| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#81
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.
On Oct 31, 8:37�pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Sonnova" wrote in message Nobody disputes that vinyl has "inherent technical problems", After all, vinyl playback involves a transducer and several different mechanical processes. The amazing thing is that a good record can sound so astonishingly real. Admittedly, such records are few and far between, but the best can sound significantly more real than a CD of the same performance. Two words: Bad mastering. There is zero technical justification for a LP to *ever* sound better or even as good as a CD. But, the human factor is unavoidable - nothing �prevents people from doing crazy or stupid or even just lazy things during tracking and mastering, regardless of the delivery medium. Which of these CDs would you say were badly mastered? http://www.cduniverse.com/productinf...cart=793517002 http://www.cduniverse.com/search/xx/music/pid/1230801/a/Moanin'+(Blue+Note).htm http://www.tower.com/mudcrutch-mudcr...wapi/111980258 http://www.amazon.com/Sunday-Village.../dp/B000000Y87 http://www.amazon.com/Raising-Robert.../dp/B000UMQDHC |
|
#82
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.
Arny Krueger wrote:
(2) Digital music downloads, which seem to be taking market share away from the CD even though they can never sound better, all other things being equal. It's not quite true that MP3s can't sound better than the absolute best CD. It's not quite true that CDs are perfect. First, the CD does have an audible limitation in frequency response. Now I can't comment, at this time, on the effect of that, because I'm 63 years old and can't hear above 14 kHZ. BUT ... when I was a teenage audiophile (we did exist back then!) I could hear quite well to 22 kHZ and even a bit farther out, to 23 kHz. I'd be will it suggest that a bunch of teenage audiophiles today (never having been to a rock concert, of course, or a terrorist bombing) could tell the difference between a 20 kHZ cutoff and a 23 kHZ one, on suitable material (e.g. cymbals, triangle, etc.) MP3s are capable of higher frequencies than CDs are. Also, MP3s are capable of larger dynamic range than are CDs. Unless played loud enough to soon ruin the hearing above 20 kHz, and in a really really quiet room, I, like Arny, doubt that a CD is inadequate even for the widest dynamic range of real music (e.g. Mahler 2nd or 8th symphonies, not volume compressed.) But if the CD is in fact inadequate, the MP3 would do OK. That's assuming that 320 kB/sec is "OK". I've used "MP3" as synonymous for "digital download" ... but of course, there ARE losslessly encoded downloads that can be more than 16 bit, more than 44.1 kHZ sampling. Let me emphasize that I am not claiming that **I** can hear the difference ... I can't. I make my own MP3s with a 14 kHz cutoff at VBR at about 166 to 180 kB/sec and they sound perfect to me, compared to the source. Doug McDonald |
|
#83
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.
On Sat, 1 Nov 2008 07:23:53 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message Premium records made on 180 or 200 gram virgin vinyl are very quiet (-56 to -60 dB), and careful handling and storage can keep them that way. Trouble is that just about every live performance of classical music has more like 65 dB dynamic range, and some go up into the 80s. That's true, but in most domestic situations that kind of dynamic range is impractical. Turn it up loud enough to hear the soft passages well and the fffs will be lease breakers. Limited dynamic range is really not the problem some of you make it out to be. It is a rule of thumb that the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) must at all times at least be positive, for there to be an effective listening situation. If the actual sound level is very low, then SNRs of as low as 10 dB can be permissible. |
|
#84
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.
On Sat, 1 Nov 2008 07:30:56 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "C. Leeds" wrote in message For example, Mr. Krueger wrote: It has always been true that the CD format can deliver an audibly perfect copy of the master tapes. With that as the basis of a belief system, comparison to any other media is virtually doomed. Nothing can be better than "audibly perfect," can it? The logical error here is that a medium need not be better than "audibly perfect" in order to succeed. Two counter-examples come to mind (1) Pre-recorded cassettes which were very sucessful at taking market share away from the LP even though as a rule they did not sound better. (2) Digital music downloads, which seem to be taking market share away from the CD even though they can never sound better, all other things being equal. The logical error is symptomatic the narrow idea that "sounding better" as the only chance that a medium has to survive. A person who makes this error cannot comprehend that other properties, such as being more convenient, can matter to a great many people. They will assert to their dying day that whatever medium they prefer *must* sound better. Most people don't care about quality -in anything. That includes good, or even accurate sound (not always the same thing). |
|
#85
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.
On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 18:54:17 -0700, Jenn wrote
(in article ): In article , Richard Tollerton wrote: Anecdotally, I've heard of people getting 50% defect rates on the Classics they buy. That said, I've also heard of a lot of people with no defective discs, or a very small number. Count me among the later. I have 12 Classic LPs, and have had no problems. Perhaps I'm just lucky. In fact, I've had no problems among any of the modern "audiophile" lablels...Classic, Speakers Corner, et al. Nor have I ever had any problems with "audiophile" LPs of a little older vintage... Reference, Chesky, Opus 3, et al. All of the Classic Records titles that I have purchased (at $60+ a pop for the single-sided, 45 RPM Classics) have been very high quality. |
|
#86
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.
On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 20:37:23 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message Nobody disputes that vinyl has "inherent technical problems", After all, vinyl playback involves a transducer and several different mechanical processes. The amazing thing is that a good record can sound so astonishingly real. Admittedly, such records are few and far between, but the best can sound significantly more real than a CD of the same performance. Two words: Bad mastering. There is zero technical justification for a LP to *ever* sound better or even as good as a CD. But, the human factor is unavoidable - nothing prevents people from doing crazy or stupid or even just lazy things during tracking and mastering, regardless of the delivery medium. I don't buy that. I have a number of single-sided, 45 RPM Classic Records LPs of old RCA Victor Red Seal, and Mercury Living Presence recordings that sound better than the CDs or the more recently mastered SACDs of these performances. The CDs of the Mercury recordings were mastered by Wilma Cozert Fine, the recordings' original producer and are advertised to sound exactly like the master tape. But the CLassic Records LPs sound MUCH better. Even you would agree if you heard both side-by-side. I recently bought the newly mastered SACD of this same title to see if they did a better job this time and it sounds just exactly like the older CD release. The same thing is true of the RCA Victor reissues on CD and later on SACD. None sound as good as the Classic Records LPs. I don't doubt that the CDs sound more like the master tape than do the Classic Records reissues on vinyl, but the records sound more like I remember a live performance sounding (and since I record a lot, I know what live performances sound like). To me this is about the illusion of having a real performance in my own living room. Anything that gets me closer to that illusion is, in my humble opinion, good, and accuracy be damned. If I can have both, I'll take that too. I'm going to go for the source that is the most musically satisfying - every time. If that's CD, then it's CD, if its LP in some cases, then so be it. And in SOME cases it IS LP, despite your protestations to the contrary. |
|
#87
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.
Arny Krueger wrote:
(2) Digital music downloads, which seem to be taking market share away from the CD even though they can never sound better, all other things being equal. It's not quite true that MP3s can't sound better than the absolute best CD. It's not quite true that CDs are perfect. First, the CD does have an audible limitation in frequency response. Now I can't comment, at this time, on the effect of that, because I'm 63 years old and can't hear above 14 kHZ. BUT ... when I was a teenage audiophile (we did exist back then!) I could hear quite well to 22 kHZ and even a bit farther out, to 23 kHz. I'd be will it suggest that a bunch of teenage audiophiles today (never having been to a rock concert, of course, or a terrorist bombing) could tell the difference between a 20 kHZ cutoff and a 23 kHZ one, on suitable material (e.g. cymbals, triangle, etc.) MP3s are capable of higher frequencies than CDs are. Also, MP3s are capable of larger dynamic range than are CDs. Unless played loud enough to soon ruin the hearing above 20 kHz, and in a really really quiet room, I, like Arny, doubt that a CD is inadequate even for the widest dynamic range of real music (e.g. Mahler 2nd or 8th symphonies, not volume compressed.) But if the CD is in fact inadequate, the MP3 would do OK. That's assuming that 320 kB/sec is "OK". I've used "MP3" as synonymous for "digital download" ... but of course, there ARE losslessly encoded downloads that can be more than 16 bit, more than 44.1 kHZ sampling. Let me emphasize that I am not claiming that **I** can hear the difference ... I can't. I make my own MP3s with a 14 kHz cutoff at VBR at about 166 to 180 kB/sec and they sound perfect to me, compared to the source. Doug McDonald |
|
#88
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.
"Sonnova" wrote in message
On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 20:37:23 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message Nobody disputes that vinyl has "inherent technical problems", After all, vinyl playback involves a transducer and several different mechanical processes. The amazing thing is that a good record can sound so astonishingly real. Admittedly, such records are few and far between, but the best can sound significantly more real than a CD of the same performance. Two words: Bad mastering. There is zero technical justification for a LP to *ever* sound better or even as good as a CD. But, the human factor is unavoidable - nothing prevents people from doing crazy or stupid or even just lazy things during tracking and mastering, regardless of the delivery medium. I don't buy that. I have a number of single-sided, 45 RPM Classic Records LPs of old RCA Victor Red Seal, and Mercury Living Presence recordings that sound better than the CDs or the more recently mastered SACDs of these performances. I'd bet money that if we did a good digital transcription of those oldies, you'd like the transcriptions just as much in a bias-controlled evaluation. The CDs of the Mercury recordings were mastered by Wilma Cozert Fine, the recordings' original producer and are advertised to sound exactly like the master tape. She ain't the same lady who was there when they were recorded, and AFAIK she didn't do the original mastering all by herself. But the CLassic Records LPs sound MUCH better. Mastering is a profound enough process that its powers can explain all that and more. Even you would agree if you heard both side-by-side. I recently bought the newly mastered SACD of this same title to see if they did a better job this time and it sounds just exactly like the older CD release. Hmmm. It might be the older CD release's master, transcribed onto new media. The same thing is true of the RCA Victor reissues on CD and later on SACD. None sound as good as the Classic Records LPs. I don't doubt that the CDs sound more like the master tape than do the Classic Records reissues on vinyl, but the records sound more like I remember a live performance sounding (and since I record a lot, I know what live performances sound like). I disagree with that. I record a lot and I'm sure that I don't know squat about most live performances sound like, other than perhaps the ones I recorded. Furthermore, the live performances I've recorded have as many distinct sounds as there are spots in the room where they were recorded, that are more than about six feet apart. To me this is about the illusion of having a real performance in my own living room. I've never ever heard a recording sound like much more than a semi-believable approximation of a live performance. Anything that gets me closer to that illusion is, in my humble opinion, good, and accuracy be damned. The idea that the arbitrary twists and turns that recordings go through in the production process can some how become closer because of the random addition of the even more arbitrary twists and turns inherent in the LP recording process surely taxes the imagination. |
|
#89
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.
"Sonnova" wrote in message
On Sat, 1 Nov 2008 07:23:53 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message Premium records made on 180 or 200 gram virgin vinyl are very quiet (-56 to -60 dB), and careful handling and storage can keep them that way. Trouble is that just about every live performance of classical music has more like 65 dB dynamic range, and some go up into the 80s. That's true, but in most domestic situations that kind of dynamic range is impractical. I agree, but this is a high end audio forum, and hopefully we aren't talking about listening to recordings in "most domestic situations". Furthermore, while providing 80 dB dynamic range in a good listening room can be challenging, providing 65 dB is not that much of a challenge. Turn it up loud enough to hear the soft passages well and the fffs will be lease breakers. Limited dynamic range is really not the problem some of you make it out to be. Limited dynamic range can even be a boon if you are listening to a cheap stereo and/or listening in a noisy room. It is a rule of thumb that the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) must at all times at least be positive, for there to be an effective listening situation. If the actual sound level is very low, then SNRs of as low as 10 dB can be permissible. |
|
#90
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.
On Nov 1, 11:20�am, Sonnova wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 20:37:23 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message Nobody disputes that vinyl has "inherent technical problems", After all, vinyl playback involves a transducer and several different mechanical processes. The amazing thing is that a good record can sound so astonishingly real. Admittedly, such records are few and far between, but the best can sound significantly more real than a CD of the same performance. Two words: Bad mastering. There is zero technical justification for a LP to *ever* sound better or even as good as a CD. But, the human factor is unavoidable - nothing �prevents people from doing crazy or stupid or even just lazy things during tracking and mastering, regardless of the delivery medium. I don't buy that. I have a number of single-sided, 45 RPM Classic Records LPs of old RCA Victor Red Seal, and Mercury Living Presence recordings that sound better than the CDs or the more recently mastered SACDs of these performances. The CDs of the Mercury recordings were mastered by Wilma Cozert Fine, the recordings' original producer and are advertised to sound exactly like the master tape. But the CLassic Records LPs sound MUCH better. Even you would agree if you heard both side-by-side. I recently bought the newly mastered SACD of this same title to see if they did a better job this time and it sounds just exactly like the older CD release. The same thing is true of the RCA Victor reissues on CD and later on SACD. None sound as good as the Classic Records LPs. The Mercury Living Presence CD reissues were actually remastered by Dennis Drake. Dennis Drake is a top flight mastering engineer and he went to amazing lengths to do the best job he could on these CDs. Here is a paper that documents the work he did on this project. http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=6891 Unfortunately I can't find the article on line any more, It used to be available on line for everyone to read. It documents the great lengths Dennis went through to get a proper set up using vintage playback equipment to get the most accurate signal from the master tapes. He also went to great lengths to find the best A/D converter. He found significant differences between competing converters at the time. It required a tremendous effort to get a signal from the tapes that was true to their original input and to get a near transparent transfer of that signal to the CDs. It would seem that he needed to do more than just press the start button. So we are indeed talking about CDs that are about as well mastered as possible if one is looking for transparency to the original mic feed. I don't doubt that the CDs sound more like the master tape than do the Classic Records reissues on vinyl, but the records sound more like I remember a live performance sounding (and since I record a lot, I know what live performances sound like). To me this is about the illusion of having a real performance in my own living room. Anything that gets me closer to that illusion is, in my humble opinion, good, and accuracy be damned. If I can have both, I'll take that too. I'm going to go for the source that is the most musically satisfying - every time. If that's CD, then it's CD, if its LP in some cases, then so be it. And in SOME cases it IS LP, despite your protestations to the contrary. �- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - That is exactly my feeling about the aesthetic evaluation of playback too. What it boils down to is one has to ask what is good sound? IMO good sound is sound that makes the music more intrinsically beautiful and involving on an emotional level. The reason we value "accuracy" is because we have already found this beauty and emotional involvement in live music for centuries. With experience in listening to live music we can find a sphere of sounds that we find beautiful and emotionally involving. The point of audio was originally to create an illusion of the original performance from a single perspective because that sound was usually within that sphere of sounds that we commonly find beautiful and emotionally involving. I would assert that accuracy for the sake of accuracy is a philosophy that misses the point. To me the only value in accuracy is in how it helps us create an illusion of live music that falls within the sphere of sounds that we commonly find beautiful and emotionally involving. Beyond getting us within that sphere of aesthetic beauty and emotional involvement, accuracy becomes academic. The problem is of course that the sphere of sound one finds in recording and playback often has little crossover with that sphere of sound we treasure from live music. IMO the more our playback crosses over with the sphere of sounds we idealize the better the playback is. I don't care whether I get there via greater technical accuracy in the recording and playback chain or not. The technology has to serve the aesthetic goals, not the other way around. This makes some people uncomfortable because it is a lot more difficult to quantify intirinsic beauty and emotional involvement than it is to quantify the measured accuracy of an electrical waveform. And I must say that my experience with the Classics and Speaker's Corner reissues on vinyl mirror yours. Despite the superb efforts made by Dennis Drake in mastering the Mercury Living Presence recordings the reissues from Classics and Speaker's Corner, in a few head to head comparisons, were more lifelike, beautiful and involving. I would add this note for any jazz lovers. Look into the reissue series from Analog Productions and Music Matters on 45 RPM. The improvement in sound wrought over any previous versions of those titles is amazing. And the music? Forget it, were talking about a substantial portion of the greatest jazz ever recorded. The two series from Analog Productions and the one from Music Matters are IMO the most significant series of reissues in the history of recorded music and are an amazing treasure for audiophiles and music lovers. |
|
#91
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.
"Sonnova" wrote in message
... On Sat, 1 Nov 2008 07:23:53 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message Premium records made on 180 or 200 gram virgin vinyl are very quiet (-56 to -60 dB), and careful handling and storage can keep them that way. Trouble is that just about every live performance of classical music has more like 65 dB dynamic range, and some go up into the 80s. That's true, but in most domestic situations that kind of dynamic range is impractical. Turn it up loud enough to hear the soft passages well and the fffs will be lease breakers. Limited dynamic range is really not the problem some of you make it out to be. I agree, that amount of dynamic range is impractical. Generally records give me all the dynamic range need or want, occasionally on some 45 rpm cuts its too much dynamic range and I fear for my ears and the speakers & quickly lower the level. In my room, on my system, it gives me all the range I want going from a whisper to crescendo - why should I want more? I live in the countryside, it is really quiet in my listening room so a whisper really is just that. |
|
#92
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.
"mcdonaldREMOVE TO ACTUALLY REACH wrote
in message Arny Krueger wrote: (2) Digital music downloads, which seem to be taking market share away from the CD even though they can never sound better, all other things being equal. It's not quite true that MP3s can't sound better than the absolute best CD. It's not quite true that CDs are perfect. First, the CD does have an audible limitation in frequency response. No, they don't. There is a measurable limitation at 22 KHz, but there is plenty of evidence that a brick wall filter at say 18 KHz is simply not heard when applied to virtually all music. BUT ... when I was a teenage audiophile (we did exist back then!) I could hear quite well to 22 kHZ and even a bit farther out, to 23 kHz. Ignores the principle of masking. Hearing a pure tone at some frequency and hearing the removal of all sound above that frequency are two vastly different things. When you listen to music, what hear more strongly masks out a great deal of things that are not as strong, until those things are in a different critical band. This is the effect that makes MP3s work at all. Were it not for masking, even the best MP3s would sound like something from outer space. The critical bands vary in frequency, but above 1 KHz they range from about 1/2 to 1/3 octave in width. The strongest sound in a critical band dominates what you hear, and other weaker sounds in the critical band can be completely masked from your perception if they lack sufficient strength. Above about 4 KHz it gets harder and harder to hear sounds at higher frequencies, as Fletcher and Munson found about 50 years ago, and as people re-confirm every once in a while. Put this together with masking, and we find that in the critical band above about 13 Khz, the sounds at the lower end of this final critical band tend to dominate even if sounds at higher frequencies are somewhat stronger. because they are naturally stronger because of how musical instruments work and because the ear's sensitivity is falling off rapidly. The net effect is that the sounds below 16 kHz generally mask the sounds above 16 KHz. This effect is so strong that a brick wall filter can be placed in the 16-18 KHz range with no audible effect whatsoever. Compared to 16-18 KHz, the 22 KHz low pass filtering is completely benign, and extending response up to 22 KHz is actually overkill. I'd be will it suggest that a bunch of teenage audiophiles today (never having been to a rock concert, of course, or a terrorist bombing) could tell the difference between a 20 kHZ cutoff and a 23 kHZ one, on suitable material (e.g. cymbals, triangle, etc.) MP3s are capable of higher frequencies than CDs are. Those tests have been done a great many times, and in fact a brick-wall low pass filter in the 16-18 KHz band has no audible effect, even for young people with excellent hearing. Also, MP3s are capable of larger dynamic range than are CDs. No, they are not. The practical dynamic range of MP3s typically maxes out at about 80 dB due to the limitations of the filters that are used to identify and remove sounds that are masked out. Furthermore, it is exceedingly common for MP3 encoders to summarily remove all sounds above 16 kHz because they are simply not missed by human listeners. |
|
#93
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.
To repeat a test experience again I think is relevant to the below
soliloquy. As I recall, it originated on this ng. A digital recording was made of an lp. In blind tests the two could not be distinguished. Whatever was on the lp was faithfully reproduced for the listeners from the digital copy. If it was on the lp as it was carried in the signal it was copied well enough in all its detail on the digital copy so as to also appear in the signal from the digital copy. Nothing was added nor removed to such a degree that it could be distinguished above some threshold inherent to making them sound alike. The below could easily be used to repeat the test. Record the copies unto a cd and see if they can be distinguished as to medium or any other criteria for that matter. I don't buy that. I have a number of single-sided, 45 RPM Classic Records LPs of old RCA Victor Red Seal, and Mercury Living Presence recordings that sound better than the CDs or the more recently mastered SACDs of these performances. The CDs of the Mercury recordings were mastered by Wilma Cozert Fine, the recordings' original producer and are advertised to sound exactly like the master tape. But the CLassic Records LPs sound MUCH better. Even you would agree if you heard both side-by-side. I recently bought the newly mastered SACD of this same title to see if they did a better job this time and it sounds just exactly like the older CD release. The same thing is true of the RCA Victor reissues on CD and later on SACD. None sound as good as the Classic Records LPs. I don't doubt that the CDs sound more like the master tape than do the Classic Records reissues on vinyl, but the records sound more like I remember a live performance sounding (and since I record a lot, I know what live performances sound like). To me this is about the illusion of having a real performance in my own living room. Anything that gets me closer to that illusion is, in my humble opinion, good, and accuracy be damned. If I can have both, I'll take that too. I'm going to go for the source that is the most musically satisfying - every time. If that's CD, then it's CD, if its LP in some cases, then so be it. And in SOME cases it IS LP, despite your protestations to the contrary. |
|
#94
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.
"Jenn" wrote in message
... In article , Richard Tollerton wrote: Anecdotally, I've heard of people getting 50% defect rates on the Classics they buy. That said, I've also heard of a lot of people with no defective discs, or a very small number. Count me among the later. I have 12 Classic LPs, and have had no problems. Perhaps I'm just lucky. In fact, I've had no problems among any of the modern "audiophile" lablels...Classic, Speakers Corner, et al. Nor have I ever had any problems with "audiophile" LPs of a little older vintage... Reference, Chesky, Opus 3, et al. I'm very surprised at the 50% defect rates on Classics - I have a number of Classics (not counted them) and I don't recall any being defective, in fact they all are to my knowledge of excellent quality. |
|
#95
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.
On Nov 1, 5:54�pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Sonnova" wrote in message On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 20:37:23 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message The CDs of the Mercury recordings were mastered by Wilma Cozert Fine, the recordings' original producer and are advertised to sound exactly like the master tape. She ain't the same lady who was there when they were recorded, and AFAIK she didn't do the original mastering all by herself. Actually she is the same lady. But you are right about her not doing the original mastering. That was done by George Piros. �But the CLassic Records LPs sound MUCH better. Mastering is a profound enough process that its powers can explain all that and more. Given the efforts made by Dennis Drake what explination would you offer here? Even you would agree if you heard both side-by-side. I recently bought the newly mastered SACD of this same title to see if they did a better job this time and it sounds just exactly like the older CD release. Hmmm. It might be the older CD release's master, transcribed onto new media. Nope. http://www.deccaclassics.com/music/m...s_release.html The same thing is true of the RCA Victor reissues on CD and later on SACD. None sound as good as the Classic Records LPs. I don't doubt that the CDs sound more like the master tape than do the Classic Records reissues on vinyl, but the records sound more like I remember a live performance sounding (and since I record a lot, I know what live performances sound like). I disagree with that. How can you possibly disagree with another person's aesthetic evaluation of records and CDs you have not even heard? |
|
#96
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.
On Nov 1, 5:46*pm, "mcdonaldREMOVE TO ACTUALLY REACH
snip- First, the CD does have an audible limitation in frequency response. Now I can't comment, at this time, on the effect of that, because I'm 63 years old and can't hear above 14 kHZ. BUT ... when I was a teenage audiophile (we did exist back then!) I could hear quite well to 22 kHZ and even a bit farther out, to 23 kHz. I'd be will it suggest that a bunch of teenage audiophiles today (never having been to a rock concert, of course, or a terrorist bombing) could tell the difference between a 20 kHZ cutoff and a 23 kHZ one, on suitable material (e.g. cymbals, triangle, etc.) MP3s are capable of higher frequencies than CDs are. There is a difference between being able to hear a pure frequency and a frequency when other frequencies are present. Extremely high frequencies are very likely to be inaudible in the presence of louder lower frequencies. This, in fact, is one of the strategies used when mp3 files are created. Perceptual coding removes frequencies that are masked by other frequencies. Also, MP3s are capable of larger dynamic range than are CDs. It is difficult to make a case that there is any advantage to having a format with more dynamic range than a CD. The dynamic range of real- world recordings are well below the 96 dB range of the CD standard. Unless played loud enough to soon ruin the hearing above 20 kHz, and in a really really quiet room, I, like Arny, doubt that a CD is inadequate even for the widest dynamic range of real music (e.g. Mahler 2nd or 8th symphonies, not volume compressed.) But if the CD is in fact inadequate, the MP3 would do OK. That's assuming that 320 kB/sec is "OK". I've used "MP3" as synonymous for "digital download" ... but of course, there ARE losslessly encoded downloads that can be more than 16 bit, more than 44.1 kHZ sampling. Note that bit rates must be something like twice as high as 320 kB/ second for truely lossless CD-quality recordings. Let me emphasize that I am not claiming that **I** can hear the difference ... I can't. I make my own MP3s with a 14 kHz cutoff at VBR at about 166 to 180 kB/sec and they sound perfect to me, compared to the source. Many people would agree with you here. Others claim that such recordings sound terrible. Unbiased testing might provide interesting results, however. |
|
#97
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.
On Sat, 1 Nov 2008 17:54:17 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 20:37:23 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message Nobody disputes that vinyl has "inherent technical problems", After all, vinyl playback involves a transducer and several different mechanical processes. The amazing thing is that a good record can sound so astonishingly real. Admittedly, such records are few and far between, but the best can sound significantly more real than a CD of the same performance. Two words: Bad mastering. There is zero technical justification for a LP to *ever* sound better or even as good as a CD. But, the human factor is unavoidable - nothing prevents people from doing crazy or stupid or even just lazy things during tracking and mastering, regardless of the delivery medium. I don't buy that. I have a number of single-sided, 45 RPM Classic Records LPs of old RCA Victor Red Seal, and Mercury Living Presence recordings that sound better than the CDs or the more recently mastered SACDs of these performances. I'd bet money that if we did a good digital transcription of those oldies, you'd like the transcriptions just as much in a bias-controlled evaluation. What makes you think that I would dispute that assertion? I'm sure of it. That in no way alters the fact that the Classic LP releases sound better than the commercial CDs and SACD releases of the same performances. A well-made CD copy of one of these LPs will likewise sound better than does the commercial releases of these same titles. The CDs of the Mercury recordings were mastered by Wilma Cozert Fine, the recordings' original producer and are advertised to sound exactly like the master tape. She ain't the same lady who was there when they were recorded, and AFAIK she didn't do the original mastering all by herself. True, but she's the only one left who was there. But the CLassic Records LPs sound MUCH better. Mastering is a profound enough process that its powers can explain all that and more. Doesn't alter the fact... Even you would agree if you heard both side-by-side. I recently bought the newly mastered SACD of this same title to see if they did a better job this time and it sounds just exactly like the older CD release. Hmmm. It might be the older CD release's master, transcribed onto new media. Whatever, it doesn't change the fact that the LP sounds better. The same thing is true of the RCA Victor reissues on CD and later on SACD. None sound as good as the Classic Records LPs. I don't doubt that the CDs sound more like the master tape than do the Classic Records reissues on vinyl, but the records sound more like I remember a live performance sounding (and since I record a lot, I know what live performances sound like). I disagree with that. I record a lot and I'm sure that I don't know squat about most live performances sound like, other than perhaps the ones I recorded. Furthermore, the live performances I've recorded have as many distinct sounds as there are spots in the room where they were recorded, that are more than about six feet apart. That's your prerogative. To me this is about the illusion of having a real performance in my own living room. I've never ever heard a recording sound like much more than a semi-believable approximation of a live performance. That's your problem. I realize that the illusion is to a degree and adjust my expectations accordingly. Anything that gets me closer to that illusion is, in my humble opinion, good, and accuracy be damned. The idea that the arbitrary twists and turns that recordings go through in the production process can some how become closer because of the random addition of the even more arbitrary twists and turns inherent in the LP recording process surely taxes the imagination. It sure seems to tax yours. No offense meant. |
|
#98
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.
|
|
#99
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.
wrote in message
On Nov 1, 5:54�pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Sonnova" wrote in message On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 20:37:23 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message The CDs of the Mercury recordings were mastered by Wilma Cozert Fine, the recordings' original producer and are advertised to sound exactly like the master tape. She ain't the same lady who was there when they were recorded, and AFAIK she didn't do the original mastering all by herself. Actually she is the same lady. No, she's an older lady. At least two highly relevant things change with time - brains and ears. But you are right about her not doing the original mastering. That was done by George Piros. We've got to be realistic about this mixing and mastering stuff. At this level of complexity, nobody does exactly the same thing twice. Do musicans ever play the same thing twice so closely that it can't be ABXed? Nope! Does anybody ever do a non-trivial mix twice so so closely that it can't be ABXed? Nope! Does anybody ever do a non-trivial job of mastering job twice so closely that it can't be ABXed? Nope! �But the CLassic Records LPs sound MUCH better. Mastering is a profound enough process that its powers can explain all that and more. Given the efforts made by Dennis Drake what explination would you offer here? I just did. Even you would agree if you heard both side-by-side. I recently bought the newly mastered SACD of this same title to see if they did a better job this time and it sounds just exactly like the older CD release. Hmmm. It might be the older CD release's master, transcribed onto new media. Nope. http://www.deccaclassics.com/music/m...s_release.html Seems to support my assertion. Thanks. The same thing is true of the RCA Victor reissues on CD and later on SACD. None sound as good as the Classic Records LPs. I don't doubt that the CDs sound more like the master tape than do the Classic Records reissues on vinyl, but the records sound more like I remember a live performance sounding (and since I record a lot, I know what live performances sound like). I disagree with that. How can you possibly disagree with another person's aesthetic evaluation of records and CDs you have not even heard? Making a CD sound like vinyl is almost trivial. Making a LP sound like a CD is in general, impossible. No known exceptions. |
|
#100
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.
On Nov 2, 8:04�am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in message On Nov 1, 5:54 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Sonnova" wrote in message On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 20:37:23 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in The CDs of the Mercury recordings were mastered by Wilma Cozert Fine, the recordings' original producer and are advertised to sound exactly like the master tape. She ain't the same lady who was there when they were recorded, and AFAIK she didn't do the original mastering all by herself. Actually she is the same lady. No, she's an older lady. �At least two highly relevant things change with time - brains and ears. Of course she is older. But she is still Wilma Cozart Fine. But you are right about her not doing the original mastering. That was done by George Piros. We've got to be realistic about this mixing and mastering stuff. �At this level of complexity, nobody does exactly the same thing twice. I'm not really sure what your point is here. George Piros cut all the original Mercury Living Presence clasical LPs for Wilma Cozart Fine. I don't think he cut any of them more than once. The Mercuries weren't the big sellers that the RCAs were. There were later cuts that can be distinguished by the matrix information. I don't think Piros cut those and they are widely regarded as inferior to the originals. But the CLassic Records LPs sound MUCH better. Mastering is a profound enough process that its powers can explain all that and more. Given the efforts made by Dennis Drake what explination would you offer here? I just did. I must have missed it. What exactly was your explination for the favored sound of the LPs from Classics over the Dennis Drake mastered CDs? Was there anything that you believe Dennis Drake did wrong in mastering the Merecury Living Presence CDs? Even you would agree if you heard both side-by-side. I recently bought the newly mastered SACD of this same title to see if they did a better job this time and it sounds just exactly like the older CD release. Hmmm. It might be the older CD release's master, transcribed onto new media. Nope. http://www.deccaclassics.com/music/m...e/press_releas... Seems to support my assertion. Thanks. No it does not. These SACDs were completely new masters. "Each Mercury Living Presence SACD offers several major advantages over the previous CD release. Firstly - and most excitingly - every SACD features a 3-channel (left, right and centre) transfer of the original 3-channel recording. " I'm pretty sure the Mercury Living Presence CDs are two channel. Call it a hunch. The same thing is true of the RCA Victor reissues on CD and later on SACD. None sound as good as the Classic Records LPs. I don't doubt that the CDs sound more like the master tape than do the Classic Records reissues on vinyl, but the records sound more like I remember a live performance sounding (and since I record a lot, I know what live performances sound like). I disagree with that. How can you possibly disagree with another person's aesthetic evaluation of records and CDs you have not even heard? Making a CD sound like vinyl is almost trivial. Making a LP sound like a CD is in general, impossible. No known exceptions That is a complete non sequitor. The CDs mastered by Denis Drake and the three channel SACDs were not mastered from an LP. The original poster clearly stated a preference for the Classic LP reissues over the CDs and SACDs. You disagreed. How can you disagree with that aesthetic evaluation without even hearing what the original poster heard? What is your disagrrement with the opinion that the Classic LP reissues sound better than the Dennis Drake CDs or the SACDs based on? |
|
#101
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.
On Sun, 2 Nov 2008 08:04:26 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): wrote in message On Nov 1, 5:54�pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Sonnova" wrote in message On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 20:37:23 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message The CDs of the Mercury recordings were mastered by Wilma Cozert Fine, the recordings' original producer and are advertised to sound exactly like the master tape. She ain't the same lady who was there when they were recorded, and AFAIK she didn't do the original mastering all by herself. Actually she is the same lady. No, she's an older lady. At least two highly relevant things change with time - brains and ears. But you are right about her not doing the original mastering. That was done by George Piros. We've got to be realistic about this mixing and mastering stuff. At this level of complexity, nobody does exactly the same thing twice. Do musicans ever play the same thing twice so closely that it can't be ABXed? Nope! Does anybody ever do a non-trivial mix twice so so closely that it can't be ABXed? Nope! Does anybody ever do a non-trivial job of mastering job twice so closely that it can't be ABXed? Nope! �But the CLassic Records LPs sound MUCH better. Mastering is a profound enough process that its powers can explain all that and more. Given the efforts made by Dennis Drake what explination would you offer here? I just did. Even you would agree if you heard both side-by-side. I recently bought the newly mastered SACD of this same title to see if they did a better job this time and it sounds just exactly like the older CD release. Hmmm. It might be the older CD release's master, transcribed onto new media. Nope. http://www.deccaclassics.com/music/m...s_release.html Seems to support my assertion. Thanks. The same thing is true of the RCA Victor reissues on CD and later on SACD. None sound as good as the Classic Records LPs. I don't doubt that the CDs sound more like the master tape than do the Classic Records reissues on vinyl, but the records sound more like I remember a live performance sounding (and since I record a lot, I know what live performances sound like). I disagree with that. How can you possibly disagree with another person's aesthetic evaluation of records and CDs you have not even heard? Making a CD sound like vinyl is almost trivial. Making a LP sound like a CD is in general, impossible. No known exceptions. Why would anyone want to make a CD sound like vinyl except in those rare (but nonetheless real) instances where the vinyl of a particular commercial release sounds better than the CD? Otherwise, CD is almost always superior |
|
#103
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.
On Oct 31, 7:51*am, wrote:
On Oct 30, 4:44 pm, Richard Tollerton wrote: On Oct 30, 8:16 am, wrote: I would hesitate to say that one could simply just press play when cutting a master from a very dynamic source.There are important choices made by the cutting engineer in every step of the process. There is also a real hands on craft involved in the act of cutting and not all cutting engineers are equally skilled. Understood, but my understanding is that besides the extremely hands- on matter of maintaining the cutting head assembly and managing the pitch, it's quite possible to cut a record that is a direct transfer of the master material - as long as specific thresholds aren't exceeded. eg, don't have enough stereo bass to compromise tracking, don't incur so much acceleration that the coils fry, etc. Steve Hoffman, at least, advertised that some of the vinyl work he's done (I want to say Tres Hombres in particular) was cut flat from the master tapes. But then again, he doesn't do the vinyl mastering, KG does. Sure. But when you are dealing with source material with a dynamic range that is close to the thresholds of the medium you have this sort of gambit that the cutting engineer has to play. The engineer has to figure how high a level can be used to cut without breaking the groove or running out of room on the laquer. If one playes it safe and doesn't push the boundaries of the upper limits and they choose not to use compression or a limiter then that cutting engneer will drive the lower level information further into the noise floor. For the most dynamic material KG and SH have been pushing the normal limitations by cutting at 45 rpm and cutting shorter sides. You just cant get push the groove as far if you are trying to cram more time per side. Now with most pop/rock material the dynamic range is not wide enough to have to resort to this sort of solution. It is less of a challenge to cut something like Tres Hombres without using compression. What Hoffman brings to the formula are his personal tweaks to improve the sound of the master. Kevin does the dirty work on the lathe. In other words... they *do* just press play. What you're describing seems to prove my point. Obviously a lot of care and planning goes into the recording configuration before the cutting head hits the laquer/copper. Those are the decisions you mention. But after that, it's strictly a hands- off affair. Cutting at 45rpm and cutting shorter sides certainly affect the dynamic range but those decisions are still sort of "just push play" - because the signal chain is simply not affected in the slightest by it. Kevin can't edit the groove after it's cut, and he's certainly not gainriding (that would of course be dynamic range compression). Besides that... what else do the mastering engineers do? If they're not compressing anything and they're not applying EQ distortions or noise reduction or whatever, what else can they possibly do? It's not rocket science. They don't do things our mortal minds don't comprehend. What I'm saying here is that if the mastering engineer is not applying EQ, and not compressing the dynamic range, and not "sweetening" the signal by running it through tube amps or no-noising it or distorting it or whatever, then all the mastering decisions available for audiophile mastering simply do not affect the signal chain. That's what I mean by "direct transfer". And so far I haven't seen anything the mastering engineer can do inside the signal chain in an audiophile- quality pressing that would change any of that. (And cable swapping doesn't count.) At one extreme I could argue that because test records are a clear example of something where the records are not "mastered" in the audible sense. Also, don't direct-to-disc releases rely on very little input from the mastering engineer? They rely heavily on the cutting engineer to get the maximum peak levels cut without screwing up the adjacent grooves and without running out of room. It is a highly skilled hands on job. The gambit I thought that was fully automated? Pitch computers are standard virtually everywhere. That said, even if the groove pitch was controlled by hand, calling that a "hands-on" affair that truly affects the dynamic range of the recording is really thin. The mastering engineer could just set the computer for maximum pitch and walk away, and get the same dynamic range on the recording. The purpose of pitch riding is to INCREASE PLAYING TIME - not to increase dynamic range. I do find myself buying them along with audiophile CDs. It does not matter to me what the neighbors are doing. It seems to me that if one is really interested in getting the best sound from the music they love that they will put together the best playback system they can and collect the best sounding LPs and CDs of the music they wish to listen to. Getting a better mastered LP or CD of a title one enjoys listening to is one of the least expensive and most effective upgrades an audiophile can make. I can't understand why anyone would shut off all the opportunities to get their favorite music at it's best over some idealogoical objection to either format. That strikes me as a classic case of cutting off one's nose to spite one's face. I disagree, but more because I've made a conscious effort to distance my emotional reaction to the music from the sound quality (or the price). I prefer to choose more based on price nowadays, and with a lot of reportory vinyl in the $1-$3 range nowadays, screw good masterings! I've bought tons of CBS Masterworks vinyl (not the most highly rated) and have been more or less pleased with all of it. That is a choice to ignore better sound. That choice does not negate my assertion. True - but your statement never negated my assertion, either (that audiophile pressings form a very small fraction of the market). Ultimately what I'm getting at (and this may be less of an attack on you than an attack on pro-vinyl arguments in general) is that while the advantages of high-quality vinyl are highly touted, in terms of what people actually *mean* when they refer to vinyl, they don't always mean that. I've heard all sorts of people tout vinyl's "improved dynamics", "extended range", etc. when listing to very mainstream, non-audiophile vinyl - rock LPs, new or used, the occasional Decca 60s pressing, etc. Stuff that in my experience has none of these attributes, It is all relative. Lets take another recent Gray/Hoffman mastering. Joni Mitchell's Blue. For the first time this title was cut from the actual original master rather than the EQed 2;1 compressed copy master that had been the source for evey other version of this title including the CDs. If someone raves about the better dynamics of this over the CD they are simply telling the truth. Just because the source material isn't state of the art doesn't mean that the differences in mastering don't make a big difference. They usually do. In this day and age when so many CDs are being compressed to 5dB dynamic range in these crazy loudness wars it should be no surprise when people rave about the improvements heard with audiophile LPs of the same material. These are the real world choices audiophiles have to make. I don't see why the enthusiasm of vinyl enthusiasts should in any way obscure or negate these truisms for any audiophile interested in just getting the best sound they can with their favorite music. To dismiss vinyl because one is put off by the hyperbole of rabid vinyl enthusiasts really is an act of cutting off one's nose. Of course I agree with what you're saying. I've been sorely tempted to buy some of said uncompressed pressings. But that's not what I was talking about. I'm referring, *specifically*, to the attributes of the format itself, rather than the attributes of the signal recorded onto the format - and how most people confuse one with the other, or even use obviously incorrect examples as supporting evidence of a particular format's attribute. That you are already conflating the two by shifting the conversation over to the superiority of certain vinyl masters to certain other masters (vinyl or CD) speaks volumes about how difficult it is to converse logically about all of this to most people. On the contrary, there's absolutely nothing about this which is relative. Certainly, the emotional impact of the recording, and the sounds it evokes, are fundamentally relative. But as soon as one starts talking dynamics and dynamic ranges one is entering very observable, absolute territory. Of course I'm exaggerating, but not by much. If one touts audiophile- grade vinyl as the true example of the medium's potential, and lesser- grade stuff as not, you're essentially saying that all of people who love the sound of vinyl who haven't listened to said systems simply do not know what they are talking about, because the criticisms stick to them, and not to the audiophile stuff. Not at all. Again, case by case. In many cases IME that scratchy old original really does have the prefered sound. Sometimes that is due in no small part to the effects of euphonic colorations found in some of those old cutting consoles. If someone has not come along and mastered a better CD or LP, that old euphonically colored original LP often is the prime cut. You do have a point in terms of preference. But I'm trying to keep this conversation specifically about dynamic range and observable differences.  Certainly one can prefer any pressing they want basedon their preferred, and be entitled to that opinion, but they're not entitled to actually convince anybody else of it. That seems to undercut your previous argument about very dynamic sources requiring that sort of thing. As mentioned above, I more or less agree with you here, but then that challenges your claim about highly dynamic works needing massaging even further. More navigating than massaging. Here is another analogy. Think of it as a Formula One car and track. You need the most skilled driver to turn in the best time. Likewise you need the most skilled cutting engineer to capture the widest dynamics without screwing the pooch. AND when the boss says push the envelope regardless of what it takes that frees you up to push the envelope. When the boss says faster cheaper you have to play it safe. Screw analogies. Again.... I remain unconvinced that the mastering engineer has as much control over this as you think they do. You've gotta show me WHERE the signal chain gets modified to facilitate a highly dynamic signal getting cut. Speeding up the lathe/adjusting the pitch isn't in the signal path. Changing the vinyl formulation or using better laquers isn't in the signal path. All of those are extremely important parameters of the cutting process, but they fundamentally don't *change* the signal itself as it's being cut. I have under controlled listening tests heard some pretty profound differences in various rig's ability to portray low level information. I base this on what I hear not on any bench tests. We are talking about a transducer when we talk about vinyl playback. Even the biggest tech heads usually concede that the final proof of performance is in the listening not on the test bench with transducers. That may be true, but if I'm completely unable to figure it out on the bench, I am highly inclined to say that what I listened to was placebo. The human mind is a somewhat deceptive device. Obviously it can see things that a test environment can't see, but that doesn't mean it can see things that *no* test environment can't see. And the power of analysis tools to tease stuff like this out nowadays is staggering. No doubt. But if one is using blind protocols.... Well, sure, if you scored like p0.05, tell us more. |
|
#104
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.
In article ,
Sonnova wrote: Many don't realize it (but I'm sure you do) that Mercury Records was a small outfit. Bob Fine, Wilma Cozart, and Bob Ebernez were virtually the entire Living Presence team. The fact that their work is so highly regarded is mostly because their recording set-ups were so simple and straight-forward. Some great halls, like the Eastman Theater, didn't hurt either! I can tell you that especially on the Stravinsky Firebird (Minneapolis Symphony, Antal Dorati) the CD is lifeless and blah sounding while the Classic Record's single-sided 45 RPM release is vibrantly alive sounding with a rich bottom end and silken highs. By comparison, the CD sounds compressed with little dynamic contrast. The bottom end is certainly digital-tight, but it lacks impact. The highs, by comparison, are dry and fairly lifeless. The overall presentation is quite subdued compared to the LP which is breathtaking to listen to. For those who don't want to/can't spend the money on the 45 RPM, the 33 RPM two sided LP is stunning as well. |
|
#105
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.
On Nov 2, 2:31�pm, Richard Tollerton
wrote: On Oct 31, 7:51�am, wrote: On Oct 30, 4:44 pm, Richard Tollerton wrote: On Oct 30, 8:16 am, wrote: Ultimately what I'm getting at (and this may be less of an attack on you than an attack on pro-vinyl arguments in general) is that while the advantages of high-quality vinyl are highly touted, in terms of what people actually *mean* when they refer to vinyl, they don't always mean that. I've heard all sorts of people tout vinyl's "improved dynamics", "extended range", etc. when listing to very mainstream, non-audiophile vinyl - rock LPs, new or used, the occasional Decca 60s pressing, etc. Stuff that in my experience has none of these attributes, It is all relative. Lets take another recent Gray/Hoffman mastering. Joni Mitchell's Blue. For the first time this title was cut from the actual original master rather than the EQed 2;1 compressed copy master that had been the source for evey other version of this title including the CDs. If someone raves about the better dynamics of this over the CD they are simply telling the truth. Just because the source material isn't state of the art doesn't mean that the differences in mastering don't make a big difference. They usually do. In this day and age when so many CDs are being compressed to 5dB dynamic range in these crazy loudness wars it should be no surprise when people rave about the improvements heard with audiophile LPs of the same material. These are the real world choices audiophiles have to make. I don't see why the enthusiasm of vinyl enthusiasts should in any way obscure or negate these truisms for any audiophile interested in just getting the best sound they can with their favorite music. To dismiss vinyl because one is put off by the hyperbole of rabid vinyl enthusiasts really is an act of cutting off one's nose. Of course I agree with what you're saying. I've been sorely tempted to buy some of said uncompressed pressings. But that's not what I was talking about. I'm referring, *specifically*, to the attributes of the format itself, rather than the attributes of the signal recorded onto the format - and how most people confuse one with the other, or even use obviously incorrect examples as supporting evidence of a particular format's attribute. That you are already conflating the two by shifting the conversation over to the superiority of certain vinyl masters to certain other masters (vinyl or CD) speaks volumes about how difficult it is to converse logically about all of this to most people. Well it is tricky because you really have two subjects in one. The argument of which format is better sounding in theory and which format is better sounding in practice. In theory there is only the inherent sound of the formats at issue. But in practice there is always the unique sounds of various turntable rigs and the quality of the different masterings of each title on each format in play. In practice any time you play a record or a CD you engage all these properties. So while one can waste a lot of time fighting about the theoretical advantages of each format in the theory, in practice it's quite simple, the variances in mastering out weighs any theoretical argument over format superiority and is ample reason for any audiophile to have both formats and... the variances in the sonic signatures in turntable rigs is ample reason to spend time and money putting together a rig that sounds best to one's ear. That of course ultimately is a very personal decision. On the contrary, there's absolutely nothing about this which is relative. Certainly, the emotional impact of the recording, and the sounds it evokes, are fundamentally relative. But as soon as one starts talking dynamics and dynamic ranges one is entering very observable, absolute territory. If sound quality were only a function of dynamic range I would say you have a good point. But it is not. Of course I'm exaggerating, but not by much. If one touts audiophile- grade vinyl as the true example of the medium's potential, and lesser- grade stuff as not, you're essentially saying that all of people who love the sound of vinyl who haven't listened to said systems simply do not know what they are talking about, because the criticisms stick to them, and not to the audiophile stuff. Not at all. Again, case by case. In many cases IME that scratchy old original really does have the prefered sound. Sometimes that is due in no small part to the effects of euphonic colorations found in some of those old cutting consoles. If someone has not come along and mastered a better CD or LP, that old euphonically colored original LP often is the prime cut. You do have a point in terms of preference. But I'm trying to keep this conversation specifically about dynamic range and observable differences. Certainly one can prefer any pressing they want basedon their preferred, and be entitled to that opinion, but they're ... Why would you want to isolate one of many aspects that may or may not affect the quality of sound in any given case? I am a practical audiophile. I see no point in taking one element of an aestheitc whole and latch onto it at the expense of the bigger picture simply because it is easily quantifiable. I'm a big picture kind of guy. Unfortunately that tends to be too multifaceted to easily quantify. |
|
#106
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.
"Sonnova" wrote in message
It seems that Arny is incapable of either believing or admitting that it is possible for an LP to sound better than a CD. We seem to have a communication failure here. A LP can sound better than a CD if someone screws up the CD, which actually has happened. He seems to believe that ANY digital recording is perfect Again, we seem to have a communication failure here. Aside from screw-ups, a digital recording at 44/16 or higher has to be a perfect copy of the master recording it was made from. However the master recording need not be perfect. And the tracks and mixdown need not be perfect. and all LPs are so flawed as to be unmistakable. Yet again, we seem to have a communication failure here. I've heard LPs that were sufficiently free from their usual flaws as to listenable. I'm not free of sentimentality, and unlike most here, I can feel free to admit it. So I've enjoyed listening to certain LPs under certain circumstances, audible flaws notwithstanding. Furthermore, I do enjoy certain performances regardless of the flaws of the medium they were recorded on. Such an attitude, to me, shows a certain prejudice, and most assuredly a closed mind -on this subject, anyway. Since its an invention, we should credit it to its inventor, no? ;-) |
|
#107
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.
On Sun, 2 Nov 2008 15:21:03 -0800, Jenn wrote
(in article ): In article , Sonnova wrote: Many don't realize it (but I'm sure you do) that Mercury Records was a small outfit. Bob Fine, Wilma Cozart, and Bob Ebernez were virtually the entire Living Presence team. The fact that their work is so highly regarded is mostly because their recording set-ups were so simple and straight-forward. Some great halls, like the Eastman Theater, didn't hurt either! I can tell you that especially on the Stravinsky Firebird (Minneapolis Symphony, Antal Dorati) the CD is lifeless and blah sounding while the Classic Record's single-sided 45 RPM release is vibrantly alive sounding with a rich bottom end and silken highs. By comparison, the CD sounds compressed with little dynamic contrast. The bottom end is certainly digital-tight, but it lacks impact. The highs, by comparison, are dry and fairly lifeless. The overall presentation is quite subdued compared to the LP which is breathtaking to listen to. For those who don't want to/can't spend the money on the 45 RPM, the 33 RPM two sided LP is stunning as well. I haven't heard the Classic Records 33 reissue, but I do have the Philips-pressed Mercury, and it's a pale shadow of the Classic Records 45. I also have never heard the original Mercury pressing and cannot comment on that either. |
|
#108
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.
On Sun, 2 Nov 2008 20:26:08 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message It seems that Arny is incapable of either believing or admitting that it is possible for an LP to sound better than a CD. We seem to have a communication failure here. A LP can sound better than a CD if someone screws up the CD, which actually has happened. OK, then. But I think that in a lot of cases, the CD sounds exactly like the producer wanted it to sound, like for instance, the Mercury CD of the Firebird, quite a few of the BMG/RCA Red Seal hybrid CD/SACDs, etc. He seems to believe that ANY digital recording is perfect Again, we seem to have a communication failure here. Aside from screw-ups, a digital recording at 44/16 or higher has to be a perfect copy of the master recording it was made from. However the master recording need not be perfect. And the tracks and mixdown need not be perfect. But we're talking about CDs vs records of analog master tapes which are two or three track, are KNOWN to be great recordings (the Mercury Living Presence, early RCA Red Seal stereos, Blalock Everests, etc.). When the remastered LP sounds better than any of the CD releases of this material, we cannot blame it on either the master recording or the "mixdown". and all LPs are so flawed as to be unmistakable. Yet again, we seem to have a communication failure here. I've heard LPs that were sufficiently free from their usual flaws as to listenable. I'm not free of sentimentality, and unlike most here, I can feel free to admit it. So I've enjoyed listening to certain LPs under certain circumstances, audible flaws notwithstanding. Furthermore, I do enjoy certain performances regardless of the flaws of the medium they were recorded on. OK. Such an attitude, to me, shows a certain prejudice, and most assuredly a closed mind -on this subject, anyway. Since its an invention, we should credit it to its inventor, no? ;-) No offense meant, you understand. |
|
#109
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.
"Sonnova" wrote in message
On Sun, 2 Nov 2008 20:26:08 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message It seems that Arny is incapable of either believing or admitting that it is possible for an LP to sound better than a CD. We seem to have a communication failure here. A LP can sound better than a CD if someone screws up the CD, which actually has happened. OK, then. But I think that in a lot of cases, the CD sounds exactly like the producer wanted it to sound, like for instance, the Mercury CD of the Firebird, quite a few of the BMG/RCA Red Seal hybrid CD/SACDs, etc. Agreed that a CD can sound exactly like someone made it sound. If you don't like the way it sounds, I'd call that a "screw up", no? ;-) He seems to believe that ANY digital recording is perfect Again, we seem to have a communication failure here. Aside from screw-ups, a digital recording at 44/16 or higher has to be a perfect copy of the master recording it was made from. However the master recording need not be perfect. And the tracks and mixdown need not be perfect. But we're talking about CDs vs records of analog master tapes which are two or three track, are KNOWN to be great recordings (the Mercury Living Presence, early RCA Red Seal stereos, Blalock Everests, etc.). The producer has an infinite number of choices, one of which is to make the CD sound exactly like the master tape playback. When the remastered LP sounds better than any of the CD releases of this material, we cannot blame it on either the master recording or the "mixdown". Agreed, but we can blame the infrerior sound on the producer. In no case can we blame the CD medium, because it is blameless. If a producer wants a CD to sound exactly like a LP, he could always record his recording to a LP, play it back, and record that on the CD. If he wants a CD to sound like a LP, minus the noise and distortion inherent in the LP format, then he can process his recording so that it sounds the way he wants it to, but bypass recording it and playing it back. and all LPs are so flawed as to be unmistakable. Yet again, we seem to have a communication failure here. I've heard LPs that were sufficiently free from their usual flaws as to listenable. I'm not free of sentimentality, and unlike most here, I can feel free to admit it. So I've enjoyed listening to certain LPs under certain circumstances, audible flaws notwithstanding. Furthermore, I do enjoy certain performances regardless of the flaws of the medium they were recorded on. OK. Such an attitude, to me, shows a certain prejudice, and most assuredly a closed mind -on this subject, anyway. Since its an invention, we should credit it to its inventor, no? ;-) No offense meant, you understand. OK. ;-) |
|
#110
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.
I've begun to realise this week that one of the great attractions of
analog audio media was the very fact that they were inherently flawed (for all the many reasons discussed in other threads recently), and therefore there was always a market and opportunity for some new piece of hardware or technology to extract just that little extra bit of signal, with less colouration or less distortion or whatever. That, from a hobbyist's point of view, is really very attractive. There can never be perfection, but you can continually come up with new ideas and tricks to improve the reproduction, albeit with diminishing returns. The "problem" with digital is that once you have the signal digitised, the reading of that signal is always going to be perfect - you can't do anything to improve it. So it's a technically solvable problem which can no longer be tinkered with to improve. My commodity DVD drive in my laptop, or the drive in a 30 pound player from my local supermarket can read that digital stream from a CD perfectly. So what's the fun in that? And of course, from the expensive, high profit-margin hi-fi manufacturer's point of view, where's the market in that? Therein, I believe, lies one of the key reasons for the mythology of "analog sound" or "vinyl sound". Its reproduction can never be perfect but can always be improved. Similarly, technological progress has meant that the processing of the digital signal through a DAC chip has inevitably reached a point where it can barely be improved and is, to all intents and purposes, perfect, but now at a commodity price. I suspect the average DAC in the latest bottom of the range Dell laptop is now more than adequate for even a high-end system. Again, what's the fun in that? It's interesting that the only part in the audio playback chain that we're now left with where near perfection at low cost by cannot be reached by current commodity technology is the loudspeaker. I guess that's now the sole area where the "fun" element and hobbiest element of hi-fi now really resides, with people going to extraordinary lengths to achieve the perfect sound from their latest speaker design. Of course there's still the folks who will try to persuade the gullible that the digital domain can be still improved upon (witness the barmy green pens to paint the edge of your CDs with some years ago, and weights to stop physical vibrations affecting the digital stream), but I guess that what they're pandering to is a final hope that some element of hobbyist tinkering-about must surely be possible in the digital chain. So the fact is that my Mac Mini + USB hard drive + EMU USB DAC + Behringer power amp (total cost not very much, particularly since the Mac was surplus to requirements having been purchased for some other work project) arguably delivers a near perfect signal to my speakers (which I confess sadly let the side down somewhat!). Gone are the days when you need eye-wateringly expensive CD transports with special, separate power supplies, DACs, pre-amps and power amps (though you'd hardly guess that from the magazine articles and adverts). I'm happy - I'm getting the kind of sound I used to dream about, but for only a small amount of capital outlay, and I can enjoy the purpose of the exercise as far as I'm concerned - listening to music which is where I now spend my money. The hobbyist hi-fi enthusiast must look upon this as a bleak utilitarian desert - where's the fun in my system? I guess, from his point of view, very little.... --- Rob Tweed Company: M/Gateway Developments Ltd Registered in England: No 3220901 Registered Office: 58 Francis Road,Ashford, Kent TN23 7UR Web-site: http://www.mgateway.com |
|
#111
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.
On Nov 4, 5:40*am, Rob Tweed wrote:
I've begun to realise this week that one of the great attractions of analog audio media was the very fact that they were inherently flawed (for all the many reasons discussed in other threads recently), and therefore there was always a market and opportunity for some new piece of hardware or technology to extract just that little extra bit of signal, with less colouration or less distortion or whatever. *That, from a hobbyist's point of view, is really very attractive. *There can never be perfection, but you can continually come up with new ideas and tricks to improve the reproduction, albeit with diminishing returns. In general I agree with your post. except in one point. Did you notice how much difference new arm, cartridge, clamps, etc. make? If using it makes a noticeable difference (and I believe it is) then at least in one of cases (clamp/no clamp) we have an audibly distorted sound. And tomorrow new mat on the plate will make a noticeable change in a sound again. So where is "High Fidelity" in this? I think the real answer is that hi-end audiophiles redefined Hi-Fi as something that pleases their ears instead of closeness to the original signal recorded on the media. So they are tweaking their equipment to achieve Hi-FI in this sense. And analogue being fragile and inherently imperfect provides fertile ground for that kind of hobby. There is nothing wrong with that, as long as you know what you are doing. I will not go into sneak oil salesmen's exploits in this area, after all I support the right to be exploited :-) vlad The "problem" with digital is that once you have the signal digitised, the reading of that signal is always going to be perfect - you can't do anything to improve it. *So it's a technically solvable problem which can no longer be tinkered with to improve. *My commodity DVD drive in my laptop, or the drive in a 30 pound player from my local supermarket can read that digital stream from a CD perfectly. *So what's the fun in that? *And of course, from the expensive, high profit-margin hi-fi manufacturer's point of view, where's the market in that? Therein, I believe, lies one of the key reasons for the mythology of "analog sound" or "vinyl sound". *Its reproduction can never be perfect but can always be improved. Similarly, technological progress has meant that the processing of the digital signal through a DAC chip has inevitably reached a point where it can barely be improved and is, to all intents and purposes, perfect, but now at a commodity price. *I suspect the average DAC in the latest bottom of the range Dell laptop is now more than adequate for even a high-end system. *Again, what's the fun in that? It's interesting that the only part in the audio playback chain that we're now left with where near perfection at low cost by cannot be reached by current commodity technology is the loudspeaker. *I guess that's now the sole area where the "fun" element and hobbiest element of hi-fi now really resides, with people going to extraordinary lengths to achieve the perfect sound from their latest speaker design. Of course there's still the folks who will try to persuade the gullible that the digital domain can be still improved upon (witness the barmy green pens to paint the edge of your CDs with some years ago, and weights to stop physical vibrations affecting the digital stream), but I guess that what they're pandering to is a final hope that some element of hobbyist tinkering-about must surely be possible in the digital chain. So the fact is that my Mac Mini + USB hard drive + EMU USB DAC + Behringer power amp (total cost not very much, particularly since the Mac was surplus to requirements having been purchased for some other work project) arguably delivers a near perfect signal to my speakers (which I confess sadly let the side down somewhat!). *Gone are the days when you need eye-wateringly expensive CD transports with special, separate power supplies, DACs, pre-amps and power amps (though you'd hardly guess that from the magazine articles and adverts). I'm happy - I'm getting the kind of sound I used to dream about, but for only a small amount of capital outlay, and I can enjoy the purpose of the exercise as far as I'm concerned - listening to music which is where I now spend my money. The hobbyist hi-fi enthusiast must look upon this as a bleak utilitarian desert - where's the fun in my system? *I guess, from his point of view, very little.... --- Rob Tweed Company: M/Gateway Developments Ltd Registered in England: No 3220901 Registered Office: 58 Francis Road,Ashford, Kent TN23 7UR Web-site:http://www.mgateway.com |
|
#112
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.
On Nov 4, 8:03�am, vlad wrote:
On Nov 4, 5:40�am, Rob Tweed wrote: � � I think the real answer is that hi-end audiophiles redefined Hi-Fi as something that pleases their ears instead of closeness to the original signal recorded on the media. So they are tweaking their equipment to achieve Hi-FI in this sense. And analogue being fragile and inherently imperfect provides fertile ground for that kind of hobby. There is nothing wrong with that, as long as you know what you are doing. The original "signal" recorded on the media does not have an intrinsic sound of it's own. How do you use the "original signal" as any kind of *sonic* reference without setting up playback equipment as a part of that reference sound as well? You talk about audiophiles seeking sound that pleases their ears as though it were a bad choice. If hifi does not please the end users ears how is that ever good? I am going to go out on a limb and guess you have a philosophy that places a priority on alleged "accuracy" in each component in the chain of any playback system. My question is why should that be the priority for audiophiles IYO? |
|
#113
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.
Rob Tweed wrote:
The "problem" with digital is that once you have the signal digitised, the reading of that signal is always going to be perfect - you can't do anything to improve it. So it's a technically solvable problem which can no longer be tinkered with to improve. Well, sort of. OF COURSE it can be tinkered with, I myself do extensive tinkering. First, you can play with the frequency response. One of the "euphonic colorations" of some phono cartridges is unflat frequency response. That can easily be faked, digitally. You can also play with the dynamic range of a recording, if you wish. You can decrease or increase it. In fact, I (not, admittedly, you, unless you ask me for a copy of my program) can volume compress it in a far better manner that the usual commercial process. And, in fact, for my iPod I do just that, since I wear it while walking outdoors in somewhat noisy areas. Doug McDonald |
|
#114
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.
wrote in message
... On Nov 4, 8:03�am, vlad wrote: On Nov 4, 5:40�am, Rob Tweed wrote: � � I think the real answer is that hi-end audiophiles redefined Hi-Fi as something that pleases their ears instead of closeness to the original signal recorded on the media. So they are tweaking their equipment to achieve Hi-FI in this sense. And analogue being fragile and inherently imperfect provides fertile ground for that kind of hobby. There is nothing wrong with that, as long as you know what you are doing. The original "signal" recorded on the media does not have an intrinsic sound of it's own. How do you use the "original signal" as any kind of *sonic* reference without setting up playback equipment as a part of that reference sound as well? You talk about audiophiles seeking sound that pleases their ears as though it were a bad choice. If hifi does not please the end users ears how is that ever good? I am going to go out on a limb and guess you have a philosophy that places a priority on alleged "accuracy" in each component in the chain of any playback system. My question is why should that be the priority for audiophiles IYO? My own priority certainly is accuracy over pleasure. The problem with a system that's nice to listen to but inaccurate, is that you're forever tweaking it, upgrading, sidegrading etc, in an attempt to make is sound even better. Once you have a system that's as accurate as you can get it, then you just stop the whole upgrade stuff and enjoy the music. Accurate doesn't even have to be expensive, as most commercial ordinary electronics is perfectly accurate, and accurate 'speakers have been made for years, and are available used for modest amounts. So, if you enjoy the whole hobby of tweaking, upgrading etc, then fine, but if you just want to enjoy the music, get an accurate system and call that it. S. |
|
#115
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.
On Mon, 3 Nov 2008 16:18:50 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message On Sun, 2 Nov 2008 20:26:08 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message It seems that Arny is incapable of either believing or admitting that it is possible for an LP to sound better than a CD. We seem to have a communication failure here. A LP can sound better than a CD if someone screws up the CD, which actually has happened. OK, then. But I think that in a lot of cases, the CD sounds exactly like the producer wanted it to sound, like for instance, the Mercury CD of the Firebird, quite a few of the BMG/RCA Red Seal hybrid CD/SACDs, etc. Agreed that a CD can sound exactly like someone made it sound. If you don't like the way it sounds, I'd call that a "screw up", no? ;-) He seems to believe that ANY digital recording is perfect Again, we seem to have a communication failure here. Aside from screw-ups, a digital recording at 44/16 or higher has to be a perfect copy of the master recording it was made from. However the master recording need not be perfect. And the tracks and mixdown need not be perfect. But we're talking about CDs vs records of analog master tapes which are two or three track, are KNOWN to be great recordings (the Mercury Living Presence, early RCA Red Seal stereos, Blalock Everests, etc.). The producer has an infinite number of choices, one of which is to make the CD sound exactly like the master tape playback. Which is what Wilma Fine et al said that they were doing with the Mercury CDs. But if that's true, then the Classic 45 RPM LP sounds BETTER than the master tape! Something I'm not really prepared to acknowledge as likely. When the remastered LP sounds better than any of the CD releases of this material, we cannot blame it on either the master recording or the "mixdown". Agreed, but we can blame the infrerior sound on the producer. In no case can we blame the CD medium, because it is blameless. I agree. [quoted text deleted -- deb] |
|
#116
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.
On Tue, 4 Nov 2008 05:40:52 -0800, Rob Tweed wrote
(in article ): I've begun to realise this week that one of the great attractions of analog audio media was the very fact that they were inherently flawed (for all the many reasons discussed in other threads recently), and therefore there was always a market and opportunity for some new piece of hardware or technology to extract just that little extra bit of signal, with less colouration or less distortion or whatever. That, from a hobbyist's point of view, is really very attractive. There can never be perfection, but you can continually come up with new ideas and tricks to improve the reproduction, albeit with diminishing returns. The "problem" with digital is that once you have the signal digitised, the reading of that signal is always going to be perfect - you can't do anything to improve it. So it's a technically solvable problem which can no longer be tinkered with to improve. My commodity DVD drive in my laptop, or the drive in a 30 pound player from my local supermarket can read that digital stream from a CD perfectly. So what's the fun in that? And of course, from the expensive, high profit-margin hi-fi manufacturer's point of view, where's the market in that? Therein, I believe, lies one of the key reasons for the mythology of "analog sound" or "vinyl sound". Its reproduction can never be perfect but can always be improved. Similarly, technological progress has meant that the processing of the digital signal through a DAC chip has inevitably reached a point where it can barely be improved and is, to all intents and purposes, perfect, but now at a commodity price. I suspect the average DAC in the latest bottom of the range Dell laptop is now more than adequate for even a high-end system. Again, what's the fun in that? It's interesting that the only part in the audio playback chain that we're now left with where near perfection at low cost by cannot be reached by current commodity technology is the loudspeaker. I guess that's now the sole area where the "fun" element and hobbiest element of hi-fi now really resides, with people going to extraordinary lengths to achieve the perfect sound from their latest speaker design. Of course there's still the folks who will try to persuade the gullible that the digital domain can be still improved upon (witness the barmy green pens to paint the edge of your CDs with some years ago, and weights to stop physical vibrations affecting the digital stream), but I guess that what they're pandering to is a final hope that some element of hobbyist tinkering-about must surely be possible in the digital chain. So the fact is that my Mac Mini + USB hard drive + EMU USB DAC + Behringer power amp (total cost not very much, particularly since the Mac was surplus to requirements having been purchased for some other work project) arguably delivers a near perfect signal to my speakers (which I confess sadly let the side down somewhat!). Gone are the days when you need eye-wateringly expensive CD transports with special, separate power supplies, DACs, pre-amps and power amps (though you'd hardly guess that from the magazine articles and adverts). I'm happy - I'm getting the kind of sound I used to dream about, but for only a small amount of capital outlay, and I can enjoy the purpose of the exercise as far as I'm concerned - listening to music which is where I now spend my money. The hobbyist hi-fi enthusiast must look upon this as a bleak utilitarian desert - where's the fun in my system? I guess, from his point of view, very little.... --- Rob Tweed Company: M/Gateway Developments Ltd Registered in England: No 3220901 Registered Office: 58 Francis Road,Ashford, Kent TN23 7UR Web-site: http://www.mgateway.com After all of this falderol lately about CD vs Vinyl, I pulled out a bunch of my favorite LPs and played them over the weekend (Michell Gyrodec SE with the Orb Platter, Audioquest PT-8 arm - damped, Sumiko Blackbird, AR SP-11). I had forgotten (haven't played a record in about three years) how much shear sonic pleasure the best of them give! Much more satisfying than CD, I'm afraid. Can't explain it, but I LIKE what I'm hearing! |
|
#117
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.
On Tue, 4 Nov 2008 08:03:33 -0800, vlad wrote
(in article ): On Nov 4, 5:40*am, Rob Tweed wrote: I've begun to realise this week that one of the great attractions of analog audio media was the very fact that they were inherently flawed (for all the many reasons discussed in other threads recently), and therefore there was always a market and opportunity for some new piece of hardware or technology to extract just that little extra bit of signal, with less colouration or less distortion or whatever. *That, from a hobbyist's point of view, is really very attractive. *There can never be perfection, but you can continually come up with new ideas and tricks to improve the reproduction, albeit with diminishing returns. In general I agree with your post. except in one point. Did you notice how much difference new arm, cartridge, clamps, etc. make? If using it makes a noticeable difference (and I believe it is) then at least in one of cases (clamp/no clamp) we have an audibly distorted sound. And tomorrow new mat on the plate will make a noticeable change in a sound again. So where is "High Fidelity" in this? I think the real answer is that hi-end audiophiles redefined Hi-Fi as something that pleases their ears instead of closeness to the original signal recorded on the media. So they are tweaking their equipment to achieve Hi-FI in this sense. And analogue being fragile and inherently imperfect provides fertile ground for that kind of hobby. There is nothing wrong with that, as long as you know what you are doing. I will not go into sneak oil salesmen's exploits in this area, after all I support the right to be exploited :-) vlad What you say IS true to a certain extent. The term "High-Fidelity" means, simply, a high-degree of faithfulness to the original. This, in itself, is fairly vague, you must admit. Faithful to what? The original performance? What if the original performance exists only inside the recording electronics used to capture it (like it is with so much modern pop)? How do we know when our playback is being faithful to such a performance, unless, we were there at the mixing desk, listening to the final mix on the same make and model of loudspeakers that the producers and musicians were listening to at the time? Or does High-Fidelity refer to faithfulness to the electrical signal representing the performance? All we can do is buy equipment which is low distortion and hope for the best. Remember, whatever High-Fidelity actually means, its a to a degree. That degree is dictated by the states of the various arts and sciences involved. In the 1930's, RCA called their "Photophone" sound-on-film process 'High-Fidelity" but with an upper limit of about 7KHz and huge peak in the 2-4 KHz region, I doubt seriously if any of us would agree that it's high-fidelity anything. What it comes down to is that modern Hi-Fi is the purveyor or an illusion. The illusion is that of either being metaphorically transported to a live performance, or, having that live performance brought into our living room. Various industry pundits even argue over which of those is the most efficacious approach to High-Fidelity reproduction. So, you can't blame audiophiles, for finally, resorting to an attitude that says that High-Fidelity is what sounds good to them. And that attitude covers a multitude of different opinions. Most of us weren't at the original performance/recording session. Many recording sessions produce performances that don't even exist in real time or space. How are we to know, then, what constitutes a "...closeness to the original signal recorded on the media." when we don't know what that signal is representing in terms of the sound? |
|
#118
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.
|
|
#119
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.
On Nov 4, 3:10*pm, Sonnova wrote:
So, you can't blame audiophiles, for finally, resorting to an attitude that says that High-Fidelity is what sounds good to them. And that attitude covers a multitude of different opinions. Most of us weren't at the original performance/recording session. Many recording sessions produce performances that don't even exist in real time or space. How are we to know, then, what constitutes a "...closeness to the original signal recorded on the media." when we don't know what that signal is representing in terms of the sound? If you noticed I did not blame audiophiles for anything. If Hi-Fi means "whatever pleases me most" then may be we have to replace it with Mo-Pl "Most Pleasing". Then we will have as many Mo-Pl's as many hi-enders are there. BTW, is SOTA the collection of equipment that provides Hi-Fi or Mo-Pl? I think it is rather Mo-Pl. About "...closeness to the original signal". Yes, I don't know in most cases how original performance sounded live. However, I believe that it is a duty of recording engineer and mastering engineer after him to provide a recording that is as close as possible to original live sound. And if it is the case then I trust their judgment and prefer equipment that provide Hi-Fi in a sense of "...closeness to the original signal recorded on the media.". Did I make myself clear? vlad |
|
#120
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.
"Rob Tweed" wrote in message
The "problem" with digital is that once you have the signal digitised, the reading of that signal is always going to be perfect - you can't do anything to improve it. Of course you can *improve* sound that has been digitized, in the same sense that anolog sound has been *improved* for years. Just put some standard signal processors into the signal path. *All* of the things that has been done to the LP format for past several decades havn't improved it technically. At best those changes have only changed how the LP sounded. In many cases not even that has happened. So it's a technically solvable problem which can no longer be tinkered with to improve. My commodity DVD drive in my laptop, or the drive in a 30 pound player from my local supermarket can read that digital stream from a CD perfectly. Well, close enough to fool the ear, in many cases. So what's the fun in that? But, that's not the only way to have fun. I really believe that if more audiophiles obtained effective equalizers and learned how to use them properly, there would be more happy campers. And of course, from the expensive, high profit-margin hi-fi manufacturer's point of view, where's the market in that? In fact most the high-profit-margin high end vinyl playback equipment manufacturers have been at best playing with the FR curve of their products. In many cases they have been selling placebos. Therein, I believe, lies one of the key reasons for the mythology of "analog sound" or "vinyl sound". Its reproduction can never be perfect but can always be improved. Well, in all of the cases swhere there actually was a significant change in the sound some new pieces of vinyl equipment, it was almost certainly obtained by making small changes in its frequency response. Nothing magic about that, nothing that people can't do for themselves at home. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Updated Vinyl Catalog-30,555 Vinyl Records FS | Marketplace | |||
| Canadian Vinyl Store-29,930 Vinyl Records FS | Marketplace | |||
| Euphonic versus accurate | High End Audio | |||
Linear Mode
