Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #241   Report Post  
S888Wheel
 
Posts: n/a
Default Steely Dan The Absolute Sound

Absolute Sound
From: chung
Date: 7/19/2004 7:06 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

S888Wheel wrote:

From: chung

Date: 7/18/2004 2:06 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: 1DBKc.114777$IQ4.80972@attbi_s02

Ban wrote:
S888Wheel wrote:

Measurements "pejudicing" (sic) customers? That's a new one.

No, It's nothing new.( except my unique spelling perhaps) Heck, just
look at all the folks that jumped on the band wagon with the very
early SS amps of the sixties. Some of them were really quite awful
but the meter reasers thought they were the cat's meow based on the
measurements.

If the sound was awful, they will have also measured bad. Maybe in those
times a distortion measurement was difficult to execute, but never the

less
it would have shown the low level distortion. The main reason people

bought
SS amps then was the affordable price and the overall satisfying
performance. And that moment tubes disappeared from one year to the next.

I think the measurements in those days were acceptable in terms of
distortion, but the consumer might have put too much emphasis on a
single number: THD at 1 KHz at max. power Certainly some manufacturers did.


And it seems certain magazines did as well. unfortunately for some

consumers
who took them at their word.


But that is an example of a consumer prejudiced by a poor review, *NOT*
an example prejudiced by a set of measurements. See the difference?



Measurements cannot "prejudice" customers.


Sure they can if they are lead to believe that they tell a story that they
don't really tell. funny how history repetes itself.


That's an example of a customer not being careful in understanding the
measurements, or putting too much faith in reviews.


It is an example of a customer being biased by measurements. If the customer
was not aware of the THD the customer might not assume that the awful sound he
is hearing should be assumed to be better as in more accurate. If one is under
the assumtion that they know something they don't really know based on a
measurement one can easily write off bad sound as the old garbage in gargage
out situation. Unfortunately one is settling for garbage out because they are
assuming something based on a measurement. Apparently in the early seventies
this was a common thing and a lot of people happily took home some pretty awful
sounding electronics.


Measurements cannot prejudice customers.


Sure they can. Just about anything that gets into a customers head can do so.

Measurements are facts. Facts
do not prejudice customers.


Sure they do this is a proven fact. Just look at the old blind speaker
comparisosns that tested for sighted bias of speakers. The size and looks of
the speakers created bias in at least 20% of the listeners enough to cause them
to prefer the speaker they did not prefer in blind comparisons. The size of the
speaker is a *fact*. One can measure it for size over and over again for
varification. It is an empirical fact. It is also a source of bias. facts can
bias people.

Only those who have incomplete facts or draw
the wrong conclusion from facts can prejudice themselves. Big difference
there.


You are still wrong. One can still be biased by measurements even if they have
every known measurement to mankind in their hands. It can still bias them.





It's the lack of
understanding of what measurements mean that could potentially mislead
customers.


THD did really seem to mean much with early SS amps did it? Yet it was the

king
of all measurements.


Not to me. Perhaps you meant to certain marketing types and certain
reviewers?


Yes it was king via popularity. Maybe I should have said the *president* of all
measurements.


How long have we known about cross-over distortion, and slew-rate
induced distortion? Since the '50's at least.


Unfortunately that didn't prevent the meter readers from endorsing crappy SS
amps adn leading audio into what some consider the dark ages. I suppose one
could say the subjectivist magazines exist because they were a reaction to the
dissatisfactory service provided by objectivist review magazines of the time.
That is a bit ironic.



On the other hand, subjective reviews can definitely
prejudice customers.


Oh I see, only that with which the objectivists disagree is capable of

creating
prejudice. Anything that a person associates with quality can prejudice a
customer. That can be a review or measurements depnding on the person's

mind
set.


How can facts prejudice?


See above.

Subjective reviews are not facts, they are
opinions, and expressions of personal impressions


So? No one has said otherwise have they?

.. A subjective review
says that an amp sounds great. The fact is that amp may not sound great
to everyone.


At least that is acknowledged in Stereophile. But the same is true apparently
with the WAVAC. Some say it should sound bad based on the measurements yet it
seems some people like what they hear.

On the other hand, measurements are repeatable and objective.

That doesn't mean they are not a source of bias.



The careful audiophiles will read the Stereophile
subjective reviews for their entertainment values, and pay attention to
the measurements and feature sets to find out how the products really
behave.


One can be careful and find more than just mere entertainment value from

many
Stereophile subjective reviews.


I am sure some do.






I think it ought to be. I think there is some use for smoe
measurements for audiophiles such as me. Matching equipment can be
made easier via measurements. I'm still going to make my final
decisions based on listening though.

This "matching" is another myth invented by the Quacks. Exept the
loudspeaker impedance(4 or 8 ohms) there is little to observe, because
already in that time there were existing specs about input level(-10dBm),
RIAA EQ and impedance etc. In fact the HiFi criteria gives values for
almost
all important numbers. Any tuner, tape deck or amplifier can be connected
and will perform as stated if it was fulfilling the criteria. This is one
of
the reasons the HiFi gear gained such a popularity, as it was the case

with
the computer.

At this point I would like to quote what Siegfried Linkwitz (a respected
speaker designer and electrical engineer) said:

"Minimal alteration of the original should be the goal of sound
reproduction since anything else is a falsification. For many pieces of
recorded material it may not matter, because the performance is so
highly processed and the listener shares no common sonic reference.
Also, a listener may be so used to amplified music that the
characteristic sound of certain types of loudspeakers becomes the
reference. However, ultimately only a system with minimal distortion can
hope to achieve the reproduction of an original and, in particular, of a
familiar live sonic event such as a choral performance, a solo male
voice, or a car driving by. My motto is: True to the Original ...".

Linkwitz's summary of sound reproduction is well worth reading for
anyone interested in audio reproduction:


It's fine to have a philosophy for achieving goals. But then there is this
thing known as practical application. That is when the better designers

stick
with their philosophies until such a time as it does not wrought the best
result. Then one comprimises and finds the best practical solution. Wht

will be
the best solution foe one person will not ofr another because it involves
subjective choices.


http://www.linkwitzlab.com/reproduction.htm

A point often missed by those who believe in "matching" equipment: you
cannot undo non-linear distortion.


You cannot avoid it either.


Nowadays, with the exception of mechanical transducers, you can maintain
linearity to a level where errors are not audible. So you can clearly
avoid them, in electronics.


When one can bypass all transducers this may be of great value. We are not
there yet


That is, you cannot expect the
distortion created in one component to be undone by distortion created
by another.



I'm not sure that is true. The proof is in the final product though and not

in
the path chosen.


Let say you have a SET amp, with its characteristic distortion which is
a function of signal level, frequency, speaker loading, AC power
conditions, temperature, variations in parts, etc. You think there is
some other component in the chain that has the inverse behavior so that
when you connect the two together, the distortions cancel out?


Inverse? maybe on a few parameters if lucky. Sympathetic? Quite possibly.




You have to choose components that individually have low
distortion.


Some people like to look at the trees some people like to look at the

forrest.
I am a forrest kind of person.


You miss the point that you cannot have overall low distortion unless
the components themselves have low distortion.


I didn't miss that point. And when people come up with a complete recording and
playback chain that is distortion free we will have no debate. Till then...

Of course, perhaps what
you meant is that you prefer some type of distortion.


If a distortion creates a better illusion of live music with the majority of my
recordings of live music I would prefer it. Doesn't that make sense? Or is the
measurement more imortant than the listening experience to you?





Of course, someone may prefer certain types of distortion. But to think
that adding distortion in the reproduction path can somehow undo
distortion in the transducers (microphones and speakers) so that the
overall sound is "faithful to the live sound" is simply unrealistic.



I quite disagree. I think the pure path is a good starting point but that's

it.
there comes a point where the recording engineers and the makers of audio
equipment have to choose between serving their philosophies and serving

their
ears.


The best way to audio reproduction is to have the highest objective
fidelity possible, so that you can really hear what the artists and the
recording engineers want you to hear.


You can have the idealism and I'll take the work of the clever engineers who
are more practical in their approach.

And you want the audio equipment
to not inject *any* error.


I don't see a better creation of the illusion of live music as an error. But
again, I give priority to the listening experience over the bench tests.


You really ought to read Linkwitz's website.







  #242   Report Post  
Harry Lavo
 
Posts: n/a
Default Steely Dan The Absolute Sound

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
...
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
news:t6YKc.120975$%_6.14466@attbi_s01...
"t.hoehler" wrote in message
news:9mXKc.120706$%_6.77017@attbi_s01...


Ditto the above, especially if he switched from open-reel to DAT and
didn't
notice a difference (other than, arguably, convenience). I record

using
both, and the DAT's (Panasonic 3700's) definitely "lean out" and

"sharpen"
the sound compared to tape and live feed (albeit this is subtle).

DAT and CD-R are wonderful archiving tools. They are not the last

word
in
sound reproduction media.

But Harry, they _are_ the last word, for when all the vinyl is too
worn

to
play back, then our archived CD's or digital what have you's _will_
be

the
de facto standard. I realize that to this day, we are finding better

and
better ways to play back the 78 rpm format, and that is heartening.
BUT,
there is a fidelity limit with 78's and when you hit that wall,
brother,

you
have hit that wall. Same way with LP's. There is a limit to their

fidelity,
especially if that rare vinyl has some play on it, and the previous

playback
was done with equipment not kind to vinyl. Once the damage to the

grooves
is
done, it's done. All the hand wringing, all the super duper arms,
carts,
stable tables, magic moon rocks etc etc are NOT going to bring back
the
limited fidelity that was there in the first place. Sorry, but that's

the
plain truth, and no hoping and wishing will make it any different. So

get
cracking and transfer that vinyl before it's too late! This ain't the
fifties anymore, can't just run down to Tower Records and pick up a

pristine
copy of that old LP.
Regards,
Tom


Can't argue with you in theory, but the records and original tapes I
have
recorded to DAT lose enough that I have stopped and am exploring other
options...going directly to HD at 96k or perhaps to a Masterlink and
then

to
96k 24 bit disks. My beef isn't digital per se although it is only at
the
very highest level that it can compete with analog; it is the 44.1 /
16bit
CD standard per se as exemplified by the 3700 which I object to as

"perfect
sound forever".

Utter nonsense, be brave do a double blind comparison of 44.1 compared
to
any other digital format and see if you can tell any difference.

As to Vinyl vs CD think of the difference between VHS and DVD, that's
the
difference between LP and CD. Everything on the CD is cleaner sharper
and
more real.


With all due respect, that is your opinion but one I do not share.

As to double blind, it is very difficult to do with LP because there is
always some noise artifact to give it away. But I have done a lot of
level-matched comparisons, and done them for friends / fellow audiophiles
who were predisposed to CD (some of whom didn't even own vinyl...then..but
do now). Flawed as the comparison may have been in your eyes, it made
believers out of them.
  #243   Report Post  
Michael McKelvy
 
Posts: n/a
Default Steely Dan The Absolute Sound

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

I said:
The hobby is still called high-fi and that has a meaning. Anything that
gets us closer to the intent of the artist by removing distortion,

noise,
compression, or whatever might be hiding the choices made by the artist

and
the engineer is a benefit. I don't really care about other preferences,
they are yours and you're welcome to them, but if they include things

like
flawed playback devices, they are LOWER-fi.


Unfortunately, the hobby hasn't been called "high-fi" in many
years...high-end audio has replaced that terminology.

That should make you think. Why was the term Hi-Fi abandoned?

Could it be that it the real advancements have been done?
  #245   Report Post  
Michael McKelvy
 
Posts: n/a
Default Steely Dan The Absolute Sound

"B&D" wrote in message
...
On 7/19/04 7:34 PM, in article cUYKc.122965$IQ4.70903@attbi_s02, "Michael
McKelvy" wrote:

I think, though, it is an apples to oranges a bit - because the

mastering
standards of CD has only recently reached the potential of the medium.

Just
as SACD comes on the horizon.

Nonsense. There have been great sounding CD's and Mastering since about

10
minutes after the first recording engineers got their hands on the

format.

Which recording engineers would that be?

Most of the ones recording Classical music and any number of
expierienced-not-afraid-to-learn engineers involved in other types of music.
The only real stinkers I've heard were those thaty started with a bad
master.

CD has some definite advantages over vinyl - more convenient, no surface
noise. And both have some real stinkers as far as mastering quality is
concerned - though I have noticed that the standards of quality have risen
generally so that there are more good CD's now than there ever have been -

I
recall a lot of CD's that got released in the early days with hiss (!) and
other nasty artifacts from the analog transfer as well as recordings that
sounded rather emphasized on the high end (like fingers on a chalk board
passing as violin) or full of grain (like Karajan's conducting Beethoven's
5th the CD vs. the Vinyl is pretty clear).


IIRC correctly he also conducted a recording of Shaherazde(sp?) that was
outstandingly recorded on the Chalfont Label.

Noise reduction is not a fault of CD, it is simply a testament to how much
more you could hear.


  #246   Report Post  
goFab.com
 
Posts: n/a
Default Steely Dan The Absolute Sound

On 19 Jul 2004 22:31:15 GMT, in article , Michael
McKelvy stated:


All recording/playback systems are flawed. I'm just looking for the best
overall playback system I can afford and the best issues of my favorite
recordings. For me that is the path which brings me to what I percieve to

be
higher fidelity to live music and that which makes live music intrinsicly

more
beautiful generally speaking.

And no one wants to deny you that, but the facts still lead to the
inevitable conclusion that solid state and CD get you closer than tubes and
vinyl.


I want a satisfying listening experience. For me, that means an absence of
obvious artifacts in the sound. Does it mean it has to sound like live music?
Well, what does that mean? I have been to live shows that made me ecstatic, and
live shows that I could not wait to leave. And, while I like many forms of
music that are recorded live or close to live, I love electronic music that has
no existence whatsoever outside of an electronic playback medium.

I have concluded that this is an irretrievably subjective medium and that
magazines and reviewers can get you in the zone of good sound, but the final
fine tuning is all up to the listener and nobody else.

By the way, I have a pretty good analog rig, and yet I agree that all the claims
about how analog is inevitably superior to digital are way overdone. Digital
these days, done right, sounds exceptionally good.
  #247   Report Post  
S888Wheel
 
Posts: n/a
Default Steely Dan The Absolute Sound

From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 7/19/2004 3:31 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Michael McKelvy"

Date: 7/17/2004 7:47 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

"S888Wheel" wrote in message
news:MtmIc.58267$MB3.50681@attbi_s04...
From:
(Nousaine)
Date: 7/10/2004 10:37 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: mm4Ic.66433$XM6.20336@attbi_s53

(S888Wheel) wrote:

From: chung


...snip to content.... That is your POV. I find it interesting

that
you
would take such a POV
without
actually listening to the product.

I don't think an amp that clips at 2W is worth listening, too. Of
course, some may like the clipped sound, I guess.

Maybe not. But you are making presumptions without actually
listening.

How am I making presumptions?

You said you don't think the amp in question is worth listening to
without
listening to it. I find that a bit presumptuous.

This attitude is typical of another high-end platitude "You are
unqualified
to
comment on a product that you've never listened to."

Well, I suppose some people are comfortable forming opinions about

sound
they
haven't heard. I'm not one of those people.

This is simply another
merchandising technique to forestall critical comment.

No. I am not involved in merchandising. I simply don't like to make
presumptions that you seem to be comfortable making. I am surprised

that
some
one who has spent so much time decrying audiophiles who let their

biases
affect
there purchasing decisions would so easily fall victim to his own

biases.

It assumes that there
are special evaluative qualities which only high-end promoters

(including
buyers) possess. And only insiders can have access.

No it doesn't. It presumes that the listening experience is the final
arbitrator of quality. For many of us that is the purpose of the hobby.

To
listen. There is nothing wrong with being more interested in

measurements
than
listening pleasure if that is what intersts you. To each his own.

A false choice. Those of us concerned with what the measurements reveal

are
interested in them BECAUSE they relate to better listening, at least for

us.

Is that because of what you actually hear or your biases based on

measurements?
You will never really know without bias controled comparisons will you?

It's because of expierience.


Yes of course, but when one claims the opposite preference based on experience
the objectivists cry bias. The objectivists cannot reasonably believe they are
exempt from those same biases.


The very first CD's I heard were all of things
I'd heard many times before on vinyl and I instantlu knew that CD was better
for me.



I had the very same experience. I was quite the CD enthusiast. It was CDs that
inspired me to persue high end equipment.Nautrally my new CD player was better
than my crappy direct drive Yamaha rack system table with the cheap P mount
cartridge. But when I ran up against high end LP playback the shoe was on the
other foot. Both were experienced based preferences. Both were quite equal in
their legitimacy.

Every time I've been able to listen to music in a properly set up
room that had been equalized for flat response I was able to hear more
detail. I've had many occaisonsto hear before and after examples non-flat
FR and always preferred flat response.


What Turntable set ups were giving the sub-part performance? It does matter.




The hobby is still called high-fi and that has a meaning.


Yes hifi short for high fidelity. Fidelity meaning truth. Truth to what?


To what was put on the master.


For me it was the original event itself. No "sound" is put on a master. Only a
signal.



For me
it is truth to the sound of live music.


That works if it's a recording of live music, studio albums are not always
that.


That is why I judge those differently. But there are plenty of recordings of
live music to use as reference when auditioning nes components.



That does not neccessarily always mean
truth to the componet directly adjacent in the chain. The recording and
playback system has to be considered in total when evaluating fidelity and

the
final result is determined by ear not by measurements.


The only meaning I know of for hifi is fidelity to the source material.


That is your POV not a universal POV.

To
change it from that standard is to introduce distortion.


To change what from what standard? The only "sound" that can be seen as a
standard is the original acoustic event. Recorded signals are hardly standards.
They are merely part of the chain of events leading to playback.



Anything that
gets us closer to the intent of the artist by removing distortion, noise,
compression, or whatever might be hiding the choices made by the artist

and
the engineer is a benefit.


And that means CD's and solid state.

True for studio albums I suppose. But it is hard to know the intent of the
artists.


They are the ones involved in how the final mix goes. One asssumes that
they agree with the end result.


What end result? The one they heard over the monitors in the studio? Don't you
see the problem here?

Once that result is finalized it should be
honored by playing it back in such a way as to not re-master it.


So we should copy the studio playback system for each record? I think not.

That means
CD and solid state. If possible it also means room treatments and EQ.

For live recordings the artists' intent is more a matter of
performance and we are really speaking of the recording engineer's intent.

See above.

I don't really care about other preferences,
they are yours and you're welcome to them, but if they include things

like
flawed playback devices, they are LOWER-fi.


All recording/playback systems are flawed. I'm just looking for the best
overall playback system I can afford and the best issues of my favorite
recordings. For me that is the path which brings me to what I percieve to

be
higher fidelity to live music and that which makes live music intrinsicly

more
beautiful generally speaking.

And no one wants to deny you that, but the facts still lead to the
inevitable conclusion that solid state and CD get you closer than tubes and
vinyl.


But my experience doesn't. And you seem to place weight on your experience as
well.















  #248   Report Post  
Steven Sullivan
 
Posts: n/a
Default Steely Dan The Absolute Sound

Nousaine wrote:
"Harry Lavo" wrote:


....snip to content......


"Nousaine" wrote in message


I have been adjusting and optimizing turntables, arms, and cartridges since
the late '60's. It is hard work and requires knowledge. If you feel that
CD's are superior to LP's because you don't have to do this work, or your
comparison is to a conventional LP player with no particular attention to
optimization, or the best cartridge your machine ever had was a Shure V15,
or you've never had a low-output MC in your system, you are welcome to the
opinion that CD's are better at reproduction of music.


For Pete's sake; you are assuming that I've not been-there and done-that, which
is exactly why I no longer borther with vinyl. I have owned several Shure V15s;
and yes the best cartridge I ever owned was the last one. And yes I've owned MC
cartridges None of them could hold a candle to the V15.


This attitude is the last stronghold of the high-end apologist saying is
essence that I don't share your opinions because I haven't done the work, lack
the expertise and/or haven't owned the right equipment.


It's also amusing in that one of the objections to controlled comparison
that occasionally arises from the 'subjectivist' side is that, it's too
much work to 'optimize' one.

But before you
conclude that this is "intrinsic" you must be willing to optimize LP;
otherwise you are simply fooling yourself (and also robbing yourself of much
fine music).


I've always been willing to optimize my systems. But I am only willing tune an
obsolete technology so much before simply replacing it with a better one. For
what it's worth I've either acquired a re-issue or have an archived cd-r copy
of any programming I owned on lp that I considered important. My biggest
recording problem is that I have too many of them.


Couple the financial, time and effort investment that comes with 'optimizing'
the LP experience, with the circle-the-wagons threat that digital represents,
and I think much of 'vinylphilia' is explained. That, and the cool
album cover art. ;





--

-S.
"We started to see evidence of the professional groupie in the early 80's.
Alarmingly, these girls bore a striking resemblance to Motley Crue." --
David Lee Roth

  #249   Report Post  
Steven Sullivan
 
Posts: n/a
Default Steely Dan The Absolute Sound

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 20 Jul 2004 02:03:46 GMT, B&D wrote:


On 7/19/04 7:34 PM, in article cUYKc.122965$IQ4.70903@attbi_s02, "Michael
McKelvy" wrote:

I think, though, it is an apples to oranges a bit - because the mastering
standards of CD has only recently reached the potential of the medium. Just
as SACD comes on the horizon.

Nonsense. There have been great sounding CD's and Mastering since about 10
minutes after the first recording engineers got their hands on the format.


Which recording engineers would that be?


The ones who did Dire Straits CDs, for a start.



The genesis of this thread, to remind everyone, was a quote indicating
that noted 'audiophile' musicians/studio mavens Steely Dan, apparently
consider high-end audio 'truisms' to be more than a little laughable.
Fagan was an early adopter of digital recording, with his 'Nightfly'
album, which is *still* cited as one of the nicest pop recordings
out there (most recently, IME, by Bob Katz).

CD has some definite advantages over vinyl - more convenient, no surface
noise. And both have some real stinkers as far as mastering quality is
concerned - though I have noticed that the standards of quality have risen
generally so that there are more good CD's now than there ever have been - I
recall a lot of CD's that got released in the early days with hiss (!)


Lots of them are still being released with hiss from the analogue
master tapes - why would that be a surprise? The difference is that on
CD you can *hear* the hiss...............


Besides, it seems to me the standards of *mastering* for pop CDs have *fallen*
not risen, since the mid-90's, due to the
'loudness wars', so I have to wonder if Bromo is talking only about the
relatively tiny jazz and classical markets. It would be erroneous, of course,
to say that CDs sound intrinsically flawed, from the prevalence of *bad
mastering*.






--

-S.
"We started to see evidence of the professional groupie in the early 80's.
Alarmingly, these girls bore a striking resemblance to Motley Crue." --
David Lee Roth

  #250   Report Post  
Harry Lavo
 
Posts: n/a
Default Steely Dan The Absolute Sound

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
news:W9bLc.144437$XM6.135514@attbi_s53...
On 19 Jul 2004 22:47:56 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

When you have the LP and CD systems sounding identical in timbre and
frequency, you can be assured that this aspect of LP reproduction is set
correctly. And in my system, it is.


Mine, too. It's easier when you start with a decently neutral
turntable, of course! :-)


Regardless, once you achieve this goal, the Linn is wonderfully transparent
in its ability to reveal detail. I've heard a direct comparison in same
system with VPI's next to top of the line TT / graham arm, and it is every
bit as revealing.

And when it is, and identical
recordings are played on LP and CD, the LP's usually win on "depth of

image"
and microdynamics.


That's not a 'win', that's just a preference for the added artifacts
and compression of vinyl over a truly accurate transcription of what
was on the master tape.


Here we differ in philosophy, perhaps. If it emulates what I hear in a
concert hall, easily and without any intervening artifacts, then it is "more
real"...which is my purpose in having a hi-fi rig to enjoy music on to begin
with.


Also, a perfectly set up line-contact stylus and good
sounding headamp/preamp also minimize LP scratches and surface noise
(assuming the LP's are in good shape) to an inconsequential level so that
sometimes you really have to listen hard to hear any "noise" difference.


Only in the loud bits!


Nope, the soft and average in-between as well. Anything else, and you've
got a mistreated record, an improperly set up line contact, a
non-line-contact stylus, or a headamp or preamp that fails to separate
groove noise from the recording underneath (the best do).

I have been adjusting and optimizing turntables, arms, and cartridges

since
the late '60's.


Me, too.


Isn't it wonderful to be of a certain age? :-)

It is hard work and requires knowledge. If you feel that
CD's are superior to LP's because you don't have to do this work, or your
comparison is to a conventional LP player with no particular attention to
optimization, or the best cartridge your machine ever had was a Shure

V15,
or you've never had a low-output MC in your system, you are welcome to

the
opinion that CD's are better at reproduction of music.


No, I believe CDs are superior because I can make a CD-R copy of an LP
which sounds *exactly* like the original LP. That leads to the
reasonable conclusion that the digital medium is sonically
transparent, which LP most definitely isn't. I have had Goldring,
Thorens and Michell tables, Lenco, SME, Mission and Rega arms, and
Fidelity Research, Ortofon, Decca, and Audio-Technica carts. Oh yes,
and a V-15 which was certainly one of the better carts................


Quite frankly, Stewart, if the V-15 was one of your better carts, then you
haven't even begun to tap what a SOTA MC/headamp/preamp chain can do.

But before you
conclude that this is "intrinsic" you must be willing to optimize LP;
otherwise you are simply fooling yourself (and also robbing yourself of

much
fine music).


Agreed. Now, since I've been there and done that - and so have lots of
others - did you have any point aside from your own personal
*preference* for vinyl?


Yep. Why then, do people exposed to systems like mine (my own and others)
who have never heard a good vinyl setup, go away shaking their heads in
disbelief at how good it sounds. And why do they often end up investing in
their own vinyl rig (if they are audiophiles). That is certainly not based
on the technical superiority of CD.


Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering


Harry Lavo | Audio is Hobby - Arguing Incessantly is Boring


  #251   Report Post  
S888Wheel
 
Posts: n/a
Default Steely Dan The Absolute Sound

From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 7/19/2004 7:03 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Michael McKelvy"

Date: 7/19/2004 11:43 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: hDUKc.117584$a24.95616@attbi_s03

"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Michael McKelvy"

Date: 7/16/2004 3:45 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

"S888Wheel" wrote in message
news:J%cJc.78334$%_6.34016@attbi_s01...
From: "Bob Marcus"

Date: 7/14/2004 8:30 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: 1kcJc.76426$MB3.32199@attbi_s04

B&D wrote:

On 7/13/04 6:45 PM, in article
,

"John
Atkinson" wrote:

Please note that I am not defending this amplifier's

performance.
I am only pointing out that those on this forum who condemn its
sound without actually having heard it are shooting in the

dark.

And herein lies the problem - people on this group are quick to
condemn
based upon a data sheet rather than trying it out.

Some of us have heard highly distorting systems with massive bass
humps
before. We don't need to listen to another one to know we won't

like
it.

bob


Let me get this straight, you can look at the the measurements of

the
WAVAC and
from those measurements you can determine with a reasonable level of
certainty
that you have heard a *system* that sounded so similar to the

*system*
MF
reported on in his review that you wouldn't require an audition to

form
an
opinion on it's sonic merits?

Based on the measurements the only merit this amp would have is as a
really
expensive door stop. It would not have been considered a hi-fi amp

since
the 1940's. Look at the graph of any decent SS amp and you will see

the
distortion as a nearly flat line until full rated power is reached.

With
the WAVAC it continues to get worse as you increase the volume. At
around 2
watts it's at 1% which is where THD becomes audible. If this amp were
$12.00 it would still be overpriced to anyone looking for a 150 watt

amp.







Are you suggesting that those people who like what they hear from this

amp
and
believe that what they hear through this amp sounds more like live

music
should
revise their subjective impressions to fit the measurements?

No, I'm suggesting that buying an amp with this kind of distortion,

cannot
by definition sound more like live music



By definition? Let's not forget that no one listens to amplifiers.


If you listen to music amplified by a WAVAC or any SET for that matter, you
are definitely listening to the amplifier.


No, you are still listening to a recording played back through a system that
includes an amplifier and speakers.


We listen to
recordings played back through amplifier speaker systems. I don't believe

your
assertion is always true.

With CD and Solid State electronics, you'd be correct.


With any working playback system I am correct.

and that basing one's buying
decisions on their faulty memory of such events can only lead to inferior
sound.


When hifi retailer sets up a demp room with a live band we will be able

to
circumvent the potential problems we face with aural memory. Till then it

is
what we will have to rely on. I don't think it is quite so bad as some

would
have us believe anytime a unit measures one way and is subjectively

percieved
in another way.


That's a wonderful anecdote,


It wasn't even an anecdote much less a wonderful one.

the science of audio shows that fidelity
transfers to better listening.


I think it has been established that science and the hobby of audio rarely
cross paths.



It's not personal, nobody has reliable memory when it comes to audio.


This doesn't seem to become an issue when people talk about their

impressions
of speakers or recordings. Why is that?

In the case of speakers they have much more distortion than the rest of the
audio chain, as I'm reasonably sure you are aware of.


What does that have to do with my point that people don't seem to start raising
the issue of aural memory when someone expresses an opinion about the sound of
speakers?



Recordings are subject to the bias of the recording engineer and the artist
involved, then they are played back through God knows what speakers in God
knows what rooms. The fact is you mazy not like the choices made by the
artist and the engineer, but if you listen through good equipment and in a
well set up room, to a CD recording, you'll be hearing what they intended
you hear, not some compromise made for LP or some colorized version provided
via the distortion induced from something like the WAVAC.



Rarely true unfortunately.







  #252   Report Post  
Steven Sullivan
 
Posts: n/a
Default Steely Dan The Absolute Sound

S888Wheel wrote:
From: Stewart Pinkerton
Date: 7/20/2004 8:48 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: y9bLc.143763$Oq2.122370@attbi_s52

On 19 Jul 2004 22:55:26 GMT,
(S888Wheel) wrote:

From: Stewart Pinkerton

Date: 7/19/2004 9:05 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: DjSKc.117270$MB3.113782@attbi_s04

On 18 Jul 2004 16:18:15 GMT,
(S888Wheel) wrote:

From: Stewart Pinkerton

Date: 7/18/2004 7:33 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 05:28:36 GMT, B&D wrote:

On 7/16/04 6:41 PM, in article
, "Michael
McKelvy" wrote:

"B&D" wrote in message
news:QQkJc.92602$Oq2.45040@attbi_s52...
On 7/14/04 6:33 PM, in article
,

"Michael
McKelvy" wrote:

LP compared to
CD is objectively inferior in terms of distortion, compression,

signal
to
noise, and all other technical specs related to fidelity.

All other specs? Really? *ALL* of them?

The important ones AFAIK. The fact is still that in terms of

objective
performance CD stomps all over LP. It is higher fi.

Where I would agree with you is the POTENTIAL of CD is better than that

of
LP's - but the state of the art in mastering tends to make the CD's much
less close to hifi.

Absolute nonsense! There are numerous superbly mastered CDs on the
market, all of which *grossly* exceed the fidelity of even the very
best vinyl.

You might want to check your vinyl rig to make sure everything is working

well.

I do, regularly. It works just fine,

Then maybe you ought to consider that your biases are at work. This claim of
"gross" outperformance would seem like a red flag that something is up.


When we're talking about one medium which has a hundred times lower
distortion and ten to a hundred times lower noise than the other,
'gross' seems like quite a mild term to me..................


Oh, I thought you might actually be talking about the actual listening
experience,


....though he did write 'in terms of objective performance' back there,
implying that he *wasn't* talking about the subjective listening
experience in the exchange you quote.

an experience that is inherently riddled with distortions that
arguably look gross compared to either CD or high end LP.


There are inherent, unavoidable forms of distortion in the system
comprised of the listener, the recording, the medium, and the reproduction
devices -- the human's non-flat frequency sensitivity , for example -- and
there are forms of distortion that we can choose to add or not, based on
purely subjective preference. Let's count the LP/turntable system in the
latter category. Personally as such additional distortions go I prefer
Dolby Pro Logic II.



It was a logical thing to say to anyone who is having such trouble getting

good
sound from their high end turntable.


Not what I said at all.


"Grossly outperformed" would indicate a sign of trouble to me. especially when
CDs rarely out perform LPs on my system. But I didn't realize you were talking
measurements and not listening experience.


Perhaps you were reading prejudicially.
  #253   Report Post  
B&D
 
Posts: n/a
Default Steely Dan The Absolute Sound

On 7/20/04 11:46 AM, in article p7bLc.126823$JR4.95135@attbi_s54, "Stewart
Pinkerton" wrote:

Speaking of speakers, do you think we need $100,000 speakers to get an
accurate sound? or a $1000 mass market speakers will do?


It's been my experience that the best speakers at their price point
keep getting better all the way up to at least $50,000, which is the
most expensive I've heard. OTOH, a really good $2-3,000 pair of
minimonitors, combined with a high-quality subwoofer, gets *very*
close, and can be much easier to match to a room. For example, the
JMlabs Grande Utopia referenced above does not sound significantly
different from the Mini Utopia above 100Hz, to these tired old ears.


I would have to agree with you on that one. I would add that anything above
$50k - the sound is likely to worsen, and even below you have to be very,
very careful. I heard somewhere someone said that 95% of all speakers are
not worth owning, it is figuring out which of the 5% are is the problem.

I would agree that if your speaker budget is about $3-5k and you land good
speakers for that - it will only be incremental above that! Minimonitors +
subwoofer is a killer combo!
  #254   Report Post  
Steven Sullivan
 
Posts: n/a
Default Steely Dan The Absolute Sound

S888Wheel wrote:
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 7/19/2004 3:32 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

"B&D" wrote in message
...
On 7/17/04 10:36 AM, in article
, "S888Wheel"
wrote:

Are you suggesting that those people who like what they hear from this

amp and
believe that what they hear through this amp sounds more like live music
should
revise their subjective impressions to fit the measurements?

IN this case, who knows. But the general consensus amongst so-called
"objectivists" is that the data sheet tells you just about everything you
need to know.


Then it should be no trouble to provide a quote of that.


probably not. Just run google searches on some the most frequent posters on
RAHE and indeed you should have no trouble finding one.


I looked. I didn't find any. Could you provide some search terms? Maybe I'm
using the wrong ones.

The 'consensus' that I would say exists, is :

- 'data sheets' supplied with consumer audio (including high end stuff) may be
misleading and may not contain the most useful measurement data.
- bench test 'data sheets' published in audio mags can be informative as to the
component's sound if the right measurements were done (and done well).
- in all cases 'usefulness' depends on reader understanding how to properly
interpret the measurement

If an amplifier sounds nice, but the data sheet does not back
it up - then somehow your ears are fooling themselves.


Sorry what my ears tells me is what counts. I will not adjust my perceptions to
suit the measurements.


Alas, the vast majority of audiophiles, Mr. Fremer definitely and yourself probably
included, do not *really* go only by what the ears tell them, in evaluating
audio performance.

Decades of studies in the field of perceptual and marketing psychology indicate
that your perceptions of quality are likely to be significantly affected by
what information you have already encountered (regardless of the actual accuracy
or relevance of said information). That information can be
anything you know, or think you know, about appearance, brand, price, distortion
levels, or other objective data, as well as any subjective impressions you
have read or heard from others beforehand.

It really should go without saying at this point, here on RAHE, that
the only way to *really* go by 'what your ears tell you', is to
know *only* that a sound is playing, not which component is playing it.
In practice this means one has to blind the listener
to the identity of the DUT and to use statistical methods to
identify relationships between perception and reality.

But it is *also* reasonable to make inferences about
audible performance from proper measurements. A speaker
witha a FR that drops off precipitously at 10 kHz is, no surprise,
going to sound more 'muffled' than one with full FR.

Whether a person will *like* the filtered speaker's sound or not
is another issue.



--

-S.
"We started to see evidence of the professional groupie in the early 80's.
Alarmingly, these girls bore a striking resemblance to Motley Crue." --
David Lee Roth

  #255   Report Post  
S888Wheel
 
Posts: n/a
Default Steely Dan The Absolute Sound

From: chung
Date: 7/20/2004 11:22 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: JpdLc.128387$IQ4.43727@attbi_s02

S888Wheel wrote:
Absolute Sound

From: chung

Date: 7/19/2004 9:17 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: 811Lc.138430$XM6.28315@attbi_s53

S888Wheel wrote:

From: Stewart Pinkerton

Date: 7/19/2004 9:05 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: jjSKc.121019$IQ4.107545@attbi_s02

On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 18:26:52 GMT,
(S888Wheel) wrote:

From: "Ban"

Date: 7/17/2004 11:01 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: rnoKc.119468$Oq2.36942@attbi_s52

S888Wheel wrote:

Measurements "pejudicing" (sic) customers? That's a new one.

No, It's nothing new.( except my unique spelling perhaps) Heck, just
look at all the folks that jumped on the band wagon with the very
early SS amps of the sixties. Some of them were really quite awful
but the meter reasers thought they were the cat's meow based on the
measurements.

If the sound was awful, they will have also measured bad.

I suggest you do your homework on that one. They measured amazingly well
by
the
measurements made in that time. They sounded pretty awful though.

I suggest you do your homework on that one.

I did. These amps recieved glowing reviews for their measured performance
and
their sonic performance. i can only wonder if listening tests were

actually
done.

They had very high
crossover distortion, and very low slew rate, both of which were
easily measurable.

I suggest you take this up with the folks who claimed they measured well
back
in the day. It's not my fault the reviewers were hung up on THD. It's not
my
fault they praised amps that a lot of people figured out sounded awful

just
by
listening.


However it is your logical error when you conclude from this that bad
amps measure well.


No. That was the conclusion of the positive reviews of those amps at the

time.

What you failed to understand is that there are some
bad amps that may have one parameter that measures well.


No, I didn't fail to understand that. I was simply pointing out that

contrary
to your claim, being biased by measurements is nothing new.


So those consumers who read the reviews you referred to were prejudiced
by poor reviewers who did not understand measurements. See the difference?


Nope given that the measurements used for the review were included in the
review. Biasing based on measurements is nothing new even if it is new to you.



The measurements do not prejudice. It is the lack of understanding of
what the measurements mean that prejudice the reviewers/consumers
potentially.


If a consumer looks at a measurement, assumes it will manifest itself sonically
and then believes they hear that when the audition the unit then the
measurement has been the source for a bias. It's really quite simple.




But other
measured parameters clearly indicate that the amps are bad.


Not my fault the meter readers of that time didn't know what to look for.


So do not blame the measurements, blame the reviewers then.

It isn't about blame. It is about history, what happened. You said peopel being
biased by measurements was new to you. Well, it isn't new to the world of
audio. It was quite common amoung people, including objectivist magazine
reviewers.



  #256   Report Post  
Nousaine
 
Posts: n/a
Default Steely Dan The Absolute Sound

"Harry Lavo" wrote:



"Nousaine" wrote in message
...
"Harry Lavo"
wrote:

....snip to content......

"Nousaine" wrote in message


I have been adjusting and optimizing turntables, arms, and cartridges

since
the late '60's. It is hard work and requires knowledge. If you feel

that
CD's are superior to LP's because you don't have to do this work, or
your
comparison is to a conventional LP player with no particular
attention to
optimization, or the best cartridge your machine ever had was a Shure

V15,
or you've never had a low-output MC in your system, you are welcome
to

the
opinion that CD's are better at reproduction of music.


For Pete's sake; you are assuming that I've not been-there and
done-that,

which
is exactly why I no longer borther with vinyl. I have owned several
Shure

V15s;
and yes the best cartridge I ever owned was the last one. And yes I've

owned MC
cartridges None of them could hold a candle to the V15.

This attitude is the last stronghold of the high-end apologist saying
is
essence that I don't share your opinions because I haven't done the
work,

lack
the expertise and/or haven't owned the right equipment.


But before you
conclude that this is "intrinsic" you must be willing to optimize LP;
otherwise you are simply fooling yourself (and also robbing yourself
of

much
fine music).


I've always been willing to optimize my systems. But I am only willing

tune an
obsolete technology so much before simply replacing it with a better
one.

For
what it's worth I've either acquired a re-issue or have an archived
cd-r

copy
of any programming I owned on lp that I considered important. My
biggest
recording problem is that I have too many of them.


If you are going to cut up my message, at least get the attribution
correct.
You've got our quotations reversed.

As to your rationale for no longer using vinyl, I don't buy it. If
you've
really gone to the trouble to optimize a system, it is not a big deal
to
keep it in working order and enjoy the vinyl. Methinks a digital bias
is
present and that you never had a vinyl system as good as digital to
begin
with. It certain *is* possible if one cares to have it / do it.


As far as I'm concerned this thread has reached its logical
conclusion. Mr Lavo will forever consider any opinion I hold, that
doesn't match his, to be not-worth-buying because I've "never had" a
good enough vinyl system.

This is the final high-end argument (and commons sales argument) in
many cases; if you can't convince the opposition with logic or
evidence then invoke the "you don't have good enough equipment"
defense.


  #258   Report Post  
Harry Lavo
 
Posts: n/a
Default Steely Dan The Absolute Sound

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
...
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

I said:
The hobby is still called high-fi and that has a meaning. Anything

that
gets us closer to the intent of the artist by removing distortion,

noise,
compression, or whatever might be hiding the choices made by the

artist
and
the engineer is a benefit. I don't really care about other

preferences,
they are yours and you're welcome to them, but if they include things

like
flawed playback devices, they are LOWER-fi.


Unfortunately, the hobby hasn't been called "high-fi" in many
years...high-end audio has replaced that terminology.

That should make you think. Why was the term Hi-Fi abandoned?

Could it be that it the real advancements have been done?


No, I think the phrase "high-end" was coined by Harry Pearson in the early
days of TAS, to define companies that were primarily listening-oriented vs.
measurement-oriented, because everything was called "hi-fi" in those days,
including stuff that measured well but sounded like dreck...mostly mid-fi
stuff that was positioned as "hi-fi". Harry, from the beginning, made a
point of noting that he was talking about where (how high, or how exalted)
they set their company's "mission", not their price. So a lot of not very
expensive gear was reviewed as well as some very expensive stuff. For
example, NAD was considered high end. Yamaha was not. And that distinction
was deserved based on the sound of the day.
  #261   Report Post  
B&D
 
Posts: n/a
Default Steely Dan The Absolute Sound

On 7/20/04 6:04 PM, in article XFgLc.129726$JR4.107265@attbi_s54, "Michael
McKelvy" wrote:

am always on the look out for better masterings. And I am quite a jazz
enthusiast.


John Handy Excursion in Blue is excellent on CD.

Anything from GRP.

What does it matter, you don't like CD sound so you'll claim your LP's out
perform the CD. The problem is they don't but you like LP sound better,
even though you're missing out on the increased transient response, lower
noise and no possibility of tracking error.

You like what you like, but it's still inferior to CD.


Hate to pick nits - but if there is a CD "sound" it would have to be
colored, yes?

  #262   Report Post  
Nousaine
 
Posts: n/a
Default Steely Dan The Absolute Sound

"Harry Lavo" wrote:

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
...
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

I said:
The hobby is still called high-fi and that has a meaning. Anything

that
gets us closer to the intent of the artist by removing distortion,

noise,
compression, or whatever might be hiding the choices made by the

artist
and
the engineer is a benefit. I don't really care about other

preferences,
they are yours and you're welcome to them, but if they include things

like
flawed playback devices, they are LOWER-fi.


Unfortunately, the hobby hasn't been called "high-fi" in many
years...high-end audio has replaced that terminology.

That should make you think. Why was the term Hi-Fi abandoned?


Because it was over-ridden by high-end a marketing and sales term that had
nothing to do with audio accuracy.

Could it be that it the real advancements have been done?


That's exactly the right answer.

No, I think the phrase "high-end" was coined by Harry Pearson in the early
days of TAS, to define companies that were primarily listening-oriented vs.
measurement-oriented, because everything was called "hi-fi" in those days,
including stuff that measured well but sounded like dreck...mostly mid-fi
stuff that was positioned as "hi-fi".


So where are the controlled listening tests that shows anything sounded like
"dreck?" Where are the controlled listening tests that show that that
"high-end" equipmnet sounds better than "dreck"?

Harry, from the beginning, made a
point of noting that he was talking about where (how high, or how exalted)
they set their company's "mission", not their price.


Oh really: so how come there have been no bias-controlled listening tests
conducted or published? Was it NOT true that you are suggesting that
measurements didn't convey an accurate picture of an audio components true
acoustical performance? So why weren't there any confirming bias-controlled
listening tests to show that this was true? A 'screen' would seem to have been
an obvious closer.

So a lot of not very
expensive gear was reviewed as well as some very expensive stuff. For
example, NAD was considered high end. Yamaha was not. And that distinction
was deserved based on the sound of the day.


There was nothing based on the "sound" of the day because there were no
bias-controlled listening tests employed confirming that the evaluations were
confined to acoustical import.

Given the time of the "day" I wonder why not. It would seem to have been so
easy.

  #263   Report Post  
Nousaine
 
Posts: n/a
Default Steely Dan The Absolute Sound

B&D wrote:

On 7/20/04 6:46 PM, in article
, "Michael
McKelvy" wrote:

That the listener, and not the cable gets broken in? I would think that

the
marketing departments at the cable companies would NOT say that.

My mistake, I was of course referring to the idea that cables get broken

in,
which is a steaming heap of B.S.


I wouldn't use such a colorful (& smelly) method of description, but I
haven't seen any evidence of this personally, though I have noticed that in
some audio cables it can influence the sound (usually in a detrimental
manner) - mostly the expensive ones ....


I've conducted three experiments that exactly bear on this issue. In each of
these cases I had 12-inch woofers which were conditioned by the manufacturer to
require 24,48 and 150 hours of "break-in" to perform optimally. In the last
case I asked to manufacturer to provide 4 samples at least one of which had
been subjected to the 150 hour break-in period prior to delivery.

Here's what I found. In the first 2 cases the woofers pre/post break-in
performance was identical.

By this I mean that when the voice coil was still hot after break-in there were
differences in measured paramters (lower Fs, increased Vas, and increased Re)
but enclosure simulations delivered tbe same optimal enclosure but installing
the woofer in a box and measuring and listening to the sound showed they
sounded exactly the same.

Interestingly I found that the woofer that required 48 hours of break-in; where
I followed break-in of impedance measurements at 1-hour intervals, had a slowly
falling Fsb that settled after several hours, BUT slowly drifted back to its
original value after an overnight rest.

In my opinion speakers will "warm-up" but it doesn't change their sound and if
you let the speaker rest overnight you're right back where you started.

  #265   Report Post  
Harry Lavo
 
Posts: n/a
Default Steely Dan The Absolute Sound

"Nousaine" wrote in message
...
"Harry Lavo" wrote:



"Nousaine" wrote in message
...
"Harry Lavo"
wrote:

....snip to content......

"Nousaine" wrote in message

I have been adjusting and optimizing turntables, arms, and cartridges

since
the late '60's. It is hard work and requires knowledge. If you feel

that
CD's are superior to LP's because you don't have to do this work, or
your
comparison is to a conventional LP player with no particular
attention to
optimization, or the best cartridge your machine ever had was a Shure

V15,
or you've never had a low-output MC in your system, you are welcome
to

the
opinion that CD's are better at reproduction of music.

For Pete's sake; you are assuming that I've not been-there and
done-that,

which
is exactly why I no longer borther with vinyl. I have owned several
Shure

V15s;
and yes the best cartridge I ever owned was the last one. And yes I've

owned MC
cartridges None of them could hold a candle to the V15.

This attitude is the last stronghold of the high-end apologist saying
is
essence that I don't share your opinions because I haven't done the
work,

lack
the expertise and/or haven't owned the right equipment.


But before you
conclude that this is "intrinsic" you must be willing to optimize LP;
otherwise you are simply fooling yourself (and also robbing yourself
of

much
fine music).

I've always been willing to optimize my systems. But I am only willing

tune an
obsolete technology so much before simply replacing it with a better
one.

For
what it's worth I've either acquired a re-issue or have an archived
cd-r

copy
of any programming I owned on lp that I considered important. My
biggest
recording problem is that I have too many of them.


If you are going to cut up my message, at least get the attribution
correct.
You've got our quotations reversed.

As to your rationale for no longer using vinyl, I don't buy it. If
you've
really gone to the trouble to optimize a system, it is not a big deal
to
keep it in working order and enjoy the vinyl. Methinks a digital bias
is
present and that you never had a vinyl system as good as digital to
begin
with. It certain *is* possible if one cares to have it / do it.


As far as I'm concerned this thread has reached its logical
conclusion. Mr Lavo will forever consider any opinion I hold, that
doesn't match his, to be not-worth-buying because I've "never had" a
good enough vinyl system.

This is the final high-end argument (and commons sales argument) in
many cases; if you can't convince the opposition with logic or
evidence then invoke the "you don't have good enough equipment"
defense.


I'm happy to end the thread. But I would make one final observation - I
didn't raise the "quality" issue until you made the specific claim that the
Shure V15 was the best cartridge you have had in your system. Since I am
very familiar with the many iterations of that cartridge, and with many more
cartridges as well, I can say with utmost confidence that it is better than
some MC's but far inferior to many others. Accordingly I can also say that
you have not had in your system the best that LP has to offer, whether you
can acknowledge that or not. Which may explain why we come out at two
widely divergent places. I would be careful about building and asserting a
"weltanschauung" based on that somewhat limited experience.



  #266   Report Post  
Ban
 
Posts: n/a
Default Steely Dan The Absolute Sound

Michael McKelvy wrote:

Unfortunately, the hobby hasn't been called "high-fi" in many
years...high-end audio has replaced that terminology.

That should make you think. Why was the term Hi-Fi abandoned?

Could it be true that some of the higher priced gear didn't fulfill the
"HiFi" requirements, which were coined down in international standards, and
for that reason another term had to be invented? So you couldn't nail down
the company and return the crappy gear. At least with the Wavac that seems
to indicate this lengthly practiced habit.

--
ciao Ban
Bordighera, Italy

  #267   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default Steely Dan The Absolute Sound

On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 19:42:15 GMT, (S888Wheel) wrote:

From: Stewart Pinkerton

Date: 7/20/2004 8:48 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: y9bLc.143763$Oq2.122370@attbi_s52


When we're talking about one medium which has a hundred times lower
distortion and ten to a hundred times lower noise than the other,
'gross' seems like quite a mild term to me..................


Oh, I thought you might actually be talking about the actual listening
experience, an experience that is inherently riddled with distortions that
arguably look gross compared to either CD or high end LP.


In listening also, CD is noticeably less coloured than LP. It does
help if you use speakers such as mine, which have handily lower
distortion than a high-end vinyl rig...................

"Grossly outperformed" would indicate a sign of trouble to me. especially when
CDs rarely out perform LPs on my system.


Sure they do, you simply have a personal preference for the well-known
*added* artifacts of vinyl.

But I didn't realize you were talking
measurements and not listening experience.


In listening, I would tend to say that CD noticeably outperforms LP,
it's only in measurements that the gross difference in fidelity to the
original master is obvious.

I reckon that I get as good sound as anyone
else does from vinyl,


I doubt that but that is another topic.


Well of course you doubt it - but that's another topic.

it's just that the *medium* is fundamentally
limited.


Every medium is limited. You were refering to gross outperformance. I made the
mistake of assuming you were speaking of what you were hearing.


I hear that CD is obviously more stable in pitch, has obviously deeper
and clearer bass, has significantly superior dynamic range, and much
better treble detail. I guess some would say that this constitutes a
gross difference - especially those who claim to hear 'night and day'
differences among cables!

If it is "grossly" being outpreformed IME
it would be likely one of two things. The rig isn't working right, the records
are subpar in quality and/or condition or the listener is profoundly biased.


Nope, CD simply outclasses vinyl in every possible way, as a high
fifdelity sound source.


And yet I keep getting better sound from my records most of the time.


No, you simply keep *preferring* those added artifacts - which are
easily reproduced by making a CD-R copy of LP. That's always seemed to
me to be an obvious pointer to the transparency of CD, vs the euphonic
distortions of LP.

but *all* of my
thirty-odd XRCDs exceed the fidelity of their vinyl equivalents, and
that is simply down to excellent mastering on a fundamentally superior
medium.

What titles are you talking about? Which LP issues did you compare them to? I
am always on the look out for better masterings. And I am quite a jazz
enthusiast.


Try the 'XXXXX with the Miles Davis Quintet' series. Every jazz
enthusiast has at least one version of those classics.


I am not familiar with this title. Is it a compliation? I have just about
everything the Miles Davis Quintet released on vinyl though. What LPs did you
compare this particular CD release with?


Oh, very funny. As any Davis fan would know, I am of course referring
to four albums - Relaxin', Cookin', Steamin' and Workin' with the
Miles Davis Quintet, classic Davis albums from the mid '50s. The
Prestige LPs are IMHO the best vinyl versions you'll find, but are a
pale shadow of the XRCDs.

Of course, I could also mention 'Kind of Blue', but that has been
released so many times with so many remasterings that an 'apples for
apples' comparison is very difficult. Let me simply say about 'Kind of
Blue' that most of the CDs I have heard sound more lifelike to me than
most of the LP versions I've heard.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

  #268   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default Steely Dan The Absolute Sound

On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 22:20:31 GMT, B&D wrote:

On 7/20/04 11:46 AM, in article w7bLc.108245$WX.83238@attbi_s51, "Stewart
Pinkerton" wrote:

On 19 Jul 2004 22:25:39 GMT, B&D wrote:

On 7/18/04 5:04 PM, in article dBBKc.113201$%_6.50861@attbi_s01, "Stewart
Pinkerton" wrote:

Unfortunately, our beings our designed so that we do not listen
"objectively". All we can do is listen "subjectively". And on that
basis,
there are many who believe a top-flight LP system can outperform a
top-flight CD system.

Indeed there are - but many, many more who believe the reverse. And a
'top-flight' CD player need not of course be expensive, which allows
more money for what really matters - the speakers and the room.

Actually, for me it would be MUSIC.


Agreed - but a different argument.


Sure - but I wanted to remind people it is more about the music than the
gear. Gear is a means to an end.


Sure, but this is a *high end audio* newsgroup, hence it's a forum for
discussing equipment and setup, not music. There are literally
hundreds of dedicated music newsgroups.

And, yes, for comparable levels of reproduction CD is cheaper than turntable
stuff - and is more convenient and lasts longer without fuss.


Unfortunately for your theory, it would need a very cheap CD player to
get down to the ability of even the most expensive vinyl rig......


Here we disagree. I think a $1500 CD player would compare to a $5k vinyl
rig (turntable, tonearm, cartridge), though. Assuming the vinyl and CD's
used for evaluation were pristine.


Disagree all you like, it's a plain fact that the objective
performance of a $500 CD player *grossly* exceeds the capability of
the $75,000 Rockport Sirius II fitted with a $5,000 cartridge.

As it happens, I have a £250 CD player and a £2,000 vinyl rig - and
the CD player sounds flatter, clearer and quieter every time, with
much deeper bass and no tracing distortion, microphony or treble
splash. And *all* of my vinyl and CD is pristine, since I'm not one of
those 'fleamarket' vinyl collectors.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

  #269   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default Steely Dan The Absolute Sound

On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 03:16:59 GMT, (Nousaine) wrote:

"Harry Lavo"
wrote:

I think the phrase "high-end" was coined by Harry Pearson in the early
days of TAS, to define companies that were primarily listening-oriented vs.
measurement-oriented, because everything was called "hi-fi" in those days,
including stuff that measured well but sounded like dreck...mostly mid-fi
stuff that was positioned as "hi-fi".


So where are the controlled listening tests that shows anything sounded like
"dreck?" Where are the controlled listening tests that show that that
"high-end" equipmnet sounds better than "dreck"?

Harry, from the beginning, made a
point of noting that he was talking about where (how high, or how exalted)
they set their company's "mission", not their price.


Oh really: so how come there have been no bias-controlled listening tests
conducted or published? Was it NOT true that you are suggesting that
measurements didn't convey an accurate picture of an audio components true
acoustical performance? So why weren't there any confirming bias-controlled
listening tests to show that this was true? A 'screen' would seem to have been
an obvious closer.

So a lot of not very
expensive gear was reviewed as well as some very expensive stuff. For
example, NAD was considered high end. Yamaha was not. And that distinction
was deserved based on the sound of the day.


There was nothing based on the "sound" of the day because there were no
bias-controlled listening tests employed confirming that the evaluations were
confined to acoustical import.


I'm amazed that you resisted the temptation to point out that a highly
experienced audiophile, using his own reference system in his own
listening room, failed to tell the difference between a 'dreck' Yamaha
integrated amp and a $12,000 pair of extremely 'high end' Pass Aleph
1.2 monoblocs, when he actually did have to 'trust his ears'.........
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

  #270   Report Post  
Ban
 
Posts: n/a
Default Steely Dan The Absolute Sound

Harry Lavo wrote:

As to double blind, it is very difficult to do with LP because there
is always some noise artifact to give it away. But I have done a lot
of level-matched comparisons, and done them for friends / fellow
audiophiles who were predisposed to CD (some of whom didn't even own
vinyl...then..but do now). Flawed as the comparison may have been in
your eyes, it made believers out of them.


But then, if you copy the LP to CD and make the comparison, why can it not
be destinguished?

Maybe the whole thing is due to the whimpy dynamics of LP, which requires a
much bigger compression especially on classical recordings. So LPs *are*
mastered differently. Some people just like it compressed, because they do
not have the required gear to reproduce the dynamics of a life concert. This
would also indicate that tubed amps are popular with them, which "round" the
clipping a bit more.
A LP played through a tube amp has 40 to 50dB less dynamics, the amp and the
needle add so much distortion in the louder parts, that the compression gets
compensated for and loudness seems to be higher, even if the amp puts out
only a tiny bit of more power. Our ears are quite insensitive to short-time
distortion (esp. of 2nd harmonics).
Worse still the low frequency limitations. Even with the 20dB boost of the
RIAA preamp, the low frequencies are very limited in level, the same is true
for high frequencies (which are boosted at the same rate when mastering).
So generally speaking, a LP will be "louder"(compressed) and with more
midrange(again "louder").
It has been shown that louder sound corresponds with a "better" perceived
quality. But it is more like a radio station quality, which all of us hate.
--
ciao Ban
Bordighera, Italy



  #271   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default Steely Dan The Absolute Sound

On 20 Jul 2004 22:55:00 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
news:W9bLc.144437$XM6.135514@attbi_s53...


I believe CDs are superior because I can make a CD-R copy of an LP
which sounds *exactly* like the original LP. That leads to the
reasonable conclusion that the digital medium is sonically
transparent, which LP most definitely isn't. I have had Goldring,
Thorens and Michell tables, Lenco, SME, Mission and Rega arms, and
Fidelity Research, Ortofon, Decca, and Audio-Technica carts. Oh yes,
and a V-15 which was certainly one of the better carts................

Quite frankly, Stewart, if the V-15 was one of your better carts, then you
haven't even begun to tap what a SOTA MC/headamp/preamp chain can do.


Quite frankly, Harry, if you never appreciated the superb quality of
the V-15, then you didn't have it set up properly - or could it be
that you you have the typical 'high end' bias that low-output MCs are
somehow intrinsically superior to high-output MMs? As it happens, I do
use an A-T OC9 with a SOTA preamp, but I wouldn't say that it
'outclasses' a modern V-15 with an equally good preamp - especially on
'hot' records like Telarcs and most direct-cuts.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

  #272   Report Post  
Nousaine
 
Posts: n/a
Default Steely Dan The Absolute Sound

wrote:

I failed to describe the last case; where the company was asked to submit
samples that were taken directly off the shelf and also broken in for the
required 150 hours.

In that case there were nomeasurable differences between any of the 4 samples I
received that weren't within unit-to-unit tolerances expected with a give
model. These drivers also sounded and measured the same.

I've conducted three experiments that exactly bear on this issue. In each of
these cases I had 12-inch woofers which were conditioned by the manufacturer
to
require 24,48 and 150 hours of "break-in" to perform optimally. In the last
case I asked to manufacturer to provide 4 samples at least one of which had
been subjected to the 150 hour break-in period prior to delivery.

Here's what I found. In the first 2 cases the woofers pre/post break-in
performance was identical.

By this I mean that when the voice coil was still hot after break-in there
were
differences in measured paramters (lower Fs, increased Vas, and increased Re)
but enclosure simulations delivered tbe same optimal enclosure but installing
the woofer in a box and measuring and listening to the sound showed they
sounded exactly the same.

Interestingly I found that the woofer that required 48 hours of break-in;
where
I followed break-in of impedance measurements at 1-hour intervals, had a
slowly
falling Fsb that settled after several hours, BUT slowly drifted back to its
original value after an overnight rest.

In my opinion speakers will "warm-up" but it doesn't change their sound and
if
you let the speaker rest overnight you're right back where you started.


  #273   Report Post  
Nousaine
 
Posts: n/a
Default Steely Dan The Absolute Sound

"Harry Lavo" wrote:

....snip to content......

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message


No, I believe CDs are superior because I can make a CD-R copy of an LP
which sounds *exactly* like the original LP. That leads to the
reasonable conclusion that the digital medium is sonically
transparent, which LP most definitely isn't. I have had Goldring,
Thorens and Michell tables, Lenco, SME, Mission and Rega arms, and
Fidelity Research, Ortofon, Decca, and Audio-Technica carts. Oh yes,
and a V-15 which was certainly one of the better carts................


Quite frankly, Stewart, if the V-15 was one of your better carts, then you
haven't even begun to tap what a SOTA MC/headamp/preamp chain can do.


See? Instead of adessing the question high-enders will attack the listeners
choices and lack of "accepted" equipment.
This chain never ends. If you acquire an accepted system prior (Zipser, Singh)
and the subjects fail to prove the high-end point there will be some excuse
like 1) some test conditions (like bias controls) that is interfering or 2) the
equipment wasn't of satisfactory resolution.

On the other hand, I wonder why some person/party hasn't been able to deliver a
single public or privately replicable experiment with blind and level matched
presentation that shows that amp/cable/bit sound has any sound-quality
property; let alone a benefit. They've had 30 years to make the point; but they
are still arguing religious constructs.
  #274   Report Post  
Steven Sullivan
 
Posts: n/a
Default Steely Dan The Absolute Sound

Nousaine wrote:
"Harry Lavo" wrote:
Harry, from the beginning, made a
point of noting that he was talking about where (how high, or how exalted)
they set their company's "mission", not their price.


Oh really: so how come there have been no bias-controlled listening tests
conducted or published? Was it NOT true that you are suggesting that
measurements didn't convey an accurate picture of an audio components true
acoustical performance? So why weren't there any confirming bias-controlled
listening tests to show that this was true? A 'screen' would seem to have been
an obvious closer.



I'd think that objective verification of one's claims would be the
highest 'mission' one could aspire to, when designing real equipment.
It doesn't seem to me that many 'high-end' companies have aimed very
high, by that standard.

So a lot of not very
expensive gear was reviewed as well as some very expensive stuff. For
example, NAD was considered high end. Yamaha was not. And that distinction
was deserved based on the sound of the day.


There was nothing based on the "sound" of the day because there were no
bias-controlled listening tests employed confirming that the evaluations were
confined to acoustical import.


The audiophile press is a shameless enterprise today, and apparently was
then too.



--

-S.
"We started to see evidence of the professional groupie in the early 80's.
Alarmingly, these girls bore a striking resemblance to Motley Crue." --
David Lee Roth

  #275   Report Post  
Harry Lavo
 
Posts: n/a
Default Steely Dan The Absolute Sound

"Nousaine" wrote in message
news:LelLc.150433$XM6.103359@attbi_s53...
"Harry Lavo" wrote:

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
...
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

I said:
The hobby is still called high-fi and that has a meaning. Anything

that
gets us closer to the intent of the artist by removing distortion,
noise,
compression, or whatever might be hiding the choices made by the

artist
and
the engineer is a benefit. I don't really care about other

preferences,
they are yours and you're welcome to them, but if they include

things
like
flawed playback devices, they are LOWER-fi.


Unfortunately, the hobby hasn't been called "high-fi" in many
years...high-end audio has replaced that terminology.

That should make you think. Why was the term Hi-Fi abandoned?


Because it was over-ridden by high-end a marketing and sales term that had
nothing to do with audio accuracy.

Could it be that it the real advancements have been done?


That's exactly the right answer.

No, I think the phrase "high-end" was coined by Harry Pearson in the

early
days of TAS, to define companies that were primarily listening-oriented

vs.
measurement-oriented, because everything was called "hi-fi" in those

days,
including stuff that measured well but sounded like dreck...mostly mid-fi
stuff that was positioned as "hi-fi".


So where are the controlled listening tests that shows anything sounded

like
"dreck?" Where are the controlled listening tests that show that that
"high-end" equipmnet sounds better than "dreck"?

Harry, from the beginning, made a
point of noting that he was talking about where (how high, or how

exalted)
they set their company's "mission", not their price.


Oh really: so how come there have been no bias-controlled listening tests
conducted or published? Was it NOT true that you are suggesting that
measurements didn't convey an accurate picture of an audio components true
acoustical performance? So why weren't there any confirming

bias-controlled
listening tests to show that this was true? A 'screen' would seem to have

been
an obvious closer.

So a lot of not very
expensive gear was reviewed as well as some very expensive stuff. For
example, NAD was considered high end. Yamaha was not. And that

distinction
was deserved based on the sound of the day.


There was nothing based on the "sound" of the day because there were no
bias-controlled listening tests employed confirming that the evaluations

were
confined to acoustical import.

Given the time of the "day" I wonder why not. It would seem to have been

so
easy.


Because, frankly, in the "day" under discussion the sound differences even
among amplifiers were as different as often the sound is today among
speakers. Easily heard once you removed the propaganda bias. The purpose
of the magazines was to say...."forget measurements and measurement hype for
a moment, and just listen. Does it sound remotely like live music? Is it
closer or further from that goal than the stuff you had five years ago? Ten
years ago?" And those two magazines filled a real void. It was the
attempts to define a vocabulary to describe sound, and the finger placed
upon certain audio "sins", that perked the interest of enough engineers and
entrepreneurs to reverse the momentum of deteriorating sound and start it
back upwards to the high quality sound that is the rule today.


  #276   Report Post  
S888Wheel
 
Posts: n/a
Default Steely Dan The Absolute Sound

From: Steven Sullivan
Date: 7/20/2004 3:53 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 20 Jul 2004 02:03:46 GMT, B&D wrote:


On 7/19/04 7:34 PM, in article cUYKc.122965$IQ4.70903@attbi_s02, "Michael
McKelvy" wrote:

I think, though, it is an apples to oranges a bit - because the

mastering
standards of CD has only recently reached the potential of the medium.

Just
as SACD comes on the horizon.

Nonsense. There have been great sounding CD's and Mastering since about

10
minutes after the first recording engineers got their hands on the

format.

Which recording engineers would that be?


The ones who did Dire Straits CDs, for a start.



The genesis of this thread, to remind everyone, was a quote indicating
that noted 'audiophile' musicians/studio mavens Steely Dan, apparently
consider high-end audio 'truisms' to be more than a little laughable.


One can find quite a variety of opinions amoung pop recording artists. Usually
citation has more to do with aagreement or disagreement with the artist. When
Neil Young lamented demise of analog recordings many people incuding yourself
challenged his hearing and his cognesense. Personally I don't think Nightfly is
a nexceptional sounding recording. It isn't bad but not something I would use
as a demo. Steely Dan's records are consistantly mediocre IMO sonically. Too
bad because I love the music. Doesn't prove or disprove the validity of Fagen's
and Becker's opinions.


Fagan was an early adopter of digital recording, with his 'Nightfly'
album, which is *still* cited as one of the nicest pop recordings
out there (most recently, IME, by Bob Katz).

CD has some definite advantages over vinyl - more convenient, no surface
noise. And both have some real stinkers as far as mastering quality is
concerned - though I have noticed that the standards of quality have risen
generally so that there are more good CD's now than there ever have been -

I
recall a lot of CD's that got released in the early days with hiss (!)


Lots of them are still being released with hiss from the analogue
master tapes - why would that be a surprise? The difference is that on
CD you can *hear* the hiss...............


Besides, it seems to me the standards of *mastering* for pop CDs have
*fallen*
not risen, since the mid-90's, due to the
'loudness wars', so I have to wonder if Bromo is talking only about the
relatively tiny jazz and classical markets. It would be erroneous, of
course,
to say that CDs sound intrinsically flawed, from the prevalence of *bad
mastering*.


This is a very good point. It makes me wonder what those who choose to abandon
the LP format altogether are thinking?
  #278   Report Post  
S888Wheel
 
Posts: n/a
Default Steely Dan The Absolute Sound

Absolute Sound
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 7/20/2004 3:04 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: XFgLc.129726$JR4.107265@attbi_s54



What titles are you talking about?


Every album I replaced with a CD that I owned as an LP. From Pink Floyd to
Bach.


That is far too vague an answer to be of any use.


Which LP issues did you compare them to?

See above.


Above does not begin to answer the question. You do realize that with many
titles there have been several different issues on LP and often on CD many of
which have been mastered quite differently to varying degree in excellence?


I
am always on the look out for better masterings. And I am quite a jazz
enthusiast.


John Handy Excursion in Blue is excellent on CD.

Anything from GRP.

What does it matter, you don't like CD sound so you'll claim your LP's out
perform the CD.


Thta's complete nonsense. I go title by title. I have never said I don't like
all CDs. You are just burning a straw man here. You OTOH seem to have dismissed
LP out of hand by claiming *every* title you replaced with a CD was superior.
Given the history of mastering of various titles on LP and CD I suyspect that
you are listening through a very biased POV or are using sub par LP playback
equipment and/or poor pressings of the LPs in question.


The problem is they don't but you like LP sound better,
even though you're missing out on the increased transient response, lower
noise and no possibility of tracking error.


I'm not missing out on anything. I have both LPs and CDs I am quite happy when
I find a better copy of any title whether it be on CD or LP, I'm afraid you are
the one who is missing out by disnmissing an entire format.



You like what you like, but it's still inferior to CD.



That doesn't even make sense. Some times with some titles I like the CD better.








  #279   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default Steely Dan The Absolute Sound

Ban wrote:

Maybe the whole thing is due to the whimpy dynamics of LP, which requires a
much bigger compression especially on classical recordings. So LPs *are*
mastered differently. Some people just like it compressed, because they do
not have the required gear to reproduce the dynamics of a life concert. This
would also indicate that tubed amps are popular with them, which "round" the
clipping a bit more.


As I have pointed out in previous posts, some people just like the sound of
certain kinds of compression. There's nothing wrong with this. It certainly
can be euphonic, but it's not accurate in terms of signal processing.
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
Imaging, soundstage, 3D Ban High End Audio 4 February 17th 04 07:18 AM
the emperor's clothes Ben Hoadley High End Audio 33 January 16th 04 06:48 PM
Sound, Music, Balance Robert Trosper High End Audio 1 November 21st 03 05:09 AM
DVI - The Destroyer Of Sound Uptown Audio High End Audio 0 September 10th 03 04:36 PM
Surround Sound for Stereo Lovers Robert Lang High End Audio 5 July 4th 03 08:39 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:18 PM.

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

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"