Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#81
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Any impressions on the EMM Labs CDSA-SE CD/SACD player?
"Arny Krueger" wrote:
It's just a matter of presenting a balanced picture. If the noisy minority would let the LP be in its proper place, then there would be less criticism of its well-known and rather gross failings. Vinyl : Rising distortion with increasing level can enhance the perception of dynamic range. Complexity of spatial information may be increased. Out of phase rumble. Just a few examples of mechanical aspects of vinyl which are *euphonic*, or "pleasing to the ear". The proper place for vinyl is where people who enjoy the sound of it, have easy access to it. What would be interesting is a stat that shows numbers of LPs sold for listening, rather than for scratching. Since there is no longer any need to scratch LPs in order to create the audible effect Go to some clubs. Many of the more popular DJs still use vinyl. -- S i g n a l @ l i n e o n e . n e t |
#82
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Any impressions on the EMM Labs CDSA-SE CD/SACD player?
"Arny Krueger" wrote:
First of all, let's get straight what we are talking about here. I'm not interested in, or talking, about billions of people. I'm talking about high-end audiophiles - people to whom the reproduction of music is important. The myth here is very self-centered. It is the false claim that reproduction of music is important to only high end audiophiles. The average consumer doesn't really care. In fact the reproduction of music is so important to the average consumer that the average consumer dropped the LP like a hot potato as soon as a superior alternative in the form of the CD became generally available. You are making a logical error here, by excluding factors. Other delivery systems besides vinyl are dominating the market more due to convenience than anything else. Plus, the relative ease with which you can obtain a decent sound, compared with setting up and maintaining a record deck. However, proportionally more attentively-listening audiophiles consider good vinyl to be on a par with or better than CD, compared to the overall market. -- S i g n a l @ l i n e o n e . n e t |
#83
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Any impressions on the EMM Labs CDSA-SE CD/SACD player?
On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 21:00:31 -0800, Codifus wrote
(in article ): Sonnova wrote: On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 13:55:40 -0800, Keith Hughes wrote (in article ): Sonnova wrote: On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 09:36:12 -0800, wrote (in article ): snip but I'll give you an example, anyway - just to show where I'm coming from with this line of thinking. I have two copies of the Mercury Living Presence recording of Stravinsky's "Firebird" ballet with Antal Dorati and the Minneapolis Symphony. One is the CD mastered by the recording's original producers Wilma Cozert Fine, and Robert Eberenz. It sounds OK. Then, several years ago, I purchased the Classic Records re-mastering of the same work on vinyl. snip Right, so on the basis of two totally different masterings (i.e. the actual spectral composition was changed between formats, not 'just' the requisite RIAA curve application) of the performance, you think you can make a valid comparison of formats? Sorry, not possible - whatever format comparison you choose (MP3-Vinyl-CD-SACD-etc.). Keith Hughes That's not important. The LP sounds incredible, the CD sounds mediocre. I'm not inferring ANYTHING from that other than what I said. There are four ways to buy that performance: 1) find a used original issue or later Phillips issue of the LP, 2) buy the Classics Records 45RPM disc set, 3) buy the original CD and 4) get the recently re-mastered SACD release. I have all four. The Classic Records 3-sided 45 RPM CD sounds the most like real music and is, without a doubt, one of the best sounding recordings I've ever heard. The SACD sounds better than the original CD release, but not as good as the Classic pressing. The original LP sounds better than both CD releases but not as good as the Classic Records pressing. That's the problem with most comparisons of LP and CD. The reference is always relative to the other recording, not the original master recording. Of course. Most of us don't have access to the masters. On the particular recording that I am using as an example, the original producer of the recording Wilma Cozert Fine mastered the CD. She said in an interview that to her ears, the CD masters sound precisely like the master tape. That's about as close as any of us are going to get. Sure, LP may sound better than CD or SACD, but how do you really know how good it is unless you've heard the original master recording? The answer is, of course, I don't. The LP could have made the original recording sound more pleasant with less dynamics and a less harsh top end. I'll admit that LP recordings tend to sound more plaeasant to me than alot of CDs I have. But that, to me has alot to do with CD having a way superior dynamic range, so dynamics hit you harder, and probably harsher, than LP. CD has no limit in its high frequency response compared to that of LP, whereas LP has to roll off the high frequencies because the medium just can't handle it. Therefore, any unpleasantness or hardshness in higher frewquencies is presented to you, full blown from the CD. The mastering engineer has to work much hard to make a pleasant CD because it deliver's everything to you, warts and all. In the LP, some mistakes are swallowed up or pleasantly washed over due to its limitations. I know 2 people who have access to master tapes, and they say when CD is done right, no question. LP does not even come close. The issue lies with duplication and mass production. I don't doubt it. I have transferred a number of my master tapes to CD. The result is indistinguishable from the master tape. But let me put to an alternative question. What would you say if those same master tapes that yield a perfect CD copy were to yield an LP that sounded better (as in more real) than the master tape? Now, with SACD, I gather that Sony made a considerable effort to make sure it sounds great, so they employed some great mastering engineers in their productions. Also, SACD is inferior to even CD in technical ability in terms of high frequency noise above 10 Khz. I get the feeling that the noise shaping algorythms used in SACD that tranfer the noise to the upper frequencies tend to make a performance sound more pleasant. A loose analogy I would make is with the audio cassette. When you make a cassette recording with no noise reduction, the resulting recording has alot of hiss. When playing that recordning, the hiss makes the recording seem to have a higher frequency response than it actually does during playback. I get the vague notion that the noise shaping circuits in SACD have a somewhat similarly pleasant effect on a recording. Could be. I've known people who turned their Dolby B decoder on their cassette players OFF when playing back pre-recorded Dolby-ized tapes because not understanding how Dolby worked, they thought it was cutting the highs and making the tape sound dull. Just my 2 cents. CD |
#84
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Any impressions on the EMM Labs CDSA-SE CD/SACD player?
Sonnova wrote:
On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 14:40:27 -0800, Steven Sullivan wrote (in article ): Arny Krueger wrote: "Sonnova" wrote in message The LP sounds incredible, the CD sounds mediocre. LPs go tic-tic-tic and rumble, rumble, rumble. I've never been to a live concert that had inner groove distortion. Have you? The CD (and SACD) sounds incredible to me. Is Sonnova suggesting that everyone would certainly find the LP better-sounding? Really, what is the point of such testimonials? NO, NO, NO! please read and understand the entire thread before commenting. I have an LP (ONE three disc, single-sided, 45 RPM release by Classic Records) that stands head and shoulders above all other commercial recordings that I own in terms of REALISM. It is simply incredible. I also have an earlier release of the same performance on a single 33.3 disc and I have both the CD of that performance and the recent SACD of it. NONE of them sound as REAL as that Classic Records release. From that, more than half the people on this NG have fabricated an opinion that I prefer ALL LPs to all CDs/SACDs. I have never said or meant anything of the kind! And now you've misunderstood what I wrote up there. Yes, we know *you* liked the LP of that particular recording better than its CD and SACD releases. So what? Others might prefer the CD or the SACD. Really, what is the point of such testimonials? ___ -S "As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy, metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason |
#85
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Any impressions on the EMM Labs CDSA-SE CD/SACD player?
willbill wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote: Doug McDonald wrote: The SACD has great merit because it is multichannel. It isn't necessarily so . And it's not the only multichannel-capable format. for audio only, besides SACD and DVD-A, what else is there for decent multichannel sound? (not that DVD-A is decent!) DTS, Dolby Digital, both in various flavors. And yes, DVD-A is more than decent. And no, there's no reason to limit it to 'audio only'. ___ -S "As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy, metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason |
#86
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
A whole bunch of stuff on the recent ?discussions.
In article ,
Sonnova wrote: Exactly. It would be nice to figure out just what constitutes a system or a recoding medium sounding like actual acoustical music, but people are so afraid to think outside the box, that I doubt if we'll ever figure it out. I didn't expect that when I started posting (although I was warned about Arny Krueger). I don't listen to a lot of acoustic music and I still value the ability of my system to give me an experience that is closely related to the live performance, and I too would love to find ways of increasing those occasions. IIRC AR speakers and turntables were used in live trials and many people couldn't tell when the LP or the musicians were playing. Now we either believe that hi-fi has gone downhill from then, or we find some other explanation. As far as newsgroup bullies are concerned, it is best not to argue with them, because, as they say about argueing with idiots--the problem is they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience! Keep posting your ideas because I find them interesting, although I hesitate to say it here because I know what happens to people who (occasionally) prefer LP to CD--as I do. While I hate the clicks and the surface noise, MY INVOLVEMENT with the music has me often play LP's in preference to CD when I have the option. And lastly, if sound quality was most important to the masses, we're going to have a hard time explaining the overwhelming migration to 128 bit MP3's and the huge popularity of Itunes-sold music. Of course, if your ears and mind can't tell the difference between LP or CD and 128 bit MP3, you are in the wrong newsgroup. Greg |
#87
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Any impressions on the EMM Labs CDSA-SE CD/SACD player?
Sonnova wrote:
On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 07:39:21 -0800, Keith Hughes wrote (in article ): snip The LP sounds incredible, the CD sounds mediocre. I'm not inferring ANYTHING from that other than what I said. The point is, the mastered version used for the LP could well sound superior (to LP) if recorded on CD. You don't, and can't, know unless you hear the same mastering on both formats. Sigh! Look, I already stated that I transferred this 3-record set to CD and that the CD I made sounds essentially like the record with all of the excitement and visceral impact of the LP. Sorry, I must've come in too late in the thread to see that statement. That's not something that happens here (IME) - i.e. an LP 'enthusiast' recording an LP to CD for comparison. Most find reasons why this just cannot be a valid test. Clearly you've found that it is. And also that the 'magic' is not in the playback, but further upstream. So there is no basis (in this example) for concluding, as you clearly seem to have done, that one format is more *real* than the other. But in this case it IS. Like I said in another post, this LP sounds better than any of the more than 2000 CDs I own. I would just like to know why. Likely you'll never know, with all the 'hidden' variables in the process that you have no information about. Then again, it might just be you - your preference - a response to subtle artifacts that others would not find miraculously realistic at all. That's the biggest buggaboo, IMO, trying to relate how *you* identify realism relative to anyone else. Yes, I know "sounds like live music", but that's not really much help, since it's hard to directly compare peoples perceptions. Personally, I have a number of LPs that sound better than their initial release CD counterparts, but do not compare to the remastered CD versions. None make me believe it's live music however. Ah well... Keith Hughes |
#88
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
SACD vs CD vs vinyl; was: Any impressions...
"Sonnova" wrote in message
On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 14:45:33 -0800, Steven Sullivan wrote (in article ): Sonnova wrote: Depends on the music. I can always tell an MP3 on classical, Color me skeptical. 'Classical' isn't necessarily harder to encode than nonclassical music. Why don't I color you "not thinking about it enough" instead? No, classical isn't necessarily harder to encode than pop. But because of the much larger dynamic range of classical music (ppp to fff) it's easier to hear the artifacts than with pop and rock which tends to run the gamut from ff to fff! While this isn't always the case with pop, it is with the vast majority of it. The limited dynamic range (read that LOUD) that most pop music has masks most of the audible artifacts. Doesn't wash. Dynamic range is often the enemy of the audibility of artifacts. Also, the idea that pop music necessarily has limited dynamic range is yet another old high end audiophile's tale. Classical music has some built-in limitations on dynamic range. While there might be some creschendos and a few sonic spectaculars, most of it is pretty tame from a dynamic range standpoint. Because orchestral music has to be recorded in large rooms with something like 100 people in attendance, and distant micing is the style, the noise floor is higher than what can be achieved in a well-isolated studio with a few closely-miced musicians. If I could ensure you wouldn't use any wav analysis tricks to identify the mp3 from source, I'd be happy to test your hearing on this. Since this poster uses a handle, and not a legal name, he would probably not to want to submit to any proctored tests. It's not that hard. Believe me, when the dynamic range changes suddenly there is an accompanying, uncorrolated artifact that is as unmistakable as it is unpleasant that you cannot miss once you've heard it. I've heard that story many times, too. It's another thing we hear right before the random guessing starts! ;-) You don't actually think that a lossy compression algorithm could throw portions of the waveform away without it being noticeable at least occasionally, do you? Sure why not? Or, don't you believe in masking? |
#89
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Any impressions on the EMM Labs CDSA-SE CD/SACD player?
"willbill" wrote in message
Steven Sullivan wrote: Doug McDonald wrote: The SACD has great merit because it is multichannel. It isn't necessarily so . And it's not the only multichannel-capable format. for audio only, besides SACD and DVD-A, what else is there for decent multichannel sound? (not that DVD-A is decent!) Blu Ray and HDCD whose sound tracks are typically recorded in Dolby TrueHD. |
#90
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Any impressions on the EMM Labs CDSA-SE CD/SACD player?
"Jenn" wrote in message
On Nov 20, 7:47 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message Not all are "noisy", Arny. Some of us just like what some LPs bring to the sonic and musical table. It's not a matter of just liking. People like many things that they don't publicly obsess over so frequently as we see, with that tiny noisy minority who still bother with LPs. Again, I'm part of that tiny minority, and I and most people who like some LPs are not particularly "noisy" about it, IMO. This is irony - a claim of no noise in the midst of making noise about a medium that almost nobody can stand to bother with any more/ Who made a claim of no noise, Arny? It's one of those serious issues that some people want to avoid if they can, obfuscate if they can't. And, perhaps it is noise to you, Help me here Jenn, is there a musical instrument called the "LP tic and pop" simulator that is played by some symphony orchestras? It seems like those who talk/write so much about something they don't like are more noisy. It's just a matter of presenting a balanced picture. If the noisy minority would let the LP be in its proper place, then there would be less criticism of its well-known and rather gross failings. The LP IS in its proper place, Arny: enjoyed by those who enjoy some of them; ignored by others. The problem is the hype, the constant complaints about CDs when most sound fine, and the ignorance of the LP format's rather limited sonics. |
#91
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Any impressions on the EMM Labs CDSA-SE CD/SACD player?
"Signal" wrote in message
"Arny Krueger" wrote: First of all, let's get straight what we are talking about here. I'm not interested in, or talking, about billions of people. I'm talking about high-end audiophiles - people to whom the reproduction of music is important. The myth here is very self-centered. It is the false claim that reproduction of music is important to only high end audiophiles. The average consumer doesn't really care. In fact the reproduction of music is so important to the average consumer that the average consumer dropped the LP like a hot potato as soon as a superior alternative in the form of the CD became generally available. You are making a logical error here, by excluding factors. The logical error there is claimign that there was an attempt at an inclusive list of the most important factors. Other delivery systems besides vinyl are dominating the market more due to convenience than anything else. No, it has always been about sound quality, and the well-known sonic shortcomings that are an inherent part of the LP format. Plus, the relative ease with which you can obtain a decent sound, compared with setting up and maintaining a record deck. Minor advantages compared to the fact that the CD format inhenrently has inaudible distortion and noise that is way below anything that has ever been recorded in a real-world musical presentation. However, proportionally more attentively-listening audiophiles consider good vinyl to be on a par with or better than CD, compared to the overall market. Needless to say, we have here yet another attempt at proof by assertion. |
#92
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Any impressions on the EMM Labs CDSA-SE CD/SACD player?
"Sonnova" wrote in message
To set the record straight, my assertions in this thread a 1) Modern CD technology is excellent, but I have *some* phonograph records that sound better than the best CDs. Practically impossible, since the LP format has so much inherent audbile noise and distortion. I am a recording engineer. Apparently one who has never figured out digital technology, because if you understand how to exploit digtial technology, then making CDs that sound better than any LP is hardly rocket science. I think I know what real music sounds like. Most people do. 2) Since it is a given that LP is fraught with inaccuracies and mechanical as well as electrical distortions and compromises, If there are LPs that sound better than any CD, then it must be a fortuitous arrangement of circumstances whereby the colorations inherent in the medium have combined to make the whole better than the sum of its parts. The sonic corruption that is inherent in the LP format is so great and egregious as to make this highly improable. 3) I never said that distortion, in and of itself, was good or in any way desirable. I did say that certain euphonic colorations MIGHT be beneficial to achieving at least some of the emotional impact of music in the home. We know that untrained ears confuse added distortion with greater dynamic range, and can misinterpret the harmonics of bass as being the fundamentals. 4) It is my contention that most people don't care about accurate sound at all, they just want to hear the tunes. It is true that more people are interesteded in listening to music. However it is also well known that some people use snobbish generalizations to demean the wisdom of the common man. |
#93
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Any impressions on the EMM Labs CDSA-SE CD/SACD player?
Sonnova writes:
On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 14:40:27 -0800, Steven Sullivan wrote (in article ): Arny Krueger wrote: "Sonnova" wrote in message The LP sounds incredible, the CD sounds mediocre. LPs go tic-tic-tic and rumble, rumble, rumble. I've never been to a live concert that had inner groove distortion. Have you? The CD (and SACD) sounds incredible to me. Is Sonnova suggesting that everyone would certainly find the LP better-sounding? Really, what is the point of such testimonials? NO, NO, NO! please read and understand the entire thread before commenting. I have an LP (ONE three disc, single-sided, 45 RPM release by Classic Records) that stands head and shoulders above all other commercial recordings that I own in terms of REALISM. It is simply incredible. I also have an earlier release of the same performance on a single 33.3 disc and I have both the CD of that performance and the recent SACD of it. NONE of them sound as REAL as that Classic Records release. From that, more than half the people on this NG have fabricated an opinion that I prefer ALL LPs to all CDs/SACDs. I have never said or meant anything of the kind! If it's important to you, pursue it. As an electrical engineer who has done some amount of audio work, I feel like the, what, hundreds of thousands of other vinyl releases (practically all others) that don't sound as good as the CD (and that's taking your word that these three do) is enough evidence to indicate it isn't worth pursuing. -- % Randy Yates % "My Shangri-la has gone away, fading like %% Fuquay-Varina, NC % the Beatles on 'Hey Jude'" %%% 919-577-9882 % %%%% % 'Shangri-La', *A New World Record*, ELO http://www.digitalsignallabs.com |
#94
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Any impressions on the EMM Labs CDSA-SE CD/SACD player?
"Sonnova" wrote in message
On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 14:40:27 -0800, Steven Sullivan wrote (in article ): Arny Krueger wrote: "Sonnova" wrote in message The LP sounds incredible, the CD sounds mediocre. LPs go tic-tic-tic and rumble, rumble, rumble. I've never been to a live concert that had inner groove distortion. Have you? The CD (and SACD) sounds incredible to me. Is Sonnova suggesting that everyone would certainly find the LP better-sounding? Really, what is the point of such testimonials? NO, NO, NO! please read and understand the entire thread before commenting. I have an LP (ONE three disc, single-sided, 45 RPM release by Classic Records) that stands head and shoulders above all other commercial recordings that I own in terms of REALISM. It is simply incredible. OK, so you like it? We know that vinyl can't be truely realistic, ever. So this must be some sort of sentimentality, personal preference thing. I also have an earlier release of the same performance on a single 33.3 disc and I have both the CD of that performance and the recent SACD of it. NONE of them sound as REAL as that Classic Records release. At the worst, bad mastering of the versions that are on the vastly superior, sonically-perfect medium. Besides, the odd exception does not disprove the rule. From that, more than half the people on this NG have fabricated an opinion that I prefer ALL LPs to all CDs/SACDs. I have never said or meant anything of the kind! Unh, just as we misinterpreted your claim that more turntables are being sold, when in fact you mistakenly dropped out the qualifier that it was brands and models that you were talking about. I'm not sure I even buy that, because in the day when the LP was all we had, everybody and their brother were making turntables. |
#95
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Any impressions on the EMM Labs CDSA-SE CD/SACD player?
"Sonnova" wrote in message
On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 07:45:16 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message The LP sounds incredible, the CD sounds mediocre. LPs go tic-tic-tic and rumble, rumble, rumble. I've never been to a live concert that had inner groove distortion. Have you? No. And it's been many years since I've heard rumble-rumble or inner-groove distortion. Something about failing hearing acuity? Modern turntables are belt driven by low speed motors. So were legacy turntables, going back to the late-1950s Weathers. The mid-1960s AR turntable was not all that much of an innovation because of prior art. Turntables are not new technology, or even mature technology. They are old technology. New technology is scanning the LP with a particle beam, and even that is several years old. They do not rumble Besides the playback turntable is not necessarily the most audible source of the rumble. Cutting lathes have many of the same rotating parts, except that they operate under greater stress. Furthermore there are non-mechanical sources of low frequency noises from LPs, such as grain noise due to the nickle crystals that grow during the plating process and have to be shaved off. and modern tone-arm geometries have reduced inner-groove distortion to a less than tertiary effect. Straight line turntables have been around for almost as long as low speed motors. As far as the geometry of bent arms goes, that was fully understood back in the 50s and 60s as well. Need I start citing technical papers? Bottom line, that is just like our discussion of digital all over again, only instead of misapprehensions, we have mistaken ideas about what constitutes new technology. New technology would be making the LP master with a particle beam, not merely playing it. I can live with the occasional tic and pop as long as the sound of the orchestra is compelling enough. Why bother trying to live with garbage when garbage-free music is so readily available? Sure, I'd rather not hear it, that's probably the reason why I have thousands of CDs and listen to them almost exclusively these days. So why all this weirdness in the form of misapprehensions about digital and mistaken ideas that old technology for playing LPs is someone even vaguely modern? |
#96
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Any impressions on the EMM Labs CDSA-SE CD/SACD player?
"Codifus" wrote in message
That's the problem with most comparisons of LP and CD. The reference is always relative to the other recording, not the original master recording. Those of us who do live recording on an authorized basis (not bootlegs!) have access to as many origional masters as we want. Sure, LP may sound better than CD or SACD, but how do you really know how good it is unless you've heard the original master recording? There's only one way that a LP can sound better than a CD, DVD-A, SACD, Blu Ray or HDDVD is if someone screwed up the mastering. The LP could have made the original recording sound more pleasant with less dynamics and a less harsh top end. Give your music the MuzaK treatment by putting it on LPs? I'll admit that LP recordings tend to sound more plaeasant to me than alot of CDs I have. Not everybody can record, mix and master well. Or, perhaps some people have a different vision for the recording than you do. Not everybody who does things that we don't prefer is screwing up. But that, to me has alot to do with CD having a way superior dynamic range, so dynamics hit you harder, and probably harsher, than LP. LPs can't comfortably handle really spectacular music without a lot of sonic shoehorning. It might be just one of my foibles, but I don't like to wear my shoes with the shoehorns still in. In fact, any shoe that needs shoehorning is too tight for me! CD has no limit in its high frequency response compared to that of LP, Arguable. If you said high frequency dynamic range, then you'd be right on. whereas LP has to roll off the high frequencies because the medium just can't handle it. LPs can hold waves at up to 30 KHz, well beyond the brick wall filter of the CD. Thing is, those grooves aren't durable and they can't be very loud. Therefore, any unpleasantness or hardshness in higher frewquencies is presented to you, full blown from the CD. I have it on good authority that equalizers don't know what's downstream, either CD or LP. If it sounds harsh and you roll it off, that is that. The mastering engineer has to work much hard to make a pleasant CD because it deliver's everything to you, warts and all. Actually, the inverse is true. Because the medium is so limited, getting a really nice sound on a LP generally takes a lot more work. In the LP, some mistakes are swallowed up or pleasantly washed over due to its limitations. Not really. Overcut LPs don't sound good and they don't last. I know 2 people who have access to master tapes, and they say when CD is done right, no question. LP does not even come close. True. The issue lies with duplication and mass production. Nonsense. Making a CD that is a bit-for-bit duplicate of the master is something that anybody can do in their living room. Now, with SACD, I gather that Sony made a considerable effort to make sure it sounds great, so they employed some great mastering engineers in their productions. They were trying to do something weird - sell remastering on the back of a purported better sounding technology that in fact didn't sound different at all. Also, SACD is inferior to even CD in technical ability in terms of high frequency noise above 10 Khz. Nope. The turnover point for the SACD is wherever the engineers choose to put it, and they always put it above 20 Kz. SACD has to look up hill to DVD-A, which does not necessarily use such agressive noise shaping. Thing is, one can obtain very good dynamic range where the ear is most sensitive by using noise shaping to master CDs. This methodology costs nothing to implment, but also has negligable audible benefits because the CD medium is not the practical limit to the dynamic range of recordings - live venues, studios and mics are. I get the feeling that the noise shaping algorythms used in SACD that tranfer the noise to the upper frequencies tend to make a performance sound more pleasant. DBTs say otherwise, and I've already explained why. A loose analogy I would make is with the audio cassette. When you make a cassette recording with no noise reduction, the resulting recording has alot of hiss. When playing that recordning, the hiss makes the recording seem to have a higher frequency response than it actually does during playback. What you're saying is that a little added noise and distortion can fool the unsophisticated ear into believing that there is more dynamic range, and high frequencies then there really are. I get the vague notion that the noise shaping circuits in SACD have a somewhat similarly pleasant effect on a recording. No audible effect at all. The noise floor was set in the master by the mics and the rooms. |
#97
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Any impressions on the EMM Labs CDSA-SE CD/SACD player?
On Nov 20, 9:03 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
People keep talking about margins of error. I see no justification for saying that the margin of error is that high. It appears to me that people are confusing variation with error. I didn't comment about the height of the margin. What did you do, besides throw some numbers around? I commented on the LP figures being only something like 10% of the margin. I thought that you might have something based on sales, rather than a small phone survey. "Small phone survey?" LOL! Yes. What was it? 1200 nation wide? Since you seem to think that this is an issue and that you have definative evidence from a reliable source, its up to you to follow through. If you can't, then we'll put these claims over in the speculation bucket. "Definative evidence" of what, Arny? I've made no such claim. What would be interesting is a stat that shows numbers of LPs sold for listening, rather than for scratching. Since there is no longer any need to scratch LPs in order to create the audible effect, we may be able to determine that by simply watching LP sales drop like a stone. Impossible to know, I know. It is well known that for a while, the number of turntables sold for scratching exceeded the sales of guitars. Cite? NAMM stat, for example? I'll start coming up with cites when the old business gets settled. What old business? Do you have a cite or not? |
#98
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Any impressions on the EMM Labs CDSA-SE CD/SACD player?
On Nov 20, 8:59 pm, Sonnova wrote:
From that, more than half the people on this NG have fabricated an opinion that I prefer ALL LPs to all CDs/SACDs. I have never said or meant anything of the kind! Some people seem to read that into my statements as well, even though I've been quite clear in my statements to the contrary. |
#99
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Any impressions on the EMM Labs CDSA-SE CD/SACD player?
On Nov 20, 11:50 pm, Sonnova wrote:
I'm expressing myself extremely clearly. What is happening is that there are a few of you on this NG who purposely misinterpret, and misread other people's posts with the intent of discrediting anyone who doesn't agree with them. No one is purposely misreading you. You are making logically inconsistent statements (I'll address the key example below), and so obviously people are having trouble understanding your point. Again, better clarity on your part (which you've finally begun to achieve, I think) would help obviate this. The last time I was in this group was about 5-6 years ago and there was lot more activity than there is today. I now think I know why. Yes, people got tired of being accused of insincerity--of purposely misreading what others said--whenever they disagreed with someone. We don't miss those discussions, or (for the most part) the participants. To set the record straight, my assertions in this thread a 1) Modern CD technology is excellent, but I have *some* phonograph records that sound better than the best CDs. I am a recording engineer. I think I know what real music sounds like. My own view is that there's no such discrete thing as "what real music sounds like," but that's a discussion for another day. 2) Since it is a given that LP is fraught with inaccuracies and mechanical as well as electrical distortions and compromises, If there are LPs that sound better than any CD, then it must be a fortuitous arrangement of circumstances whereby the colorations inherent in the medium have combined to make the whole better than the sum of its parts. This is the heart of your logically flawed argument. If EVERY LP sounded better than its CD counterpart, and if CDR copies of LPs sounded worse than the LPs, THEN it might well be the case that there is "a fortuitous arrangement of circumstances," as you aptly put it. But if only a small number of LPs sound better than the CD version, and if CDR copies are generally indistinguishable from LP originals (as I think you agree), then the technical characteristics of the respective media cannot explain your preferences. The logical exlanation has to lie in the particular recordings which you prefer. One possibility is that they are mastered (and almost always mixed) differently. Another is that particular aspects of that recording (too bright treble, say) are ameliorated by the distortions of vinyl (high- frequency roll-off, e.g.). A third possibility, which we cannot rule out, is unexplainable personal subjective preferences. 3) I never said that distortion, in and of itself, was good or in any way desirable. I did say that certain euphonic colorations MIGHT be beneficial to achieving at least some of the emotional impact of music in the home. For this to stand up, you need to add the qualifier, "for some people." Given your stated general preference for CD, you might not even qualify as one of those people! 4) It is my contention that most people don't care about accurate sound at all, they just want to hear the tunes. While there's certainly some truth to this, I think you're assuming too much here. You can buy much better sound for much less money today than you could 30 years ago. In terms of sound quality, an iPod blows away a Walkman. An iPod plugged into a half-decent pair of powered speakers blows away almost everything I ever heard in a dorm room, back in the day. So it may be that the average Joe does care at least somewhat about sound quality, and the inexpensive gear he has available to him is sufficiently good to satisfy that. bob |
#100
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Any impressions on the EMM Labs CDSA-SE CD/SACD player?
Sonnova wrote:
But in this case it IS. Like I said in another post, this LP sounds better than any of the more than 2000 CDs I own. I would just like to know why. Instead of discussing it, we sit here arguing back and forth over who said what to who. Well, once both are digital, they are forever, so we have forever to try to find WHY the LP sounds better (to you). The first this to try is to actually COMPARE them digitally. Load them into some sort of audio program, carefully select out identical, as as can be told by eye looking at waveforms, sections, and compare the Fourier transform amplitude. Is the frequency response different? Next is to write a computer program that time-aligns then by computing the cross-correlation every 1/20 second or so to measure the time-slippage and then resample the LP one so it lines up, in the high frequencies, with the other one. Then you see how the frequency response in both amplitude and phase differs across the whole piece. Then you correct the phase of the LP one. Finally you subtract the two files, now that they are time-aligned at all frequencies, and see what sort of distortion differences they show. Doug McDonald |
#101
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
SACD vs CD vs vinyl; was: Any impressions...
Sonnova wrote:
You don't actually think that a lossy compression algorithm could throw portions of the waveform away without it being noticeable at least occasionally, do you? At 224kb/sec average VBR, or 320 CBR, yes, I DO think it could be unnoticeable. I have many classical recordings where the actual subtracted difference between an original and a .wav file regenerated from MP3 is so small, and in fact sounds just like slightly colored noise, that the difference would be imperceptible, and to my ears, is. At 128kb/sec I would make no such claim, and at 96kb/sec, I always hear differences. Doug McDonald |
#102
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
A whole bunch of stuff on the recent ?discussions.
On Nov 23, 1:06 pm, Greg Wormald wrote:
IIRC AR speakers and turntables were used in live trials and many people couldn't tell when the LP or the musicians were playing. Now we either believe that hi-fi has gone downhill from then, or we find some other explanation. The same was true 100 years ago when the same "test" was used with Edison cylinders. By your implicit logic, does this mean that Edison cylinders were as as good as AR speakers and turntables? If you agree that they do, indeed, sound quite different, then one possible suggestion is that the test is flawed as being to insensitive. |
#103
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Any impressions on the EMM Labs CDSA-SE CD/SACD player?
On Nov 23, 1:03 pm, Sonnova wrote:
But let me put to an alternative question. What would you say if those same master tapes that yield a perfect CD copy were to yield an LP that sounded better (as in more real) than the master tape? If whatever copy of the "x" (in this case "master tape") does NOT sound identical to "x" then, by definition, it is an imperfect copy of "x". This is not a value judgement, it is an objective statement. It does not say whether the copy is better or worse simply by avoiding altogether definitions of "better" or "worse." Indeed, event the term "imperfect" is, well, less than perfect. It is to identify that the copy is NOT a perfect copy, i.e., information was lost (adding new information is, in an information theory sense, equivalent to losing information: this new information must be spurious as it was not present in the original "x"). Now, if you LIKE the copy of "x" more than "x", you have DEFINED "better" FOR YOU. And no one is arguing with YOUR definition of "better" as it applies TO YOU. But without a definition of "better" that EVERYONE agrees on, further discussion of which is "better" is futile. When people such as myself start to get bothered is 'when someone else declares THEIR definition of "better" as absolute and inviolable "better" for everyone else. |
#104
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
A whole bunch of stuff on the recent ?discussions.
On Nov 23, 10:06 am, Greg Wormald wrote:
. . . And lastly, if sound quality was most important to the masses, we're going to have a hard time explaining the overwhelming migration to 128 bit MP3's and the huge popularity of Itunes-sold music. Of course, if your ears and mind can't tell the difference between LP or CD and 128 bit MP3, you are in the wrong newsgroup. Greg Is not it a little bit elitist: if you don't hear the difference, you don't qualify for this group? I do hear a difference in LP and CD, I do not hear difference between CD and MP3-320mbps. And I prefer CD or MP3 on my iPod to LP's. Does it disqualify me? Before invention of portable MP3 players the only option to listen to music was to spend time washing your LP and then spend couple hours sitting and doing nothing but listening to music. For many busy people who could not afford this luxury it meant that they did not listen music at all. Now with invention of portable digital players you can have all you music collection in a cigarette pack ( I have 32GB of music in my iPod, neatly classified and I am adding every day). Not only you can listen to music wherever and whenever you want, but the easy access makes all the difference in a world. Before that if I wanted to listen some obscure recording of Samuel Barber, I would have to spend time searching for it on my CD shelves, then putting it into CD player, after all not to forget to put it back, etc. etc. All this hassle made it almost impossible. Now 2 clicks on iPod bring me to Samuel Barber and the next click brings me to a piece that I want. After listening no hassle either, just turn iPod off. I don't know about you but I consider it as a great progress, I listen much more music now then before. In a way of putting my music in my iPod I made few discoveries in my collection, like there were two recordings of Schubert's "Death and the Maiden" that I did not even know that I have. Now they all neatly organized in my iPod with easy access. Is not it a progress? My $0.02 vlad |
#105
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Any impressions on the EMM Labs CDSA-SE CD/SACD player?
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Sonnova" wrote in message To set the record straight, my assertions in this thread a 1) Modern CD technology is excellent, but I have *some* phonograph records that sound better than the best CDs. Practically impossible, since the LP format has so much inherent audbile noise and distortion. 'Sounds better' being a subjective preference, it is certainly possible, Arny. |
#106
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Any impressions on the EMM Labs CDSA-SE CD/SACD player?
Doug McDonald wrote:
Sonnova wrote: But in this case it IS. Like I said in another post, this LP sounds better than any of the more than 2000 CDs I own. I would just like to know why. Instead of discussing it, we sit here arguing back and forth over who said what to who. Well, once both are digital, they are forever, so we have forever to try to find WHY the LP sounds better (to you). The first this to try is to actually COMPARE them digitally. Load them into some sort of audio program, carefully select out identical, as as can be told by eye looking at waveforms, sections, and compare the Fourier transform amplitude. Is the frequency response different? Next is to write a computer program that time-aligns then by computing the cross-correlation every 1/20 second or so to measure the time-slippage and then resample the LP one so it lines up, in the high frequencies, with the other one. Then you see how the frequency response in both amplitude and phase differs across the whole piece. Then you correct the phase of the LP one. Finally you subtract the two files, now that they are time-aligned at all frequencies, and see what sort of distortion differences they show. Doug McDonald ahh.. Audio Diffmaker! http://www.libinst.com/Audio%20DiffMaker.htm I suspect LP (or LP-on-CDR) vs CD waveforms will be too grossly different for Diffmaker to really work well ___ -S "As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy, metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason |
#107
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
SACD vs CD vs vinyl; was: Any impressions...
On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 10:09:11 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 14:45:33 -0800, Steven Sullivan wrote (in article ): Sonnova wrote: Depends on the music. I can always tell an MP3 on classical, Color me skeptical. 'Classical' isn't necessarily harder to encode than nonclassical music. Why don't I color you "not thinking about it enough" instead? No, classical isn't necessarily harder to encode than pop. But because of the much larger dynamic range of classical music (ppp to fff) it's easier to hear the artifacts than with pop and rock which tends to run the gamut from ff to fff! While this isn't always the case with pop, it is with the vast majority of it. The limited dynamic range (read that LOUD) that most pop music has masks most of the audible artifacts. Doesn't wash. Dynamic range is often the enemy of the audibility of artifacts. I'm sorry. You're wrong. It's during soft passages and during changes from loud to soft (and vise-versa) where compression artifacts are most likely to be heard. Also, the idea that pop music necessarily has limited dynamic range is yet another old high end audiophile's tale. Frankly I don't care. I don't listen to pop and rock ever. I just know that loud rock masks the effects of compression almost completely. Classical music has some built-in limitations on dynamic range. While there might be some creschendos and a few sonic spectaculars, most of it is pretty tame from a dynamic range standpoint. Pure bull. There are thousands of works in the standard repertoire that go from triple pianissimo to triple fortissimo (or vice-versa) rather instantaneously. and many more cases of the music going from a single instrument playing softly one moment, to the entire orchestra in crescendo the next. Because orchestral music has to be recorded in large rooms with something like 100 people in attendance, and distant micing is the style, It's not everybody's recording style, but that's not what I'm talking about anyway. Unless the original recording was compressed in dynamic range when it was captured, the difference in dynamic contrasts between a single flute playing softly and the entire 80-100 piece orchestra playing an fff crescendo can be as much as 40dB, that's 100:1 in terms of voltage - more than enough to make these artifacts apparent. the noise floor is higher than what can be achieved in a well-isolated studio with a few closely-miced musicians. And that's relevant, how? We're discussing the change in signal level between the loudest point in a piece of music and the softest, not where the noise floor is located. If I could ensure you wouldn't use any wav analysis tricks to identify the mp3 from source, I'd be happy to test your hearing on this. Since this poster uses a handle, and not a legal name, he would probably not to want to submit to any proctored tests. And since we likely live thousands of miles apart, how would one establish such a test? You're talking nonsense. It's not that hard. Believe me, when the dynamic range changes suddenly there is an accompanying, uncorrolated artifact that is as unmistakable as it is unpleasant that you cannot miss once you've heard it. I've heard that story many times, too. It's another thing we hear right before the random guessing starts! ;-) So you'er saying that you can't hear it? Hmmmm. Very interesting. You don't actually think that a lossy compression algorithm could throw portions of the waveform away without it being noticeable at least occasionally, do you? Sure why not? Or, don't you believe in masking? Under certain circumstances, I certainly do believe in masking, but an algorithm by itself can't apply a lossy compression scheme to music in a foolproof manner. Here's an analogy - don't take it too literally, but it is illustrative. Do you watch digital TV? You know, DVDs, digital cable or satellite? If so, then I'm sure that when watching a TV program that you have noticed the picture momentarily break-up into a screen full of little boxes with some scenes but not with others. I'm sure that you have also noticed that this almost NEVER happens on purchased DVDs of hollywood movies. Reason? The TV station or satellite provider uses an automatic compressor to encode the video into mpeg2 or mpeg4-H.264. This compressor is utilizing an algorithm to do the compression. The algorithm can apply very limited intelligence to the compression process, following as it does, a set of rules. Certain types of scene changes, changes in lighting level, speed of motion in the scene, etc, catch the algorithm out and compression artifacts in the form of pixillation occur. The reason why you don't see this in DVD releases of, for instance, Hollywood feature films, is that they don't use an algorithm - at least not by it itself. They have a human being watching the film frame-by-frame as it's being transferred to adjust the amount of compression being applied on a scene-by-scene basis. At a point where the picture would pixillate using an algorithm, the human compression engineer will cut-back on the amount of compression until the pixillation disappears. In some scenes like the lightbulbs popping and flashing when they hit the cold Atlantic water that was quickly filling the ship in "Titanic". They had to transfer those scenes to DVD with NO compression at all during the frames where the screen goes completely white during light-bulb "explosions" to keep them from pixillating. If you watch the movie on HBO, you'll see that the algorithm can't handle those scenes and the picture breaks up for several frames every time a lightbulb pops. That's what's wrong with algorithms. They have very limited range over which they can make compression "decisions". Now, I'm very sure that given complete control over the MP3 encoding process, someone who is very familiar with the failings of the compression algorithm and very familiar with the music could make a compressed MP3 of, say, Ravel's "Daphne et Chloe" ballet in such a way that NOBODY could tell that it was compressed using a lossy compression scheme even when ABXed with the original source material. Unfortunately, MP3s are all compressed using an algorithm and artifacts do show up and they show up in some kinds of music more than they show up in others. |
#108
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Any impressions on the EMM Labs CDSA-SE CD/SACD player?
On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 10:05:31 -0800, Steven Sullivan wrote
(in article ) : willbill wrote: Steven Sullivan wrote: Doug McDonald wrote: The SACD has great merit because it is multichannel. It isn't necessarily so . And it's not the only multichannel-capable format. for audio only, besides SACD and DVD-A, what else is there for decent multichannel sound? (not that DVD-A is decent!) DTS, Dolby Digital, both in various flavors. But these are lossy compression schemes. SACD is not compressed. And yes, DVD-A is more than decent. It can be, yes, but not with uncompressed 5.1 channel sound. OTOH, I've heard some DVD-A at 24-bit/192KHz that I thought was astoundingly good. And no, there's no reason to limit it to 'audio only'. ___ -S "As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy, metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason |
#109
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Any impressions on the EMM Labs CDSA-SE CD/SACD player?
On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 10:10:23 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ) : "Jenn" wrote in message On Nov 20, 7:47 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message Not all are "noisy", Arny. Some of us just like what some LPs bring to the sonic and musical table. It's not a matter of just liking. People like many things that they don't publicly obsess over so frequently as we see, with that tiny noisy minority who still bother with LPs. Again, I'm part of that tiny minority, and I and most people who like some LPs are not particularly "noisy" about it, IMO. This is irony - a claim of no noise in the midst of making noise about a medium that almost nobody can stand to bother with any more/ Who made a claim of no noise, Arny? It's one of those serious issues that some people want to avoid if they can, obfuscate if they can't. And, perhaps it is noise to you, Help me here Jenn, is there a musical instrument called the "LP tic and pop" simulator that is played by some symphony orchestras? It seems like those who talk/write so much about something they don't like are more noisy. It's just a matter of presenting a balanced picture. If the noisy minority would let the LP be in its proper place, then there would be less criticism of its well-known and rather gross failings. The LP IS in its proper place, Arny: enjoyed by those who enjoy some of them; ignored by others. The problem is the hype, the constant complaints about CDs when most sound fine, and the ignorance of the LP format's rather limited sonics. But I have seen no one in this discussion complain about CD and nobody here has demonstrated any ignorance about the limitations of LP. So what could your argument be? |
#110
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Any impressions on the EMM Labs CDSA-SE CD/SACD player?
On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 10:12:51 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message To set the record straight, my assertions in this thread a 1) Modern CD technology is excellent, but I have *some* phonograph records that sound better than the best CDs. Practically impossible, since the LP format has so much inherent audbile noise and distortion. More victory by assertion, Arny? I am a recording engineer. Apparently one who has never figured out digital technology, because if you understand how to exploit digtial technology, then making CDs that sound better than any LP is hardly rocket science. The digital recordings that I have made are better than LP. MUCHHHHHH better. I think I know what real music sounds like. Most people do. Actually, most people don't know and they don't care. What makes you think that they do? 2) Since it is a given that LP is fraught with inaccuracies and mechanical as well as electrical distortions and compromises, If there are LPs that sound better than any CD, then it must be a fortuitous arrangement of circumstances whereby the colorations inherent in the medium have combined to make the whole better than the sum of its parts. The sonic corruption that is inherent in the LP format is so great and egregious as to make this highly improable. Put your fingers in your ears and sing loudly. Then you won't have to hear anything that you don't want to hear. 3) I never said that distortion, in and of itself, was good or in any way desirable. I did say that certain euphonic colorations MIGHT be beneficial to achieving at least some of the emotional impact of music in the home. We know that untrained ears confuse added distortion with greater dynamic range, and can misinterpret the harmonics of bass as being the fundamentals. That's fine, but what has it to do with this discussion? 4) It is my contention that most people don't care about accurate sound at all, they just want to hear the tunes. It is true that more people are interesteded in listening to music. However it is also well known that some people use snobbish generalizations to demean the wisdom of the common man. This hyperegalitarian, politically correct nonsense does you no good service, Arny. The common man wouldn't know accurate sound from an arm-fart and could care less. He just knows what sounds good to him. Most often, that's loud music, booming bass, and few, if any highs. |
#111
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Any impressions on the EMM Labs CDSA-SE CD/SACD player?
On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 10:34:30 -0800, bob wrote
(in article ) : On Nov 20, 11:50 pm, Sonnova wrote: I'm expressing myself extremely clearly. What is happening is that there are a few of you on this NG who purposely misinterpret, and misread other people's posts with the intent of discrediting anyone who doesn't agree with them. No one is purposely misreading you. You are making logically inconsistent statements (I'll address the key example below), and so obviously people are having trouble understanding your point. Again, better clarity on your part (which you've finally begun to achieve, I think) would help obviate this. The last time I was in this group was about 5-6 years ago and there was lot more activity than there is today. I now think I know why. Yes, people got tired of being accused of insincerity--of purposely misreading what others said--whenever they disagreed with someone. We don't miss those discussions, or (for the most part) the participants. To set the record straight, my assertions in this thread a 1) Modern CD technology is excellent, but I have *some* phonograph records that sound better than the best CDs. I am a recording engineer. I think I know what real music sounds like. My own view is that there's no such discrete thing as "what real music sounds like," but that's a discussion for another day. 2) Since it is a given that LP is fraught with inaccuracies and mechanical as well as electrical distortions and compromises, If there are LPs that sound better than any CD, then it must be a fortuitous arrangement of circumstances whereby the colorations inherent in the medium have combined to make the whole better than the sum of its parts. This is the heart of your logically flawed argument. If EVERY LP sounded better than its CD counterpart, and if CDR copies of LPs sounded worse than the LPs, THEN it might well be the case that there is "a fortuitous arrangement of circumstances," as you aptly put it. But if only a small number of LPs sound better than the CD version, and if CDR copies are generally indistinguishable from LP originals (as I think you agree), then the technical characteristics of the respective media cannot explain your preferences. The logical exlanation has to lie in the particular recordings which you prefer. One possibility is that they are mastered (and almost always mixed) differently. Another is that particular aspects of that recording (too bright treble, say) are ameliorated by the distortions of vinyl (high- frequency roll-off, e.g.). A third possibility, which we cannot rule out, is unexplainable personal subjective preferences. 3) I never said that distortion, in and of itself, was good or in any way desirable. I did say that certain euphonic colorations MIGHT be beneficial to achieving at least some of the emotional impact of music in the home. For this to stand up, you need to add the qualifier, "for some people." Given your stated general preference for CD, you might not even qualify as one of those people! 4) It is my contention that most people don't care about accurate sound at all, they just want to hear the tunes. While there's certainly some truth to this, I think you're assuming too much here. You can buy much better sound for much less money today than you could 30 years ago. In terms of sound quality, an iPod blows away a Walkman. An iPod plugged into a half-decent pair of powered speakers blows away almost everything I ever heard in a dorm room, back in the day. So it may be that the average Joe does care at least somewhat about sound quality, and the inexpensive gear he has available to him is sufficiently good to satisfy that. bob I think that's because the people driving the industry have strived for better and better quality to the point where its filtered down to being just good design practice. I don't give the average consumer much credit in this area because people tend to get passionate about different things and spend their money on those things about which they are passionate. For instance, the average working Joe who is into building hot-rods spends his money doing that, not in buying high-end audio gear. He likely has never been to anything but sound-reinforced pop/rock concerts and therefore has likely never heard real, live music - or if he has, he didn't pay any attention to it. Only music lovers and audiophiles give a whit about the sound of real music. Average Joe doesn't care. |
#112
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
A whole bunch of stuff on the recent ?discussions.
On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 10:06:52 -0800, Greg Wormald wrote
(in article ) : In article , Sonnova wrote: Exactly. It would be nice to figure out just what constitutes a system or a recoding medium sounding like actual acoustical music, but people are so afraid to think outside the box, that I doubt if we'll ever figure it out. I didn't expect that when I started posting (although I was warned about Arny Krueger). I don't listen to a lot of acoustic music and I still value the ability of my system to give me an experience that is closely related to the live performance, and I too would love to find ways of increasing those occasions. IIRC AR speakers and turntables were used in live trials and many people couldn't tell when the LP or the musicians were playing. Now we either believe that hi-fi has gone downhill from then, or we find some other explanation. Well, here I can really contribute something because I heard, as a teenager, those AR live vs recorded demonstrations at AR's downtown Manhattan showroom in the early 'sixties. The marketing people at AR were very clever. First of all, they recorded the ensemble (a string trio) in the same room as the playback demonstration took place. Secondly, they placed the omi mikes right in front of where each speaker would be located. Thirdly, speakers and the musicians were in extremely close proximity to one another and the speakers were on stands at bout the same level as the sitting musicians. Then a scrim curtain was between the musicians, speakers, and the audience. The scrim was back-lit so that you could see the shadows of the musicians and the speakers on the scrim. First they would play a short selection of either the recording or the live performers. The performers would pretend to play even when we were listening to the speakers so that it would look as if the performers were always playing - IOW, no visual cues were present. The scrim was a grey material which, while transmissive of light and sound, was nonetheless quite thick (I thought). Was I able to hear the difference? Yes, but not because of the actual music. I was about 16 and probably could hear out to 22KHz. Every time they started the tape machine, I could hear the tape hiss before the music started. I told the guy conducting the demo about this, and my good friend J. Gordon Holt tells me that eventually they added low level simulated tape hiss which could be heard softly in the background at all times. They picked their instruments and their music very carefully and under their very controlled conditions, the live music and the recorded music sounded very much the same. I doubt if they could have used a small "big band" or even a jazz trio (especially if brass instruments and piano were employed) and gotten the same results. Don't read a whole lot into those tests, however. Thomas Edison, in 1914, was using live vs recorded comparisons to tout his vertical-cut "Diamond Disc" records and players, and of course, this equipment was strictly acoustical/mechanical. Edison mostly used the human voice for his "live vs recorded" tests and used a leading Baritone opera singer of the day, Thomas Chalmers. The critic for the Pittsburgh Leader reported on one such demonstration: "Unless one watched the singer's lips, it was quite impossible to tell, from the quality of tone, whether Mr. Chalmers was singing or whether he was not, the tone of the re-creation being exactly like his own living voice in every shade of tonal color." Such is the power of mass suggestion. If you've ever heard a Diamond Disc played through even the top of the line console player, you would be extremely skeptical of his report. The truth is that it is quite easy to get people to buy this kind of comparison. Of course, today, as in 1914, you need to choose your material and your instrumentation very carefully. And That's the OTHER explanation you were looking for. As far as newsgroup bullies are concerned, it is best not to argue with them, because, as they say about argueing with idiots--the problem is they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience! Keep posting your ideas because I find them interesting, although I hesitate to say it here because I know what happens to people who (occasionally) prefer LP to CD--as I do. While I hate the clicks and the surface noise, MY INVOLVEMENT with the music has me often play LP's in preference to CD when I have the option. And lastly, if sound quality was most important to the masses, we're going to have a hard time explaining the overwhelming migration to 128 bit MP3's and the huge popularity of Itunes-sold music. Of course, if your ears and mind can't tell the difference between LP or CD and 128 bit MP3, you are in the wrong newsgroup. I agree with you completely. |
#113
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Any impressions on the EMM Labs CDSA-SE CD/SACD player?
On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 10:07:44 -0800, Keith Hughes wrote
(in article ): Sonnova wrote: On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 07:39:21 -0800, Keith Hughes wrote (in article ): snip The LP sounds incredible, the CD sounds mediocre. I'm not inferring ANYTHING from that other than what I said. The point is, the mastered version used for the LP could well sound superior (to LP) if recorded on CD. You don't, and can't, know unless you hear the same mastering on both formats. Sigh! Look, I already stated that I transferred this 3-record set to CD and that the CD I made sounds essentially like the record with all of the excitement and visceral impact of the LP. Sorry, I must've come in too late in the thread to see that statement. That's not something that happens here (IME) - i.e. an LP 'enthusiast' recording an LP to CD for comparison. Most find reasons why this just cannot be a valid test. Clearly you've found that it is. And also that the 'magic' is not in the playback, but further upstream. Not necessarily. When transferring these LP sides to CD I still used my turntable, my cartridge, and my phono preamp. But the point here is that whatever makes this LP sound so damn good is transferrable to another medium (digital) with the "magic" intact. . I.E. whatever it is, it's on the records! So there is no basis (in this example) for concluding, as you clearly seem to have done, that one format is more *real* than the other. But in this case it IS. Like I said in another post, this LP sounds better than any of the more than 2000 CDs I own. I would just like to know why. Likely you'll never know, with all the 'hidden' variables in the process that you have no information about. Then again, it might just be you - your preference - a response to subtle artifacts that others would not find miraculously realistic at all. That's the biggest buggaboo, IMO, trying to relate how *you* identify realism relative to anyone else. Yes, I know "sounds like live music", but that's not really much help, since it's hard to directly compare peoples perceptions. Personally, I have a number of LPs that sound better than their initial release CD counterparts, but do not compare to the remastered CD versions. None make me believe it's live music however. Ah well... Keith Hughes |
#114
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Any impressions on the EMM Labs CDSA-SE CD/SACD player?
Arny Krueger wrote:
"willbill" wrote in message Steven Sullivan wrote: Doug McDonald wrote: The SACD has great merit because it is multichannel. It isn't necessarily so . And it's not the only multichannel-capable format. for audio only, besides SACD and DVD-A, what else is there for decent multichannel sound? (not that DVD-A is decent!) Blu Ray and HDCD whose sound tracks are typically recorded in Dolby TrueHD. i'm not aware that any "mostly hi-end audio" disks that have yet been released on either of the new hi def formats, namely Blu-Ray and HD-DVD even something useful like a 4+ hour disk of truly laid back hi-quality multichannel background music correct me if i'm wrong so for the moment, for hi-end multichannel SACD is it bill |
#115
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Any impressions on the EMM Labs CDSA-SE CD/SACD player?
On Nov 23, 10:15 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
We know that vinyl can't be truely realistic, ever. Well, we know that this is true for you/your biases. Actually, listening to any medium is a "can't be truely realistic" experience, at least IRT acoustic music, of course. |
#116
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Any impressions on the EMM Labs CDSA-SE CD/SACD player?
On Nov 23, 10:10 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Jenn" wrote in message On Nov 20, 7:47 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message Not all are "noisy", Arny. Some of us just like what some LPs bring to the sonic andmusicaltable. It's not a matter of just liking. People like many things that they don't publicly obsess over so frequently as we see, with that tiny noisy minority who still bother with LPs. Again, I'm part of that tiny minority, and I and most people who like some LPs are not particularly "noisy" about it, IMO. This is irony - a claim of no noise in the midst of making noise about a medium that almost nobody can stand to bother with any more/ Who made a claim of no noise, Arny? It's one of those serious issues that some people want to avoid if they can, obfuscate if they can't. Sorry, I don't understand your reply. You stated that I made a claim of "no noise". Please show where I did that. Or alternatively, stop making things up. And, perhaps it is noise to you, Help me here Jenn, is there a musical instrument called the "LP tic and pop" simulator that is played by some symphony orchestras? We were discussing the "noise" that you claim that people who like some LPs make, not noise on LPs. Now, if you want to discuss that, we can. It seems like those who talk/write so much about something they don't like are more noisy. It's just a matter of presenting a balanced picture. If the noisy minority would let the LP be in its proper place, thentherewould be less criticism of its well-known and rather gross failings. The LP IS in its proper place, Arny: enjoyed by those who enjoy some of them; ignored by others. The problem is the hype, the constant complaints about CDs when most sound fine, and the ignorance of the LP format's rather limited sonics. Kind of like "Perfect Sound Forever", huh? |
#117
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Any impressions on the EMM Labs CDSA-SE CD/SACD player?
On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 10:15:22 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ) : "Sonnova" wrote in message On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 14:40:27 -0800, Steven Sullivan wrote (in article ): Arny Krueger wrote: "Sonnova" wrote in message The LP sounds incredible, the CD sounds mediocre. LPs go tic-tic-tic and rumble, rumble, rumble. I've never been to a live concert that had inner groove distortion. Have you? The CD (and SACD) sounds incredible to me. Is Sonnova suggesting that everyone would certainly find the LP better-sounding? Really, what is the point of such testimonials? NO, NO, NO! please read and understand the entire thread before commenting. I have an LP (ONE three disc, single-sided, 45 RPM release by Classic Records) that stands head and shoulders above all other commercial recordings that I own in terms of REALISM. It is simply incredible. OK, so you like it? We know that vinyl can't be truely realistic, ever. So this must be some sort of sentimentality, personal preference thing. I also have an earlier release of the same performance on a single 33.3 disc and I have both the CD of that performance and the recent SACD of it. NONE of them sound as REAL as that Classic Records release. At the worst, bad mastering of the versions that are on the vastly superior, sonically-perfect medium. Besides, the odd exception does not disprove the rule. From that, more than half the people on this NG have fabricated an opinion that I prefer ALL LPs to all CDs/SACDs. I have never said or meant anything of the kind! Unh, just as we misinterpreted your claim that more turntables are being sold, when in fact you mistakenly dropped out the qualifier that it was brands and models that you were talking about. I'm not sure I even buy that, because in the day when the LP was all we had, everybody and their brother were making turntables. I SAID high-end turntables. Of course there were more different brands of direct-drive junk and record changers, but that's not what I'm talking about (as I have already pointed out). |
#118
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Any impressions on the EMM Labs CDSA-SE CD/SACD player?
On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 10:19:28 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ) : "Sonnova" wrote in message On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 07:45:16 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message The LP sounds incredible, the CD sounds mediocre. LPs go tic-tic-tic and rumble, rumble, rumble. I've never been to a live concert that had inner groove distortion. Have you? No. And it's been many years since I've heard rumble-rumble or inner-groove distortion. Something about failing hearing acuity? Modern turntables are belt driven by low speed motors. So were legacy turntables, going back to the late-1950s Weathers. The mid-1960s AR turntable was not all that much of an innovation because of prior art. Turntables are not new technology, or even mature technology. They are old technology. New technology is scanning the LP with a particle beam, and even that is several years old. They do not rumble Besides the playback turntable is not necessarily the most audible source of the rumble. Cutting lathes have many of the same rotating parts, except that they operate under greater stress. Furthermore there are non-mechanical sources of low frequency noises from LPs, such as grain noise due to the nickle crystals that grow during the plating process and have to be shaved off. and modern tone-arm geometries have reduced inner-groove distortion to a less than tertiary effect. Straight line turntables have been around for almost as long as low speed motors. As far as the geometry of bent arms goes, that was fully understood back in the 50s and 60s as well. Need I start citing technical papers? Bottom line, that is just like our discussion of digital all over again, only instead of misapprehensions, we have mistaken ideas about what constitutes new technology. What makes you think that? I said modern tonearms. I said nothing about geometry, or any other single characteristic nor did I state when I thought the era of modern tone-arm and cartridge design began. New technology would be making the LP master with a particle beam, not merely playing it. Fine. But what's the point? Like you said, LP is old technology. What is changed is that bottom-feeder junk is not really sold any longer. Today's arms have better bearings, more tightly controlled geometry and the cartridges and styli are better because there is not much market for the cheap stuff any more. I can live with the occasional tic and pop as long as the sound of the orchestra is compelling enough. Why bother trying to live with garbage when garbage-free music is so readily available? Because some LPs might sound more like real music to me even WITH the tics and pops? Actually, never mind. Sure, I'd rather not hear it, that's probably the reason why I have thousands of CDs and listen to them almost exclusively these days. So why all this weirdness in the form of misapprehensions about digital and mistaken ideas that old technology for playing LPs is someone even vaguely modern? That's your interpretation, and certainly not my assertions. |
#119
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Any impressions on the EMM Labs CDSA-SE CD/SACD player?
On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 10:24:51 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ) : "Codifus" wrote in message That's the problem with most comparisons of LP and CD. The reference is always relative to the other recording, not the original master recording. Those of us who do live recording on an authorized basis (not bootlegs!) have access to as many origional masters as we want. Oh, so BMG and Phillips will loan you their masters from their vaults? Permit me to doubt. And while I have a closet full 10" reels of 1/2-track 15ips masters of several symphony orchestras myself, none of them are going to resolve any issues brought up here. Sure, LP may sound better than CD or SACD, but how do you really know how good it is unless you've heard the original master recording? There's only one way that a LP can sound better than a CD, DVD-A, SACD, Blu Ray or HDDVD is if someone screwed up the mastering. The LP could have made the original recording sound more pleasant with less dynamics and a less harsh top end. Give your music the MuzaK treatment by putting it on LPs? I'll admit that LP recordings tend to sound more plaeasant to me than alot of CDs I have. Not everybody can record, mix and master well. Or, perhaps some people have a different vision for the recording than you do. Not everybody who does things that we don't prefer is screwing up. But that, to me has alot to do with CD having a way superior dynamic range, so dynamics hit you harder, and probably harsher, than LP. LPs can't comfortably handle really spectacular music without a lot of sonic shoehorning. It might be just one of my foibles, but I don't like to wear my shoes with the shoehorns still in. In fact, any shoe that needs shoehorning is too tight for me! CD has no limit in its high frequency response compared to that of LP, Arguable. If you said high frequency dynamic range, then you'd be right on. whereas LP has to roll off the high frequencies because the medium just can't handle it. LPs can hold waves at up to 30 KHz, well beyond the brick wall filter of the CD. Thing is, those grooves aren't durable and they can't be very loud. Actually, as was proven in the old "quadraphonic" days, the JVC multiplexing system (CD-4?) had frequencies up to better than 50Khz on them. IIRC, it worked a lot like FM stereo without the suppressed subcarier (times two). The baseband signal (Front + Rear) on both left and right channels was from 20 to 15KHz with a 16 KHz pilot tone. The Front minus Rear (F-R) information was encoded into a phase modulated subcarrier which took up from 18kHz to 50 KHz. The on playback the special decoder performed the math (times two for right and left channels respectively): (F+R)+(F-R) = 2F; (F+R) - (F-R) = 2R. JVC had to develop a special cartridge with frequency response beyond 50KHz and a special stylus (Shibata) to retrieve the subcarrier without damaging the record. They also designed a a new "supervinyl" which was advertised as being much harder than normal vinyl to prolong record life. It didn't help much. If you got the CD-4 records to play at all, the 4-channel effect didn't last long before starting to distort and break-up as the subcarrier got worn away. |
#120
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
A whole bunch of stuff on the recent ?discussions.
On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 20:22:43 -0800, vlad wrote
(in article ): On Nov 23, 10:06 am, Greg Wormald wrote: . . . And lastly, if sound quality was most important to the masses, we're going to have a hard time explaining the overwhelming migration to 128 bit MP3's and the huge popularity of Itunes-sold music. Of course, if your ears and mind can't tell the difference between LP or CD and 128 bit MP3, you are in the wrong newsgroup. Greg Is not it a little bit elitist: if you don't hear the difference, you don't qualify for this group? Oh, That's right. Almost forgot. Anything that even suggests a hint of elitism is politically incorrect. Everybody's opinion, even if it's totally ignorant, has worth. God, what nonsense. Next time you need to see a doctor, call me instead, I don't know anything about medicine, but doctors are elitists, and my opinion is just as good as theirs under the doctrines of "PC" and I'll charge you less. I do hear a difference in LP and CD, I do not hear difference between CD and MP3-320mbps. And I prefer CD or MP3 on my iPod to LP's. Does it disqualify me? Before invention of portable MP3 players the only option to listen to music was to spend time washing your LP and then spend couple hours sitting and doing nothing but listening to music. For many busy people who could not afford this luxury it meant that they did not listen music at all. I agree, but why not use a loss-less compression scheme instead of MP3. The one that I'm most familiar with, Apple Loss-less (ALC), is indistinguishable from the source CD. Some folks say that loss-less is better than CD because the ripping software keeps on re-playing the same word over and over until it transfers error-free (something that even the best CD player can't do in real time.) or times out. That means much fewer read errors. Does this make any difference? It shouldn't , but some say it does. Now with invention of portable digital players you can have all you music collection in a cigarette pack ( I have 32GB of music in my iPod, neatly classified and I am adding every day). Not only you can listen to music wherever and whenever you want, but the easy access makes all the difference in a world. Before that if I wanted to listen some obscure recording of Samuel Barber, I would have to spend time searching for it on my CD shelves, then putting it into CD player, after all not to forget to put it back, etc. etc. All this hassle made it almost impossible. Now 2 clicks on iPod bring me to Samuel Barber and the next click brings me to a piece that I want. After listening no hassle either, just turn iPod off. I don't know about you but I consider it as a great progress, I listen much more music now then before. In a way of putting my music in my iPod I made few discoveries in my collection, like there were two recordings of Schubert's "Death and the Maiden" that I did not even know that I have. Now they all neatly organized in my iPod with easy access. Is not it a progress? Not at all, Lossy compression is a step backward from CD. Loss-less compression, OTOH, is step forward by allowing you to pack a lot of music into a relatively small space with no loss of quality. My iPod gas nothing but ALC ripped music on it and it sounds as good as the D/A in the ipod will allow it to sound. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
FS:Calfornia Audio Labs (CAL) CL-20 DVD/CD Player | Marketplace | |||
FS:California Audio Labs (CAL) CL-20 DVD/CD Player | Marketplace | |||
Another question on SACD player | High End Audio | |||
FS:California Audio Labs CL-20 CD/DVD Player | Marketplace | |||
FS:California Audio Labs (CAL) CL-20 DVD/CD Player | Marketplace |