Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 21 Oct 2005 05:38:30 GMT, wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
your preference is based on artifacts *added* by
vinyl. That you *think* they sound more natural, in a 'whiter than
white' kind of way, doesn't make it so. Same applies to Jenn.

Once again, an objectivist shows he cannot repeat my description of
analog.

Do not confuse 'cannot' with 'will not'.

Of course. You willfully ignore what other people say about their
experience when you don't know how to explain it.


First of all, drop "vinyl" from your statement--it is all
analog.

That is a ludicrous statement, as it would include cassette and AM
radio. I have yet to hear any serious audiphile argue that these are
superior to CD. At the other extreme, I seriously doubt that you have
ever heard a 30ips studio master.

Another one of your opinions formed with no good evidence? I have heard
it.


Second, no recording matches the qualities of live music,
including the initimate connection to the musician's intentions that is
possible--but analog, for my ears (and apparently for Jenn's) gets
closer. Choosing analogies such as "whiter than white" demonstrates
that you don't understand this basic experience.

No, choosing such an analogy demonstrates that you missed the point.
It is my belief that your opinion is based on a 'technicolor' vision
of reality, which seems to you more real than the paler colours of the
real thing.

Well, that would be easy to check. For example, do I think that the
"real thing" has paler colors? Do I think that analog has "brighter"
colors? Nope. A fact about my experience which you *must* ignore since
it doesn't fit your analogy.


Amateur musicians such as myself and even more so professional
musicians such as Jenn are aware that music exists as a balance of
qualties.

Oh please, enough with the pretension! I've been a regular
concert-goer for forty years, and my musical appreciation is certainly
a match for many musicians. OTOH, as a long-term audiophile, my sense
of the *fidelity* of a reproduced musical event is certainly more
acute than that of most of the professional musicians of my
acquaintance.

What you fail to understand is that different people are listening to
different things. It is perfectly possible that you have a highly
developed sense of "fidelity," while at the same time other people have
a highly developed sense of fidelity which doesn't intersect yours in
many areas. I have never disputed that digital recordings have a higher
sense of fidelity to you; I only point out that you refuse to accept
that analog recordings have a higher sense of fidelity to others---that
in fact, you always change their language into something that implies
distortion rather than fidelity.

In point of fact, musos are *notorious* for their poor
hi-fi rigs, since they are generally listening on a different plane.

The only distortion mechanisms you've ever proposed, if they
were the cause of this vinyl preference, would *upset*, not *preserve*
these balances.

No, as mentioned ad nauseam, they are *euphonic* distortions.

You have never proposed a distortion mechanism that
would preserve the musician's intentions, and yet that is how I (and
apparently Jenn) experience analog.

You have absolutely no idea what were the intentions of the musician.

Yet another declaration on your part with no evidence to support it.
I've heard digital and analog recordings of halls which I attended
live, and knew the musicians well, for starters.

Mike

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 21 Oct 2005 05:54:57 GMT, wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 19 Oct 2005 02:29:12 GMT, wrote:

Not only have the objectivists never proposed a distortion mechanism
that would more accurately convey musical intentions, they have never
even been able to repeat back this simple description of analog.

More to the point, they have never agreed with your insistence that
vinyl sounds more natural.


Which is kind of silly given that it is to some degree a subjective
matter.

'Objectivist' is merely a convenient nametag, not an actual
description. Personally, I prefer 'reliabel and repeatable
subjectivist'.


I have no problm with your preference although for the sake of clarity
I think i will stick with the understood tags. Either way your point is
totally irrelevant to my point that naturalness is fairly subjective
and it is silly to disagree with another person's impression of what is
more natural to them.


ABX is a *listening* test, remember?


Yes. also amazingly irrelevant but I do rememeber.




More natural than what?

Than their CD counterparts.

The original tape?

In xome cases according to some of the best mastering engineers in the
world. Neither of us would know though since we haven't had the
privilidge of making those comparisons.


The original mic feed?


Same answer as above.


The original performance?


Never. that is the ultimate reference.

Ah well, now that's where my alarm bell rings. It's my impression that
those well-known euphonic artifacts of both vinyl and analogue tape
(remember that Iain has confirmed that many musos ask for an 'analogue
pass-through' of a *digital* recording) provide an *enhanced* version
of reality that does, as I previously mentioned. look 'whiter than
white' to people like Michael, Jenn and yourself.


your impression completely ignores that when all is said and done we
are talking about a whole picture that involves a complete chain of
recording and playback. That is never more natural than the real thing
or as you say whiter than white. The bottom line is we are claiming
that the whole picture when it comes to recording and playback is often
more white when it involves LPs rather than CDs. Nothing more nothing
less. IMO white is as white as white can get and the real thing is as
real as real can get. It alarms me that this alarms you.





What remains true is that you can make a digital recording of an LP
which is audibly indistinguishable from the original LP.

You can also make one that is not.

There is no tachnology which cannot be badly implemented - this is
hardly a decent rebuttal.


Sure it is. Talking about theoretical limits rather than the reality of
practical implimentations is pretty hollow for people who actually are
going to be dealing more with the later. that would be actual
audiophiles who purchace commercial LPs and CDs.




This is
pretty much definite proof that digital audio can be totally
transparent, and that your preference is based on artifacts *added* by
vinyl.

While that may be true to a degree it is not a fact that all or even
many commercial CDs sound exactly like the master tapes from which they
were made nor is it alay o even often desirable for that to happen.
And that is supported by testimony of many of the best recording and
mastering engineers in the business.

I think you'll find that many musicians would be pretty upset to think
that a mastering engineer would *deliberately* change the sound of the
final mixdown master!

Really? Can ou cite any musicians complaining about the mastering jobs
of the likes of Steve Hoffman, Kevin Grey, Stan Ricker, Bernie
Grundman, George Pyros, "Porky" Peckam or any of the masters over at
Decca? If so please do so.



That you *think* they sound more natural, in a 'whiter than
white' kind of way, doesn't make it so.

Actually it does. It is a matter of opinion and opinions other than
yours count as well.

No, it's not a matter of opinion.


It certainly is a matter of opinion as to what sounds more natural. the
whiter than hite nonsense is an artifact of your imagination and not
what we are saying about natural sound.


Which version you *prefer* is a
matter of opinion, but which is really closer to the original sound is
not.

yes it is. The choice often involves different sensitivities to
different colorations which vary from person to person.




Same applies to Jenn.

Heaven forbid anyone should listen to the opinions of what sounds more
natural in playback from someone who lives and works wit live music.

Heaven forbid that anyone should think that gives her opinion more
weight than that of someone who has spent decades trying to improve
the sound of reproduced music in their home - when not concert-going.


i don't give her opinion more wieght than mine but thanks for looking
out for guys like me who have spent decades trying to improve the sound
of reproduced music in my home. OTOH to ignore the opinions of such
people is often a missed opportunity to actually move forward in the
attempt to improve the sound of reproduced music in one's own home.




Scott

On 22 Oct 2005 17:27:18 GMT, "ScottW" wrote:

" wrote in message

extended FR, it all

Could you explain why you think LP cannot exceed CD in this category?

It's seledom denied that it has the *capability*, but it's also a
known fact that the reality is rolloff above 12-15kHz to avoid
overheating cutter heads. MFSL half-speed masters may be the
exception.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 22 Oct 2005 17:27:18 GMT, "ScottW" wrote:

" wrote in message

extended FR, it all

Could you explain why you think LP cannot exceed CD in this category?

It's seledom denied that it has the *capability*, but it's also a
known fact that the reality is rolloff above 12-15kHz to avoid
overheating cutter heads. MFSL half-speed masters may be the
exception.



Amoung those that follow the state of the art of LP mastering it is a
known fact that this simply isn't true and hasn't been for quite some
time. None of the current audiophile mastering engineers are doing this
nor have they been. I suggest you get your facts straight before making
such absurd claims.




Scott

On 24 Oct 2005 14:43:58 GMT, wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 22 Oct 2005 17:27:18 GMT, "ScottW" wrote:

" wrote in message

extended FR, it all

Could you explain why you think LP cannot exceed CD in this category?

It's seledom denied that it has the *capability*, but it's also a
known fact that the reality is rolloff above 12-15kHz to avoid
overheating cutter heads. MFSL half-speed masters may be the
exception.

Amoung those that follow the state of the art of LP mastering it is a
known fact that this simply isn't true and hasn't been for quite some
time. None of the current audiophile mastering engineers are doing this
nor have they been. I suggest you get your facts straight before making
such absurd claims.

My facts are correct, and are confirmed by the engineers in charge of
mastering for Linn records. Are you suggesting that Linn vinyl is not
state of the art? Furthermore, are you aware of *any* vinyl (aside
from the old subcarrier quad stuff!) which has any musical content
above 20kHz?

I also just about choked on my coffe at the hilarity of *you*
suggesting that someone else get their facts straight before making
absurd claims!
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 22 Oct 2005 17:27:18 GMT, "ScottW" wrote:

" wrote in message

extended FR, it all

Could you explain why you think LP cannot exceed CD in this category?

It's seledom denied that it has the *capability*, but it's also a
known fact that the reality is rolloff above 12-15kHz to avoid
overheating cutter heads. MFSL half-speed masters may be the
exception.

Sorry Stewart but what you refer to as a known fact is neither
known or factual, but totally incorrect. Such a statement reveals
your lack of knowledge of practical disc cutting, although it
probably suits your anti-vinyl agenda:-)

We have discussed this matter at great length before.
Helium is used as and when required to cool the cutter-head.
Neumann, Lyrec, Westrex and Decca cutterheads all have an
hf response 22kHz.

Decca have a test record with glide tones 20Hz to 20kHz,
used to set up RIAA replay chains in disc cutting suites,
control and listening rooms.

No doubt other cutting facilities, EMI CBS etc had
something similar.

Cordially,

Iain

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 21 Oct 2005 05:38:30 GMT, wrote:

At the other extreme, I seriously doubt that you have
ever heard a 30ips studio master.

I seriously doubt that you have either Stewart, so I hope
you are not trying to give that impression:-))

This 30 ips thing is something you seem to have latched onto
since it came up in a thread some time ago. High speed analogue
recording was extremely rare from the mid 60s onwards when
the Dolby A processor came into general use.

Cordially,

Iain

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 24 Oct 2005 14:43:58 GMT, wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 22 Oct 2005 17:27:18 GMT, "ScottW" wrote:

" wrote in message

extended FR, it all

Could you explain why you think LP cannot exceed CD in this category?

It's seledom denied that it has the *capability*, but it's also a
known fact that the reality is rolloff above 12-15kHz to avoid
overheating cutter heads. MFSL half-speed masters may be the
exception.

Amoung those that follow the state of the art of LP mastering it is a
known fact that this simply isn't true and hasn't been for quite some
time. None of the current audiophile mastering engineers are doing this
nor have they been. I suggest you get your facts straight before making
such absurd claims.

My facts are correct,



No they are not correct. just ask Kevin Grey, Bernie Grundman, Stan
Ricker or any other well known mastering engineer.




and are confirmed by the engineers in charge of
mastering for Linn records.


Really? I'd like to see a quote from one of the "mastering engineers in
charge of mastering for Linn records." But even if they do so they do
not speak for everyone. You claimed the *only* exception was the MoFis.
You are simply wrong.



Are you suggesting that Linn vinyl is not
state of the art?



I would go much further than that. I have bought not one, not two, not
three but four sonic disasters from the Linn catlog. I'd say they
aren't even on the track in the race for SOTA.


Furthermore, are you aware of *any* vinyl (aside
from the old subcarrier quad stuff!) which has any musical content
above 20kHz?



Your question is irrelevant to the fact that your post about roll off
on all records above 12-15 kHz is flattly false.




I also just about choked on my coffe at the hilarity of *you*
suggesting that someone else get their facts straight before making
absurd claims!



Cite one instance of me misstating facts. I could make quite a list for
you if i had the time.




Scott

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 24 Oct 2005 14:43:58 GMT, wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 22 Oct 2005 17:27:18 GMT, "ScottW" wrote:

" wrote in message

extended FR, it all

Could you explain why you think LP cannot exceed CD in this category?

It's seledom denied that it has the *capability*, but it's also a
known fact that the reality is rolloff above 12-15kHz to avoid
overheating cutter heads. MFSL half-speed masters may be the
exception.

Amoung those that follow the state of the art of LP mastering it is a
known fact that this simply isn't true and hasn't been for quite some
time. None of the current audiophile mastering engineers are doing this
nor have they been. I suggest you get your facts straight before making
such absurd claims.

My facts are correct, and are confirmed by the engineers in charge of
mastering for Linn records. Are you suggesting that Linn vinyl is not
state of the art? Furthermore, are you aware of *any* vinyl (aside
from the old subcarrier quad stuff!) which has any musical content
above 20kHz?

I also just about choked on my coffe at the hilarity of *you*
suggesting that someone else get their facts straight before making
absurd claims!
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

I would be interested in seeing more Linn based technical information from
their engineers. I always understood that the Skully/Westrex systems of the
50's and 60's used to start rolling off at 12kHz due to overheating cutting
heads. Late came helium cooling and improvements by way of more heat
resistant coils and materials.. Consider the Neumann SX-74 of the late 60's,
theoretically (ignoring vinyl limitations for a minute ;-) it could cut flat
from 2Hz - 27kHz. As far as I'm aware the last Neumann was around 1990 and I
don't believe there was any halt to their progress.
Apart from that many, including me seeked out half speed masters where
available to replace earlier vinyl and enjoy many of the albeit short
duration but amazing 45 rpm cuts available nowadays.

Mike

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
wrote:

Jenn wrote:
So, after a week of living with the Clearaudio TT/arm/cartridge, I love
it more and more. The sound that I am getting from my records is just
so effortless and easy... like a good concert hall. I just put on
several CDs, and I just don't get that with them. The timbres are
thinner and less life-like. I wish that it were the other way around,
but it's not. If this is due to "euphonic distortion", bring on more
of
it!

I had some superb LP equipment. If I never hear another LP in my life,
that will be too soon..

I hate LPs!

Compression. Inner-groove distortion. Pops. Ticks. Rumble. Wow.
Flutter.

Good riddance!

If it weren't for the number of recordings available only on CD (the
vast majority, of course), and the fact that they play in the car, I
would pretty much say "good riddance" to CDs. The screechy violins.
The lifeless voices. The Bach trumpets that sound like Getzens. Yuck.

You need to blame the people who played them, the people who mastered them,
the original media they were recorded on, anything you can thinbk of other
than the CD medium itself. It is a simple fact that what you hear on a CD
is what was put there, IOW an accurate representation of the master.

wrote:
"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
wrote:

Jenn wrote:
So, after a week of living with the Clearaudio TT/arm/cartridge, I love
it more and more. The sound that I am getting from my records is just
so effortless and easy... like a good concert hall. I just put on
several CDs, and I just don't get that with them. The timbres are
thinner and less life-like. I wish that it were the other way around,
but it's not. If this is due to "euphonic distortion", bring on more
of
it!

I had some superb LP equipment. If I never hear another LP in my life,
that will be too soon..

I hate LPs!

Compression. Inner-groove distortion. Pops. Ticks. Rumble. Wow.
Flutter.

Good riddance!

If it weren't for the number of recordings available only on CD (the
vast majority, of course), and the fact that they play in the car, I
would pretty much say "good riddance" to CDs. The screechy violins.
The lifeless voices. The Bach trumpets that sound like Getzens. Yuck.

You need to blame the people who played them, the people who mastered them,
the original media they were recorded on, anything you can thinbk of other
than the CD medium itself. It is a simple fact that what you hear on a CD
is what was put there, IOW an accurate representation of the master.



Someone posted an exerpt from a paper in the AESJ about the mastering
and production of the wonderful Mercury Living presence CDs. They did
extensive blind listening tests and concluded that there is indeed a
lot that can go wrong between the output of the mastering engineer and
the playback from a commercial CD. It is not a simple fact that what
you hear on a CD is what they put there in as far as what came out of
the mastering engineer's console.


Scott

wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

Could you explain why you think LP cannot exceed CD in this category?

It's seledom denied that it has the *capability*, but it's also a
known fact that the reality is rolloff above 12-15kHz to avoid
overheating cutter heads. MFSL half-speed masters may be the
exception.

Amoung those that follow the state of the art of LP mastering it is a
known fact that this simply isn't true and hasn't been for quite some
time. None of the current audiophile mastering engineers are doing this
nor have they been. I suggest you get your facts straight before making
such absurd claims.

My facts are correct,



No they are not correct. just ask Kevin Grey, Bernie Grundman, Stan
Ricker or any other well known mastering engineer.

I don't care what they say. I have your guru Ricker's Cardas sweep record
and I ran it with several different catridges and preamps through a Lynx TWO
soundcard running at 192K sampling rate and 24 bits resolution, using Cool
Edit. There is a rolloff starting just over 14K Hz leading to a shelved
response about 5 dB down starting around 16K Hz. ALL the cartridges and
preamps behave in the same way. The record does appear get out to the 30K Hz
that it claims but it IS shelved down ~5 dB.

Lest you think all my cartridges I tried don't have good HF performance, I
will even list them.

Koetsu Urushi
Denon 103D
Shure V15V
Shure V15xMR
Electro Research EK-1 strain gauge system
Win SDT10 (strain gauge)

Preamps used:

Krell KPE reference
Classe DR5
Two of my own tube designs

The EK-1 is the only setup that gets out to 30K Hz without further rolloff.
(i.e. follows the apparent shelved response on the disc) The two moving coils
start rolling off around 25K Hz. The Shures roll off above 20K Hz. The Win
very slowly rolls off above the point of the shelve.

I thought I wouldn't be posting in this place again, but it would be nice if
you stopped making this misleading claim. Yes, the record goes out
to 30K. But it is SHELVED down above about 14K. Why? Stewart knows what
he is saying.

On 26 Oct 2005 02:42:21 GMT, "Iain M Churches"
wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 21 Oct 2005 05:38:30 GMT, wrote:

At the other extreme, I seriously doubt that you have
ever heard a 30ips studio master.

I seriously doubt that you have either Stewart, so I hope
you are not trying to give that impression:-))

I wasn't the one making the claims.

This 30 ips thing is something you seem to have latched onto
since it came up in a thread some time ago.

Not me, as I have often mentioned its limitations. I simply quote it
as an extreme example of analogue with extended FR.

High speed analogue
recording was extremely rare from the mid 60s onwards when
the Dolby A processor came into general use.

I know, but it's frequently quoted by analogue fans, even though as
you acknowledge, 15ips was the general standard. Similarly for 192k vs
96k sampling nowadays.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On 26 Oct 2005 02:41:56 GMT, "Iain M Churches"
wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 22 Oct 2005 17:27:18 GMT, "ScottW" wrote:

" wrote in message

extended FR, it all

Could you explain why you think LP cannot exceed CD in this category?

It's seldom denied that it has the *capability*, but it's also a
known fact that the reality is rolloff above 12-15kHz to avoid
overheating cutter heads. MFSL half-speed masters may be the
exception.

Sorry Stewart but what you refer to as a known fact is neither
known or factual, but totally incorrect. Such a statement reveals
your lack of knowledge of practical disc cutting, although it
probably suits your anti-vinyl agenda:-)

Actually, your attitude reveals a refusal to accept general practice,
but suits your valves 'n vinyl agenda.

We have discussed this matter at great length before.
Helium is used as and when required to cool the cutter-head.
Neumann, Lyrec, Westrex and Decca cutterheads all have an
hf response 22kHz.

But not at full output.

Decca have a test record with glide tones 20Hz to 20kHz,
used to set up RIAA replay chains in disc cutting suites,
control and listening rooms.

One must of course *start* with a flat response, before applying the
necessary compression, limiting and rolloffs which are fundamental to
vinyl mastering. Of course you know all this.............

No doubt other cutting facilities, EMI CBS etc had
something similar.

No doubt they all produced vinyl with the same fundamental limitations
at both ends of the spectrum.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On 26 Oct 2005 02:43:12 GMT, wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 24 Oct 2005 14:43:58 GMT, wrote:

and are confirmed by the engineers in charge of
mastering for Linn records.

Really? I'd like to see a quote from one of the "mastering engineers in
charge of mastering for Linn records." But even if they do so they do
not speak for everyone.

Nor do those you quoted. Note that they are 'audiophile' mastering
engineers, not producing general commercial vinyl.

You claimed the *only* exception was the MoFis.
You are simply wrong.

Actually, I didn't claim any such thing. Sheffield Labs and other
direct-cut vinyl likely had the flattest possible cuts, but half-speed
mastering is an obvious way to avoid cutter problems.

Are you suggesting that Linn vinyl is not
state of the art?

I would go much further than that. I have bought not one, not two, not
three but four sonic disasters from the Linn catlog. I'd say they
aren't even on the track in the race for SOTA.

Oh dear - you're in trouble now......... :-)

Furthermore, are you aware of *any* vinyl (aside
from the old subcarrier quad stuff!) which has any musical content
above 20kHz?

Your question is irrelevant to the fact that your post about roll off
on all records above 12-15 kHz is flattly false.

Lack of response noted.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

wrote in message
...
I had some superb LP equipment. If I never hear another LP in my life,
that will be too soon..

I hate LPs!

Compression. Inner-groove distortion. Pops. Ticks. Rumble. Wow.
Flutter.

Good riddance!

It sounds as though you have been using a poor
turntable/arm/cartridge, and have not bothered
to take care of your vinyl:-((

Iain

wrote in message
...
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 24 Oct 2005 14:43:58 GMT, wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 22 Oct 2005 17:27:18 GMT, "ScottW" wrote:

" wrote in message

extended FR, it all

Could you explain why you think LP cannot exceed CD in this
category?

It's seledom denied that it has the *capability*, but it's also a
known fact that the reality is rolloff above 12-15kHz to avoid
overheating cutter heads. MFSL half-speed masters may be the
exception.

Amoung those that follow the state of the art of LP mastering it is a
known fact that this simply isn't true and hasn't been for quite some
time. None of the current audiophile mastering engineers are doing this
nor have they been. I suggest you get your facts straight before making
such absurd claims.

My facts are correct,



No they are not correct. just ask Kevin Grey, Bernie Grundman, Stan
Ricker or any other well known mastering engineer.

I can confirm that Stewarts claim is totally false, having cut many
masters in my time at Decca. Other Decca disc mastering engineers
included Harry Fisher, Dave Gleave, George Betts, Cyril Windebank,
Tony Hawkins, Ron Mason, Gilbert Went, Trevor Fletcher, George Fletcher,
plus a tenth, a very talented young lady whose name escapes me.

Perhaps Stewart would care to tell us about his experiences in disc
cutting. He is not, and never has been, a professional in the record
industry.

Iain

wrote in message
...
"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
wrote:

Jenn wrote:

If it weren't for the number of recordings available only on CD (the
vast majority, of course), and the fact that they play in the car, I
would pretty much say "good riddance" to CDs. The screechy violins.
The lifeless voices. The Bach trumpets that sound like Getzens. Yuck.

You need to blame the people who played them, the people who mastered
them,
the original media they were recorded on, anything you can thinbk of other
than the CD medium itself. It is a simple fact that what you hear on a CD
is what was put there, IOW an accurate representation of the master.

It should/can be an accurate representation of the master, but all too
often it is not. The potential of the CD is greatly abused.

Iain

"ScottW" wrote in message
...

I have a simple theory why I think vinyl can sound more realistic. It
has to do with the supposedly inferior channel separation of vinyl.
Seems to me that the vinyl soundstage is often more realistic as it
loses pinpoint focus (as most live venues do) due to less than perfect
channel separation. I suspect, based on my system, that this also
enhances an illusion of depth to the soundstage that a CD doesn't
always create.

Interesting point Scott. The channel separation on vinyl is
far greater than the crosstalk of most cartridges.

Iain

" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
Most of your post here expresses the basic objectivist's error of
conflating measured (objective) performance with the *experience* of
listening to something. More specific points below:


wrote:
wrote in message
...
Jenn wrote:
So, after a week of living with the Clearaudio TT/arm/cartridge, I
love
it more and more. The sound that I am getting from my records is
just
so effortless and easy... like a good concert hall. I just put on
several CDs, and I just don't get that with them. The timbres are
thinner and less life-like. I wish that it were the other way
around,
but it's not. If this is due to "euphonic distortion", bring on more
of
it!

We know the objectivists think it is euphonic distortion.

The funny thing is, I have NEVER, not ONCE met an objectivist who
could
accurately repeat the description of vinyl provided by those who think
vinyl is truer to life.


It's like arguing with someone who is convinced that God exists and that
miracles happen. There is no way that an inferior medium can be better
than
an inferior one.
Vinyl playback is limited by the medium which is inherently flawed. It
is
rife with distortions of speed accuracy, wow and flutter and the media
that
it is transcibed on, not to mention the differences in equipment.

For example, we get all this stuff about "midrange phasiness",
"enhanced ambience", "pleasant timbre," etc.

It's not stuff, it's the way it is.


Of course, none of that describes the reason I like vinyl---and your
word "effortless" above conveys this: the way the sound comes to my
attention, how it feels to pay attention to it, particularly to pay
attention to multiple voices, more accurately reflects live listening.


The differences are due to the way LP's are mixed and the things you are
used to.


Just to put the record straight, LPs are not mixed:-) There is a master
which may be a stereo mix from an analogue or digital multitrack, or
it may be a straight stereo recording. The CD is made from the same
master from which the disc is cut.

In disc cutting, the object of the exercise was to transfer as faithfully
as possible the signal from the master tape to the acetate disc. No
more, no less. This in itself is a considerable challenge - any fool can
make it different.

In CD production, the mastering stage is often regarded as an extension
of the recording process, at which changes are made. Oddly enough
the increased dynamic of CD would lead one to believe that compression
would not be necessary. There is in fact much more compression used
in CD production of pop music than was normally used in disc cutting.

Iain

" wrote in message
...
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
...

My conclusion: take what you hear about the transparency of CD's with
two,
maybe three grains of salt.

Only in the sense thatif somebody tells you there some problem with making
a
digital copy they are incorrect. Done properly, you get an exact copy.

This is correct, except for the terminology. The word "copy"
implies a separate generation from the master.
In the case of digital it is a clone.

Iain

wrote in message
...
Jenn wrote:
So, after a week of living with the Clearaudio TT/arm/cartridge, I love
it more and more. The sound that I am getting from my records is just
so effortless and easy... like a good concert hall. I just put on
several CDs, and I just don't get that with them. The timbres are
thinner and less life-like. I wish that it were the other way around,
but it's not. If this is due to "euphonic distortion", bring on more of
it!

We know the objectivists think it is euphonic distortion.

The funny thing is, I have NEVER, not ONCE met an objectivist who could
accurately repeat the description of vinyl provided by those who think
vinyl is truer to life.

For example, we get all this stuff about "midrange phasiness",
"enhanced ambience", "pleasant timbre," etc.

Of course, none of that describes the reason I like vinyl---and your
word "effortless" above conveys this: the way the sound comes to my
attention, how it feels to pay attention to it, particularly to pay
attention to multiple voices, more accurately reflects live listening.

And of course I get the same effect from analog tape, so this matter
goes beyond vinyl-specific distortions.


Mike. An interesting development in recent years in many CD mastering
facilities has been the appearance of an analogue tape machine (the old
Studer C37, a valve machine from the 1960s, is the most sought-after)

Often clients ask for an "analogue pass" during the mastering process,
by which they mean that the digital data stream is converted to analogue
recorded and replayed by the analogue recorder, using Dolby SR and
then converted back to digital for mastering.

Iain

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
...

My conclusion: take what you hear about the transparency of CD's with two,
maybe three grains of salt. Some of it may be equipment- or
blank-induced,
but the deterioration is noticeable in a side-by-side -- ranging from
subtle
to apparent. And if this is true in home recording under controlled
conditions, it is also likely true (as has been asserted) in production
runs
of commercial CD's.

Hello Harry. I attend many mastering sessions to ensure
that what I have recorded reaches the CD without
substantial changes. I can promise you that it is a simple
task to produce a CD which is an exact clone of the studio master.
In classical and jazz music this is how it is normally done.

The problem is that in pop music these days, CD mastering
is regarded as a another step in the creative process -
another chance to tweak the track overall. The old adage
of "fix it in the mix" has moved down one step in the chain:-)
There is no longer the opportunity to work on the individual
elements within the mix, but it is quite common for extra
compression and EQ to be added at the mastering stage.

The result is quite often a retrograde step,
but "make it louder" is the order of the day as far as pop
CD's are concerned. The CD has zero headroom.
Vinyl, like analogue tape, is much more forgiving.

Iain

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
So, after a week of living with the Clearaudio TT/arm/cartridge, I love
it more and more. The sound that I am getting from my records is just
so effortless and easy... like a good concert hall. I just put on
several CDs, and I just don't get that with them. The timbres are
thinner and less life-like. I wish that it were the other way around,
but it's not. If this is due to "euphonic distortion", bring on more
of
it!

One man's euphonic distortion is another man's compression.
I would find it interesting to know what, if any differences in the mix
might be.
My suspcion is that the LP mix you like is simply different than that of
the
same recordings on CD.

Hmmm... generally, I don't know. But, the classical and solo folk
guitar recordings I tend to listen to the minimum miking, so minimum
mixing differences, I would imagine.

Don't be misled by this "different mix" statement, Jenn. It is incorrect.
Discs are cut, and CDs are mastered from the same master tape. In the
case of the music which you describe there is no mixing anyway, it
is recorded straight stereo.

Cordially,

Iain

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 21 Oct 2005 05:38:30 GMT, wrote:


Oh please, enough with the pretension! I've been a regular
concert-goer for forty years, and my musical appreciation is certainly
a match for many musicians. OTOH, as a long-term audiophile, my sense
of the *fidelity* of a reproduced musical event is certainly more
acute than that of most of the professional musicians of my
acquaintance. In point of fact, musos are *notorious* for their poor
hi-fi rigs, since they are generally listening on a different plane.


Stewart. You have admitted earlier that you have no musical
training or qualifications, and from your derisory comments
regarding the works of Jean Sibelius, regarded by many as
the greatest composer of the C20th, it is clear that you have
a poor understanding of composition and classical form.
Your role, as a concert goer is purely passive.

With no formal training, it is fairly certain that your level of aural
perception is far below that of a professional musician.

Cordially,

Iain

On 27 Oct 2005 02:26:56 GMT, "Iain M Churches"
wrote:

wrote in message
...

Of course, none of that describes the reason I like vinyl---and your
word "effortless" above conveys this: the way the sound comes to my
attention, how it feels to pay attention to it, particularly to pay
attention to multiple voices, more accurately reflects live listening.

And of course I get the same effect from analog tape, so this matter
goes beyond vinyl-specific distortions.

Mike. An interesting development in recent years in many CD mastering
facilities has been the appearance of an analogue tape machine (the old
Studer C37, a valve machine from the 1960s, is the most sought-after)

Often clients ask for an "analogue pass" during the mastering process,
by which they mean that the digital data stream is converted to analogue
recorded and replayed by the analogue recorder, using Dolby SR and
then converted back to digital for mastering.

Quite so - and this is positive proof that the preference is for the
*added* artifacts of analogue tape, not for anything mysteriously
'lost' by the digital process.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On 27 Oct 2005 02:24:41 GMT, "Iain M Churches"
wrote:

"ScottW" wrote in message
...

I have a simple theory why I think vinyl can sound more realistic. It
has to do with the supposedly inferior channel separation of vinyl.
Seems to me that the vinyl soundstage is often more realistic as it
loses pinpoint focus (as most live venues do) due to less than perfect
channel separation. I suspect, based on my system, that this also
enhances an illusion of depth to the soundstage that a CD doesn't
always create.

Interesting point Scott. The channel separation on vinyl is
far greater than the crosstalk of most cartridges.

Should anyone think that this is a problem, it's trivially easy to
decrease channel separation electronically. Increasing it is of course
quite another matter - for that, you need CD.

One could of course make a similar argument for the more 'natural'
sound common top large planar dipoles, which have a large amount of
decorrelated far-field sound in most listening situations.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On 27 Oct 2005 02:21:00 GMT, "Iain M Churches"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
I had some superb LP equipment. If I never hear another LP in my life,
that will be too soon..

I hate LPs!

Compression. Inner-groove distortion. Pops. Ticks. Rumble. Wow.
Flutter.

Good riddance!

It sounds as though you have been using a poor
turntable/arm/cartridge, and have not bothered
to take care of your vinyl:-((

It sounds as though you are determined to ignore the basic physical
limitations of the medium. You of all people should know better.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On 27 Oct 2005 02:21:25 GMT, "Iain M Churches"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 24 Oct 2005 14:43:58 GMT, wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 22 Oct 2005 17:27:18 GMT, "ScottW" wrote:

" wrote in message

extended FR, it all

Could you explain why you think LP cannot exceed CD in this
category?

It's seledom denied that it has the *capability*, but it's also a
known fact that the reality is rolloff above 12-15kHz to avoid
overheating cutter heads. MFSL half-speed masters may be the
exception.

Amoung those that follow the state of the art of LP mastering it is a
known fact that this simply isn't true and hasn't been for quite some
time. None of the current audiophile mastering engineers are doing this
nor have they been. I suggest you get your facts straight before making
such absurd claims.

My facts are correct,

No they are not correct. just ask Kevin Grey, Bernie Grundman, Stan
Ricker or any other well known mastering engineer.

I can confirm that Stewarts claim is totally false, having cut many
masters in my time at Decca.

Interesting that Mr Nunes, who has actually measured Ricker's
favourite Cardas test disc, confirms my statement.

Perhaps Stewart would care to tell us about his experiences in disc
cutting. He is not, and never has been, a professional in the record
industry.

Nor have I ever claimed to be. Perhaps Iain would care to tell us
about his experiences of recovering 20kHz signals at 20cm/sec from
vinyl...............................
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On 26 Oct 2005 02:43:59 GMT, "Mike Gilmour"
wrote:

I would be interested in seeing more Linn based technical information from
their engineers.

There was an article in Hi-Fi news containing a description of the new
Linn mastering facilty and an interview with their engineers. Despite
an editorial basic bias towards vinyl, the basic physical limitations
of the medium were acknowledged. I always find it amusing that the
vinyl fans absolutely refuse to acknowledge these simple physical
facts in their quest to justify their preference.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On 27 Oct 2005 02:28:31 GMT, "Iain M Churches"
wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 21 Oct 2005 05:38:30 GMT, wrote:

Oh please, enough with the pretension! I've been a regular
concert-goer for forty years, and my musical appreciation is certainly
a match for many musicians. OTOH, as a long-term audiophile, my sense
of the *fidelity* of a reproduced musical event is certainly more
acute than that of most of the professional musicians of my
acquaintance. In point of fact, musos are *notorious* for their poor
hi-fi rigs, since they are generally listening on a different plane.

Stewart. You have admitted earlier that you have no musical
training or qualifications,

I do however have plenty of engineering training and qualifications,
and plenty of experience of live music of many forms.

and from your derisory comments
regarding the works of Jean Sibelius, regarded by many as
the greatest composer of the C20th, it is clear that you have
a poor understanding of composition and classical form.

Others regard his work as overblown and largely depressing, so you are
simply expressing your own prejudice, as usual. Of course, that you
actually *live* in darkest Finland does partially explain that
particular prejudice.

Your role, as a concert goer is purely passive.

With no formal training, it is fairly certain that your level of aural
perception is far below that of a professional musician.

Cordially,

Iain

Thank you for your usual personal attack and hilariously hypocritical
signoff. Your lack of response to the core of the debate is noted.
Also, with reference to the professional and semi-pro musicians of my
acquaintance, you are quite simply wrong.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On 27 Oct 2005 02:27:39 GMT, "Iain M Churches"
wrote:

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
...

My conclusion: take what you hear about the transparency of CD's with two,
maybe three grains of salt. Some of it may be equipment- or
blank-induced,
but the deterioration is noticeable in a side-by-side -- ranging from
subtle
to apparent. And if this is true in home recording under controlled
conditions, it is also likely true (as has been asserted) in production
runs
of commercial CD's.

Hello Harry. I attend many mastering sessions to ensure
that what I have recorded reaches the CD without
substantial changes. I can promise you that it is a simple
task to produce a CD which is an exact clone of the studio master.
In classical and jazz music this is how it is normally done.

The problem is that in pop music these days, CD mastering
is regarded as a another step in the creative process -
another chance to tweak the track overall. The old adage
of "fix it in the mix" has moved down one step in the chain:-)
There is no longer the opportunity to work on the individual
elements within the mix, but it is quite common for extra
compression and EQ to be added at the mastering stage.

The result is quite often a retrograde step,
but "make it louder" is the order of the day as far as pop
CD's are concerned. The CD has zero headroom.
Vinyl, like analogue tape, is much more forgiving.

What utter nonsense! CD has *vastly* more headroom than vinyl, some
93dB of headroom compared to the 70-75 of the very best vinyl. Or were
you attempting some kind of faked definition of 'headroom'?
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

wrote in message ...
wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

Could you explain why you think LP cannot exceed CD in this
category?

It's seledom denied that it has the *capability*, but it's also a
known fact that the reality is rolloff above 12-15kHz to avoid
overheating cutter heads. MFSL half-speed masters may be the
exception.

Amoung those that follow the state of the art of LP mastering it is a
known fact that this simply isn't true and hasn't been for quite some
time. None of the current audiophile mastering engineers are doing this
nor have they been. I suggest you get your facts straight before making
such absurd claims.

My facts are correct,



No they are not correct. just ask Kevin Grey, Bernie Grundman, Stan
Ricker or any other well known mastering engineer.

I don't care what they say. I have your guru Ricker's Cardas sweep
record
and I ran it with several different catridges and preamps through a Lynx
TWO
soundcard running at 192K sampling rate and 24 bits resolution, using Cool
Edit. There is a rolloff starting just over 14K Hz leading to a shelved
response about 5 dB down starting around 16K Hz. ALL the cartridges and
preamps behave in the same way. The record does appear get out to the 30K
Hz
that it claims but it IS shelved down ~5 dB.

Lest you think all my cartridges I tried don't have good HF performance, I
will even list them.

Koetsu Urushi
Denon 103D
Shure V15V
Shure V15xMR
Electro Research EK-1 strain gauge system
Win SDT10 (strain gauge)

Preamps used:

Krell KPE reference
Classe DR5
Two of my own tube designs

The EK-1 is the only setup that gets out to 30K Hz without further
rolloff.
(i.e. follows the apparent shelved response on the disc) The two moving
coils
start rolling off around 25K Hz. The Shures roll off above 20K Hz. The
Win
very slowly rolls off above the point of the shelve.

I thought I wouldn't be posting in this place again, but it would be nice
if
you stopped making this misleading claim. Yes, the record goes out
to 30K. But it is SHELVED down above about 14K. Why? Stewart knows
what
he is saying.


Thanks for the research. Seems to me it all depends....frankly, I'd
take -5db shelved response to 30khz any day over a brick wall cutoff at
22khz. So "George" is right that LP frequency response extends well beyond
CD. And Stewart is right that HF's are cut in power.

In this debate, however, it should be noted that Stewart made no attempt to
explain his statement, and instead gave the impression that there was a
continual rolloff over 14khz. Clearly your data shows that is not the case,
and any rolloff is a function of cartridge design/impedance match once
the -5db shelf has been reached.

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 26 Oct 2005 02:41:56 GMT, "Iain M Churches"
wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 22 Oct 2005 17:27:18 GMT, "ScottW" wrote:

" wrote in message

extended FR, it all

Could you explain why you think LP cannot exceed CD in this category?

It's seldom denied that it has the *capability*, but it's also a
known fact that the reality is rolloff above 12-15kHz to avoid
overheating cutter heads. MFSL half-speed masters may be the
exception.

Sorry Stewart but what you refer to as a known fact is neither
known or factual, but totally incorrect. Such a statement reveals
your lack of knowledge of practical disc cutting, although it
probably suits your anti-vinyl agenda:-)

Actually, your attitude reveals a refusal to accept general practice,
but suits your valves 'n vinyl agenda.

I accept general practice as you call it, as I am involved as a
professional recording engineer in digital recording almost
every day, while you are.............


We have discussed this matter at great length before.
Helium is used as and when required to cool the cutter-head.
Neumann, Lyrec, Westrex and Decca cutterheads all have an
hf response 22kHz.

But not at full output.

Presumably by "full output" you actually mean "peak level"?

If you mean 22kHz at peak recording level
then of course not! What an absurd statement:-)

Perhaps you would care to find us a musical instrument which,
when playing in balance with an ensemble that can produce
22kHz at peak recording level, and then a piece of music
where this is called for.

The highest note produced by a concert grand piano, C8, is
exceeds the range of any other instrument of the orchestra
at 4.186kHz. So even the 3rd harmonic of this note
is only 12.558kHz and probably some 50dB below the
fundamental.

A bell tree, rich in harmonics, produces a 3rd harmonic of
about 15kHz in approx the same ratio.

Experimentation with the equaliser of a studio console
will demonstrate that the "centre" frequency of a small
rivet cymbal is about 6kHz, with a 3rd harmonic at 18kHz
again some 40dB below the fundamental.

At the low end, once again the concert grand piano
with Ao at 27.5Hz produces a note lower than any other
instrument of the orchestra, with the Eb contrabass
sarrusaphone coming in second place at 32.7Hz.
A five string bass guitar IIRC can manage about 36Hz.
This is basic knowledge learned by musicians and
studio personnel in their first year of study.

No doubt other cutting facilities, EMI CBS etc had
something similar.

No doubt they all produced vinyl with the same fundamental limitations
at both ends of the spectrum.

I am sorry, Stewart, but your claim is false, and
if you had any hands-on experience of practical disc
cutting you would not have made such a statement
in the first place.

Cordially,

Iain Churches

Iain M Churches wrote:
"ScottW" wrote in message
...

I have a simple theory why I think vinyl can sound more realistic. It
has to do with the supposedly inferior channel separation of vinyl.
Seems to me that the vinyl soundstage is often more realistic as it
loses pinpoint focus (as most live venues do) due to less than perfect
channel separation. I suspect, based on my system, that this also
enhances an illusion of depth to the soundstage that a CD doesn't
always create.

Interesting point Scott. The channel separation on vinyl is
far greater than the crosstalk of most cartridges.

But not greater than CD. How, then, can it account for a
'more realistic' sound of vinyl?

I believe the sources of 'euphonic distortion' have been posted
here before, and have to do with phase anomalies, but I'd
have to google to verify.



--
-S
"The most appealing intuitive argument for atheism is the mindblowing stupidity of religious
fundamentalists." -- Ginger Yellow

Iain M Churches wrote:
" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
Most of your post here expresses the basic objectivist's error of
conflating measured (objective) performance with the *experience* of
listening to something. More specific points below:


wrote:
wrote in message
...
Jenn wrote:
So, after a week of living with the Clearaudio TT/arm/cartridge, I
love
it more and more. The sound that I am getting from my records is
just
so effortless and easy... like a good concert hall. I just put on
several CDs, and I just don't get that with them. The timbres are
thinner and less life-like. I wish that it were the other way
around,
but it's not. If this is due to "euphonic distortion", bring on more
of
it!

We know the objectivists think it is euphonic distortion.

The funny thing is, I have NEVER, not ONCE met an objectivist who
could
accurately repeat the description of vinyl provided by those who think
vinyl is truer to life.


It's like arguing with someone who is convinced that God exists and that
miracles happen. There is no way that an inferior medium can be better
than
an inferior one.
Vinyl playback is limited by the medium which is inherently flawed. It
is
rife with distortions of speed accuracy, wow and flutter and the media
that
it is transcibed on, not to mention the differences in equipment.

For example, we get all this stuff about "midrange phasiness",
"enhanced ambience", "pleasant timbre," etc.

It's not stuff, it's the way it is.


Of course, none of that describes the reason I like vinyl---and your
word "effortless" above conveys this: the way the sound comes to my
attention, how it feels to pay attention to it, particularly to pay
attention to multiple voices, more accurately reflects live listening.


The differences are due to the way LP's are mixed and the things you are
used to.


Just to put the record straight, LPs are not mixed:-) There is a master
which may be a stereo mix from an analogue or digital multitrack, or
it may be a straight stereo recording. The CD is made from the same
master from which the disc is cut.

Well, not necessarily. A production tape can be mastered with vinyl in mind
as the delivery format. Such 'LP' master tapes reportedly were often
used for the early CD releases, since they were the closest to hand.
Some people blame this practice for the supposedly not-impressive
sound of early CDs. (Paradoxically in the case of vinylphiles claiming this,
because one would think that if vinyl
is inherently the'best' sounding medium, then a tape made for vinyl should be
the best source too -- unless you believe that the cutting process, the disc itself,
and the vinyl playback are what impart the 'magic' to the medium.)

The preferred practice today as you no doubt know, is to seek out the original
analog mixdown master tapes, and remaster them appropriately to digital (or just leave
them be and do a 'flat' transfer).

In disc cutting, the object of the exercise was to transfer as faithfully
as possible the signal from the master tape to the acetate disc. No
more, no less. This in itself is a considerable challenge - any fool can
make it different.

What *objective* measure of 'faithfulness' do cutting engineers use these
days, I wonder?

In CD production, the mastering stage is often regarded as an extension
of the recording process, at which changes are made. Oddly enough
the increased dynamic of CD would lead one to believe that compression
would not be necessary. There is in fact much more compression used
in CD production of pop music than was normally used in disc cutting.

This is a practice that developed in the early 90s and is now
widespread. It was driven by producers/record company people more
than mastering engineers. It is of course not a necessary adjunct
of the CD format, merely an unfortunate *option*. One of the few
inherent 'plusses' of the SACDS spec is that it does not allow the sort
of 'clipression' (clipping + compression) that redbook allows. To
achieve that in an SACD release you have to do it in the PCM realm first,
then transcode.



--
-S
"The most appealing intuitive argument for atheism is the mindblowing stupidity of religious
fundamentalists." -- Ginger Yellow

Iain M Churches wrote:
wrote in message
...
Jenn wrote:
So, after a week of living with the Clearaudio TT/arm/cartridge, I love
it more and more. The sound that I am getting from my records is just
so effortless and easy... like a good concert hall. I just put on
several CDs, and I just don't get that with them. The timbres are
thinner and less life-like. I wish that it were the other way around,
but it's not. If this is due to "euphonic distortion", bring on more of
it!

We know the objectivists think it is euphonic distortion.

The funny thing is, I have NEVER, not ONCE met an objectivist who could
accurately repeat the description of vinyl provided by those who think
vinyl is truer to life.

For example, we get all this stuff about "midrange phasiness",
"enhanced ambience", "pleasant timbre," etc.

Of course, none of that describes the reason I like vinyl---and your
word "effortless" above conveys this: the way the sound comes to my
attention, how it feels to pay attention to it, particularly to pay
attention to multiple voices, more accurately reflects live listening.

And of course I get the same effect from analog tape, so this matter
goes beyond vinyl-specific distortions.


Mike. An interesting development in recent years in many CD mastering
facilities has been the appearance of an analogue tape machine (the old
Studer C37, a valve machine from the 1960s, is the most sought-after)

'recent' years? People were introducing analog stages into the digital
recording chain back in the mid 80's. See the SPARRS code of
Peter Gabriel's 'So' for example.

Often clients ask for an "analogue pass" during the mastering process,
by which they mean that the digital data stream is converted to analogue
recorded and replayed by the analogue recorder, using Dolby SR and
then converted back to digital for mastering.

rarely, I suspect, do they ever do a proper blind A/B to see how much
their preference is influenced by non-audio factors.


--
-S
"The most appealing intuitive argument for atheism is the mindblowing stupidity of religious
fundamentalists." -- Ginger Yellow

Iain M Churches wrote:
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
...

My conclusion: take what you hear about the transparency of CD's with two,
maybe three grains of salt. Some of it may be equipment- or
blank-induced,
but the deterioration is noticeable in a side-by-side -- ranging from
subtle
to apparent. And if this is true in home recording under controlled
conditions, it is also likely true (as has been asserted) in production
runs
of commercial CD's.

Hello Harry. I attend many mastering sessions to ensure
that what I have recorded reaches the CD without
substantial changes. I can promise you that it is a simple
task to produce a CD which is an exact clone of the studio master.
In classical and jazz music this is how it is normally done.

The same question applies here as for LP mastering:
How do you objectively assess whether 'substantial' changes
have or have not occurred, in any medium?

Wiht digital-to-digital, it's easy to check for perfect
fidelity between master and clone. With tape vs
digital (or LP) , one could at least measure the
frequency profiles, dynamic range,
average levels, etc of the master versus the final product.
A blind A/B wouldn't hurt either.

I suspect that Harry's suspicious would collapse if
these checks were done of tape vs. digital. Tape
vs LP would be another story.


There is no longer the opportunity to work on the individual
elements within the mix, but it is quite common for extra
compression and EQ to be added at the mastering stage.

A minority of CDs (and of course all 'surround' SACD, DVD-A, DTS,etc)
are true remixes, starting from multitracks.

The result is quite often a retrograde step,
but "make it louder" is the order of the day as far as pop
CD's are concerned. The CD has zero headroom.
Vinyl, like analogue tape, is much more forgiving.

But you cannot put the amounts of loud *bass* on vinyl,
that you can on CD -- so it's not more forgiving in
every sense.



--
-S
"The most appealing intuitive argument for atheism is the mindblowing stupidity of religious
fundamentalists." -- Ginger Yellow

Iain M Churches wrote:
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 21 Oct 2005 05:38:30 GMT, wrote:


Oh please, enough with the pretension! I've been a regular
concert-goer for forty years, and my musical appreciation is certainly
a match for many musicians. OTOH, as a long-term audiophile, my sense
of the *fidelity* of a reproduced musical event is certainly more
acute than that of most of the professional musicians of my
acquaintance. In point of fact, musos are *notorious* for their poor
hi-fi rigs, since they are generally listening on a different plane.


Stewart. You have admitted earlier that you have no musical
training or qualifications, and from your derisory comments
regarding the works of Jean Sibelius, regarded by many as
the greatest composer of the C20th, it is clear that you have
a poor understanding of composition and classical form.
Your role, as a concert goer is purely passive.

Sibelius is just OK. I much prefer Bartok and Stravinsky
and Janacek, myself.

Btw, Sibelius' reputation has hardly been monolithically solid.
It has never been a faux pas to *not* consider him the
*greatest* composer of the 20th C -- nor even to consider
him something much less than that.


With no formal training, it is fairly certain that your level of aural
perception is far below that of a professional musician.

Nonsense. Check out the stereo system of the average 'professional
musician', and compare it to Stewart's.




--
-S
"The most appealing intuitive argument for atheism is the mindblowing stupidity of religious
fundamentalists." -- Ginger Yellow

On 28 Oct 2005 01:46:45 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

wrote in message ...
wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

Could you explain why you think LP cannot exceed CD in this
category?

It's seledom denied that it has the *capability*, but it's also a
known fact that the reality is rolloff above 12-15kHz to avoid
overheating cutter heads. MFSL half-speed masters may be the
exception.

Amoung those that follow the state of the art of LP mastering it is a
known fact that this simply isn't true and hasn't been for quite some
time. None of the current audiophile mastering engineers are doing this
nor have they been. I suggest you get your facts straight before making
such absurd claims.

My facts are correct,



No they are not correct. just ask Kevin Grey, Bernie Grundman, Stan
Ricker or any other well known mastering engineer.

I don't care what they say. I have your guru Ricker's Cardas sweep
record
and I ran it with several different catridges and preamps through a Lynx
TWO
soundcard running at 192K sampling rate and 24 bits resolution, using Cool
Edit. There is a rolloff starting just over 14K Hz leading to a shelved
response about 5 dB down starting around 16K Hz. ALL the cartridges and
preamps behave in the same way. The record does appear get out to the 30K
Hz
that it claims but it IS shelved down ~5 dB.

Lest you think all my cartridges I tried don't have good HF performance, I
will even list them.

Koetsu Urushi
Denon 103D
Shure V15V
Shure V15xMR
Electro Research EK-1 strain gauge system
Win SDT10 (strain gauge)

Preamps used:

Krell KPE reference
Classe DR5
Two of my own tube designs

The EK-1 is the only setup that gets out to 30K Hz without further
rolloff.
(i.e. follows the apparent shelved response on the disc) The two moving
coils
start rolling off around 25K Hz. The Shures roll off above 20K Hz. The
Win
very slowly rolls off above the point of the shelve.

I thought I wouldn't be posting in this place again, but it would be nice
if
you stopped making this misleading claim. Yes, the record goes out
to 30K. But it is SHELVED down above about 14K. Why? Stewart knows
what
he is saying.


Thanks for the research. Seems to me it all depends....frankly, I'd
take -5db shelved response to 30khz any day over a brick wall cutoff at
22khz. So "George" is right that LP frequency response extends well beyond
CD. And Stewart is right that HF's are cut in power.

In this debate, however, it should be noted that Stewart made no attempt to
explain his statement, and instead gave the impression that there was a
continual rolloff over 14khz. Clearly your data shows that is not the case,
and any rolloff is a function of cartridge design/impedance match once
the -5db shelf has been reached.

Nice try Harry, but as ever, you are skewing the facts to suit your
agenda. Mr Nunes was measuring a *test* record, meticulously mastered
to demonstrate what vinyl is *capable* of at reference level. I was
specifically talking about mainstream music vinyl, not audiophile
specials such as the half-speed mastered MFSL output, which is
certainly capable of extending to 25-30kHz at low level.

I have always acknowledged that vinyl is *capable* of extending out to
30kHz (albeit not at full level), my claim is that available
commercial music vinyl *in reality* rolls off above 12-15kHz. More to
the point, I doubt that this difference from a flat response is
audible on the vast majority of music.

Of course, all this still begs the question of how much musical
content above 20kHz exists in the mixdown master tape, and how much
will be left on the LP after a dozen scrapes..........

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering