Hello,

Has anyone compared classic records vinyl with original 50's 60's
first pressings?

Does anyone know if they use tube amps to cut masters (record cutting
head amps..that is)?

I started buying Vinyl again after listening to some old pressings of
lp's (50's to mid-70's).
After designing and building audio gear for recording for 20 years,
I tried to get the closest sound to the source that I could by
concentrating on cleaning up the digital converters , and just stopped
thinking about the whole vinyl vs. LP thing years ago when I sold my
records.

I remember reading an old MIX magazine article where Bernie Grundman
(Ibelieve) Was saying that first generation laquers were superior to
digital, and that LP's had an extended freq response etc. etc. but a
letter to the editor in a successive issue illustrated that most home
users could not afford a high end system that could compete with CD
fidelity -- wise. I was one of those home users.

After years of recording sound, building preamps and experimenting
with tubes and transistors (fet or otherwise) I realized that there
was something more compelling about tubes and something that made the
music sound more distant with transistor circuits.

Make a simple amplifier with a triode (a good large plate w/ no
feedback) and you get a little thd etc. , but an accurate sonic and
musical image.

Make a simple amp with a transistor and you will most probably want
to connect another transistor in series (to use in a negative feedback
configuration) in order to get rid of the nasty harsh distortion
characteristics. You will then experience more loss of detail and
phase incoherence, although the added harmonics will be reduced.

This is due to the fact that negative feedback works well in theory
but can only work 100% when the input and output of the signal are
constantly aligned in the time domain (including during sharp
transients in the waveform)

Negative feedback in slower amplifiers (transistors included) causes
distortion of transients.

So the most musical designs to me are the simple tube amps with very
high quality components.

Getting back to vinyl, I noticed that when I played a 50's pop
record made here in europe (probably with german studio amplifiers)
the voice seemed to belong to someone in the room (this is not a
'clean' recording)

I checked this at another person's house with his solid state amp and
comparisons between cd's and original pressings made before the 80's
and the results were the same -- the music seemed played by living
musicians.
the FEEL of the music cuts through.
In digital the feel is lost in part.

Any accomplished musician about the importance of timing and touch,
or at least any great INTERPRETER will know. A great sounding voice
will not move as many people or sell more records than a voice with
GREAT timing and feel.

the ear is most sensitive to sharp transients and wave-FORM (as
opposed to frequency response and thd etc.) much more than the
industry and consumers would care to admit, for ignorance's sake or
for convenience's sake.

In short I believe that the transistor - opamp - digital revolution
has caused the time-resolution of recordings to go downhill.


So big analog tape decks with simple tube amps made with high quality
transformers and components (not like a lot of 50's 60's
electronics--whick were just plain cheap) are the way to go, and vinyl
is the best way of getting at least the essence of the music into the
home (I still have to hear sacd though)


Records cut before the late '60s were cut with tube amplifiers driving
the cutting head.

by the 80's the cutting machines were complicated and I have seen one
Neumann machine with a digital delay in line with the signal used as a
pre-delay to determine groove-to-groove distance while cutting the
side.
Far from analog. It also passed through orban parametric eq's (cheap
opamps) and god knows what.

Anyone have similar feelings about this?

From: (maxdm)
Date: 5/25/2004 5:19 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Hello,

Has anyone compared classic records vinyl with original 50's 60's
first pressings?

Yes. Many are better some are not. By the way, it is a mistake to assume first
pressings are the best.

Does anyone know if they use tube amps to cut masters (record cutting
head amps..that is)?

I believe they do now. They didn't early on.


I started buying Vinyl again after listening to some old pressings of
lp's (50's to mid-70's).
After designing and building audio gear for recording for 20 years,
I tried to get the closest sound to the source that I could by
concentrating on cleaning up the digital converters , and just stopped
thinking about the whole vinyl vs. LP thing years ago when I sold my
records.

I remember reading an old MIX magazine article where Bernie Grundman
(Ibelieve) Was saying that first generation laquers were superior to
digital, and that LP's had an extended freq response etc. etc. but a
letter to the editor in a successive issue illustrated that most home
users could not afford a high end system that could compete with CD
fidelity -- wise. I was one of those home users.

On 5/25/04 8:19 PM, in article , "maxdm"
wrote:

Hello,

Has anyone compared classic records vinyl with original 50's 60's
first pressings?

A friend of mine thinks the new pressings are better than the old pressings
- even old ones that never got played.

I don't know why - except that the technology is available today that wasn't
then....?

Bromo wrote:

On 5/25/04 8:19 PM, in article , "maxdm"
wrote:

Hello,

Has anyone compared classic records vinyl with original 50's 60's
first pressings?

A friend of mine thinks the new pressings are better than the old pressings
- even old ones that never got played.

I don't know why - except that the technology is available today that wasn't
then....?







I've read mixed reviews concerning the old pressings vs. the new Classic
formulations. 'I've purchased some of the Classic formulations, partially out
of necessity, since I value some of the performannces (e.g. those engineered by
Kenneth Wilkinson in England), but frankly, don't feel that the high premiums
typcially charged for some of the Shaded Dog collectibles is necessarily
warranted.

Another factor that I think needs to be taken into account is that the modern
reissues in many cases tend to use heavier vinyl (150 to 180g) which is less
prone to warpage and IME, tends to play more quietly in many cases.

One set of reissues not often given the press of the Classic titles, but well
worth a listen in my view are some on the Klavier label. Among the titles I've
personally found to be quite remarkable, both in terms of sonics and
performance, are the Saint-Saens "Organ" Symphony No. 3 by Fremaux/Birmingham
Symphony Orchestra and also the Massenet "Le Cid" coupled with a few shorter
pieces. I don't know whether it's just coincidence, but quite by chance, I
happened to get a CD of violin pieces by Joseph Suk on Klavier (Klavier 11035)
and compared, at least, to many of the other CD's I have, the sound on this
recording is well above average.

I know that some that prefer digital have commented on the relatively superior
sound quality that often if found on certain labels such as Telarc, Reference
Recordings, Chesky, etc. While I have just a few CDs on these labels, my
limited exposure thus far makes me tend to agree with them. I suppose its
quite possible that some of these labels simply spend much more attention to
the engineering/mastering process.

Bruce J. Richman

From: (Bruce J. Richman)
Date: 5/26/2004 7:25 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: FN1tc.27723$af3.1495519@attbi_s51



I know that some that prefer digital have commented on the relatively
superior
sound quality that often if found on certain labels such as Telarc, Reference
Recordings, Chesky, etc. While I have just a few CDs on these labels, my
limited exposure thus far makes me tend to agree with them. I suppose its
quite possible that some of these labels simply spend much more attention to
the engineering/mastering process.


Reference Recordings has produced some of the best sounding recordings I have
ever heard. Their CD transfers seem to be quite excellent. However their
recordings are analog and most of thier catalog has been released on vinyl. In
my comparisons I prefer the vinyl versions of thier recordings to the CD
versions.

On 26 May 2004 03:38:11 GMT, Bromo wrote:

On 5/25/04 8:19 PM, in article , "maxdm"
wrote:

Hello,

Has anyone compared classic records vinyl with original 50's 60's
first pressings?

A friend of mine thinks the new pressings are better than the old pressings
- even old ones that never got played.

I don't know why - except that the technology is available today that wasn't
then....?

Actually, that's rubbish. While some quite remarkable pieces of
*replay* engineering have appeared, such as the Rockport Sirius III,
the best available cutting lathes are still refurbished units from the
'60s and '70s, often coupled with modern digital electronics (shlock,
horror!!!!!!!!!!!). :-)
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On 5/26/04 4:32 PM, in article O97tc.116677$536.21894782@attbi_s03, "Stewart
Pinkerton" wrote:

On 26 May 2004 03:38:11 GMT, Bromo wrote:

On 5/25/04 8:19 PM, in article , "maxdm"
wrote:

Hello,

Has anyone compared classic records vinyl with original 50's 60's
first pressings?

A friend of mine thinks the new pressings are better than the old pressings
- even old ones that never got played.

I don't know why - except that the technology is available today that wasn't
then....?

Actually, that's rubbish. While some quite remarkable pieces of
*replay* engineering have appeared, such as the Rockport Sirius III,
the best available cutting lathes are still refurbished units from the
'60s and '70s, often coupled with modern digital electronics (shlock,
horror!!!!!!!!!!!). :-)

Stewart - notice the question mark after my speculative sentence. And that
I preface that I don't know why.

Glad to hear you have it under control and that you agree that modern
pressings are better?

(S888Wheel) wrote in message news:ATSsc.61675$gr.5948359@attbi_s52...
From: (maxdm)
Date: 5/25/2004 5:19 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Hello,

Has anyone compared classic records vinyl with original 50's 60's
first pressings?

Yes. Many are better some are not. By the way, it is a mistake to assume first
pressings are the best.

Does anyone know if they use tube amps to cut masters (record cutting
head amps..that is)?

I believe they do now. They didn't early on.

I just bought the first 4 led zeppelin albums on Classic Rec. 200 gram
vinyl, I hope these were cut with a tube amp, anyone know ?
What are considered the best sounding pressings for Beatles records?

Is there a source of information readily available on the internet
that points out the best pressings.

I am assuming that since Neumann, Telefunken, AKG and Siemens are all
German, pressings made in Germany should sound better than most.
anyone have an opinion to share?

Scott Wheeler wrote:


From: (Bruce J. Richman)
Date: 5/26/2004 7:25 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: FN1tc.27723$af3.1495519@attbi_s51



I know that some that prefer digital have commented on the relatively
superior
sound quality that often if found on certain labels such as Telarc,
Reference
Recordings, Chesky, etc. While I have just a few CDs on these labels, my
limited exposure thus far makes me tend to agree with them. I suppose its
quite possible that some of these labels simply spend much more attention to
the engineering/mastering process.


Reference Recordings has produced some of the best sounding recordings I have
ever heard. Their CD transfers seem to be quite excellent. However their
recordings are analog and most of their catalog has been released on vinyl.
In
my comparisons I prefer the vinyl versions of thier recordings to the CD
versions.









I have quite a few of their recordings on vinyl, including, among others, the
various performances of Mike Garson, Fennell's "Pomp and Pipes" (organ
compositions), Airto Moreira's "Third Mirror", the Farnon soundtrack from
Horatio Hornblower, the Arnold overtures, etc. I also find their analog
recordings, of which I am quite aware, to be excellent. However, many of
their *later* classical offerings are not available in vinyl format, according
to the Reference Recordings website.






Bruce J. Richman

From: Stewart Pinkerton
Date: 5/26/2004 1:32 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: O97tc.116677$536.21894782@attbi_s03

On 26 May 2004 03:38:11 GMT, Bromo wrote:

On 5/25/04 8:19 PM, in article , "maxdm"
wrote:

Hello,

Has anyone compared classic records vinyl with original 50's 60's
first pressings?

A friend of mine thinks the new pressings are better than the old pressings
- even old ones that never got played.

I don't know why - except that the technology is available today that wasn't
then....?

Actually, that's rubbish. While some quite remarkable pieces of
*replay* engineering have appeared, such as the Rockport Sirius III,
the best available cutting lathes are still refurbished units from the
'60s and '70s, often coupled with modern digital electronics (shlock,
horror!!!!!!!!!!!). :-)
--


Classics does reissue a lot of titles from the fifties which would make said
refurbished cutting lathes newer. But, more importantly, it is the person using
them that matters along with the quality of the laquer which has improved since
then, so I am told, and the quality of the pressing which is certainly better
from RTI. I do believe that there are different cutting head amplifiers used
with these reissues than were used back in the day along with a whole slew of
different equalizers and other electronics in the signal path.

maxdm wrote:
(S888Wheel) wrote in message news:ATSsc.61675$gr.5948359@attbi_s52...
From: (maxdm)
Date: 5/25/2004 5:19 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Hello,

Has anyone compared classic records vinyl with original 50's 60's
first pressings?

Yes. Many are better some are not. By the way, it is a mistake to assume first
pressings are the best.

Does anyone know if they use tube amps to cut masters (record cutting
head amps..that is)?

I believe they do now. They didn't early on.

I just bought the first 4 led zeppelin albums on Classic Rec. 200 gram
vinyl, I hope these were cut with a tube amp, anyone know ?
What are considered the best sounding pressings for Beatles records?

Is there a source of information readily available on the internet
that points out the best pressings.

There's a lot of information and chatter about LP pressings at
www.stevehoffman.tv. Of course for any given recording you'll likely find
as many who think it's the 'best' as there are who think it's
irredeemably flawed.

--

-S.

"They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason."
-- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director

Steven Sullivan wrote:

maxdm wrote:
(S888Wheel) wrote in message
news:ATSsc.61675$gr.5948359@attbi_s52...
From: (maxdm)
Date: 5/25/2004 5:19 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Hello,

Has anyone compared classic records vinyl with original 50's 60's
first pressings?

Yes. Many are better some are not. By the way, it is a mistake to assume
first
pressings are the best.

Does anyone know if they use tube amps to cut masters (record cutting
head amps..that is)?

I believe they do now. They didn't early on.

I just bought the first 4 led zeppelin albums on Classic Rec. 200 gram
vinyl, I hope these were cut with a tube amp, anyone know ?
What are considered the best sounding pressings for Beatles records?

Is there a source of information readily available on the internet
that points out the best pressings.

There's a lot of information and chatter about LP pressings at
www.stevehoffman.tv. Of course for any given recording you'll likely find
as many who think it's the 'best' as there are who think it's
irredeemably flawed.

--

-S.

"They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason."
-- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director









Another source for opinions about pressings would be the Phonogram mailing
list, available via Internet subscription. In addition to many vinylphiles
whom participate, contributions are also made by several audiophile magazine
reviewers as well as people currently or formerly involved directly in the
recording and/or analogue manufacturing business. As previously mentioned,
opinions tend to vary somewhat.

Bruce J. Richman

S888Wheel wrote:
From: Stewart Pinkerton
Date: 5/26/2004 1:32 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: O97tc.116677$536.21894782@attbi_s03

On 26 May 2004 03:38:11 GMT, Bromo wrote:

On 5/25/04 8:19 PM, in article , "maxdm"
wrote:

Hello,

Has anyone compared classic records vinyl with original 50's 60's
first pressings?

A friend of mine thinks the new pressings are better than the old pressings
- even old ones that never got played.

I don't know why - except that the technology is available today that wasn't
then....?

Actually, that's rubbish. While some quite remarkable pieces of
*replay* engineering have appeared, such as the Rockport Sirius III,
the best available cutting lathes are still refurbished units from the
'60s and '70s, often coupled with modern digital electronics (shlock,
horror!!!!!!!!!!!). :-)
--


Classics does reissue a lot of titles from the fifties which would make said
refurbished cutting lathes newer. But, more importantly, it is the person using
them that matters along with the quality of the laquer which has improved since
then, so I am told, and the quality of the pressing which is certainly better
from RTI. I do believe that there are different cutting head amplifiers used
with these reissues than were used back in the day along with a whole slew of
different equalizers and other electronics in the signal path.


Equalizers and electronics (perhaps even some *solid state*) in the
signal path? Horror!!


--



-S.

"They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason."
-- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director

From: (maxdm)
Date: 5/26/2004 5:07 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

(S888Wheel) wrote in message
news:ATSsc.61675$gr.5948359@attbi_s52...
From: (maxdm)
Date: 5/25/2004 5:19 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Hello,

Has anyone compared classic records vinyl with original 50's 60's
first pressings?

Yes. Many are better some are not. By the way, it is a mistake to assume
first
pressings are the best.

Does anyone know if they use tube amps to cut masters (record cutting
head amps..that is)?

I believe they do now. They didn't early on.

I just bought the first 4 led zeppelin albums on Classic Rec. 200 gram
vinyl, I hope these were cut with a tube amp, anyone know ?

I don't know but I think they were. IMO the first two are less successful than
the second two.

What are considered the best sounding pressings for Beatles records?

Opinions abound on that one. You have to consider the fact that different
versions also have different mixes in many cases.


Is there a source of information readily available on the internet
that points out the best pressings.

Stevehoffman.tv and audioasylum vinylasylum.


I am assuming that since Neumann, Telefunken, AKG and Siemens are all
German, pressings made in Germany should sound better than most.
anyone have an opinion to share?






IMO RTI in Camarillo CA does the best job of it.

On Wed, 26 May 2004 22:56:11 GMT, Bromo wrote:

On 5/26/04 4:32 PM, in article O97tc.116677$536.21894782@attbi_s03, "Stewart
Pinkerton" wrote:

On 26 May 2004 03:38:11 GMT, Bromo wrote:

On 5/25/04 8:19 PM, in article , "maxdm"
wrote:

Hello,

Has anyone compared classic records vinyl with original 50's 60's
first pressings?

A friend of mine thinks the new pressings are better than the old pressings
- even old ones that never got played.

I don't know why - except that the technology is available today that wasn't
then....?

Actually, that's rubbish. While some quite remarkable pieces of
*replay* engineering have appeared, such as the Rockport Sirius III,
the best available cutting lathes are still refurbished units from the
'60s and '70s, often coupled with modern digital electronics (shlock,
horror!!!!!!!!!!!). :-)

Stewart - notice the question mark after my speculative sentence. And that
I preface that I don't know why.

Glad to hear you have it under control and that you agree that modern
pressings are better?

Not what I said at all. The best discs in my own collection are from
the '70s, even though that is generally agreed to have been the worst
period for mass-market pressing quality. I also have some excellent
pressings from the mid '60s, and from the '80s. I don't think that the
actual quality can be related to time, but only to care taken and to
the quality of the vinyl used (of which the '70s and '80s Japanese JVC
was probably the best of all time), since as I noted previously, the
basic quality of the cutting and stamping equipment hasn't really
changed since the early 70s.

OTOH, I haven't bought any new vinyl for about fifteen years, so I
wouldn't really know about *modern* pressing quality! :-)

I do have several vinylphile friends however, and they don't seem to
be finding any 'new dawn' in terms of pressing quality. Top-class
'audiophile' discs are as good as they have ever been, but not
seemingly any better than they were in the '70s when they first
appeared (MFSL, Sheffield etc), while the mass-market stuff (in so far
as there can be said to be such a thing now for vinyl) is as variable
as it ever was.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On 5/27/04 11:13 AM, in article JAntc.122634$xw3.7407997@attbi_s04, "Stewart
Pinkerton" wrote:

Glad to hear you have it under control and that you agree that modern
pressings are better?

Not what I said at all. The best discs in my own collection are from
the '70s, even though that is generally agreed to have been the worst
period for mass-market pressing quality.

Thanks for clearing it up. You tend to use "rubbish" a lot - and in this
case it was not entirely clear what you were "rubbishing."

I also have some excellent
pressings from the mid '60s, and from the '80s. I don't think that the
actual quality can be related to time, but only to care taken and to
the quality of the vinyl used (of which the '70s and '80s Japanese JVC
was probably the best of all time), since as I noted previously, the
basic quality of the cutting and stamping equipment hasn't really
changed since the early 70s.

But you *did* mention modern control equipment.

Equalizers and electronics (perhaps even some *solid state*) in the
signal path? Horror!!

Well I just received the classic records led zeppelin I II III & IV
and they are wery well made both as vinyl and the sleeve.

The records are more revealing than the original (70's 80's pressings)
vinyl I had years ago, and the feeling of the individual musicians
cuts through quite well.

The quality of the audio is not exactly what I was hoping for,
although it is very good.

As an example, I am listening to some early 60's 10" lp's and the
midrange fullness and resolution (not to mention that they are almost
as quiet as the new classic records) is superior . This is in part due
to the fact that multitrack was still in it's early stages and
everything in the signal path was tubes.

I think that the classic records are revealing as far as performance
but to a point.

They are a bit thin sounding, although the top end is more natural
than you would get from the cd's and it's worth it for this reason
alone.

I wonder what signal path they use from tape to cutting head.

Anyone know?

maxdm wrote:

Equalizers and electronics (perhaps even some *solid state*) in the
signal path? Horror!!

Well I just received the classic records led zeppelin I II III & IV
and they are wery well made both as vinyl and the sleeve.

Yet some folks on the Steve Hoffman forum claim they sound bad.

The records are more revealing than the original (70's 80's pressings)
vinyl I had years ago, and the feeling of the individual musicians
cuts through quite well.

Audio memory isn't very reliable. You might be surprised at
how good that old vinyl sounded.

The quality of the audio is not exactly what I was hoping for,
although it is very good.

Have you tried the CDs?

As an example, I am listening to some early 60's 10" lp's and the
midrange fullness and resolution (not to mention that they are almost
as quiet as the new classic records) is superior . This is in part due
to the fact that multitrack was still in it's early stages and
everything in the signal path was tubes.

Is that why?

They are a bit thin sounding, although the top end is more natural
than you would get from the cd's

That's highly unlikely.

--

-S.
Why don't you just admit that you hate music and leave people alone. --
spiffy

From: Steven Sullivan
Date: 6/10/2004 6:44 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: CAZxc.76624$Ly.20753@attbi_s01

maxdm wrote:

Equalizers and electronics (perhaps even some *solid state*) in the
signal path? Horror!!

Well I just received the classic records led zeppelin I II III & IV
and they are wery well made both as vinyl and the sleeve.

Yet some folks on the Steve Hoffman forum claim they sound bad.

Really? Who claimed theya ll sounded bad? I know common opinion is that the
first two are bettered by the Domestic issues mastered by Bob Ludwig. That is
hardly the same as thinking all four are bad.



The records are more revealing than the original (70's 80's pressings)
vinyl I had years ago, and the feeling of the individual musicians
cuts through quite well.

Audio memory isn't very reliable. You might be surprised at
how good that old vinyl sounded.

Indeed, depending on the issue.



The quality of the audio is not exactly what I was hoping for,
although it is very good.

Have you tried the CDs?

I have tried some of them. I'll take the Classics or the Bob Ludwigs.



As an example, I am listening to some early 60's 10" lp's and the
midrange fullness and resolution (not to mention that they are almost
as quiet as the new classic records) is superior . This is in part due
to the fact that multitrack was still in it's early stages and
everything in the signal path was tubes.

Is that why?

Good question. Of course we don't even know what record he is talking about.



They are a bit thin sounding, although the top end is more natural
than you would get from the cd's

That's highly unlikely.

They certainly are in my comparisons. But I haven't listened to every CD
version of every Led Zeppelin record. But I didn't find the top end thin at all
on the Classics. I found them bright on I and II and just plain excellent on
III and IV in comparison to my CDs or other LPs of those titles.

Yet some folks on the Steve Hoffman forum claim they sound bad.

Really? Who claimed theya ll sounded bad? I know common opinion is that the
first two are bettered by the Domestic issues mastered by Bob Ludwig. That is
hardly the same as thinking all four are bad.

Domestic issues? are these vinyl lp's?

I just got some original 1969 german pressings of I and II and when
they arrive I will compare them (they were sold as mint)



The records are more revealing than the original (70's 80's pressings)
vinyl I had years ago, and the feeling of the individual musicians
cuts through quite well.

Audio memory isn't very reliable. You might be surprised at
how good that old vinyl sounded.

Indeed, depending on the issue.

The german pressings should be the best sounding (if they were not
excessively played-out) as germans basically manufactured most of the
recording equipment (neumann, Telefunken, Siemens etc.)in those days
and it was all top-notch.


The quality of the audio is not exactly what I was hoping for,
although it is very good.

Have you tried the CDs?

I have tried some of them. I'll take the Classics or the Bob Ludwigs.

I have the box set, issued years ago.... are there others worth
looking into?


Is that why?

Good question. Of course we don't even know what record he is talking about.

regarding my comparison with old lp's:
The vinyl in these early 10" lp's is very quiet. tube gear will
inevitably produce more accurate midrange imaging (not consumer tube
gear that uses ecc83's and the like but professional gear).
This is an opinion that some people do not share. But most of these
people have never actually compared solid state vs. professional tube
gear in a recording environment (I have) and the difference is not
slight.



They are a bit thin sounding, although the top end is more natural
than you would get from the cd's

That's highly unlikely.

Well if there is something to be criticized about digital it is the
unnatural high end.
it can be heard in the 'livelyness' of the instruments (cd's will
sound a little flat on the attack of a picked acoustic guitar or on
the transients of percussion instruments)
you can also see this by looking at the output of a digital-to-analog
converter: the waveform gets mangled from say 5 KHz up.
at 10 KHz there is considerable waveform distortion.
this is not an opinion but a fact, that's why high sampling rates
exist.

They certainly are in my comparisons. But I haven't listened to every CD
version of every Led Zeppelin record. But I didn't find the top end thin at all
on the Classics. I found them bright on I and II and just plain excellent on
III and IV in comparison to my CDs or other LPs of those titles.


I noticed this as well.
Jimmy page used to employ an altec limiter on some of the instruments
that when driven hard produces a grinding distortion (guitar on Babe
I'm gonna leave you).
I believe he liked the sound of davey graham's guitar which was also
recorded through an altec limiter.
you can hear the grind of the compressors and the tape saturation on
the drums and other instruments (this was quite common for rock music
as it makes the record sound 'hotter' (louder) and more aggressive on
radio.
perhaps in other pressings the highs were attenuated to compensate for
the added harmonics and harshness that the distortion produced.

maybe the top end was like that on the master tape.

Led zeppelin II was recorded with similar equipment but a little less
distortion.
by the time they got to three they were using more modern equipment
and the instruments were not overdriving the multitrack recorders as
much as the third and fourth albums.

maxdm wrote:

That's highly unlikely.

Well if there is something to be criticized about digital it is the
unnatural high end.
it can be heard in the 'livelyness' of the instruments (cd's will
sound a little flat on the attack of a picked acoustic guitar or on
the transients of percussion instruments)
you can also see this by looking at the output of a digital-to-analog
converter: the waveform gets mangled from say 5 KHz up.
at 10 KHz there is considerable waveform distortion.
this is not an opinion but a fact, that's why high sampling rates
exist.


First, please provde evidence for the 'fact' that competent D/A stages
mangle to waveform from 5 kHz up to the limiting Nyquist frequency.
This is important news if true, and should be addressed forthwith
by DAC engineers.
Second,why would high sampling rates affect how the D/A section
per se behaves? Sampling is done at the A/D stage (or during
resampling in the digital domain).
Third, AIUI, high sampling rates exist
to allow more headroom for digital manipulation, without fear
of audible loss of information.

Fourth, if you hear anything 'unnatural' about the current Led Zeppelin
CDs compared to LPs, it's more likely due to the equalization Jimmy
Page et al applied during remastering versus whatevere EQ was applied
in previous versions, than to anything inherent in CD.




--

-S.
Why don't you just admit that you hate music and leave people alone. --
spiffy

maxdm wrote:

Well if there is something to be criticized about digital it is the
unnatural high end.

It exposes the limitations of microphone pickup patterns. You're not seeing
the bigger picture.

it can be heard in the 'livelyness' of the instruments (cd's will
sound a little flat on the attack of a picked acoustic guitar or on
the transients of percussion instruments)
you can also see this by looking at the output of a digital-to-analog
converter: the waveform gets mangled from say 5 KHz up.
at 10 KHz there is considerable waveform distortion.
this is not an opinion but a fact, that's why high sampling rates
exist.

It is not a fact. Your statement sounds like another analysis done by
ignoring the reconstruction filter which means you are analzing a broken
system.

maxdm wrote:

Well if there is something to be criticized about digital it is the
unnatural high end.
it can be heard in the 'livelyness' of the instruments (cd's will
sound a little flat on the attack of a picked acoustic guitar or on
the transients of percussion instruments)
you can also see this by looking at the output of a digital-to-analog
converter: the waveform gets mangled from say 5 KHz up.
at 10 KHz there is considerable waveform distortion.
this is not an opinion but a fact, that's why high sampling rates
exist.


I'm afraid that you, like a lot of audiophiles, do not understand
digital audio or the sampling theorem.

Waveforms from 5KHz do not get mangled in CD's. In fact, sinewaves up to
20KHz are preserved pristinely in CD's, with the exception of the noise
floor being 93 dB or so down.

From: (maxdm)
Date: 6/11/2004 6:39 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: eCiyc.27705$HG.19171@attbi_s53

Yet some folks on the Steve Hoffman forum claim they sound bad.

Really? Who claimed theya ll sounded bad? I know common opinion is that the
first two are bettered by the Domestic issues mastered by Bob Ludwig. That
is
hardly the same as thinking all four are bad.

Domestic issues? are these vinyl lp's?

Yes


I just got some original 1969 german pressings of I and II and when
they arrive I will compare them (they were sold as mint)

I look forward to you report. Please let us know exactly what you are comparing
them to. There are several variations of the domestic issues of these LPs. The
best ones are the ones mastered by Bob Ludwig. They can be identified by the
initials RL at the end of the stamper numbers.




The records are more revealing than the original (70's 80's pressings)
vinyl I had years ago, and the feeling of the individual musicians
cuts through quite well.

Audio memory isn't very reliable. You might be surprised at
how good that old vinyl sounded.

Indeed, depending on the issue.

The german pressings should be the best sounding (if they were not
excessively played-out) as germans basically manufactured most of the
recording equipment (neumann, Telefunken, Siemens etc.)in those days
and it was all top-notch.

Yeah but they did export those lathes so I'm not sure that will matter. The
mastering engineer will matter though.



The quality of the audio is not exactly what I was hoping for,
although it is very good.

Have you tried the CDs?

I have tried some of them. I'll take the Classics or the Bob Ludwigs.

I have the box set, issued years ago.... are there others worth
looking into?

Opinions vary.



Is that why?

Good question. Of course we don't even know what record he is talking
about.

regarding my comparison with old lp's:
The vinyl in these early 10" lp's is very quiet. tube gear will
inevitably produce more accurate midrange imaging (not consumer tube
gear that uses ecc83's and the like but professional gear).
This is an opinion that some people do not share. But most of these
people have never actually compared solid state vs. professional tube
gear in a recording environment (I have) and the difference is not
slight.

What titles are you talking about and what issues are you comparing?




They are a bit thin sounding, although the top end is more natural
than you would get from the cd's

That's highly unlikely.

Well if there is something to be criticized about digital it is the
unnatural high end.
it can be heard in the 'livelyness' of the instruments (cd's will
sound a little flat on the attack of a picked acoustic guitar or on
the transients of percussion instruments)
you can also see this by looking at the output of a digital-to-analog
converter: the waveform gets mangled from say 5 KHz up.
at 10 KHz there is considerable waveform distortion.
this is not an opinion but a fact, that's why high sampling rates
exist.

They certainly are in my comparisons. But I haven't listened to every CD
version of every Led Zeppelin record. But I didn't find the top end thin at
all
on the Classics. I found them bright on I and II and just plain excellent
on
III and IV in comparison to my CDs or other LPs of those titles.


I noticed this as well.
Jimmy page used to employ an altec limiter on some of the instruments
that when driven hard produces a grinding distortion (guitar on Babe
I'm gonna leave you).
I believe he liked the sound of davey graham's guitar which was also
recorded through an altec limiter.
you can hear the grind of the compressors and the tape saturation on
the drums and other instruments (this was quite common for rock music
as it makes the record sound 'hotter' (louder) and more aggressive on
radio.
perhaps in other pressings the highs were attenuated to compensate for
the added harmonics and harshness that the distortion produced.

maybe the top end was like that on the master tape.

Led zeppelin II was recorded with similar equipment but a little less
distortion.
by the time they got to three they were using more modern equipment
and the instruments were not overdriving the multitrack recorders as
much as the third and fourth albums.

On 6/12/04 12:50 AM, in article fYvyc.13338$eu.8458@attbi_s02, "chung"
wrote:

maxdm wrote:

Well if there is something to be criticized about digital it is the
unnatural high end.
it can be heard in the 'livelyness' of the instruments (cd's will
sound a little flat on the attack of a picked acoustic guitar or on
the transients of percussion instruments)
you can also see this by looking at the output of a digital-to-analog
converter: the waveform gets mangled from say 5 KHz up.
at 10 KHz there is considerable waveform distortion.
this is not an opinion but a fact, that's why high sampling rates
exist.


I'm afraid that you, like a lot of audiophiles, do not understand
digital audio or the sampling theorem.

Waveforms from 5KHz do not get mangled in CD's. In fact, sinewaves up to
20KHz are preserved pristinely in CD's, with the exception of the noise
floor being 93 dB or so down.

Actually, most of the mangling is not sine wave based, but when you get more
complicated waveforms - and the recoding device it he studio has an older
brick wall filter to anti-alias - the phase distortion is apparent as low as
1-2kHz.

Sine wave reproduction at 1kHz is not perfect - mostly due to imperfections
in the DAC and usually cheap/poorly executed analog stages. Most mid range
priced ($300) CD players made from c.1996 on later tend to have better DACs
and decent analog stages.

Bromo wrote:
On 6/12/04 12:50 AM, in article fYvyc.13338$eu.8458@attbi_s02, "chung"
wrote:

maxdm wrote:

Well if there is something to be criticized about digital it is the
unnatural high end.
it can be heard in the 'livelyness' of the instruments (cd's will
sound a little flat on the attack of a picked acoustic guitar or on
the transients of percussion instruments)
you can also see this by looking at the output of a digital-to-analog
converter: the waveform gets mangled from say 5 KHz up.
at 10 KHz there is considerable waveform distortion.
this is not an opinion but a fact, that's why high sampling rates
exist.


I'm afraid that you, like a lot of audiophiles, do not understand
digital audio or the sampling theorem.

Waveforms from 5KHz do not get mangled in CD's. In fact, sinewaves up to
20KHz are preserved pristinely in CD's, with the exception of the noise
floor being 93 dB or so down.

Actually, most of the mangling is not sine wave based, but when you get more
complicated waveforms - and the recoding device it he studio has an older
brick wall filter to anti-alias - the phase distortion is apparent as low as
1-2kHz.

Are you confusing a possible defect in an incompetent implementation of
a technology with a defect of a technology?

I guess that could have been highly incompetent implementations that
screw up phase response at 1 or 2 KHz, but it is child's play nowadays
to not do that.

Have you seen phase distortion at 1 KHz from a CD player? Or an ADC?


Sine wave reproduction at 1kHz is not perfect - mostly due to imperfections
in the DAC and usually cheap/poorly executed analog stages.

Please provide examples of how a 1 KHz sinewave is not reproduced
pristinely due to phase distortion.

Most mid range
priced ($300) CD players made from c.1996 on later tend to have better DACs
and decent analog stages.

Please provide examples justifying your claim. Show some test results of
inferior performance from CD players earlier than 1996, compared to
newer ones.

On 6/12/04 12:49 AM, in article NXvyc.20891$0y.4914@attbi_s03,
" wrote:

maxdm wrote:

Well if there is something to be criticized about digital it is the
unnatural high end.

It exposes the limitations of microphone pickup patterns. You're not seeing
the bigger picture.

it can be heard in the 'livelyness' of the instruments (cd's will
sound a little flat on the attack of a picked acoustic guitar or on
the transients of percussion instruments)
you can also see this by looking at the output of a digital-to-analog
converter: the waveform gets mangled from say 5 KHz up.
at 10 KHz there is considerable waveform distortion.
this is not an opinion but a fact, that's why high sampling rates
exist.

It is not a fact. Your statement sounds like another analysis done by
ignoring the reconstruction filter which means you are analzing a broken
system.


If you were to look at a waveform on an oscilliscope out of a typical CD
player - you will notice errors on the sine wave - even in a player that is
not broken. Audible? Perhaps, perhaps not but they are there. Essentially
a sine wave being produced converts a CD player into an ersatz DDS with 16
bits of resolution.

First, please provde evidence for the 'fact' that competent D/A stages
mangle to waveform from 5 kHz up to the limiting Nyquist frequency.
This is important news if true, and should be addressed forthwith
by DAC engineers.

O.K. If you consider that digital systems take an analog waveform and
make it fit into a time grid, the closer the waveform frequency is to
half the sampling frequency the less resoultion you will have.
the reconstruction filters make an approximation by reconstructing the
wave form from one sample to the next, effectively smoothing out the
waveform.
but they are only filling in from one sample to the next.
if you sample a steady recurring waveform such as a sine wave or
triangle wave, you'll find that shifting the signal in and out of
'phase' with the time grid will cause some side-effects that increase
as frequency increases.
music by the way is not made of sine waves, so the fact that you can
reproduce a 10 khz sine wave only proves that the system can reproduce
10 khz sine waves.
If you have a hard time pinning this effect down soundwise just take a
..wav file and downsample it to 22khz and 11.5
you will hear that sampling frequency does not only determine
frequency bandwidth, but it decreases resoultion well below the 1/2
sampling rate limit.
it becomes grainy and produces weird harmonics, which are the product
of the 'steps' from one sample to the next.
If you were to take an analog (never been digitized) signal and limit
the bandwidth with a low pass filter you would not get the same
effect.
the resolution would be high up to the cutoff point.

Digital consumer audio was conceived for consumers.
Hi-fi specs such as frequency response, wow and flutter and thd are
all met by 44.1/16 bits.

unfortunately this format does not reproduce the waveform nuances in
the high end, such as transients, accurately.
The ear is very sensitive to high frequency information when it comes
to feel, sence of space, realism etc.
the reason why listening to analog feels different is because the
mind reacts to the sound as something more tangible.

Just go and listen to a live acoustic group with great musicians and
close your eyes.

Second,why would high sampling rates affect how the D/A section
per se behaves? Sampling is done at the A/D stage (or during
resampling in the digital domain).
Third, AIUI, high sampling rates exist
to allow more headroom for digital manipulation, without fear
of audible loss of information.

You must consider that the industry spends a lot of money developing
tecnology.
once they spend the money they need to recover that money and the earn
more money off of the original developments for further development.
High sample rates have not been utilized because of the cost of the
tecnology.
Consider that the first digital recorders already costed as much as a
house with the minimum sample rate of 44.1 or 48 khz that you need to
get a 20KHz frequency bandwidth.
There was a time when it was impossible to begin to think about
nuances in the high frequency spectrum.
The fact that digital got off the ground like it did is already quite
an achievement, economically speaking.

Now that digital is way cheaper than analog to produce, and given that
the limiting aspects of digital have been optimized in the last ten or
so years we now have the capability to increase resolution in the high
end.

What would a digital recorder that costs as much as a house sound like
now? Probably very good.

Fourth, if you hear anything 'unnatural' about the current Led Zeppelin
CDs compared to LPs, it's more likely due to the equalization Jimmy
Page et al applied during remastering versus whatevere EQ was applied
in previous versions, than to anything inherent in CD.

That's a part of it, but when I listen to led zeppelin on vinyl I can
feel the presence of the musicians and the dream that they are weaving
seems more glorious to me. this is due to the transients and time
resolution I believe. Rhythm and timing are what influence feel most.
listen to percussion on and tambourines on analog and then the same on
digital.
I remember recording from a microphone straight to 2 track at 15
I.P.S. on an ampex 440 and recording on digital.
digital is closer in tonal balance and in reproducing the low end etc.
but the illusion of being there is superior on analog.

On 6/12/04 12:48 PM, in article CtGyc.74669$3x.33764@attbi_s54, "chung"
wrote:

Bromo wrote:
On 6/12/04 12:50 AM, in article fYvyc.13338$eu.8458@attbi_s02, "chung"
wrote:

maxdm wrote:

Well if there is something to be criticized about digital it is the
unnatural high end.
it can be heard in the 'livelyness' of the instruments (cd's will
sound a little flat on the attack of a picked acoustic guitar or on
the transients of percussion instruments)
you can also see this by looking at the output of a digital-to-analog
converter: the waveform gets mangled from say 5 KHz up.
at 10 KHz there is considerable waveform distortion.
this is not an opinion but a fact, that's why high sampling rates
exist.


I'm afraid that you, like a lot of audiophiles, do not understand
digital audio or the sampling theorem.

Waveforms from 5KHz do not get mangled in CD's. In fact, sinewaves up to
20KHz are preserved pristinely in CD's, with the exception of the noise
floor being 93 dB or so down.

Actually, most of the mangling is not sine wave based, but when you get more
complicated waveforms - and the recoding device it he studio has an older
brick wall filter to anti-alias - the phase distortion is apparent as low as
1-2kHz.

Are you confusing a possible defect in an incompetent implementation of
a technology with a defect of a technology?

I am not confusing anything - I am plainly stating that one possible
explanation is that the recording equipment's brick wall filter may cause
some digital recordings to sound bad - even when the LF informaiton is
pristine.

I guess that could have been highly incompetent implementations that
screw up phase response at 1 or 2 KHz, but it is child's play nowadays
to not do that.

Actually, it is not - but the "work around" is to sample at 24 bit and 96 or
192kHz sample rate to allow the "brick wall" filter to be a slow roll off
filter.

Neither technique could be "child's play" - as it is more difficult and
technically challenging to get a decent digital recording than a analog
recording.

On 6/12/04 12:48 PM, in article CtGyc.74669$3x.33764@attbi_s54, "chung"
wrote:

Most mid range
priced ($300) CD players made from c.1996 on later tend to have better DACs
and decent analog stages.

Please provide examples justifying your claim. Show some test results of
inferior performance from CD players earlier than 1996, compared to
newer ones.

Why on earth should I do that, chung?

On 6/12/04 12:57 PM, in article 2CGyc.14833$2i5.11215@attbi_s52, "maxdm"
wrote:

Fourth, if you hear anything 'unnatural' about the current Led Zeppelin
CDs compared to LPs, it's more likely due to the equalization Jimmy
Page et al applied during remastering versus whatevere EQ was applied
in previous versions, than to anything inherent in CD.

That's a part of it,

Oh, yes it is! Jimjy Page's hearing is just about destroyed - and they let
him EQ it in a stroke of "marketing genius" -- and the remasters are much
worse than the first cuts on CD which were less than inspiring.

I do think Vinyl sounds the best by far - but CD and digital are the mediums
that have the best selection. Also, consider that ADC's are much harder to
make than DAC's - and analog tape recordings today transferred to CD in a
simply miked setup sound great. Almost as good as medium quality vinyl,
even.

but when I listen to led zeppelin on vinyl I can
feel the presence of the musicians and the dream that they are weaving
seems more glorious to me. this is due to the transients and time
resolution I believe. Rhythm and timing are what influence feel most.
listen to percussion on and tambourines on analog and then the same on
digital.

When you get to soft passages, the quantization noise in digital is much
closer to the signal peaks - and at the high end of the spectrum (10-20kHz)
the effects of smearing are greater which is usually found to be sopranos,
snare drums, and violins can be very grating.

I remember recording from a microphone straight to 2 track at 15
I.P.S. on an ampex 440 and recording on digital.
digital is closer in tonal balance and in reproducing the low end etc.
but the illusion of being there is superior on analog.

On 6/12/04 12:57 PM, in article 2CGyc.14833$2i5.11215@attbi_s52, "maxdm"
wrote:

music by the way is not made of sine waves,

It can be approximated by a taylor series, however, but has to eb convolved
with certain functions, etc. in order to represent turning on and off.

Bromo wrote:
On 6/12/04 12:49 AM, in article NXvyc.20891$0y.4914@attbi_s03,
" wrote:

maxdm wrote:

Well if there is something to be criticized about digital it is the
unnatural high end.

It exposes the limitations of microphone pickup patterns. You're not seeing
the bigger picture.

it can be heard in the 'livelyness' of the instruments (cd's will
sound a little flat on the attack of a picked acoustic guitar or on
the transients of percussion instruments)
you can also see this by looking at the output of a digital-to-analog
converter: the waveform gets mangled from say 5 KHz up.
at 10 KHz there is considerable waveform distortion.
this is not an opinion but a fact, that's why high sampling rates
exist.

It is not a fact. Your statement sounds like another analysis done by
ignoring the reconstruction filter which means you are analzing a broken
system.


If you were to look at a waveform on an oscilliscope out of a typical CD
player - you will notice errors on the sine wave - even in a player that is
not broken. Audible? Perhaps, perhaps not but they are there. Essentially
a sine wave being produced converts a CD player into an ersatz DDS with 16
bits of resolution.

I didn't say it was perfect. I was only commenting on his use of the word
'mangled' being a 'fact,' which was simply misleading hyperbole.

There have been those in here who have made arguments of CD inferiority based
upon ignoring the reconstruction filter, which is like saying LP is tilted
toward the treble by looking at the output before RIAA equalization.

Bromo wrote:

On 6/12/04 12:57 PM, in article 2CGyc.14833$2i5.11215@attbi_s52, "maxdm"
wrote:

music by the way is not made of sine waves,

It can be approximated by a taylor series, however, but has to eb convolved
with certain functions, etc. in order to represent turning on and off.


I have to point it out to you again, it is Fourier analysis.

maxdm wrote:

First, please provde evidence for the 'fact' that competent D/A stages
mangle to waveform from 5 kHz up to the limiting Nyquist frequency.
This is important news if true, and should be addressed forthwith
by DAC engineers.

O.K. If you consider that digital systems take an analog waveform and
make it fit into a time grid, the closer the waveform frequency is to
half the sampling frequency the less resoultion you will have.
the reconstruction filters make an approximation by reconstructing the
wave form from one sample to the next, effectively smoothing out the
waveform.
but they are only filling in from one sample to the next.
if you sample a steady recurring waveform such as a sine wave or
triangle wave, you'll find that shifting the signal in and out of
'phase' with the time grid will cause some side-effects that increase
as frequency increases.

And in practice with Redbook CD this translates to 'mangling' up to 20kHz,
which translates to an audible effect, how?

music by the way is not made of sine waves, so the fact that you can
reproduce a 10 khz sine wave only proves that the system can reproduce
10 khz sine waves.
If you have a hard time pinning this effect down soundwise just take a
.wav file and downsample it to 22khz and 11.5
you will hear that sampling frequency does not only determine
frequency bandwidth, but it decreases resoultion well below the 1/2
sampling rate limit.

Why would I want to do that? CD playback is 44.1/16 not 22/11.5.
Recording is more like 96/24 these days. The question is whether
*these* specs intrinsically and audibly 'mangles' frequencies from 10-20 kHz.

it becomes grainy and produces weird harmonics, which are the product
of the 'steps' from one sample to the next.
If you were to take an analog (never been digitized) signal and limit
the bandwidth with a low pass filter you would not get the same
effect.
the resolution would be high up to the cutoff point.

Digital consumer audio was conceived for consumers.
Hi-fi specs such as frequency response, wow and flutter and thd are
all met by 44.1/16 bits.

Indeed.

unfortunately this format does not reproduce the waveform nuances in
the high end, such as transients, accurately.

so you say

The ear is very sensitive to high frequency information when it comes
to feel, sence of space, realism etc.
the reason why listening to analog feels different is because the
mind reacts to the sound as something more tangible.

And analog media reproduce the waveform nuancces of the 'high
end' more accurately?

Just go and listen to a live acoustic group with great musicians and
close your eyes.

Without a way of comparing it directly to a recording, that's kind
of a dodgy way to make a judgement of said recording.

Second,why would high sampling rates affect how the D/A section
per se behaves? Sampling is done at the A/D stage (or during
resampling in the digital domain).
Third, AIUI, high sampling rates exist
to allow more headroom for digital manipulation, without fear
of audible loss of information.

You must consider that the industry spends a lot of money developing
tecnology.
once they spend the money they need to recover that money and the earn
more money off of the original developments for further development.
High sample rates have not been utilized because of the cost of the
tecnology.

Actually, I miswrote; it's high bit-*depths* that are used to allow
more headroom. And these have been in use for years now.

On 6/13/04 5:37 PM, in article eO3zc.17010$Hg2.13507@attbi_s04, "Steven
Sullivan" wrote:

Why would I want to do that? CD playback is 44.1/16 not 22/11.5.
Recording is more like 96/24 these days. The question is whether
*these* specs intrinsically and audibly 'mangles' frequencies from 10-20 kHz.

The recording does not have to have a brick wall filter - but a slow rolloff
filter - which will have much less phase effect. From what I remember about
my filter design classes, is that in the vast majority (all of them? I do
not recall) the phase starts rolling off sometime before the amplitude in a
filter response.

In recording at 44.1kHz, with a "brick wall" style of filter, the phase
begins shifting around 1-2kHz.

In 24/96, you can put the poles of the filter much, much higher than 20kHz
and make it a lower order filter to gently roll off which means the phase
shift happens at frequencies that are not audible.

On 6/13/04 11:34 AM, in article ou_yc.83417$3x.49759@attbi_s54, "chung"
wrote:

Bromo wrote:

On 6/12/04 12:57 PM, in article 2CGyc.14833$2i5.11215@attbi_s52, "maxdm"
wrote:

music by the way is not made of sine waves,

It can be approximated by a taylor series, however, but has to eb convolved
with certain functions, etc. in order to represent turning on and off.


I have to point it out to you again

Again?

, it is Fourier analysis.


A Fourier transform is a mathematical method of changing time domain
waveforms into a frequency domain. One example used in DSP is a FFT
algorithm. However, a Fourier analysis does not always involve sine waves,
while a TAYLOR SERIES always involves them.

Which was my point.

Again, I remind you to read the entire thread before correction - or you
might not look so good.

Bromo wrote:
On 6/13/04 11:34 AM, in article ou_yc.83417$3x.49759@attbi_s54, "chung"
wrote:

Bromo wrote:

On 6/12/04 12:57 PM, in article 2CGyc.14833$2i5.11215@attbi_s52, "maxdm"
wrote:

music by the way is not made of sine waves,

It can be approximated by a taylor series, however, but has to eb convolved
with certain functions, etc. in order to represent turning on and off.


I have to point it out to you again

Again?

Less than one month ago, you made the same mistake:

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...s54%26rnum%3D3

, it is Fourier analysis.


A Fourier transform is a mathematical method of changing time domain
waveforms into a frequency domain. One example used in DSP is a FFT
algorithm. However, a Fourier analysis does not always involve sine waves,
while a TAYLOR SERIES always involves them.

You need to study your math books. Taylor series is a power series
expansion of a function around an operating point. Fourier analysis is
the transformation of a time-domian function to the frequency domain.
Frequency domain is described with *sinusoidal* basis waveforms. Of
course, in Fourier analysis, amplitudes of the sinusiodal functions can
be complex, and frequencies both negative and positive.

I am surprised that an RF engineer has trouble with these concepts.

Which was my point.

Again, I remind you to read the entire thread before correction - or you
might not look so good.

Good advice.

Bromo wrote:

On 6/12/04 12:48 PM, in article CtGyc.74669$3x.33764@attbi_s54, "chung"
wrote:

Bromo wrote:
On 6/12/04 12:50 AM, in article fYvyc.13338$eu.8458@attbi_s02, "chung"
wrote:

maxdm wrote:

Well if there is something to be criticized about digital it is the
unnatural high end.
it can be heard in the 'livelyness' of the instruments (cd's will
sound a little flat on the attack of a picked acoustic guitar or on
the transients of percussion instruments)
you can also see this by looking at the output of a digital-to-analog
converter: the waveform gets mangled from say 5 KHz up.
at 10 KHz there is considerable waveform distortion.
this is not an opinion but a fact, that's why high sampling rates
exist.


I'm afraid that you, like a lot of audiophiles, do not understand
digital audio or the sampling theorem.

Waveforms from 5KHz do not get mangled in CD's. In fact, sinewaves up to
20KHz are preserved pristinely in CD's, with the exception of the noise
floor being 93 dB or so down.

Actually, most of the mangling is not sine wave based, but when you get more
complicated waveforms - and the recoding device it he studio has an older
brick wall filter to anti-alias - the phase distortion is apparent as low as
1-2kHz.

Are you confusing a possible defect in an incompetent implementation of
a technology with a defect of a technology?

I am not confusing anything - I am plainly stating that one possible
explanation is that the recording equipment's brick wall filter may cause
some digital recordings to sound bad - even when the LF informaiton is
pristine.

Note that the OP stated that DAC's mangled 5KHz signals. He did not say
that it was poor implementation of ADC's that mangled them.

And you seem to agree with him that the 5KHz signals are mangled.


I guess that could have been highly incompetent implementations that
screw up phase response at 1 or 2 KHz, but it is child's play nowadays
to not do that.

Actually, it is not - but the "work around" is to sample at 24 bit and 96 or
192kHz sample rate to allow the "brick wall" filter to be a slow roll off
filter.

Have you heard of oversampling, a technique that has been in use for 20
years?

No, it has nothing to do with 24 bit or 96/192 KHz sampling rates, which
were obviously not common at all 20 years ago.

Neither technique could be "child's play" - as it is more difficult and
technically challenging to get a decent digital recording than a analog
recording.

Wrong. You can get a decent digital recording much easier, and much
cheaper. Notice how many people have successfully recorded vinyl LP's to
CD's. Or notice how many have used the "lowly" minidisc recorders for
*decent* amatuer recordings in digital. You can easily get soundcards
that outperform analog recorders costing orders of magnitude more.

Bromo wrote:

On 6/12/04 12:48 PM, in article CtGyc.74669$3x.33764@attbi_s54, "chung"
wrote:

Most mid range
priced ($300) CD players made from c.1996 on later tend to have better DACs
and decent analog stages.

Please provide examples justifying your claim. Show some test results of
inferior performance from CD players earlier than 1996, compared to
newer ones.

Why on earth should I do that, chung?


I was hoping that you could back up that claim.