Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
[email protected] S888Wheel@aol.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 204
Default Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.

This is a continuation of a topic that has split off from another
thread. i thought it may benefit from having it's own thread. On that
thread there have been assertions about inherent euphonic colorations
of vinyl.

"You haven't noticed 'the' superior quality, you've noticed a
quality that you consider to sound superior. This could be the
different mastering used for LPs compared to CDs, or it could be
inherent sound qualities added by the vinyl medium and playback
devices, or it could be both."

Steven Sullivan

"For live recordings, a 'clean' digital 2-channel recording will
capture the original 'ambience' as well as the master tape did (which
is to say, only moderately well, given the limits of 2-channel) -- but
transcribing that to LP will actually ADD some spurious, if pleasing
to some, 'ambience' of its own, via euphonic distortion inherent in
vinyl playback."

Steven Sullivan

And those assertions have been challenged.

"Please tell us how you know about this distortion that is "inherent"
in LP playback. What playback equipment have you used to determine
this? Please be specific: turntables, pickup arms, phono cartridges,
phono preamplifiers. Because you claim this playback characteristic is
"inherent," you must have experimented with more than one playback
system. Did you conduct any measurements which document your claim? If
so, please share. Have you mastered any LPs yourself, or participated
in the LP mastering process, that further establishes the veracity of
your claim? If so, are these recordings that we can purchase and
listen to ourselves?

I'd also be interested in what physical properties of LP playback
result in this "inherent" result. Surely, you must have a theory or
two.

Or, as I suspect, is this claim simply opinion stated as fact?"

C.Leeds

OK....

My two cents.

Inherent colorations:

Yep, they do exist. Surface noise. If you have a source signal that
excedes the dynamic range that the medium will allow (somewhere in the
75-80 db range) You will hear the surface noise during the quitest
passages of the music. Surface noise does have some specific
characteristics that gives it a distinctive sound which allows much
lower level musical information to be heard through that noise. But it
is fair to say in cases of extreme dynamic range from the source one
cannot avoid audible surface noise. That is an 'inherent' coloration.

Another alleged inherent coloration is channel cross talk. My
cartridge, a Koetsu Rosewood Signature, has a measured channel
separation of just over 30db. I don't know what the measured
thresholds of audibility are for channel separation. I also don't know
what the maximum channel separation achievable is in vinyl production
and playback although I do know there are cartridges that have greater
meausred channel separation than mine. I do know on my system with
test records the effects of cross talk seem to be inaudible in as much
as I can get a clean signal out of one channel without hearing any of
the crosstalk from the other channel from the listening position.

To the best of my knowledge the lowest measured wow,flutter and rumble
found in vinyl playback fall under the thresholds of human hearing. So
while these are inherent colorations they apparently are not audible
in SOTA vinyl playback.

Euphonic colorations:

Yep, they do exist as well. I should know, I paid about 15K for them
in my TT rig. I don't have any hard data to back up my assertion. My
assertion is based on side by side blind comparisons between the TT
rig I eventually bought (The Forsell Air Reference with the flywheel)
(I eventually bought the same make and model not the same physical
rig) and one that was famous for being SOTA in the elimination of TT
rig colorations (the Rockport Sirius III). I am confident that they
sounded substantially different. The differences were easily
identifiable under blind conditions. Based on their designs I am
fairly confident that the Rockport Sirius III was the less colored of
the two rigs. I very much prefered the Forsell. IMO that is evidence
of euphonic colorations present in the Forsell.

Inherent euphomic colorations:

I have listed the inherent colorations that I know of. I have seen
claims that both colorations can be euphonic. I have not seen any
contolled listening tests that support that assertion. Maybe in some
form and in some proportion they can be euphonic.Maybe not. To date it
seems like a theory at best given the lack of meaningful supporting
evidence. It strikes me as a reasonable theory. But I think it is a
fact that at certain levels and above, those colorations (we are
talking levels well above the inherent limitations of the medium)
those colorations become inarguably bad ones. It is entirely possible
that like any spice, these colorations added in moderation with taste
can be euphonic and like any spice when added in excess spoil the
dish.

  #2   Report Post  
Angus Stewart Pinkerton Angus Stewart Pinkerton is offline
Junior Member
 
Location: Rempstone, Leicestershire, England
Posts: 16
Default

;836350]This is a continuation of a topic that has split off from another
thread. i thought it may benefit from having it's own thread. On that
thread there have been assertions about inherent euphonic colorations
of vinyl.

snip
Euphonic colorations:

Yep, they do exist as well. I should know, I paid about 15K for them
in my TT rig. I don't have any hard data to back up my assertion. My
assertion is based on side by side blind comparisons between the TT
rig I eventually bought (The Forsell Air Reference with the flywheel)
(I eventually bought the same make and model not the same physical
rig) and one that was famous for being SOTA in the elimination of TT
rig colorations (the Rockport Sirius III). I am confident that they
sounded substantially different. The differences were easily
identifiable under blind conditions. Based on their designs I am
fairly confident that the Rockport Sirius III was the less colored of
the two rigs. I very much prefered the Forsell. IMO that is evidence
of euphonic colorations present in the Forsell.

QUOTE]

You do indeed hit the nail on the head here, whether by intention or not. In forty years as an audiophile, I have never heard two vinyl rigs which sounded the same. I agree that the Rockport is one of the 'cleanest' I've ever heard, but the basic point is that they *all* sound different, hence they are *all* distorted - though there are of course common themes of treble splash, inner groove distortion, tracing distortion and surface noise, which are inherent to the medium. The Forsell also has an excellent reputation from a purely technical point of view, so a purchaser of the Sirius could fairly argue that his purchase had the euphonic distortions, this being a matter of taste rather than absolute superiority.

OTOH, just to rhrow fuel on the flames, most decent CD players, even with widely different DAC technology and output circuitry, sound *identical* in blind testing, which suggests that they do *not* suffer from audible disortion.
  #3   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.

"ScottW" wrote in message


On Oct 21, 3:17 pm, wrote:


Another alleged inherent coloration is channel cross
talk. My cartridge, a Koetsu Rosewood Signature, has a
measured channel separation of just over 30db.


The spec is 25 db @ 1kHz.
http://www.koetsuusa.com/koetsu_products2.php


IME experience all carts have declining channel separation
with frequency. For example, mine is spec'd at 31 db @
1 kHz and 21 db @ 10 kHz. I think you'd find it to be
easily audible if you disable the primary channel so it
doesn't mask the crosstalk. If you're playing a 90 db
tone in one channel, the 60 db crosstalk won't be hard to
hear if the primary channel is muted.


I don't particularly find the lack of perfect channel
separation an impediment to good vinyl mastering
engineers creating a very convincing image.


I agree. It is difficult or impossible to achieve large amounts of
separation acoustically. If you can't achieve separation acoustically, then
there will not be high seperation in accurate recordings of the acoustical
situation. The important point is that the natural acoustical context of a
live performance does not have large amounts of separation.

The far greater impediment to achieving a reliable stereo image with vinyl
is the fact that the relative phase and amplitude of the two channels are
being constantly being changed by the low frequency oscillations of the tone
arm with respect to the surface of the LP. Those who favor the LP may be
mistakenly perceiving these distortions as an enhanced stereo image.

  #4   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.

wrote in message


This is a continuation of a topic that has split off from
another thread. i thought it may benefit from having it's
own thread. On that thread there have been assertions
about inherent euphonic colorations of vinyl.


"You haven't noticed 'the' superior quality, you've noticed a
quality that you consider to sound superior. This could
be the different mastering used for LPs compared to CDs,
or it could be inherent sound qualities added by the
vinyl medium and playback devices, or it could be both."


I'll vote for both. The fact of the matter is that just about everybody has
abandoned vinyl but a few. The preference has to be based on the
perception of a desired sound quality, not better sonic accuracy.

"For live recordings, a 'clean' digital 2-channel
recording will capture the original 'ambience' as well as
the master tape did (which is to say, only moderately
well, given the limits of 2-channel) -- but transcribing
that to LP will actually ADD some spurious, if pleasing
to some, 'ambience' of its own, via euphonic distortion
inherent in vinyl playback."


I do a ton of digital 2-channel live recording using a good-quality
coincident pair. It works.

And those assertions have been challenged.


Of course! ;-)

"Please tell us how you know about this distortion that
is "inherent" in LP playback.


Please compare

http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/image...raph-large.gif

Note that this graphic shows a 1 KHz tone, with the second harmonic about 20
dB down, which I call 10% second harmonic nonlinear distortion. 10%
distortion is a lot of distortion by any standard.

to:

http://www.pcavtech.com/play-rec/rega-2/grado-SNR.gif

Note that this graphic shows a 300 Hz tone, with the second and third
harmonics each 40-45 dB down, which I call less than one percent second and
third harmonic distortion.

What playback equipment
have you used to determine this?


Looking at the two examples, it appears that we have quite a range of
equipment.

The PCAVTech equipment is obviously very humble - Turntable was a Rega
Planar 2 with RB-100 Tone Arm. Test media was the HFN Test LP . Preamp was a
Conrad Johnson CJ-2. The cartridge was either a Shure M44-7 or a Rega
Silver. Kinda doesn't matter, their performance is not that dissimilar.

The hometheaterhifi.com equipment a McIntosh MT10 Turntable with factory
cartridge (made by Clearaudio), seems to be very elegant. It seems to have
been set up with great care.

Please be specific:
turntables, pickup arms, phono cartridges, phono
preamplifiers. Because you claim this playback
characteristic is "inherent," you must have experimented
with more than one playback system. Did you conduct any
measurements which document your claim?


I've done this kind of test many times over the decades, and the results I
posted at http://www.pcavtech.com/play-rec/rega-2/index.htm are very
typical of a wide range of equipment. I don't think I could get as good
performance out of a $100 plastic USB turntable/arm/cartrdige, but maybe I'm
saying that in a state of ignorace and negative prejudice. ;-)

The real surprise is the seemingly poor performance posted at
http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/image...raph-large.gif

I call that really poor performance, and we don't even have a frequency
response curve that actually involves playing vinyl.

IME you don't get 7-10% THD by accident - that equipment had to be
intentionally designed to perform that poorly.

  #5   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
[email protected] S888Wheel@aol.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 204
Default Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.

On Oct 22, 3:46�am, ScottW wrote:
On Oct 21, 3:17�pm, wrote:



Another alleged inherent coloration is channel cross talk. My
cartridge, a Koetsu Rosewood Signature, has a measured channel
separation of just over 30db.


�The spec is 25 db @ 1kHz.http://www.koetsuusa.com/koetsu_products2.php


We have a case of conflicting specs here.
http://pachome2.pacific.net.sg/~angmelvin/Range.html
I doubt either distributor is doing independent measurments. One of
them is simply mistaken.


IME experience all carts have declining channel separation
with frequency. For example, mine is spec'd at 31 db @
1 kHz and 21 db @ 10 kHz. �I think you'd find it to be easily
audible if you disable the primary channel so it doesn't mask
the crosstalk. If you're playing a 90 db tone in one channel,
the 60 db crosstalk won't be hard to hear if the primary
channel is muted.


Actually with my test records I can hear pure cross talk when
adjusting the azimuth of my stylus. Yes I can hear it. That's how I
adjust for cross talk, by slowly turning the azimuth until it is at
it's lowest level. The difference in level compared to the actual
signal when I switch back to stereo to hear the full signal is
enormous. And as I stated, I can't hear the opposite channel on the
test tones that play one channel. So it seems the cross talk is
sufficiently masked enough to not call direct attention to itself. A
lot of different distortions become audible when they are separated
from the whole signal. The important question is what is their effect
when they are fully integrated not isolated.


I don't particularly find the lack of perfect channel separation
an impediment to good vinyl mastering engineers creating
a very convincing image.


It has been my observation that by reducing cross talk as much as
possible with proper azimuth adjustment one improves the sound stage
in every way. So if this cross talk is in fact a euphonic coloration
that enhances the sense of space on LPs it clearly has to the right
amount. An amount that is at most near the minimum threshold allowed
by the technology.



  #6   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Serge Auckland[_2_] Serge Auckland[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 175
Default Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.

wrote in message ...
This is a continuation of a topic that has split off from another
thread. i thought it may benefit from having it's own thread. On that
thread there have been assertions about inherent euphonic colorations
of vinyl.

"You haven't noticed 'the' superior quality, you've noticed a
quality that you consider to sound superior. This could be the
different mastering used for LPs compared to CDs, or it could be
inherent sound qualities added by the vinyl medium and playback
devices, or it could be both."

Steven Sullivan

"For live recordings, a 'clean' digital 2-channel recording will
capture the original 'ambience' as well as the master tape did (which
is to say, only moderately well, given the limits of 2-channel) -- but
transcribing that to LP will actually ADD some spurious, if pleasing
to some, 'ambience' of its own, via euphonic distortion inherent in
vinyl playback."

Steven Sullivan

And those assertions have been challenged.

"Please tell us how you know about this distortion that is "inherent"
in LP playback. What playback equipment have you used to determine
this? Please be specific: turntables, pickup arms, phono cartridges,
phono preamplifiers. Because you claim this playback characteristic is
"inherent," you must have experimented with more than one playback
system. Did you conduct any measurements which document your claim? If
so, please share. Have you mastered any LPs yourself, or participated
in the LP mastering process, that further establishes the veracity of
your claim? If so, are these recordings that we can purchase and
listen to ourselves?

I'd also be interested in what physical properties of LP playback
result in this "inherent" result. Surely, you must have a theory or
two.

Or, as I suspect, is this claim simply opinion stated as fact?"

C.Leeds

OK....

My two cents.

Inherent colorations:

Yep, they do exist. Surface noise. If you have a source signal that
excedes the dynamic range that the medium will allow (somewhere in the
75-80 db range) You will hear the surface noise during the quitest
passages of the music. Surface noise does have some specific
characteristics that gives it a distinctive sound which allows much
lower level musical information to be heard through that noise. But it
is fair to say in cases of extreme dynamic range from the source one
cannot avoid audible surface noise. That is an 'inherent' coloration.

Another alleged inherent coloration is channel cross talk. My
cartridge, a Koetsu Rosewood Signature, has a measured channel
separation of just over 30db. I don't know what the measured
thresholds of audibility are for channel separation. I also don't know
what the maximum channel separation achievable is in vinyl production
and playback although I do know there are cartridges that have greater
meausred channel separation than mine. I do know on my system with
test records the effects of cross talk seem to be inaudible in as much
as I can get a clean signal out of one channel without hearing any of
the crosstalk from the other channel from the listening position.

To the best of my knowledge the lowest measured wow,flutter and rumble
found in vinyl playback fall under the thresholds of human hearing. So
while these are inherent colorations they apparently are not audible
in SOTA vinyl playback.

Euphonic colorations:

Yep, they do exist as well. I should know, I paid about 15K for them
in my TT rig. I don't have any hard data to back up my assertion. My
assertion is based on side by side blind comparisons between the TT
rig I eventually bought (The Forsell Air Reference with the flywheel)
(I eventually bought the same make and model not the same physical
rig) and one that was famous for being SOTA in the elimination of TT
rig colorations (the Rockport Sirius III). I am confident that they
sounded substantially different. The differences were easily
identifiable under blind conditions. Based on their designs I am
fairly confident that the Rockport Sirius III was the less colored of
the two rigs. I very much prefered the Forsell. IMO that is evidence
of euphonic colorations present in the Forsell.

Inherent euphomic colorations:

I have listed the inherent colorations that I know of. I have seen
claims that both colorations can be euphonic. I have not seen any
contolled listening tests that support that assertion. Maybe in some
form and in some proportion they can be euphonic.Maybe not. To date it
seems like a theory at best given the lack of meaningful supporting
evidence. It strikes me as a reasonable theory. But I think it is a
fact that at certain levels and above, those colorations (we are
talking levels well above the inherent limitations of the medium)
those colorations become inarguably bad ones. It is entirely possible
that like any spice, these colorations added in moderation with taste
can be euphonic and like any spice when added in excess spoil the
dish.

In addition to all the above, don't forget that all pick-up cartridge have
harmonic distortions of the order of 2-3%, some higher, some perhaps a
little lower. Considering that an analogue tape machine will also have 3%
distortion (that's how peak level is defined, the 3% distortion point) and I
have no idea how much distortion the cutter itself has, plus springback on
the lacquer which leads to harmonic distortion, the total is considerable.
That's another form of inherent coloration.

S.
--
http://audiopages.googlepages.com
  #7   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
[email protected] S888Wheel@aol.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 204
Default Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.

On Oct 22, 3:26*pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in message



This is a continuation of a topic that has split off from
another thread. i thought it may benefit from having it's
own thread. On that thread there have been assertions
about inherent euphonic colorations of vinyl.
"You haven't noticed 'the' superior quality, you've noticed a
quality that you consider to sound superior. This could
be the different mastering used for LPs compared to CDs,
or it could be inherent sound qualities added by the
vinyl medium and playback devices, or it could be both."


I'll vote for both.



I think that is a reasonable "vote." I certainly would vote for the
mastering. I have to say I am still on the fence on the inherent
euphonic distortions. OTOH it seems you are not considering the
possibility of euphonic distortions that are not neccessarily inherent
in vinyl playback may be in play as well. I can vouch for those in my
system. For whatever vouching is worth.

The fact of the matter is that just about everybody has
abandoned vinyl but a few. *The preference has to be based on the
perception of a desired sound quality, not better sonic accuracy.


I think this is a classic case of....
6. Confusing association with causation This is similar to the post-
hoc fallacy in that it assumes cause and effect for two variables
simply because they are correlated, although the relationship here is
not strictly that of one variable following the other in time. This
fallacy is often used to give a statistical correlation a causal
interpretation. For example, during the 1990s both religious
attendance and illegal drug use have been on the rise. It would be a
fallacy to conclude that therefore, religious attendance causes
illegal drug use. It is also possible that drug use leads to an
increase in religious attendance, or that both drug use and religious
attendance are increased by a third variable, such as an increase in
societal unrest. It is also possible that both variables are
independent of one another, and it is mere coincidence that they are
both increasing at the same time. A corollary to this is the
invocation of this logical fallacy to argue that an association does
not represent causation, rather it is more accurate to say that
correlation does not necessarily mean causation, but it can. Also,
multiple independent correlations can point reliably to a causation,
and is a reasonable line of argument.
http://www.theskepticsguide.org/logicalfallacies.asp



"Please tell us how you know about this distortion that
is "inherent" in LP playback.


Please compare

http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/image...8/vinyl-vs-cd-...

Note that this graphic shows a 1 KHz tone, with the second harmonic about 20
dB down, which I call 10% second harmonic nonlinear distortion. *10%
distortion is a lot of distortion by any standard.


Looks to me like a 40db difference. Maybe I am reading it incorrectly.
But more importantly, how do you differentiate the distortion that is
inherent from the distortion that is unique to that particular rig and
the test record?


to:

http://www.pcavtech.com/play-rec/rega-2/grado-SNR.gif

Note that this graphic shows a 300 Hz tone, with the second and third
harmonics each 40-45 dB down, which I call less than one percent *second and
third harmonic distortion.



OK. But again, how do you tell the difference between the inherent
distortion in the medium and the distortion that is unique to your rig
and the test record?


*What playback equipment
have you used to determine this?


Looking at the two examples, it appears that we have quite a range of
equipment.


I don't agree at all. I would argue that neither rig would be found to
be SOTA. If you are looking for the thresholds of the medium I think
you have to start with a disc cut at one of the handful of state of
the art mastering studios and you would have to use a Rockport Sirius
III or the top model Continuum or maybe the top model Transrotor rig.
One may have to use several such assults on the state of the art and
sift out the common distortions. I suspect one would need measurements
that are far more specific than levels of harmonic distortion.



The PCAVTech equipment is obviously very humble - Turntable was a Rega
Planar 2 with RB-100 Tone Arm. Test media was the HFN Test LP . Preamp was a
Conrad Johnson CJ-2. The cartridge was *either a Shure M44-7 or a Rega
Silver. Kinda doesn't matter, their performance is not that dissimilar.



I think it matters tremendously.




The hometheaterhifi.com equipment *a McIntosh MT10 Turntable with factory
cartridge (made by Clearaudio), seems to be very elegant. It seems to have
been set up with great care.



I'm sure it was.



Please be specific:
turntables, pickup arms, phono cartridges, phono
preamplifiers. Because you claim this playback
characteristic is "inherent," you must have experimented
with more than one playback system. Did you conduct any
measurements which document your claim?


I've done this kind of test many times over the decades, and the results I
posted athttp://www.pcavtech.com/play-rec/rega-2/index.htm* are very
typical of a wide range of equipment. I don't think I could get as good
performance out of a $100 plastic USB turntable/arm/cartrdige, but maybe I'm
saying that in a state of ignorace and negative prejudice. ;-)



I think that is a possibility. If one really wants to get a handle on
inherent colorations one has to be extremely careful to differentiate
colorations that are inherent from those that are unique to the rig
and test record.



The real surprise is the seemingly poor performance posted athttp://www.hometheaterhifi.com/images/stories/april-2008/vinyl-vs-cd-...

I call that really poor performance, and we don't even have a frequency
response curve that actually involves playing vinyl.



But aren't you making a qualitative judgement without even knowing
what it sounds like?


IME you don't get 7-10% THD by accident - that equipment had to be
intentionally designed to perform that poorly.


If that is the case then clearly we have something more than just
"inherent" distortion present don't we?


  #8   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
[email protected] S888Wheel@aol.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 204
Default Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.

On Oct 22, 3:35�pm, "Serge Auckland"
wrote:

In addition to all the above, don't forget that all pick-up cartridge have
harmonic distortions of the order of 2-3%, some higher, some perhaps a
little lower. Considering that an analogue tape machine will also have 3%
distortion (that's how peak level is defined, the 3% distortion point) and I
have no idea how much distortion the cutter itself has, plus springback on
the lacquer which leads to harmonic distortion, the total is considerable.
That's another form of inherent coloration.

S.
--http://audiopages.googlepages.com- Hide quoted text -


A valid point. But how much of that harmonic distortion is audible?
  #9   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.

wrote in message


It has been my observation that by reducing cross talk as
much as possible with proper azimuth adjustment one
improves the sound stage in every way.


That would be an example of proof by assertion.

However, given the basic poor performance of the LP format, and its acute
sensitivity to slight mechanical maladjustment, I'm prone to believe your
claim.

  #10   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Serge Auckland[_2_] Serge Auckland[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 175
Default Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.

wrote in message ...
On Oct 22, 3:35�pm, "Serge Auckland"
wrote:

In addition to all the above, don't forget that all pick-up cartridge
have
harmonic distortions of the order of 2-3%, some higher, some perhaps a
little lower. Considering that an analogue tape machine will also have 3%
distortion (that's how peak level is defined, the 3% distortion point)
and I
have no idea how much distortion the cutter itself has, plus springback
on
the lacquer which leads to harmonic distortion, the total is
considerable.
That's another form of inherent coloration.

S.
--http://audiopages.googlepages.com- Hide quoted text -


A valid point. But how much of that harmonic distortion is audible?


It's hard to say as it depends on many factors. However, tests done on
harmonic distortion that I recall reading many years ago indicated that 1%
was the lower limit for audibility, but it depended on frequency and masking
by other sounds. As I recall, that was the origin of the 0.1% distortion
desiderata for amplifiers as it was 10x better than was likely to be
audible, and could therefore be comfortably taken as being completely
inaudible under all circumstances. Nothing in the intervening 50 years or so
has made this invalid as far as I know.

As to vinyl, I suppose one could cut a record from an unequalised digital
master and similarly produce a CD and compare the two. However, the limited
dynamic range that would result from having necessarily to cut from an
unequalised master would not be a valid comparison with "real world" LPs.
Practical LPs are cut from masters specially equalised and compressed to get
the best subjective result from the limited medium. There is also a great
deal of skill (art rather than science) on the part of the Cutting Engineer
who will try and balance the conflicting requirements of noise against
level, frequency response against level against distortion, level against
playing time and pre-echo, level against playability by less sophisticated
record players, managing stereo difference i.e stylus vertical movement, and
possibly other things I haven't thought of.

Can you imaging someone starting out today, with no knowledge of vinyl, and
trying to invent a mechanical engraving system to reproduce Hi-Fi sound? I
think anyone would conclude it's just not possible, and yet......

S.
--
http://audiopages.googlepages.com




  #11   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
[email protected] S888Wheel@aol.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 204
Default Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.

On Oct 23, 6:15�am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in message



It has been my observation that by reducing cross talk as
much as possible with proper azimuth adjustment one
improves the sound stage in every way.


That would be an example of proof by assertion.


No it's merely an observation. Not any claim of universal fact. Scott
W. has just suggested the improved sound stage is due to better
channel balanced which may be achieved through the same adjustment. He
may be right. I'm just reporting what I did and the results.



However, given the basic poor performance of the LP format, and its acute
sensitivity to slight mechanical maladjustment, I'm prone to believe your
claim.


Poor performance? That depends on one's criteria for excellenct
performance. If one is judging excellence on a purely aesthetic meter
we always have to consider the effects of one's prejudices. They can
in some instances totally dominate a person's opinion on aesthetic
merits.


  #12   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
[email protected] S888Wheel@aol.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 204
Default Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.

On Oct 23, 8:21�am, "Serge Auckland"
wrote:
wrote in ...
On Oct 22, 3:35 pm, "Serge Auckland"
wrote:


In addition to all the above, don't forget that all pick-up cartridge
have
harmonic distortions of the order of 2-3%, some higher, some perhaps a
little lower. Considering that an analogue tape machine will also have 3%
distortion (that's how peak level is defined, the 3% distortion point)
and I
have no idea how much distortion the cutter itself has, plus springback
on
the lacquer which leads to harmonic distortion, the total is
considerable.
That's another form of inherent coloration.


S.
--http://audiopages.googlepages.com-Hide quoted text -


A valid point. But how much of that harmonic distortion is audible?


It's hard to say as it depends on many factors. However, tests done on
harmonic distortion that I recall reading many years ago indicated that 1%
was the lower limit for audibility, but it depended on frequency and masking
by other sounds. As I recall, that was the origin of the 0.1% distortion
desiderata for amplifiers as it was 10x better than was likely to be
audible, and could therefore be comfortably taken as being completely
inaudible under all circumstances. Nothing in the intervening 50 years or so
has made this invalid as far as I know.


So it stands to reason that this may actually be a source of euphonic
distortion in vinyl playback.


As to vinyl, I suppose one could cut a record from an unequalised digital
master and similarly produce a CD and compare the two. However, the limited
dynamic range that would result from having necessarily to cut from an
unequalised master would not be a valid comparison with "real world" LPs.


Actually James Boyk did something quite similar. He made a comparison
pachage with his recording of Pictures at an Exhibition. He took the
direct feed from the mic preamp and recorded it both in analog and hi
rez digital. From the analog tapes he cut both a CD and an LP with
xero signal proccessing other than the obvious RIAA EQ for the LP and
A/D conversion for the CD. He included the digital recording on the CD
for a comparison between the digital and analog recorders.

Practical LPs are cut from masters specially equalised and compressed to get
the best subjective result from the limited medium.


I'm not sure what you mean by a "practical" LP. I can tell you though
that I own a good many LPs that have not been compressed at all. OTOH
unfortunately I own a good many CDs that have been compressed to
death. It is a sad state of affairs in today's music industry.

There is also a great
deal of skill (art rather than science) on the part of the Cutting Engineer
who will try and balance the conflicting requirements of noise against
level, frequency response against level against distortion, level against
playing time and pre-echo, level against playability by less sophisticated
record players, managing stereo difference i.e stylus vertical movement, and
possibly other things I haven't thought of.


I can't argue with that. It is a job that takes tremendous skill to do
well, so I am told.


Can you imaging someone starting out today, with no knowledge of vinyl, and
trying to invent a mechanical engraving system to reproduce Hi-Fi sound? I
think anyone would conclude it's just not possible, and yet......


And yet... I remember back when I first got into CDs back in 84. It
was the begining of my persuit of the hobby of high end audio. I
thought the idea of dragging a rock over a piece of plastic to make a
sound seemed pretty absurd in the face of this new digital technology.
And yet.... to this day I am still for the most part getting my best
sound from dragging a rock over a piece of plastic.
  #13   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Sonnova Sonnova is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,337
Default Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.

On Thu, 23 Oct 2008 09:33:32 -0700, wrote
(in article ):

On Oct 23, 6:15�am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in message



It has been my observation that by reducing cross talk as
much as possible with proper azimuth adjustment one
improves the sound stage in every way.


That would be an example of proof by assertion.


No it's merely an observation. Not any claim of universal fact. Scott
W. has just suggested the improved sound stage is due to better
channel balanced which may be achieved through the same adjustment. He
may be right. I'm just reporting what I did and the results.



However, given the basic poor performance of the LP format, and its acute
sensitivity to slight mechanical maladjustment, I'm prone to believe your
claim.


Poor performance? That depends on one's criteria for excellenct
performance. If one is judging excellence on a purely aesthetic meter
we always have to consider the effects of one's prejudices. They can
in some instances totally dominate a person's opinion on aesthetic
merits.



I like the previous poster's "Let's-throw-the-baby-out-with-the-bath-water"
attitude. He seems to overlook the fact that that the entire audio industry
grew up with the LP as the primary, and in some cases, the only source
material. Using the LP, all manner of audio equipment improved on a yearly
basis, and some, such as amplification, became mature technologies, not
really improved upon since. All while reproducing this "basic poor
performance." LP gave millions of people great pleasure and access to the
greatest musical performances in history (as well as some which were not so
great). Good stereos sounded good with LP as their source material, and just
because CD has SOME advantages, such as no surface noise and perfect pitch,
to many, CD just doesn't sound as "good" as a good LP (realizing, of course,
that peoples' ideas about what constitutes "good" differ). I certainly have
LPs that sound far superior to the CDs eventually mastered from the same
source material. Even so, there are many great performances that have never
been transferred (and probably will NEVER be transferred) to CD, leaving LP
as still the only source for these performances. New technologies can be
great, and modern CDs mastered from recent recording sessions which take full
advantage of the truly excellent tools and technologies available today, can
sound superb. Of that there is no doubt or argument. But to dismiss LP with a
wave of the hand and a dismissive comment about "poor performance" is truly
myopic and definitely a case of throwing the baby out with the bath water.

  #14   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.

wrote in message

On Oct 23, 6:15�am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
wrote in message



It has been my observation that by reducing cross talk
as much as possible with proper azimuth adjustment one
improves the sound stage in every way.


That would be an example of proof by assertion.


No it's merely an observation.


In turn, all of the findings of science and technology are observations.

E = MC squared is an observation.

All preferences are observations.

All facts are observations.

IOW, calling something an observation is like saying that water is wet. It's
a truism.

Not any claim of universal fact.


There are no universal facts. There are only the current set of findings and
observations.

Scott W. has just suggested the improved sound
stage is due to better channel balanced which may be
achieved through the same adjustment. He may be right.
I'm just reporting what I did and the results.


But, we don't know how reliable your account of the results are. If you're
going to dismiss 100% of my findings because they disagree with your
beliefs, then your observations deserve nothing more.

However, given the basic poor performance of the LP
format, and its acute sensitivity to slight mechanical
maladjustment, I'm prone to believe your claim.


Poor performance?


Call it an observation.

That depends on one's criteria for excellent performance.


In the end we have two extreme cases.

In one extreme case, the criteria for excellent performance is whatever
flies into my head at that instant. In the other extreme, the criteria for
excellent performance is sonic performance that is completely and utterly
indistinguishable from the original live performance.

In the case of stereo recorded media, we don't have to go all the way back
to the original live performance, because recording and playing back stereo
is all about just 4 electrical signals. The 4 electrical signals a

(1-2) The line-level stereo signal that we wish to record and play back,
such as the output of a mixing console (as in Sheffield), a digital recorder
(as in Telarc and current practice,) or a high quality analog tape recorder
(as in the extreme majority of recordings originally released before 1980.

(3-4) the stereo signal that appears at the line-level electrical outputs of
the media playback facility.

(a) Bottom line, if nobody can reliably distinguish 1-2 from 3-4 by means of
just listening to level-matched, time-synched signals in a bias-controlled
test, then we should all be able to agree that we have excellent
performance.

(b) Given that examples of (a) are not uncommon, if anybody can reliably
distinguish 1-2 from 3-4 by means of just listening to level-matched,
time-synched signals in a bias-controlled test, then we should all be able
to agree that we don't have excellent performance.

[I think that most readers of RAHE in recent years can fill in the rest of
this post, so I shan't waste the bandwidth by actually typing it and sending
it in.]

  #15   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.

"ScottW" wrote in message


On Oct 22, 3:35 pm, wrote:


It has been my observation that by reducing cross talk
as much as possible with proper azimuth adjustment one
improves the sound stage in every way.


Since picking at the logic in statements has become so common around here, I
feel that I am remiss by not pointing out that aside from documented proof
that the claimant actually knows "every way" that the sound stage could be
improved, the statement is obviously false. ;-)

Also, the word "improves" has a number of logical problems. One would be
the standard by which improvement is being judged, which is far from being
clear. Secondly even given a proper standard, there is the matter of how
conformance to that standard is judged. Since human bias might intrude, it
is possible that bias-controlled testing would be the only reasonable means.
;-)


So if this cross talk is in fact a euphonic coloration that enhances the
sense of space on LPs it clearly has to the right amount.


It is clear that cross talk is not always an euphonic coloration, because
the extreme case of cross talk would transform every stereo recording into
mono. OTOH, perhaps I am being presumptuous in thinking that the author
would not want all of his stereo recordings turned into mono. ;-)

Then there is the unsupported claim that "...the sense of space on LPs
clearly has to the right amount..." Fool that I am, I believe that the
sense of space at the original performance is the only sense of space that
clearly has to be the right amount. ;-)


An amount that is at most near the minimum
threshold allowed by the technology.


Which technology is "the technology". ;-)

I think you'll find that the crosstalk method of
alignment also serves
to optimize channel balance which is, IMO, the reason for
improved sound stage. Not a properly applied amount of
crosstalk.


Getting serious for just a moment, it is the sense of space at the original
performance that is the only right amount. Unfortunately, the sense of space
at the original performance is not just one thing, it varies with the
location and orientation of the observer's ears. I find no general agreement
about which seat is the best seat in the house. Therefore, using one's
perceptions of the sound stage as a technical standard for making technical
adjustments is highly subjective and inexact to say the least.



  #16   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.

"Serge Auckland" wrote in
message
wrote in message
...


A valid point. But how much of that harmonic distortion
is audible?


Harmonic distortion is not audible nor is it the intent that it be audible.
Harmonic distortion is an abstract means that is commonly, but often
erroneously used to characterize something that *IS* relevant, which is
nonlinear distortion.

The general rule is that nonlinear distortion that would produce 0.1% THD
if you properly chose to characterize it that way, can cause reliably
audible consequence.

It's hard to say as it depends on many factors. However,
tests done on harmonic distortion that I recall reading
many years ago indicated that 1% was the lower limit for
audibility, but it depended on frequency and masking by
other sounds.


The 1% rule is easy to debunk on the grounds that it can easily be too high.

As I recall, that was the origin of the
0.1% distortion desiderata for amplifiers as it was 10x
better than was likely to be audible, and could therefore
be comfortably taken as being completely inaudible under
all circumstances.


Actually, if I get to pick the music, there is a high probability that
nonlinear distortion of 0.1% in the 20-20 KHz range would likely be
objectionable to you, even if you were listening to a good car radio at 70
mph.

As to vinyl, I suppose one could cut a record from an
unequalised digital master and similarly produce a CD and
compare the two.


Vinyl is so limited in terms of dynamic range that many if not most digital
masters would require further processing if a good-sounding LP were the
desired outcome. It is perfectly trivial to create a digital master that
would damage most LP cutting equipment if not operated by an expert. The
expert would start out by changing the master. Producing an acceptable LP
from an unaltered digital master of ordinary music might be impossible.

However, the limited dynamic range that
would result from having necessarily to cut from an
unequalised master would not be a valid comparison with
"real world" LPs.


Agreed.

Practical LPs are cut from masters
specially equalised and compressed to get the best
subjective result from the limited medium. There is also
a great deal of skill (art rather than science) on the
part of the Cutting Engineer who will try and balance the
conflicting requirements of noise against level,
frequency response against level against distortion,
level against playing time and pre-echo, level against
playability by less sophisticated record players,
managing stereo difference i.e stylus vertical movement,
and possibly other things I haven't thought of.


Agreed.

If we want to compare the LP format to the CD format, we first have to bias
the test to favor the LP.

Obviously, unbiased comparisons of the two are impossible.


  #17   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.

wrote in message



"Please tell us how you know about this distortion that
is "inherent" in LP playback.


Please compare

http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/image...8/vinyl-vs-cd-...


Note that this graphic shows a 1 KHz tone, with the
second harmonic about 20
dB down, which I call 10% second harmonic nonlinear
distortion. 10% distortion is a lot of distortion by any standard.


As you point out, I was mislead by the author's commentary. The difference
is just about exactly 40 dB, which is still very poor performance for a
modern playback device. The accompanying text talks about 7-10% THD+N which
mislead me.

But more importantly, how do you
differentiate the distortion that is inherent from the
distortion that is unique to that particular rig and the
test record?


One presumes competence on the part of the person doing the test - that they
used an adequate test record.

to:


http://www.pcavtech.com/play-rec/rega-2/grado-SNR.gif


Note that this graphic shows a 300 Hz tone, with the
second and third
harmonics each 40-45 dB down, which I call less than one
percent second and third harmonic distortion.


OK. But again, how do you tell the difference between the
inherent distortion in the medium and the distortion that
is unique to your rig and the test record?


I used a SOTA test record. My modest rig outperformed a highly-expensive
rig.

Actually, your point is well taken. The poor technical performance is
partially due to the test record in the sense that as a rule, no test like
this ever obtains significantly better results, because after all, this is
LP playback.

Note that while my test results are still signficantly better - almost 6 dB
better, they are in the same rather pathetic range.


What playback equipment
have you used to determine this?


Looking at the two examples, it appears that we have
quite a range of
equipment.


I don't agree at all. I would argue that neither rig
would be found to be SOTA.


You've missed the point - the cheaper rig which most would agree is far
less SOTA than the more expensive one, outperformed the more expensive rig
by a signficant margin.

If you are looking for the
thresholds of the medium I think you have to start with a
disc cut at one of the handful of state of the art
mastering studios and you would have to use a Rockport
Sirius III or the top model Continuum or maybe the top
model Transrotor rig.


Persons with such equipment are free to publish their results. They haven't,
and that is because their results won't be signficantly better (i.e., 10
times better) than either of the above tests.

The PCAVTech equipment is obviously very humble -
Turntable was a Rega
Planar 2 with RB-100 Tone Arm. Test media was the HFN
Test LP . Preamp was a
Conrad Johnson CJ-2. The cartridge was either a Shure
M44-7 or a Rega
Silver. Kinda doesn't matter, their performance is not
that dissimilar.


I think it matters tremendously.


The hometheaterhifi.com equipment a McIntosh MT10
Turntable with factory
cartridge (made by Clearaudio), seems to be very
elegant. It seems to have
been set up with great care.


I'm sure it was.



Please be specific:
turntables, pickup arms, phono cartridges, phono
preamplifiers. Because you claim this playback
characteristic is "inherent," you must have experimented
with more than one playback system. Did you conduct any
measurements which document your claim?


I've done this kind of test many times over the decades,
and the results I
posted
athttp://www.pcavtech.com/play-rec/rega-2/index.htm are
very
typical of a wide range of equipment. I don't think I
could get as good
performance out of a $100 plastic USB
turntable/arm/cartrdige, but maybe I'm
saying that in a state of ignorace and negative
prejudice. ;-)


I think that is a possibility. If one really wants to get
a handle on inherent colorations one has to be extremely
careful to differentiate colorations that are inherent
from those that are unique to the rig and test record.



But, I've already show that a humble, apparently outdated rig can outperform
a modern, far more apparently sophisticated expensive one. If you check
the timing of the tests, my test predated the test of the expensive rig by
about 7 years.


The real surprise is the seemingly poor performance
posted
athttp://www.hometheaterhifi.com/images/stories/april-2008/vinyl-vs-cd-...


I call that really poor performance, and we don't even
have a frequency
response curve that actually involves playing vinyl.


But aren't you making a qualitative judgement without
even knowing what it sounds like?


We already know what both rigs sound like - they sound like vinyl, with
audible tics, timbre changes both static and dynamic, pops, rumble, hiss,
and distortion.


  #18   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Serge Auckland[_2_] Serge Auckland[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 175
Default Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
Snipped



As I recall, that was the origin of the
0.1% distortion desiderata for amplifiers as it was 10x
better than was likely to be audible, and could therefore
be comfortably taken as being completely inaudible under
all circumstances.


Actually, if I get to pick the music, there is a high probability that
nonlinear distortion of 0.1% in the 20-20 KHz range would likely be
objectionable to you, even if you were listening to a good car radio at 70
mph.


This is interesting:- What music would have 0.1% distortion that's audible?
That's 60dB down on peak, so I would be very surprised to be able to hear
anything 60dB down on programme, especially when correlated to the
programme.

S.
--
http://audiopages.googlepages.com

  #19   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
C. Leeds C. Leeds is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 130
Default Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.

Arny Krueger wrote:


We already know what both rigs sound like - they sound like vinyl, with
audible tics, timbre changes both static and dynamic, pops, rumble, hiss,
and distortion.


As this lengthy thread has demonstrated, there have been no reliable
primary sources shown here to substantiate that this is inherently what
vinyl sounds like. It's just an oft-repeated canard.

  #20   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.

"C. Leeds" wrote in message
...

Arny Krueger wrote:


We already know what both rigs sound like - they sound like vinyl, with
audible tics, timbre changes both static and dynamic, pops, rumble,
hiss,
and distortion.


As this lengthy thread has demonstrated, there have been no reliable
primary sources shown here to substantiate that this is inherently what
vinyl sounds like.


So all those JAES articles that Stephen cited are what, secondary sources?

Where do they teach that sort of thinking as good academic research?

Have you even looked at their abstracts?

Do you know who their authors were?

It's just an oft-repeated canard.


It is all a trivially-demonstrable fact.

I challenge you to post a digital transcription of a LP that contains no
detectible evidence of *any* of the problems mentioned above.





  #21   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
[email protected] S888Wheel@aol.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 204
Default Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.

On Oct 23, 5:47�pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
Vinyl is so limited in terms of dynamic range that many if not most digital
masters would require further processing if a good-sounding LP were the
desired outcome. It is perfectly trivial to create a digital master that
would damage most LP cutting equipment if not operated by an expert. The
expert would start out by changing the master. Producing an acceptable LP
from an unaltered digital master of ordinary music might be impossible.


To the best of my knowledge there are very few commercial recordings
that have an excess of 75 db dynamic range. This is rarely an issue at
all.

  #22   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
[email protected] S888Wheel@aol.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 204
Default Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.

On Oct 23, 5:47�pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in message





"Please tell us how you know about this distortion that
is "inherent" in LP playback.


Please compare


http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/image...8/vinyl-vs-cd-...
Note that this graphic shows a 1 KHz tone, with the
second harmonic about 20
dB down, which I call 10% second harmonic nonlinear
distortion. 10% �distortion is a lot of distortion by any standard.


As you point out, I was mislead by the author's commentary. The difference
is just about exactly 40 dB, which is still very poor performance for a
modern playback device. The accompanying text talks about 7-10% THD+N which
mislead me.

�But more importantly, how do you
differentiate the distortion that is inherent from the
distortion that is unique to that particular rig and the
test record?


One presumes competence on the part of the person doing the test - that they
used an adequate test record.


I find that presumption to be unacceptable. One cannot draw such
universal conclusions about the inherent colorations of the medium
based on such a limited sampling.



to:
http://www.pcavtech.com/play-rec/rega-2/grado-SNR.gif
Note that this graphic shows a 300 Hz tone, with the
second and third
harmonics each 40-45 dB down, which I call less than one
percent second and third harmonic distortion.

OK. But again, how do you tell the difference between the
inherent distortion in the medium and the distortion that
is unique to your rig and the test record?


I used a SOTA test record. �My modest rig �outperformed a highly-expensive
rig.


I disagree. The test record you used was not cut on the latest most
advanced cutting lathes and does not represent the state of the art of
vinyl mastering.



Actually, your point is well taken. The poor technical performance is
partially due to the test record �in the sense that as a rule, no test like
this ever obtains significantly better results, because after all, this is
LP playback.


This is a faulty logical argument.
18. Tautology A tautology is an argument that utilizes circular
reasoning, which means that the conclusion is also its own premise.
The structure of such arguments is A=B therefore A=B, although the
premise and conclusion might be formulated differently so it is not
immediately apparent as such. For example, saying that therapeutic
touch works because it manipulates the life force is a tautology
because the definition of therapeutic touch is the alleged
manipulation (without touching) of the life force.


Note that while my test results are still signficantly better - almost 6 dB
better, �they are in the same rather pathetic range.


It still tells us very little about what distortions are inherent in
the technology and what distortions are unique to each device. It does
tell us that one device clearly must have some distortion that is not
inherent in the medium. We have no way of determining how much of that
measured distortion is inherent in the medium and how much is added by
the specific propperties of that rig and that test record. We simply
can deduct that at least some of it is indeed added by that specific
rig and/or that specific test record. This leaves us with your rig,
The one with the lower measured distortion. One would have to presume
that your rig and test record are both SOTA and free from any of the
added distortion we can deduct is likely present in the other rig and
test record to assume that these measurments are purely a measurement
of only the inherent colorations of the medium. I think this would be
a terribly irrational presumption with no foundation. This leaves us
in the same situation we started. We don't know how much of the
measured distortion in either test is inherent in the medium. You
simply can't determine this just by these two examples.



What playback equipment
have you used to determine this?
Looking at the two examples, it appears that we have
quite a range of
equipment.

I don't agree at all. I would argue that neither rig
would be found to be SOTA.


You've missed the point - the cheaper �rig which most would agree is far
less SOTA than the more expensive one, outperformed the more expensive rig
by a signficant margin.


My point is that one cannot deduct from these two sets of
measurements what distortions are inherent in the medium. This was
never about the subjective evaluation of additional distortions that
are unique to each rig. That is an entirely different subject.



If you are looking for the
thresholds of the medium I think you have to start with a
disc cut at one of the handful of state of the art
mastering studios and you would have to use a Rockport
Sirius III or the top model Continuum or maybe the top
model Transrotor rig.


Persons with such equipment are free to publish their results. They haven't,
and that is because their results won't be signficantly better (i.e., 10
times better) than either of the above tests.


This is a faulty argument.
12. Non-Sequitur In Latin this term translates to "doesn't follow".
This refers to an argument in which the conclusion does not
necessarily follow from the premises. In other words, a logical
connection is implied where none exists.






The PCAVTech equipment is obviously very humble -
Turntable was a Rega
Planar 2 with RB-100 Tone Arm. Test media was the HFN
Test LP . Preamp was a
Conrad Johnson CJ-2. The cartridge was either a Shure
M44-7 or a Rega
Silver. Kinda doesn't matter, their performance is not
that dissimilar.

I think it matters tremendously.
The hometheaterhifi.com equipment a McIntosh MT10
Turntable with factory
cartridge (made by Clearaudio), seems to be very
elegant. It seems to have
been set up with great care.

I'm sure it was.


Please be specific:
turntables, pickup arms, phono cartridges, phono
preamplifiers. Because you claim this playback
characteristic is "inherent," you must have experimented
with more than one playback system. Did you conduct any
measurements which document your claim?


I've done this kind of test many times over the decades,
and the results I
posted
athttp://www.pcavtech.com/play-rec/rega-2/index.htmare
very
typical of a wide range of equipment. I don't think I
could get as good
performance out of a $100 plastic USB
turntable/arm/cartrdige, but maybe I'm
saying that in a state of ignorace and negative
prejudice. ;-)

I think that is a possibility. If one really wants to get
a handle on inherent colorations one has to be extremely
careful to differentiate colorations that are inherent
from those that are unique to the rig and test record.


But, I've already show that a humble, apparently outdated rig can outperform
a modern, far more apparently sophisticated expensive one. � If you check
the timing of the tests, my test predated the test of the expensive rig by
about 7 years.


It tells nothing about what measured distortions in your rig and your
test record are inherent in the medium and what distortions are not
inherent in the medium.



The real surprise is the seemingly poor performance
posted
athttp://www.hometheaterhifi.com/images/stories/april-2008/vinyl-vs-cd-...
I call that really poor performance, and we don't even
have a frequency
response curve that actually involves playing vinyl.

But aren't you making a qualitative judgement without
even knowing what it sounds like?


We already know what both rigs sound like



No we don't. You have some idea what one of them sounds like under
sighted conditions with your personal sound system which makes your
opinions limited in scope and subject to your biases. Neither one of
us has even listened to the other rig.



  #23   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
C. Leeds C. Leeds is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 130
Default Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.

Arny Krueger wrote:
-
Improved sound quality is what initially sold the CD....It wasn't

cost, because both the players and the discs were far more expensive.

I answered:

Don't be silly. Even the very earliest CD players were far less

expensive than the best turntable rigs of the era.

Arny responds:

when talking about prices, I'm talking about LP playback equipment

with top-of-the line Thorens and Linn turntables, etc.

Arny, I don't know what you paid for your first Sony CD player. "Early
adopters" of new technology often pay inflated prices in exchange for
"bragging rights" about being the first kid on the block with a new toy.
But here are some facts, using list prices.

The Sony CDP-101 first sold for $900. According to the 1984 Audio
magazine equipment directory, the Linn LP12 cost $794. At Ittok pickup
arm was $520. To make them work, you'd still need a phono cartridge and
a phono preamplifier. So you can't claim that the earliest CD players
were expensive compared to LP rigs. They weren't; they were cheap by
comparison. They still are.

Many people in their 40's were not even teenagers at the time. What

can they remember if it never happened to them?

They can look it up, Arny.

  #24   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.

wrote in message
...
On Oct 23, 5:47�pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:


Vinyl is so limited in terms of dynamic range that many if not most
digital
masters would require further processing if a good-sounding LP were the
desired outcome. It is perfectly trivial to create a digital master that
would damage most LP cutting equipment if not operated by an expert. The
expert would start out by changing the master. Producing an acceptable LP
from an unaltered digital master of ordinary music might be impossible.


To the best of my knowledge there are very few commercial recordings
that have an excess of 75 db dynamic range.


If we consider the results posted at www.hometheatrehifi.com, their LP
system tests show 22 dB audio-band dynamic range, which is far worse than a
typical uncompressed classical CD which has 65 dB or better audio-band
dynamic range.

Butt audio-band dynamic range is not the LP format's weakest link. Dynamic
range at high frequencies the far more significant weakness of the LP
format.

High frequencies within the audio band is where modern CDs would likely need
the most *adjustment* if they were to be recorded on a LP without damaging
the cutter head.


  #25   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.

"Serge Auckland" wrote in message
...
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
Snipped



As I recall, that was the origin of the
0.1% distortion desiderata for amplifiers as it was 10x
better than was likely to be audible, and could therefore
be comfortably taken as being completely inaudible under
all circumstances.


Actually, if I get to pick the music, there is a high probability that
nonlinear distortion of 0.1% in the 20-20 KHz range would likely be
objectionable to you, even if you were listening to a good car radio at
70
mph.


This is interesting:- What music would have 0.1% distortion that's
audible?
That's 60dB down on peak, so I would be very surprised to be able to hear
anything 60dB down on programme, especially when correlated to the
programme.


The undistorted music would be composed of instruments that are very rich in
high frequency overtones, such as certain percussion and brass instruments.

The nonlinear distortion would be effective in the top octave of the normal
audio band - 10 KHz and up. This is a range where the nonlinear distortion
of most equipment is increasing because of decreasing open loop gain
(amplifiers) or tracking distortion (LP). Now for a good power amplifier,
this distortion increase might be from 0.005% at 2 KHz to 0.02% at 20 KHz.
Still not a serious issue. For SET amplifiers and LP playback, the
distortion increase might be from a little less than 1% to 5-10% or more.
Potentially a very serious issue.

The relevant psychoacoustic effect makes the ear far less sensitive to the
high frequency overtones than it is to the IM spurious responses which show
up at lower frequencies where the ear is far more sensitive.

Note that the ear is about 20 dB more sensitive in the 2.5 to 5 KHz range
than it is in the 10-20 KHz range. So psychoacoustically, our 0.1 %
nonlinear distortion is perceived as being more like 1% nonlinear
distortion.

I believe that there is little controversy among many of us over the idea
that nonlinear distortion in the 1% range can be reliably detected. This is
particularly true when the spurious responses are aharmonic, which IM is
very likely to be.



  #26   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.

"C. Leeds" wrote in message
...
Arny Krueger wrote:


Improved sound quality is what initially sold the CD....It wasn't

cost, because both the players and the discs were far more expensive.


I answered:


Don't be silly. Even the very earliest CD players were far less

expensive than the best turntable rigs of the era.


Arny responds:


when talking about prices, I'm talking about LP playback equipment

with top-of-the line Thorens and Linn turntables, etc.


Arny, I don't know what you paid for your first Sony CD player.


$936 including tax.

"Early adopters" of new technology often pay inflated prices in exchange
for
"bragging rights" about being the first kid on the block with a new toy.


Or, people go so frustrated with the LP that they were willing to pay any
reasonable price to get something better. Done deal!

But here are some facts, using list prices.


How about some real world numbers?

The Sony CDP-101 first sold for $900. According to the 1984 Audio
magazine equipment directory, the Linn LP12 cost $794. At Ittok pickup
arm was $520.


Those were list prices. The CDP 101 being new sold for list for the first
few months. I know a number of people who had LP12s, but none of them paid
list price for them.

My TD 125/SM3 3009/Shure V-15 4 system cost me far less than my CDP 101.

If anybody wanted a CDP 101, they paid the store's price for the first few
months. There was nothing that sold for appreciably less. If they wanted a
LP playback system, they had unending choices at a wide variety of price
points.

To make them work, you'd still need a phono cartridge and
a phono preamplifier.


In those days the nearest phono preamp was as close as the nearest preamp,
integrated amp or receiver. Incremental cost = zero. Very good Shure
cartridges were under $100.

So you can't claim that the earliest CD players
were expensive compared to LP rigs.


Sure I can, especially if I'm not so bold as to claim that everybody paid
list price for everything, and that everybody had a very expensive LP
playback system.

The average audiophile in the early 80s was using something like a Dual
turntable/cartridge combo that cost less than $200, $300 at the most. And
BTW there's no evidence that they were losing out on significant amounts of
technical performance by doing so. I admit it - overspent on my
Thorens/Shure rig.

They weren't; they were cheap by comparison. They still are.


It appears that the high price of many LP playback systems can't be
justified on technical grounds. The current pricing of a
sonically-transparent CD player is so low that its not even worthy of
discussion.

Many people in their 40's were not even teenagers at the time. What

can they remember if it never happened to them?


They can look it up, Arny.


If they can't look up JAES papers, how can we reasonably expect them to look
up old copies of Audio.

BTW, I learned a lot about LP technology from old copies of Audio, because
they used to echo the interesting parts of some JAES papers.


  #27   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
[email protected] S888Wheel@aol.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 204
Default Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.

On Oct 23, 5:47�pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"ScottW" wrote in message



On Oct 22, 3:35 pm, wrote:
It has been my observation that by reducing cross talk
as much as possible with proper azimuth adjustment one
improves the sound stage in every way.


Since picking at the logic in statements has become so common around here, I
feel that I am remiss by not pointing out that aside from documented proof
that the claimant actually knows "every way" that the sound stage could be
improved, the statement is obviously false. ;-)

Also, the word "improves" �has a number of logical problems. One would be
the standard by which improvement is being judged, which is far from being
clear. Secondly even given a proper standard, there is the matter of how
conformance to that standard is judged. Since human bias might intrude, it
is possible that bias-controlled testing would be the only reasonable means.
;-)


That is all true and well worth pointing out. The improvements I noted
were indeed subjective and made under sighted conditions.


So if this cross talk is in fact a euphonic coloration that enhances the
sense of space on LPs it clearly has to the right amount.


It is clear that cross talk is not always an euphonic coloration, because
the extreme case of cross talk would transform every stereo recording into
mono. �OTOH, perhaps I am being presumptuous in thinking that the author
would not want all of his stereo recordings turned into mono. ;-)


You are correct.


Then there is the unsupported claim that "...the sense of space on LPs
clearly has to the right amount..." �Fool that I am, I believe that the
sense of space at the original performance is the only sense of space that
clearly has to be the right amount. ;-)


actually I was refering to the crosstalk when I said "right amount." I
pretty much agree with your opinion that the sense of space at the
original performance is "the right amount" for the playback. I don't
think one could go terribly wrong with that if they are looking for an
illusion of live music.


�An amount that is at most near the minimum
threshold allowed by the technology.


Which technology is "the technology". ;-)


The production and playback of vinyl.


I think you'll find that the crosstalk method of
alignment also serves
to optimize channel balance which is, IMO, the reason for
improved sound stage. �Not a properly applied amount of
crosstalk.


Getting serious for just a moment, �it is the sense of space at the original
performance that is the only right amount.


No it is the only "accurate" amount. One would not be "wrong" to use a
different reference to judge excellence. I think you and I are
actually on the same page here as to what we would like to achieve but
that is hardly a universal standard by which all audiophiles are
forced to judge a sense of space. There are many a DSP that allows one
to vary that sense of space to one's personal taste. No one is wrong
for using such a device. It is a personal choice.

Unfortunately, the sense of space
at the original performance is not just one thing, it varies with the
location and orientation of the observer's ears. I find no general agreement
about which seat is the best seat in the house. Therefore, using one's
perceptions of the sound stage as a technical standard for making technical
adjustments is highly subjective and inexact to say the least.


You make a very important point. No recording captures an "original
acoustic event" in total. At best all a recording engineer can to is
make a recording that when played back creates a less than perfect
illusion of the original event from a single particular listening
position. That is one of many aesthetic choices made by a skilled
recording engineer.

  #28   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
[email protected] S888Wheel@aol.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 204
Default Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.

On Oct 24, 7:23�am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"C. Leeds" wrote in message

...

Arny Krueger wrote:
We already know what both rigs sound like - they sound like vinyl, with
audible tics, timbre changes both static �and dynamic, pops, rumble,
hiss,
and distortion.

As this lengthy thread has demonstrated, there have been no reliable
primary sources shown here to substantiate that this is inherently what
vinyl sounds like.


So all those JAES articles that Stephen cited are what, secondary sources?


They are references to papers with no established relevance to the
subject of inherent euphonic colorations of vinyl.
If one were to at least quote a passage from any of the cited papers,
those of us who don't have them in their possesion can at least see if
they actually address the issue being discussed.


Where do they teach that sort of thinking as good academic research?

Have you even looked at their abstracts?


No. so we have no way of knowing their relevance to the subject of
inherent euphonic colorations of vinyl


Do you know who their authors were?


Wasn't that information included in the citations?

  #29   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.

wrote in message
...
On Oct 23, 5:47�pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in message





"Please tell us how you know about this distortion that
is "inherent" in LP playback.


Please compare


http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/image...8/vinyl-vs-cd-...
Note that this graphic shows a 1 KHz tone, with the
second harmonic about 20
dB down, which I call 10% second harmonic nonlinear
distortion. 10% �distortion is a lot of distortion by any standard.


As you point out, I was mislead by the author's commentary. The
difference
is just about exactly 40 dB, which is still very poor performance for a
modern playback device. The accompanying text talks about 7-10% THD+N
which
mislead me.

�But more importantly, how do you
differentiate the distortion that is inherent from the
distortion that is unique to that particular rig and the
test record?


One presumes competence on the part of the person doing the test - that
they
used an adequate test record.


I find that presumption to be unacceptable.


I find flat, unjustified, unsupported dismissal of the work of a well-known
technician to be unacceptable.


One cannot draw such
universal conclusions about the inherent colorations of the medium
based on such a limited sampling.


Scott, that would be proof positive that you haven't bothered to do your
reading. You asked for the references, which makes you responsible for
reviewing them before you dismiss them.

to:
http://www.pcavtech.com/play-rec/rega-2/grado-SNR.gif
Note that this graphic shows a 300 Hz tone, with the
second and third
harmonics each 40-45 dB down, which I call less than one
percent second and third harmonic distortion.
OK. But again, how do you tell the difference between the
inherent distortion in the medium and the distortion that
is unique to your rig and the test record?


I used a SOTA test record. �My modest rig �outperformed a
highly-expensive
rig.


I disagree. The test record you used was not cut on the latest most
advanced cutting lathes and does not represent the state of the art of
vinyl mastering.


Prove it.

Actually, your point is well taken. The poor technical performance is
partially due to the test record �in the sense that as a rule, no test
like
this ever obtains significantly better results, because after all, this
is
LP playback.


This is a faulty logical argument.


Only if one has not done his homework.


18. Tautology A tautology is an argument that utilizes circular
reasoning, which means that the conclusion is also its own premise.


It's only a tautology to people who are unfamiliar with the technical
literature of LP technology. References to a goodly sample of that
literature has been posted here in good bibliographical style. Pretending
it doesn't exist would not appear to be a well-justified course of action.


Note that while my test results are still signficantly better - almost 6
dB
better. IOW, they are in the same rather pathetic range.


It still tells us very little about what distortions are inherent in
the technology and what distortions are unique to each device.


The only people who know little about what distortions are inherent in the
various aspects
LP technology are those who have at this point intentionally ignored the
supplied references to the technical literature of LP technology. The two
samples of real-world performance at hand are representative of what the LP
format does, and is consistent with a body of knowledge that is available to
the general public and has been published over the past 40 years.

Anybody who thinks they can obtain better performance from their LP playback
systems need only invest in one or more test records and make effective use
of a reasonably up-to-date PC or Mac. Thus, it is up to them to obtain
reliable evidence that supports their beliefs or have their beliefs
dismissed on the ground that they are unwilling to provide reasonable
support for their beliefs.



  #30   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
[email protected] S888Wheel@aol.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 204
Default Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.

On Oct 23, 3:35�pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in message



On Oct 23, 6:15 am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
wrote in message




It has been my observation that by reducing cross talk
as much as possible with proper azimuth adjustment one
improves the sound stage in every way.


That would be an example of proof by assertion.

No it's merely an observation.


In turn, all of the findings of science and technology are observations.

E = MC squared is an observation.


I think you have it backwards there. Einstien hypothesized E=MC
squared well before it was ever observed.


All preferences are observations.


Not really. Preferences are subjective evaluations. They may be based
on observation. They may be based on other things like prejudice. But
they are not really an observation.


All facts are observations.


Not at all. we have a whole world of mathematical facts and linguistic
facts that are anything but observations.

Scott W. has just suggested the improved sound
stage is due to better channel balanced which may be
achieved through the same adjustment. He may be right.
I'm just reporting what I did and the results.


But, we don't know how reliable your account of the results are. If you're
going to dismiss 100% of my findings because they disagree with your
beliefs, then your observations deserve nothing more.


That is true. I could be mistaken. Or I could be giving a personal
opinion on the quality of the soundstage which may not jive with other
peoples' qualitative opinions. That is why I assert my observations
based on listening as my observations based on listening. Nothing more
nothing less.


However, given the basic poor performance of the LP
format, and its acute sensitivity to slight mechanical
maladjustment, I'm prone to believe your claim.

Poor performance?


Call it an observation.


I will call it the same thing I called it for myself and I call it
for all others. It is your "subjective evaluation. It may be based on
observation. It may be based on other things like prejudice. but it is
not really an observation."


That depends on one's criteria for excellent performance.


In the end we have two extreme cases.

In one extreme case, the criteria for excellent performance is whatever
flies into my head at that instant. In the other extreme, the criteria for
excellent performance is sonic performance that is completely and utterly
indistinguishable from the original live performance.


I completely disagree with this premise. it is yet another case of
faulty logic. 9. False Dichotomy Arbitrarily reducing a set of many
possibilities to only two. For example, evolution is not possible,
therefore we must have been created (assumes these are the only two
possibilities). Ultimately when one talks about "excellence" there is
at least one leap from the objective world to the world of pure
subjectivity. One can objectively say something is bigger than another
or faster than another or hotter than another etc. But as soon as you
say something is "better" then you have to have made a subjective
choice of a reference by which you measure. You have picked two out of
a nearly unlimited number of possible goals and arbitrarily claimed
that they are extremes. One of them simply isn't a point of reference
at all. The other is merely one of many possible points of reference.
On a practical level you have cited a point of reference/goal a "sonic
performance that is completely and utterly indistinguishable from the
original live performance." that is simply not available as a
practical reference for audiophiles like myself who are simply looking
to get the best sound out of their favorite commercial recordings.


In the case of stereo recorded media, we don't have to go all the way back
to the original live performance, because recording and playing back stereo
is all about just 4 electrical signals. �


If one's goal is to get "sonic performance that is completely and
utterly indistinguishable from the original live performance." one can
not possibly cut to the half way point of the stereo chain and now
call that the reference. The electrical signals you refer to are in
fact not the same as the "original live performance." Not even close.
The original live performance was a complex series of sound waves that
took place in a three dimensional space. These signals you speak of
are nothing more than a couple one dimensional electrical waves. They
are anything but the same as the original performance. Once the
original perfomance happens it is lost. If *you* wish to use an
electrical signal as a point of reference by which to judge excellence
that is a choice you get to make. I have no problem with *your*
aesthetic goals. But make no mistake about it, you have just abandoned
your reference of the "original performance" and put an intermediate
electrical signal with all the baggage it carries from the inherent
colorations of the hardware, the inherent limitations of stereo
recording and playback and most significantly all the aesthetic
choices made by the recording engineer in place of the "original
perfomance" as your reference. Now this is a choice any audiophile may
make. But it would be a profound mistake to believe these two points
of reference are interchangable or indistinguishable. They are not.



  #31   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
[email protected] S888Wheel@aol.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 204
Default Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.

On Oct 24, 2:33�pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in message

...

On Oct 23, 5:47 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
Vinyl is so limited in terms of dynamic range that many if not most
digital
masters would require further processing if a good-sounding LP were the
desired outcome. It is perfectly trivial to create a digital master that
would damage most LP cutting equipment if not operated by an expert. The
expert would start out by changing the master. Producing an acceptable LP
from an unaltered digital master of ordinary music might be impossible.

To the best of my knowledge there are very few commercial recordings
that have an excess of 75 db dynamic range.


If we consider the results posted at �www.hometheatrehifi.com, their LP
system tests show 22 dB audio-band dynamic range,


The link doesn't work but any claim that the inherent dynamic range of
medium is 22db would simply be eroneous. By most accounts from those
involved with state of the art vinyl reproduction report that the
inherent dynamic range ia anywhere from 75 to 80 db. Also we have to
remember the noise floor of vinyl has a specific sonic signature which
allows for hearing signals well below the noise floor. If their rig is
only able to achieve 22db dynamic range it has some serious problems.

which is far worse than a
typical uncompressed classical CD which has 65 dB or better audio-band
dynamic range.


65 db is well within the inherent limitations of vinyl. It's also
extremely dynamic by recording standards. You will find the vast
majority of commercial recordings have far less dynamic range. Not to
say we shouldn't try to accomedate recordings with exceptionally wide
dynamic ranges.



Butt audio-band dynamic range is not the LP format's weakest link. Dynamic
range at high frequencies the far more significant weakness of the LP
format.



That is true. Things like cymbal crashes with close microphone
techniques and other such signals are an issue with vinyl. The cutting
engineer will likely use a limiter if that kind of high frequency
energy is in the signal.

  #32   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
[email protected] S888Wheel@aol.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 204
Default Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.

On Oct 24, 5:26�pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in message

...





On Oct 23, 5:47 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in message




"Please tell us how you know about this distortion that
is "inherent" in LP playback.


Please compare


http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/image...8/vinyl-vs-cd-...
Note that this graphic shows a 1 KHz tone, with the
second harmonic about 20
dB down, which I call 10% second harmonic nonlinear
distortion. 10% distortion is a lot of distortion by any standard.


As you point out, I was mislead by the author's commentary. The
difference
is just about exactly 40 dB, which is still very poor performance for a
modern playback device. The accompanying text talks about 7-10% THD+N
which
mislead me.


But more importantly, how do you
differentiate the distortion that is inherent from the
distortion that is unique to that particular rig and the
test record?


One presumes competence on the part of the person doing the test - that
they
used an adequate test record.

I find that presumption to be unacceptable.


I find flat, unjustified, unsupported dismissal of the work of a well-known
technician to be unacceptable.


I do too but that isn't what I have done. I have pointed out that the
test results are due in no small part to the added didtortions of the
test record and the rig being tested. There is no way to look at the
results on their face and determine what portion of the measured
distortion is an inherent distortion of the medium and what portion is
not. I don't believe any calim is made by the authors as to what
portion of the distortion they measured is inherent in the medium. I
have not dismissed their work.


One cannot draw such
universal conclusions about the inherent colorations of the medium
based on such a limited sampling.


Scott, that would be proof positive that you haven't bothered to do your
reading. You asked for the references, which makes you responsible for
reviewing them before you dismiss them.


I'm not sure what your point is here but I did read the article cited
that reported the tests with the McIntosh TT. Please feel free to cite
any specific excerpts that you feel will show what portion of the
measured distortion in that test is inherent in the medium and what
portion is not. I apologize in advance for anything I may have missed.






to:
http://www.pcavtech.com/play-rec/rega-2/grado-SNR.gif
Note that this graphic shows a 300 Hz tone, with the
second and third
harmonics each 40-45 dB down, which I call less than one
percent second and third harmonic distortion.
OK. But again, how do you tell the difference between the
inherent distortion in the medium and the distortion that
is unique to your rig and the test record?


I used a SOTA test record. My modest rig outperformed a
highly-expensive
rig.

I disagree. The test record you used was not cut on the latest most
advanced cutting lathes and does not represent the state of the art of
vinyl mastering.


Prove it.


HiFi News and record review test record correct? The one cut back in
the late 60s right?

  #33   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Steven Sullivan Steven Sullivan is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,268
Default Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.

wrote:
On Oct 24, 2:33???pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in message

...

On Oct 23, 5:47 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
Vinyl is so limited in terms of dynamic range that many if not most
digital
masters would require further processing if a good-sounding LP were the
desired outcome. It is perfectly trivial to create a digital master that
would damage most LP cutting equipment if not operated by an expert. The
expert would start out by changing the master. Producing an acceptable LP
from an unaltered digital master of ordinary music might be impossible.
To the best of my knowledge there are very few commercial recordings
that have an excess of 75 db dynamic range.


If we consider the results posted at ???
www.hometheatrehifi.com, their LP
system tests show 22 dB audio-band dynamic range,


The link doesn't work


Even with *just* the information 'www.hometheatrehifi.com" it's possible
to find the articles in question quickly.

www.hometheatrehifi.com takes you to the Secrets portal, where one of the prominent
tabs is 'Technical Articles'. Click n that, and you are taken directly to the first of
the LP vs CD articles in the series.

Why do some here seem to often need to be led 'by hand'
to references and information they could easly find themselves, if they were
really interested in doing so?

--
-S
I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can
seldom accept the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit
the falsity of conclusions which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have
woven, thread by thread, into the fabrics of their life -- Leo Tolstoy
  #34   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.

wrote in message ...
On Oct 24, 5:26?pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

...
I disagree. The test record you used was not cut on the latest most
advanced cutting lathes and does not represent the state of the art of
vinyl mastering.


Prove it.


HiFi News and record review test record correct? The one cut back in
the late 60s right?


Wrong again. The HFN test record was been recut in recent times. I have one
of the newly cut versions.

Here is a discussion of the more recent version of the HFN test record:

http://www.tnt-audio.com/accessories/hfnrrdisc_e.html

  #35   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.

wrote in message ...
On Oct 23, 3:35?pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in message



On Oct 23, 6:15 am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
wrote in message




It has been my observation that by reducing cross talk
as much as possible with proper azimuth adjustment one
improves the sound stage in every way.


That would be an example of proof by assertion.
No it's merely an observation.


In turn, all of the findings of science and technology are observations.

E = MC squared is an observation.


I think you have it backwards there. Einstien hypothesized E=MC
squared well before it was ever observed.


At this point, both the hypothesis and the observation are ancient history.
To say otherwise would seem
to be liveing in the past and ignoring everything that happened after an
arbitrary time of arbitrary choice.

However, even the hypothesis was a kind of observation. It was a
mathematical observation.

All preferences are observations.


Not really.


Sure they are, they are observations of a state of mind.

Preferences are subjective evaluations.


That does not keep them from being observations.

Here we see a very basic kind of logical error. I say, "there's a cat". You
say, "Its not a cat, its a mammal". Obviously the idea the the animal that
we see is both a cat and a mammal has escaped you.

At this point I dispair of ever agreeing with you about anything, so I quit.



  #36   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Chung[_2_] Chung[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3
Default Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.

Steven Sullivan wrote:
wrote:
On Oct 24, 2:33???pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in message

...

On Oct 23, 5:47 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
Vinyl is so limited in terms of dynamic range that many if not most
digital
masters would require further processing if a good-sounding LP were the
desired outcome. It is perfectly trivial to create a digital master that
would damage most LP cutting equipment if not operated by an expert. The
expert would start out by changing the master. Producing an acceptable LP
from an unaltered digital master of ordinary music might be impossible.
To the best of my knowledge there are very few commercial recordings
that have an excess of 75 db dynamic range.
If we consider the results posted at ???
www.hometheatrehifi.com, their LP
system tests show 22 dB audio-band dynamic range,


The link doesn't work


Even with *just* the information 'www.hometheatrehifi.com" it's possible
to find the articles in question quickly.

www.hometheatrehifi.com takes you to the Secrets portal, where one of the prominent
tabs is 'Technical Articles'. Click n that, and you are taken directly to the first of
the LP vs CD articles in the series.

Why do some here seem to often need to be led 'by hand'
to references and information they could easly find themselves, if they were
really interested in doing so?


http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/

http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/featu...parts-1-4.html
  #37   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.

wrote in message ...
On Oct 24, 5:26?pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:



HiFi News and record review test record correct? The one cut back in
the late 60s right?


Ahh, I found the reference I couldn't find while researching my previous
response, just a few minutes ago.

At least two new versions of the HFN test record have been cut in recent
times , following the only one that you seem to know exists from the 1960s.

The 1996 version:

http://www.tnt-audio.com/accessories/hfnrrdisc_e.html

The Y2K version:

http://www.garage-a-records.com/hifinews.html

I have the more recent version. I have two of them, one that I use for
setup, and one that I only use for critical tests. They were purchased a few
months before I ran my www.pcavtech.com tests back in 2001. The reserved
version produces similar results, only a bit less surface noise.

I have a library of test records going back to the 1960s. In general, they
produce similar results. The problem is with the LP medium at a very basic
level, and any such new production methods as have been claimed to have
been innovated in recent times, in general are futile.


  #38   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.

wrote in message
...
On Oct 24, 2:33�pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in message

...

On Oct 23, 5:47 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
Vinyl is so limited in terms of dynamic range that many if not most
digital
masters would require further processing if a good-sounding LP were
the
desired outcome. It is perfectly trivial to create a digital master
that
would damage most LP cutting equipment if not operated by an expert.
The
expert would start out by changing the master. Producing an acceptable
LP
from an unaltered digital master of ordinary music might be
impossible.
To the best of my knowledge there are very few commercial recordings
that have an excess of 75 db dynamic range.


If we consider the results posted at �www.hometheatrehifi.com, their LP
system tests show 22 dB audio-band dynamic range,


The link doesn't work but any claim that the inherent dynamic range of
medium is 22db would simply be erroneous.


Not really.

http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/featu...s-6---8_2.html

shows even worse results than that.

Test results with the Manly Preamp and MacIntosh MT10 Turntable/Arm/Cartdige
show 20% THD+N, which corresponds to 13 dB dyanamic range.

These results were obtained using the same standard that they used for
evaluating CD players, to make the comparison an apples-to-apples
comparison.

There is a long-standing convention of using a relaxed standard for testing
LP noise and distortion, which I used in my PCAVTech tests. As a rule,
broadband measurements of LP Noise and distortion is performed using a
roll-off that is very steep, starting just below the test frequency. Since
the LP has relatively large amounts of noise below 200 Hz, this provides
better results for THD+N.

By most accounts from those
involved with state of the art vinyl reproduction report that the
inherent dynamic range ia anywhere from 75 to 80 db.


It's not a matter of the state of the art, its a matter of a biased
criteria. The biased criteria has been in use for at least 40 years. It's a
tradition. I used it without thinking.

Also we have to
remember the noise floor of vinyl has a specific sonic signature which
allows for hearing signals well below the noise floor.


This is also true for the CD format, even though its broadband noise floor
is far lower. So, this is a moot point. Furthermore, the noise floor of the
CD format is commonly manipulated to improve the subjectively weighted
dynamic range into the 120 dB range.

If their rig is only able to achieve 22db dynamic range it has some
serious problems.


No, there are very serious dynamic range problems with the LP format as
compared to even 30-year-old digital formats. Low frequency noise and high
frequency dynamic range are serious problems. We've been sweeping those
problems under the rug for decades with biased measurement techniques.

which is far worse than a
typical uncompressed classical CD which has 65 dB or better audio-band
dynamic range.


65 db is well within the inherent limitations of vinyl.


Not if noise below 200 Hz is treated the same as we treat it when
characterizing the CD format.

It's also extremely dynamic by recording standards.


That would appear to be a meaningless statement.

You will find the vast
majority of commercial recordings have far less dynamic range.


Actually, 65 dB dynamic range is easy to achieve. Of course its possible to
compress program material so that it has zero dynamic range, but that's an
artistic choice, not a characteristic of CD technology.

Not to say we shouldn't try to accomedate recordings with exceptionally
wide
dynamic ranges.


If you want to accomodate wide dynamic range, you are forced out of the LP
format.

Butt audio-band dynamic range is not the LP format's weakest link.
Dynamic
range at high frequencies the far more significant weakness of the LP
format.


That is true. Things like cymbal crashes with close microphone
techniques and other such signals are an issue with vinyl. The cutting
engineer will likely use a limiter if that kind of high frequency
energy is in the signal.


And the effects of the limiter will be audible and some sparkle and liveness
will be sacrificed to accomodate the technical limitations of the LP format.


  #39   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
wrote:


Why do some here seem to often need to be led 'by hand'
to references and information they could easily find themselves, if they
were
really interested in doing so?


Good question.

There seems to be a lot of resistance among certain people towards ideas
that have been in the well-established technical literature of audio
technology for decades.

For example, we were initially told:

"I think you'll find this group nowadays largely populated with folks
quoting
"settled science", "trusted authorities", "well-proven" etc. in support of
the conventional wisdom. But when you ask for specifics, suddenly
conventional wisdom seems more like pass-along verities than it does
science."

This was followed up with no less than 20 relevant citations from the JAES,
which is a well-known, relevant, generally-accepted independently-refereed
academic journal. These articles catalog the inherent technical problems
with vinyl, the audible tics, timbre changes both static and dynamic, pops,
rumble, hiss, noise and distortion.

There is no evidence that these same people have even read the abstracts of
these articles, let alone studied the articles for themselves and understood
their contents and application.

We were then told that:

"There have been no reliable primary sources shown here to substantiate that
this is inherently what vinyl sounds like."

One wonders what could be meant by "primary sources" and "substantiate". :-(

  #40   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
[email protected] S888Wheel@aol.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 204
Default Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.

On Oct 25, 5:26�pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in message

...





On Oct 24, 2:33 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in message


...


On Oct 23, 5:47 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
Vinyl is so limited in terms of dynamic range that many if not most
digital
masters would require further processing if a good-sounding LP were
the
desired outcome. It is perfectly trivial to create a digital master
that
would damage most LP cutting equipment if not operated by an expert.
The
expert would start out by changing the master. Producing an acceptable
LP
from an unaltered digital master of ordinary music might be
impossible.
To the best of my knowledge there are very few commercial recordings
that have an excess of 75 db dynamic range.


If we consider the results posted atwww.hometheatrehifi.com, their LP
system tests show 22 dB audio-band dynamic range,

The link doesn't work but any claim that the inherent dynamic range of
medium is 22db would simply be erroneous.


Not really.

http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/featu...s/vinyl-vs.-cd...


Thank goodness we now have a working link. I have combed the article
and I must say I don't see any claim that the tests show a 22 dB
dynamic range.


shows even worse results than that.

Test results with the Manly Preamp and MacIntosh MT10 Turntable/Arm/Cartdige
show �20% THD+N, which corresponds to 13 dB dyanamic range.


Harmonic distortion is not a measure of dynamic range. 20% THD+N does
not have any direct corlation to the dynamic range of any system. Your
conclusion that this leads to a measured dynamic range of 13 Db is
completely eroneous.




By most accounts from those
involved with state of the art vinyl reproduction report that the
inherent dynamic range ia anywhere from 75 to 80 db.


It's not a matter of the state of the art, its a matter of a biased
criteria. �The biased criteria has been in use for at least 40 years. It's a
tradition. I used it without thinking.


They have been used eroneously IYO?


Also we have to
remember the noise floor of vinyl has a specific sonic signature which
allows for hearing signals well below the noise floor.


This is also true for the CD format,


Irrelevant. We are talking about the colorations of vinyl, inherent,
euphonic and inherent euphonic.


If their rig is only able to achieve 22db dynamic range it has some
serious problems.


No, there are very serious dynamic range problems with the LP format as
compared to even 30-year-old digital formats.


No. The inherent dynamic range is somewhere in the 75 dB range.

Low frequency noise and high
frequency dynamic range are serious problems. We've been sweeping those
problems under the rug for decades with biased measurement techniques.


The low frrequency noise is a problem. It's seriousness is a matter of
opinion. One the one hand it leads to an arguably misleading poor
measured performance for dynamic range since most of the musical
material is spead well beyond the limited spectrum of this inherent
noise and therefore allows for one to hear musical information way
below the measured noise floor of vinyl. OTOH this does come at the
price of audible surface noise during the quietest passages. The
degree to which this bothers a listener is a function of the biases
and sensitivities of each individual listener.

which is far worse than a
typical uncompressed classical CD which has 65 dB or better audio-band
dynamic range.

65 db is well within the inherent limitations of vinyl.


Not if noise below 200 Hz is treated the same as we treat it when
characterizing the CD format.


But it is if one is actually considering music with a dynamic range of
65 dB being transcribed to vinyl. It can be done and has been done
with out any compression. In listening to music the accurate portrayal
of the dynamics in the music is what matters and vinyl is quite
capable of doing that with the vast majority of commercial recordings.


It's also extremely dynamic by recording standards.


That would appear to be a meaningless statement.


No it is an accurate statement. You will be hard pressed to find any
studio recordings with a dynamic range greater than 25dB much less 65
dB. You will find very few live recordings that excede 65 dB dynamic
range.


You will find the vast
majority of commercial recordings have far less dynamic range.


Actually, 65 dB dynamic range is easy to achieve. �Of course its possible to
compress program material so that it has zero dynamic range, but that's an
artistic choice, not a characteristic of CD technology.


That is irrelevant to my point.


Not to say we shouldn't try to accomedate recordings with exceptionally
wide
dynamic ranges.


If you want to accomodate wide dynamic range, you are forced out of the LP
format.


Not really. I can name literally hundreds of LPs produced with no
compression that have very dynamic original material.


Butt audio-band dynamic range is not the LP format's weakest link.
Dynamic
range at high frequencies the far more significant weakness of the LP
format.

That is true. Things like cymbal crashes with close microphone
techniques and other such signals are an issue with vinyl. The cutting
engineer will likely use a limiter if that kind of high frequency
energy is in the signal.


And the effects of the limiter will be audible and some sparkle and liveness
will be sacrificed to accomodate the technical limitations of the LP format


In some rare cases, yes.
Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Updated Vinyl Catalog-30,555 Vinyl Records FS finylvinyl Marketplace 0 February 21st 08 04:28 PM
Canadian Vinyl Store-29,930 Vinyl Records FS finylvinyl Marketplace 0 September 13th 07 10:58 PM
Euphonic versus accurate Wylie Williams High End Audio 26 September 2nd 03 05:59 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:42 PM.

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

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"