasonable. Few recording engineers choose to=
do this instead tweaking the low and high ends. Bass is often made mono (n=
o big deal as very low bass in a room lacks direction) to improve tracking =
and reduce amplitude.
=20
=20

=20
=20

=20
this does happen. How regularly it happens is debatable. It also de=

pends on=20
=20
what records you are buying.

=20
=20

=20
=20
=20
Seems to be discussed as std practice on vinyl mastering tutorials a=

nd FAQs.
=20
=20

=20
=20
=20
It may seem to be discussed as such on mastering tutorials and FAQs (al=

though not on the one *you* cited) but in my many conversations with actual=
mastering engineers they tend to write this stuff off as extremely uncommo=
n to the point of being urban legend.=20
=20
=20
=20
I'm going to have to defer to RTI's website.


Well let's see what they say.

"The phonograph record is a marvelous medium for storing and reproducing so=
und. With frequency response from 7 Hz to 25kHz and over 75 dB dynamic rang=
e possible, it is capable of startling realism. Its ability to convey a sen=
se of space, that is width and depth of sound stage, with a degree of openn=
ess and airiness, is unrivaled by anything but the most esoteric digital sy=
stems."

No mention anywhere I could find about folding the bass to mono. And only s=
ome basic advice of avoiding excessive treble boost "Watch excessive treble=
boost in the 8 to 16 kHz range in mixing" Nowhere at the RTI website does =
it support any of your assertions about how records have been cut.=20

http://www.recordtech.com/prodsounds.htm


=20
=20
=20
I'm also dropping this as neither google nor any of my readers can cope w=

ith your post formatting. It either lacks indents on response or adds dozen=
s of blank lines I've been trying to tediously delete.
=20
I think the references I've provided define quite clearly the limitations=

of vinyl cutting and how they are typically addressed to provide the best =
results possible.
=20



I think your references and your assertions are at odds with each other. I =
have no problem with your references and what they actually state. Sorry yo=
u are having trouble with the google groups formatting



  #21   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Scott[_6_] Scott[_6_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 642
Default How pure is the signal when it reaches our ears?

On Thursday, January 30, 2014 10:00:29 AM UTC-8, ScottW wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message

...

On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 9:57:54 AM UTC-8, ScottW wrote:

On Tuesday, January 28, 2014 11:06:43 AM UTC-8, Scott wrote:




No need to be specific since it is pretty much everything you quoted.






I'm going to accept that as a retraction.



It's not a retraction. But you are certainly free to put any spin on it you want.



Here's another interesting quote from Bob Katz



Did you know that an analog and digital recording of the same source sound very

different in terms of loudness? Make an analog recording and a digital recording

of the same

music. Dub the analog recording to the digital domain, peaking at 0 dB. The

analog dub will

sound about 6 dB louder than the all-digital recording! That's a lot. This is

because the typical

peak-to-average ratio of an analog recording is about 14 dB, compared with as

much as 20 dB for

an uncompressed digital recording. Analog tape's built-in compressor is a means

of getting

recordings to sound louder (oops, did I just reveal a secret?). That's why pop

producers who

record digitally may have to compress or limit to compete with the loudness of

their analog

counterparts.



http://www.thesoundmanifesto.co.uk/D...es_BobKatz.pdf



An interesting take on analog and digital recordings. It has nothing to do with the subject of vinyl though.





How does the cutter filter clipped signals?




You left the all important HF. It's just a filter and indiscrimately filters


I was talking about clipped signals not HF signals. So all I left out was your attempt to change the issue of difficulty of cutting a clipped signal. It is an issue regardless of the frequency of the signal.



according to frequency. What remains the cutter should be able to cut. It has

no discriminating taste in sound quality.



It's not about sound quality. It's about the shape of the wave.











I'm going to have to defer to RTI's website.




Well let's see what they say.




"The phonograph record is a marvelous medium for storing and reproducing sound.

With frequency response from 7 Hz to 25kHz and over 75 dB dynamic range

possible, it is capable of startling realism. Its ability to convey a sense of

space, that is width and depth of sound stage, with a degree of openness and

airiness, is unrivaled by anything but the most esoteric digital systems."



No mention anywhere I could find about folding the bass to mono. And only some

basic advice of avoiding excessive treble boost "Watch excessive treble boost in

the 8 to 16 kHz range in mixing" Nowhere at the RTI website does it support any

of your assertions about how records have been cut.





Try reading past the introductory paragraph and you'll find this.



"The moral for engineers is: If you are looking for hot levels or long sides,

don't pan instruments like drums and percussion hard left and right. Keep the

bass and bass drum in the center, and keep everything in phase. An out of phase

snare or bass drum can wreak havoc. Use an oscilloscope if possible!"



And this has what to do with your assertion that it is common practice to roll the highs and lows and fold the bass to mono? I see nothing in that quote that supports your assertion that this is how the vast majority of records have been cut.


  #22   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Scott[_6_] Scott[_6_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 642
Default How pure is the signal when it reaches our ears?

On Thursday, January 30, 2014 7:08:55 PM UTC-8, ScottW wrote:
On Thursday, January 30, 2014 3:50:43 PM UTC-8, Scott wrote:
=20
On Thursday, January 30, 2014 10:00:29 AM UTC-8, ScottW wrote:

=20
=20
=20
=20
=20
=20

=20
How does the cutter filter clipped signals?

=20
=20

=20
=20
=20
You left the all important HF. It's just a filter and indiscrimatel=

y filters=20
=20
=20

=20
=20

=20
=20

=20
I was talking about clipped signals not HF signals. So all I left out w=

as your attempt to change the issue of difficulty of cutting a clipped sign=
al. It is an issue regardless of the frequency of the signal.
=20
=20

=20
=20
=20
My point remains that it's not difficult to cut a digitally clipped signa=

l once it's been filtered and leveled appropriately for vinyl. It won't so=
und good...but that's another matter.


Which is irrelevant to my point that a clipped digital signal is one thing =
that would make a brick walled source signal particularly difficult to cut.=
You still have yet to explain how a cutter filters such a signal.=20
=20
=20

=20
=20

=20
according to frequency. What remains the cutter should be able to cu=

t. It has=20
=20
no discriminating taste in sound quality.

=20
=20

=20
=20
=20
It's not about sound quality. It's about the shape of the wave.

=20
=20
=20
It's clear you don't understand that to have a wave shape the cutter can=

't handle that wave must have frequency components or levels outside the ra=
nge of the cutter. Levels are always adjusted in transfer from one media t=
o another and there will be at least two stages of filtering to eliminate u=
nacceptable frequency components before cutting.

Sorry but you are just plain wrong about that. Ever heard of a square wave?=
Do tell me how a square wave has to have a component or level outside of t=
he range of a cutter? It's the geometry that makes it pretty much impossibl=
e to cut. Not the frequency and not the amplitude. So tell us how this sort=
of wave is filtered by the cutter.=20
=20
=20
=20
=20
=20
=20
=20
=20

=20
Try reading past the introductory paragraph and you'll find this.

=20
=20
=20
"The moral for engineers is: If you are looking for hot levels or lon=

g sides, don't pan instruments like drums and percussion hard left and rig=
ht. Keep the=20
=20
bass and bass drum in the center, and keep everything in phase. An ou=

t of phase=20
=20
snare or bass drum can wreak havoc. Use an oscilloscope if possible!"

=20
=20

=20
=20

=20
=20

=20
=20

=20
=20

=20
And this has what to do with your assertion that it is common practice =

to roll the highs and lows and fold the bass to mono? I see nothing in that=
quote that supports your assertion that this is how the vast majority of r=
ecords have been cut.
=20
=20
=20
FYI, a centered instrument is recorded in mono.


No it's not. Not that it would even matter. There are plenty of recordings =
that don't have the bass and drums dead center. What is your evidence that =
the vast majority of them had their bass folded to mono? You sources simply=
do not support that assertion. Not even close.


  #23   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Scott[_6_] Scott[_6_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 642
Default How pure is the signal when it reaches our ears?

On Friday, January 31, 2014 11:25:49 AM UTC-8, ScottW wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message=20
=20
...
=20
On Thursday, January 30, 2014 7:08:55 PM UTC-8, ScottW wrote:
=20
On Thursday, January 30, 2014 3:50:43 PM UTC-8, Scott wrote:

=20

=20
On Thursday, January 30, 2014 10:00:29 AM UTC-8, ScottW wrote:

=20
=20
=20
Which is irrelevant to my point that a clipped digital signal is one thi=

ng that=20
=20
would make a brick walled source signal particularly difficult to cut. Y=

ou=20
=20
still have yet to explain how a cutter filters such a signal.

=20

=20
=20
=20
Ok...another reference though I'm beginning to wonder if it will matter.
=20
=20
=20
http://gottagrooverecords.com/vinyl-mastering/
=20
=20
=20
We work from the assumption that your master is "vinyl ready". We do not=

alter=20
=20
your audio without contacting you first. That being said, a couple of th=

ings=20
=20
generally happen when your audio is cut to a master disc. A low cut filte=

r is=20
=20
used at 40Hz to control and maintain the bass frequency information of th=

e=20
=20
audio. This keeps the grooves from slamming into one another and helps f=

it your=20
=20
audio into the space provided by the lacquer disc. A high cut filter is =

placed=20
=20
around 16Khz to help control high frequency information in the audio. Th=

e vinyl=20
=20
medium does not "like" a lot of high frequency information. Instruments =

such as=20
=20
hi-hats, cymbals and tambourines often cause distortion if all high end i=

s=20
=20
allowed to pass through to the cutting lathe. Vocals that contain a lot =

of=20
=20
"SSSS" sounds (sibilance) will also cause a distorted sound on your maste=

r=20
=20
recording if not properly treated.
=20
Our mastering chain is clean and simple, in order to provide the highest =

quality=20
=20
and least alteration of your sound. We use a classic Neumann VMS-70 cutt=

ing=20
=20
lathe, which has been an industry standard for over 35 years. All audio =

is=20
=20
loaded into a specially built computer system that uses professional leve=

l=20
=20
software and plug-ins. Audio out of the computer is converted to analog =

via a=20
=20
Lynx II soundcard/converter which supplies clean, uncolored audio for the=

lathe=20
=20
to cut. The audio is routed directly into the cutting lathe rack from th=

e=20
=20
soundcard. Our Neumann VG 74 B cutting rack includes a high frequency li=

miter=20
=20
that helps to reduce the possibility for distortion by compressing certai=

n high=20
=20
frequency material.



So you found one mastering facility out of how many that actually does "gen=
erally" roll the highs and lows. Still no mention of folding the bass to mo=
no. 1. Who is Gottagroove records? 2. So what? You found one facility that =
"generally" two out of the three things you were asserting is done to the v=
ast majority of records. The RTI webpage that you cited as a reference sure=
didn't support any of your assertions. Nothing at Bernie Grundman's webpag=
e to support them. http://www.berniegrundmanmastering.c...nical/disc_cu=
t.html I don't see anything at Cohearant either. http://www.berniegrundman=
mastering.com/technical/disc_cut.html How about Sterling? http://sterling-=
sound.com/mastering/about/ Nothinin. Now you could talk to the cutting engi=
neers at these, the finest cutting facilities in the world and get their ta=
ke on these things. Or you can cherry pick one facility that was opened in =
2009 and has no track record in the industry.=20
=20
=20
=20
=20
=20
or a discussion board if you prefer.
=20
http://www.gearslutz.com/board/maste...astering-guid=

elines-2.html
=20
=20
=20
Most interesting point in that thread to me is the claim that vinyl can b=

e=20
=20
better than CD...it has to be no more than 6-9 min per side at 45 rpm.



Not even relevant much less a reliable source.=20
=20
=20
=20

=20

=20

=20
It's clear you don't understand that to have a wave shape the cutter =

can't=20
=20
handle that wave must have frequency components or levels outside the r=

ange of=20
=20
the cutter. Levels are always adjusted in transfer from one media t=

o=20
=20
another and there will be at least two stages of filtering to eliminate=

=20
=20
unacceptable frequency components before cutting.

=20
=20
=20
Sorry but you are just plain wrong about that. Ever heard of a square wa=

ve? Do=20
=20
tell me how a square wave has to have a component or level outside of th=

e range=20
=20
of a cutter? It's the geometry that makes it pretty much impossible to =

cut.=20
=20
Not the frequency and not the amplitude. So tell us how this sort of wav=

e is=20
=20
filtered by the cutter.

=20
=20
=20
The geometry of a sqaure wave is directly related to the frequency conten=

t.
  #24   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Scott[_6_] Scott[_6_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 642
Default How pure is the signal when it reaches our ears?

On Saturday, February 1, 2014 3:11:13 PM UTC-8, ScottW wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message=20
=20
...
=20
=20
=20
=20
=20
So you found one mastering facility out of how many that actually does=

=20
=20
"generally" roll the highs and lows. Still no mention of folding the bas=

s to=20
=20
mono.

=20
=20
=20
This reference was specifically to show that high frequency limiters are =

std in=20
=20
the Neumann racks driving their cutters.


Which still does not support any of your assertions on how the vast majorit=
y of LPs were actually cut.

=20
=20
=20
But if you actually read the site you'd have also found
=20
=20
=20
"5)Always center your bass frequencies. Drums, bass guitar and low synth=

s need=20
=20
to be in the center of the stereo image to ensure proper groove geometry.=

"
=20


Not sure I see any point in reading the webpage of some mastering facility =
that opened in 2009 and has no track record for producing high quality mast=
ering for vinyl. Especially in light of the fact that I personally own lite=
rally hundreds of LPs that were cut without any rolling of the highs and lo=
ws or folding of the bass to mono. Citing online forums where any yahoo can=
say anything they want and citing one new mastering facility with no track=
record in the industry will not change that simple fact. Frankly I have no=
interest in your scavenger hunt to find what little support there actually=
is for your beliefs about how lacquers are actually cut. I have given you =
all the contacts you need for the top mastering facilities. You are free to=
do what I did and actually talk tot he real experts and get the best infor=
mation possible on the subject.=20


Here is another.
=20
http://www.audiomasterclass.com/acce...ential-part-o=

f-the-vinyl-experience
=20
=20
=20
Control of acceleration is provided by an acceleration limiter, invented =

by=20
=20
Neumann, in the cutting lathe, which obviously affects the audio signal. =

The=20
=20
audible effect of the acceleration limiter is similar to that of a de-ess=

er,=20
=20
though where the de-esser would be fine-tuned to vocal sibilance, the=20
=20
acceleration limiter is more of a brute force tool. The purpose of the=20
=20
acceleration limiter is to protect your stylus and your vinyl, and if a l=

ittle=20
=20
hi-fi is lost in the process so be it.


Once again an utterly irrelevant point. Unless you think I have been assert=
ing that limiters actually *don't exist* in this world.=20


=20
=20
=20
=20
=20
1. Who is Gottagroove records? 2. So what? You found one facility that=

=20
=20
"generally" two out of the three things you were asserting is done to th=

e vast=20
=20
majority of records. The RTI webpage that you cited as a reference sure=

didn't=20
=20
support any of your assertions.

=20
=20
=20
What does this support?
=20
http://www.recordtech.com/prodsounds.htm
=20
=20
=20
"Watch excessive treble boost in the 8 to 16 kHz range in mixing, you won=

't get=20
=20
it back on your record. You can't break the laws of physics, sorry. A goo=

d idea=20
=20
is to check your mix against a record you like with lots of cymbals. If y=

ou hear=20
=20
a lot more sizzle on your tape, chances are it won't make it to the recor=

d.=20
=20
Particularly watch those 'S's. Use a de'esser on vocals. I don't do=20
=20
endorsements, but dbx makes a great one. This will give you more overall =

treble=20
=20
because in cutting your record, the treble limiter won't be chomping on y=

our=20
=20
cymbals too."
=20

In short it supports the notion that there are certain qualities in vinyl p=
layback that exceed those of CD playback subjectively speaking (unless you =
think CD playback is "esoteric") What it does not support is your assertion=
s that the vast majority of LPs were cut with the highs and lows rolled and=
the bass folded to mono. But we have already been over this.=20
=20
Nothing at Bernie Grundman's webpage to support them.=20

=20
http://www.berniegrundmanmastering.c.../disc_cut.html

=20
=20
=20
Not this version which lacks any technial detail...but in an earlier vers=

ion of=20
=20
his website I found copied on the classical group offered more detail on =

their=20
=20
board.
=20
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!to...recordings/iy=

w7BC4CmjE
=20
he bragged of "Central to the mastering systems are our all-discrete, A/B=

analog=20
=20
consoles. The equalizers, limiters and line-amps are proprietary integrat=

ed=20
=20
elements"
=20
=20
=20
Keyword....limiters.



I suppose it would be a key word were it on topic. Again I am not disputing=
the existence of limiters. And I am done with any further discussions abou=
t the existence of limiters since I never disputed their existence.

Now if you have any meaningful evidence to support your assertions about th=
e vast majority of LPs having been rolled on the top and bottom and with ba=
ss folded to mono please let's talk about that. I am really not interested =
in this irrelevant discussion on the existence of limiters.=20



  #25   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Scott[_6_] Scott[_6_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 642
Default How pure is the signal when it reaches our ears?

On Monday, February 3, 2014 10:12:47 AM UTC-8, ScottW wrote:
Then one final reference which I'm sure you will reject with all the othe=

rs.

Scott, please, it's bad enough that you are misrepresenting the meaning of =
your references. Please don't misrepresent my actions. I have not *rejected=
* any of your references. I have merely pointed out their complete lack of =
relevance to the argument about how real records were actually cut.=20

=20
Though I do begin to wonder why I'm the only one providing evidence
=20
to support my position.


But you aren't providing evidence to support *your* position. I wonder why =
I am the only one who bothers to get relevant information from actual exper=
ts on the subject? Do you really want to know how records are and have been=
actually made or do you just want to argue in favor of your prejudices? If=
you really want to know then do yourself a favor, stop arguing with me abo=
ut it and ask the real experts. I have given you all the contact info you n=
eed to do so.=20


=20
=20
=20
http://productionadvice.co.uk/vinyl-mastering/
=20
=20
=20
It directly supports my comment that highly compressed sources (which inc=

ludes=20
=20
brickwalled material) are easily cut as the avg level is easily set withi=

n=20
=20
range.


Well no...it doesn't really. Here are the key elements you need to pay atte=
ntion to.=20
"A great master for CD can be a great master for vinyl, too." I don't mean =
to speak for Ian on the subject but i am pretty sure he will tell you that =
a "great master" is not one that is brick walled.=20

Now he does go on to say this...

"I often read people saying that you can't cut super-hot "loudness war" aud=
io to vinyl, for fear of the needle skipping and jumping off the record.

But that's wrong. In fact, the exact opposite is true !

There's no technical reason that you can't put "loudness war" style music o=
n vinyl - to use a well-known example, the vinyl and CD releases of Metalli=
ca's "Death Magnetic" sound very similar indeed."

Which is an opinion he offers that does support your specific position that=
"loud" source material can in fact easily be cut to vinyl. However Ian goe=
s on to say this...

""If your CD master has what I consider optimal dynamics - DR8 or more over=
all - then it's perfectly suitable for a flat transfer to vinyl."

Seems to me those two statements by the same guy are at odds with each othe=
r. OR he simply thinks dynamic range simply isn't an issue either way. Eith=
er way what you have managed to do is give us references that offer conflic=
ting opinions about the ill effects on brickwalling a signal before cutting=
it to a lacquer. Well hey, maybe Ian is right about it. Maybe I am not giv=
ing the medium due credit for it's ability to deal with extreme compression=
and digital clipping. I suppose it's not something of major interest to me=
since I try to stay away from anything that is brickwalled be it on CD or =
vinyl.=20

Lastly NONE of this supports your assertions that the vast majority of LPs =
were cut with rolled highs and rolled lows and bass folded to mono. This is=
my major point of contention. This is an urban myth and you have offered n=
othing to support it.=20
=20
=20
=20
It also clearly states that if mastering engineers don't take steps to co=

ntrol=20
=20
HF content content, sybilance, or out of phase bass....then the cutting e=

ngineer=20
=20
will to produce a playable result.



It's a far too overly broad claim to have much meaning. The fact still rema=
ins that I personally have a massive body of LPs of some of the best soundi=
ng recordings in the history of recorded music that have been cut without t=
he use of limiters, without rolling the highs or lows for the sake of the c=
ut and without folding the bass to mono. So clearly the *need* to tweak the=
source material in order to get it to cut properly is something that has t=
o be decided on a case by case basis. And one can not make any assumptions =
about how any given record was cut based on these very broad rules of thumb=
..=20
=20
=20
=20
"At least, assuming you don't have any wild sibilance, hugely out-of-phas=

e=20
=20
content, or all the bass panned to one channel !
=20
And even if you do, the cutting engineer will take account of that as a m=

atter=20
=20
of course during the cut - it doesn't require a separate mastering sessio=

n."


Ian is again making some pretty broad generalizations here and he really ca=
n't speak for all the other mastering engineers out there. I'd love to see =
him discuss this with guys like Kevin Gray or Bernie Grundman who have in f=
act cut hundreds of LPs without the use of limiters and without rolling the=
highs or lows or folding the bass to mono for the purpose of making the cu=
t work properly.=20
=20
=20
=20
=20
=20
"The most cost-effective way to get a great-sounding release on vinyl is =

simply=20
=20
to send the hi-res master files directly to the cutting engineer. They wi=

ll=20
=20
choose the best settings to get good results from the vinyl format based =

on the=20
=20
sound of your material, as part of the normal price. For a well-mastered =

album,=20
=20
it's simply a case of choosing the correct level and perhaps a few minor=

=20
=20
tweaks - no extra mastering is required."


It may be "cost effective" but hardly a formula for excellent sound. If one=
were to take this assertion seriously one would expect excellent sound fro=
m labels such as 4MWBs. Have you ever heard any of their releases? Ian is w=
ay way off base here.=20
=20
=20
=20
These tweeks are accepted as normal processing and consultation with the=

=20
=20
mastering engineer often only occurrs if they are determined to affect th=

e final=20
=20
sound. What probably leaves you in denial is the that these changes can =

seem to=20
=20
be dramatic yet they do not change the percieved sound of the final resul=

t.


  #26   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Scott[_6_] Scott[_6_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 642
Default How pure is the signal when it reaches our ears?

On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 3:34:23 AM UTC-8, ScottW wrote:
On Monday, February 3, 2014 12:38:55 PM UTC-8, Scott wrote:
=20
On Monday, February 3, 2014 10:12:47 AM UTC-8, ScottW wrote:

=20
=20

=20
Then one final reference which I'm sure you will reject with all the =

others.
=20
=20

=20
=20

=20
=20

=20
Scott, please, it's bad enough that you are misrepresenting the meaning=

of your references. Please don't misrepresent my actions. I have not *rej=
ected* any of your references. I have merely pointed out their complete la=
ck of relevance to the argument about how real records were actually cut.=
=20
=20
=20

=20
=20
=20
I don't know how repeated and consistent references indicating these are =

industry standard practices mandated for a good result on vinyl media is no=
t relevant.


Your references in no way state that folding the bass to mono and rolling t=
he highs and lows are industry standard practices.=20
=20
=20

=20
=20

=20
=20

=20
=20

=20
Though I do begin to wonder why I'm the only one providing evidence

=20
=20

=20
=20

=20
=20

=20
to support my position.

=20
=20

=20
=20

=20
=20

=20
But you aren't providing evidence to support *your* position. I wonder =

why I am the only one who bothers to get relevant information from actual =
experts on the subject?=20
=20
=20
=20
Provide a reference. I haven't seen one.



You actually have seen two and I'll add a third. but just to be absolutely =
clear I will hand it to you on a proverbial silver plate.

Contact info for Kevin Gray at Cohearant
http://www.cohearent.com/contact/

Contact info for Bernie Grundman=20
http://www.berniegrundmanmastering.com/contact.html

And for a third reference let me introduce you to mastering engineer Doug S=
ax

Contact info for Doug Sax at The Mastering Lab
http://themasteringlab.com/contact/


Please include the cutting engineers list of equipment in the chain as w=

ell.


I just gave you contact info on three cutting engineers. I suggest you get =
the answers from them, the most accurate and reliable source. They will kno=
w better than anyone else what equipment they used.

=20
=20
=20
=20
=20
=20
=20
Do you really want to know how records are and have been actually made o=

r do you just want to argue in favor of your prejudices? If you really wan=
t to know then do yourself a favor, stop arguing with me about it and ask =
the real experts. I have given you all the contact info you need to do so.=
=20
=20
=20
=20
These references are from experts.



They certainly are not experts on how Kevin Gray, Bernie Grundman and Doug =
Sax cut their lacquers without folding the bass to mono, using limiters or =
rolling the highs and lows. The experts on that subject would be Kevin Gray=
, Bernie Grundman and Doug Sax.=20
=20
=20
=20
=20

=20
=20

=20
http://productionadvice.co.uk/vinyl-mastering/

=20
=20
=20
=20

=20
It directly supports my comment that highly compressed sources (which=

includes=20
=20
brickwalled material) are easily cut as the avg level is easily set w=

ithin=20
=20
range.

=20
=20

=20
=20

=20
=20

=20
Well no...it doesn't really. Here are the key elements you need to pay =

attention to.=20
=20
=20

=20
"A great master for CD can be a great master for vinyl, too." I don't m=

ean to speak for Ian on the subject but i am pretty sure he will tell you =
that a "great master" is not one that is brick walled.=20
=20
=20
=20
Of course not. But a great master for vinyl must be Dess'd, have centere=

d bass, and limited HF energy


That is your assertion not Ian's and it is an overly broad assertion that d=
oes not take the actual source material into consideration. Fortunately the=
top mastering engineers know better and make decisions based on the source=
material they have in their hands rather than relying on such broad assump=
tions about what will make a great master.


=20
=20
=20
=20
=20
=20

=20
=20

=20
=20

=20
Now he does go on to say this...

=20
=20
=20
"I often read people saying that you can't cut super-hot "loudness war"=

audio to vinyl, for fear of the needle skipping and jumping off the record=
..
=20
But that's wrong. In fact, the exact opposite is true !

=20
There's no technical reason that you can't put "loudness war" style mus=

ic on vinyl - to use a well-known example, the vinyl and CD releases of Met=
allica's "Death Magnetic" sound very similar indeed."
=20
=20

=20
=20

=20
=20

=20
Which is an opinion he offers that does support your specific position =

that "loud" source material can in fact easily be cut to vinyl. However Ian=
goes on to say this...
=20
=20

=20
=20

=20
=20

=20
""If your CD master has what I consider optimal dynamics - DR8 or more =

overall - then it's perfectly suitable for a flat transfer to vinyl."
=20
=20

=20
=20

=20
=20

=20
Seems to me those two statements by the same guy are at odds with each =

other.=20
=20
=20
=20
Not really. DR, avg level, FR, and the resulting final product S/N ratio=

are all interrelated. He's just saying with not too high a DR, you can ha=
ve an acceptable level cut to vinyl with this caveat, "At least, assuming y=
ou don't have any wild sibilance, hugely out-of-phase content, or all the b=
ass panned to one channel !


No he said exactly the opposite. "If your CD master has what I consider opt=
imal dynamics - DR8 or more overall - then it's perfectly suitable for a fl=
at transfer to vinyl." He said DR of 8 or MORE not less. But if you want to=
continue to argue with your own references that's up to you. Once you sett=
le that argument then maybe we can go from there. ;-)

=20
=20
=20
OR he simply thinks dynamic range simply isn't an issue either way. Eith=

er way what you have managed to do is give us references that offer confli=
cting opinions about the ill effects on brickwalling a signal before cutti=
ng it to a lacquer.=20
=20
=20
=20
He doesn't address the poor fidelity of brickwalling in digital...just th=

at that resulting compressed signal can be cut. Your idea of a square wave=
never makes it out of the DAC.


Yes he does address it. That is his quest these days, to address the ill ef=
fects of brick walling.=20
=20
=20
=20
=20
=20
Well hey, maybe Ian is right about it. Maybe I am not giving the medium =

due credit for it's ability to deal with extreme compression and digital c=
lipping.
=20
=20
=20
The media actually likes extreme compression. Makes it easy to set correc=

t level for max S/N....but the media has no concern for digital clipping as=
all the real nasty stuff doesn't get past the filter.


It would seem that some mastering engineers have expressed the opposite opi=
nion.


=20
=20
=20
I suppose it's not something of major interest to me since I try to sta=

y away from anything that is brickwalled be it on CD or vinyl.=20
=20
=20

=20
=20

=20
=20

=20
Lastly NONE of this supports your assertions that the vast majority of =

LPs were cut with rolled highs and rolled lows and bass folded to mono. Th=
is is my major point of contention. This is an urban myth and you have off=
ered nothing to support it.=20
=20
=20
=20
Every cutting house site that provides guidance for mastering to custome=

rs speaks of each of these issues. This final reference is clear indicatio=
n that if the master doesn't properly address these limitations, the cuttin=
g engineer will.


You are making a lot of assumptions here. Sorry but I am not willing to mak=
e the same assumptions.=20
=20
=20
=20
=20

=20
It also clearly states that if mastering engineers don't take steps t=

o control=20
=20
HF content content, sybilance, or out of phase bass....then the cutti=

ng engineer=20
=20
=20

=20
will to produce a playable result.

=20
=20

=20
=20

=20
=20

=20
=20

=20
=20

=20
It's a far too overly broad claim to have much meaning. The fact still =

remains that I personally have a massive body of LPs of some of the best so=
unding recordings in the history of recorded music that have been cut witho=
ut the use of limiters,
=20
=20
=20
There is almost no way for you to know that on the vast majority of your =

collection. But let's start with just one reference.=20


1. Who said anything about the vast majority of my collection? I said sever=
al hundred records. It's a lot easier to have a meaningful conversation if =
you can keep the facts straight. You keep asking for references and I keep =
giving them to you. It actually is quite easy for me to know how those hund=
reds of LPs were cut since I know who cut them and how it was claimed they =
were cut. it's not rocket science. All you have to do is ask. See above for=
the specific names and contact info.=20


=20
Please name the album and provide proof that in the complete mixing, mast=

ering, and cutting process there was no EQ, limiting, phase adjustment, cha=
nnel balancing, or compression to deal with the limitations of vinyl.


Name of "album?" we are talking about entire series of albums

AP Top 100 Jazz Cut by Kevin Gray
http://www.analogueproductions.com/i...LabelID=3D4085

AP Bluenote series cut by Kevin Gray
http://www.analogueproductions.com/i...LabelID=3D4082

AP Impulse series cut by Bernie Grundman
http://www.analogueproductions.com/i...ch&group=3D219

AP Verve series cut by Bernie Grundman
http://www.analogueproductions.com/i...LabelID=3D4084

Music Matters Bluenote series cut bt Kevin Gray
http://www.musicmattersjazz.com/category_s/83.htm

The Classic 45rpm series of RCA and Mercury Living Presence Classical LPs c=
ut by Bernie Grundman

The ORG series of Verve LPs cut by Bernie Grundman
http://www.elusivedisc.com/ORG_Origi...-180g-45rpm/p=
roducts/1946/

The ORG Impulse series and London Blue Back series all cut by Bernie Grundm=
an
http://www.originalrecordingsgroup.com/htm/catalog.htm

The entire Sheffield Labs D2D series cut by Doug Sax

You know how to contact Kevin Gray, Bernie Grundman and Doug Sax.=20


=20
=20
=20
=20
=20
=20
=20
without rolling the highs or lows for the sake of the cut and without =

folding the bass to mono. So clearly the *need* to tweak the source materi=
al in order to get it to cut properly is something that has to be decided =
on a case by case basis. And one can not make any assumptions about how an=
y given record was cut based on these very broad rules of thumb.=20
=20
=20
=20
Obviously not...and you keep claiming "rolled to mono" while I keep telli=

ng you that low bass can be centered (or phase adjusted) and you won't noti=
ce it.


I have never made any claims about "rolled to mono" which in audio terms is=
gibberish. I have talked about "folding" the bass to mono or as it is ofte=
n called summing the bass to mono. Both describe a specific action that a m=
astering engineer may take in cutting a lacquer. You keep talking about thi=
ngs that are different than that specific act. If you don't understand the =
difference then it is hard to talk about the subject.


=20
=20
"At least, assuming you don't have any wild sibilance, hugely out-of-=

phase=20
=20
content, or all the bass panned to one channel !

=20
=20

=20
=20

=20
=20

=20
And even if you do, the cutting engineer will take account of that as=

a matter=20
=20
of course during the cut - it doesn't require a separate mastering se=

ssion."
=20
=20

=20
=20

=20
=20

=20
=20

=20
=20

=20
Ian is again making some pretty broad generalizations here and he reall=

y can't speak for all the other mastering engineers out there. I'd love to=
see him discuss this with guys like Kevin Gray or Bernie Grundman who hav=
e in fact cut hundreds of LPs without the use of limiters and without roll=
ing the highs or lows or folding the bass to mono for the purpose of makin=
g the cut work properly.=20
=20
=20
=20
Well there is an interesting and pertinent interview with Bernie reprinte=

d in the Mastering Engineers Handbook, page 193.
=20
=20
You can read it here.
=20
=20
=20
http://books.google.com/books?id=3Dz...pg=3DPA193&dq=

=3DBernie+grundman+on+vinyl+mastering&source=3Dbl& ots=3DgIxM_nl8Fa&sig=3Dom=
BhB4IkgfwAVFEH5UBGOb61ih8&hl=3Den&sa=3DX&ei=3DI1fw Uo6jIMrCyQHggIHwAQ&ved=3D=
0CGkQ6AEwCQ#v=3Donepage&q=3DBernie%20grundman%20on %20vinyl%20mastering&f=3D=
false
=20


You might find it interesting. That is a moot point. But it certainly is no=
t pertinent. It says nothing one way or another about your assertions that =
the vast majority of LP have been cut with the bass folded to mono and the =
highs and lows rolled so as to be able to cut the lacquer. =20

=20
I'll only bother to retype this one line but you should read it in it's e=

ntirety.
=20
=20
=20
"Whereas if you listen to old vinyl discs, you notice that they don't hav=

e anywhere near the bass or high end that CDs have nowadays because there w=
as a cutting limitation."
=20
=20


Do you thin that Bernie is talking about his records when he talks about "o=
ld vinyl?"


=20
The physics of vinyl haven't changed....unless you want to argue that ev=

eryone should have nothing but 8 min a side long 45s in their collections.
=20


Who said the physics have changed? The physics of aero engineering hasn't c=
hanged either. But I'm pretty sure there was some substantial technological=
advancements somewhere between Kittyhawk and today.=20
Why would I "want to argue that everyone should have nothing but 8 min a si=
de long 45s in their collections?" I have made no comments on what everyone=
*should or should not* have. I am talking about *what actually exists*. I =
suggest you take a good close look at the hundreds of records I cited for y=
ou that I also own. They are real. They do exist and that is what we seem t=
o disagree on.
Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
the aborigine reaches out the aborigine Pro Audio 1 November 12th 08 05:45 PM
FA: K & K Pure XLR PreAmp (NIB) fcr Marketplace 0 April 4th 07 05:27 PM
Pure Data [email protected] Pro Audio 0 September 5th 06 09:03 PM
Source signal vs reproduced signal [email protected] Vacuum Tubes 8 July 27th 06 07:12 PM
TV Sound Signal Blocked by Soundcard Signal in Stereo System! [email protected] Tech 2 May 22nd 06 11:39 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:20 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"