| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#241
|
|||
|
|||
Ed Seedhouse wrote:
On 8 Jul 2005 00:21:53 GMT, Chung wrote: Fundamentally, the number of bits poses a limit on noise floor, not in the number of possible output levels on average in the audio band. And via noise shaping, the noise floor in the audio band can be reduced tremendously. I certainly think that Ed knows this already, but vinylists may want to try to grasp this important concept first before saying things like "digital is crap" or "digital is crude compared to vinyl, because vinyl is analog which is pure". I am certainly willing to accept Mr. Chung's opinion over my own on such matters, but my point was that even ignoring such niceties the number of available loudness increments from 16 bits is far more than the human ear can detect, as a simple calculator such as the one which comes with Windoze can easily show. I believe a 3db loudness difference is generally considered to be just easily perceptable and some can hear a 1db difference under the right conditions. Even if a recording has a 120 db loudness range (and none do) that is far, far less than even a 16 bit digital recording can encode. Or does Mr. Wheeler claim to be able to detect a loudness differential of 1/500 db, which if my calculator isn't lying is about the resolution of 16 bits over a 120 db range? I make no claims of super human hearing. An eroneous claim was made about the exactness of Cds. I pointed out the error of that claim. Nothing more nothing less. I am amazed at how many people have failed to understand something so simple. Scott Wheeler |
|
#242
|
|||
|
|||
|
Helen Schmidt wrote:
Suppose we have two recording engineers, A and B. Each of them chooses a microphone and sets it in a location in order to maximize realism. It so happens that they pick different microphones and different locations. So they disagree. Does this ever happen in life? What does this mean? Is only one of them a "good" recording engineer, and the other one "bad"? Is that the best explanation why they disagree? And if so, who decides which one is "good"? Well, first of all, you're making an assumption that the recording engineer really is trying to "maximize realism." I suspect that, in practice, all recording engineers must balance multiple goals--especially since he does not know what room the recording is ultimately going to be played back in. Leaving that aside, the answer to your last question is, "the listener." And every listener may have a different opinion--and may even base that opinion on entirely different criteria. bob |
|
#243
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 8 Jul 2005 02:34:49 GMT, "Helen Schmidt" wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 5 Jul 2005 16:32:52 GMT, "Helen Schmidt" wrote: 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. So define realism. What does it mean when the recording engineer listens and finds the sound to be realistic? What is his subjective experience? I don't know, and neither do you. But *he* does, and if he's a good recording engineer, the listener will most likely agree with him. -- Speaking of comparing digital to analog (aren;t we always? ;) and 'what soudns good', here's an interesting anecdote from the fellow who recorded Steely Dan's albums (which *some* people think sound *pretty good*); interesting too that he's talking about digital as it was circa 1983, for the recording of Donald Fagan's 'The Nightfly': http://www.rogernichols.com/EQ/EQ_2001_08.html 3M Digital Mastering System The Ry Cooder Bop Till You Drop album was the first digitally recorded pop album. It was recorded on the 3M 32-track digital recorder at Amigo studios in North Hollywood California. We booked the Village Recorder in 1981 to cut tracks for Nightfly and decided to try the 3M digital machine. We ran a Studer A-80 24-track analog machine in parallel with the 3M for the test. After the band laid down a take we performed an a-b-c listening test. The analog and digital machines were played back in sync while the band played along live. We could compare the analog machine, the digital machine, and the live band. The closest sound to the live band was the 3M digital machine. We re-aligned the Studer and gave it one more chance. The 3M was the clear winner. We rolled the Studer out into the street, (just kidding) and did the rest of the recording on the 3M 32-track machine. When it came time to mix, we mixed to the 3M 4-track machine. |
|
#244
|
|||
|
|||
|
Helen Schmidt wrote:
Well, I agree with you that perception of realism is individual. What do you think of the possibility that people cluster around similar perceptions? In other words, groups of people are similar to each other, with regard to the things they listen for.. is this possible? More than possible--shown by research. Harman's work (and Toole & Olive's prior work in Canada) on speakers determined that people with good hearing generally prefer certain attributes in speakers--and, by extension, in audio reproduction generally. Those things include flat frequency response, low distortion, and good dispersion. Note that the dependent variable here is preference. That's what a manufacturer would be most interested in, and so that's where the research dollars have gone. How would we start to identify these clusters? If a group of people report that system A sounds closer-to-life and another group reports that system B sounds closer-to-life, does this provide evidence that they hear differently? Does this provide evidence that the people in each group hear similarly? No, because there's more than one possible explanation. It may be that each set of people "hears," or more likely "perceives" differently. But it may also be that each set has a different idea of what "life" sounds like. IOW, both sets may hear the sound as bright or warm or whatever, and one group thinks bright/warm is lifelike, and the other group thinks it's not. A third possibility, I suppose, is that the two groups listen FOR different things, at least when you ask them about realism. Someone who listens for speed variation and pitch control is going to have a very different opinion about vinyl than someone who listens for warmth of tone. (And when I say "listens for," that could be either conscious or subconscious.) Now, I think there's been research on something like "perception of realism," with regard to multichannel audio, and how the number of channels affects this, but I don't know anything about how this was done. bob |
|
#246
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 8 Jul 2005 00:13:06 GMT, Russ Button wrote: If y'all were truly Real Audiophiles, you'd be out there with your microphones and recording equipment bringing it back live to your home. That's why I still have a Nagra........... OTOH, transcribing to CD-R saves a lot of tape! :-) I used to go out with my Revox A77, a pair of Nak CM 700 mikes and a Scott Kent mike preamp. It was relatively noisy and had limited dynamic range, but I still got some fine recordings out of that budget setup. One of these days I'd like to get back into it again, going digital of course. But that'll have to wait until I get my start-up going and once again have a full-time income... Anyone want to invest in Bill Gate's worst nightmare? Russ |
|
#247
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 8 Jul 2005 21:57:22 GMT, wrote:
Mike Gilmour wrote: "Per Stromgren" wrote in message ... 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?... Yes I'm sure, especially labels that proclaim 'all analog'. Apparently its quite common to put a digital delay line after the tape delay for fine lathe adjustment as its not in the signal path. If my memory serves me correctly Stereophile also used this method (John can you confirm that?). I used this method for the mastering of my Liszt Sonata LP, see http://www.stereophile.com/features/172. Note that the master was 20-bit digital, so there no compromises in things like S/N ratio and no waste of tape as the Nagra-D is a 4-channel recorder. I did this to avoid unnecessary conversions through the signal chain feeding the cutter head. Good to hear that Mike was right, in a sense. But, the digital case was not what Mike was talking about. He was suggesting that you performed the trick in order to avoid any D/A-A/D conversions at all in the total chain from microphone to cutter head. Which was not the case, obviously. Not that this has anything to do with your recording, though, it is probably just as fine as you can ask for, if it is done with care. Per. |
|
#248
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#249
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Chung" wrote in message
... When it is all said and done, Mr. Wheeler simply wants to argue on semantics, and not show any inclination to understand what is crucial: there is noise in every process. Noise in digital audio processes, like redbook CD or high-rez audio, is several orders of magnitude lower than vinyl. Mr. Wheeler defended vinyl by saying that the surface noise in his system is not a problem, but now he wants to make a big fuss about the noise in the A/D/A process. Very revealing. I believe the brain adapts differently to the random, "who knows what's coming next", in anticipation and readiness of god knows what, vs. a constant noise, as in tape hiss without any noise removal process, or A/D/A "noise" (which I cannot hear). If there is any A/D/A noise to be heard, wouldn't it be drowned out by ambient noise or rush of air currents during the recording the performance? |
|
#251
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#252
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 8 Jul 2005 23:31:03 GMT, "Helen Schmidt"
wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 8 Jul 2005 02:34:49 GMT, "Helen Schmidt" wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 5 Jul 2005 16:32:52 GMT, "Helen Schmidt" wrote: 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. So define realism. What does it mean when the recording engineer listens and finds the sound to be realistic? What is his subjective experience? I don't know, and neither do you. But *he* does, and if he's a good recording engineer, the listener will most likely agree with him. I think it is time to bring out one of your favorite words: the above is a bonafide *waffle.* Favourite words? I believe I've used it in *one* post in the past year. As ever, you are divorced from reality. Let me phrase this another way, then: Suppose we have two recording engineers, A and B. Each of them chooses a microphone and sets it in a location in order to maximize realism. It so happens that they pick different microphones and different locations. So they disagree. Does this ever happen in life? What does this mean? Is only one of them a "good" recording engineer, and the other one "bad"? Is that the best explanation why they disagree? And if so, who decides which one is "good"? The listener decides which engineer shares most closely his own perception of realism. This is hardly the stuff of Nobel prizes..... -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#253
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 8 Jul 2005 00:16:30 GMT, wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: 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. Wrong. The discussion has been about Cds. The bit depth is well known for CDs. His claim was at best irrelevant. The *original* claim, as I stated, was about digital in general, not CD in particular. So you were changing the subject? Just reread Jeffs first post on this thread and your reply which contains the claim. Clearly it was about CDs or you did a bait and switch. 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. Not in math. Get your fact straight. And if you apply mathematics to reduce the bandwidth to zero, then sampling theory *is* exact - if not very useful. My facts *are* straight, it's your understanding which is sadly lacking. What a bunch of balony. We are clearly talking about an audio signal. While the number of possible amplitudes of an audio signal may not be infinite they certainly far exceed the number that can possibly be "exactly" represented by 16 bits or 24 bitsor any number of bits that an be found on any digital audio recording system. You were plainly wrong. Deal with it. Yeah that's fine, it also is not what you said is it? Since I live in the real world, yes it is. I suggest you reread what you said and look up some of the words you used for their true meaning. It is not what you said. Sure it is, Wrong. *you* simply don't understand either the math or the physics involved. No you don't understand the math at all if you think 16 bits or any other didgital system in existance can represent every possible amplitude of an audio signal *exactly*. You can repeat you eroneous claims as often as you want and posture all you want about what you think I know but you will still be just as wrong. Math exists in the real world and people in the real world who understand physics know better than to make erroneous claims about anything in the physical world being exact. Oh well. People in the real world understand the implications of the physics on the mathematics, Apparently you don't if you think that any digital system can exactly represent the amplitude of an audio signal. 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. Easy, give it an infinitely high sampling rate, and noise shape as for DSD or any other oversampled system. Shame that you don't understand the basics. Shame that you don't see the difference between this fanasy and real world math. Let me know when you design an infinite sampling digital system. Ironically even this system won't work.It ignores the laws of physics and basic mathematical principles. If you are going to try to be clever, be clever, pick a ridiculously high sampling rate rather than a physically and mathematically impossible one. Jeez. 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. Balony. You are the one playing semantical games now. Are we talking math or physics? In math claims of exactness are reasonable but the math clearly supports the fact that a 16 digital signal can not be an exact representation of an audio signal. Yes it can. Shame that you don't understand the basics. Shame on you that you have to introduce fantasy based sampling rates to try to make your mistake look like it wasn't mistake. 1-bit digital signal can be an *exact* representation of an audio signal. But it won't be almost all of the time. More semantics. You really have no right to whine about semantical arguments anymore. Your whole post has been nothing more than word games. Scott Wheeler |
|
#254
|
|||
|
|||
|
Helen Schmidt wrote:
wrote: Helen Schmidt wrote: So define realism. What does it mean when the recording engineer listens and finds the sound to be realistic? What is his subjective experience? We don't have to define realism; in fact, it probably has no fixed definition in this context, because we are talking about individual perceptions. When someone says something sounds real/realistic/true-to-life, what he means is that is sounds so TO HIM. That's all. That could mean that it sounds like things he's heard in the past, or it could mean that it sounds like what he thinks it ought to sound like. We don't know, and there's no reason for us to care. What matters to each of us is whether it sounds real TO US, however we choose to judge that. bob Well, I agree with you that perception of realism is individual. What do you think of the possibility that people cluster around similar perceptions? In other words, groups of people are similar to each other, with regard to the things they listen for.. is this possible? I am surprised that you even ask this question. Of course this is possible. Otherwise how would you explain things like Shatki stones, green CD pens, etc.? Or common praise for certain interconnects, cables, etc.? How would we start to identify these clusters? What is the point of doing that? But if you really care, asking would be a starting point. Or checking out forums like the Audio Asylum. If a group of people report that system A sounds closer-to-life and another group reports that system B sounds closer-to-life, does this provide evidence that they hear differently? No, "closer-to-life" means different things to different people. Does this provide evidence that the people in each group hear similarly? No, "closer-to-life" means different things to different people, even if they all agree what they hear is closer-to-life. "Closer-to-life" is a very vague and poorly defined term. Closer-to-life for someone who has an extensive collection of vinyl can be very different than that for someone who only listen to digital audio. Closer-to-life can mean a sound that someone is used to, or is comfortable with. I am sure if someone thinks a piece of rap music is close to life, you and I would not have any idea what that means. You are also forgetting that often the quality of the recording can have a bigger impact on any perception of life-likeness than the performance of the system. |
|
#255
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steven Sullivan wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 8 Jul 2005 02:34:49 GMT, "Helen Schmidt" wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 5 Jul 2005 16:32:52 GMT, "Helen Schmidt" wrote: 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. So define realism. What does it mean when the recording engineer listens and finds the sound to be realistic? What is his subjective experience? I don't know, and neither do you. But *he* does, and if he's a good recording engineer, the listener will most likely agree with him. -- Speaking of comparing digital to analog (aren;t we always? ;) and 'what soudns good', here's an interesting anecdote from the fellow who recorded Steely Dan's albums (which *some* people think sound *pretty good*); interesting too that he's talking about digital as it was circa 1983, for the recording of Donald Fagan's 'The Nightfly': http://www.rogernichols.com/EQ/EQ_2001_08.html 3M Digital Mastering System The Ry Cooder Bop Till You Drop album was the first digitally recorded pop album. It was recorded on the 3M 32-track digital recorder at Amigo studios in North Hollywood California. We booked the Village Recorder in 1981 to cut tracks for Nightfly and decided to try the 3M digital machine. We ran a Studer A-80 24-track analog machine in parallel with the 3M for the test. After the band laid down a take we performed an a-b-c listening test. The analog and digital machines were played back in sync while the band played along live. We could compare the analog machine, the digital machine, and the live band. The closest sound to the live band was the 3M digital machine. We re-aligned the Studer and gave it one more chance. The 3M was the clear winner. We rolled the Studer out into the street, (just kidding) and did the rest of the recording on the 3M 32-track machine. When it came time to mix, we mixed to the 3M 4-track machine. I bought Donald Fagen's "Nightfly" CD when it first came out, and it was a startlingly clear recording. That was back in 1983 IIRC, and my friends who had not listened to CD's before simply could not get over the cleanliness of the sound. Some of them converted to CD right then, and never looked back. The question of whether the CD or the vinyl LP version sounded more "life-like" was not on anyone's mind. It was obvious which was the superior technology. BTW, the recording was done in 1982. I love the cover on that CD/LP. |
|
#256
|
|||
|
|||
|
Norman M. Schwartz wrote:
"Chung" wrote in message ... When it is all said and done, Mr. Wheeler simply wants to argue on semantics, and not show any inclination to understand what is crucial: there is noise in every process. Noise in digital audio processes, like redbook CD or high-rez audio, is several orders of magnitude lower than vinyl. Mr. Wheeler defended vinyl by saying that the surface noise in his system is not a problem, but now he wants to make a big fuss about the noise in the A/D/A process. Very revealing. I believe the brain adapts differently to the random, "who knows what's coming next", in anticipation and readiness of god knows what, vs. a constant noise, as in tape hiss without any noise removal process, or A/D/A "noise" (which I cannot hear). If there is any A/D/A noise to be heard, wouldn't it be drowned out by ambient noise or rush of air currents during the recording the performance? While vinyl surface noise is clearly audible, despite any claims to the contrary, no one I know of has said that he/she can hear digital noise, so you are in good company here. Even with headphones. The analog portions of the playback equipment often sets the noise floor. |
|
#257
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 8 Jul 2005 00:16:30 GMT, wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: 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. Wrong. The discussion has been about Cds. The bit depth is well known for CDs. His claim was at best irrelevant. The *original* claim, as I stated, was about digital in general, not CD in particular. So you were changing the subject? Just reread Jeffs first post on this thread and your reply which contains the claim. Clearly it was about CDs or you did a bait and switch. Mr. Wheeler is simply in denial here. Here is the first sentence "jeffc" wrote in his first post in this thread: "Technically, digital is crude compared to vinyl, because vinyl is analog which is pure." It was about "digital" vs analog/vinyl. Here's Stewart's first response sampling theorem: "Aside from the sole limitation that the bandwidth of the input signal must be less than half the sampling frequency, digital is most certainly *not* an approximation. " I guess it must not be very painful being wrong for some people, since Mr. Wheeler has been wrong so many times...  |
|
#258
|
|||
|
|||
|
Per Stromgren wrote:
On 8 Jul 2005 22:04:24 GMT, wrote: Once again another objectivst is unable or unwilling to see a simple error in math. The sampling theorem is exact, and mathematically proven so. Wrong and wrong. Scott, Now you are on really deep water, if you ask me. The sampling theorem is exact, and mathematically proven so. Really. For frequencies within half the sampling rate. This has nothing to do with the exactness of the amplitude of an audio signal and the ability to peresent that amplitude *exactly* with 16 bits. The theorem has nothing to do with realizations of digital systems or anything. There in lies a problem when someone claims a *digital system* this time red book CD is "exact." It is exact. Full stop. Do yourself a favour and give up that part of your discussion. Agian thee is more to a signal than frequency. The Nyquist theorum does not address the exactness when it comes to amplitude. As for your use of "exact" and "pure", you seemingly contradicts yourself. That is an interesting claim. Please cite *my* use of "pure" and then show me where there is a contradiction. Here is a hint, I haven't been using the term "pure" in this thread. You want "pure analog" to mean "never converted to digital", Fine, but why don't you say so? You have me confused with Jeff. I never made any such claim. "Pure" sounds like you mean that anything else is contaminated or dirty. It sounds like you need to review the thread and find out just who said what. "Exact" may of course have the meaning that you use, Yes it does. but in that sense it is only *digital* systems that can be exact. I'm afaid not. In *that* sense no system is exact. You feed it the sample 0x124e at the input and out comes 0x124e after being transmitted through *any* number of well designed digital systems. I'm not debating whether or not digital can prepoduce digital exactly. I am arguing that redbook Cd cannot reproduce an audio signal (analog) exactly. A lot of irrelevant examples of digital being exact have been used in an attempt to refute this fact. They are all kind of silly IMO. I think it is better simply not to overstate the merits of red book Cd to begin with. Now, *that* is exact! And completely irrelevant. Hey you get the same level of exactness from analog when the system is turned off. Zero input zero output. Now that is exact! Does that make all the claims of analog inacuracy bogus? Or does it make the example ridiculous? If you want an "exact" replica in an analogue system, you can't, I just gave you an example, one of equal merit to all the examples of digital being exact. as you probably are trying to say. No, I was never trying to say any such thing. Noise comes in your way. But we live with it, noise is inherent in all applications. It as all about engineering. That's nice. I'm not sure what your point is though. Scott Wheeler |
|
#259
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 8 Jul 2005 22:04:24 GMT, wrote: I am amazed that an EE would fail to undestand the limits of 16 bits of information. Anyone with a basic understanding of math should know tht 16 bits cannot posibly represent every possible amplitude of an audio signal with exactness. Anyone with a basic understanding of digital audio would be aware that the number of bits has little to do mathematically with the resolution of the system. Anyon with a basic understanding of digital would understand just how deceptive this claim is. If Pinkerton could make an honest argument on the subject he would admit that the number of bits and does directly affect the resolution of any digital system. Interesting that Wheeler doesn't understand that a 1-bit system is capable of almost infinite resolution, mathematically. Interesting that Pinkerton still doesn't understand the mathematical absudity of any claims of infinite resolution via infinite sampling rates. Interesting that he feels an absurd extreme is needed to make hsi arguments. It's also capable of more than 120dB of dynamic range, in practice. It's also irrelvant to the argument. To bad Pinkerton lacks what it takes to see his own errors Scott Wheeler |
|
#260
|
|||
|
|||
|
Russ Button wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 8 Jul 2005 00:13:06 GMT, Russ Button wrote: If y'all were truly Real Audiophiles, you'd be out there with your microphones and recording equipment bringing it back live to your home. That's why I still have a Nagra........... OTOH, transcribing to CD-R saves a lot of tape! :-) I used to go out with my Revox A77, a pair of Nak CM 700 mikes and a Scott Kent mike preamp. It was relatively noisy and had limited dynamic range, but I still got some fine recordings out of that budget setup. One of these days I'd like to get back into it again, going digital of course. But that'll have to wait until I get my start-up going and once again have a full-time income... But then you won't have any time, right? |
|
#261
|
|||
|
|||
|
[Moderator's note: The "pure" and "exact" subthreads have become
unbearably circular and so are ended. -- deb ] Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 8 Jul 2005 22:08:58 GMT, wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: Particularly in comparison with the serious damage done by ignorant 'subjectivists' "Serious damage?" Oh c'mon. Lighten up. who claim that the process of A/D-D/A conversion is fundamentally flawed and inherently inaccurate? Flawed yes but "fundamentally" so? Who is claiming this? Inherently inaccurate? Everything is to a degree. Kind of an ironic complaint about subjetivists in light of the overly broad simplistic claims about the merits of CDs made by ignorant objectivists. You still simply do *not* understand, do you? Apparently you do not understand. I asked a simple question and the propper response is an answer. It looks like you do not understand that much. Mathematically, digital audio can be *perfect*, it's only real-world implementations that are flawed. I do understand that. You don't seem to understand the irrelevance of this particular claim in a debate between the merits of Cd v. LP. I suggest you review the title of the thread and the posts leading up to your eroneous claim of digital exactness. But yes, I do realize that if the sampling rate is high enough it would in theory exactly represent an anolog audio signal. Most audiophiles would consider the mixdown master to be the last part of the *original performance*, More nonsense. the performace stops at the pickups and mics. that is where the audio begins. As if a mic is part of a musical "performance." that is ridiculous. You clearly have zero understanding of the role of post-production, or of the care taken in the selection of microphones. Clearly you don't understand the difference between audio and music. Funny how your signature seems so ironic at this point. Why do you think some musicians *insist* on the use of a particular microphone? Because some *musicians* are *audio* savey. To bad you lack the understanding to see how simple that answer is. The performance stops at the mixdown master, not before. Wrong. The performace stops with the musicians. the "audio" starts with the equipment. rather than part of the 'audio' chain. As such, your comments above are not only wrong, but irrelevant. No your are,not to mention just plain absurd. According to you a mic is a musical instrument. Of course it is, No it isn't. in so far as it affects the reproduced sound of the original instruments. So that kills your argument that audio is in the home. no one will argue that speakers affect the reproduuced sound so I guess by your bizarre standards all audio equipment in the end are musical instruments. The whole claim becomes totally meaningless. To bad you lack the vision to see the audio is about production and reproduction and music is about performance. Shame that you have no grasp of such basic concepts. Shame you can't see the complete absurdity of your claims. Scott Wheeler |
|
#262
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ban wrote:
wrote: Fundamentally, the number of bits poses a limit on noise floor, not in the number of possible output levels on average in the audio band. And via noise shaping, the noise floor in the audio band can be reduced tremendously. I certainly think that Ed knows this already, but vinylists may want to try to grasp this important concept first before saying things like "digital is crap" or "digital is crude compared to vinyl, because vinyl is analog which is pure". Can you actually quote *anyone* on this thread saying something like "digital is crap?" Burn enough straw men and the EPA will have to shut us down. ;-) Yes, this jeffc said something like this. I hope your opinion is a little more refined in this aspect. But the mentioned poster has adopted a lot of beliefs without understanding their meaning. His argumentation quotes: "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." "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." Yes he has made a number of factual errors. They have been pointed out to him. You won't see me defending his errors. Now compare that to the reaction I got on this thread when I corrected someone's errors. It seems that some people have extreme reactions to being proven wrong. Too bad about that. One can't learn if one thinks they already have all the answers. These kind of utterings do not serve to support your position, but solely show the technical ignorance of the person. Yes they do. but the same can be said for the absurd claims about digital exactness on this thread. There are too many posts to cite at this point but the defense of this eroneous claim have reached a level of absurdity. Kind of ironic that some people feel that technically inept claims somehow diecredit people's preference in light of the level of absurditiy one can find in the defense of an eroneous claim made on this thread. And on the contrary it appears that more sujectivists are ignorant about scientific matters. People see what they want to see. I am amazed at how objectivists fail to see the lack of scientific support for their beliefs. I can also see that they really want to express something else, but choose a bad technical reason to proof it (the last quoted sentence is very reveiling in this aspect). I also see that some objectivists can't see past that fact and attack the undamanetal preferences of subjectivists because they ascribe eroneous causes to real affects. Now to your argumentation regarding 16bit resolution. I agree with you that 16bit is not sufficient for recording. A studio vocalist mike(Neumann KMS105) http://www.neumann.com/infopool/mics...?ProdID=kms105 delivers 132dB of dynamic range. Take 12dB off the top, because rarely a singer reaches 150dB SPL, and 12dB off the bottom for A/C and ambient noise, we still have 108dB dynamic range, which requires at least 18bits of resolution. Now in the digital domain compressors, filters, reverb and other effects can be used without degradation of S/N and we always have the original available for comparison. Finally the sound engineer tailors this track so from the original 108dB there are only 70-80dB of dynamics left. For a vinyl record that would only be 45dB maybe. Finishing with a 16bit redbook master, the mixer has processed the musical event for this "container". If it was a vinyl record to be pressed, he would have applied the same tools but with different settings. It is nice to see you express your opinions with reasonable claims. That at least makes for a good starting point were I to have an opinion about your claims. Now for a normal listening experience a CD we have theoretically 97.76dB dynamic range, which will be at the limit of the resolution of the loudspeaker. Some people claim that ferrite magnets have a course structure and can not resolve to that level, only rare earth magnets. To hear the full range, we have to amplify the minimum signal to the ambient sound level, maybe 20dB SPL if you live in a private, well isolated home. So the peak level will be 118dB SPL at listening distance, not every speaker will be able to do that, in fact *very* few. So for the reproduction 16bit are absolutely sufficient. I have said it before and I'll say it again, as a consumer of music who seeks the best sound I can get, I am less interested in theories and more interested in realities. Once a CD or Lp is made there is a reality to it's sound quality that is not affected by theories of potential anymore. Anyone with real world experience that is not married to their biases will understand that the final arbitrator of sound quality is in the listening. In the listening some times Cd wins sometimes Lp wins. my preference for vinyl lies strictly in the fact that IME vinyl wins far more often than it loses and the best of the best still can be found from vinyl. That is my opinion based on my experiences. nothing more nothing less. Scott Wheeler |
|
#263
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steven Sullivan wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 8 Jul 2005 02:34:49 GMT, "Helen Schmidt" wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 5 Jul 2005 16:32:52 GMT, "Helen Schmidt" wrote: 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. So define realism. What does it mean when the recording engineer listens and finds the sound to be realistic? What is his subjective experience? I don't know, and neither do you. But *he* does, and if he's a good recording engineer, the listener will most likely agree with him. -- Speaking of comparing digital to analog (aren;t we always? ;) and 'what soudns good', here's an interesting anecdote from the fellow who recorded Steely Dan's albums (which *some* people think sound *pretty good*); interesting too that he's talking about digital as it was circa 1983, for the recording of Donald Fagan's 'The Nightfly': http://www.rogernichols.com/EQ/EQ_2001_08.html 3M Digital Mastering System The Ry Cooder Bop Till You Drop album was the first digitally recorded pop album. It was recorded on the 3M 32-track digital recorder at Amigo studios in North Hollywood California. We booked the Village Recorder in 1981 to cut tracks for Nightfly and decided to try the 3M digital machine. We ran a Studer A-80 24-track analog machine in parallel with the 3M for the test. After the band laid down a take we performed an a-b-c listening test. The analog and digital machines were played back in sync while the band played along live. We could compare the analog machine, the digital machine, and the live band. The closest sound to the live band was the 3M digital machine. We re-aligned the Studer and gave it one more chance. The 3M was the clear winner. We rolled the Studer out into the street, (just kidding) and did the rest of the recording on the 3M 32-track machine. When it came time to mix, we mixed to the 3M 4-track machine. This reminds me of another anecdote. During a recording session for Sheffield Labs James Boyk, Kavi Alexander and Doug Sax, they decided to make comprisons betwn the laquer from the D2D recording, the analog master and the diital master. With the live feed as their reference they thought the D2D was the most true to the source followed closely by the analog master. They thought the digital master was so far off that they felt compelled to check the machine for malfunctions. none wee found if memory serves me. I believe this was printed in Stereophile so if John Atkinson is watching he can confirm or deny this. Scott Wheeler |
|
#264
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , Chung
wrote: I bought Donald Fagen's "Nightfly" CD when it first came out, and it was a startlingly clear recording. That was back in 1983 IIRC, and my friends who had not listened to CD's before simply could not get over the cleanliness of the sound. Some of them converted to CD right then, and never looked back. The question of whether the CD or the vinyl LP version sounded more "life-like" was not on anyone's mind. That's too bad. Of course, in pop music, "life-like" is less of an issue than in acoustic music, don't you agree? It was obvious which was the superior technology. Based on "cleanliness" alone? |
|
#265
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 8 Jul 2005 00:01:59 GMT, Jenn wrote: In article , Stewart Pinkerton wrote: snip 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!), snip Well, not necessarily. The Masses and other works written for the Archbishop of Saltzburg, for example, were composed to be performed in a large, highly reverberant church. Yes, but they are not *typical* Mozart pieces, and I'm sure you know exactly what I meant by that expression. But the point is that most of WAM's music was built to be performed in highly reverberant spaces, as most of the venues in Salzburg, Vienna, Prague, etc were that way. The cleanliness and lightness of the playing is the key. To quote from 'Amadeus' - too many notes. Had the dramatized Joseph never heard Bach and Vivaldi? :-) |
|
#266
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
"Helen Schmidt" wrote: Jenn wrote: In article , Stewart Pinkerton wrote: snip 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!), snip Well, not necessarily. The Masses and other works written for the Archbishop of Saltzburg, for example, were composed to be performed in a large, highly reverberant church. The playing/singing just must be super well defined, precise, and without the overly Romantic affections of some performers (HVK comes to mind..... ducking!! :-) You are more expert at this than I, but I still think that Stewart is thinking of ambience as something applied to the music, rather than as something the musicians interact with. You give an example here of how the musicians would control their playing in order to interact with a given acoustic. I've heard musicians describe a recording as "failing because it didn't represent the interaction of tempo and articulartion with ambience." In other words, they chose a particular tempo and articulation because of the ambience of the room, in order to create a particular musical effect.. and the recording made them sound as though they were deaf in that respect. What do you think about this? Helen Quite true. Classical performers MUST take the room ambience into account when performing. On tours, for example, when one encounters a different, unknown acoustic each night, the often too brief rehearsal time in each new hall is usually taken up by making such adjustments. In a dry space, players/singers can change style of articulation, length of phrase endings, etc to make the sound more "wet". For example, the bass instruments can play short notes slightly longer to gain this effect. The opposite is true for overly reverberant spaces; everything must be played/sung very "secco". And yes, certainly, a recording that doesn't allow these adjustments to come through is a failure. |
|
#267
|
|||
|
|||
|
Chung wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 8 Jul 2005 02:34:49 GMT, "Helen Schmidt" wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 5 Jul 2005 16:32:52 GMT, "Helen Schmidt" wrote: 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. So define realism. What does it mean when the recording engineer listens and finds the sound to be realistic? What is his subjective experience? I don't know, and neither do you. But *he* does, and if he's a good recording engineer, the listener will most likely agree with him. -- Speaking of comparing digital to analog (aren;t we always? ;) and 'what soudns good', here's an interesting anecdote from the fellow who recorded Steely Dan's albums (which *some* people think sound *pretty good*); interesting too that he's talking about digital as it was circa 1983, for the recording of Donald Fagan's 'The Nightfly': http://www.rogernichols.com/EQ/EQ_2001_08.html 3M Digital Mastering System The Ry Cooder Bop Till You Drop album was the first digitally recorded pop album. It was recorded on the 3M 32-track digital recorder at Amigo studios in North Hollywood California. We booked the Village Recorder in 1981 to cut tracks for Nightfly and decided to try the 3M digital machine. We ran a Studer A-80 24-track analog machine in parallel with the 3M for the test. After the band laid down a take we performed an a-b-c listening test. The analog and digital machines were played back in sync while the band played along live. We could compare the analog machine, the digital machine, and the live band. The closest sound to the live band was the 3M digital machine. We re-aligned the Studer and gave it one more chance. The 3M was the clear winner. We rolled the Studer out into the street, (just kidding) and did the rest of the recording on the 3M 32-track machine. When it came time to mix, we mixed to the 3M 4-track machine. I bought Donald Fagen's "Nightfly" CD when it first came out, and it was a startlingly clear recording. That was back in 1983 IIRC, and my friends who had not listened to CD's before simply could not get over the cleanliness of the sound. Yeah i suppose it was a rather "clean" recording. Not a particularly wonderful one though. The only natural sound sources are rather proccessed. Not much in the way of naturalness. Not that that is wrong per se but I cannot imagine anyone making any definitive decisions about the merits of Cd based on this particular release. Some of them converted to CD right then, and never looked back. The question of whether the CD or the vinyl LP version sounded more "life-like" was not on anyone's mind. It was obvious which was the superior technology. Well that says it all. You knew which technology was superior but no one was asking the question which sounded more life like. I fell for the same thing. it was obvious to me which was the superior technology as well, but I was asking the question which sounded more life like. Fortunately that question lead me to at least give high end vinyl playback a listen. I found the truth to that question in the listening. I have never turned back either, listening is the only way for me. BTW, the recording was done in 1982. I love the cover on that CD/LP. Scott Wheeler |
|
#268
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 8 Jul 2005 23:31:03 GMT, "Helen Schmidt" wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 8 Jul 2005 02:34:49 GMT, "Helen Schmidt" wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 5 Jul 2005 16:32:52 GMT, "Helen Schmidt" wrote: 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. So define realism. What does it mean when the recording engineer listens and finds the sound to be realistic? What is his subjective experience? I don't know, and neither do you. But *he* does, and if he's a good recording engineer, the listener will most likely agree with him. I think it is time to bring out one of your favorite words: the above is a bonafide *waffle.* Favourite words? I believe I've used it in *one* post in the past year. As ever, you are divorced from reality. You claim to be interested in verifiable facts. Well it turns out the number of times you used the word "waffle" can be easily verified through a Google search. Let me say that you are quite wrong. If we include the related terms "hand-waving," "arm-waving," and "wild arm-waving," as well as "wild speculation," which you all seem to use when you are unable or unwilling to address the argument, the number becomes much greater still. Let me phrase this another way, then: Suppose we have two recording engineers, A and B. Each of them chooses a microphone and sets it in a location in order to maximize realism. It so happens that they pick different microphones and different locations. So they disagree. Does this ever happen in life? What does this mean? Is only one of them a "good" recording engineer, and the other one "bad"? Is that the best explanation why they disagree? And if so, who decides which one is "good"? The listener decides which engineer shares most closely his own perception of realism. This is hardly the stuff of Nobel prizes..... It seems you are saying that each listener is the final judge of realism, relative to his/her own ears. In what sense, if any, is the recording engineer a superior judge of realism? Or isn't he? Helen |
|
#269
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
... There are distortions which, applied to music, make it sound "better." But if I'm not talking about "better," but about "truth-to-life", the objectivist answers in the same way. That's because the same mechanisms apply - and *opinions* regarding 'truth to life' vary greatly. Absolute rubbish. It's not opinion. Everything can be measured. As far as the explanation that "distortion sounds good" -- better turntables are in fact better mechanically--that is they produce *less* distortion. And those who favor analog find more truth-to-life in such systems. Do they? Or do they simply look at all that magnificent engineering and assume that it *must* be 'better'? They listen. With their ears. I know, a confusing concept. But you do get better at it when you do it more. You'll just have to trust me on that one. |
|
#270
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , "jeffc"
wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... There are distortions which, applied to music, make it sound "better." But if I'm not talking about "better," but about "truth-to-life", the objectivist answers in the same way. That's because the same mechanisms apply - and *opinions* regarding 'truth to life' vary greatly. Absolute rubbish. It's not opinion. Everything can be measured. snip EVERYTHING? Are you certain? Did they believe that 50 years ago? |
|
#271
|
|||
|
|||
|
Jenn wrote:
In article , Chung wrote: I bought Donald Fagen's "Nightfly" CD when it first came out, and it was a startlingly clear recording. That was back in 1983 IIRC, and my friends who had not listened to CD's before simply could not get over the cleanliness of the sound. Some of them converted to CD right then, and never looked back. The question of whether the CD or the vinyl LP version sounded more "life-like" was not on anyone's mind. That's too bad. Of course, in pop music, "life-like" is less of an issue than in acoustic music, don't you agree? Why is it too bad? What does life-like mean for that kind of recording? If you were not present when the recording was made, how much value does your opinion of life-likeness have for me? It was obvious which was the superior technology. Based on "cleanliness" alone? Based on frequency response, lack of distortion, and huge dynamic range. Not to mention consistency, repeatability, reliability, convenience, portability and other non-sonic attributes. Only a die-hard vinylist would argue that the CD is not a superior technology compared to vinyl. |
|
#272
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 9 Jul 2005 18:41:07 GMT, wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 8 Jul 2005 02:34:49 GMT, "Helen Schmidt" wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 5 Jul 2005 16:32:52 GMT, "Helen Schmidt" wrote: 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. So define realism. What does it mean when the recording engineer listens and finds the sound to be realistic? What is his subjective experience? I don't know, and neither do you. But *he* does, and if he's a good recording engineer, the listener will most likely agree with him. -- Speaking of comparing digital to analog (aren;t we always? ;) and 'what soudns good', here's an interesting anecdote from the fellow who recorded Steely Dan's albums (which *some* people think sound *pretty good*); interesting too that he's talking about digital as it was circa 1983, for the recording of Donald Fagan's 'The Nightfly': http://www.rogernichols.com/EQ/EQ_2001_08.html 3M Digital Mastering System The Ry Cooder Bop Till You Drop album was the first digitally recorded pop album. It was recorded on the 3M 32-track digital recorder at Amigo studios in North Hollywood California. We booked the Village Recorder in 1981 to cut tracks for Nightfly and decided to try the 3M digital machine. We ran a Studer A-80 24-track analog machine in parallel with the 3M for the test. After the band laid down a take we performed an a-b-c listening test. The analog and digital machines were played back in sync while the band played along live. We could compare the analog machine, the digital machine, and the live band. The closest sound to the live band was the 3M digital machine. We re-aligned the Studer and gave it one more chance. The 3M was the clear winner. We rolled the Studer out into the street, (just kidding) and did the rest of the recording on the 3M 32-track machine. When it came time to mix, we mixed to the 3M 4-track machine. This reminds me of another anecdote. During a recording session for Sheffield Labs James Boyk, Kavi Alexander and Doug Sax, they decided to make comprisons betwn the laquer from the D2D recording, the analog master and the diital master. With the live feed as their reference they thought the D2D was the most true to the source followed closely by the analog master. They thought the digital master was so far off that they felt compelled to check the machine for malfunctions. none wee found if memory serves me. I believe this was printed in Stereophile so if John Atkinson is watching he can confirm or deny this. IIRC, those classic D2D Sheffields were all recorded before 1980, hence the 3M digital system was unavailable, which would make this just another vinylphile urban legend. Must try harder............ BTW, exactly how would you make an honest comparison between a live feed and a D2D master? Nice try, no cigar.............. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#273
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 9 Jul 2005 18:54:10 GMT, "jeffc" wrote:
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... There are distortions which, applied to music, make it sound "better." But if I'm not talking about "better," but about "truth-to-life", the objectivist answers in the same way. That's because the same mechanisms apply - and *opinions* regarding 'truth to life' vary greatly. Absolute rubbish. It's not opinion. Everything can be measured. Oh, really? Please specify the measures used to determine 'truth to life'. As far as the explanation that "distortion sounds good" -- better turntables are in fact better mechanically--that is they produce *less* distortion. And those who favor analog find more truth-to-life in such systems. Do they? Or do they simply look at all that magnificent engineering and assume that it *must* be 'better'? They listen. With their ears. I know, a confusing concept. But you do get better at it when you do it more. You'll just have to trust me on that one. Why would I trust *you*, when I have forty five years of my own experience to go by - mostly without digital? Also, why would I trust someone so woefully ignorant as yourself of the basics of both analogue and digital audio? -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#274
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote in message
... I bought Donald Fagen's "Nightfly" CD when it first came out, and it was a startlingly clear recording. That was back in 1983 IIRC, and my friends who had not listened to CD's before simply could not get over the cleanliness of the sound. Yeah i suppose it was a rather "clean" recording. Not a particularly wonderful one though. The only natural sound sources are rather proccessed. Not much in the way of naturalness. Not that that is wrong per se but I cannot imagine anyone making any definitive decisions about the merits of Cd based on this particular release. I used to mistake cleanliness for naturalness when I first heard CDs too. Some of them sounded so good I just thought it was as good as possible. Of course after getting my bearings again after a couple years (which you really can't do very well unless you often listen to acoustic music live), I realized there's more to high fidelity than high S/N ratio and lack of pops. Of course digital probably *is*, or could be, the superior technology. But that's a different matter. Of course, some people think MP3s sound perfect too. |
|
#275
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Jenn" wrote in message
... In article , Chung wrote: I bought Donald Fagen's "Nightfly" CD when it first came out, and it was a startlingly clear recording. That was back in 1983 IIRC, and my friends who had not listened to CD's before simply could not get over the cleanliness of the sound. Some of them converted to CD right then, and never looked back. The question of whether the CD or the vinyl LP version sounded more "life-like" was not on anyone's mind. That's too bad. Of course, in pop music, "life-like" is less of an issue than in acoustic music, don't you agree? It was obvious which was the superior technology. Based on "cleanliness" alone? IMO, this group's sound has always been "sterile" so it comes as no surprise that they might be predisposed to early digital, even to convincing themselves that it sounded more like the live feed. BTW, how do musicians listen to a "live feed" they are supposedly playing? |
|
#276
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Jenn" wrote in message
... "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... There are distortions which, applied to music, make it sound "better." But if I'm not talking about "better," but about "truth-to-life", the objectivist answers in the same way. That's because the same mechanisms apply - and *opinions* regarding 'truth to life' vary greatly. Absolute rubbish. It's not opinion. Everything can be measured. snip EVERYTHING? Are you certain? Did they believe that 50 years ago? I was being sarcastic. But since you asked me, there are 2 answers to this. Theoretically, everything can be measured. Obviously if humans can hear it, it can be measured - hearing IS measuring. That doesn't imply though that there is actually a tool that exists to measure it, or that the tools are sensitive enough, or that they're being used correctly. So just because something can be measured doesn't mean it is being measured. |
|
#277
|
|||
|
|||
|
Jenn wrote:
In article , Chung wrote: I bought Donald Fagen's "Nightfly" CD when it first came out, and it was a startlingly clear recording. That was back in 1983 IIRC, and my friends who had not listened to CD's before simply could not get over the cleanliness of the sound. Some of them converted to CD right then, and never looked back. The question of whether the CD or the vinyl LP version sounded more "life-like" was not on anyone's mind. That's too bad. Of course, in pop music, "life-like" is less of an issue than in acoustic music, don't you agree? Interesting that you respond only to Chung's note, rather than the anecdote he's responding to. Mssrs. Nichols et al. obviously thought the digital chain sounded more like the *band playing live at the same time* than the Studer. Does that suffice for 'life-like'? The isntruments weren't 'acoustic' except for the drums, I suppose, but drums are a pretty good test in themselves. -- -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' |
|
#278
|
|||
|
|||
|
Chung wrote:
Jenn wrote: In article , Chung wrote: I bought Donald Fagen's "Nightfly" CD when it first came out, and it was a startlingly clear recording. That was back in 1983 IIRC, and my friends who had not listened to CD's before simply could not get over the cleanliness of the sound. Some of them converted to CD right then, and never looked back. The question of whether the CD or the vinyl LP version sounded more "life-like" was not on anyone's mind. That's too bad. Of course, in pop music, "life-like" is less of an issue than in acoustic music, don't you agree? Why is it too bad? What does life-like mean for that kind of recording? Given the heavy proccessing that all acoustic sound sources went through on ths album not much. If you were not present when the recording was made, how much value does your opinion of life-likeness have for me? Why ask the question? You already said that nobody there was concerned about life likeness. It was obvious which was the superior technology. Based on "cleanliness" alone? Based on frequency response, lack of distortion, and huge dynamic range. Based on specs alone. Yep i was convinced too. Not to mention consistency, repeatability, reliability, convenience, portability and other non-sonic attributes. Only a die-hard vinylist would argue that the CD is not a superior technology compared to vinyl. Hasn't that straw man been burnt enough yet? Only a die-hard believer in Cd speriority would base that opinion on things other than actual listening experiences. I think the thing the is puzzling is how anyone can listen to something like the Fagen CD and then conclude that CDs ae sonically superior. Scott Wheeler |
|
#279
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Chung" wrote in message
... It was obvious which was the superior technology. Based on "cleanliness" alone? Based on frequency response, lack of distortion, and huge dynamic range. Not to mention consistency, repeatability, reliability, convenience, portability and other non-sonic attributes. Only a die-hard vinylist would argue that the CD is not a superior technology compared to vinyl. It's superior in many ways, but whether it's superior period depends on your priorities. CD does NOT lack distortion. If you can't hear it, then goodie for you. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist, and it doesn't mean no one else can hear it. |
|
#280
|
|||
|
|||
|
I forgot to mention the easy readability of the covers and the colorful,
and framable artwork that they make! ;_) Also, there was a kids program on TV that showed how to heat the LP and then make it into a bowl for serving popcorn. :- ) Try to do THAT with a CD!! And, of course there is the exotic and delicate playback mechanism called the turntable that you can watch as it spins! When I was a child my turntable had a rubber mat with concentric raised rings. You could put marbles on the platter and at 78rpm the marbles liked to spin in place making very nice patterns and glistening in the light... More reasons to like LP... _-_-bear |
Linear Mode
