Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #81   Report Post  
Harry Lavo
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"chung" wrote in message
...

snip


I might be wrong, I guess, but it seems like such display of technical
cluelessness is so much more common among those who prefer vinyl to CD.


But at least they don't have expectation bias that CD *must* sound better
because of its better specs. :-)

  #82   Report Post  
Chung
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Jenn wrote:
Chung: I might be wrong, I guess, but it seems like such display of
technical
cluelessness is so much more common among those who prefer vinyl to CD.

I might be wrong too, I guess, but it seems like those who are more
into technical details and measurements don't talk much about music.

I'm wondering about where this descussion leads. Isn't the goal in
this hobby to enjoy music in one's home? If a person has heard good CD
and good LP and enjoys either one more, what's the point of discussion?
Do you think that I'll enjoy music in my home more if I listen
exclusively to CDs? Just points to ponder.....


The point is not whether one talks about music or technical details. The
point is the apparently higher occurrences of serious errors in the
technical evidence presented by those who prefer vinyl over CD to
support their preference. These errors are undebatable, meaning they are
clearly, provably, wrong.

BTW, this is the forum where high-end *audio reproduction* is discussed.
There are many other forums for discussion of music. And please show
some evidence that those who are more into technical details do not talk
about music.
  #83   Report Post  
Jocelyn Major
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Stewart Pinkerton a écrit :
On 6 May 2005 03:17:35 GMT, Jocelyn Major wrote:


I think you did'nt understand my point at all ( Or I was not clear
enought in my explanation). I used to prefer the sound of cd until I get
myself a better turntable.



Yes, we got that point, thanks.


I try to understand why the sound of an
analog device was way better than the sound of a digital one and I got
it when I think about the nature of frequency wave. Each wave is formed
with curves. The analog sound will reproduce the wave in a natural way.
Now try to do the same with digital it is simply not possible to have a
perfect curve.It is like to try to build a curved wall with bricks: You
can use hundred of thousand or millions of bricks you will never get a
perfect curve. Its is that simple.



It *would* be that simple, except that this is a total
misunderstanding of how digital audio works. Your 'understanding' is
based on sheer ignorance. Up to the 22kHz cutoff point of CD (which is
well above anything you'll find on 99.9% of available vinyl), you most
certainly do capture a perfect curve, with about 20dB greater dynamic
range than vinyl can ever achieve. Just use a 'scope to check the
output of any competent CD player, and you will see no trace whatever
of 'stairsteps'. This is an urban myth perpetuated by those who simply
don't understand the process.


CD are way more convenient than LP that I fully agree. But as I find out
a well care LP will always sound better than is CD counterpart.



That is only a personal opinion, the objective reality is exactly the
opposite.


True if
you do not take care of your LP then you will hear cracks, pop and all
kind of noise. If you make a scratch on you LP you will hear that
scratch but make the same kind of scratch on a CD sometime when you're
lucky you won't find any difference in the sound but most of the time
what you will get is NO SOUND. If a good quality CD player play better
than a good quality turntable it is simply because of a bad
installation.



That is utter nonsense, as I'll happily demonstrate to any visitor.


And also NO way a CD transcribed from a turntable will
sound as good as the turntable.



Sure it will, in fact very few listeners can tell the difference if
it's a good transcription.


I did try it and it the sound was no way
comparable to the sound of the LP. All the ability to pinpoint in the
room where are the performer was simply gone.



In that case, you did it badly.

I just think about something and find out that Jenn is so right in was
he (or she -- I'm sorry my native language is not english but french,
and I don't know if you know but Jocelyn in french is male.. anyway
that's not the point) said. We are all here for the music and we should
not care about what kind of the medium that music was recorded. We all
love the music and that the point. We should share that joy of music not
bashing each other about our medium preference. We are all supposed to
be mature people so we must act as mature people. Thank you Jenn to let
me remember the main reason I join this newsgroup : THE MUSIC.

Some prefer the music on LP that is ok. Some prefer the music on CD that
is also ok. But we should remerber that in those 2 phrase we all those
3 word "prefer the music" and those 3 word are all that is important.

Bye and don't forget to "ENJOY THE MUSIC"

Jocelyn
  #84   Report Post  
Chung
 
Posts: n/a
Default

wrote:
chung wrote:
wrote:



Contrary to urban myth, it has very little to
do with the quality of your vinyl replay gear - once above the

most
basic level, the quality is limited by the *vinyl*, not the TT,

arm
or
cart.


Complete nonsense. The same record played on better vinyl equipment
will sound better all the way up to SOTA gear. The quality of vinyl
playback has a great deal to do with the quality of the gear used.

Many
people when exposed to better vinyl playback are completely

surprised
by the vast improvements and often come to understand the

preference
for vinyl playback back numerous hard core audiophiles hold.




Does that mean that as you get closer and closer to SOTA vinyl
equipment, you get more and more accurate reproduction from the same
record?




well tell me what you mean by "accurate reproduction of the record
first" A record is a piece of plastic with a groove sut into it. The
record is not reproduced in playback.


The record stores the information which the vinyl system reproduces.
Does my question now makes more sense?




Do different SOTA equipment sound the same to you


No. Not the same.


OK, then they cannot be all accurate. Thanks. Of course, my question
should be better stated as whether different SOTA vinyl systems sound
the same to you, assuming the same speakers.



(and they
can't be different if they are all accurate)?



Again accurate to what? To the vinyl? That doesn't make sense.


To the information that is stored on the record.

To the
signal that fed the cuttter head? That would be a complicated question
then which involves the combined sonic signature that the cutting
lathe/ molding and pressing proccess, turntable/arm/ cartidge equipment
and setup and preamp. One can talk about the accuracy of this
comination since it begins with and ends with an analog electrical
signal of the same source.


Well, that's certainly one way to define accuracy. When you compare two
vinyl rigs playing the same record, the process that involves the
cutting head, the lathe, the molding and the pressing would be common to
the two rigs. So when two rigs produce different sounds, it then follows
that at least one rig is not accurate.

Or you can define accuracy as accuracy to the master tape. That seems
like a common, albeit not easily measureable, definition in the case of
vinyl.




You think yours and, say,
Mr Lavo's vinyl systems sound the same?



I doubt it.


I think you are right there.



Or do they sound different, and,
in that case, how do you know which one is more accurate?



Again acurate to what?


Answered above. Or you can provide your own definition of what accuracy
means. We can use "accuracy to your memory of what music should sound
like" if that is how you wish to define accuracy. I know a lot of
audiophiles like that definition.




Do you go by
the price tag?



Yeah, the cat is out of the bag. I go by the price tag. Can you manage
to not be so insulting, ever?


Why is it insulting? I mean, how do you know whether a given vinyl rig
is SOTA? I would think that a lot of people would tend to believe that
expensive systems are more SOTA than inexpensive ones. Since you seem to
know whether a system is SOTA, that is a valid possibility.

The obvious question is that if there is no objective measure of which
one is more accurate, how do you compare accuracy? We use the term
high-fidelity to describe this hobby. What do you think fidelity means?




How do you know a vinyl system is SOTA?


How do I know? I don't "know." I have opinions. They are based on
listening to live music and playback.


So there is really no way to know whether a vinyl system is SOTA. It's
all just opinions. Good, that's what I thought.



Scott Wheeler

  #85   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 6 May 2005 23:30:22 GMT, Neil Gendzwill
wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

AFAIK, CD simply does not *have* any audible problems.


That's a fairly bold statement. So there's no point to the higher
definition formats in your opinion?


There is *theoretical* advantage in the bigger numbers, but I have not
personally *heard* any advantage over well-made CD, and there remains
considerable doubt that ther's actually *any* audible advantage where
you can genuinely compare low-res and high-res from the same (hi-res)
master.

I had always understood the problem
with the format to be insufficient sampling rate to account for
real-world filtering - have modern digital filters effectively ended
that complaint?


That seems to be the case, along with so-called 'upsampling'.

While I wouldn't say that CD is perfect, it's sure a whole lot better
than it was years ago and I have no problems listening to it rather than
LP, especially when convenience is taken into account. The engineers
seem to have figured out all that filtering stuff quite well now.


Indeed so.

However LPs can still sound surprisingly good, and friends who listen to
a record on my system are often astounded at how good it sounds.


No argument there.

Mind
you, their recollection of LP sound usually comes from some $150 cheapie
table and a record that's been ground to death. At any rate I'm not
sufficiently motivated to replace any of my records with CD equivalents,
unless I need them for the car or something.


Fair enough, I still keep a few hundred LPs myself.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering


  #86   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 7 May 2005 00:14:09 GMT, "Jenn" wrote:

Chung: I might be wrong, I guess, but it seems like such display of
technical
cluelessness is so much more common among those who prefer vinyl to CD.

I might be wrong too, I guess, but it seems like those who are more
into technical details and measurements don't talk much about music.


Sure we do, but not on *audio* newsgroups like this one.

I'm wondering about where this descussion leads. Isn't the goal in
this hobby to enjoy music in one's home? If a person has heard good CD
and good LP and enjoys either one more, what's the point of discussion?


That's not what we were discussing. It was *you* who claimed that
ayone who heard a good vinyl rig would realise that vinyl is better
than CD. That's simply an opinion, definitely not an absolute.

Do you think that I'll enjoy music in my home more if I listen
exclusively to CDs?


Possibly, but you'll definitely *hear* more of the music........
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
  #87   Report Post  
Norman M. Schwartz
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Jocelyn Major" wrote in message
...
Stewart Pinkerton a écrit :
On 6 May 2005 03:17:35 GMT, Jocelyn Major wrote:


I think you did'nt understand my point at all ( Or I was not clear
enought in my explanation). I used to prefer the sound of cd until I get
myself a better turntable.



Yes, we got that point, thanks.


I try to understand why the sound of an analog device was way better than
the sound of a digital one and I got it when I think about the nature of
frequency wave. Each wave is formed with curves. The analog sound will
reproduce the wave in a natural way. Now try to do the same with digital
it is simply not possible to have a perfect curve.It is like to try to
build a curved wall with bricks: You can use hundred of thousand or
millions of bricks you will never get a perfect curve. Its is that
simple.



It *would* be that simple, except that this is a total
misunderstanding of how digital audio works. Your 'understanding' is
based on sheer ignorance. Up to the 22kHz cutoff point of CD (which is
well above anything you'll find on 99.9% of available vinyl), you most
certainly do capture a perfect curve, with about 20dB greater dynamic
range than vinyl can ever achieve. Just use a 'scope to check the
output of any competent CD player, and you will see no trace whatever
of 'stairsteps'. This is an urban myth perpetuated by those who simply
don't understand the process.


CD are way more convenient than LP that I fully agree. But as I find out
a well care LP will always sound better than is CD counterpart.



That is only a personal opinion, the objective reality is exactly the
opposite.


True if you do not take care of your LP then you will hear cracks, pop
and all kind of noise. If you make a scratch on you LP you will hear that
scratch but make the same kind of scratch on a CD sometime when you're
lucky you won't find any difference in the sound but most of the time
what you will get is NO SOUND. If a good quality CD player play better
than a good quality turntable it is simply because of a bad installation.



That is utter nonsense, as I'll happily demonstrate to any visitor.


And also NO way a CD transcribed from a turntable will sound as good as
the turntable.



Sure it will, in fact very few listeners can tell the difference if
it's a good transcription.


I did try it and it the sound was no way comparable to the sound of the
LP. All the ability to pinpoint in the room where are the performer was
simply gone.



In that case, you did it badly.

I just think about something and find out that Jenn is so right in was he
(or she -- I'm sorry my native language is not english but french, and I
don't know if you know but Jocelyn in french is male.. anyway that's not
the point) said. We are all here for the music and we should not care
about what kind of the medium that music was recorded. We all love the
music and that the point. We should share that joy of music not bashing
each other about our medium preference. We are all supposed to be mature
people so we must act as mature people. Thank you Jenn to let me remember
the main reason I join this newsgroup : THE MUSIC.

Some prefer the music on LP that is ok. Some prefer the music on CD that
is also ok. But we should remerber that in those 2 phrase we all those 3
word "prefer the music" and those 3 word are all that is important.

Bye and don't forget to "ENJOY THE MUSIC"

And also please don't forget that the choice of media and gadgets used to
record and play back "the music" is a HOBBY. Enthusiasts within a hobby are
often engaged in conversations of the like just as they occur here. BTW I
knew a French speaking family's daughter named and spelled Jocelyn, and
there is this female, Jocelyn:
http://www.jocelynpook.com/, who as you can tell by the photo, appears as a
person of the female gender.
Bye and don't forget to "ENJOY THE HOBBY"
  #88   Report Post  
Chung
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Harry Lavo wrote:
"chung" wrote in message
...

snip


I might be wrong, I guess, but it seems like such display of technical
cluelessness is so much more common among those who prefer vinyl to CD.


But at least they don't have expectation bias that CD *must* sound better
because of its better specs. :-)


Actually we always say preferences are personal. What we tend to say is
that CD *must* be more accurate than vinyl *as a medium*. Big difference
there, since how a particular CD sound depends a lot on the performance,
how it's recorded and how it's mastered.
  #89   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Steven Sullivan wrote:
wrote:
chung wrote:
wrote:



Contrary to urban myth, it has very little to
do with the quality of your vinyl replay gear - once above the

most
basic level, the quality is limited by the *vinyl*, not the

TT,
arm
or
cart.


Complete nonsense. The same record played on better vinyl

equipment
will sound better all the way up to SOTA gear. The quality of

vinyl
playback has a great deal to do with the quality of the gear

used.
Many
people when exposed to better vinyl playback are completely

surprised
by the vast improvements and often come to understand the

preference
for vinyl playback back numerous hard core audiophiles hold.




Does that mean that as you get closer and closer to SOTA vinyl
equipment, you get more and more accurate reproduction from the

same
record?




well tell me what you mean by "accurate reproduction of the record
first" A record is a piece of plastic with a groove sut into it.

The
record is not reproduced in playback.



And a magnetic recording tape is just a piece of plastic film coated
with metal oxide. Yet some playback setups are clearly extracting
more information more accurately *from* it than other. Which, of

course,
is clearly analogous to what Chung meant...yet again you indulge
in semantic quibbling for no good purpose.


No, I simply choose not to ignore the complexity of the question in
it's full context. You cannot discuss accuracy without a standard to
which things are being compared. What is a "vinyl record and it's
playback equipment" being compared to when you ask how accurate it is?
The only meaningful think you can guage is the signal going itno the
cutting lathe to the signal leaving the preamp after the record has
been played. You cannot ignore the other elements in the chain when you
make such a comparison.



Scott Wheeler
  #90   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Chung wrote:
wrote:
chung wrote:
wrote:



Contrary to urban myth, it has very little to
do with the quality of your vinyl replay gear - once above the

most
basic level, the quality is limited by the *vinyl*, not the TT,

arm
or
cart.


Complete nonsense. The same record played on better vinyl

equipment
will sound better all the way up to SOTA gear. The quality of

vinyl
playback has a great deal to do with the quality of the gear

used.
Many
people when exposed to better vinyl playback are completely

surprised
by the vast improvements and often come to understand the

preference
for vinyl playback back numerous hard core audiophiles hold.




Does that mean that as you get closer and closer to SOTA vinyl
equipment, you get more and more accurate reproduction from the

same
record?




well tell me what you mean by "accurate reproduction of the record
first" A record is a piece of plastic with a groove sut into it.

The
record is not reproduced in playback.


The record stores the information which the vinyl system reproduces.
Does my question now makes more sense?



The record stores the grooves cut by the cutting lathe. How do we
evaluate the accuracy of the record playback to the groove *cut* by the
cutting lathe?








Do different SOTA equipment sound the same to you


No. Not the same.


OK, then they cannot be all accurate. Thanks.



Accurate to what?



Of course, my question
should be better stated as whether different SOTA vinyl systems sound


the same to you, assuming the same speakers.



I got that. The problem with the question is you have not set the
objetive by which accuracy should be measured. Personally I don't know
which vinyl playback rigs/ cutting lates/ plating and pressing plants
offer the most accurate transfer of the signal coming off the master
tape. I have no way of knowing. I judge the final playback which
includes all the colorations of any part of the chain from recording to
playback. When a component, in this case, a vinyl playback rig brings
that playback experience closer to that which I love about live
acoustic music then I deem that as an improvement. SOTA playback rigs
are that which bring me the closest to that ideal. I hope this gives
you a better idea of where I am coming from on this issue.






(and they
can't be different if they are all accurate)?



Again accurate to what? To the vinyl? That doesn't make sense.


To the information that is stored on the record.



I'm not sure how one can determine that.




To the
signal that fed the cuttter head? That would be a complicated

question
then which involves the combined sonic signature that the cutting
lathe/ molding and pressing proccess, turntable/arm/ cartidge

equipment
and setup and preamp. One can talk about the accuracy of this
comination since it begins with and ends with an analog electrical
signal of the same source.


Well, that's certainly one way to define accuracy. When you compare

two
vinyl rigs playing the same record, the process that involves the
cutting head, the lathe, the molding and the pressing would be common

to
the two rigs.


Yes they would but they may also be quite inaccurate. So the more
accurate reproduction of an inaccurate cutting lathe may give the false
impression of less accuracy.


So when two rigs produce different sounds, it then follows
that at least one rig is not accurate.



Lets get something straight here. It isn't a matter of accurate or
inaccurate. It is a matter of degrees of inaccuracy. No one I know is
claiming that vinyl cutting and playback is ever a perfect transfer of
the original signal. I suggest you read up on Stan Rickers comments on
the subject. he has some rather surpiseing POVs on the subject. He
feels the proccess can actually enhance the original signal if doen at
half speed.




Or you can define accuracy as accuracy to the master tape.



I suspect you can compare the signal coming off the master tape to the
signal coming from a preamp that has been fed the signal from a vinyl
playback rig. In theory this can be done. I sure can't do it. i do know
any number of mastering engineers compare the feed off the master tape
to the test pressing of the record they have mastered.



That seems
like a common, albeit not easily measureable, definition in the case

of
vinyl.




I think we are on the same page here more or less. I just think we
cannot exclude the other components in the chain like the cutting lathe
and the plating and pressing proccess.









You think yours and, say,
Mr Lavo's vinyl systems sound the same?



I doubt it.


I think you are right there.



Or do they sound different, and,
in that case, how do you know which one is more accurate?



Again acurate to what?


Answered above. Or you can provide your own definition of what

accuracy
means.



I believe I have. I can't say for sure which one would be more accurate
to the signal coming off the master tape. I cannot say which is more
accurate to the colorations of any given cutting lathe. I can say which
sounds more like live music on my system if Harry were to bring his rig
over. more importantly *that* is the criteria by which I judge any
source component. It is what matters to me.


We can use "accuracy to your memory of what music should sound
like" if that is how you wish to define accuracy.



No, that is not how I wish to define accuracy. That is how I wish to
measure my satisfaction with any given system. I have never claimed
that the most life like playback is comprised of strictly the most
accurate components.




I know a lot of
audiophiles like that definition.




Do you go by
the price tag?



Yeah, the cat is out of the bag. I go by the price tag. Can you

manage
to not be so insulting, ever?


Why is it insulting?


It infers a mentality that can be readily found with the bored hous
wives shopping on Rodeo Dr. in Beverly Hills. It is an approach to
consumption of goods that I find shallow and idiotic. Perhaps you find
shopping via price tag (expensive is better because it is expensive) a
valid way of making choices. I suspect you don't think that way.
Correct me if I am wrong. Correct me if you do not also find that
approach to be shallow and idiotic.




I mean, how do you know whether a given vinyl rig
is SOTA?



Oh, it must be the price tag of course. It wouldn't have anything to do
with listening tests. (sarcasm in case it wasn't clear)



I would think that a lot of people would tend to believe that
expensive systems are more SOTA than inexpensive ones.



And you would value those peoples' opinions or mock them?



Since you seem to
know whether a system is SOTA,



I do? I suggest you read my posts more carefully. I have clearly stated
that I don't claim to "know" but I hold opinions.



that is a valid possibility.


Amoung many possibilities. It just happens to be one that has a fairly
insulting inference attached. Unless you don't believe, as I do, that
evaluating things by price tag is shallow and stupid.





The obvious question is that if there is no objective measure of

which
one is more accurate, how do you compare accuracy?




You can scroll up for my thourough answer to this question. No point in
repeating myslef in this post.



We use the term
high-fidelity to describe this hobby. What do you think fidelity

means?


Truth. In this case truth to the original event. That being the
original live performance. I prefer to look at the forrest rather than
the trees. I measure the truth of any component by how it affects the
truth of the system over all. Does that seem like a bad idea when it
comes to fidelity?







How do you know a vinyl system is SOTA?


How do I know? I don't "know." I have opinions. They are based on
listening to live music and playback.


So there is really no way to know whether a vinyl system is SOTA.

It's
all just opinions. Good, that's what I thought.



It seems that uncertainty is something objectivists are uncomfortable
with. I prefer honest uncertainty to a false sense of knowing
everything.




Scott Wheeler


  #91   Report Post  
Jenn
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Chung: I might be wrong, I guess, but it seems like such display of

technical
cluelessness is so much more common among those who prefer vinyl to

CD.

Jenn: I might be wrong too, I guess, but it seems like those who are
more
into technical details and measurements don't talk much about music.



Stewart: Sure we do, but not on *audio* newsgroups like this one.

Fair enough. But I'm afraid that I didn't express myself too well on
this. What I meant was that there seems to be little discussion by
those who rely on measurement about the SOUND of music in their
systems. I suppose that this is typical; the old Jullian Hersh vs.
Harry Pearson issue :-)

I'm wondering about where this descussion leads. Isn't the goal in
this hobby to enjoy music in one's home? If a person has heard good

CD
and good LP and enjoys either one more, what's the point of

discussion?

Stewart: That's not what we were discussing. It was *you* who claimed
that
ayone who heard a good vinyl rig would realise that vinyl is better
than CD.

No, I've never made that claim, nor would I.
  #92   Report Post  
Jenn
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Chung: BTW, this is the forum where high-end *audio reproduction* is
discussed.
There are many other forums for discussion of music

I understand that. And, I came here to discuss such things and to
learn and share ideas. I wasn't looking for a place to discuss the use
of the Augmented 6 chord in the music of Racmaninoff; I have other
places for that, of course. What I meant was that there seems to be
little discussion about how music SOUNDS when played by a given piece
of gear.

And please show
some evidence that those who are more into technical details do not
talk
about music.

I didn't say that, any more than you said that all those who like LP
are "clueless." I was speaking in generalities, based on observation,
participation in audio clubs, and so forth.
  #93   Report Post  
Chung
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Jenn wrote:
Chung: BTW, this is the forum where high-end *audio reproduction* is
discussed.
There are many other forums for discussion of music

I understand that. And, I came here to discuss such things and to
learn and share ideas. I wasn't looking for a place to discuss the use
of the Augmented 6 chord in the music of Racmaninoff; I have other
places for that, of course. What I meant was that there seems to be
little discussion about how music SOUNDS when played by a given piece
of gear.

And please show
some evidence that those who are more into technical details do not
talk
about music.

I didn't say that, any more than you said that all those who like LP
are "clueless." I was speaking in generalities, based on observation,
participation in audio clubs, and so forth.


Since you conveniently snipped my original response, let's put it back
here. I said this:

"I might be wrong, I guess, but it seems like such display of technical
cluelessness is so much more common among those who prefer vinyl to CD."

The evidence is in the post that I responded to, where someone gave some
seriously wrong reason for why vinyl should be technically better. There
have been numerous posts by vinyl lovers on how vinyl has infinite
resolution, infinte bandwidth and so on. I am sure you have see those
posts before.

Now on the other hand, this is what you said:

"I might be wrong too, I guess, but it seems like those who are more
into technical details and measurements don't talk much about music."

Now would you please provide evidence that you statement is correct? Or
please retract it? Just thinking it is so is not evidence. Again I
should remind you that this is not a forum where music is the main focus
of the discussions.
  #94   Report Post  
Chung
 
Posts: n/a
Default

wrote:

Chung wrote:
wrote:
chung wrote:
wrote:



Contrary to urban myth, it has very little to
do with the quality of your vinyl replay gear - once above the
most
basic level, the quality is limited by the *vinyl*, not the TT,
arm
or
cart.


Complete nonsense. The same record played on better vinyl

equipment
will sound better all the way up to SOTA gear. The quality of

vinyl
playback has a great deal to do with the quality of the gear

used.
Many
people when exposed to better vinyl playback are completely
surprised
by the vast improvements and often come to understand the
preference
for vinyl playback back numerous hard core audiophiles hold.




Does that mean that as you get closer and closer to SOTA vinyl
equipment, you get more and more accurate reproduction from the

same
record?



well tell me what you mean by "accurate reproduction of the record
first" A record is a piece of plastic with a groove sut into it.

The
record is not reproduced in playback.


The record stores the information which the vinyl system reproduces.
Does my question now makes more sense?



The record stores the grooves cut by the cutting lathe. How do we
evaluate the accuracy of the record playback to the groove *cut* by the
cutting lathe?


I thought I gave you several ways to define accuracy. The point I am
trying to make, in case you don't catch it, is whatever way you choose
to define accuracy, the fact that two vinyl rigs sound noticeably
different means that at least one is inaccurate.








Do different SOTA equipment sound the same to you


No. Not the same.


OK, then they cannot be all accurate. Thanks.



Accurate to what?


Whatever you want to use as reference.




Of course, my question
should be better stated as whether different SOTA vinyl systems sound


the same to you, assuming the same speakers.



I got that. The problem with the question is you have not set the
objetive by which accuracy should be measured. Personally I don't know
which vinyl playback rigs/ cutting lates/ plating and pressing plants
offer the most accurate transfer of the signal coming off the master
tape. I have no way of knowing. I judge the final playback which
includes all the colorations of any part of the chain from recording to
playback. When a component, in this case, a vinyl playback rig brings
that playback experience closer to that which I love about live
acoustic music then I deem that as an improvement. SOTA playback rigs
are that which bring me the closest to that ideal. I hope this gives
you a better idea of where I am coming from on this issue.


If you don't have a definition of accuracy that you are comfortable
with, I can certainly propose accuracy to the master tape.

If you want to use accuracy as "closeness to that ideal", that's an
impossible one to objectively evaluate, but I'll take it as your working
definition. You seem to say that even SOTA vinyl systems sound
different, so that must mean that at most only one system can be the
closest to that ideal. Do I get you right?







(and they
can't be different if they are all accurate)?


Again accurate to what? To the vinyl? That doesn't make sense.


To the information that is stored on the record.



I'm not sure how one can determine that.


Master tape is one reference.





To the
signal that fed the cuttter head? That would be a complicated

question
then which involves the combined sonic signature that the cutting
lathe/ molding and pressing proccess, turntable/arm/ cartidge

equipment
and setup and preamp. One can talk about the accuracy of this
comination since it begins with and ends with an analog electrical
signal of the same source.


Well, that's certainly one way to define accuracy. When you compare

two
vinyl rigs playing the same record, the process that involves the
cutting head, the lathe, the molding and the pressing would be common

to
the two rigs.


Yes they would but they may also be quite inaccurate. So the more
accurate reproduction of an inaccurate cutting lathe may give the false
impression of less accuracy.


So when two rigs produce different sounds, it then follows
that at least one rig is not accurate.



Lets get something straight here. It isn't a matter of accurate or
inaccurate. It is a matter of degrees of inaccuracy. No one I know is
claiming that vinyl cutting and playback is ever a perfect transfer of
the original signal. I suggest you read up on Stan Rickers comments on
the subject. he has some rather surpiseing POVs on the subject. He
feels the proccess can actually enhance the original signal if doen at
half speed.


OK, you can't say whether SOTA systems are accurate or inaccurate, it's
just that SOTA means some degree of accuracy that is acceptable to you.
Now how would you know then a system that is not what you called SOTA
will have a lesser degree of accuracy for another listener?

You see, it all gets back to your point that vinyl rigs get "better and
better" until you get to that ambiguous SOTA level, but there is really
no way for you to define what better means in the sense that others can
accept. Or what is SOTA. It's just your opinion that is so, IOW.




Or you can define accuracy as accuracy to the master tape.



I suspect you can compare the signal coming off the master tape to the
signal coming from a preamp that has been fed the signal from a vinyl
playback rig. In theory this can be done. I sure can't do it. i do know
any number of mastering engineers compare the feed off the master tape
to the test pressing of the record they have mastered.



That seems
like a common, albeit not easily measureable, definition in the case

of
vinyl.




I think we are on the same page here more or less. I just think we
cannot exclude the other components in the chain like the cutting lathe
and the plating and pressing proccess.









You think yours and, say,
Mr Lavo's vinyl systems sound the same?


I doubt it.


I think you are right there.



Or do they sound different, and,
in that case, how do you know which one is more accurate?


Again acurate to what?


Answered above. Or you can provide your own definition of what

accuracy
means.



I believe I have. I can't say for sure which one would be more accurate
to the signal coming off the master tape. I cannot say which is more
accurate to the colorations of any given cutting lathe. I can say which
sounds more like live music on my system if Harry were to bring his rig
over. more importantly *that* is the criteria by which I judge any
source component. It is what matters to me.


We can use "accuracy to your memory of what music should sound
like" if that is how you wish to define accuracy.



No, that is not how I wish to define accuracy. That is how I wish to
measure my satisfaction with any given system. I have never claimed
that the most life like playback is comprised of strictly the most
accurate components.




I know a lot of
audiophiles like that definition.




Do you go by
the price tag?


Yeah, the cat is out of the bag. I go by the price tag. Can you

manage
to not be so insulting, ever?


Why is it insulting?


It infers a mentality that can be readily found with the bored hous
wives shopping on Rodeo Dr. in Beverly Hills. It is an approach to
consumption of goods that I find shallow and idiotic. Perhaps you find
shopping via price tag (expensive is better because it is expensive) a
valid way of making choices. I suspect you don't think that way.
Correct me if I am wrong. Correct me if you do not also find that
approach to be shallow and idiotic.


Oh I see, you are the one who is doing the insulting. As far as I am
concerned, anyone can buy anything for any reason. If they buy it
because they believe higher price means closer to SOTA, it's their
prerogative. I certainly will not insult those who think that way by
saying that they are idiotic. Most people believe that quality is tied
to price, so why should it be idiotic?





I mean, how do you know whether a given vinyl rig
is SOTA?



Oh, it must be the price tag of course. It wouldn't have anything to do
with listening tests. (sarcasm in case it wasn't clear)


Price tag is perfectly acceptable to me as a measure of SOTA-ness if
that's how someone feels, your sarcasm notwithstanding.



I would think that a lot of people would tend to believe that
expensive systems are more SOTA than inexpensive ones.



And you would value those peoples' opinions or mock them?


You are the one who call them idiotic, in case you forget. I say it is
their prerogative.




Since you seem to
know whether a system is SOTA,



I do? I suggest you read my posts more carefully. I have clearly stated
that I don't claim to "know" but I hold opinions.



that is a valid possibility.


Amoung many possibilities. It just happens to be one that has a fairly
insulting inference attached. Unless you don't believe, as I do, that
evaluating things by price tag is shallow and stupid.





The obvious question is that if there is no objective measure of

which
one is more accurate, how do you compare accuracy?




You can scroll up for my thourough answer to this question. No point in
repeating myslef in this post.



We use the term
high-fidelity to describe this hobby. What do you think fidelity

means?


Truth. In this case truth to the original event. That being the
original live performance. I prefer to look at the forrest rather than
the trees. I measure the truth of any component by how it affects the
truth of the system over all. Does that seem like a bad idea when it
comes to fidelity?


Of course that assumes you somehow heard the original live performance.
How many records do you have that you have heard the original live
performance before?







How do you know a vinyl system is SOTA?


How do I know? I don't "know." I have opinions. They are based on
listening to live music and playback.


So there is really no way to know whether a vinyl system is SOTA.

It's
all just opinions. Good, that's what I thought.



It seems that uncertainty is something objectivists are uncomfortable
with. I prefer honest uncertainty to a false sense of knowing
everything.


I am perfectly content with uncertainty. In fact, the purpose of my post
was to make sure that people are uncertain about what SOTA is. They have
their opinions, of course, but not certainty.
  #95   Report Post  
Jenn
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Chung: The evidence is in the post that I responded to, where
someone gave some
seriously wrong reason for why vinyl should be technically better.
There
have been numerous posts by vinyl lovers on how vinyl has infinite
resolution, infinte bandwidth and so on. I am sure you have see those
posts before.

And I agree that if someone gives incorrect technical information, it's
a good thing to correct that person. I have no beef with that.

Chung: Now on the other hand, this is what you said:

"
I might be wrong too, I guess, but it seems like those who are more
into technical details and measurements don't talk much about music

.."

Now would you please provide evidence that you statement is correct? Or

please retract it? Just thinking it is so is not evidence. Again I
should remind you that this is not a forum where music is the main
focus
of the discussions.

Again, as stated in the previous post, I've observed this from
experience in discussions in various locales, in person and online. I
would add to the list some quarters of the audio press.

Look, I'm not trying to pick a fight. I'm simply making an observation
based on my experience. Your experience is that LP lovers tend to be
technically "clueless" when compared to CD lovers. That's fine, and
you're entitled to your opinion. I have an observation as well: in my
experience, CD lovers tend to express their thoughts on gear in terms
of specs and measurements, and LP lovers tend to express their thoughts
on gear in terms of how much it sounds like live acoustic music. It's
just my observation after about 30 years in this hobby (with about 10
years off for good behavior!)

I do have some strong feelings about how music sounds through some
gear, and how music is represented by some recordings, both digital and
analogue. For example, I was present at the very first digital
symphonic recording made in the U.S. I heard the music in Severance
Hall, and I then heard the live feed on another "take" and I heard the
digital master immediately after that. I was stunned. It was
factastic. The LP of that session came out, and I was, again, stunned.
The CD came out a year or so later, and I was less impressed. Now,
some 25 years later, I hear the CD on contemporary equipment, and I'm
stunned again. I hear that CD on other contemporary gear, and I'm less
than impressed. Digital sounds different through different equipment,
obviously. Price seems to matter very little. Is CD better now than
it was? In my view, yes. As I stated earlier, there are many CDs that
I enjoy. I'm just saying that on average, I enjoy music more on well
done vinyl. And, by the way, so do most of my fellow acoustic
musicians, when they hear a comparison. I can only go by my
observations. Is vinyl more accurate? I have no idea, and I have very
little interest in that part of the hobby.

Peace.


  #96   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Chung wrote:
wrote:

Chung wrote:
wrote:
chung wrote:
wrote:



Contrary to urban myth, it has very little to
do with the quality of your vinyl replay gear - once above

the
most
basic level, the quality is limited by the *vinyl*, not the

TT,
arm
or
cart.


Complete nonsense. The same record played on better vinyl

equipment
will sound better all the way up to SOTA gear. The quality of

vinyl
playback has a great deal to do with the quality of the gear

used.
Many
people when exposed to better vinyl playback are completely
surprised
by the vast improvements and often come to understand the
preference
for vinyl playback back numerous hard core audiophiles hold.




Does that mean that as you get closer and closer to SOTA vinyl
equipment, you get more and more accurate reproduction from the

same
record?



well tell me what you mean by "accurate reproduction of the

record
first" A record is a piece of plastic with a groove sut into it.

The
record is not reproduced in playback.

The record stores the information which the vinyl system

reproduces.
Does my question now makes more sense?



The record stores the grooves cut by the cutting lathe. How do we
evaluate the accuracy of the record playback to the groove *cut* by

the
cutting lathe?


I thought I gave you several ways to define accuracy.


No. And we don't need to redefine the word. I am quite comfortable
using the dictionary definition.


The point I am
trying to make, in case you don't catch it, is whatever way you

choose
to define accuracy, the fact that two vinyl rigs sound noticeably
different means that at least one is inaccurate.



Or both. But again, no one is claiming that the chain between the
signal from the master tape and the signal coming from the phono preamp
are ever perfectly identical. It is a matter of degree.










Do different SOTA equipment sound the same to you


No. Not the same.

OK, then they cannot be all accurate. Thanks.



Accurate to what?


Whatever you want to use as reference.



That is arbitrary. If I use the original performance then it inevitably
involves the entire recording and playback chain. One can only evaluate
the changes in the entire system wrought by changes in one or more
components in that chain. One cannot via this method really talk about
the accuracy of the component but the effect the component has on the
percieved accuracy of the system. OTOH one can, if they have the means,
compare the signal of the feed to the cutter head of a lathe to the
signal coming from a record/vinyl playback rig/preamp played back from
the particular cut. This would be a good way to determine the accuracy
of the vinyl cutting/plating/pressing/playback system in total. It
still wont tell you anything about the individual components in that
whole system.







Of course, my question
should be better stated as whether different SOTA vinyl systems

sound

the same to you, assuming the same speakers.



I got that. The problem with the question is you have not set the
objetive by which accuracy should be measured. Personally I don't

know
which vinyl playback rigs/ cutting lates/ plating and pressing

plants
offer the most accurate transfer of the signal coming off the

master
tape. I have no way of knowing. I judge the final playback which
includes all the colorations of any part of the chain from

recording to
playback. When a component, in this case, a vinyl playback rig

brings
that playback experience closer to that which I love about live
acoustic music then I deem that as an improvement. SOTA playback

rigs
are that which bring me the closest to that ideal. I hope this

gives
you a better idea of where I am coming from on this issue.


If you don't have a definition of accuracy that you are comfortable
with,



I am comfortable with the dictionary definition.


I can certainly propose accuracy to the master tape.


That wouldn't be a different definition just a specific reference.
Probably a good one for those with access to master tapes. I lack the
access to make that comparison.









If you want to use accuracy as "closeness to that ideal", that's an
impossible one to objectively evaluate,



Quite the opposite. I have much better access to the ideal, that being
live acoustic music in a good acoustic space than I do to master tapes.





but I'll take it as your working
definition.



You mean my point of reference? Yeah good call.




You seem to say that even SOTA vinyl systems sound
different, so that must mean that at most only one system can be the
closest to that ideal. Do I get you right?




Ummmmmmm. maybe. You see, so long as one uses the complete recording
and playback chain and compares it to live acoustic music there are so
many variables. One vinyl rig may be better on one playback system and
not better on another playback system. The other thing that one cannot
forget is that there may be give and take between competing SOTA rigs
along various parameters. As a gross analogy let me put this to you.
What is more accurate to the original source a sharp contrasty low
grain black and white print with infinite depth of field or a grainy
color print with low contrast and a narrow depth of field? Tough to
answer isn't it? So long as there is no perfect recording and playback
system we will be often faced with choices as to which colorations are
more problematic and which are less. It becomes difficult for one to
make simple determinations as to what is more accurate and what is less
acurate.











(and they
can't be different if they are all accurate)?


Again accurate to what? To the vinyl? That doesn't make sense.

To the information that is stored on the record.



I'm not sure how one can determine that.


Master tape is one reference.



But it is not the same reference. That information from the master tape
has been put through the cutting/plating and pressing proccess. The
groove of a record is not the signal from a master tape feed.







To the
signal that fed the cuttter head? That would be a complicated

question
then which involves the combined sonic signature that the

cutting
lathe/ molding and pressing proccess, turntable/arm/ cartidge

equipment
and setup and preamp. One can talk about the accuracy of this
comination since it begins with and ends with an analog

electrical
signal of the same source.

Well, that's certainly one way to define accuracy. When you

compare
two
vinyl rigs playing the same record, the process that involves the
cutting head, the lathe, the molding and the pressing would be

common
to
the two rigs.


Yes they would but they may also be quite inaccurate. So the more
accurate reproduction of an inaccurate cutting lathe may give the

false
impression of less accuracy.


So when two rigs produce different sounds, it then follows
that at least one rig is not accurate.



Lets get something straight here. It isn't a matter of accurate or
inaccurate. It is a matter of degrees of inaccuracy. No one I know

is
claiming that vinyl cutting and playback is ever a perfect transfer

of
the original signal. I suggest you read up on Stan Rickers comments

on
the subject. he has some rather surpiseing POVs on the subject. He
feels the proccess can actually enhance the original signal if doen

at
half speed.


OK, you can't say whether SOTA systems are accurate or inaccurate,

it's
just that SOTA means some degree of accuracy that is acceptable to

you.


No it means a certain degree of life like sound when used in a high fi
playback system with the most consistantly life like sounding records.
I don't know how common audiophiles can isolate that component and
meaningfully talk about it's accuracy without the context of the rest
of the recording and playback chain.








Now how would you know then a system that is not what you called SOTA


will have a lesser degree of accuracy for another listener?



Common experience.




You see, it all gets back to your point that vinyl rigs get "better

and
better" until you get to that ambiguous SOTA level, but there is

really
no way for you to define what better means in the sense that others

can
accept.



Maybe *some* can't accept it but most people I know have no problem
with how I define "better" when it comes to vinyl playback nor do they
have much problem hearing it when it is played for them. But then most
people I know don't demand that all qualitative experiences be measured
and quanitifed and broken down into formulas.



Or what is SOTA. It's just your opinion that is so, IOW.




Given the use of audio equipment SOTA will always be somewhat
subjective.







Or you can define accuracy as accuracy to the master tape.



I suspect you can compare the signal coming off the master tape to

the
signal coming from a preamp that has been fed the signal from a

vinyl
playback rig. In theory this can be done. I sure can't do it. i do

know
any number of mastering engineers compare the feed off the master

tape
to the test pressing of the record they have mastered.



That seems
like a common, albeit not easily measureable, definition in the

case
of
vinyl.




I think we are on the same page here more or less. I just think we
cannot exclude the other components in the chain like the cutting

lathe
and the plating and pressing proccess.









You think yours and, say,
Mr Lavo's vinyl systems sound the same?


I doubt it.

I think you are right there.



Or do they sound different, and,
in that case, how do you know which one is more accurate?


Again acurate to what?

Answered above. Or you can provide your own definition of what

accuracy
means.



I believe I have. I can't say for sure which one would be more

accurate
to the signal coming off the master tape. I cannot say which is

more
accurate to the colorations of any given cutting lathe. I can say

which
sounds more like live music on my system if Harry were to bring his

rig
over. more importantly *that* is the criteria by which I judge any
source component. It is what matters to me.


We can use "accuracy to your memory of what music should sound
like" if that is how you wish to define accuracy.



No, that is not how I wish to define accuracy. That is how I wish

to
measure my satisfaction with any given system. I have never claimed
that the most life like playback is comprised of strictly the most
accurate components.




I know a lot of
audiophiles like that definition.




Do you go by
the price tag?


Yeah, the cat is out of the bag. I go by the price tag. Can you

manage
to not be so insulting, ever?

Why is it insulting?


It infers a mentality that can be readily found with the bored hous
wives shopping on Rodeo Dr. in Beverly Hills. It is an approach to
consumption of goods that I find shallow and idiotic. Perhaps you

find
shopping via price tag (expensive is better because it is

expensive) a
valid way of making choices. I suspect you don't think that way.
Correct me if I am wrong. Correct me if you do not also find that
approach to be shallow and idiotic.


Oh I see, you are the one who is doing the insulting. As far as I am
concerned, anyone can buy anything for any reason.



I didn't say otherwise. I simply stated that *I* have an opinion about
buying via price tag. I suppose you have no opinion about that
yourself? I would be very skeptical about such a claim. I did assume
you held a similar opinion about that and asked you to correct me if I
were wrong. I see no such correction. So you are given another chance.
Do you not feel, as I do, that buying things *because* they are
expensive is shallow and stupid?






If they buy it
because they believe higher price means closer to SOTA, it's their
prerogative.



I never said otherwise. I simply offered an opinion about that
approach. Does your opinion differ?



I certainly will not insult those who think that way by
saying that they are idiotic.



Perhaps not directly. But if you share my opinion about shopping via
price tag then the accusation would be an infered insult. Insults often
lie between the lines. I think you know that. IMO it is a typical means
of getting insults past the moderators on RAO.



Most people believe that quality is tied
to price, so why should it be idiotic?



Most people believe in astrology. Does the popularity of such a belief
make it not idiotic?












I mean, how do you know whether a given vinyl rig
is SOTA?



Oh, it must be the price tag of course. It wouldn't have anything

to do
with listening tests. (sarcasm in case it wasn't clear)


Price tag is perfectly acceptable to me as a measure of SOTA-ness if
that's how someone feels, your sarcasm notwithstanding.



Please excuse my skeptism. I doubt you really believe this is anything
less than foolish say when one is considering buying a megabuck CD
playback source for instance.







I would think that a lot of people would tend to believe that
expensive systems are more SOTA than inexpensive ones.



And you would value those peoples' opinions or mock them?


You are the one who call them idiotic, in case you forget. I say it

is
their prerogative.



I agree that it is their perogative. Do you really disagree that it is
also idiotic not to mention shallow?







Since you seem to
know whether a system is SOTA,



I do? I suggest you read my posts more carefully. I have clearly

stated
that I don't claim to "know" but I hold opinions.



that is a valid possibility.


Amoung many possibilities. It just happens to be one that has a

fairly
insulting inference attached. Unless you don't believe, as I do,

that
evaluating things by price tag is shallow and stupid.





The obvious question is that if there is no objective measure of

which
one is more accurate, how do you compare accuracy?




You can scroll up for my thourough answer to this question. No

point in
repeating myslef in this post.



We use the term
high-fidelity to describe this hobby. What do you think fidelity

means?


Truth. In this case truth to the original event. That being the
original live performance. I prefer to look at the forrest rather

than
the trees. I measure the truth of any component by how it affects

the
truth of the system over all. Does that seem like a bad idea when

it
comes to fidelity?


Of course that assumes you somehow heard the original live

performance.


No. It assumes that there is a substantial difference between any
number of live performaces and the closest proximity recording and
playback has to offer to those common traits found in live performances
held in good acoustic spaces. It assumes that one can determine what
systems come closert to bridging that common gap between live music in
genereal and recordings and playback of live music.




How many records do you have that you have heard the original live
performance before?



None.











How do you know a vinyl system is SOTA?


How do I know? I don't "know." I have opinions. They are based

on
listening to live music and playback.

So there is really no way to know whether a vinyl system is SOTA.

It's
all just opinions. Good, that's what I thought.



It seems that uncertainty is something objectivists are

uncomfortable
with. I prefer honest uncertainty to a false sense of knowing
everything.


I am perfectly content with uncertainty. In fact, the purpose of my

post
was to make sure that people are uncertain about what SOTA is. They

have
their opinions, of course, but not certainty.





Scott Wheeler
  #97   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Jenn wrote:
Fair enough. But I'm afraid that I didn't express myself too well on
this. What I meant was that there seems to be little discussion by
those who rely on measurement about the SOUND of music in their
systems.


When you listen to a favorite recording, what are you most struck by?
The quality of its reproduction by your system? The recording quality?
Or the quality of the composition and its performance? I'm always most
affected by #3, although I am liable to notice #2 when the recording is
particularly well-made. Except when I am specifically tinkering with
it--which I don't do much of these days--I pay no notice at all to my
system. So "the sound of music in my system" is indistinguishable to me
from "the sound of music." A big reason is that I am reasonably
confident that, based on both technical grounds and listening
preferences, my system is as good as I can make it right now given
budgetary and room (and spouse-imposed) constraints. That's as good an
explanation as I can give for why I, personally, don't talk much here
about "the sound of music in my system."

On other discussion groups, you will find people who will wax poetic
about "the sound of music on their systems." Frequently, you will see
them make assumptions about the impact that a particular piece of gear
has on that "sound" that are simply preposterous. Personally, I'd
rather talk about technical stuff with people who know what they're
talking about than music with people who don't.

I suppose that this is typical; the old Jullian Hersh vs.
Harry Pearson issue :-)


I'm not sure Harry Pearson could talk about the technical merits of a
piece of audio gear if his life depended on it. As for Hirsch, he most
certainly did talk about the sound of music in his system. He said it
basically sounded the same whatever competently designed amp he used.

bob
  #98   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 7 May 2005 14:12:29 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

"chung" wrote in message
...

snip


I might be wrong, I guess, but it seems like such display of technical
cluelessness is so much more common among those who prefer vinyl to CD.


But at least they don't have expectation bias that CD *must* sound better
because of its better specs. :-)


That's true, but luckily the *real* sonic differences are so large
that expectation bias is not a significant factor.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
  #99   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 7 May 2005 15:53:02 GMT, "Norman M. Schwartz"
wrote:

And also please don't forget that the choice of media and gadgets used to
record and play back "the music" is a HOBBY. Enthusiasts within a hobby are
often engaged in conversations of the like just as they occur here. BTW I
knew a French speaking family's daughter named and spelled Jocelyn, and
there is this female, Jocelyn:
http://www.jocelynpook.com/, who as you can tell by the photo, appears as a
person of the female gender.
Bye and don't forget to "ENJOY THE HOBBY"


OTOH, There are many Englishmen called Jocelyn and Hilary, even though
these are more commonly girl's names.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
  #100   Report Post  
Norman M. Schwartz
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
musician.

I can only go by my
observations. Is vinyl more accurate? I have no idea, and I have very
little interest in that part of the hobby.

Then might I be so bold as writing, I think you posted in the wrong
newsgroup.
Peace
Norman




  #101   Report Post  
Harry Lavo
 
Posts: n/a
Default

wrote in message ...
Jenn wrote:
Fair enough. But I'm afraid that I didn't express myself too well on
this. What I meant was that there seems to be little discussion by
those who rely on measurement about the SOUND of music in their
systems.


When you listen to a favorite recording, what are you most struck by?
The quality of its reproduction by your system? The recording quality?
Or the quality of the composition and its performance? I'm always most
affected by #3, although I am liable to notice #2 when the recording is
particularly well-made. Except when I am specifically tinkering with
it--which I don't do much of these days--I pay no notice at all to my
system. So "the sound of music in my system" is indistinguishable to me
from "the sound of music." A big reason is that I am reasonably
confident that, based on both technical grounds and listening
preferences, my system is as good as I can make it right now given
budgetary and room (and spouse-imposed) constraints. That's as good an
explanation as I can give for why I, personally, don't talk much here
about "the sound of music in my system."


Since that is what this forum is about, it also strikes me as a reasonably
good reason for making posts few and far between, only when there is
something relevant to say.

On other discussion groups, you will find people who will wax poetic
about "the sound of music on their systems." Frequently, you will see
them make assumptions about the impact that a particular piece of gear
has on that "sound" that are simply preposterous. Personally, I'd
rather talk about technical stuff with people who know what they're
talking about than music with people who don't.


Then why aren't you spending more of your time more on rec.audio.tech rather
than rec.audio.high-end.

I suppose that this is typical; the old Jullian Hersh vs.
Harry Pearson issue :-)


I'm not sure Harry Pearson could talk about the technical merits of a
piece of audio gear if his life depended on it. As for Hirsch, he most
certainly did talk about the sound of music in his system. He said it
basically sounded the same whatever competently designed amp he used.


Harry would be the first to agree with you...he has never positioned himself
as technical. In fact, he has always had a more technically-minded "setup
man" for this very reason, and has made no secret of it.

Julian, on the other hand, who was basically a technician, often made
comments on the sound of equipment that was so at odds with what most other
hobby'sts heard that he lost credibility with the audiophile community, who
knew that all the mid-fi gear of the seventies didn't sound the same, as
Julian often professed. It was this disparity between reportage and
"reality" when it came to Japonese-engineered mid-fi gear that gave rise to
both Stereophile and The Abso!ute Sound.

  #102   Report Post  
Harry Lavo
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 7 May 2005 14:12:29 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

"chung" wrote in message
...

snip


I might be wrong, I guess, but it seems like such display of technical
cluelessness is so much more common among those who prefer vinyl to CD.


But at least they don't have expectation bias that CD *must* sound better
because of its better specs. :-)


That's true, but luckily the *real* sonic differences are so large
that expectation bias is not a significant factor.


Sorry Stewart but on my and many other people's systems there is no *real*
sonic difference in favor of CD...simply a convenience difference. You say
your system is "tuned" to CD. Mine is "tuned" to the sound of live,
acoustic music as best I can do it, and the individual source components are
selected for accuracy to this goal. Thus they tend to sound virtually
alike. I believe many other audiophiles do the same thing.

  #103   Report Post  
Chung
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Jenn wrote:
Chung: The evidence is in the post that I responded to, where
someone gave some
seriously wrong reason for why vinyl should be technically better.
There
have been numerous posts by vinyl lovers on how vinyl has infinite
resolution, infinte bandwidth and so on. I am sure you have see those
posts before.

And I agree that if someone gives incorrect technical information, it's
a good thing to correct that person. I have no beef with that.

Chung: Now on the other hand, this is what you said:

"
I might be wrong too, I guess, but it seems like those who are more
into technical details and measurements don't talk much about music

."

Now would you please provide evidence that you statement is correct? Or

please retract it? Just thinking it is so is not evidence. Again I
should remind you that this is not a forum where music is the main
focus
of the discussions.

Again, as stated in the previous post, I've observed this from
experience in discussions in various locales, in person and online. I
would add to the list some quarters of the audio press.

Look, I'm not trying to pick a fight. I'm simply making an observation
based on my experience. Your experience is that LP lovers tend to be
technically "clueless" when compared to CD lovers.


Please read carefully. You grossly misrepresented my position. Again,
here is what I said (which you once again snipped):

"I might be wrong, I guess, but it seems like such display of
technical cluelessness is so much more common among those who prefer
vinyl to CD."

I did not say that LP lovers tend to be technically clueless. I am
saying that when we see posts extolling the technical virtues of vinyl
that are factually wrong, they tend to come from vinyl lovers. Do you
see that huge difference between what I wrote and what you assumed that
I wrote?


That's fine, and
you're entitled to your opinion. I have an observation as well: in my
experience, CD lovers tend to express their thoughts on gear in terms
of specs and measurements, and LP lovers tend to express their thoughts
on gear in terms of how much it sounds like live acoustic music. It's
just my observation after about 30 years in this hobby (with about 10
years off for good behavior!)


Perhaps it is a simple reflection that vinyl lovers cannot explain why
they prefer the vinyl sound, because measurements indicate the vinyl
medium is less accurate. So their repeated assertion is that the vinyl
sound is "truer to that ideal/live music".

Certainly I, and others, have repeatedly expressed our observation that
the CD sound reproduces the live acoustic event so much better. I gave
some CD piano recording as an example. You obviously missed those posts.
That's why I ask you for evidence supportion your assertion that CD
lovers do not talk much about music, which is a really wrong (to put it
mildly) observation.
  #104   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Norman M. Schwartz wrote:
"Jenn" wrote in message
...
musician.

I can only go by my
observations. Is vinyl more accurate? I have no idea, and I have

very
little interest in that part of the hobby.

Then might I be so bold as writing, I think you posted in the wrong
newsgroup.
Peace
Norman


Not according to the newsgroup guidlines.
2.0 -- Definition of High-End Audio


The working definition of 'high-end audio' under which this
newsgroup operates is


a) audio equipment whose primary and fundamental design goal is
to reproduce a musical event as faithfully as possible; or


b) audio equipment which attempts to provide an electromechanical
realization of the emotional experience commonly called music;

Looks like her posts are quite relevant to "b)" despite how much this
may upset objectivists.



Scott Wheeler
  #105   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 7 May 2005 14:12:29 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

"chung" wrote in message
...

snip


I might be wrong, I guess, but it seems like such display of

technical
cluelessness is so much more common among those who prefer vinyl

to CD.

But at least they don't have expectation bias that CD *must* sound

better
because of its better specs. :-)


That's true, but luckily the *real* sonic differences are so large
that expectation bias is not a significant factor.



Unfortunately your claim is completely at odds with the research on
psychoacoustics. I would expect someone who insists that others do
research on the subject to know as much. The *fact* is that biases can
profoundly affect *preferences* even when sonic differences are gross.



Scott Wheeler


  #106   Report Post  
Jenn
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Jenn: I can only go by my
observations. Is vinyl more accurate? I have no idea, and I have

very
little interest in that part of the hobby.


Norman: Then might I be so bold as writing, I think you posted in
the wrong
newsgroup.
Peace
Norman

Perhaps so.

Peace, back attcha
  #107   Report Post  
Jenn
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Chung: Please read carefully. You grossly misrepresented my
position. Again,
here is what I said (which you once again snipped):
" I might be wrong, I guess, but it seems like such display of
technical cluelessness is so much more common among those who prefer
vinyl to CD
I did not say that LP lovers tend to be technically clueless. I am
saying that when we see posts extolling the technical virtues of vinyl
that are factually wrong, they tend to come from vinyl lovers. Do you
see that huge difference between what I wrote and what you assumed that

I wrote?

I don't see a HUGE difference, but, OK, the difference is noted.

Chung: Perhaps it is a simple reflection that vinyl lovers cannot
explain why
they prefer the vinyl sound, because measurements indicate the vinyl
medium is less accurate. So their repeated assertion is that the vinyl
sound is "truer to that ideal/live music".

But stating that "vinyl sound is truer to that ideal/live music" IS an
explanation of why we prefer the vinyl sound. Isn't that also a
partial explanation of why you prefer CD sound?

Chung: Certainly I, and others, have repeatedly expressed our
observation that
the CD sound reproduces the live acoustic event so much better. I gave
some CD piano recording as an example. You obviously missed those
posts.
That's why I ask you for evidence supportion your assertion that CD
lovers do not talk much about music, which is a really wrong (to put it

mildly) observation.

No, I didn't miss your posts about piano sound. I even responded to
them. I haven't seen anyone else here talk about the sound of music.
Perhaps that happened before I started reading the group. So, in my
experience here, there has one person here talk about the sound of
music. I never wrote that CD lovers never talk about the sound of
music. If you are saying that I did, you are "grossly misrepresenting"
my position.

By the way, I heard a CD yesterday that blew me away. It was an ADD
disk of an EMI recording of the Vaughan Williams Sea Symphony.
Stunning.

On another tract, I've been thinking about this whole issue and
discussion quite a bit, and trying to think more specifically about why
I prefer, in general, LP sound. Last night, I conducted perforance #5
of a 10 show run of "Cabaret." During one tune that I don't have to
concentrate very much on, I concentrated on the sound of the
instruments. I think that the timbre of certain instruments is what
throws me off on much of CD. The saxophones last night, for example,
didn't have that hard edge that I hear so much on CD and so little on
good LP. I guess that this is what I was speaking of much earlier here
when I mentioned the "headache factor" I get with some CD. Perhaps it
has something to do with how some digital deals with high frequences; I
don't know. Something for me to think about anyway!
  #108   Report Post  
Jenn
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Jenn: Fair enough. But I'm afraid that I didn't express myself too
well on
this. What I meant was that there seems to be little discussion by
those who rely on measurement about the SOUND of music in their
systems.


Bob: When you listen to a favorite recording, what are you most
struck by?
The quality of its reproduction by your system? The recording quality?
Or the quality of the composition and its performance?

All of those things, but mostly #3. Also, how much do the intstruments
and voice sound like the real thing.

I'm always most
affected by #3, although I am liable to notice #2 when the recording is

particularly well-made. Except when I am specifically tinkering with
it--which I don't do much of these days--I pay no notice at all to my
system. So "the sound of music in my system" is indistinguishable to me

from "the sound of music." A big reason is that I am reasonably
confident that, based on both technical grounds and listening
preferences, my system is as good as I can make it right now given
budgetary and room (and spouse-imposed) constraints. That's as good an
explanation as I can give for why I, personally, don't talk much here
about "the sound of music in my system."
On other discussion groups, you will find people who will wax poetic
about "the sound of music on their systems." Frequently, you will see
them make assumptions about the impact that a particular piece of gear
has on that "sound" that are simply preposterous. Personally, I'd
rather talk about technical stuff with people who know what they're
talking about than music with people who don't.

That;s fair. I just find it interesting to discuss the extent to whcih
home equipment affects how much music in the home sounds like...music.
That seems to me to be the true test of the equipment and the
recordings.

Jenn: I suppose that this is typical; the old Jullian Hersh vs.
Harry Pearson issue :-)


Bob: I'm not sure Harry Pearson could talk about the technical
merits of a
piece of audio gear if his life depended on it. As for Hirsch, he most
certainly did talk about the sound of music in his system. He said it
basically sounded the same whatever competently designed amp he used.

I don't think that Harry ever claimed to be able to discuss techical
merrits. Jullian did talk about the sound, as you mention, especially
later in his career (the effect of AS and Sterophile?) But as you say,
everything pretty much sound alike to him, which I found lacking.
  #109   Report Post  
Steven Sullivan
 
Posts: n/a
Default

wrote:
Norman M. Schwartz wrote:
"Jenn" wrote in message
...
musician.

I can only go by my
observations. Is vinyl more accurate? I have no idea, and I have

very
little interest in that part of the hobby.

Then might I be so bold as writing, I think you posted in the wrong
newsgroup.
Peace
Norman


Not according to the newsgroup guidlines.
2.0 -- Definition of High-End Audio



The working definition of 'high-end audio' under which this
newsgroup operates is



a) audio equipment whose primary and fundamental design goal is
to reproduce a musical event as faithfully as possible; or



b) audio equipment which attempts to provide an electromechanical
realization of the emotional experience commonly called music;


Looks like her posts are quite relevant to "b)" despite how much this
may upset objectivists.


No, because in both the primary and secondary definition, the focus is on
the *equipment*, not the the music, nor even on the 'emotional experience'.
But even if Jenn wants to assert that vinyl gives her a stronger
emotional experience than CDs, and not try to explain *why*
that happens in technical terms, she probably won't run into any
flak. Alas, my experience is that vinylphile are rarely content
to assert a subjective preference, they also want to draw larger
conclusions from it about intrinsic characteristics of the medium itself,
oftin in comparison to other media. And there they almost invariably end up
making questionable technical claims.

Unfortunately, the audiophile press fosters this sort of bad
logic with its pervasive, usually unquestioned
assumption that vinyl reproduction is the
audio 'standard' to which other home playback media should aspire.


--

-S
It's not my business to do intelligent work. -- D. Rumsfeld, testifying
before the House Armed Services Committee
  #110   Report Post  
Steven Sullivan
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Jenn wrote:
Chung: Please read carefully. You grossly misrepresented my
position. Again,
here is what I said (which you once again snipped):
" I might be wrong, I guess, but it seems like such display of
technical cluelessness is so much more common among those who prefer
vinyl to CD
I did not say that LP lovers tend to be technically clueless. I am
saying that when we see posts extolling the technical virtues of vinyl
that are factually wrong, they tend to come from vinyl lovers. Do you
see that huge difference between what I wrote and what you assumed that


I wrote?


I don't see a HUGE difference, but, OK, the difference is noted.


? It's an elementary syllogism (whether you accept it as accurate
is another matter):

Most technically clueless posts are made by vinylphiles.
Post X was technically clueless.
Therefore Poster X is probably a vinylphile

But it does *not* follow that most vinylphiles
are technically clueless.

Chung: Perhaps it is a simple reflection that vinyl lovers cannot
explain why
they prefer the vinyl sound, because measurements indicate the vinyl
medium is less accurate. So their repeated assertion is that the vinyl
sound is "truer to that ideal/live music".


But stating that "vinyl sound is truer to that ideal/live music" IS an
explanation of why we prefer the vinyl sound. Isn't that also a
partial explanation of why you prefer CD sound?


Yet both can't be true unless you define 'truer to the ideal' differently
for each, can they? Or unless 'truer to the idea; has *no* objective meaning.

On another tract, I've been thinking about this whole issue and
discussion quite a bit, and trying to think more specifically about why
I prefer, in general, LP sound. Last night, I conducted perforance #5
of a 10 show run of "Cabaret." During one tune that I don't have to
concentrate very much on, I concentrated on the sound of the
instruments. I think that the timbre of certain instruments is what
throws me off on much of CD. The saxophones last night, for example,
didn't have that hard edge that I hear so much on CD and so little on
good LP. I guess that this is what I was speaking of much earlier here
when I mentioned the "headache factor" I get with some CD. Perhaps it
has something to do with how some digital deals with high frequences; I
don't know. Something for me to think about anyway!



Perhaps LP simply *rolls off * those high frequencies, such that there
cannot be a 'hard edge' in a room the size of an average listening room.
A live saxoophone in such a space might also exhibit that 'hard edge'.



--

-S
It's not my business to do intelligent work. -- D. Rumsfeld, testifying
before the House Armed Services Committee


  #111   Report Post  
Jenn
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Chung: Please read carefully. You grossly misrepresented my
position. Again,
here is what I said (which you once again snipped):
" I might be wrong, I guess, but it seems like such display of
technical cluelessness is so much more common among those who prefer
vinyl to CD
I did not say that LP lovers tend to be technically clueless. I am
saying that when we see posts extolling the technical virtues of

vinyl
that are factually wrong, they tend to come from vinyl lovers. Do you


see that huge difference between what I wrote and what you assumed

that
I wrote?
I don't see a HUGE difference, but, OK, the difference is noted.


Steven: ? It's an elementary syllogism (whether you accept it as
accurate
is another matter):
Most technically clueless posts are made by vinylphiles.
Post X was technically clueless.
Therefore Poster X is probably a vinylphile

But it does *not* follow that most vinylphiles
are technically clueless.

True, thanks.

Chung: Perhaps it is a simple reflection that vinyl lovers cannot
explain why
they prefer the vinyl sound, because measurements indicate the vinyl
medium is less accurate. So their repeated assertion is that the

vinyl
sound is "truer to that ideal/live music".

Jenn: But stating that "vinyl sound is truer to that ideal/live
music" IS an
explanation of why we prefer the vinyl sound. Isn't that also a
partial explanation of why you prefer CD sound?


Steven: Yet both can't be true unless you define 'truer to the
ideal' differently
for each, can they? Or unless 'truer to the idea; has *no* objective
meaning.

My quote was, of course, a response to Mr. Chung's statement that
"vinyl people" cannot explain why we like vinyl better. Interesting
point you bring up: does "truer to the ideal" really have ANY objective
meaning? Perhaps it doesn't, as we all hear differently (objectively)
and we all have different standards.

Jenn: On another tract, I've been thinking about this whole issue
and
discussion quite a bit, and trying to think more specifically about

why
I prefer, in general, LP sound. Last night, I conducted perforance

#5
of a 10 show run of "Cabaret." During one tune that I don't have to
concentrate very much on, I concentrated on the sound of the
instruments. I think that the timbre of certain instruments is what
throws me off on much of CD. The saxophones last night, for example,


didn't have that hard edge that I hear so much on CD and so little on


good LP. I guess that this is what I was speaking of much earlier

here
when I mentioned the "headache factor" I get with some CD. Perhaps

it
has something to do with how some digital deals with high frequences;

I
don't know. Something for me to think about anyway!


Steven: Perhaps LP simply *rolls off * those high frequencies, such
that there
cannot be a 'hard edge' in a room the size of an average listening
room.

Perhaps so, and that was kind of my point when I started this whole
mess: Does it even MATTER if the highs are rolled off in a given
medium, if that rolling off makes the end product sound more like music
to a given listener?

A live saxoophone in such a space might also exhibit that 'hard
edge'.

Not in the case that I spoke about. In the hall we were playing in,
with these saxophonists, playing in this style, there WAS no hard edge;
I 've only heard that once on any recording on CD.
  #112   Report Post  
Jenn
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Steven: No, because in both the primary and secondary definition,
the focus is on
the *equipment*, not the the music, nor even on the 'emotional
experience'.

I'm in favor of discussing equipment as it relates to the musical
experience. That's why I dropped in. I just don't discuss
measurements and such because A. I don't trust them, as I've had too
much experience with gear that measures "well" and sounds bad, and, B.
I know very little about them, frankly. I still like to talk about and
opine about the gear, however.

But even if Jenn wants to assert that vinyl gives her a stronger
emotional experience than CDs, and not try to explain *why*
that happens in technical terms, she probably won't run into any
flak.

Too late! :-)
  #113   Report Post  
Chung
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Jenn wrote:
Chung: Please read carefully. You grossly misrepresented my
position. Again,
here is what I said (which you once again snipped):
" I might be wrong, I guess, but it seems like such display of
technical cluelessness is so much more common among those who prefer
vinyl to CD
I did not say that LP lovers tend to be technically clueless. I am
saying that when we see posts extolling the technical virtues of vinyl
that are factually wrong, they tend to come from vinyl lovers. Do you
see that huge difference between what I wrote and what you assumed that

I wrote?

I don't see a HUGE difference, but, OK, the difference is noted.


Let me try to clarify it with an example:

Let's assume that I find 100 posts that make grossly wrong technical
claims. I find that 95 of those are made by people who prefer LPs's over
CD's. Based on that, I say "It seems like such display of techncical
cluelessness is so much more common among who prefer vinyl to CD".

I, in no way, imply by that statement that LP lovers tend to be
technically clueless. There might very well be thousands of LP lovers
who are technically savvy, who understand the advantages of CD over
vinyl, but still prefer certain vinyl recordings for a host of reasons.

Does this help?


Chung: Perhaps it is a simple reflection that vinyl lovers cannot
explain why
they prefer the vinyl sound, because measurements indicate the vinyl
medium is less accurate. So their repeated assertion is that the vinyl
sound is "truer to that ideal/live music".

But stating that "vinyl sound is truer to that ideal/live music" IS an
explanation of why we prefer the vinyl sound. Isn't that also a
partial explanation of why you prefer CD sound?


I am not sure what you are arguing about. Those who prefer CD's do not
necessarily need to provide the reason why they prefers CD's over vinyl.
The strengths of the CD medium are well known, and supported by sales.
A lot of times, they just assume it is universally accepted that CD's
and digital audio provide a higher level of accuracy. OTOH, some of
those who prefer vinyl somehow have to validate their preference. They
cannot do it on technical terms, so they would be much more likely to
come up with reasons like "much closer to ideal", "must closer to
memory", and so on.

In case you missed it, I repeat it he Even not based on technical
merits that are measureable, CD's provide a much higher level of
fidelity, i.e., accuracy to the source, than vinyl to me.


Chung: Certainly I, and others, have repeatedly expressed our
observation that
the CD sound reproduces the live acoustic event so much better. I gave
some CD piano recording as an example. You obviously missed those
posts.
That's why I ask you for evidence supportion your assertion that CD
lovers do not talk much about music, which is a really wrong (to put it

mildly) observation.

No, I didn't miss your posts about piano sound. I even responded to
them. I haven't seen anyone else here talk about the sound of music.


OK, have you noticed that there are CD lovers and vinyl lovers here? So
if you haven't seen anyone else here talk much about the sound of music,
you can draw the following conclusions:

(a) People do not talk much about music in this forum. Maybe it has
something to do with the fact that this is an *audio* forum, not a music
forum.

(b) Both those who love to talk about technical details on this forum,
and those who don't, do not talk much about music on this forum.

The wrong conclusion to draw is that those who talk about technical
details do not talk much about music. Unfortunately that seems to be
your conclusion.

Perhaps that happened before I started reading the group. So, in my
experience here, there has one person here talk about the sound of
music. I never wrote that CD lovers never talk about the sound of
music. If you are saying that I did, you are "grossly misrepresenting"
my position.


You said that those who are more into technical details and measurements
don't talk much about music. You said that "in my experience, CD lovers
tend to express their thoughts on gear in terms of specs and asurements"

Note that I did not claimed that you wrote that CD lovers never talk
about the sound of music. Please read what I wrote again. I simply asked
you to provide evidence that CD lovers do not talk much about music.
Wasn't that what you were saying (that CD lovers do not talk much about
music)?



By the way, I heard a CD yesterday that blew me away. It was an ADD
disk of an EMI recording of the Vaughan Williams Sea Symphony.
Stunning.

On another tract, I've been thinking about this whole issue and
discussion quite a bit, and trying to think more specifically about why
I prefer, in general, LP sound.


You know, many people have thought about this quite a bit, for the last
twenty years or more. I can give you two reasons off the top of my head:

(1) You prefer the way certain vinyl records are produced (mastered)
over the CD counterpart.

(2) Euphonic distortion is something that you really like. Gabe Wiener
gave a good example of this. The Nazi's realized, before WW2, that a
little bit of second harmonic distortion can add to the authority of a
voice. So the PA amplifers they used for their speeches had
intentionally higher second harmonic distortion, to make the speaker
sound "better". In a similar way, distortion in the vinyl manufacturing
and reproduction process can sometimes make certain sounds more
"fuller", "airier", "more dynamic", "more micro-details" and so on.
Excuse me, you don't want to worry about technical details.


Last night, I conducted perforance #5
of a 10 show run of "Cabaret." During one tune that I don't have to
concentrate very much on, I concentrated on the sound of the
instruments. I think that the timbre of certain instruments is what
throws me off on much of CD. The saxophones last night, for example,
didn't have that hard edge that I hear so much on CD and so little on
good LP. I guess that this is what I was speaking of much earlier here
when I mentioned the "headache factor" I get with some CD. Perhaps it
has something to do with how some digital deals with high frequences; I
don't know. Something for me to think about anyway!


Maybe your speakers are at fault. Maybe you have been listening to
recordings with exaggerated highs. Many other reasons.
  #114   Report Post  
Chung
 
Posts: n/a
Default

wrote:

snipped because it is a different discussion

Do you go by
the price tag?


Yeah, the cat is out of the bag. I go by the price tag. Can you
manage
to not be so insulting, ever?

Why is it insulting?

It infers a mentality that can be readily found with the bored hous
wives shopping on Rodeo Dr. in Beverly Hills. It is an approach to
consumption of goods that I find shallow and idiotic. Perhaps you

find
shopping via price tag (expensive is better because it is

expensive) a
valid way of making choices. I suspect you don't think that way.
Correct me if I am wrong. Correct me if you do not also find that
approach to be shallow and idiotic.


Oh I see, you are the one who is doing the insulting. As far as I am
concerned, anyone can buy anything for any reason.



I didn't say otherwise. I simply stated that *I* have an opinion about
buying via price tag. I suppose you have no opinion about that
yourself? I would be very skeptical about such a claim. I did assume
you held a similar opinion about that and asked you to correct me if I
were wrong. I see no such correction. So you are given another chance.
Do you not feel, as I do, that buying things *because* they are
expensive is shallow and stupid?


No, I will not be as insulting as you did to say that those who measures
SOTA-ness in a vinyl rig by the price tag are idiotic. The concept of
SOTA in a vinyl system is really something that is so ill-defined and
aribtrary that if I were to pick a measurement, I probably will base it
on the price tag, especially if the expensive stuff is present in a nice
sound room with comfortable furniture. Certainly no self-proclaimed
audiophile will say that SOTA vinyl gear is available at low prices,
like CD players are.








If they buy it
because they believe higher price means closer to SOTA, it's their
prerogative.



I never said otherwise. I simply offered an opinion about that
approach. Does your opinion differ?


Obviously, when it comes to what constitutes SOTA in vinyl gear.



I certainly will not insult those who think that way by
saying that they are idiotic.



Perhaps not directly. But if you share my opinion about shopping via
price tag then the accusation would be an infered insult. Insults often
lie between the lines. I think you know that. IMO it is a typical means
of getting insults past the moderators on RAO.


I meant no insult when I offered price as one of the measures of
SOTA-ness. It is amazing that you can be so insulting to those who do
not share your views, and yet so easily feel insulted.




Most people believe that quality is tied
to price, so why should it be idiotic?



Most people believe in astrology. Does the popularity of such a belief
make it not idiotic?


Wrong. Most people do not believe in astrology. Most people, however,
believe that quality is tied to price. There's even the saying that you
get what you paid for.



I mean, how do you know whether a given vinyl rig
is SOTA?


Oh, it must be the price tag of course. It wouldn't have anything

to do
with listening tests. (sarcasm in case it wasn't clear)


Price tag is perfectly acceptable to me as a measure of SOTA-ness if
that's how someone feels, your sarcasm notwithstanding.



Please excuse my skeptism. I doubt you really believe this is anything
less than foolish say when one is considering buying a megabuck CD
playback source for instance.


CD player is different than vinyl gear because the performance is much
more quantifiable. If someone is buying a megabuck CD playback source, I
think that they either are not using their resources most efficiently,
or that they are buying that player for reasons other than sound. I will
not insult them by saying they are stupid, or idiotic. Perhaps they
really like the sound of the magabuck player, and for them they found SOTA.








I would think that a lot of people would tend to believe that
expensive systems are more SOTA than inexpensive ones.


And you would value those peoples' opinions or mock them?


I would not necessarily mock someone's opinion even if I do not agree
with them. With an opinion, you can agree, disagree, ignore, and so on.
It is not simply either agreeing or mocking.
  #115   Report Post  
Chung
 
Posts: n/a
Default

wrote:
(snip)


I thought I gave you several ways to define accuracy.


No. And we don't need to redefine the word. I am quite comfortable
using the dictionary definition.


Given what you wrote, you are not comfortable with the word accuracy in
the context of a vinyl player. Obviously you are struggling with the
meaning of that word, and how you would measure it, in vinyl rigs. I am
trying to help by letting you choose any accuracy measure you like to
apply to vinyl rigs.


The point I am
trying to make, in case you don't catch it, is whatever way you

choose
to define accuracy, the fact that two vinyl rigs sound noticeably
different means that at least one is inaccurate.



Or both.


I am glad that you are violently agreeing with me!

But again, no one is claiming that the chain between the
signal from the master tape and the signal coming from the phono preamp
are ever perfectly identical. It is a matter of degree.


Indeed it's not identical. But if you are comparing vinyl rigs, you can
hold everything prior to and including the vinyl record constant, and
just compare the rigs, meaning the turntable, the cartridge and the
phono preamp.

I doubt there is any way to standardize on the "matter of degree". In
other words, different levels of inaccuracy will be perceived
differently by different individuals. Some may prefer that 2nd harmonic
distortion, while others really like that slightly rolled off high-end,
and yet others may think that the flutter adds to the rubato effect. So
above a certain minimum performance level (like it tracks corrrectly,
RIAA errors kept to some minimal amount, etc.), the perception of which
vinyl rig sounds better is not universally agreed upon, especially if we
keep price out of the picture.

So here's the crux. Even allegedly SOTA rigs sound different because
they are not accurate to the level that we cannot identify the errors.
So whether something is SOTA is based on opinions, personal or
collective. Similarly, there is also no distinct line between SOTA and
non-SOTA. A rig that someone deems not SOTA may very well be the best
rig for someone else. It's all based on what one's memory of live
accoustic events is, and I doubt if there is any standard memory there.

(No sense in beating a dead horse, so rest is snipped).


  #116   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Steven Sullivan wrote:
wrote:
Norman M. Schwartz wrote:
"Jenn" wrote in message
...
musician.

I can only go by my
observations. Is vinyl more accurate? I have no idea, and I

have
very
little interest in that part of the hobby.

Then might I be so bold as writing, I think you posted in the

wrong
newsgroup.
Peace
Norman


Not according to the newsgroup guidlines.
2.0 -- Definition of High-End Audio



The working definition of 'high-end audio' under which this
newsgroup operates is



a) audio equipment whose primary and fundamental design goal is
to reproduce a musical event as faithfully as possible; or



b) audio equipment which attempts to provide an

electromechanical
realization of the emotional experience commonly called

music;

Looks like her posts are quite relevant to "b)" despite how much

this
may upset objectivists.


No, because in both the primary and secondary definition, the focus

is on
the *equipment*, not the the music, nor even on the 'emotional

experience'.


You mean she wasn't talking about "equipment?" As much as objectivists
like to disparage the virtues of vinyl playback I didn't realize you
guys no longer consider turntables to be "equipment."




But even if Jenn wants to assert that vinyl gives her a stronger
emotional experience than CDs, and not try to explain *why*
that happens in technical terms, she probably won't run into any
flak.



But alas, she did so and ran into some flak.



Alas, my experience is that vinylphile are rarely content
to assert a subjective preference, they also want to draw larger
conclusions from it about intrinsic characteristics of the medium

itself,
oftin in comparison to other media. And there they almost invariably

end up
making questionable technical claims.




They know what they hear and they are struggling for an explination.
People, in general, are prone to draw eroneous conclusions on why
things are the way they are. Doesn't change the way things are though.





Unfortunately, the audiophile press fosters this sort of bad
logic with its pervasive, usually unquestioned
assumption that vinyl reproduction is the
audio 'standard' to which other home playback media should aspire.




It isn't an assumption it is a position based on listening experience.
I dont think it is as pervasive in the audio press as you seem to
think. Either way I'm not sure why it would be unfortunate or
fortunate. The audio press are just critics when it comes to their
preferences. Who cares?






Scott Wheeler
  #117   Report Post  
Jenn
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Chung: (snipped for brevity only) Does this help?

As I said to another poster, yes, I understand.

OK, have you noticed that there are CD lovers and vinyl lovers
here? So
if you haven't seen anyone else here talk much about the sound of
music,
you can draw the following conclusions:
(a) People do not talk much about music in this forum. Maybe it has
something to do with the fact that this is an *audio* forum, not a
music
forum.

(b) Both those who love to talk about technical details on this forum,
and those who don't, do not talk much about music on this forum.

The wrong conclusion to draw is that those who talk about technical
details do not talk much about music. Unfortunately that seems to be
your conclusion.

I'm only going on past and present experience, as I've said before.
And just to clarify again, I'm not seeking discussion about music per
se here, as I get that elsewhere, including daily at work. What I am
referring to is discussion about the sound of music through audio
systems.

(2) Euphonic distortion is something that you really like. Gabe

Wiener
gave a good example of this. The Nazi's realized, before WW2, that a
little bit of second harmonic distortion can add to the authority of a
voice. So the PA amplifers they used for their speeches had
intentionally higher second harmonic distortion, to make the speaker
sound "better". In a similar way, distortion in the vinyl manufacturing

and reproduction process can sometimes make certain sounds more
"fuller", "airier", "more dynamic", "more micro-details" and so on.
Excuse me, you don't want to worry about technical details.

I do understand some things about specific harmonic distortion, because
it relates to the sound of things that I conduct and play in concert
halls, the perception of intonation differences, and so on. Perhaps
what you say is true. But again, I come to this: if what I like in LP
is some form of distortion, that's OK by me, if it sounds more like
live acoustic music. Why would it bother me, or anyone else, if the
sound is musical? Are we not in this hobby to get as life-like a sound
as possible? Perhaps this is my mistake; maybe that's not a universal
desire.

Maybe your speakers are at fault. Maybe you have been listening to
recordings with exaggerated highs. Many other reasons.

A. My generalized observations are based on hearing a great deal of
gear. For example, my trail of speaker ownership for the past 25 years
or so would read: Bose 901, DCM Timewindows, Maggies, Martin-Logan
Seqeul II, Vandersteen 2. Quite a variety, plus what I've heard in
other systems. B. As to what recordings I listen to, well, it covers
the gammit in classical music and folk (for fun, I also play
finger-style acoustic guitar, and I sub for the accompanist for a
well-known folk trio), CDs and LP recorded all sorts of ways, by every
imaginable label, etc. Like most people here, I suspect, I own a lot
of recordings.

Look, I didn't come here to pitch a bitch. If people want to leave, I
will. I just thought it would be fun to contribue and learn, and I
also thought that having the input of someone more familiar with the
sound of acoustic music than are most people might be interesting to
others. Perhaps I should just bow out...
  #118   Report Post  
Harry Lavo
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Jenn" wrote in message
...

snip
...

Not in the case that I spoke about. In the hall we were playing in,
with these saxophonists, playing in this style, there WAS no hard edge;
I 've only heard that once on any recording on CD.


Many engineers use large diameter mics on brass....and these invariably seem
to have an upper midrange "presence" rise, oft times as low as 4-5khz, in
addition to a rising high end. More importantly, engineers have also tended
to mic brass close up .... even if using an overall hall pickup, they will
often spotlight the brass, the woodwinds, the violins. A true "purist"
recording will almost never have "edgy" brass. Unfortunately, there have
not been many true "purist" recordings done from the early seventies until
just the last few years. With "purist" recording (spaced omni's,
M-S,X-Y,Blumlein,ORTF,Jecklin disk), even if mics with rising high-ends are
used, they are at enough distance that it doesn't create "edge". That's one
reason the older RCA "Living Stereo" and Mercury "Living Presence"
recordings sound so good. With a few exceptions (and very minor one's at
that) they were done using "purist" mic techniques.

In the studio anything goes. But sometimes the results can be quite
good....play Branford Marsalis's "Trio Jeepy" if you want to hear a good
reproduction of sax in the studio. But judging from some of the cuts on
this cd, my guess is the engineers did use some fairly naturalistic if not
outright purist techniques. To me it is encouraging that in the last decade
there seems to be a swing back to understanding and using more "purist" mic
technique in both location and studio recording. The "schooling" of young
recordists is often derided by old hands (read seventies-raised engineers)
but one of the advantages of such schooling is that they give the students
both theoretical understanding and practical understanding of such
techniques and their use. I myself attended one of the very first (if not
*the* first) of such schools, founded by John Woram, The Institute of Audio
Engineering, back in the early seventies and as a result was able to do
first class acoustic recording at a time when it was somewhat of a lost art.

  #119   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 8 May 2005 15:45:00 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 7 May 2005 14:12:29 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

"chung" wrote in message
...

snip

I might be wrong, I guess, but it seems like such display of technical
cluelessness is so much more common among those who prefer vinyl to CD.

But at least they don't have expectation bias that CD *must* sound better
because of its better specs. :-)


That's true, but luckily the *real* sonic differences are so large
that expectation bias is not a significant factor.

Sorry Stewart but on my and many other people's systems there is no *real*
sonic difference in favor of CD...simply a convenience difference.


I didn't say CD was 'better', simply that it is definitely different.

You say your system is "tuned" to CD.


It's tuned for *any* neutral source, which makes it much easier to use
multiple sources. Linn-based systems tend to be heavily biased in
favour of a particularly coloured form of vinyl, which wrecks the
performance with truly neutral sources. I am *never* surprised when a
Linnie tells me that he prefers vinyl...........

Mine is "tuned" to the sound of live,
acoustic music as best I can do it, and the individual source components are
selected for accuracy to this goal. Thus they tend to sound virtually
alike. I believe many other audiophiles do the same thing.


Indeed they do, and so do I - that is precisely *why* mine is set up
to make the best use of a truly neutral source - be that CD, DVD,
open-reel tape, or a live FM broadcast. It takes considerable time and
effoprt to approach that same sound balance with vinyl, but my fairly
'dry' GyroDec/RB300/OC9 rig gets reasonably close.

Of course, it also helps that I'm a regular concert-goer - got to keep
that 'Absolute Sound' reference fresh in the mind!
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What are they Teaching Michael McKelvy Audio Opinions 199 October 15th 04 07:56 PM
newbie question - aardvark q10 + external mixer? alex Pro Audio 1 August 14th 04 07:29 PM
Simple science question Schizoid Man Audio Opinions 0 February 5th 04 11:45 PM
Newbie question: What software 2 use 4 recording 2 x AES/EBU (2xstereo) bERt General 0 January 26th 04 04:27 PM
simple crossover question Jive Dadson General 1 July 25th 03 07:23 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:01 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"