Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
LP inferior?
The current wisdom, and a wisdom that I mostly agree with, says that vinyl is
vastly inferior to digital as a music media. There are exceptions, of course, but generally speaking this would seem to be true. In the latest (December, 2008) issue of Stereophile, there is a story about a German physicist and integrated circuit designer turned "Tonmeister" named Ralf Koschnike who decided to start a record company. He records at 24-bit, 192KHz sampling rate using Alesis A to D converters then he down converts those files to 16/44.1 for Redbook CD release. He also makes LPs from his masters using the latest incarnation of the Direct Metal Master (DMM) technique. After experimenting with both DVD-A and SACD, he finds that his vinyl LPs are closer to his 24/192 masters than are either of these super CD formats and of course, much better than regular CD. To prove his point, he shows a number of photographs of the spectral analysis of a short tutti passage from the 24/192 master of Shostakovich's 15th Symphony. Also shown are spectral analysis pictures of the same passage on LP and on CD. Except for some high-frequency noise in the LP spectral analysis photos, the LP looks almost identical to the master recording. The CD shows everything above 22KHz as GONE, just a big black space taking up 3/4 of the spectral photograph. This shows that the LP faithfully preserves the HF content of the master, while the CD does not. Koschnike says that he is confident that its the HF cutoff that makes CD sound less natural than hi-rez digital or LP, when the latter is properly executed. He goes on to say that he thinks that his LPs are more than competitive with those from vinyl's golden age. While I DOUBT seriously that what's going-on in the ultrasonic stratosphere can have any affect on what goes on in the range of human hearing (and that assumes ideal human hearing (20-20Khz) which is a state that goes away quickly as youth fades.), it is interesting to see just how much of the recorded spectrum that the CD plot shows thrown away (and I wonder how much of the LP spectrum analysis will be left after a few plays - even on top flight playback gear). I urge everyone interested to pick-up the December issue of Stereophile the next time that you are at your local magazine emporium and turn to pages 16 and 18 and take a look at the spectral analysis pictures. Very interesting. |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
LP inferior?
Of course, he blows off SACD and DVD-A with a cursory remark that "he
has experimented" with them. Your point about in-band background noise on the LP and the eventual erasure of its HF spectrum is well taken. I also find it interesting that he does not consider regular DVD which, for stereo at least, is capable of 24/96 on mass market players. Kal On 20 Nov 2008 22:50:17 GMT, Sonnova wrote: The current wisdom, and a wisdom that I mostly agree with, says that vinyl is vastly inferior to digital as a music media. There are exceptions, of course, but generally speaking this would seem to be true. In the latest (December, 2008) issue of Stereophile, there is a story about a German physicist and integrated circuit designer turned "Tonmeister" named Ralf Koschnike who decided to start a record company. He records at 24-bit, 192KHz sampling rate using Alesis A to D converters then he down converts those files to 16/44.1 for Redbook CD release. He also makes LPs from his masters using the latest incarnation of the Direct Metal Master (DMM) technique. After experimenting with both DVD-A and SACD, he finds that his vinyl LPs are closer to his 24/192 masters than are either of these super CD formats and of course, much better than regular CD. To prove his point, he shows a number of photographs of the spectral analysis of a short tutti passage from the 24/192 master of Shostakovich's 15th Symphony. Also shown are spectral analysis pictures of the same passage on LP and on CD. Except for some high-frequency noise in the LP spectral analysis photos, the LP looks almost identical to the master recording. The CD shows everything above 22KHz as GONE, just a big black space taking up 3/4 of the spectral photograph. This shows that the LP faithfully preserves the HF content of the master, while the CD does not. Koschnike says that he is confident that its the HF cutoff that makes CD sound less natural than hi-rez digital or LP, when the latter is properly executed. He goes on to say that he thinks that his LPs are more than competitive with those from vinyl's golden age. While I DOUBT seriously that what's going-on in the ultrasonic stratosphere can have any affect on what goes on in the range of human hearing (and that assumes ideal human hearing (20-20Khz) which is a state that goes away quickly as youth fades.), it is interesting to see just how much of the recorded spectrum that the CD plot shows thrown away (and I wonder how much of the LP spectrum analysis will be left after a few plays - even on top flight playback gear). I urge everyone interested to pick-up the December issue of Stereophile the next time that you are at your local magazine emporium and turn to pages 16 and 18 and take a look at the spectral analysis pictures. Very interesting. |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
LP inferior?
Kalman Rubinson wrote:
Of course, he blows off SACD and DVD-A with a cursory remark that "he has experimented" with them. Your point about in-band background noise on the LP and the eventual erasure of its HF spectrum is well taken. I also find it interesting that he does not consider regular DVD which, for stereo at least, is capable of 24/96 on mass market players. Indeed. And of course, no one with a clue would be in the least bit surprised that there is no 22kHz content on a CD. Nor would they conclude, merely from spectra, that the LP is *accurate* to its source at those frequencies, nor does it tell you what the content *is* (music? noise?). I haven't yet seen the issue, but from Sonnova's description, sadly, this sounds like another 'expert' -- with a commercial stake in LP -- of the sort your editor likes to trot out who's claims should have been subjected to critique from a *real* expert on digital audio. *That's* something the Stereophile readership could have learned from. On 20 Nov 2008 22:50:17 GMT, Sonnova wrote: The current wisdom, and a wisdom that I mostly agree with, says that vinyl is vastly inferior to digital as a music media. There are exceptions, of course, but generally speaking this would seem to be true. In the latest (December, 2008) issue of Stereophile, there is a story about a German physicist and integrated circuit designer turned "Tonmeister" named Ralf Koschnike who decided to start a record company. He records at 24-bit, 192KHz sampling rate using Alesis A to D converters then he down converts those files to 16/44.1 for Redbook CD release. He also makes LPs from his masters using the latest incarnation of the Direct Metal Master (DMM) technique. After experimenting with both DVD-A and SACD, he finds that his vinyl LPs are closer to his 24/192 masters than are either of these super CD formats and of course, much better than regular CD. To prove his point, he shows a number of photographs of the spectral analysis of a short tutti passage from the 24/192 master of Shostakovich's 15th Symphony. Also shown are spectral analysis pictures of the same passage on LP and on CD. Except for some high-frequency noise in the LP spectral analysis photos, the LP looks almost identical to the master recording. The CD shows everything above 22KHz as GONE, just a big black space taking up 3/4 of the spectral photograph. If it takes up 3/4 of a spectrum, then that only means that the scale of the 'spectrum' has been absurdly expanded to ~100kHz. This shows that the LP faithfully preserves the HF content of the master, while the CD does not. Did he test the low frequency content, to see which medium more faithfully renders sequences near the BOTTOM of the human hearing range? Koschnike says that he is confident that its the HF cutoff that makes CD sound less natural than hi-rez digital or LP, when the latter is properly executed. He goes on to say that he thinks that his LPs are more than competitive with those from vinyl's golden age. While I DOUBT seriously that what's going-on in the ultrasonic stratosphere can have any affect on what goes on in the range of human hearing (and that assumes ideal human hearing (20-20Khz) which is a state that goes away quickly as youth fades.), it is interesting to see just how much of the recorded spectrum that the CD plot shows thrown away (and I wonder how much of the LP spectrum analysis will be left after a few plays - even on top flight playback gear). Interesting why? If there was anything above 22 kHz on a *CD* (44.1 kHz sample rate) spectrum, it would be a sign that something was radically *wrong*. -- -S I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabrics of their life -- Leo Tolstoy |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
LP inferior?
On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 06:15:19 -0800, Steven Sullivan wrote
(in article ): Kalman Rubinson wrote: Of course, he blows off SACD and DVD-A with a cursory remark that "he has experimented" with them. Your point about in-band background noise on the LP and the eventual erasure of its HF spectrum is well taken. I also find it interesting that he does not consider regular DVD which, for stereo at least, is capable of 24/96 on mass market players. Indeed. And of course, no one with a clue would be in the least bit surprised that there is no 22kHz content on a CD. Nor would they conclude, merely from spectra, that the LP is *accurate* to its source at those frequencies, nor does it tell you what the content *is* (music? noise?). I haven't yet seen the issue, but from Sonnova's description, sadly, this sounds like another 'expert' -- with a commercial stake in LP -- of the sort your editor likes to trot out who's claims should have been subjected to critique from a *real* expert on digital audio. *That's* something the Stereophile readership could have learned from. On 20 Nov 2008 22:50:17 GMT, Sonnova wrote: The current wisdom, and a wisdom that I mostly agree with, says that vinyl is vastly inferior to digital as a music media. There are exceptions, of course, but generally speaking this would seem to be true. In the latest (December, 2008) issue of Stereophile, there is a story about a German physicist and integrated circuit designer turned "Tonmeister" named Ralf Koschnike who decided to start a record company. He records at 24-bit, 192KHz sampling rate using Alesis A to D converters then he down converts those files to 16/44.1 for Redbook CD release. He also makes LPs from his masters using the latest incarnation of the Direct Metal Master (DMM) technique. After experimenting with both DVD-A and SACD, he finds that his vinyl LPs are closer to his 24/192 masters than are either of these super CD formats and of course, much better than regular CD. To prove his point, he shows a number of photographs of the spectral analysis of a short tutti passage from the 24/192 master of Shostakovich's 15th Symphony. Also shown are spectral analysis pictures of the same passage on LP and on CD. Except for some high-frequency noise in the LP spectral analysis photos, the LP looks almost identical to the master recording. The CD shows everything above 22KHz as GONE, just a big black space taking up 3/4 of the spectral photograph. If it takes up 3/4 of a spectrum, then that only means that the scale of the 'spectrum' has been absurdly expanded to ~100kHz. Well, of course. Koschnike's point was that 192 KHz sampling has response out to 96KHz (half the sampling frequency). so, obviously, the DC-22KHz would be roughly 1/4 of a spectrum that goes to 100KHz. This shows that the LP faithfully preserves the HF content of the master, while the CD does not. Did he test the low frequency content, to see which medium more faithfully renders sequences near the BOTTOM of the human hearing range? Well, obviously, CD goes deeper, down to just a couple of Hz, in fact. Koschnike says that he is confident that its the HF cutoff that makes CD sound less natural than hi-rez digital or LP, when the latter is properly executed. He goes on to say that he thinks that his LPs are more than competitive with those from vinyl's golden age. While I DOUBT seriously that what's going-on in the ultrasonic stratosphere can have any affect on what goes on in the range of human hearing (and that assumes ideal human hearing (20-20Khz) which is a state that goes away quickly as youth fades.), it is interesting to see just how much of the recorded spectrum that the CD plot shows thrown away (and I wonder how much of the LP spectrum analysis will be left after a few plays - even on top flight playback gear). Interesting why? If there was anything above 22 kHz on a *CD* (44.1 kHz sample rate) spectrum, it would be a sign that something was radically *wrong*. No, that's not what's interesting. What's interesting is how high of frequencies the LP can resolve. I would not have expected it. Even during the days of multiplexed quadraphonic sound (the JVC CD-4 system) they only tried to record up to about 50Khz and they had trouble making THAT reliable. |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
LP inferior?
"Sonnova" wrote in message
... On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 06:15:19 -0800, Steven Sullivan wrote (in article ): snip Interesting why? If there was anything above 22 kHz on a *CD* (44.1 kHz sample rate) spectrum, it would be a sign that something was radically *wrong*. No, that's not what's interesting. What's interesting is how high of frequencies the LP can resolve. I would not have expected it. Even during the days of multiplexed quadraphonic sound (the JVC CD-4 system) they only tried to record up to about 50Khz and they had trouble making THAT reliable. In fact, it was the CD-4 recordings that led to many of the cutter improvments that have taken place, and the commercialization of the Shibata-style stylii.. Now that such stylii are in widespread use, obtaining high frequencies off of recordings doesn't surprise me. |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
LP inferior?
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
In fact, it was the CD-4 recordings that led to many of the cutter improvements that have taken place, and the commercialization of the Shibata-style stylii.. CD-4 recordings have very short useful lives. One of the fellows in our audio club collects them. He says maybe 10 playings. Now that such stylii are in widespread use, obtaining high frequencies off of recordings doesn't surprise me. Obtaining high frequencies off of LPs is very easy. Oh, you want music? That's considerably harder. |
#7
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
LP inferior?
On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 15:55:37 -0800, Harry Lavo wrote
(in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message ... On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 06:15:19 -0800, Steven Sullivan wrote (in article ): snip Interesting why? If there was anything above 22 kHz on a *CD* (44.1 kHz sample rate) spectrum, it would be a sign that something was radically *wrong*. No, that's not what's interesting. What's interesting is how high of frequencies the LP can resolve. I would not have expected it. Even during the days of multiplexed quadraphonic sound (the JVC CD-4 system) they only tried to record up to about 50Khz and they had trouble making THAT reliable. In fact, it was the CD-4 recordings that led to many of the cutter improvments that have taken place, and the commercialization of the Shibata-style stylii.. Now that such stylii are in widespread use, obtaining high frequencies off of recordings doesn't surprise me. Response to 50 KHz (at least on a new record) doesn't surprise me. Response to 100K does. |
#8
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
LP inferior?
Sonnova wrote:
On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 06:15:19 -0800, Steven Sullivan wrote (in article ): Kalman Rubinson wrote: photograph. If it takes up 3/4 of a spectrum, then that only means that the scale of the 'spectrum' has been absurdly expanded to ~100kHz. Well, of course. Koschnike's point was that 192 KHz sampling has response out to 96KHz (half the sampling frequency). so, obviously, the DC-22KHz would be roughly 1/4 of a spectrum that goes to 100KHz. Sorry, but what is the 'point' of making a point like that? All it is, is an entirely predictable confirmation of Shannon/Nyquist: your 'response' will extend out to just less than half of whatever your sample rate is. No one with a clue would ever *expect* to see anything in spectral view beyond what the Nyquist limit of 'response' dictates. So OF COURSE any spectral content visible beyond 22 in 192 kHz-sampled audio, will be absent in a 44kHz sampled version. This shows that the LP faithfully preserves the HF content of the master, while the CD does not. Did he test the low frequency content, to see which medium more faithfully renders sequences near the BOTTOM of the human hearing range? Well, obviously, CD goes deeper, down to just a couple of Hz, in fact. And obviously, 192kHz 'goes higher' than 44.1kHz. But we typically can hear down to 20, feel below that, whereas audibility above 20K is typicially *nada*. Koschnike says that he is confident that its the HF cutoff that makes CD sound less natural than hi-rez digital or LP, when the latter is properly executed. He goes on to say that he thinks that his LPs are more than competitive with those from vinyl's golden age. While I DOUBT seriously that what's going-on in the ultrasonic stratosphere can have any affect on what goes on in the range of human hearing (and that assumes ideal human hearing (20-20Khz) which is a state that goes away quickly as youth fades.), it is interesting to see just how much of the recorded spectrum that the CD plot shows thrown away (and I wonder how much of the LP spectrum analysis will be left after a few plays - even on top flight playback gear). Interesting why? If there was anything above 22 kHz on a *CD* (44.1 kHz sample rate) spectrum, it would be a sign that something was radically *wrong*. No, that's not what's interesting. What's interesting is how high of frequencies the LP can resolve. I would not have expected it. Even during the days of multiplexed quadraphonic sound (the JVC CD-4 system) they only tried to record up to about 50Khz and they had trouble making THAT reliable. Depends on what you mean by 'resolve'. Again, having 'content' up there is not a guarantee that it's faithful to source, and certainly no guarantee that it's audible *music*. -- -S I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabrics of their life -- Leo Tolstoy |
#9
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
LP inferior?
Steven Sullivan wrote:
Sonnova wrote: No, that's not what's interesting. What's interesting is how high of frequencies the LP can resolve. I would not have expected it. Even during the days of multiplexed quadraphonic sound (the JVC CD-4 system) they only tried to record up to about 50Khz and they had trouble making THAT reliable. Depends on what you mean by 'resolve'. Again, having 'content' up there is not a guarantee that it's faithful to source, and certainly no guarantee that it's audible *music*. Bats and dogs may like it. ;~) I fail to see any relevance to humans. Graham |
#10
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
LP inferior?
On 23 Nov 2008 18:32:52 GMT, Steven Sullivan wrote:
No, that's not what's interesting. What's interesting is how high of frequencies the LP can resolve. I would not have expected it. Even during the days of multiplexed quadraphonic sound (the JVC CD-4 system) they only tried to record up to about 50Khz and they had trouble making THAT reliable. Depends on what you mean by 'resolve'. Again, having 'content' up there is not a guarantee that it's faithful to source, and certainly no guarantee that it's audible *music*. I'm sure pet dogs and passing bats may appreciate the difference.... --- Rob Tweed Company: M/Gateway Developments Ltd Registered in England: No 3220901 Registered Office: 58 Francis Road,Ashford, Kent TN23 7UR Web-site: http://www.mgateway.com |
#11
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
LP inferior?
Steven Sullivan wrote:
Kalman Rubinson wrote: Of course, he blows off SACD and DVD-A with a cursory remark that "he has experimented" with them. Your point about in-band background noise on the LP and the eventual erasure of its HF spectrum is well taken. I also find it interesting that he does not consider regular DVD which, for stereo at least, is capable of 24/96 on mass market players. Indeed. And of course, no one with a clue would be in the least bit surprised that there is no 22kHz content on a CD. I do wish they'd used 48kHz sampling though and used maybe 18 bits. It would have saved any of this discussion ever (well aside from nutcases). Some early CDs and players were pretty disgusting too which is where the criticism originated. Early DTRs certainly went to 50kHz sampling. Graham |
#12
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
LP inferior?
Sonnova writes:
In the latest (December, 2008) issue of Stereophile, there is a story about a German physicist and integrated circuit designer turned "Tonmeister" named Ralf Koschnike who decided to start a record company. He records at 24-bit, 192KHz sampling rate using Alesis A to D converters then he down converts those files to 16/44.1 for Redbook CD release. He also makes LPs from his masters using the latest incarnation of the Direct Metal Master (DMM) technique. After experimenting with both DVD-A and SACD, he finds that his vinyl LPs are closer to his 24/192 masters than are either of these super CD formats and of course, much better than regular CD. To prove his point, he shows a number of photographs of the spectral analysis of a short tutti passage from the 24/192 master of Shostakovich's 15th Symphony. Also shown are spectral analysis pictures of the same passage on LP and on CD. Except for some high-frequency noise in the LP spectral analysis photos, the LP looks almost identical to the master recording. The CD shows everything above 22KHz as GONE, just a big black space taking up 3/4 of the spectral photograph. This shows that the LP faithfully preserves the HF content of the master, while the CD does not. I saw that too, and I found it quite incredible. There is a huge amount of HF energy near the beginning of the track, extending to 50kHz and beyond. Consider that the 50 kHz component, significant in amplitude if the spectrogram is to be believed, would be boosted by the RIAA curve by 30-40 dB. (Depending on whether a tweaked RIAA curve is used.) Half-speed mastering might allow such levels to be put onto the master but I have no idea how you'd track the resulting record at full speed. I think more information is required. Andrew. |
#13
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
LP inferior?
Andrew Haley wrote:
I saw that too, and I found it quite incredible. There is a huge amount of HF energy near the beginning of the track, extending to 50kHz and beyond. Consider that the 50 kHz component, significant in amplitude if the spectrogram is to be believed, would be boosted by the RIAA curve by 30-40 dB. (Depending on whether a tweaked RIAA curve is used.) Half-speed mastering might allow such levels to be put onto the master but I have no idea how you'd track the resulting record at full speed. I think more information is required. I think testing you brain is required. Bats may be able to hear 50kHz but YOU can't, nor can your loudspeakers reproduce it. Graham |
#14
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
LP inferior?
Sonnova wrote:
He also makes LPs from his masters using the latest incarnation of the Direct Metal Master (DMM) technique. After experimenting with both DVD-A and SACD, he finds that his vinyl LPs are closer to his 24/192 masters than are either of these super CD formats and of course, much better than regular CD. For exactly how many plays ? Tracing distortion alone will instantly render them inferior and there's no way a cartridge pre-amp will ever remotely approach the S/N ratio of even standard CD. Graham |
#15
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
LP inferior?
In
Eeyore wrote: Tracing distortion alone will instantly render them inferior... Tracing distortion? What's that? |
#16
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
LP inferior?
"C. Leeds" wrote in message
In Eeyore wrote: Tracing distortion alone will instantly render them inferior... Tracing distortion? What's that? Please see the Loefgren paper that is referenced by a very recent post. |
#17
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
LP inferior?
"C. Leeds" wrote:
Eeyore wrote: Tracing distortion alone will instantly render them inferior... Tracing distortion? What's that? Something that vinyl nuts prefer to ignore. Also called tracking error. It is now well established that it was Löfgren in 1938, and not Baerwald in 1941, who provided the first comprehensive mathematical analysis of tonearm geometry aimed at minimizing the lateral tracking distortion weighed by the inverse of the groove radius. This is the key concept: Tracking distortion varies proportionately with tracking error and inversely with groove radius; the quantity to minimize is the tracking error per unit radius. As you get closer to the inner recorded radius, groove modulation increases and the signal/noise ratio decreases. Thus, it makes sense to place the maximum distortion at the outer radii. The standard analysis specifies, for a given effective arm length and inner and outer recorded surface radii, the optimum offset angle and overhang. This solution gives two "null radii" (2.32" and 4.62" from the spindle) at which the cartridge is tangential to the groove. Alignment templates use these null points for setting up the optimum tracking geometry. Several optional alignments are possible, each of which introduces additional non-geometrical criteria into the analysis. Löfgren himself believed that the annoyance factor of tracking distortion was cumulative with time and proposed an alternative alignment with increased overhang so that the maximum distortion between the null radii would be lower—but at the cost of briefly increasing distortion at the beginning and end of the record. There is no psychoacoustic evidence to support Löfgren's "hypothesis." I find it hard to believe that a small decrease in second-harmonic distortion would reduce the annoyance factor. In fact, quite the opposite is more likely to happen; ie, an increase in even-order harmonic products is more likely to mask more noxious forms of distortion. http://www.stereophile.com/tonearms/400/index1.html Also see ... http://www.smartdev.com/LT/Align.htm Of course you can entirely avoid 'noxious' forms of distortion by using CDs and modern electronics. Graham |
#18
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
LP inferior?
Sonnova wrote:
The current wisdom, and a wisdom that I mostly agree with, says that vinyl is vastly inferior to digital as a music media. There are exceptions, of course, but generally speaking this would seem to be true. In the latest (December, 2008) issue of Stereophile, there is a story about a German physicist and integrated circuit designer turned "Tonmeister" named Ralf Koschnike who decided to start a record company. He records at 24-bit, 192KHz sampling rate using Alesis A to D converters I damn well hope NOT ! Alesis is cheap consumer crap. One of the few companies making such converters with total credibility is a one-time former employer and old friends Prism Sound. All the founder members and early staff were ex-Neve including myself. http://prismsound.com/music_recordin...ducts_home.php Graham |
#19
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
LP inferior?
IN
Eeyore wrote: .....Alesis is cheap consumer crap. Hmmm, sounds like prejudice. The Masterlink 9600 is really quite outstanding, by most accounts. |
#20
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
LP inferior?
"C. Leeds" wrote in message
IN Eeyore wrote: ....Alesis is cheap consumer crap. Hmmm, sounds like prejudice. The Masterlink 9600 is really quite outstanding, by most accounts. Well since you don't demand that reliable testing methodologies be used, the following should be relevant to you: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...c9200370752164 "Possibly on the paper they are equals... and although the converters in my Masterlink are certainly not bad, I've found Apogees and other 3rd party designs to be a bit more musical. The Masterlink A-to-Ds always sounded a bit harsh in the higher frequencies and very sterile all-around, at least compared to the Lucid AD9624 I use in front of it. " http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...cb222a3368c1f6 "I have used it. The converters didn't seem all that good to me, but that's not a problem since I could use my own external ones." http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...68436872a2cc2a "none the less , took the masterlink back to the store." http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...3cbbe904a2215d "Of course its converters are not state of the art..." |
#21
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
LP inferior?
On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 05:11:49 -0800, C. Leeds wrote
(in article ): IN Eeyore wrote: ....Alesis is cheap consumer crap. Hmmm, sounds like prejudice. The Masterlink 9600 is really quite outstanding, by most accounts. So is the I/O 26 DAW interface. If you have a laptop with Firewire, it makes a GREAT two channel recorder with 8 quiet, broadband microphone inputs and an excellent 24-bit 192KHz A/D converter, |
#22
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
LP inferior?
Sonnova wrote:
C. Leeds wrote Eeyore wrote: ....Alesis is cheap consumer crap. Hmmm, sounds like prejudice. The Masterlink 9600 is really quite outstanding, by most accounts. So is the I/O 26 DAW interface. If you have a laptop with Firewire, it makes a GREAT two channel recorder with 8 quiet, broadband microphone inputs and an excellent 24-bit 192KHz A/D converter, http://www.focusrite.com/products/fi...ire_pro_26_io/ Not even ONE word about the converter specs and a singularly unspectacular mic input noise spec. • Noise: EIN 120dB (measured at 60dB of gain with 150 Ohm termination (20Hz/22kHz bandpass filter) I can get -129dBu with my designs. Graham |
#23
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
LP inferior?
"C. Leeds" wrote:
Eeyore wrote: ....Alesis is cheap consumer crap. Hmmm, sounds like prejudice. No it sounds like being PROFESSIONAL. The Masterlink 9600 is really quite outstanding, by most accounts. WHOSE accounts ? It's 'prosumer' garbage. As sold at Guitar Center. http://www.guitarcenter.com/Alesis-M...95-i1126269.gc THD+N: 0.002% @ 1kHz, -1dBFS Also note that they have to 'A weight' their numbers to get this: Signal-to-noise ratio: 113dB, A-weighted That gives a typical 15-16 dB 'cheat', so the real figure is about 97-98dB unweighted. Not professional at all. Prism Sound ...... http://prismsound.com/music_recordin...da8xr_spec.php 8C-AD 8-channel A/D converter THD+N (997Hz, -1dBFS) -105dB (0.0006%) Dynamic range (997Hz, -60dBFS) 112dB 8C-DA 8-channel D/A converter THD+N: (997Hz, -1dBFS) -102dB (0.0007%) typical Dynamic range: (997Hz, -60dBFS) 108dB Note that the dynamic range is measured at -60dBFS ! Graham |
#24
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
LP inferior?
Sonnova wrote:
While I DOUBT seriously that what's going-on in the ultrasonic stratosphere can have any affect on what goes on in the range of human hearing GOOD. Because as you state, you can't HEAR it ! Mind you, as a youngster, I could 'detect' albeit not hear as a tone, some 24kHz. Not sure how accurate the markings were on the oscillator though and it was at killer level. Graham |
#25
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
LP inferior?
On Nov 20, 5:50*pm, Sonnova wrote:
....... In the latest (December, 2008) issue of Stereophile, there is a story about a German physicist and integrated circuit designer turned "Tonmeister" named Ralf Koschnike who decided to start a record company. He records at 24-bit, 192KHz sampling rate using Alesis A to D converters then he down converts those files to 16/44.1 for Redbook CD release. He also makes LPs from his masters using the latest incarnation of the Direct Metal Master (DMM) technique. After experimenting with both DVD-A and SACD, he finds that his vinyl LPs are closer to his 24/192 masters than are either of these super CD .......... I find it ironic that he starts off with a digital master to then go on to justify that his analog LP is "better." CD |
#26
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
LP inferior?
On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 08:22:21 -0800, codifus wrote
(in article ): On Nov 20, 5:50*pm, Sonnova wrote: ....... In the latest (December, 2008) issue of Stereophile, there is a story about a German physicist and integrated circuit designer turned "Tonmeister" named Ralf Koschnike who decided to start a record company. He records at 24-bit, 192KHz sampling rate using Alesis A to D converters then he down converts those files to 16/44.1 for Redbook CD release. He also makes LPs from his masters using the latest incarnation of the Direct Metal Master (DMM) technique. After experimenting with both DVD-A and SACD, he finds that his vinyl LPs are closer to his 24/192 masters than are either of these super CD ......... I find it ironic that he starts off with a digital master to then go on to justify that his analog LP is "better." CD The digital master is 24-bit and 192KHz sampling rate, while CD is 16-bit and 44.1 KHz. That's quite a delta in the amount of information represented. What Koshnike is saying is that this ancient, wheezing technology (vinyl) is able to easily (apparently) encompass that information while Redbook CD cannot. It's academic, sure, but his point is interesting. |
#27
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
LP inferior?
On Nov 24, 9:46*pm, Sonnova wrote:
On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 08:22:21 -0800, codifus wrote (in article ): On Nov 20, 5:50*pm, Sonnova wrote: ....... In the latest (December, 2008) issue of Stereophile, there is a story about a German physicist and integrated circuit designer turned "Tonmeister" named Ralf Koschnike who decided to start a record company. He records at 24-bit, 192KHz sampling rate using Alesis A to D converters then he down converts those files to 16/44.1 for Redbook CD release. He also makes LPs from his masters using the latest incarnation of the Direct Metal Master (DMM) technique. After experimenting with both DVD-A and SACD, he finds that his vinyl LPs are closer to his 24/192 masters than are either of these super CD ......... I find it ironic that he starts off with a digital master to then go on to justify that his analog LP is "better." CD The digital master is 24-bit and 192KHz sampling rate, while CD is 16-bit and 44.1 KHz. That's quite a delta in the amount of information represented. What Koshnike is saying is that this ancient, wheezing technology (vinyl) is able to easily (apparently) encompass that information while Redbook CD cannot. It's academic, sure, but his point is interesting. While his argument has merit, and perhaps the LP is capturing info that the CD is not, the argument is moot. First of all, the CD is doing nothing wrong. All it can work with is 20 Hz to 22 Khz. In that range it is pretty damn good. Besides, the weaknesses of CD, like larger frequency range and better digital filtering, have been addressed in DVD-A and SACD. You know, the formats Mr. Koshnike casually passed over in the article. DVD-A is literally CD on steroids. I'm sure if Sony and Philips had to do it over again, they CD probably would have been a DVD-A at the very beginning. The whole premise of this LP business is like 1 step forward and 2 steps back. CD |
#28
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
LP inferior?
"codifus" wrote in message
The whole premise of this LP business is like 1 step forward and 2 steps back. Please remind me about what the 1 step forward of the LP has been, since the introduction of the CD. I see some evidence that the development of the LP since the introduction of the CD has actually followed a similar path as the development of the tubed amplifier since the introduction of good solid state amplifiers. It appears that in both cases, subsequent developments were along the lines of producing components that had more of the characteristic sound of their genre of components. The next development of the tubed amplifier after obsolescence by SS, seems to be the SET, which appears to be intentionally designed to avoid about 50 years of technical progress in the development of the tubed amplifier, right up until its obsolescence in the 1960s. Distortion and frequency response aberrations were encouraged, not avoided. Important effective technical innovations such as push-pull and inverse feedback were avoided. Preliminary technical test results show that most of the LP playback equipment that was developed after the introduction of the CD player has been covertly designed to have no better or even worse frequency response and distortion aberrations, then the best LP playback equipment that was widely available in earlier times. |
#29
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
LP inferior?
Check out this link to popular science. I found the comment on temperature
and humidity interesting. http://www.popsci.com/entertainment-...-really-better I personally enjoy both vinyl and cds. Rick "codifus" wrote in message ... On Nov 24, 9:46 pm, Sonnova wrote: On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 08:22:21 -0800, codifus wrote (in article ): On Nov 20, 5:50 pm, Sonnova wrote: ....... In the latest (December, 2008) issue of Stereophile, there is a story about a German physicist and integrated circuit designer turned "Tonmeister" named Ralf Koschnike who decided to start a record company. He records at 24-bit, 192KHz sampling rate using Alesis A to D converters then he down converts those files to 16/44.1 for Redbook CD release. He also makes LPs from his masters using the latest incarnation of the Direct Metal Master (DMM) technique. After experimenting with both DVD-A and SACD, he finds that his vinyl LPs are closer to his 24/192 masters than are either of these super CD ......... I find it ironic that he starts off with a digital master to then go on to justify that his analog LP is "better." CD The digital master is 24-bit and 192KHz sampling rate, while CD is 16-bit and 44.1 KHz. That's quite a delta in the amount of information represented. What Koshnike is saying is that this ancient, wheezing technology (vinyl) is able to easily (apparently) encompass that information while Redbook CD cannot. It's academic, sure, but his point is interesting. While his argument has merit, and perhaps the LP is capturing info that the CD is not, the argument is moot. First of all, the CD is doing nothing wrong. All it can work with is 20 Hz to 22 Khz. In that range it is pretty damn good. Besides, the weaknesses of CD, like larger frequency range and better digital filtering, have been addressed in DVD-A and SACD. You know, the formats Mr. Koshnike casually passed over in the article. DVD-A is literally CD on steroids. I'm sure if Sony and Philips had to do it over again, they CD probably would have been a DVD-A at the very beginning. The whole premise of this LP business is like 1 step forward and 2 steps back. CD |
#30
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
LP inferior?
"Sonnova" wrote in message
The current wisdom, and a wisdom that I mostly agree with, says that vinyl is vastly inferior to digital as a music media. There are exceptions, of course, but generally speaking this would seem to be true. Well, that's true unless you actually believe PR from people with LPs to sell. In the latest (December, 2008) issue of Stereophile, there is a story about a German physicist and integrated circuit designer turned "Tonmeister" named Ralf Koschnike who decided to start a record company. Interesting how dead Google is on the topic of this fellow. He records at 24-bit, 192KHz sampling rate using Alesis A to D converters Alesis doesn't sell stand-alone A/D converters, but packages them in mid-priced stand-alone digital recorders such as the HD24 and Masterlink. Trust me, Prism and Lynx Studio are not shivering in some corner, over the thought of this. ;-) then he down converts those files to 16/44.1 for Redbook CD release. He has no choice! ;-) He also makes LPs from his masters using the latest incarnation of the Direct Metal Master (DMM) technique. Probably via one of the well-known LP production houses. After experimenting with both DVD-A and SACD, he finds that his vinyl LPs are closer to his 24/192 masters than are either of these super CD formats and of course, much better than regular CD. Thus falling into line with the Stereophile company line. To prove his point, he shows a number of photographs of the spectral analysis of a short tutti passage from the 24/192 master of Shostakovich's 15th Symphony. Obviouisly, he's one of those "Measurementalist" guys. ;-) Also shown are spectral analysis pictures of the same passage on LP and on CD. I guess I'll have to wait amonth for that to show up on the SP web site... Except for some high-frequency noise in the LP spectral analysis photos, the LP looks almost identical to the master recording. The CD shows everything above 22KHz as GONE, just a big black space taking up 3/4 of the spectral photograph. This shows that the LP faithfully preserves the HF content of the master, while the CD does not. This would appear to be more "Measurementalist" propaganda. ;-) Koschnike says that he is confident that its the HF cutoff that makes CD sound less natural than hi-rez digital or LP, when the latter is properly executed. Waiting to see his rebuttal to the recent JAES article that says the exact opposite. He goes on to say that he thinks that his LPs are more than competitive with those from vinyl's golden age. I'm glad that he feels positively about this product, but what can we reliably infer from such claims? While I DOUBT seriously that what's going-on in the ultrasonic stratosphere can have any affect on what goes on in the range of human hearing (and that assumes ideal human hearing (20-20Khz) which is a state that goes away quickly as youth fades.), it is interesting to see just how much of the recorded spectrum that the CD plot shows thrown away (and I wonder how much of the LP spectrum analysis will be left after a few plays - even on top flight playback gear). Good question. Also, spectrum analysis of music doesn't tell you whether the spectrum you see is music or locally-generated garbage. You *can* figure that out if you work with test tones, but again that is Measurementalist dogma. ;-) I urge everyone interested to pick-up the December issue of Stereophile the next time that you are at your local magazine emporium and turn to pages 16 and 18 and take a look at the spectral analysis pictures. Very interesting. I checked the local Barnes and Noble and came up empty. |
#31
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
LP inferior?
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote: "Sonnova" wrote in message After experimenting with both DVD-A and SACD, he finds that his vinyl LPs are closer to his 24/192 masters than are either of these super CD formats and of course, much better than regular CD. Thus falling into line with the Stereophile company line. Really? You believe that SP has a pro-LP bias? What evidence do you have for that? |
#32
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
LP inferior?
"Jenn" wrote in message
In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Sonnova" wrote in message After experimenting with both DVD-A and SACD, he finds that his vinyl LPs are closer to his 24/192 masters than are either of these super CD formats and of course, much better than regular CD. Thus falling into line with the Stereophile company line. Really? You believe that SP has a pro-LP bias? Yes. What evidence do you have for that? All of the fictitious digital angst, combined with the unbelievable glorification of vinyl. |
#33
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
LP inferior?
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Sonnova" wrote in message After experimenting with both DVD-A and SACD, he finds that his vinyl LPs are closer to his 24/192 masters than are either of these super CD formats and of course, much better than regular CD. Thus falling into line with the Stereophile company line. Really? You believe that SP has a pro-LP bias? Yes. What evidence do you have for that? All of the fictitious digital angst, combined with the unbelievable glorification of vinyl. Hmmm, I guess that we just read it differently. I don't read any LP bias except from Fremer. |
#34
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
LP inferior?
On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 18:51:28 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message The current wisdom, and a wisdom that I mostly agree with, says that vinyl is vastly inferior to digital as a music media. There are exceptions, of course, but generally speaking this would seem to be true. Well, that's true unless you actually believe PR from people with LPs to sell. Or, if you actually HAVE some exceptional-sounding LPs. In the latest (December, 2008) issue of Stereophile, there is a story about a German physicist and integrated circuit designer turned "Tonmeister" named Ralf Koschnike who decided to start a record company. Interesting how dead Google is on the topic of this fellow. He records at 24-bit, 192KHz sampling rate using Alesis A to D converters Alesis doesn't sell stand-alone A/D converters, but packages them in mid-priced stand-alone digital recorders such as the HD24 and Masterlink. Trust me, Prism and Lynx Studio are not shivering in some corner, over the thought of this. ;-) I suspect that he uses their I/O26 (I use one of those myself, on occasion) the article did not elaborate. The I/O26 does support 24/192, however. then he down converts those files to 16/44.1 for Redbook CD release. He has no choice! ;-) He also makes LPs from his masters using the latest incarnation of the Direct Metal Master (DMM) technique. Probably via one of the well-known LP production houses. After experimenting with both DVD-A and SACD, he finds that his vinyl LPs are closer to his 24/192 masters than are either of these super CD formats and of course, much better than regular CD. Thus falling into line with the Stereophile company line. Meh! To prove his point, he shows a number of photographs of the spectral analysis of a short tutti passage from the 24/192 master of Shostakovich's 15th Symphony. Obviouisly, he's one of those "Measurementalist" guys. ;-) Also shown are spectral analysis pictures of the same passage on LP and on CD. I guess I'll have to wait amonth for that to show up on the SP web site... Except for some high-frequency noise in the LP spectral analysis photos, the LP looks almost identical to the master recording. The CD shows everything above 22KHz as GONE, just a big black space taking up 3/4 of the spectral photograph. This shows that the LP faithfully preserves the HF content of the master, while the CD does not. This would appear to be more "Measurementalist" propaganda. ;-) Koschnike says that he is confident that its the HF cutoff that makes CD sound less natural than hi-rez digital or LP, when the latter is properly executed. Waiting to see his rebuttal to the recent JAES article that says the exact opposite. He goes on to say that he thinks that his LPs are more than competitive with those from vinyl's golden age. I'm glad that he feels positively about this product, but what can we reliably infer from such claims? While I DOUBT seriously that what's going-on in the ultrasonic stratosphere can have any affect on what goes on in the range of human hearing (and that assumes ideal human hearing (20-20Khz) which is a state that goes away quickly as youth fades.), it is interesting to see just how much of the recorded spectrum that the CD plot shows thrown away (and I wonder how much of the LP spectrum analysis will be left after a few plays - even on top flight playback gear). Good question. Also, spectrum analysis of music doesn't tell you whether the spectrum you see is music or locally-generated garbage. You *can* figure that out if you work with test tones, but again that is Measurementalist dogma. ;-) I urge everyone interested to pick-up the December issue of Stereophile the next time that you are at your local magazine emporium and turn to pages 16 and 18 and take a look at the spectral analysis pictures. Very interesting. I checked the local Barnes and Noble and came up empty. I subscribe. Usually subscriptions go out a couple of weeks in advance of news stand deliveries. Try again this coming weekend. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
phantom imaging-why digital is inferior to analog in end-use | Pro Audio | |||
Why duh-Mikey is an inferior being | Audio Opinions |