| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#362
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
S888Wheel wrote:
Sure it is. Good thing some one came up with dither to help digital with this problem. Funny thing though, CDs were already proclaimed champion by the measurement folks before they were being dithered. Now an undithered digital recording is considered defective. Can you provide an example of a CD recording with no dithering applied? I'm afraid, once again, you have shown your anti-digital prejudice. Dithering is always a part of digital audio. It's only the high-end audiophiles who sometimes have trouble understanding that, and putting up a strawman like you just did. |
|
#363
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
"Nousaine" wrote in message
news:zGaMc.168737$Oq2.24685@attbi_s52... (Bruce J. Richman) wrote: That is simply wrong. Any number of outstanding LPs have been recorded and mastered with no compression. Weren't the old Shefield's direct to disk? Yes, they were, as were such labels as Crystal Clear, Century, Direct Disc. to name just a few. Also, in more recent times, Analogue Productions, the record label for Chad Kassem's Acoustic Sounds, has also produced direct to disc reecordings. And several former direct-to-disc recordings have won Grammy awards for engineering excellence (e.g. the LA Philharmonic's Wagner recording). For those unfortunate or prejudiced enough to not have vinyl playback equipment, many of the Sheffield titles are also available on CD. I would recommend a sampler called "Drive" on the Sheffield label for a nice assortment of cuts from various famous Sheffield albums (e.g. Harry James, the Moscow Sessions, etc.). This CD was originally designed to serve as a test CD of sorts for automotive stereo systems, and the notes accompanying each cut in the CD booklet are very interesting. . Bruce J. Richman Oh Sure; and the Thelma Huston "Pressure Cooker" lps I bought with the assurance that once the masters were used up there would never be availability again; was forever askanst by the release of the same material on cd; in a couple years by the "discovery" of analog back-up copies that were made at the time. What a crock; then and now. Sorry Sheffield announced from the beginning that they were making analog recordings as backups, and that they might be released after the direct to disks were gone. The only think promised was that the direct-to-disks were limited in number and once sold, were gone forever. The crock is your mistaken assertion. |
|
#364
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
news  QaMc.148059$%_6.59039@attbi_s01...On 22 Jul 2004 22:42:04 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote: 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). No, gain riding *is* compression, limiting is quite different. Listen to a DBX compander 'breathing' for a fine example of automated gain-riding. I'm sorry, Stewart, gain riding on classical and jazz was only done in those few places where sound peaks occured...it was thus properly classified as limiting. Except for those peaks, there was no compression of dynamics. Compression affects the entire recording, boosting the lows and reducing the highs eveny over a wide range. 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. Agreed. Good that this happens once in awhile! :-) |
|
#365
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
Harry Lavo wrote:
"chung" wrote in message ... Harry Lavo wrote: "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? The point, of course, is that the majority of CD players sound very similar, whereas by your own admission, it almost requires heroic efforts to set up a vinyl rig properly. So what are the chances of vinyl rigs (like the one that you own and the one that Mr. Wheel owns) sounding alike? If they all sound different, what does that tell you about the accuracy of vinyl rigs? How do you know that Mr. Wheel's and my systems don't sound very similar? We seem to agree a lot on our sound judgments, so who is to say we didn't end up independently with very neutral but very fine phono systems? Of course, it is possible. The question, if you read what I wrote, was how likely, given the pains you went through to finely set up your equipment, and your very particular, uh, taste in cartridges? And are you suggesting that all those vinyl lovers who believe in the accuracy of vinyl all have very neutral and fine phone systems that sound the same? |
|
#366
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
Harry Lavo wrote:
wrote in message ... 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! Actually, if you've had much experience with ARC preamps, you'll probably even know which models he was referring to and which not. I do, but no matter. Why is that important? I can understand why you might be defensive about TAS characterizing a preamp as butterscotch sounding. Butterscotch litterally gives me dry heaves, but no piece of audio equipment ever has, no matter how bad. |
|
#367
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
S888Wheel wrote:
Compression isn't inherently evil. It's been used during tracking, mixing and mastering for decades, and you wouldn't want to remove *all* of it from your favorite recordings. Perhaps not. I'd probably prefer not to have any added after the final mix though. And how many of your LPs fit that bill? Clearly, adding *some* compression (along with the otehr stuff added by LP mastering and playback) is OK with LPphiles...it's jsut adding *too much* that bothers some...same as CD fans. And of course, 'too much' is purely subjective, too. The 'loudness wars' simply manifest an extreme example of use during mastering. And compression is only one of many 'adjustments' that can be made during mastering. Yeah, it has been a very unfortunate trend. So were fake stereo and recycled vinyl during the LP era. Besides, 'loudness war' reissues cater to a market that wants a certain kind of euphonic distortion. So do vinyl reissues. Balony. They are very different in character and serve a different purpose. All that means is: you find one euphonic and the other, not so euphonic. Btw, if you're suddently so worried abotu the consumer, where's the anxiety about expensive high-end stuff that makes dubious-at-best claims for performance? I am not as worried about the consumer at large as I am focused on myself as "the consumer." I am not worried about claims of manufacturers since I do not buy equipment based on claims. Surely Grover interconnects must be tempting. Where did that come from? Were we talking about interconnects? You know exactly what hte reference means. OTOH when it comes to music and the various issues available auditions are not as easy to come by. So message boards such as Stevehoffman.tv do come in handy for some guidence. It is still hit and miss but thankfully the investment is not on the same level as equipment. When it comes to music reviews I am more aware of which reviewers' preferences tend to mirror my own and use that in some purchasing decisions. I also pay attention to my experience with various labels and my expereince with the various engineers behind the releases of these labels. I read lots of audiophile forums. On the ones where viunylphiles feel comfortable letting it all hang out, I've seen a significant amount of bitching and disagreement about various vinyl reissues -- this one is noisy, that one used a digital master,etc. Yeah, so? Is that a bad thing? People freely expressing their honest opinions about what is available on the market? The horror! But it does go to your point about CD buyers being faced with tough choices if they only want the 'best sounding' version. It's an issue for LPphiles too. Then again, maybe it simply that often you likes the sound that vinyl mastering and playback adds to the master tape. Maybe, maybe not. Does it matter why I like what I like? You do seem rather reflexively defensive about it. One would think you shoudl be pushing for reel-to-reel -- another format that could beat vinyl technically in its day. I have no problem with people who want to pursue that medium. So, why favor vinyl? Availability? them still displaying the inherent flaws of vinyl, The inherent limitations of vinyl I think is hardly much of an issue. Well, not for you, of course. Not for me and others who have managed to overcome their anti-vinyl paranoia. No one's *afraid* of vinyl, Scott. Am I 'paranoid' for preferring DVD to VHS? (And what to make of CDphiles who still own and use turntables? Are they schizophrenic?)) If one can get past their anti-vinyl biases I think just about everyone would be quite impressed with vinyl at it's very best. Most of the battle is in the recordings and masterings once you have a good high end rig. I'm always impressed that such a primitive technology could produce such pleasant results. But it's not pleasant enough to be worth it, to me. That is a matter of personal values. Most people don't think quality playback of music is worth much money or effort at all. I think it's worth pursuing. Alas, LP doesn't constitute high enough 'quality playback' for me. I want something better. and, according to vinylphiles themselves, requiring expensive rigs and extensive 'optimization' to extract the benefits. That is true. But it is also true of speakers and rooms. No one promised the hobby will be cheap or easy. But nowadays it doesn't have to be *quite that* difficult, is the point. I wish it were true. And I think that seems to be a driving point of many "objectivists." Some people are simply not comfortable if they don't have all the answers and easy solutions to their needs. Some people create 'solutions' for themselves needlessly, perhaps enjoying the rituals of tweakery for their own sake. material, No. I dunno, are there any recordings of the '1812 overture', a fairly popular piece, that are on uncompressed vinyl? 1812 Overture (CSO / Reiner ) (4 discs; 45 RPM) Artist: Tchaikovsky Label: Classic Records Format: LP LOL. 4 discs, 45 RPM. I should have guessed. The legendary Reiner 1812 that was only available as a "1S" pressing having been deleted soon after the Mercury 1812 featuring live cannon shots was released making for a very rare original to find. T... So, if they put *that* one on uncompressed vinyl, would one of the four 45s be devoted entirely to the cannon shots? And that's leaving aside rock albums. Non-answer noted. And how many vinyl recordingd don't sum bass to mono? Can you tell the difference? I dunno; but I'd rather not have to question it at all. Such bass summing is done specifically because of the *limitations of the medium*. So, how many vinyl masterings don't sum bass to mono? and requiring an expensive rig to play without the danger of damage to the record or rig. No. One can get a rig that will not endanger the vinyl in any unusual manner that is not particularly expensive. Like, how expensive? Comparatively speaking, to play a recording with a full dynamic and frequency range, asuming such a beast even existed on LP, how much would it cost for a TT rig that could do it justice without sending the tonearm skidding across the vinyl? http://www.hcmaudio.com/comp.asp?compID=514 Great, now play some full-frequency, full-dynamic range cannon shots on that one and get back to me. (I'll assume you have the poor thing well vibration-proofed too). Compared to a CD of same? A portable player at $25-30 -- 1/10 the cost...assumign your listed TT really does what I'm asking it to do. *This* is what you consider a viable choice comapred to CDs It is better to have the choice than not to have the choice IMO. Again, where's the call for a return to reel-to-reel? Why would I make such a call? I think I'd rather take a stab at SACD or DVD audio. At least the few titles that exist are easily found. Stab away. (most of the pop music canon has now been remastered at least once, btw; Yes it has and all too often quite poorly. Then again, all too often it was crap on vinyl first... Yeah it was. Most pop recordings are simply bad. I still think finding the best version for me is worth while. Too often the crappyness was compounded by the vulnerabilities and weaknesses of the vinyl medium. you could always seek out the 'used' supposedly 'flat transfers' that Hoffmanites worship) I have. I don't always like them. I don't think it is fair to say that Hoffman "worships" these transfers. He often considers them to be the best CD versions available ofr a given title. That is all. Good to know don't you think? *Hoffmanites* You sort of were one once weren't you? Nope. *Hoffmanites* comprise a subset of participants on the Hoffman board. Before they suspended you for not following the rules. You certainly were a regular on those message boards. I certainly was. But I certainly was never a *Hoffmanite*. -- -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 |
|
#368
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
Harry Lavo wrote:
"chung" wrote in message ... 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? Nope you made my point. Frequency response, volume, and timing per say tell very little about a piece of gear, much less a system, when considered separately. An amp that dynamically compresses and alters the frequency response of the system will not show any problems when measured using conventional measurements. And it may not show up with many kinds of music. But a trained ear, listening to the right material, and with experience with live music in a similar acoustic environment, will most likely pick it up with some extended listening. And without dbt. Harry, you have to be a bit more technical savvy. Any amp that dynamically compresses will show distortion that is easily measureable. Yes, with conventional measurements. I am honestly shocked to see this from one who has been in this hobby for as long as you have... |
|
#369
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
S888Wheel wrote:
From: chung Date: 7/22/2004 3:35 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: 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. Why? Do you feel objectivists claims require less rigor? I guess not, but that is neither here nor there. Note that I said the "same degree"... You seem to be taking Tom at his word that he can tell what MF's system sounds like without hearing it. I take Tom's word that he knows the sonic merits, or lack thereof, of the Wavav amp. I take Tom's word that he could tell what distortion and bass bumps sound like. Now do you not believe Tom's ability to tell what those errors sound like? 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, I am aware of that. Most of you have said it. Do you believe it? and that's why you read those really negative remarks (e.g. POS) about this amp from posters in this newsgroup. Yes I read POS from the folks who haven't listened to the amp and gee I liked it form at least one person who actually listened to it. So tell us what you think about the amp. You think you may like it? After all, there is no possibility of anything else in a system that will undo those errors. I do think blind comparisons on MFs system between these amps and "competent" amps would be most interesting. Why need blinding if there is a huge bass bump? Or 5% distortion at 2W? Are those subtle effects? |
|
#370
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
From: (Nousaine)
Date: 7/23/2004 12:07 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 22 Jul 2004 00:14:53 GMT, (S888Wheel) wrote: Subject: Steely Dan The Absolute Sound From: "Ban" Date: 7/21/2004 10:09 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: nrxLc.156323$Oq2.88089@attbi_s52 Michael McKelvy wrote: Unfortunately, the hobby hasn't been called "high-fi" in many years...high-end audio has replaced that terminology. That should make you think. Why was the term Hi-Fi abandoned? Could it be true that some of the higher priced gear didn't fulfill the "HiFi" requirements, which were coined down in international standards, and for that reason another term had to be invented? No, the history of the terminology is well known amoung some audiophiles and this was not what happened. Quite right. Harry Pearson simply had to find some labels on which to hang his tweaky notions of why ultra-exotic and weirdly-designed equipment could be sold at exorbitent prices to an unsuspecting public. He and his accomplices at rags such as TAS have probably done irreparable harm to the high-fidelity sound reproduction field by encouraging nonsenses such as 'audiophile' cable and single-ended tube amps. So you couldn't nail down the company and return the crappy gear. At least with the Wavac that seems to indicate this lengthly practiced habit. Really? Do you have any evidence that WAVAC owners have been trying to return their amps but WAVAC refuses because audiophiles commonly use the term "high end" instead of "hifi?" Do you have any evidence that anyone actually *does* own one of these ludicrous toys? -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering Isn't that an interesting question. If it sounds so good why doesn't JA own one? And if he does ....... what was the purchase price? Maybe because he is not so wealthy that 350,000 bucks isn't an issue, even with a discount. Maybe he likes other amps better. Maybe they are too big and too hot. People can like things and not wish to buy them or even wish to own them. |
|
#371
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
|
|
#372
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
"chung" wrote in message
news:%JgMc.152107$IQ4.151158@attbi_s02... Harry Lavo wrote: "chung" wrote in message ... Harry Lavo wrote: "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? The point, of course, is that the majority of CD players sound very similar, whereas by your own admission, it almost requires heroic efforts to set up a vinyl rig properly. So what are the chances of vinyl rigs (like the one that you own and the one that Mr. Wheel owns) sounding alike? If they all sound different, what does that tell you about the accuracy of vinyl rigs? How do you know that Mr. Wheel's and my systems don't sound very similar? We seem to agree a lot on our sound judgments, so who is to say we didn't end up independently with very neutral but very fine phono systems? Of course, it is possible. The question, if you read what I wrote, was how likely, given the pains you went through to finely set up your equipment, and your very particular, uh, taste in cartridges? And are you suggesting that all those vinyl lovers who believe in the accuracy of vinyl all have very neutral and fine phone systems that sound the same? I have no way of knowing that, for sure. But I do know that most MC cartridges can be made to be reasonable "flat" with proper loading, and their manufacturers are not loath to give out the proper information. I also know that nowadays, there are many good (read "neutral") turntables and arms out there compared to the past, and a de facto standardization on medium mass arms for MC's. So it wouldn't surprise me if many of them weren't in the ballpark. |
|
#373
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
" It was the attempts to define a vocabulary to describe sound,
My favorite is the 'butterscotch' sounding ARC preamp. What a noble heritage! Actually, if you've had much experience with ARC preamps, you'll probably even know which models he was referring to and which not." And in the absense of controlled listening test all such claims are "true", if someone says it is/happened then it is true. Is "butterscotch" the defining "thing" that will allow you in a dbt to pick that amp from among others? |
|
#374
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
Do a dbt where the only control is a cloth, of your choice, placed on the
connections of the gear under test. You can then resume your views below and surely a choir of those to tell you of the correctness of your holding them. We will have another datum point to add to the listening alone benchmark, a win/win for all. "All I can say is I have been building and evolving audio systems, and recording and evaluating recordings, since the 50's. I trust my judgment, have made relatively few mistakes (contrary to Stewart's assumptions I am the antithesis of a "churner"), and have a system that pleases me enormously and virtually everybody else who hears it. Isn't what this hobby is all about? Along the way, I have listened to enough, recorded enough, and set up enough equipment to have developed a very good ability to judge quality objectively..I am rarely taken in by hype, do not use green pens, go for a very neutral sound, use very modest cables in my system...in many ways exemplary to the viewpoints expressed here. But I do not buy the assumption that one cannot make good listening judgments / equipment evaluations without dbt. And I do believe that such tests in practice tend to favor certain kinds of listening and disfavor others and thus do not attune to the way I reach long-term satisfaction with a system." |
|
#375
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
chung wrote in message
... S888Wheel wrote: Good thing some one came up with dither to help digital with this problem. Funny thing though, CDs were already proclaimed champion by the measurement folks before they were being dithered. Now an undithered digital recording is considered defective. Can you provide an example of a CD recording with no dithering applied? There were many released in the 1980s, Ry Cooder's "Bop Till You Drop," for example. I'm afraid, once again, you have shown your anti-digital prejudice. Dithering is always a part of digital audio. I wish that had been true Most of the pro audio digital hardware available in the early 1980s did not use dither, unless it was inadvertently done by a fortuitous noisefloor. The original Sony digital editor, for example, did not not dither its mathematical operations, merely truncating the longer word lengths. Worse, even when set to unity gain, it had a gain very slightly different from unity, meaning that it still operated on the data, reintroducing quantizing distortion as it did so. It was only at the end of that decade that pro audio digital components routinely incorporated dither, thanks to the proseltyzing of academics like Stanley Lip****z, who had been beating the drum on the behalf of dither since before the CD launch. John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile |
|
#376
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
On 7/23/04 12:04 PM, in article zGaMc.168737$Oq2.24685@attbi_s52, "Nousaine"
wrote: 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. Oh Sure; and the Thelma Huston "Pressure Cooker" lps I bought with the assurance that once the masters were used up there would never be availability again; was forever askanst by the release of the same material on cd; in a couple years by the "discovery" of analog back-up copies that were made at the time. What a crock; then and now. The marketing types are rather difficult. I heard on NPR a group that has used microscope photography in order to "read" both wax reels and older disks that were archived and too delicate to play - and also be able to process and remove both surface noise and effects of dust. It didn't sound as good as playing the discs (even on AM radio one could notice this) but the scientists who did it basically said that the technology was young - and to keep in mind that the material they would be reading would be unplayable anyway. Interesting - a whole host of "master tapes" and "lost recordings" will likely be found in the next few years! |
|
#377
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
|
|
#378
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
"But a trained ear, listening to the right material, and with experience
with live music in a similar acoustic environment, will most likely pick it up with some extended listening. And without dbt." The current benchmark using listening alone is completely to the contrary, when do you begin your testing? How will you control for the well known/demonstrated perception problems that occur when the gear being tested is known? If you can't answer these questions then your opinion is as good as the kid with the 10 band eq well satisfied his ears have revealed the ultimate sound the "smile" on it produces; without dbt. |
|
#379
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
wrote in message
news:9KgMc.152108$IQ4.90125@attbi_s02... Harry Lavo wrote: wrote in message ... Harry Lavo wrote: It was the attempts to define a vocabulary to describe sound, My favorite is the 'butterscotch' sounding ARC preamp. What a noble heritage! Actually, if you've had much experience with ARC preamps, you'll probably even know which models he was referring to and which not. I do, but no matter. Why is that important? I can understand why you might be defensive about TAS characterizing a preamp as butterscotch sounding. Butterscotch litterally gives me dry heaves, but no piece of audio equipment ever has, no matter how bad. "buttery, sweet, thick, smooth"....a coloration. If that's how it sounded to the reviewer it's not a bad description. |
|
#380
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
John Atkinson wrote:
I wish that had been true Most of the pro audio digital hardware available in the early 1980s did not use dither, unless it was inadvertently done by a fortuitous noisefloor. The original Sony digital editor, for example, did not not dither its mathematical operations, merely truncating the longer word lengths. Worse, even when set to unity gain, it had a gain very slightly different from unity, meaning that it still operated on the data, reintroducing quantizing distortion as it did so. It was only at the end of that decade that pro audio digital components routinely incorporated dither, thanks to the proseltyzing of academics like Stanley Lip****z, who had been beating the drum on the behalf of dither since before the CD launch. John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile Are you really sure John? When I started working in a famous recording studio 1975, we still had not yet digital mastering machines, but we had a digital reverb by EMT(15T$), which already used dither and there were the first digital desks available (I think it was Harrison). There was also a Sony gadget which would record digitally on a VCR. It had so much noise in its filter stages, dither wasn't really needed. But all this was long before the time you are referring to. Also in that time there were the first effect gadgets for guitar which used only 8bit. Without dither it would have been impossible to use them. I really cannot believe what you stated here. The first time I heard about dither was 1973 in my technical acoustics course at university. The professor explained it and we did some hands on measurements on a HewlettPackard analyzer. -- ciao Ban Bordighera, Italy |
|
#381
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
Harry Lavo wrote:
"chung" wrote in message news:%JgMc.152107$IQ4.151158@attbi_s02... Harry Lavo wrote: "chung" wrote in message ... Harry Lavo wrote: "chung" wrote in message news:79ULc.145167$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? The point, of course, is that the majority of CD players sound very similar, whereas by your own admission, it almost requires heroic efforts to set up a vinyl rig properly. So what are the chances of vinyl rigs (like the one that you own and the one that Mr. Wheel owns) sounding alike? If they all sound different, what does that tell you about the accuracy of vinyl rigs? How do you know that Mr. Wheel's and my systems don't sound very similar? We seem to agree a lot on our sound judgments, so who is to say we didn't end up independently with very neutral but very fine phono systems? Of course, it is possible. The question, if you read what I wrote, was how likely, given the pains you went through to finely set up your equipment, and your very particular, uh, taste in cartridges? And are you suggesting that all those vinyl lovers who believe in the accuracy of vinyl all have very neutral and fine phone systems that sound the same? I have no way of knowing that, for sure. But I do know that most MC cartridges can be made to be reasonable "flat" with proper loading, and their manufacturers are not loath to give out the proper information. I also know that nowadays, there are many good (read "neutral") turntables and arms out there compared to the past, and a de facto standardization on medium mass arms for MC's. So it wouldn't surprise me if many of them weren't in the ballpark. If I understand you correctly, by your focus on MC cartridges, you have eliminated the MM cartridges as contenders for accuracy? There goes a significant precentage of vinyl rigs, right there. I guess the Shure V15 family of cartridges, which used to be very highly rated via measurements and subjective reviews, just don't cut it (pun unintended) anymore. And by the time you eliminate certain turntables and tonearms, and then various preamps and amps, what is the chance of another vinylist having the same sounding vinyl rig as yours? And we have not even got to the careful set-up, or the conditions of the LP's yet. |
|
#382
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
John Atkinson wrote:
chung wrote in message ... S888Wheel wrote: Good thing some one came up with dither to help digital with this problem. Funny thing though, CDs were already proclaimed champion by the measurement folks before they were being dithered. Now an undithered digital recording is considered defective. Can you provide an example of a CD recording with no dithering applied? There were many released in the 1980s, Ry Cooder's "Bop Till You Drop," for example. Thanks for that example. How do you know that it did not have dither applied? I'm afraid, once again, you have shown your anti-digital prejudice. Dithering is always a part of digital audio. I wish that had been true Most of the pro audio digital hardware available in the early 1980s did not use dither, unless it was inadvertently done by a fortuitous noisefloor. The original Sony digital editor, for example, did not not dither its mathematical operations, merely truncating the longer word lengths. Worse, even when set to unity gain, it had a gain very slightly different from unity, meaning that it still operated on the data, reintroducing quantizing distortion as it did so. It was only at the end of that decade that pro audio digital components routinely incorporated dither, thanks to the proseltyzing of academics like Stanley Lip****z, who had been beating the drum on the behalf of dither since before the CD launch. John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile |
|
#383
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
On 23 Jul 2004 19:10:29 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message news QaMc.148059$%_6.59039@attbi_s01...On 22 Jul 2004 22:42:04 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote: 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). No, gain riding *is* compression, limiting is quite different. Listen to a DBX compander 'breathing' for a fine example of automated gain-riding. I'm sorry, Stewart, gain riding on classical and jazz was only done in those few places where sound peaks occured. That's simply not true, it was also used to bring up quiet passages whoich would otherwise have vanished into surface noise. .it was thus properly classified as limiting. Except for those peaks, there was no compression of dynamics. Compression affects the entire recording, boosting the lows and reducing the highs eveny over a wide range. Compression does not have to be evenly distributed, indeed it's often highly assymetrical. This "no compression"pattern thankfully is being restored via SACD and DVD-A recordings. Hooey. There are no *master* tapes which even approach the dymaic range of CD, so there's no advantage in 24 bits over 16 in a world where the master tape has only 14 bits of range (at the very most). -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#384
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
|
|
#385
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
On 7/23/04 12:15 PM, in article zQaMc.148061$%_6.3249@attbi_s01, "Stewart
Pinkerton" wrote: On 22 Jul 2004 22:32:10 GMT, B&D wrote: 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. You're listening to the wrong kind of music..................... I try not to listen to that kind of music - but I am aware of it since I sometimes record my own stuff. But I *do* like a lot of rock and pop - which I agree is a bit of a minefield. 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. Only rock and pop titles. Yes - usually jazz, blues and classical are not compressed as much. But pop *is* the vast majority of recorded music. 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. This is certainly true - but it's still an intrinsically flawed medium! No argument - but the way CD is *used* makes it no better than that flawed medium. (And CD is flawed - but less so). |
|
#386
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
news:5KwMc.178294$XM6.4228@attbi_s53... On 23 Jul 2004 19:10:29 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message news QaMc.148059$%_6.59039@attbi_s01...On 22 Jul 2004 22:42:04 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote: 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). No, gain riding *is* compression, limiting is quite different. Listen to a DBX compander 'breathing' for a fine example of automated gain-riding. I'm sorry, Stewart, gain riding on classical and jazz was only done in those few places where sound peaks occured. That's simply not true, it was also used to bring up quiet passages whoich would otherwise have vanished into surface noise. This might have been done during the mastering to LP phase, although that was usually done using automatic symetrical compressors...i'm talking about gain-riding during the recording which was almost always restricted to eliminating overload on those few peaks, so that the overall level could be brought up to a level where the "low-level" was out of the tape noise. It was extremely difficult to do well, required rehearsal and an engineer who could read a score, and was not requied nearly as often as would have been raising signal during soft passages. .it was thus properly classified as limiting. Except for those peaks, there was no compression of dynamics. Compression affects the entire recording, boosting the lows and reducing the highs eveny over a wide range. Compression does not have to be evenly distributed, indeed it's often highly assymetrical. No it does not, but in the old days it usually was. This "no compression"pattern thankfully is being restored via SACD and DVD-A recordings. Hooey. There are no *master* tapes which even approach the dymaic range of CD, so there's no advantage in 24 bits over 16 in a world where the master tape has only 14 bits of range (at the very most). However, heavy compression became the norm during the CD era, and perhaps because Sony's SACD originally did not allow compression, heavy compression has become the "un-norm" for SACD realeases and some DVD-A releases, particularly classical and jazz. |
|
#387
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
"chung" wrote in message
... Harry Lavo wrote: "chung" wrote in message news:%JgMc.152107$IQ4.151158@attbi_s02... Harry Lavo wrote: "chung" wrote in message ... Harry Lavo wrote: "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? The point, of course, is that the majority of CD players sound very similar, whereas by your own admission, it almost requires heroic efforts to set up a vinyl rig properly. So what are the chances of vinyl rigs (like the one that you own and the one that Mr. Wheel owns) sounding alike? If they all sound different, what does that tell you about the accuracy of vinyl rigs? How do you know that Mr. Wheel's and my systems don't sound very similar? We seem to agree a lot on our sound judgments, so who is to say we didn't end up independently with very neutral but very fine phono systems? Of course, it is possible. The question, if you read what I wrote, was how likely, given the pains you went through to finely set up your equipment, and your very particular, uh, taste in cartridges? And are you suggesting that all those vinyl lovers who believe in the accuracy of vinyl all have very neutral and fine phone systems that sound the same? I have no way of knowing that, for sure. But I do know that most MC cartridges can be made to be reasonable "flat" with proper loading, and their manufacturers are not loath to give out the proper information. I also know that nowadays, there are many good (read "neutral") turntables and arms out there compared to the past, and a de facto standardization on medium mass arms for MC's. So it wouldn't surprise me if many of them weren't in the ballpark. If I understand you correctly, by your focus on MC cartridges, you have eliminated the MM cartridges as contenders for accuracy? There goes a significant precentage of vinyl rigs, right there. I guess the Shure V15 family of cartridges, which used to be very highly rated via measurements and subjective reviews, just don't cut it (pun unintended) anymore. And by the time you eliminate certain turntables and tonearms, and then various preamps and amps, what is the chance of another vinylist having the same sounding vinyl rig as yours? And we have not even got to the careful set-up, or the conditions of the LP's yet. The V15 used in a medium mass arm is not optimized (which may be why there are so many complaints here of warp-wow with warps and off-center holes...this tends mostly to be a problem with a too-massive arm and a too-compliant cartridge). And there are precious few (in fact off-hand I don't know of any) low mass arms being made/sold today. So unless you are using older arms or turntables with arms that are at least low-medium mass, you would be better off with an MC in all probablility, assuming a good preamp that can handle it. |
|
#388
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
Harry Lavo wrote:
wrote in message news:9KgMc.152108$IQ4.90125@attbi_s02... Harry Lavo wrote: wrote in message ... 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! Actually, if you've had much experience with ARC preamps, you'll probably even know which models he was referring to and which not. I do, but no matter. Why is that important? I can understand why you might be defensive about TAS characterizing a preamp as butterscotch sounding. Butterscotch litterally gives me dry heaves, but no piece of audio equipment ever has, no matter how bad. "buttery, sweet, thick, smooth"....a coloration. If that's how it sounded to the reviewer it's not a bad description. Uh huh. It's amusing you're defending it. It's very ersatz fanciful writing, nothing more, like all high end fanzine purple prose. Granted, it helps sell magazines. |
|
#389
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 16:14:20 GMT, (S888Wheel) wrote:
From: Stewart Pinkerton Date: 7/22/2004 10:50 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: j7TLc.10978$8_6.6873@attbi_s04 The nice thing about classical CDs is that they are almost never compressed- because they don't *have* to be, Most of them sure sound compressed. A classic beginners mistake. Compressed music always *appears* more 'dynamic' than genuinely wide range sound - radio station sound engineers have known this for many decades. Truly wide range sound, such as is easily obtianable from CD, sounds slightly 'flat' by comparison - but more like the original mic feed. whereas more than 90% of all classical LPs have noticeable compression, if only to lift the low-level detail above the noise floor. Not IME. Clearly, we have different experiences.................. 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! Sure it is. No, it isn't, that's the whole point of compression - it turns low-level detail into medium-level detail, so that you can hear it above vinyl surface noise. Good thing some one came up with dither to help digital with this problem. Dither is an essential part of the process - and always was, way back before CD was launched. That some ignorant clowns in the industry were unaware of this, doesn't alter the facts. Funny thing though, CDs were already proclaimed champion by the measurement folks before they were being dithered. The good ones were *always* dithered. However, it's true that even an undithered CD is greatly superior to vinyl as far as measurements go. Now an undithered digital recording is considered defective. Always was, if you actually understood the technology. Kind of like those old SS amps. They were always bad, and only the audio industry was dumb enough not to know this. Last years perfection is this years damaged goods. No, last year's 'product of the month' is this year's damaged goods - because it was always damaged. The good stuff is always good - but almost never 'high end'. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#390
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
On 23 Jul 2004 19:09:10 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:
"Nousaine" wrote in message news:zGaMc.168737$Oq2.24685@attbi_s52... Oh Sure; and the Thelma Huston "Pressure Cooker" lps I bought with the assurance that once the masters were used up there would never be availability again; was forever askanst by the release of the same material on cd; in a couple years by the "discovery" of analog back-up copies that were made at the time. What a crock; then and now. Sorry Sheffield announced from the beginning that they were making analog recordings as backups, and that they might be released after the direct to disks were gone. The only think promised was that the direct-to-disks were limited in number and once sold, were gone forever. That is simply not true. I collected many Sheffields in the '70s, right from Lab 1 (the third in the series.....), and no mention was *ever* made of the existence of any backup tapes, until *after* all the DD discs were safely in music stores. The crock is your mistaken assertion. No, the crock is Sheffield telling porkies to keep up prices. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#391
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
"chung" wrote in message
... Harry Lavo wrote: "chung" wrote in message ... 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? Nope you made my point. Frequency response, volume, and timing per say tell very little about a piece of gear, much less a system, when considered separately. An amp that dynamically compresses and alters the frequency response of the system will not show any problems when measured using conventional measurements. And it may not show up with many kinds of music. But a trained ear, listening to the right material, and with experience with live music in a similar acoustic environment, will most likely pick it up with some extended listening. And without dbt. Harry, you have to be a bit more technical savvy. Any amp that dynamically compresses will show distortion that is easily measureable. Yes, with conventional measurements. I am honestly shocked to see this from one who has been in this hobby for as long as you have... I didn't say it couldn't be measured. I said it wouldn't show up as frequency deviation (which is the compression I am talking about) in a conventional frequency response plot. |
|
#392
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
Ban wrote:
John Atkinson wrote: I wish that had been true Most of the pro audio digital hardware available in the early 1980s did not use dither, unless it was inadvertently done by a fortuitous noisefloor. The original Sony digital editor, for example, did not not dither its mathematical operations, merely truncating the longer word lengths. Worse, even when set to unity gain, it had a gain very slightly different from unity, meaning that it still operated on the data, reintroducing quantizing distortion as it did so. It was only at the end of that decade that pro audio digital components routinely incorporated dither, thanks to the proseltyzing of academics like Stanley Lip****z, who had been beating the drum on the behalf of dither since before the CD launch. John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile Are you really sure John? When I started working in a famous recording studio 1975, we still had not yet digital mastering machines, but we had a digital reverb by EMT(15T$), which already used dither and there were the first digital desks available (I think it was Harrison). There was also a Sony gadget which would record digitally on a VCR. It had so much noise in its filter stages, dither wasn't really needed. But all this was long before the time you are referring to. Also in that time there were the first effect gadgets for guitar which used only 8bit. Without dither it would have been impossible to use them. I really cannot believe what you stated here. The first time I heard about dither was 1973 in my technical acoustics course at university. The professor explained it and we did some hands on measurements on a HewlettPackard analyzer. I worked at HP starting in 1976, and dither was very well understood and used in high-speed/high-resolution ADC's and DAC's. I am really surprised also if the Sony products did not have dithering included in the design. Unless there is a sufficiently high noise-floor that the ADC's self-dithered. Certainly dithering has been a key part of digital audio theory before the 1980's. |
|
#393
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
On 7/24/04 1:10 PM, in article 5KwMc.178294$XM6.4228@attbi_s53, "Stewart
Pinkerton" wrote: This "no compression"pattern thankfully is being restored via SACD and DVD-A recordings. Hooey. There are no *master* tapes which even approach the dymaic range of CD, so there's no advantage in 24 bits over 16 in a world where the master tape has only 14 bits of range (at the very most). The advantage is usually in the mastering and cleanup process. It will usually be audible since the engineer won't have to "eat" into the effective audible dynamic range. |
|
#394
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
"B&D" wrote in message
news:PTgLc.130214$%_6.117118@attbi_s01... On 7/20/04 11:45 AM, in article U6bLc.143743$Oq2.22642@attbi_s52, "Michael McKelvy" wrote: People who want to hear what they were intended to hear choose CD and SS. That is your opinion. Nope, it's just that those methods of playback are more accurate. Most tube designs and good SS sound about the same anyway - and if both are backed out of compression - they both sound great. If tubes are compressing - they still tend to sound better than SS's compression. SO it all depends. I'm not talking about better, I'm talking about accuracy. I will agree that it is far more affordable to get good sound out of a CD/SS setup - and much more convenient. This is why this is my basic setup. I would further say, though, that to say that somehow vinyl and tube is flawed and colored sound and somehow unacceptable - that is overstating the claim as well. It's only unacceptable if you want the most accurate playback of what was recorded. |
|
#395
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
On Sat, 24 Jul 2004 22:37:39 GMT, "Harry Lavo"
wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message news:5KwMc.178294$XM6.4228@attbi_s53... On 23 Jul 2004 19:10:29 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message news QaMc.148059$%_6.59039@attbi_s01...On 22 Jul 2004 22:42:04 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote: 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). No, gain riding *is* compression, limiting is quite different. Listen to a DBX compander 'breathing' for a fine example of automated gain-riding. I'm sorry, Stewart, gain riding on classical and jazz was only done in those few places where sound peaks occured. That's simply not true, it was also used to bring up quiet passages which would otherwise have vanished into surface noise. This might have been done during the mastering to LP phase, although that was usually done using automatic symetrical compressors.. Well, at least you acknowledge that compression *was* used. .i'm talking about gain-riding during the recording which was almost always restricted to eliminating overload on those few peaks, so that the overall level could be brought up to a level where the "low-level" was out of the tape noise. It was extremely difficult to do well, required rehearsal and an engineer who could read a score, and was not requied nearly as often as would have been raising signal during soft passages. So, in summary, by the time the signal got from the microphones to the LP, it had been both peak-limited and had the low-level detail brought up. Glad we agree on that. Nice that it's simply not necessary with CD. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#396
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
On Sat, 24 Jul 2004 17:26:36 GMT, B&D wrote:
Yes - usually jazz, blues and classical are not compressed as much. But pop *is* the vast majority of recorded music. Only if you consider it to *be* music............... :-) -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#397
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
... On 23 Jul 2004 19:09:10 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote: "Nousaine" wrote in message news:zGaMc.168737$Oq2.24685@attbi_s52... Oh Sure; and the Thelma Huston "Pressure Cooker" lps I bought with the assurance that once the masters were used up there would never be availability again; was forever askanst by the release of the same material on cd; in a couple years by the "discovery" of analog back-up copies that were made at the time. What a crock; then and now. Sorry Sheffield announced from the beginning that they were making analog recordings as backups, and that they might be released after the direct to disks were gone. The only think promised was that the direct-to-disks were limited in number and once sold, were gone forever. That is simply not true. I collected many Sheffields in the '70s, right from Lab 1 (the third in the series.....), and no mention was *ever* made of the existence of any backup tapes, until *after* all the DD discs were safely in music stores. The fact that they didn't tell you personally doesn't mean it wasn't in their press releases and interviews. The crock is your mistaken assertion. No, the crock is Sheffield telling porkies to keep up prices. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#398
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
Harry Lavo wrote:
"chung" wrote in message ... Harry Lavo wrote: "chung" wrote in message ... 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? Nope you made my point. Frequency response, volume, and timing per say tell very little about a piece of gear, much less a system, when considered separately. An amp that dynamically compresses and alters the frequency response of the system will not show any problems when measured using conventional measurements. And it may not show up with many kinds of music. But a trained ear, listening to the right material, and with experience with live music in a similar acoustic environment, will most likely pick it up with some extended listening. And without dbt. Harry, you have to be a bit more technical savvy. Any amp that dynamically compresses will show distortion that is easily measureable. Yes, with conventional measurements. I am honestly shocked to see this from one who has been in this hobby for as long as you have... I didn't say it couldn't be measured. I said it wouldn't show up as frequency deviation (which is the compression I am talking about) in a conventional frequency response plot. Of course a dynamic compression may not show up as a frequency response error. If there was a frequency response change because of compression, certainly it could be measured with conventional measurements. Seems like you have an unconventionally low regard for conventional measurement capabilities. You know, that could be the root of your distrust for objective meaurements. BTW, frequency "deviation" means something totally different. No compression can possibly result in frequency deviation. |
|
#399
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
|
|
#400
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
... "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". IIRC there was a standard for what was considered Hi-Fi, it had to perform within certain limits. None of the measured well/sounded like dreck stuff was ever compared via ABX to see if the sounded like dreck part was really true, so in essence, it's just a blank assertion. 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. And a lot of it by people who had very little idea what they were doing, if one is to believe the Audio Critic. For example, NAD was considered high end. Yamaha was not. And that distinction was deserved based on the sound of the day. By what objective verifiable standard? |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Imaging, soundstage, 3D | High End Audio | |||
| the emperor's clothes | High End Audio | |||
| Sound, Music, Balance | High End Audio | |||
| DVI - The Destroyer Of Sound | High End Audio | |||
| Surround Sound for Stereo Lovers | High End Audio | |||
.
Linear Mode
