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

From: Stewart Pinkerton
Date: 7/21/2004 10:11 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: 5txLc.4676$8_6.3086@attbi_s04

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,


Well then I stand by my claims as to the possible causes to your perception of
your LP playback being "grossly outperformed."

CD is noticeably less coloured than LP.

That depends on the LP and the CD and the reference.

It does
help if you use speakers such as mine, which have handily lower
distortion than a high-end vinyl rig...................


I use speakers with less distortion than yours.



"Grossly outperformed" would indicate a sign of trouble to me. especially

when
CDs rarely out perform LPs on my system.


Sure they do,


No they don't.

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


No you simply have an anti vinyl bias.



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.


In listening I would say it varies widely from title to title but the LPs
mostly sound better than the CDs of the same title.



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.


Wow we agree on one thing.



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 this is your experience with every title you have compared on CD and LP I
would say it likely has little to do with the limitations of the LP medium or
with what you actually heard. I would suspect it has more to do with your set
up or your biases or both.



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,


Yes, I do.

you simply keep *preferring* those added artifacts

If that is what is going on then I prefer them because they create a superior
illusion of live music. That IMO is better.

- which are
easily reproduced by making a CD-R copy of LP.


Not IME.

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.


Aparently not as I am a Davis fan and I was not sure what you were refering
too. I do have excellent LP versions of all those titles. A comparison will be
interesting.

The
Prestige LPs are IMHO the best vinyl versions you'll find, but are a
pale shadow of the XRCDs.



Which Prestige LPs? There are several versions. Do you have the originals?



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.


Well the Prestige records are pretty much in the same boat on the LP side of
things.

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.


I'll say that the Classics reissue and the original 6 eyed pressings have
outclassed every CD version I have heard of Kind of Blue. Have you compared
either the Classics reissue or the original 6 eyed label pressings to your CDs
of Kind of Blue.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering









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

S888Wheel wrote:

They are mastered differently in so far as they need to be cut on a lathe but
if you are assuming that compression is universally applied to all LPs and to
no CDs you are quite mistaken. Some of the best LPs are mastered with no use of
compression while many CDs are compressed to death in the mastering stage.


You missed the point. The CD medium does not require compression AT ALL
(for acoustic music at least) in mastering. If a CD master is compressed it
it either by choice (preference) or outright stupidity.

LP's REQUIRE compression for the medium to be even usable.

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

From: (Nousaine)
Date: 7/19/2004 3:38 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

(S888Wheel) wrote:



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?


Absolutely.


Seems like a pretty outrageous claim to me. Feel free to prove it.

What do we "hear?"

Sound.

The primary receptor is the ear drum. It's
called the tympanic membrane for a good reason.

As humans we "hear" loudness, pitch (aka partial loudness) and arrival time.
That's it. If the "amplifier" can transmit the signal to the loudspeaker
terminals with no degradations in level and no changes in partial level
differences and no additions (distortion) or arrival timing error it will be
subjectively perfect.


It is an interesting little story on "you and your ears" but what does it have
to do with your extraordinary claim that you don't need to hear the system in
question to know what it sounds like?

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

On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 07:14:00 GMT, (S888Wheel) wrote:

From: chung

Date: 7/21/2004 10:08 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: CqxLc.157278$XM6.116966@attbi_s53


Steven Sullivan wrote:

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:


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.


I also tried to find any such posts. Couldn't find any. Perhaps Mr.
Wheel wishes to admit that he was wrong? Or provide some links?


Admit I was wrong about what exactly?


Obviously, about your claim that (and I quote from your post above):

"the general consensus amongst so-called "objectivists" is that the
data sheet tells you just about everything you need to know."

I have never seen that said by *any* of the so-called 'objectivists',
even by Tom Nousaine, who tends to be at the extreme end of that group
in this forum.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering



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

On 22 Jul 2004 00:13:34 GMT, (S888Wheel) wrote:

Absolute Sound
From: "Ban"

Date: 7/21/2004 10:13 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: BuxLc.138649$IQ4.61407@attbi_s02


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.


They are mastered differently in so far as they need to be cut on a lathe but
if you are assuming that compression is universally applied to all LPs and to
no CDs you are quite mistaken. Some of the best LPs are mastered with no use of
compression while many CDs are compressed to death in the mastering stage.

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.


Your genralization doesn't hold water IME.


Actually, you pretty much confirmed his generalisation, since you
already pointed out that only a very few 'audiophile' LPs (often of
doubtful musical quality) are uncompressed, while only the worst rock
and pop CDs are heavily compressed. The nice thing about classical CDs
is that they are almost never compressed- because they don't *have* to
be, whereas more than 90% of all classical LPs have noticeable
compression, if only to lift the low-level detail above the noise
floor.

BTW, that's the reason behind the common claim of better 'inner
detail' from LP's - it's not *really* low-level detail at all!

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

  #292   Report Post  
B&D
 
Posts: n/a
Default Steely Dan The Absolute Sound

On 7/22/04 3:13 AM, in article POJLc.3613$eM2.1877@attbi_s51, "Nousaine"
wrote:

See what I mean. Harry doesn't give us any evidence he's content to question
my experience and my equipment.


Don't think that is a prerequisite for posting on this forum. The traffic
in the NG would be reduced about about 40% in my opinion if evidence
(experience or measured) were required. Unfortunately.

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

S888Wheel wrote:
From: chung
Date: 7/21/2004 10:08 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: CqxLc.157278$XM6.116966@attbi_s53


Steven Sullivan wrote:

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.


I also tried to find any such posts. Couldn't find any. Perhaps Mr.
Wheel wishes to admit that he was wrong? Or provide some links?


Admit I was wrong about what exactly?


Making the statement that "indeed you should have no trouble finding a
RAHE post that claims that the general consensus amongst so-called
"objectivists" is that the data sheet tells you just about everything
you need to know".

Inherent in that statement was the belief by you that "the general
consensus amongst the so-called "objectivists" is that the data sheet
tells you just about everything you need to know". Which is a false
statement. We all know that there are huge differences between a data
sheet and the measurements. The Wavac is just a latest example of that.

Of course, Mr. Bromo also failed to provide such quote to support his
statement that "the general consensus amongst so-called objectivists is
that the data sheet tells you just about everything you need to know".

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

S888Wheel wrote:
From: chung
Date: 7/21/2004 10:08 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: CqxLc.157278$XM6.116966@attbi_s53


Steven Sullivan wrote:

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.


I also tried to find any such posts. Couldn't find any. Perhaps Mr.
Wheel wishes to admit that he was wrong? Or provide some links?


Admit I was wrong about what exactly?


This:

"The general consensus amongst so-called 'objectivists' is that the
data sheet ells you just about everything you need to know."

For starters.

--

-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

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

On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 17:09:25 GMT, "Harry Lavo"
wrote:

"Nousaine" wrote in message
...


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.


I find it quite hilarious that, when backed into a corner by those who
*have* used top-class vinyl gear, he then claims that it must not have
been set up properly! Perhaps the reverse is true - Harry sets up his
vinyl rig so that it sounds very different from CD. I would define
that as a *bad* setup............

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.


Interesting, since I have similar experience, and I can say that it is
one of the half-dozen finest carts I have ever heard, and trounces
many 'legendary' high end MCs, particularly when tracking the very
best direct-cut discs. Perhaps this is simply a 'high ender' bias
against MMs in general, rather than something based on actual
listening?

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.


I would be careful about trotting out the old 'ah, but you've never
heard vinyl at its best', when you are debnating with posters who hold
difffering opinions from yours, but have listened very carefully to
the Rockport Sirius III with Clearaudio Insider cart, all set up by
Andy Payor's own hands.

Try to accept that your preference for vinyl is simply your own
*personal* preference, and that other equally experienced audiophiles
may quite legitimately hold the opposite view.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering



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

On 22 Jul 2004 00:17:27 GMT, (S888Wheel) wrote:

From: Stewart Pinkerton

Date: 7/21/2004 10:11 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: 5txLc.4676$8_6.3086@attbi_s04

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


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 this is your experience with every title you have compared on CD and LP I
would say it likely has little to do with the limitations of the LP medium or
with what you actually heard. I would suspect it has more to do with your set
up or your biases or both.


It is of course not the case with *every* title, it is simply true of
the majority. My listening experience is also consistent with the
gross technical superiority of CD.

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.


I'll say that the Classics reissue and the original 6 eyed pressings have
outclassed every CD version I have heard of Kind of Blue. Have you compared
either the Classics reissue or the original 6 eyed label pressings to your CDs
of Kind of Blue.


That is the precise reason why I'm not going to get into any kind of
debate on this album, as you'll always claim that I've listened to
inferior vinyl pressings. It is of course fair to say that the
mastering has varied so much that if you prefer a particular mix, then
that will remain your preference, regardless of the medium. Let's not
forget that both vinyl and CD can give good sound, and that it's the
*performance* that matters.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

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

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 17:09:25 GMT, "Harry Lavo"
wrote:

"Nousaine" wrote in message
...


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.


I find it quite hilarious that, when backed into a corner by those who
*have* used top-class vinyl gear, he then claims that it must not have
been set up properly! Perhaps the reverse is true - Harry sets up his
vinyl rig so that it sounds very different from CD. I would define
that as a *bad* setup............


It's also very illuminating that those prefer CD's very seldom resort to
defenses such as "but you never listen to a top-class CD system (set up
properly)" when debating with vinyl lovers...

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

"Nousaine" wrote in message
news:mTSLc.10928$8_6.7306@attbi_s04...
(S888Wheel) wrote:

From:
(Nousaine)

...snip.....

As humans we "hear" loudness, pitch (aka partial loudness) and arrival

time.
That's it. If the "amplifier" can transmit the signal to the loudspeaker
terminals with no degradations in level and no changes in partial level
differences and no additions (distortion) or arrival timing error it

will be
subjectively perfect.


It is an interesting little story on "you and your ears" but what does it
have
to do with your extraordinary claim that you don't need to hear the

system in
question to know what it sounds like?


Its similar to the idea that I don't have to drive a Aveo and a Ferrari to

know
which one is faster. Because we humans only hear level, pitch and timing

we can
tell from measurements which electronic devices will deliver level, pitch
(frequency response) and timing (no time-dependency in amplification) to

the
speaker terminals most accurately.


Conveniently ignoring the brain's role in integrating these in very subtle
and complex fashion. Tom, there is a difference between "sound" and the
interpretation of it by the brain, in this case as reproduced music.. and
don't give me your usual reply that if you can't "hear" it, the brain can't
interpret it. That's a given...but the brain can discern very fine
discrepancies in relationsships between the various factors, each of which
may be measured as "acceptable" by themselves. For example, can you tell me
why the brain interprets a string section as "not right" even when measured
frequency response is ruler flat to 20khz and beyond?

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

"chung" wrote in message
news:79ULc.145167$IQ4.45596@attbi_s02...
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 17:09:25 GMT, "Harry Lavo"
wrote:

"Nousaine" wrote in message
...


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.


I find it quite hilarious that, when backed into a corner by those who
*have* used top-class vinyl gear, he then claims that it must not have
been set up properly! Perhaps the reverse is true - Harry sets up his
vinyl rig so that it sounds very different from CD. I would define
that as a *bad* setup............


It's also very illuminating that those prefer CD's very seldom resort to
defenses such as "but you never listen to a top-class CD system (set up
properly)" when debating with vinyl lovers...


Well, if you all profess that a cheap $100 player sounds as good as (and
indistinguishable from) more expensive systems, as many here have asserted,
then it doesn't matter, does it?



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

S888Wheel wrote:
From:


The CD medium does not require compression AT ALL


That doesn't really help the consumer who may be faced wiuth a possible choice
between a CD trhat has been compressed to death and an LP of the same title
that was mastered without compression.


That isn't a defect of hardware, but of the marketplace.

(for acoustic music at least) in mastering. If a CD master is compressed it
it either by choice (preference) or outright stupidity.


A *reality* consumers face and are *stuck with* in some cases should they
choose to abandon the LP format due to the sort of prejudices widely displayed
by some here on RAHE.


I can't speak for others, but Mr. Wheel, kindly don't associate me with that
blunt propaganda brush. I have nearly 3000 LP's and I use them often, (and
humdreds of 78's) not just because of recordings that there are not to be had on
CD, but sometimes I just like what the euphonic distortions of LP do to the music.
Additionally, I have wide experience with LP setups (in both use and setup)
from Rockport and Versa tables, etc. down to kiddie record players, Garrard RC80
changers, 1940's Majestic consoles and even Edison machines. I never refer to
specifics of what I personally use at any time because of those who choose to
attack others based upon that.

LP's REQUIRE compression for the medium to be even usable.


That is simply wrong. Any number of outstanding LPs have been recorded and
mastered with no compression.


It's a little curious that in the case of yourself, (who often points out
to others the importance of the listening experience by itself) would choose
to argue from a deliberately narrow technical definition of compression when
the summed monophonic bass of all LP's is most certainly a form of compression
from the perspective of the listening experience.

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

"Conveniently ignoring the brain's role in integrating these in very
subtle
and complex fashion. Tom, there is a difference between "sound" and the
interpretation of it by the brain, in this case as reproduced music.. and
don't give me your usual reply that if you can't "hear" it, the brain
can't
interpret it. That's a given...but the brain can discern very fine
discrepancies in relationsships between the various factors, each of which
may be measured as "acceptable" by themselves. For example, can you tell
me
why the brain interprets a string section as "not right" even when
measured
frequency response is ruler flat to 20khz and beyond?"

All the above addressed many times by controled listening alone tests.
With wire/amps if there is a discernable difference it is in the
music/recorded signal and not the gear. If you want to assert to the
contrary, do the same kind of testing to demonstrate that wire/amps create
that difference.

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

"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."

And how would you know, it all being based on "subjective" individual
experience that no one else can duplicate? If one were to take your list
of carts and say they were one and all inferior to the v15, then where are
we? Then your individual experience leaves you without any basis to make
any claim except for your spicific experience, no way to know that it is
flawed so as to make it irrelevant. It would be like the teenager with
his 10 band eq making a smile of the freq responce and he thinking his is
the cat's meow and anyone not having or sharing his opinion has no basis
to judge quality. This can be said with the upmost confidence that it can
not be contridicted. This is the problem with such universal subjective
opinions, there is no third party disintrested way to confirm or duplicate
your judgement, making it worthless, or no less so then the kid with the
10 band eq system. Worst of all, it is equally subject to the fads that
come and go and rise and fall by peer pressure and hifi mag content and
marketing copy; worthless in the extreme.

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

From: chung
Date: 7/22/2004 12:00 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: 79ULc.145167$IQ4.45596@attbi_s02

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 17:09:25 GMT, "Harry Lavo"
wrote:

"Nousaine" wrote in message
...


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.


I find it quite hilarious that, when backed into a corner by those who
*have* used top-class vinyl gear, he then claims that it must not have
been set up properly! Perhaps the reverse is true - Harry sets up his
vinyl rig so that it sounds very different from CD. I would define
that as a *bad* setup............


It's also very illuminating that those prefer CD's very seldom resort to
defenses such as "but you never listen to a top-class CD system (set up
properly)" when debating with vinyl lovers...


Not that illuminating. It seems that is for obvious reasons. 1. those who
prefer CDs often also believe that all "competent" CD players all sound the
same. 2. Those who prefer LPs have often been exposed to many high end and
"competent" CD players. If you had run across some one who claimed LP
superiority and adnitted never having compared LPs to CDs on a "competent" CD
player would it not follow that such a person needs to hear a "competent" CD
player before drawing such a conclusion?

  #307   Report Post  
B&D
 
Posts: n/a
Default Steely Dan The Absolute Sound

On 7/22/04 3:00 PM, in article 79ULc.145167$IQ4.45596@attbi_s02, "chung"
wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 17:09:25 GMT, "Harry Lavo"
wrote:

"Nousaine" wrote in message
...


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.


I find it quite hilarious that, when backed into a corner by those who
*have* used top-class vinyl gear, he then claims that it must not have
been set up properly! Perhaps the reverse is true - Harry sets up his
vinyl rig so that it sounds very different from CD. I would define
that as a *bad* setup............


It's also very illuminating that those prefer CD's very seldom resort to
defenses such as "but you never listen to a top-class CD system (set up
properly)" when debating with vinyl lovers...


Is it? CD sounds the same regardless of the setup - vinyl in order to sound
its best needs to be set up properly - does not matter if you love or hate
either medium - it is a basic fact of vinyl that it is fussy about setup.

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

S888Wheel wrote:

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.


You still do not see that its the lack of understanding of what
measurements mean, or rather the dependence on certain marketing
strategies and reviews, that result in consumers buying wrong products.



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.


You said facts prejudice customers. I suggest you understand exactly
what the word "prejudice" means. From Webster's:

Prejudice: (1) Judgment or opinion formed before facts are known. (2)
Judgment or opinion held in disregards of facts.

Not much point continuing if we don't use the same vocabulary...
  #309   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default Steely Dan The Absolute Sound

Harry Lavo wrote:


It was the attempts to define a vocabulary to describe sound,


My favorite is the 'butterscotch' sounding ARC preamp. What a
noble heritage!
  #310   Report Post  
t.hoehler
 
Posts: n/a
Default Steely Dan The Absolute Sound


And, yes, for comparable levels of reproduction CD is cheaper than

turntable
stuff - and is more convenient and lasts longer without fuss.


MUCH more convienent. Plus, you can trust someone other than your expert
self grin to put a CD on and play it - without gasp risking knocking
some little widget on the 'table out of alignment and horrors! RUINING the
sound. Or, like a friend of mine did, while putting on an LP, snagged his
fuzzy sweater sleeve on the cantilever/stylus of a VERY expensive MC cart,
and snapped that bad boy right off! Talk about one unhappy camper!

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.

Well, the CD will _always_ be pristine, if it started life that way. Now, in
the case of vinyl, well, if it once was pristine, after a few playings . . .
pop . . . tic . . . Damn! I cleaned that LP! You know, it is a purely
mechanical setup. A very hard stone flying down a violently undulating vinyl
groove. Mein Gott, it's a wonder the thing works at all! When all is well,
the LP playback system is a thing of beauty and a joy to behold. But it
won't stay that way, it's like the shock absorbers/struts on your car. From
the day you drive it home, they degrade. Very subtly, very slowly, but they
DEGRADE. Same way with vinyl and its playback equipment. OTOH, cd playback
equipment, will not degrade, you can check it out after a month, a year, a
decade - the quality is still there. I am not a cheapskate, but my 1989
Technics 150 buck cd player still sounds wonderful to me. Granted, I am 55
years old, but I have tried to be careful with my hearing, and my vinyl
playback equipment doesn't sound as good as it did 10 years ago. I am also
very, very careful with my LP's, but they wear out, they get noisy, they
wow, the hole is sometimes not punched exactly on center, etc etc etc. I
cannot do anything about bad vinyl pressings, but I can't remember the last
time I had a bad cd. Equipment is not the end-all for me. The music is, and
CDs deliver the goods with the least amount of hassle.
Whoops, nearly fell climbing down off the soapbox. Hehe.

Happy listening to all,
Tom


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

S888Wheel wrote:
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.


Indeed, because Neil Young tends to play *damn loud* and has done so for
decades. He's also a bit of a flake.

Personally I don't think Nightfly is
a nexceptional sounding recording. It isn't bad but not something I would use
as a demo.


Since you're the one who lieks to argue by authority to guys like Hoffman,
I'm sure my Bob Katz cite must have given you cause for concern.

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.


shrug Steely Dan's records are mediocre sonically? Well, I suppose
if one waits long enough, one will encounter *every* opinion.

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).


Leaving this in, just in case you missed it the first time. I know this
sort of info is important to you.

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?


They're thinking that a format that *can* be implemented in a flawed fashion
is preferable to one that is *intrinsically* flawed. They may also be
fans of classical and jazz, rather than rock and pop, which is where the
loudness wars plays out.


--

-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

  #312   Report Post  
B&D
 
Posts: n/a
Default Steely Dan The Absolute Sound

On 7/22/04 3:05 AM, in article lHJLc.7626$8_6.5406@attbi_s04,
" wrote:

S888Wheel wrote:

They are mastered differently in so far as they need to be cut on a lathe but
if you are assuming that compression is universally applied to all LPs and to
no CDs you are quite mistaken. Some of the best LPs are mastered with no use
of
compression while many CDs are compressed to death in the mastering stage.


You missed the point. The CD medium does not require compression AT ALL
(for acoustic music at least) in mastering. If a CD master is compressed it
it either by choice (preference) or outright stupidity.

LP's REQUIRE compression for the medium to be even usable.


The point here was not a discussion of techniques required to give accurate
results in the mastering stages of production (RIAA curves and all).

The point is that while the CD has a lot of potential (one can argue about
where the heights of that potential may lie) is that very few CD's ever
achieve it since the record companies spend a lot of time compressing the
dynamic peaks of the music - there are special pieces of equipment used for
this as well to reduce the dynamics. Incidentally they tend to either model
or use tubes to do the compression since the compression is more euphonic,
generally, but the fact is that most, possibly the vast majority of modern
recordings have significant compression and reduction of the dynamic range.

This is to sound "better" on portable players mostly.

There are some truly excellent recordings out there on CD, even some pop
recordings (even a couple of remasters, too!), but the average state of the
medium has dropped significantly over the last decade.

The new vinyl, on the other hand, has become almost a pure audiophile
pursuit, so the new stuff tends to be mastered very, very well, and cut with
an attention to quality that hadn't been seen often in the heyday.

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

S888Wheel wrote:

From: (Nousaine)
Date: 7/19/2004 3:38 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

(S888Wheel) wrote:



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?


Absolutely.


Seems like a pretty outrageous claim to me. Feel free to prove it.


I wish you would demand the same degree of "rigor" from those making
fantastic claims like cables requiring break-in.

Anyone who has any understanding of amplifiers will appreciate the
significance of the following:

1. Huge bass bump at around 80 Hz.

2. High output impedance.

3. 10% distortion at 20 Hz (8 ohm tap, 8 ohm load).

4. 5% distortion at 15W output, 1KHz. 2.2% at 2W. (8 ohm tap, 8 ohm load.)

5. Huge intermodulation distortion at 2.5W output.

6. Significant AC spurious components.

Most of us would say that you do not need an audition to form an opinion
of the sonic merits of that amp, and that's why you read those really
negative remarks (e.g. POS) about this amp from posters in this
newsgroup. After all, there is no possibility of anything else in a
system that will undo those errors.

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

"Its similar to the idea that I don't have to drive a Aveo and a Ferrari
to know
which one is faster. Because we humans only hear level, pitch and timing
we can
tell from measurements which electronic devices will deliver level, pitch
(frequency response) and timing (no time-dependency in amplification) to
the
speaker terminals most accurately."

Which is a corollary to the listening results which show that if amps/wire
fall within given parameters of electrical performance, then they can't be
distinguished one from another.
  #315   Report Post  
Steven Sullivan
 
Posts: n/a
Default Steely Dan The Absolute Sound

Nousaine wrote:
(S888Wheel) wrote:


From:
(Nousaine)

...snip.....


As humans we "hear" loudness, pitch (aka partial loudness) and arrival time.
That's it. If the "amplifier" can transmit the signal to the loudspeaker
terminals with no degradations in level and no changes in partial level
differences and no additions (distortion) or arrival timing error it will be
subjectively perfect.


It is an interesting little story on "you and your ears" but what does it
have
to do with your extraordinary claim that you don't need to hear the system in
question to know what it sounds like?


Its similar to the idea that I don't have to drive a Aveo and a Ferrari to know
which one is faster. Because we humans only hear level, pitch and timing we can
tell from measurements which electronic devices will deliver level, pitch
(frequency response) and timing (no time-dependency in amplification) to the
speaker terminals most accurately.


If everything msut be heard in order to have an idea of what it sounds like,
then manufacturing audio components must be either an incredibly
tiring job, or else a crapshoot. How can they be confident that
the 3657th copy of speaker X that rolls off their assembly line
really sounds anything like the prototype?




--

-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



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

"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."

As a fair exposition of what the mags never stop telling us, as a version
of the "utility" of subjective "auditioning", as a reason for existing, as
holders of the holy grail and final arbiter of hifi, as one would want.
Inall cultures and at all times making and exercising mythology serves a
vital purpose.
  #317   Report Post  
Bruce J. Richman
 
Posts: n/a
Default Steely Dan The Absolute Sound

TonyP wrote:


S888Wheel wrote:

From:

Date: 7/22/2004 12:05 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: lHJLc.7626$8_6.5406@attbi_s04

S888Wheel wrote:


They are mastered differently in so far as they need to be cut on a lathe

but

if you are assuming that compression is universally applied to all LPs and

to
no CDs you are quite mistaken. Some of the best LPs are mastered with no

use of
compression while many CDs are compressed to death in the mastering stage.


You missed the point.


No I didn't. The point was simply based on a faulty premise and I pointed

it
out.


The CD medium does not require compression AT ALL


That doesn't really help the consumer who may be faced wiuth a possible

choice
between a CD trhat has been compressed to death and an LP of the same title
that was mastered without compression.


(for acoustic music at least) in mastering. If a CD master is compressed

it
it either by choice (preference) or outright stupidity.


A *reality* consumers face and are *stuck with* in some cases should they
choose to abandon the LP format due to the sort of prejudices widely

displayed
by some here on RAHE.


LP's REQUIRE compression for the medium to be even usable.


That is simply wrong. Any number of outstanding LPs have been recorded and
mastered with no compression.


Weren't the old Shefield's direct to disk?









Yes, they were, as were such labels as Crystal Clear, Century, Direct Disc. to
name just a few. Also, in more recent times, Analogue Productions, the record
label for Chad Kassem's Acoustic Sounds, has also produced direct to disc
reecordings. And several former direct-to-disc recordings have won Grammy
awards for engineering excellence (e.g. the LA Philharmonic's Wagner
recording).

For those unfortunate or prejudiced enough to not have vinyl playback
equipment, many of the Sheffield titles are also available on CD. I would
recommend a sampler called "Drive" on the Sheffield label for a nice assortment
of cuts from various famous Sheffield albums (e.g. Harry James, the Moscow
Sessions, etc.). This CD was originally designed to serve as a test CD of
sorts for automotive stereo systems, and the notes accompanying each cut in the
CD booklet are very interesting.


..
Bruce J. Richman


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

Harry Lavo wrote:

For example, can you tell me
why the brain interprets a string section as "not right" even when measured
frequency response is ruler flat to 20khz and beyond?


Frequency response of what? Do amplifiers, cables and etc. have pickup
patterns like microphones that are very unlike how our ears detect sound?

Do amps, cables and etc. have dispersion patterns like speakers do that cause
problems with strings sounding 'right.'

I won't even begin to address the issues with bias and preference.
  #319   Report Post  
Harry Lavo
 
Posts: n/a
Default Steely Dan The Absolute Sound

"TonyP" wrote in message
news:fcULc.11376$8_6.6319@attbi_s04...
S888Wheel wrote:

From:

Date: 7/22/2004 12:05 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: lHJLc.7626$8_6.5406@attbi_s04

S888Wheel wrote:


They are mastered differently in so far as they need to be cut on a

lathe

but

if you are assuming that compression is universally applied to all LPs

and to
no CDs you are quite mistaken. Some of the best LPs are mastered with

no use of
compression while many CDs are compressed to death in the mastering

stage.

You missed the point.


No I didn't. The point was simply based on a faulty premise and I

pointed it
out.


The CD medium does not require compression AT ALL


That doesn't really help the consumer who may be faced wiuth a possible

choice
between a CD trhat has been compressed to death and an LP of the same

title
that was mastered without compression.


(for acoustic music at least) in mastering. If a CD master is

compressed it
it either by choice (preference) or outright stupidity.


A *reality* consumers face and are *stuck with* in some cases should

they
choose to abandon the LP format due to the sort of prejudices widely

displayed
by some here on RAHE.


LP's REQUIRE compression for the medium to be even usable.


That is simply wrong. Any number of outstanding LPs have been recorded

and
mastered with no compression.


Weren't the old Shefield's direct to disk?


Absolutely, most were.

Moreover, the older classical and jazz disk were not compressed at all (the
original recordings often were manually gain-ridden, more akin to limiters
being used, rather than compression). This "no compression"pattern
thankfully is being restored via SACD and DVD-A recordings. It was not
until. the late 70's that compression became obviously used in pop music,
and not until the 90's that the use of it got truly obnoxious. The irony is
that many, many CD's today have only 10-15db of dynamic range, thereby
wasting one theoretical advantage of the medium.
  #320   Report Post  
chung
 
Posts: n/a
Default Steely Dan The Absolute Sound

Harry Lavo wrote:
"Nousaine" wrote in message
news:mTSLc.10928$8_6.7306@attbi_s04...
(S888Wheel) wrote:

From:
(Nousaine)

...snip.....

As humans we "hear" loudness, pitch (aka partial loudness) and arrival

time.
That's it. If the "amplifier" can transmit the signal to the loudspeaker
terminals with no degradations in level and no changes in partial level
differences and no additions (distortion) or arrival timing error it

will be
subjectively perfect.

It is an interesting little story on "you and your ears" but what does it
have
to do with your extraordinary claim that you don't need to hear the

system in
question to know what it sounds like?


Its similar to the idea that I don't have to drive a Aveo and a Ferrari to

know
which one is faster. Because we humans only hear level, pitch and timing

we can
tell from measurements which electronic devices will deliver level, pitch
(frequency response) and timing (no time-dependency in amplification) to

the
speaker terminals most accurately.


Conveniently ignoring the brain's role in integrating these in very subtle
and complex fashion. Tom, there is a difference between "sound" and the
interpretation of it by the brain, in this case as reproduced music.. and
don't give me your usual reply that if you can't "hear" it, the brain can't
interpret it. That's a given...but the brain can discern very fine
discrepancies in relationsships between the various factors, each of which
may be measured as "acceptable" by themselves. For example, can you tell me
why the brain interprets a string section as "not right" even when measured
frequency response is ruler flat to 20khz and beyond?


Several reasons:

(1) You are not familiar with the recording venue's acoustics.
(2) Your memory of what's "right" is based on certain performances or
recordings. But you have no idea what the live feed sounds like in a
particular recording. Your memory may also be simply faulty.
(3) There may have been intentional errors (like compression) introduced
in mastering.
(4) Your speakers may have errors.
(5) You may have been conditoned to listening to vinyl with all its
artifacts, so that digital recordings sound unreal to you.
(6) You have a bias against digital recordings.

Need more?
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 06:00 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"