| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#121
|
|||
|
|||
Gary Rosen wrote:
wrote in message ... Stewart Pinkerton wrote: Nope, there are *lots* of badly recorded and/or mastered CDs out there. Ditto for LP, of course. Unfortunately your claims about the CD v. LP debate completely ignore this important fact. As do yours. Prove it. Quotes please. Your claims about LP are at least as absolutist as Stewart's if not more so. I suggest you reread both my claims and Stewart's. I challenge you to find and cite one single post by me that can be claimed to be absolutist. Good luck. Scott Wheeler |
|
#122
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 3 Jul 2005 20:46:05 GMT, "Mike Gilmour"
wrote: "Per Stromgren" wrote in message ... On 3 Jul 2005 15:17:49 GMT, wrote: What happens to that signal between there and the loudspeakers is another matter. If you mean vinyl, then say vinyl. BTW, as noted elsewhere, since every modern vinyl cutting facility includes a digital delay line for Varigroove purposes, *all* new music recordings are digital by definition, whether purchased on black or silver discs. Every? Are you sure about this? Please name one vinyl cutting facility, used above hobby scale, that doesn't have this! Per. To quote Tim de Paravicini: "I do ensure that the old digital delay lines for Varigroove are not used. Most of the stuff cut nowadays is constant pitch anyway, so we dispense with that sort of thing" Discuss :-) That quote seem to be from the Hi-Fi Review interview, January 1990, i.e 15 years old. I suspect that digital delay lines may have improved since then, even using Tim d. P:s ears. Constant pitch? What do you get then, 15 minutes per side? Half a point. Any more examples? Per. |
|
#123
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
Marc Foster wrote: "Reconstruction filter", you say? What is that needed for? Did something change from the original signal? If you can't follow that analogy, then you're simply not thinking abstractly enough. No one is saying vinyl doesn't distort the analog signal. And I have not even said the ultimate analog signal coming from the CD player is worse than the signal coming from the phono stage. I am saying digital technology has a fundamental design flaw, and that is that the signal is distorted on purpose. It's inherent in the technology. Whether the end result is more faithful to the original signal is beside the point. As others have pointed out, you simply don't understand how digital sampling and playback works. If you are asking why a reconstruction filter is needed, that is absolute proof of your lack of knowledge. Two required parts of a digital system are a band limiting filter on the input to the ADC to eliminate frequency components above 1/2 the sampling frequency and a band limiting filter on the output of the DAC (called a reconstruction filter). If you properly implement both filters the output will be exactly the input. Not exactly the input. Perhaps exactly the input below 22khz. |
|
#124
|
|||
|
|||
|
Per Stromgren wrote:
On 3 Jul 2005 20:46:05 GMT, "Mike Gilmour" wrote: "Per Stromgren" wrote in message ... On 3 Jul 2005 15:17:49 GMT, wrote: What happens to that signal between there and the loudspeakers is another matter. If you mean vinyl, then say vinyl. BTW, as noted elsewhere, since every modern vinyl cutting facility includes a digital delay line for Varigroove purposes, *all* new music recordings are digital by definition, whether purchased on black or silver discs. Every? Are you sure about this? Please name one vinyl cutting facility, used above hobby scale, that doesn't have this! Per. To quote Tim de Paravicini: "I do ensure that the old digital delay lines for Varigroove are not used. Most of the stuff cut nowadays is constant pitch anyway, so we dispense with that sort of thing" Discuss :-) That quote seem to be from the Hi-Fi Review interview, January 1990, i.e 15 years old. I suspect that digital delay lines may have improved since then, even using Tim d. P:s ears. Constant pitch? What do you get then, 15 minutes per side? Half a point. Any more examples? 1. RTI 2. Stan Ricker The question for you is can you name any audiophile mastering engineers that are converting analog master tapes to digital these days. Can you name one? A full point for any citations. Scott Wheeler |
|
#126
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 2 Jul 2005 18:56:36 GMT, "Helen Schmidt" wrote: Stewart et al have no evidence about subjective state of listeners, beyond simplified verbal reporting of state that compresses the percepts themselves. I may not, but Al certainly does! Once again I ask, did you not read the posts regarding the development of perceptual codecs such as MP3, AAC, Dolby etc? They are based on *massive* amounts of research into the subjective state of listeners, specifically their ability to detect any difference between the original sound and the lossy compressed version. The question that really interests me about subjective state is how we can distinguish between "realistic percepts in the listener's mind" and "vague pleasant feelings in the listener's mind." The objectivist declares a priori this question is unanswerable and uninteresting. What the objectivist never seems to realize is that this is simply his *opinion* and most definitely not a fact of nature. I suspect the objectivist takes this position because he feels inadequate to address this question, or because his brain is simply wired to be "uninterested" in such matters. Determing whether people can hear small changes in sound is almost irrelevant to the question I pose. The objectivist prefers theories supported by empirical data and rejects introspection as a source of data. That's fine, and this choice will lead almost inevitably to the belief that the objectively better system is also subjectively better. However, the objectivist should realize that existing empircal data has very little relevance to the question I pose. Introspection as source of data, especially careful introspection by experienced musicians, is quite as relevant as the empirical data. In fact, I believe it is *more* relevant. This is also my opinion, and just like the objectivist's opinion, there is no empirical way to verify it. The objectivist also believes that merely suggesting vinyl or analog stimulates more lifelike musical percepts is to introduce an unnecessary mystery. What the objectivist fails to realize is that there is nothing wrong about introducing a theory which also introduces a mystery, when the data leads in that direction. And the data from careful introspection most definitely leads in that direction. It is simply the arbitrary choice of the objectivist to reject this data a priori. Helen |
|
#127
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#128
|
|||
|
|||
|
jeffc wrote:
The fact that you don't even acknowledge that converting to the digital domain and back to analog is a fundamental problem, It's not a problem at all. We can convert to digital and back and wind up with something that's audibly indistinguishable from the original. That would be a fact. bob |
|
#129
|
|||
|
|||
|
jeffc wrote:
"Chung" wrote in message ... I would surmise, based on your posts, that Stewart understands a lot more about good vinyl sound, and that he is a lot less biased, than you. What exactly do you think I'm biased about? How about this very first sentence in your first post in this thread: "Technically, digital is crude compared to vinyl, because vinyl is analog which is pure." To say that vinyl is "pure" totally ignores the degradations introduced to the signals, and shows bias towards vinyl technology. In fact, based on your posts, you have really contributed zero, or worse, negatively, on this thread. Funny that you should accuse Stewart of not contributing. |
|
#130
|
|||
|
|||
|
Billy Shears wrote:
In article , Marc Foster wrote: "Reconstruction filter", you say? What is that needed for? Did something change from the original signal? If you can't follow that analogy, then you're simply not thinking abstractly enough. No one is saying vinyl doesn't distort the analog signal. And I have not even said the ultimate analog signal coming from the CD player is worse than the signal coming from the phono stage. I am saying digital technology has a fundamental design flaw, and that is that the signal is distorted on purpose. It's inherent in the technology. Whether the end result is more faithful to the original signal is beside the point. As others have pointed out, you simply don't understand how digital sampling and playback works. If you are asking why a reconstruction filter is needed, that is absolute proof of your lack of knowledge. Two required parts of a digital system are a band limiting filter on the input to the ADC to eliminate frequency components above 1/2 the sampling frequency and a band limiting filter on the output of the DAC (called a reconstruction filter). If you properly implement both filters the output will be exactly the input. Not exactly the input. Perhaps exactly the input below 22khz. To be picky about it, Marc did not restrict that comment to CD. |
|
#132
|
|||
|
|||
|
Per Stromgren wrote:
On 4 Jul 2005 19:37:56 GMT, wrote: 1. RTI 2. Stan Ricker The question for you is can you name any audiophile mastering engineers that are converting analog master tapes to digital these days. I did not say that! 1. I see you didn't provide any audiophle mastering enginees that are converting an analog signal to digital before sending the signal to the cutting lathe so no points for you. 2. Stewart said." BTW, as noted elsewhere, since every modern vinyl cutting facility includes a digital delay line for Varigroove purposes, *all* new music recordings are digital by definition, whether purchased on black or silver discs." http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...157d165b80de42 You followed this point of Pinkerton's with... "Please name one vinyl cutting facility, used above hobby scale, that doesn't have this!" http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...157d165b80de42 So you certainly seemed to be behind Pinkerton's claim that *all* current LP mastering is converting thesignal to digital. I said that there is digital delay line in the cutter! You have to pretty extreme in your fear of digital conversions to give up that. It isn't about fear it's about facts. Pinkerton made a gross factual error and you backed him up. And be *very* sure that you haven't had any digital signals in your source chain. Gosh, I hate to sound like a skipping record, pun intended, but you need to reead my posts. I have a CD plyer and a substantial CD collection and I like the sound of a good many of those CDs. Please pay better attention. Stan Ricker is an interesting example, by the way. From SRM:S web page: "SRM USES THE MOST UP-TO-DATE DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY " (Stan own use of case.) We don't now what he uses it for, of course. Accounting? Yeah Stan also is a world class mastering engineer for CDs. Gotta have digital equipment to do that don't ya? "THIS SYSTEM IS WIRED WITH CARDAS CABLE FOR LOW DISTORTION,WIDE-BAND AUDIO, AND SHAKTI RF ABSORBERS FOR BEST POSSIBLE SIGNAL-TO-NOISE RATIO." Yep. Shakti RF Absorbers. Yep world class mastering to boot. Go figure. Per. And I still wonder what this fear of digital is? Your imagination no less. Vinyl sounds like vinyl, whatever fed it, analog tape or a digital memory. Well, IMO that is more often than not better than the alternatives. Scott Wheeler |
|
#133
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ed Seedhouse wrote:
On 4 Jul 2005 18:52:01 GMT, wrote: I don't know about the ratios but if you want a list of things Stewart said that are factually wrong just in this thread. 1."The reconstruction filter ensures that the output is a smooth curve, following the original bandwidth-limited input signal *exactly*, not approximately." Fact is it can never be "exact." Fact is it can, and must be given the stated conditions. No it can't. So long as you are dealing with 16 bits the amplitude is not going to be *exact* Mr. Wheeler is not arguing with engineering or physics here, he is arguing with mathematics. Yeah right. Please show me the math that supports the crazy idea that 16 bits can *exactly* match evey possible amplitude of a an audio signal. Good luck. He might as well claim that the square root of two is the ratio of two integers. me thinks th math supports me not you. Scott Wheeler |
|
#134
|
|||
|
|||
|
Helen Schmidt wrote:
The question that really interests me about subjective state is how we can distinguish between "realistic percepts in the listener's mind" and "vague pleasant feelings in the listener's mind." Um, why can't we just ask people? "Do you think this is more realistic than that? Do you think this is more pleasant than that?" Seems pretty simple to me. The objectivist declares a priori this question is unanswerable and uninteresting. Well, as I've just shown, it is quite answerable. And depending on the context, it could also be very interesting. I am, of course, an objectivist. So that shoots your theory. What the objectivist never seems to realize is that this is simply his *opinion* Well, no, it turns out to be the opposite of my opinion. and most definitely not a fact of nature. I suspect the objectivist takes this position because he feels inadequate to address this question, or because his brain is simply wired to be "uninterested" in such matters. Please, enough of your charm offensive. (Note to moderator: She is pushing the line.) Determing whether people can hear small changes in sound is almost irrelevant to the question I pose. Agreed. So you're wrong about objectivists once again. The objectivist prefers theories supported by empirical data and rejects introspection as a source of data. Introspection is not a source of data. But as we discover below, you have an unconventional definition of "introspection." That's fine, and this choice will lead almost inevitably to the belief that the objectively better system is also subjectively better. Again, I disagree. The objectively better system may not be the subjectively better system. It depends on what you mean by "subjectively better." But if you leave it up to the listener to decide (as any objectivist would), then it is quite possible for some listeners to find an "inferior" system to be subjectively better. However, the objectivist should realize that existing empircal data has very little relevance to the question I pose. Introspection as source of data, especially careful introspection by experienced musicians, is quite as relevant as the empirical data. If by introspection, you mean, asking people whether X is better than Y, you're using a very odd dictionary. But if you want to know whether people find X to be better than Y, asking them does produce the relevant data. In fact, I believe it is *more* relevant. This is also my opinion, and just like the objectivist's opinion, there is no empirical way to verify it. It's hardly an opinion, it's bleedin' obvious. And, once again, an objectivist is agreeing with you. So you are wrong again about objectivists. The objectivist also believes that merely suggesting vinyl or analog stimulates more lifelike musical percepts is to introduce an unnecessary mystery. Nonsense. There is no mystery. There are multiple possible explanations, and no, we can't be sure which explanation(s) is/are correct for a particular listener at a particular time. But which explanation is correct for particular listener at a particular time doesn't seem a terribly important question. What the objectivist fails to realize is that there is nothing wrong about introducing a theory which also introduces a mystery, when the data leads in that direction. And the data from careful introspection most definitely leads in that direction. It is simply the arbitrary choice of the objectivist to reject this data a priori. Well, you haven't introduced any data. None. All you've done is demonstrated that you haven't a clue about what objectivists really think. So why do you persist? bob |
|
#135
|
|||
|
|||
|
Helen Schmidt wrote:
The objectivist also believes that merely suggesting vinyl or analog stimulates more lifelike musical percepts is to introduce an unnecessary mystery. What the objectivist fails to realize is that there is nothing wrong about introducing a theory which also introduces a mystery, when the data leads in that direction. As a footnote, plenty of scientific theories introduced great mysteries, such as quantum mechanics. If the objectivist attempts to answer this by saying those were empirical theories, I point out once again that we don't have any empirical data relevant to the question I pose---like it or not, our choice is between peripheral empirical data, and directly relevant subjective reporting. Helen |
|
#136
|
|||
|
|||
|
Helen Schmidt wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 2 Jul 2005 18:56:36 GMT, "Helen Schmidt" wrote: Stewart et al have no evidence about subjective state of listeners, beyond simplified verbal reporting of state that compresses the percepts themselves. I may not, but Al certainly does! Once again I ask, did you not read the posts regarding the development of perceptual codecs such as MP3, AAC, Dolby etc? They are based on *massive* amounts of research into the subjective state of listeners, specifically their ability to detect any difference between the original sound and the lossy compressed version. The question that really interests me about subjective state is how we can distinguish between "realistic percepts in the listener's mind" and "vague pleasant feelings in the listener's mind." That's a lot of words for "No". Your seemingly arbitrary (IMHO) dichotomy assumes of course that "realistic" and "pleasant" are not linked. Something that, for any individual listener, *you* cannot readily determine. The objectivist declares a priori this question is unanswerable and uninteresting. Really? I've never seen anyone say that the question is unaswerable. Interesting, of course, is in the eye of the beholder. You *will* hear that such information is of scant practical value, due to its irrelevance to the engineering aspect of sound reproduction. Sound reproduction is an engineering discipline; how would the answer to your question be relevant to hardware design and implementation? What the objectivist never seems to realize is that this is simply his *opinion* and most definitely not a fact of nature. I smell straw burning... I suspect the objectivist takes this position because he feels inadequate to address this question, or because his brain is simply wired to be "uninterested" in such matters. Ah yes, condescension in lieu of cogent objective reality-based arguments. Determing whether people can hear small changes in sound is almost irrelevant to the question I pose. The objectivist prefers theories supported by empirical data and rejects introspection as a source of data. That's fine, and this choice will lead almost inevitably to the belief that the objectively better system is also subjectively better. If you actually believe this, then you have truly misunderstood the vast majority of postings by your *personal* cadre of Objectivists. The objectively better system will, by definition, be the better system based on objective measurements. It will be the higher fidelity (i.e. most faithfully reproduce the stored data - from whatever front end) system. Subjectively, its a crap shoot. Everyone is free to form preferences based on whatever criteria they choose. How many times must every objectivist restate the same before this ludicrous, clearly willful, misrepresentation dies the ignoble death it so richly deserves? However, the objectivist should realize that existing empircal data has very little relevance to the question I pose. And you should realize that the question you pose, or its answer, has no relevance to the objectivists ability to create better equipment. You *do* realize that sans objectivists, you would be introspecting in silence, do you not? Introspection as source of data, especially careful introspection by experienced musicians, is quite as relevant as the empirical data. In fact, I believe it is *more* relevant. This is also my opinion, and just like the objectivist's opinion, there is no empirical way to verify it. You assume there's no way to verify it. That *you* are unable to create the requisite protocol is hardly sufficient to say it's impossible. *If* it were interesting enough to researchers of sufficient understanding and ingenuity, I'm sure a great deal of relevant data could be collected and analyzed. Stand back, you don't want to get crushed in the mad rush... The objectivist also believes that merely suggesting vinyl or analog stimulates more lifelike musical percepts is to introduce an unnecessary mystery. Wrong. The objectivist believes that to invent some mysterious, indescribable, unmeasureable, nearly mystical quality/parameter/property (call it what you will) to support flawed observations (i.e. sighted, non level matched, etc. - you know the list) is pointless. If you feel vinyl is more lifelike, great, listen to vinyl. The obsession with needing to find some *technical* justification for your (the "vinyl" group) preference is something I find hard to understand. Preferences do not require validation. What the objectivist fails to realize is that there is nothing wrong about introducing a theory which also introduces a mystery, when the data leads in that direction. There's that burning straw smell again... And the data from careful introspection most definitely leads in that direction. Correction: your introspection leads *you* in that direction. Not the same thing at all. Like a lot of objectivists here, I listened to vinyl for 30 years and loved it. I switched to CD for better sound - first to be shed of the clicks/pops/wow etc. Yes the mastering was often pitiful in the early days, and I kept playing LP's that sounded better than their vinyl counterparts, but that was soon remedied, and now CD is vastly superior to vinyl to my ears. So you see, no introspection is required for me - the technically superior medium *sounds* better, and I switched *Because* it sounded better. It is simply the arbitrary choice of the objectivist to reject this data a priori. Whatever 'data' you believe you may have acquired while wandering the hallways of your mind, is simply not relevant to me or anyone else. You cannot objectify that data in any meaningful way such that it can be imparted to, and evaluated by others. Your 'data' may be fantasy, delusion, or transcendental truth, but the result is the same. If it cannot be objectified and/or quantified in such a manner that it can be unambiguously communicated and evaluated, it is not "Data" in any traditional sense. Its personal experience, valid for the perceiver, but of little practical utility. Keith Hughes |
|
#137
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mike Gilmour wrote:
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On 3 Jul 2005 20:46:05 GMT, "Mike Gilmour" wrote: "Per Stromgren" wrote in message ... On 3 Jul 2005 15:17:49 GMT, wrote: What happens to that signal between there and the loudspeakers is another matter. If you mean vinyl, then say vinyl. BTW, as noted elsewhere, since every modern vinyl cutting facility includes a digital delay line for Varigroove purposes, *all* new music recordings are digital by definition, whether purchased on black or silver discs. Every? Are you sure about this? Please name one vinyl cutting facility, used above hobby scale, that doesn't have this! Per. To quote Tim de Paravicini: "I do ensure that the old digital delay lines for Varigroove are not used. Most of the stuff cut nowadays is constant pitch anyway, so we dispense with that sort of thing" Discuss :-) Tim is a well-known 'off the wall' extremist who restores ancient all-valve tape recorders. Not to be regarded as 'above hobby scale'. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering A hobby indeed. Pink Floyd happily uses Tim's modified equipment aboard Astoria Sound Studios They (Guthrie) also use Shakti Stones. Alas, recording engineers aren't necessarily *sceintifically minded*. Or even *engineering-minded*. Ry Cooder also achieved Grammy winning recordings via T de P's work refer also Water Lily, Chesky, Island Records and many others who have produced excellent results thanks to Tim's work.. He modifies a variety of valve equipment not just 'ancient all-valve tape recorders' as valve equipment is still used in some studios as are valve microphones. Yes I knew Tim, eccentric yes but 'off the wall' extremist are very harsh words. Tim's work is respected in many quarters. T Mike There's an awful lot of unexamined premises floating around in many quarters of the high end. An *awful* lot of people who think 'I hear it' is sufficient proof that 'it' is real. Though of course it's easy to demonstrate quite the contrary. |
|
#138
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Per Stromgren" wrote in message
... And I still wonder what this fear of digital is? Vinyl sounds like vinyl, whatever fed it, analog tape or a digital memory. Vinyl has a chance of being purely analog throughout the reproduction chain, CD does not. |
|
#139
|
|||
|
|||
|
chung wrote:
jeffc wrote: "Chung" wrote in message ... I would surmise, based on your posts, that Stewart understands a lot more about good vinyl sound, and that he is a lot less biased, than you. What exactly do you think I'm biased about? How about this very first sentence in your first post in this thread: "Technically, digital is crude compared to vinyl, because vinyl is analog which is pure." To say that vinyl is "pure" totally ignores the degradations introduced to the signals, and shows bias towards vinyl technology. In fact, based on your posts, you have really contributed zero, or worse, negatively, on this thread. Funny that you should accuse Stewart of not contributing. I hope he's not suggesting that the grooves inscribed in a slab of *vinyl* are 'pure' representations of the original sound wave, simply because they are wave-shaped too...because that would be absurd. |
|
#140
|
|||
|
|||
|
chung wrote:
Per Stromgren wrote: On 4 Jul 2005 19:37:56 GMT, wrote: 1. RTI 2. Stan Ricker The question for you is can you name any audiophile mastering engineers that are converting analog master tapes to digital these days. I did not say that! I said that there is digital delay line in the cutter! You have to pretty extreme in your fear of digital conversions to give up that. And be *very* sure that you haven't had any digital signals in your source chain. Stan Ricker is an interesting example, by the way. From SRM:S web page: "SRM USES THE MOST UP-TO-DATE DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY " (Stan own use of case.) We don't now what he uses it for, of course. Accounting? "THIS SYSTEM IS WIRED WITH CARDAS CABLE FOR LOW DISTORTION,WIDE-BAND AUDIO, AND SHAKTI RF ABSORBERS FOR BEST POSSIBLE SIGNAL-TO-NOISE RATIO." Yep. Shakti RF Absorbers. Per. And I still wonder what this fear of digital is? Vinyl sounds like vinyl, whatever fed it, analog tape or a digital memory. Per. I often wonder the same thing. Why the militant stance, among the vinylphiles, against digital in general and CD in particular, What militant stance would that be? Are you really reading the posts by those who prefer LP playback? Can you cite one militant stance taken by any such posters? and why such reluctance to accept euphonic distortion and other psychological precertion factors as basis for preference? Interesting question. I wonder why the people who claim the preference is due to euphonic distortions consistantly fail to cite any research that supports their claim. If my preference were the result of "euphonic distortions" I would not feel any different about those preferences. Actually I would want those who produce CDs and LPs to figure out what is going on and use that information to continue to produce LPs and CDs that sound more life like to me. Just accept the digital (CD and hi-rez) as the technically superior medium, and understand that there is more to a recording than the medium. Technical superiority has no meaning without a reference. So long as my reference is the sound of live music and Lps continue to to better job of getting me closer to that sound more often than not I have no interest in this alleged technical superiority. It isn't technically superior if it doesn't do a better job of serving it's purpose. But I will say this, CDs have improved tremendously since they first hit the market. but IMO that is *not* due to the people who have defended that medium on the basis of specs but due to the eforts of people who heard the short-comings from the get go and decided they would do something about it. The irony is that the folks who prefered vinyl were the ones most instrumental in the improvements in CDs. If everyone acepted the false notion that we had perfect sound forever from the begining there would have been no efforts to make things better. You guys really should thank vinyl enthusiasts. I doubt it will happen. Scott Wheeler |
|
#141
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote in message ...
jeffc wrote: The fact that you don't even acknowledge that converting to the digital domain and back to analog is a fundamental problem, It's not a problem at all. We can convert to digital and back and wind up with something that's audibly indistinguishable from the original. That would be a fact. Yes, we *can* fool some of the people some of the time, so it's a fact in that sense. But it's hardly a strong or compelling statement when worded that way, is it? Digital is a great medium in many ways, far better than analog vinyl in many ways. That doesn't change the *fact* that converting to digital and back to analog is an inherent, fundamental design problem when pursuing perfect sound reproduction. I've heard plenty of digital recordings that are crap, precisely and specifically because they are digital. I've also heard some that I can't distinguish from the original. That doesn't change the fact mentioned above. |
|
#142
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Helen Schmidt" wrote in message
... The objectivist also believes that merely suggesting vinyl or analog stimulates more lifelike musical percepts is to introduce an unnecessary mystery. Not at all. There are good reasons why some audiophiles prefer vinyl to CDs, some of them technical (for example added distortions, poor transfer of old masters onto CDs early on...), some of them psychological (too numerous to mention here). What the objectivist fails to realize is that there is nothing wrong about introducing a theory which also introduces a mystery,... No mystery here. ....when the data leads in that direction. And the data from careful introspection most definitely leads in that direction. It is simply the arbitrary choice of the objectivist to reject this data a priori. Who is going to analyze this introspective data? Those who gave it? Objectivists only have problem with introspective data when such data clashes with physical reality, which mostly is *not* the case when somebody tries to explain his/her preference for vinyl over CDs, unless he or she argues his/her position with arguments that are simply wrong from an engineering point of view (for example, vinyl has infinite resolution). Would you accept the introspective data that says, for example, that a silver speaker cable is "sounds better" than a copper speaker cable of the same construction? |
|
#143
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steven Sullivan wrote:
Per Stromgren wrote: On 4 Jul 2005 19:37:56 GMT, wrote: 1. RTI 2. Stan Ricker The question for you is can you name any audiophile mastering engineers that are converting analog master tapes to digital these days. I did not say that! I said that there is digital delay line in the cutter! You have to pretty extreme in your fear of digital conversions to give up that. And be *very* sure that you haven't had any digital signals in your source chain. Stan Ricker is an interesting example, by the way. From SRM:S web page: "SRM USES THE MOST UP-TO-DATE DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY " (Stan own use of case.) We don't now what he uses it for, of course. Accounting? "THIS SYSTEM IS WIRED WITH CARDAS CABLE FOR LOW DISTORTION,WIDE-BAND AUDIO, AND SHAKTI RF ABSORBERS FOR BEST POSSIBLE SIGNAL-TO-NOISE RATIO." Yep. Shakti RF Absorbers. Per. And I still wonder what this fear of digital is? Vinyl sounds like vinyl, whatever fed it, analog tape or a digital memory. Ricker has a Bachelor's in Music Education...but I see no evidence of engineering or science eduction. This is ever so common among recording 'engineers'...including lots of famous ones like Ricker. Maybe scientists aren't the best candidates for recording engineers. No wait, Atkinson was a degree in science and hes a pretty darned god recording engineer. So their advocacy of Shakti products can be distinguished from superstition *how...? If he had a degree in science it would not be a superstition in your opinion? Hmmm where does that leave you with Atkinson and his beliefs in audio? Scott Wheeler |
|
#144
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#145
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 5 Jul 2005 01:59:30 GMT, wrote:
Ed Seedhouse wrote: 1."The reconstruction filter ensures that the output is a smooth curve, following the original bandwidth-limited input signal *exactly*, not approximately." Fact is it can never be "exact." Fact is it can, and must be given the stated conditions. No it can't. So long as you are dealing with 16 bits the amplitude is not going to be *exact* If it meets the requirements of the Nyquist-Shannon theorum it is *exact*. And Mr. Wheeler can say it isn't over and over as loud as he likes until he is red in the face, and he can call it a "crazy" idea all he likes, but that makes precisely no difference at all. Mr. Wheeler is not arguing with engineering or physics here, he is arguing with mathematics. Yeah right. Please show me the math that supports the crazy idea that 16 bits can *exactly* match every possible amplitude of a an audio signal. Good luck. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist...mpling_theorem for an explanation. Mr. Wheeler may not understand the explanation, but it has stood undisputed as a mathematical proof for decades and it's validity is no more in question than the theorum that the angles of a plain triangle sum to exactly 180 degrees. Ed Seedhouse, Victoria, B.C. |
|
#146
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 5 Jul 2005 03:48:52 GMT, "jeffc" wrote:
wrote in message ... jeffc wrote: The fact that you don't even acknowledge that converting to the digital domain and back to analog is a fundamental problem, It's not a problem at all. We can convert to digital and back and wind up with something that's audibly indistinguishable from the original. That would be a fact. Yes, we *can* fool some of the people some of the time, so it's a fact in that sense. Actually it's a fact because it is a proven theorum of mathematics. No amount of hand waving or name calling can change that. Ed Seedhouse, Victoria, B.C. |
|
#147
|
|||
|
|||
|
jeffc wrote:
"chung" wrote in message ... I would surmise, based on your posts, that Stewart understands a lot more about good vinyl sound, and that he is a lot less biased, than you. What exactly do you think I'm biased about? How about this very first sentence in your first post in this thread: "Technically, digital is crude compared to vinyl, because vinyl is analog which is pure." To say that vinyl is "pure" totally ignores the degradations introduced to the signals, and shows bias towards vinyl technology. Excuse me? That's a non-sequitur, and you're just looking for monsters under the bed. Any rational person could deduce from my post that I meant CD undergoes a transformation from analog to digital back to analog, therefore it's not pure analog, whereas lots of good vinyl is. What on earth could you possibly have thought I meant by "pure"? And, pray tell, what is "pure" in the vinyl process? Let's examine the signal chain and the many transformations that take place: 1. Sound waves picked up by microphones. This is a transformation from mechanical energy to electrical energy. Frequency response errors, distortion and noise are added. 2. Microphone outputs are processed by mixers, equalizers and compressors. Frequency response errors, distortion and noise are added. 3. Output is stored on analog magnetic tape. Analog voltages are transformed to magnetization of particles on tapes. Frequency response errors, distortion and noise are added. By the way, magnetic particles are discrete, and not continuous, as you expect "analog" to be. 4. Tape is replayed and output to cutter via non-linear amplifiers. Magnetic orientation of particles are transformed into voltages, which subsequently get transoformed to mechanical energy (heat) to deform the disc master. Frequency response errors, distortion and noise are added. Due to limitations of cutters, certain compromises such as bass summing to mono are made. RIAA equalization is also intentionally applied. 5. Master is used to make LP copies. This is a mechanical step where tolerances result in frequency response errors, distortion and noise. 6. Cartridge picks up groove modulations in the LP during playback. Mechanical energy is once again transformed into electrical energy, and frequency response errors, distortion and noise are added. 7. Preamp amplifies tiny voltages from cartridge, and reverse RIAA equalization is now applied. From this point on, the signal is amplified linearly by amplifiers such that there is sufficient power to drive the transducers: speakers or headphones. 8. Speakers transform electrcial energy to magnetic energy to move drivers, and drivers' mechanical motions get transformed into time-varying air pressure that the ear detects as sound. Frequency response errors, distortion and noise are added. So once again, given that there are these multiple transformations from one type of energy to another, with the unavoidable errors introduced, how can you call vinyl playback "pure"? What is so magical about keeping things in the analog domain? |
|
#148
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Per Stromgren" wrote in message
... On 3 Jul 2005 20:46:05 GMT, "Mike Gilmour" wrote: "Per Stromgren" wrote in message ... On 3 Jul 2005 15:17:49 GMT, wrote: What happens to that signal between there and the loudspeakers is another matter. If you mean vinyl, then say vinyl. BTW, as noted elsewhere, since every modern vinyl cutting facility includes a digital delay line for Varigroove purposes, *all* new music recordings are digital by definition, whether purchased on black or silver discs. Every? Are you sure about this? Please name one vinyl cutting facility, used above hobby scale, that doesn't have this! Per. To quote Tim de Paravicini: "I do ensure that the old digital delay lines for Varigroove are not used. Most of the stuff cut nowadays is constant pitch anyway, so we dispense with that sort of thing" Discuss :-) That quote seem to be from the Hi-Fi Review interview, January 1990, i.e 15 years old. I suspect that digital delay lines may have improved since then, even using Tim d. P:s ears. Constant pitch? What do you get then, 15 minutes per side? Half a point. Any more examples? Per. Sure...Example 2 http://www.southern.net/southern/ban...8988_mast.html " using a Studer A80 playback machine with advance heads, thus obviating the need for a digital delay line in the program path." Mike |
|
#149
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 4 Jul 2005 18:51:37 GMT, "jeffc" wrote:
"Chung" wrote in message ... I would surmise, based on your posts, that Stewart understands a lot more about good vinyl sound, and that he is a lot less biased, than you. What exactly do you think I'm biased about? For one thing, the so-called 'purity' of vinyl, which doesn't withstand even the most cursory examination. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#150
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 5 Jul 2005 03:46:50 GMT, "jeffc" wrote:
"chung" wrote in message ... I would surmise, based on your posts, that Stewart understands a lot more about good vinyl sound, and that he is a lot less biased, than you. What exactly do you think I'm biased about? How about this very first sentence in your first post in this thread: "Technically, digital is crude compared to vinyl, because vinyl is analog which is pure." To say that vinyl is "pure" totally ignores the degradations introduced to the signals, and shows bias towards vinyl technology. Excuse me? That's a non-sequitur, and you're just looking for monsters under the bed. Any rational person could deduce from my post that I meant CD undergoes a transformation from analog to digital back to analog, therefore it's not pure analog, whereas lots of good vinyl is. What on earth could you possibly have thought I meant by "pure"? That argument has already beeen deconstructed, as I showed that vinyl undergoes at least six fundamental transformations of form between the original performance soundfield and your speakers. You seem not to understand the meaning of the tern 'analogue'. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#151
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#152
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 4 Jul 2005 15:25:03 GMT, "Mike Gilmour"
wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On 3 Jul 2005 17:43:08 GMT, "Mike Gilmour" wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... I can often hear tape hiss in quiet passages, and particularly if it's faded out between tracks, but it's generally *below* the surface noise. As you'd expect. I find the opposite that tape hiss is considerably above that of the records surface noise, fade out between tracks is very clearly heard. Given that surface noise is *never* more than 75dB below peak cutting level, even on ridiculously 'hot' cuts, that suggests that you listen to pretty noisy masters! :-) Measurements on http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/...CDformats2.php range from -84dB around 1kHz to -96dB around 10 Khz for a mass produced LP bought at a 'thrift' store for 1$, you'll see the measurements of quality MSFL vinyl are considerably better, as expected. That rubbish by Christine Tam was already blasted in this forum for its technical incompetence. Those numbers are only applicable for *narrow band* measurements, not for the standard wideband noise floor measurement, which in *fact* gave a figure of 45.7 dB for the wideband dynamic range of the LP, against 65dB for the CD. BTW, Scott might like this quote from the same page as you are selectively quoting: "Now clearly LP loses out in dynamic range, even against the CD recording (by comparing the figures in the Maximum - Minimum RMS Power row). This is to be expected, given the surface noise on LP (which is quite audible on my system). " combination of stylus profile, cartridge quality, machine cleaned vinyl and high-end phono stage. None of this can overcome the basic level of surface roughness exhibited by even the very best 'virgin' vinyl. This is not a matter of opinion - it's readily measurable. It would be helpful if you actually managed to substantiate claims via your own or others research rather than making broad sweeping statements. The Christine Tam article actually demonstrates this quite effectively, if you avoid selective quoting and her misinterpretations in support of her own vinyl bias. I do have valve hiss but this is barely discernable by ear due selected low noise signal valves. I'm really surprised that you find the reverse to be true. I'm really surprised that you seem to have no well-recorded LPs.... That statement is groundless as I have collected quality recordings for over 40 years owning a large collection of well recorded LP's including many Mercurys and UHQR's. I suggest you research verifiable measurements relative to high end vinyl systems before making such extraordinary statemernts. Nothing extraordinary about it. I doubt even Stan Ricker would suggest that tape hiss is higher than surface noise on any of his masters. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#153
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 5 Jul 2005 01:59:30 GMT, wrote:
Ed Seedhouse wrote: On 4 Jul 2005 18:52:01 GMT, wrote: I don't know about the ratios but if you want a list of things Stewart said that are factually wrong just in this thread. 1."The reconstruction filter ensures that the output is a smooth curve, following the original bandwidth-limited input signal *exactly*, not approximately." Fact is it can never be "exact." Fact is it can, and must be given the stated conditions. No it can't. So long as you are dealing with 16 bits the amplitude is not going to be *exact* No mention was made of bit depth in Jeffc's original claims, he merely talked about 'digital'. However, given proper dithering, then a 16-bit system most certainly *is* exact, within the inevitable mathematical uncertainty given by the system noise floor. This uncertainty applies to *any* linear system with the same noise floor, whether analogue or digital. Mr. Wheeler is not arguing with engineering or physics here, he is arguing with mathematics. Yeah right. Please show me the math that supports the crazy idea that 16 bits can *exactly* match evey possible amplitude of a an audio signal. Good luck. See above. He might as well claim that the square root of two is the ratio of two integers. me thinks th math supports me not you. That's because your thinking is wrong............ -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#154
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 4 Jul 2005 18:52:45 GMT, "jeffc" wrote:
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... The only bias I can see comes from the 'subjectivists', who make claims for vinyl that simply have *no* evidential support whatever. There is also widespread ignorance of how digital actually works, and you appear to be one of the main culprits in this regard. The fact that you don't even acknowledge that converting to the digital domain and back to analog is a fundamental problem, It's not. Shame that you still fail to understand this, despite comprehensive explanations. and doesn't occur in most of the best vinyl recordings, You have absolutely *zero* evidence for that ridiculous claim. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#155
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 5 Jul 2005 03:48:52 GMT, "jeffc" wrote:
wrote in message ... jeffc wrote: Digital is a great medium in many ways, far better than analog vinyl in many ways. That doesn't change the *fact* that converting to digital and back to analog is an inherent, fundamental design problem when pursuing perfect sound reproduction. Utter rubbish, most certainly *not* a fact, and you even admit it below. Sheesh! I've heard plenty of digital recordings that are crap, precisely and specifically because they are digital. I've also heard some that I can't distinguish from the original. That doesn't change the fact mentioned above. Had you a logical bone in your head, you would realise what a ridiculous contradiction you just stated. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#156
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 4 Jul 2005 18:54:44 GMT, Billy Shears wrote:
In article , Marc Foster wrote: "Reconstruction filter", you say? What is that needed for? Did something change from the original signal? If you can't follow that analogy, then you're simply not thinking abstractly enough. No one is saying vinyl doesn't distort the analog signal. And I have not even said the ultimate analog signal coming from the CD player is worse than the signal coming from the phono stage. I am saying digital technology has a fundamental design flaw, and that is that the signal is distorted on purpose. It's inherent in the technology. Whether the end result is more faithful to the original signal is beside the point. As others have pointed out, you simply don't understand how digital sampling and playback works. If you are asking why a reconstruction filter is needed, that is absolute proof of your lack of knowledge. Two required parts of a digital system are a band limiting filter on the input to the ADC to eliminate frequency components above 1/2 the sampling frequency and a band limiting filter on the output of the DAC (called a reconstruction filter). If you properly implement both filters the output will be exactly the input. Not exactly the input. Perhaps exactly the input below 22khz. Which part of "a band limiting filter on the input to the ADC to eliminate frequency components above 1/2 the sampling frequency'' did you fail to understand? CD is only one digital standard. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#157
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 4 Jul 2005 22:23:09 GMT, "Helen Schmidt"
wrote: The objectivist also believes that merely suggesting vinyl or analog stimulates more lifelike musical percepts is to introduce an unnecessary mystery. What the objectivist fails to realize is that there is nothing wrong about introducing a theory which also introduces a mystery, when the data leads in that direction. And the data from careful introspection most definitely leads in that direction. It is simply the arbitrary choice of the objectivist to reject this data a priori. No, it is the arbitrary choice of that tiny minority who prefer vinyl to reject majority opinion, and insist that there *must* be a mysterious mechanism, despite being told of several obvious and already known mechanisms likely to underlie their opinion. This is actually nothing to do with 'objective vs subjective', it has to do with desperate self-justification and defence of a minority position. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#158
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 4 Jul 2005 18:52:45 GMT, "jeffc" wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... The only bias I can see comes from the 'subjectivists', who make claims for vinyl that simply have *no* evidential support whatever. There is also widespread ignorance of how digital actually works, and you appear to be one of the main culprits in this regard. The fact that you don't even acknowledge that converting to the digital domain and back to analog is a fundamental problem, It's not. Shame that you still fail to understand this, despite comprehensive explanations. and doesn't occur in most of the best vinyl recordings, You have absolutely *zero* evidence for that ridiculous claim. Have you not learned your lesson yet Stew? Do you need a list of all the records with superb sound that did not go through a A/D D/A conversion? hee is a bief and limited overview. The entire catalogue of the great Mercury, Decca, EMI, and RCA classical recordings from their golden eras, the entire LP catalogs from Sheffield, Reference recordings, Performance Recordings, Wilson audio, Waterlily, the entire catalogs of Blu Note and Riverside jazz from their golden eras, the LP reissues from APO, Classic, Cisco, Spakers corner, Testiment, Chesky, MFSL, Audio Fidelity, S&P, DCC, etc. etc. There's your proof. Do with it as yo please. Didn't you say you own many of these LPs? How could you claim there is no evidence if you made such a claim? Scott Wheeler |
|
#159
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 3 Jul 2005 15:48:31 GMT, "Helen Schmidt" wrote: Personally, the reason it matters to me is the effect on new people entering the hi-fi field, and kids growing up and starting to learn about audio. They hear the adults and the more experienced people assert things about the world, and they are influenced by that. A kid might hear an explanation of why format XYZ is superior to format ABC, and he might internalize this assertion, and (and this is key) he might take this explanation to be a truth about his *subjective* experience. People are prone to taking objective statements and thinking they define in some way subjective truth. If I drop an anvil on your head from twenty feet up, it *will* do you severe damage, and will probably kill you. This doesn't require much in the way of philosophical argument or 'subjective internalisation'. This is so irrelevant it's obvious you don't have a clue about the way people take objective statements as some kind of statement about subjective truth. As I've said, my purpose here is not to change anyone's mind about digital. It is not to provide technical justification for analog. It is this: to show how the objectivist's use of language and their worldview is merely their choice; it is merely their *opinion* that their worldview will lead to better audio; it is merely their *opinion* that "audio is engineering" and most definitely not a fact of nature; and that they are doing harm by throwing this opinion around as though it were a fact. Later, Jenn wrote: OF COURSE they are above the thresholds of human hearing, or I wouldn't be able to hear them. I'm also fairly pretty confident that you wouldn't be able to hear what I hear. Stewart replied: Now, exactly what gives you reason to think that? Stewart is so focused on the low level details he has a hard time even acknowledging the existence of the higher level. It's *obvious* that a highly trained conductor like Jenn can hear things Stewart can't. Is it? In terms of fidelity to an original live performance? Why? Apparently I need to explain something basic about music to you. The qualities of musical details are inseparable from the meaning of the music. A trumpet player produces a certain tone quality not because he likes it, but because that tone quality supports the expression inherent to the music at that moment in time. A conductor doesn't just notice that the hall ambience sounds "nice"--he sets tempo, balance, and articulation so that three work together with the ambience to convey his musical intentions. Change any of these details, and you change the meaning of the music. A recording engineer can hear how a certain choice of microphone changes the qualities of details--but Jenn can observe with much greater precision whether those changes support or hinder her expressive intentions. It is the purpose of a conductor to maximise the musical value of a live performance. It is the purpose of a recording engineer (given that we're talking about a 'live' recording) to capture the musical integrity of a live performance and deliver that to the mixdown master tape. Which person would you consider to be more aware of the fundamentals of the *reproduction* of music? You are thinking like an engineer--which is fine if you are doing engineering, but you need to understand where your habits of thought lead you astray. You want to divide the task and apply specialization, which is normal for an engineer. *Hearing* (not in the sense of picking up sound, but in the sense of noticing patterns) is primary for a conductor. Jenn may have many *techniques*, but these techniques are all informed by, and exist in the service of, her careful listening to sound. Any musician could tell you that the ability to listen is primary. This is something often misunderstood by non-musicians: that musicians develop certain techniques which they simply repeat. Actually everything a musician does is informed by hearing in the moment. Hearing is also primary to the recording engineer. The recording engineer has much technique, but it is all informed by his hearing in the moment--his ability to hear and respond to what he hears. As I said above, the qualities of details are inseperable from the meaning of the music. So you cannot make a hard distinction between the recording engineer's job and the musician's job. Given a choice of two recordings A and B, the recording engineer may find A to be closer to life, while Jenn may find B to be closer to her musical intentions. The perspective of the recording engineer may match yours, but almost surely Jenn's perspective better matches what I listen for in a recording. It is your mistaken assumption that the sound qualities are separate from the musical meaning. Someone operating under the level transfer fallacy thinks that a pattern merely needs to be above the threshold of hearing to be perceivable. It must be nice to be able to assign failure on the basis of a terminology you just made up. Later, someone (I think Mark DeBellis) wrote: But there is training and there is training. There are lots of different things on which one can focus attention, and some are more musically significant than others. I'd be inclined to give a lot of weight (at least initially) to Jenn's sense of what to listen *for*. Stewart replied: I wouldn't, as she's listening for faults in the *performance*, not in the sound quality per se. I'm not saying that she isn't well trained and a good listener, just that her specific training gives her no special advantage in terms of live vs recorded sound. Again Stewart is implying her level of perception is not useful in discriminating live and recorded sound.. very telling that he uses the word "sound" and not "music," because again he is working on just the lowest level. The level transfer fallacy and the subjective composition fallacy is what leads Stewart to think that this level is more fundamental. You are making assumptions here which have no basis in reality. The recorded sound is *more* than the music, not less. It includes hall ambience, audience noise, all the subtle cues that divide the original performance from the recording. I suggest that it's Jenn who is operating on the simpler level here............. Very telling that you include among your list of extra-musical things "the hall ambience." You have no understanding whatsoever of how hall ambience works together with tempo, articulation, and balance to convey the musical intention. Also, you have habits of language which keep leading you astray. You mention the "recorded sound has more than the music.." In comparing "more, less, higher level, lower level" I'm not talking about the signal on the recording. I'm talking about what is in the minds of the conductor and the recording engineer, what is inside their subjective experiences. They certainly have different things in mind, and Jenn almost certainly has a higher-level perspective on how the details work together to make the music. There is no comparison between how listening to music develops your ear, and how participating in music-making develops your ear. Music is Art - Audio is Engineering I see now how your belief that "audio is engineering" has led you to create an artificial separation between the listening skills of the conductor and the listening skills of the recording engineer. Helen |
|
#160
|
|||
|
|||
|
Chung wrote:
jeffc wrote: "chung" wrote in message ... I would surmise, based on your posts, that Stewart understands a lot more about good vinyl sound, and that he is a lot less biased, than you. What exactly do you think I'm biased about? How about this very first sentence in your first post in this thread: "Technically, digital is crude compared to vinyl, because vinyl is analog which is pure." To say that vinyl is "pure" totally ignores the degradations introduced to the signals, and shows bias towards vinyl technology. Excuse me? That's a non-sequitur, and you're just looking for monsters under the bed. Any rational person could deduce from my post that I meant CD undergoes a transformation from analog to digital back to analog, therefore it's not pure analog, whereas lots of good vinyl is. What on earth could you possibly have thought I meant by "pure"? And, pray tell, what is "pure" in the vinyl process? Let's examine the signal chain and the many transformations that take place: 1. Sound waves picked up by microphones. This is a transformation from mechanical energy to electrical energy. Frequency response errors, distortion and noise are added. I suppose this does not happen with CDs? LOL you are grasping at straws now. 2. Microphone outputs are processed by mixers, equalizers and compressors. Frequency response errors, distortion and noise are added. 1.See above 2. Tell this to the folks at Sheffield Lab, Reference Recordings, Waterlily, Performance Recordings. Analog Productions. etc. etc. etc. Buy yeah, alot of lousy recordings, analog and digital, do go through all this. How again does the CD avoid this? 3. Output is stored on analog magnetic tape. Analog voltages are transformed to magnetization of particles on tapes. Digital information isn't stored on anything? Frequency response errors, distortion and noise are added. Oh really? Whose job is it ti add distortion to the tape? By the way, magnetic particles are discrete, and not continuous, as you expect "analog" to be. So does that make it digital and thus reuire a/d d/a conversions? Or did you forget that Jeff clarified his claim about purity? 4. Tape is replayed and output to cutter via non-linear amplifiers. You are grasping again. Magnetic orientation of particles are transformed into voltages, which subsequently get transoformed to mechanical energy (heat) to deform the disc master. Frequency response errors, distortion and noise are added. Due to limitations of cutters, certain compromises such as bass summing to mono are made. RIAA equalization is also intentionally applied. 5. Master is used to make LP copies. This is a mechanical step where tolerances result in frequency response errors, distortion and noise. 6. Cartridge picks up groove modulations in the LP during playback. Mechanical energy is once again transformed into electrical energy, and frequency response errors, distortion and noise are added. 7. Preamp amplifies tiny voltages from cartridge, and reverse RIAA equalization is now applied. From this point on, the signal is amplified linearly by amplifiers such that there is sufficient power to drive the transducers: speakers or headphones. All that and not a single thing that is relative to Jeff's claim. 8. Speakers transform electrcial energy to magnetic energy to move drivers, and drivers' mechanical motions get transformed into time-varying air pressure that the ear detects as sound. Frequency response errors, distortion and noise are added. Well CD also avoids that as well I suppose. LOL. So once again, given that there are these multiple transformations from one type of energy to another, with the unavoidable errors introduced, how can you call vinyl playback "pure"? What is so magical about keeping things in the analog domain? How can you go through all that when Jeff already explained specifically that he as refering to the fact that analog requires no *A/D D/A conversion*??? Scott Wheeler |
Linear Mode
