| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#161
|
|||
|
|||
Ban wrote:
wrote: Snip material that was not addressed. 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, I have been working in recording studios since 1975 and I have seen the advent of digital studio gear. EMT was making a reverb unit in '74 for the price of a nice car. All good studios were immediately buying it, because how could have Pink Floyd, Genesis, Kraftwerk etc. have got this sound on their records without it? The bulk of their better recordings were made without any digital quipment IMO. I'm not sying that is inheent evidence about the qualitiy of digital equipmnt but it does tend to spoil your point. Before we were using big steel plates 2m x 1.25m size, a smaller gold-foil reverb and even torsion springs for this purpose. There was also some alley in the cellar with a loudspeaker and mikes. Actually folks like Led Zeppelin and The Who were finding interesting acoustic spaces in and around where they were recording for suh effects. Great stories. The digital reverb sounded so much better and was incedibly versatile, that we rarely used the other methods at all any more, and so did every studio. I will except your pesonal account. I'm not buying the every studio comment. I don't believe you know that. We've already had some broad claims of the same nature debunked. And the same happened with the 24 track 2" tape machines. Beautiful craftmanship by MCI, every track had also a dbx noise reduction module. Every week I calibrated the two 24tracks, of which 2 or 3 tracks were not at spec and unstable, we used these tracks for auxiliary things like handclaps for the rhythm and fader automation or synch-tracks. With the digital recording all these imperfections disappeared, you didn't need the technician any more and in everybody's eyes the recording quality improved a lot. Everybody's eyes? Again I suggest you simply speak for yourself on that one. So I can guarantee that 100% of the recording studios were using at least one digitally working piece of gear since 1975. I can guarentee that isn't true. But it doesn't help your argument. Pop recordings largely sounded like garbage by then. This hardly helps your argument. And we were well aware of the shortcomings of digital, well that's interesting. I keep hearing there are no shortcomings at all. studio ownwers are known to be utterly conservative. But with the digital you suddenly heard the A/C, the room imperfections much more clear, all this was usually buried in the tape noise. With 20dB more dynamic range a lot of details showed up. Isolation had to be increased for better sound proofing. In fact the whole studio was renewed, new concepts (LEDE) showed up, a technological revolution was triggered by digital. And the same is true for live acts, the sound has so much improved, and still digital sound processing is a growing art, a challenge to develop algorithms. Sorry but the evidence that can be found in commercial recordings simply do not support your position. Digital recording has anything but maked a noticble improvement in commercial recordings. Quite the opposite. The decline is easily heard. Compare the classical recordings post digital recording the predigital recording. No contest. the recordings from Decca, Mercury, EMI and RCA kill those digital recordings by and large. Opinions will vary. The same can be said for the best pop and best jaz recordings. Yeah we will find the occassional digital gem. Unfortunately hey are the exception not the rule. So I'm not saying digital per se is responsible for the decline in recording uality it clealy can't be cited as a reason for improvement when the improvement never happened. Maybe someone comes up with a good phono simulation, and in a DBT nobody can distinguish between a record player and the simulation. :-)) If it sounds better to me I'll buy it. Scott Wheeler |
|
#163
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
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'. Thanks for the irrelevant comment. However, given proper dithering, then a 16-bit system most certainly *is* exact, within the inevitable mathematical uncertainty given by the system noise floor. Now that is funny. It is exact within it's own inexactness IOW. Yeah that's fine, it also is not what you said is it? It also doesn't refute my basic claim that it is not *exact.* *I* made no such qualifications in my claim did I? 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. Above sems to support my claim. You had to qualify "exact" as not really exact. Thanks for confirming my claim. Ironic isn't it? 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............ No, you had to qualify a very simple well understood word, exact, to make your point. Maybe *you* should choose your words more carefully. But thanks for demonstrating that my thinking was actually right. That leaves your original claim where? Scott Wheeler |
|
#164
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
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. Buring the same old straw men again. How is the choice "arbitrary" if it is the result of well known "mechanisms?" Don't you get tired of contradicting yourself? What are those alleged "mechanisms" and where is the research that supports this claim? Don't you get tired of making the same unsupported claims? And lets talk about this alleged "tiny minority," don't you ever get tired of using popularity as evidence only when it suits your biases? doesn't it bother you that this argument supports the notion that McDonalds makes the best burgers in the world and Bose makes the best speakers? And lastly, don't you get tired of having to pick and choose your numbers? I mean if we want to talk about a real minority let's talk about the number of audiphiles that have extensive experience with high end vinyl playback and still prefer CDs. *That* is a tiny minority! Don't you get tired of the fact that you have to be selective in your reports on these alleged numbers to support your points? Rest assured, those of us whose preferences you attack do get tired of all this nonsense from you. This is actually nothing to do with 'objective vs subjective', it has to do with desperate self-justification and defence of a minority position. Yeah right. If this were true you would not ned to drag out the same old tiresome nonsensical arguments over and over and over again. Scott Wheeler |
|
#165
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 5 Jul 2005 14:32:12 GMT, "Mike Gilmour"
wrote: "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." But note the rolled off bass and the loud bit summed to mono... :-) Also, note that it's ten years old and the mastering was specifically aimed at 'vinyl purists' rather than just music lovers. Note also that DMM doesn't have the best reuptation in the world for top-quality sound. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#166
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#167
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Mike Gilmour" wrote in message
... "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 Example 3. A frequently used method (obviating digital delay line use) for all analogue cuts is to use 4 track tape with two tracks copied in advance to provide the signal for the cutting lathe. A no brainer really. Mike |
|
#168
|
|||
|
|||
|
Helen Schmidt wrote:
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. etc Fascinating. Earlier in this very post, you wrote. "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 [...]" Please explain how this doesn't apply to all the bosh you've been trying to pass off as *facts*? |
|
#169
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 5 Jul 2005 14:32:12 GMT, "Mike Gilmour" wrote: "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." But note the rolled off bass and the loud bit summed to mono... :-) Note that they acknowledge this poblem was unique to DMM and it wold not have been a problem had they used a laquer. Oh well. Also, note that it's ten years old and the mastering was specifically aimed at 'vinyl purists' rather than just music lovers. Note also that DMM doesn't have the best reuptation in the world for top-quality sound. And yet they still thought the vinyl was superior to their own careful purist CD mastering. Go figure. oh yeah, and they could compare both to the original master tape. Crazy! Scott Wheeler Scott Wheeler |
|
#170
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
... On 5 Jul 2005 14:32:12 GMT, "Mike Gilmour" wrote: [clip] 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." But note the rolled off bass and the loud bit summed to mono... :-) Also, note that it's ten years old and the mastering was specifically aimed at 'vinyl purists' rather than just music lovers. Note also that DMM doesn't have the best reuptation in the world for top-quality sound. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering ......'vinyl purists' rather than just music lovers' made me smile, thanks. I'd agree I'm also no fan of DMM but I have a digitally remastered (no prejudice here) DMM vinyl Deutsche Harmonia Mundi (made in co-production with NDR) of Chorwerke Der Romantic by the Madchenchor Hannover Choir which is imo a beautiful recording so I'm at a loss why other DMM's sound the way they do. Any studio pro's in the house? Mike |
|
#171
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
Stewart Pinkerton wrote: 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. The "band limiting filter on the input" operates on the input does it not? The input is thereby altered. It is therefore impossible to recapture the input exactly. |
|
#172
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
Ed Seedhouse wrote: 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. Sorry, I think Wheeler is right. The Nyquist theorem assumes exact sampling, which is impossible with 16, or any finite number, of bits. |
|
#173
|
|||
|
|||
|
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, It appears we can fool all of the people without too much difficulty; certainly all the available evidence suggests that. If you can provide us a counterexample, that would be nice. The normal evidentiary standards apply. 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. Youi're sticking to this amazing absurdity, aren't you? I've heard plenty of digital recordings that are crap, precisely and specifically because they are digital. How do you know it was because they were digital? How do you know they were not just poorly mastered (or, rather, simply not mastered to your particular tastes)? How do you know that the problem is a theoretical flaw in digital, rather than your preference for the known flaws in vinyl? I've also heard some that I can't distinguish from the original. That doesn't change the fact mentioned above. Yes it does. It directly refutes it. If it's possible to make a reproduction that's indistinguishable from the original, then there can be nothing inherently flawed about digital. QED. bob |
|
#174
|
|||
|
|||
|
jeffc wrote:
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"? We have no idea what you meant by "pure." It's quite obviously not what we mean by pure. What we mean by a pure reproduction is one that cannot be distinguished from the original master recording. CD can do this. Vinyl cannot. bob |
|
#175
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
Chung wrote: 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. You're right. I would also like to amend my comment: because the sampling is not exact, the output will almost certainly not match the filtered input exactly. |
|
#176
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Chung" wrote in message
... 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. Pure analog. 2. Microphone outputs are processed by mixers, equalizers and compressors. Frequency response errors, distortion and noise are added. Pure analog. 3. Output is stored on analog magnetic tape. Pure analog. I'm gonna cut you off right there. These are all red herrings and you're just looking for a fight where there isn't one. No one in any way suggested there aren't distortions in analog recording, which is what you're arguing. There is no argument except one you're searching for. |
|
#177
|
|||
|
|||
|
jeffc wrote:
3. Output is stored on analog magnetic tape. Pure analog. For the moment, disregardng all the other technicaln giberish you're spouting, you're coompletely wrong here. Analog tape storage is NOT "pure analog," whatever that buzzword means (we presume by this you mean "continuous, non-discrete"). Analog tape stroage depends upon the alignment of a discrete and quite finite number of magnetic domains and is FAR from a continuous, non-discrete process. And, besides, it's horrifically non-linear, both in its gross transfer properties and at the fine level as well. You're position would have more strength if the points you were attempting to further had some technical validity. |
|
#178
|
|||
|
|||
|
jeffc wrote:
Pure analog. I'm gonna cut you off right there. These are all red herrings and you're just looking for a fight where there isn't one. No one in any way suggested there aren't distortions in analog recording, which is what you're arguing. There is no argument except one you're searching for. Does this mean your definition of "pure" is, "riddled with distortions"? That would explain a lot. bob |
|
#179
|
|||
|
|||
|
Billy Shears wrote:
In article , Chung wrote: 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. You're right. I would also like to amend my comment: because the sampling is not exact, the output will almost certainly not match the filtered input exactly. Are you referring to the sampling instants not being precise, or the number of bits not being infinite? The sampling clock is derived from a crystal, so frequency errors are negligibly small: in the tens to hundreds ppm range. The finite number of bits results in a noise floor that is not infinitely low: for redbook CD's, the noise floor in the audio bandwidth is about -93 dB. The net result is that all distortion products are much lower than those from amplifiers and speakers, in a CD replay system that meet 16 bit linearity specs. Of course, for the 24 bit systems, the noise floor drops to -120 dB or so, and for all intents and purposes, any distortion product is at about that level or less. The finite number of bits does not mean that some signals cannot be represented; instead, with the help of dithering which is used in all digital audio systems, the quantization errors becomes broadband noise, and the system is linear to much better than 24 bits. When it's all said and done, digital is orders of magnitude more pure than vinyl/analog tape, if "pure" means lack of degradations. The output matches the band-limited input with an extremely high level of accuracy, and only noise is added, and the noise due to the ADC/DAC is at or better than the limit of analog electronics today, for 24 bit systems. |
|
#180
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Chung" wrote in message
... By the way, magnetic particles are discrete, and not continuous, as you expect "analog" to be. Actually, you have an interesting point there. But of course, direct-to-disc have always been considered theoretically ideal, specifically in the sense that the extra medium is eliminated. What is so magical about keeping things in the analog domain? What makes you think digital gives us a perfect recreation of the original musical event? |
|
#181
|
|||
|
|||
|
jeffc wrote:
"Chung" wrote in message ... 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. Pure analog. 2. Microphone outputs are processed by mixers, equalizers and compressors. Frequency response errors, distortion and noise are added. Pure analog. 3. Output is stored on analog magnetic tape. Pure analog. I'm gonna cut you off right there. These are all red herrings and you're just looking for a fight where there isn't one. No one in any way suggested there aren't distortions in analog recording, which is what you're arguing. There is no argument except one you're searching for. You seem to want to define pure to be vinyl/analog, a definition no one else shares. What we have been trying to tell you is that there is nothing inherently pure about vinyl/analog. By all measures, digital audio provides a level of fidelity that is orders of magnitude better than vinyl/analog. Now please provide evidence that vinyl/analog is any purer than digital. Or are you simply going to stick with your definition of "pure equals analog/vinyl", because you really don't have any evidence or counter-argument? |
|
#182
|
|||
|
|||
|
jeffc wrote:
"Chung" wrote in message ... By the way, magnetic particles are discrete, and not continuous, as you expect "analog" to be. Actually, you have an interesting point there. But of course, direct-to-disc have always been considered theoretically ideal, specifically in the sense that the extra medium is eliminated. Now you seem to have come up with another one of your definitions: direct-to-disc = theoretically ideal. Considered by whom? Of all the processes I listed in that post, only the master tape stage is skipped. Are you saying that all those frequency errors, noise and distortion added in the rest of the processes still give you ideal performance? What is so magical about keeping things in the analog domain? What makes you think digital gives us a perfect recreation of the original musical event? No, I did not say that, since perfect recreation is probably something that nothing can achieve. However, if you understand my point at all, it is that analog/vinyl is far from perfect, and is demonstrably less perfect than digital. In other words analog/vinyl does not equal pure (unless you are sticking to the only definition of pure we have ever heard of). |
|
#183
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Chung" wrote in message
... When it's all said and done, digital is orders of magnitude more pure than vinyl/analog tape, if "pure" means lack of degradations. As everyone knows by now, that's not what it meant. Anyway, digital is a completely crap system, if "completely crap" means high signal/noise ratio. And as you know, it's not sufficient to talk simply in terms of "degradations", as all systems have them and they are apples/oranges comparison. The odd order distortions of tubes compared to even order distortion of solid state amps, for example. |
|
#184
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#185
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 5 Jul 2005 23:37:45 GMT, Billy Shears wrote:
Sorry, I think Wheeler is right. The Nyquist theorem assumes exact sampling, which is impossible with 16, or any finite number, of bits. No it doesn't. But even if it did present day equipment can carry out sampling that is essentially perfect. Much higher resolutions that 16 bits are easily possible. But 16 bits is good enough, and *much* better than the vinyl record. Ed Seedhouse, Victoria, B.C. |
|
#186
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote in message
... Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 4 Jul 2005 18:52:45 GMT, "jeffc" wrote: The fact that you don't even acknowledge that converting to the digital domain and back to analog is a fundamental problem, 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? Stewart was only ever referring to modern vinyl production. He made that clear in his original statement. It would be mischevious to claim he was referring to old vinyl production predating the rise of digital audio. |
|
#187
|
|||
|
|||
|
jeffc wrote:
What makes you think digital gives us a perfect recreation of the original musical event? Nothing gives us a perfect recreation of an original event. Nothing really even comes close. But of all the things that can happen to a recording between that event and its reproduction in your home, ADC/DAC conversion is about the closest to transparent. bob |
|
#188
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#189
|
|||
|
|||
|
jeffc wrote:
"Chung" wrote in message ... By the way, magnetic particles are discrete, and not continuous, as you expect "analog" to be. Actually, you have an interesting point there. But of course, direct-to-disc have always been considered theoretically ideal, specifically in the sense that the extra medium is eliminated. What is so magical about keeping things in the analog domain? What makes you think digital gives us a perfect recreation of the original musical event? What makes you think direct to disc is 'theoretically ideal'? Really, you haven't defined what the 'ideal' is; instead you seem to prefer to play semantic games with words like 'pure' and 'perfect'. The real question is which medium can recreate the original event *more accurately*. Not which one gives a 'perfect' recreation of the event. -- -S "You know what love really is? It's like you've swallowed a great big secret. A warm wonderful secret that nobody else knows about." - 'Blame it on Rio' |
|
#190
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 5 Jul 2005 23:34:35 GMT, "Mike Gilmour"
wrote: Example 3. A frequently used method (obviating digital delay line use) for all analogue cuts is to use 4 track tape with two tracks copied in advance to provide the signal for the cutting lathe. A no brainer really. Is anyone using this method? Wasting half the tape (and thus at least 3db of S/N ratio) in order not to use a digital delay line, that noeone can hear when it is switched in-circuit? Are you sure, Mike? If that's the case, these people must be really, really, afraid of a D/A converter. Or perhaps the buyer are, and they just listen to their customer's angst. Per. |
|
#191
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote in message
... jeffc wrote: 3. Output is stored on analog magnetic tape. Pure analog. For the moment, disregardng all the other technicaln giberish you're spouting What "technical giberish [sic]" would that be? Analog tape stroage depends upon the alignment of a discrete and quite finite number of magnetic domains and is FAR from a continuous, non-discrete process. I stopped reading his post the first time at that point, because it was a complete red herring vis-a-vis my point. When I reread it I posted another message saying he had an interesting point here, if you'll read my other post. |
|
#192
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Chung" wrote in message
... You seem to want to define pure to be vinyl/analog, a definition no one else shares. What we have been trying to tell you is that there is nothing inherently pure about vinyl/analog. It's not my "definition", it's simply a connotation of the word, which is fact. An analog recording is analog, and a digital recording is not. It's as simple as that really. A digital recording goes analog-digital-analog. Does that look pure to you? This is quite simple. There are no high fallutin' physics involved. It's not even disputable or debatable. It's not even controversial. It's just that someone wanted to pick a fight. It has nothing to do with fidelity or distortions. |
|
#193
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#194
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 5 Jul 2005 16:32:52 GMT, "Helen Schmidt"
wrote: 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. What 'harm' is this doing? Particularly in comparison with the serious damage done by ignorant 'subjectivists' who claim that the process of A/D-D/A conversion is fundamentally flawed and inherently inaccurate? When objectivists make factual claims about technical matters, they tend to be *accurate* claims, readily testable by independent observers. Such is seldom the case for the subjectivists. 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. No, you *need* to stop waffling and present some rational backup for your claims. You also need to study William of Occam. 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. None of the above waffle has *anything* to do with her relative ability to judge the 'realism' of a reproduced piece of music. 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 need to explain and justify this claim *much* more convincingly than have so far done. You want to divide the task and apply specialization, which is normal for an engineer. It's also how things get done in the real world, as opposed to your abstract imaginings. *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. As is the case for the recording engineer. Any musician could tell you that the ability to listen is primary. As can any audiophile.......... 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. So why do you claim that he is inferior to the conductor? 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. That is a baseless claim. It is your mistaken assumption that the sound qualities are separate from the musical meaning. It is your mistaken assumption that they are not. 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. That is a baseless claim, and also quite wrong. I am very well aware of how hall ambience affects musical expression - a typical Mozart piece would sound quite dreadful in a cathedral (I've heard it tried!), while Gregorian chant would sound quite lifeless in Birmingham Symphony Hall (England, not Alabama!). Also, you have habits of language which keep leading you astray. Not so far astray as you are led by all your over-complicated and quite wrong-headed assumptions. 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. She does not however have any knowledge of how best to convey that musical gestalt to a pair of loudspeakers in a domestic listening room. The recording engineer does - indeed that's the core of his skill set. There is no comparison between how listening to music develops your ear, and how participating in music-making develops your ear. There is some truth in that, but that does not support your argument that the conductor is better placed to judge the realism of a reproduced piece of music. 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. One of your many problems is that you seem to lack the intellectual rigour to understand that this separation is *not* artificial, it is entirely natural and logical, and the skills are *complementary*, not competitive. Incidentally, the term 'audio' is generally held to refer to the playback end of the reproduction chain, rather than the production of the master tape. Most audiophiles would consider the mixdown master to be the last part of the *original performance*, rather than part of the 'audio' chain. As such, your comments above are not only wrong, but irrelevant. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#195
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 5 Jul 2005 23:37:21 GMT, Billy Shears wrote:
In article , Stewart Pinkerton wrote: 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. The "band limiting filter on the input" operates on the input does it not? The input is thereby altered. It is therefore impossible to recapture the input exactly. That depends on the bandwidth of the original signal. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#196
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 5 Jul 2005 23:37:45 GMT, Billy Shears wrote:
In article , Ed Seedhouse wrote: 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. Sorry, I think Wheeler is right. The Nyquist theorem assumes exact sampling, which is impossible with 16, or any finite number, of bits. Mr Wheeler, as ever, is both grasping at semantic straws and failing to understand the physics of the situation. *Every* signal has a noise floor, so it is impossible for the amplitude of *any* signal to be quoted exactly. Given this, we can certainly say that a digitised signal of *any* bit depth is capable of capturing the signal *exactly* to the limit of the uncertainty of the noise floor. The same is of course most certainly *not* true of any analogue recording system. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#197
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 5 Jul 2005 23:39:10 GMT, Billy Shears wrote:
In article , Chung wrote: 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. You're right. I would also like to amend my comment: because the sampling is not exact, the output will almost certainly not match the filtered input exactly. Wrong again. Within the basic physical uncertainty provided by the noise floor, the output certainly can match the filtered input exactly. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#198
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 6 Jul 2005 03:01:14 GMT, "jeffc" wrote:
"Chung" wrote in message ... By the way, magnetic particles are discrete, and not continuous, as you expect "analog" to be. Actually, you have an interesting point there. But of course, direct-to-disc have always been considered theoretically ideal, specifically in the sense that the extra medium is eliminated. What is so magical about keeping things in the analog domain? What makes you think digital gives us a perfect recreation of the original musical event? No one thinks this. However, it is both theoretically *capable* of perfect reproduction, and practically capable of near-perfection *far* beyond the capability of *any* all-analogue system. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#199
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 5 Jul 2005 23:40:01 GMT, "jeffc" wrote:
"Chung" wrote in message ... 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. Pure analog. Only in the same sense that a digital signal is an analogue of the input signal. Otherwise, it's exactly the kind of transformation of form that you are claiming to be an inherent 'flaw' of dihgital. The main difference is that in this case, it's a transformation with many inherent errors and nonlinearities, which digital is not. 2. Microphone outputs are processed by mixers, equalizers and compressors. Frequency response errors, distortion and noise are added. Pure analog. I'll accept that this one shouldn't have been included by Chung, as the signal remains in 'analogue' electrical form 3. Output is stored on analog magnetic tape. Pure analog. Absolutely not! You reveal your ignorance of both digital *and* analogue processes yet again. So-called 'analogue' magnetic recording does in fact rely on the polarisation of a finite number of magnetic domains, and is as close to digital sampling as it gets. I'm gonna cut you off right there. I suggest that you cut yourself off, and do some serious reading, before making such ridiculous claims about 'purity' in the reproduction chain. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#200
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 5 Jul 2005 16:42:01 GMT, wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote: 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'. Thanks for the irrelevant comment. It is in fact *exactly* relevant to the original claim. However, given proper dithering, then a 16-bit system most certainly *is* exact, within the inevitable mathematical uncertainty given by the system noise floor. Now that is funny. It is exact within it's own inexactness IOW. As is everything in the known Universe. Yeah that's fine, it also is not what you said is it? Since I live in the real world, yes it is. It also doesn't refute my basic claim that it is not *exact.* *I* made no such qualifications in my claim did I? You did however fail to understand the physics of the situation, as usual. 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. Above sems to support my claim. You had to qualify "exact" as not really exact. Thanks for confirming my claim. Ironic isn't it? What's ironic is your persistent preference for semantics over reality. 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............ No, you had to qualify a very simple well understood word, exact, to make your point. Maybe *you* should choose your words more carefully. But thanks for demonstrating that my thinking was actually right. That leaves your original claim where? I'm not the one who made the original (wrong) claim. Pay attention at the back! -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
Linear Mode
