Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41   Report Post  
John Byrns
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:

On 7 Mar 2005 10:56:21 -0800, "Joseph Meditz"
wrote:

Although the OP is tangled up in his own underwear, I think that he's
alluding to the relationship between sampling rate and quantization
noise.


That would still imply significant tangling, since there exists no
such relationship. Quantisation noise as a signal-correlated artifact
is completely removed by the correct use of around 1/2 LSB of dither.
This has nothing to do with sample rate.


I wonder if the fact that sampling rate can be traded for quantization
levels by techniques such as noise shaping might be what has Joseph and
the others getting all "tangled up in their underwear"?


Regards,

John Byrns


Surf my web pages at, http://users.rcn.com/jbyrns/
  #42   Report Post  
tubesforall
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Not an argument at all. Rather the point should be, why stick with the
at-the-time best solution nowadays, that is, there is no need to limit
the
format
to 16 bits 44.1 KHz sampling - polycarbonate costs the same, whatever you
sandwitch in between. With some 9 GB available on DVD, provision for
200 GB on the Blu Ray format disks, the CD format should become a relic !
Rudy

:

I agree that CD's will probably become a relic. I've been very impressed
with SACD technology--no objections at all to the sound there if the
mastering was good.

You may *prefer* the distinctive sound of vinyl, but it's certainly
not accurate. I share your sensitivity to harsh treble, but I have
found CD to be exceptionally good in the upper reaches of the
spectrum, whereas vinyl becomes very 'splashy', especially in the
inner grooves. Perhaps you need better speakers? :-)


You may be right--after all I've only spend many10's of thousands of dollars
over the years trying to find the right speaker. If I was serious it would
have been many 100's of thousands of dollars. .


  #43   Report Post  
tubesforall
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Agreed -- the issue is sound. I have found exactly the same thing with
respect to vinly in terms of sound stage and excitement. That's the reason
I'm willing to live with the reduced S/N and rumble.

When its really good, and by no means is it ever always good,
its bleedin fabulous, and the same might be said about digital,
but I don't know many who'd say that digital will always be better than
the best
from vinyl..


I have two vinyl discs of Seblius symphonies, absolutely identical
recordings (same concert) except one was recorded digitally and the other
via traditional analog. They are from the early '90's.

What is astounding is how different they sound--the analog recording is far,
far superior. The digital vinyl sounds like a CD.

However, this doesn't really tell us anything because we don't know what the
digital recording or mastering system was--but it is an interesting
comparison.


"Patrick Turner" wrote in message
...


Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

"tubesforall" wrote:

It is my "opinion" (not edict) that CD technology is a very poor
medium
for critical listening.


That is definitely a minority opinion, and it's a plain fact that it's
massively superior top vinyl, so that doiesn't leave you with much
option in prerecorded music.............

I am an (ex) classical concert violinist and
hyper sensitive to distortion in the upper registers. After years of
trying to buy CD players that could reproduce violins faithfully I
gave up
and went back to vinyl. The best I thought I heard were Cary tube CD
players--which colored the sound and chopped of high frequencies, but
were
at least pleasant to the ear.


You may *prefer* the distinctive sound of vinyl, but it's certainly
not accurate. I share your sensitivity to harsh treble, but I have
found CD to be exceptionally good in the upper reaches of the
spectrum, whereas vinyl becomes very 'splashy', especially in the
inner grooves. Perhaps you need better speakers? :-)


I know several people with the very latest
in digital replay equipment.
They also have vinyl replay gear worth many times the value of the digital
replay gear.
I have also been to their residences while they played digital discs
and vinyl discs from the same master tapes at the same time,
and switched between the two, using the same speakers and amps,
although the vinyl did need the extra preamp.

In nearly all cases, the vinyl was percieved to be more accurate,
threw up a better sound stage, and gave a more emotionally involving
experience which seemed to be more real than the one conveyed digitally.

Vinyl refuses to go entirely away.

When its really good, and by no means is it ever always good,
its bleedin fabulous, and the same might be said about digital,
but I don't know many who'd say that digital will always be better than
the best
from vinyl..

Now pinky, your stance about
percieved accuracy or real accuracy is of little merit in the minds of the
ppl I
know
who don't have a clue anout technical issues; all that matters is the
sound.

No need to throw away your TT yet folks.....

Just enjoy what is enjoyable.....

Patrick Turner.


--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering




  #44   Report Post  
tubesforall
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I also record my vinyl to digital, but at 96Khz/24 bit using a professional
sampling system. I have to play it back through the same system--but it
does sound very close to identical to the original vinyl.

My complaint is not about digital, just about the choice of 44.1KHz as an
adequate sampling technology. If I record my vinyl at 44.1KHz and play it
back through the same system, there is a definate loss of musicality, stage
presence, and high frequency clarity.


"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 02:36:17 +1100, Patrick Turner
wrote:

Vinyl refuses to go entirely away.


Gettin' darned close these days..... :-)

When its really good, and by no means is it ever always good,
its bleedin fabulous, and the same might be said about digital,
but I don't know many who'd say that digital will always be better than
the best
from vinyl..


The best digital always will be.

Now pinky, your stance about
percieved accuracy or real accuracy is of little merit in the minds of the
ppl I
know
who don't have a clue anout technical issues; all that matters is the
sound.


They probably prefer toobs, too................. :-)

No need to throw away your TT yet folks.....


Not until you've archived all your vinyl, at least! I do find it
hilarious that you can easily capture all that 'vinyl magic' by
recording it to CD-R, and yet people *still* have this weird belief
that CD somehow magically 'loses' something that vinyl
retains.........

Just enjoy what is enjoyable.....


Indeed - it's the *performance* that counts, even on an old table
radio.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering



  #45   Report Post  
tubesforall
 
Posts: n/a
Default

THis is after all tube group--and I agree that tubes do sound better than
SS. I use SET 45 tube and SET 2A3 tube amps for all my playback.

I've never understand why SS could not sound as good--but I suspect it has
to do with the requirement of NFB in the design.


"cowboy" cacheoverflow@yahooDOTcom wrote in message
...

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 02:36:17 +1100, Patrick Turner
wrote:

Vinyl refuses to go entirely away.


Gettin' darned close these days..... :-)

When its really good, and by no means is it ever always good,
its bleedin fabulous, and the same might be said about digital,
but I don't know many who'd say that digital will always be better than
the best
from vinyl..


The best digital always will be.


Pinkerton:

we could actually take you much more seriously on the subject of digital
vs. vinyl, if it weren't for the fact that your ears are too tone-deaf to
hear the day & night superiority of the musicality of tubes over the
relatively ugly harsh sound of even the best solid state gear. I am not
saying that vinyl is superior to digital, but rather just saying that
Pinky is ill-equipped to hear the differences, he has no credibility if he
can't even hear that tubes sound better than transistors.

This group would not even exist, if not for the fact that a lot of people
in the world have the ears to hear the huge difference between tubes and
solid state.

It is sad that you must have used a circular saw too much in your youth,
and can nowadays not hear the harshness of even the best solid state
equipment. If transistors and negative feedback were good things, no one
in their right mind would put up with tubes, tube reliability, tube
efficiency, tube testers or any of this mess.

It hurts my heart that you haven't discovered the magic of tubes, reminds
me of a friend who has never been fortunate enough to make love to a
beautiful woman, I can describe it to him, but he will never understand
what all the fuss is about until he experiences it and the magic will have
taken him in. Great food is another analogy, one can say great food is
over-rated, only until they experience it and it clicks in their brain
that they have been missing a huge something all these years.


cheers!

cowboy





  #46   Report Post  
Choky
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Gregg" wrote in message
news:6gfXd.12363$gJ3.393@clgrps13...
| Behold, Stewart Pinkerton scribed on tube chassis:
|
| On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 06:11:04 GMT, Gregg wrote:
|
| Behold, robert casey scribed on tube chassis:
|
| Fourier demonstrates that *any* waveform, including music, can be
| represented as a series of superimposed sinewaves. Hence, Nyquist and
| Shannon are correct in their postulations. While music may not
| *appear* to be sinewaves, it can be so treated for the purposes of
| reproduction. Bottom line of course is that digital audio works, and
| reproduces music more accurately than any other system.
|
|
| And after going through any compression, other than lossless (FLAC or
| APE), makes the whoke kit-and-kaboodle math moot.
|
| CDs don't use compression (mp3 sort or the sort of thing done by radio
| stations). The sample frequency and bit depth was chosen such that
| the errors fall outside normal human hearing ability.
|
| I'm aware of that.
|
| Even if you had the perfect CD (ie - a vinyl record),
|
| Um, a vinyl record is *very* far from perfect! This is easily
| demonstrated by recording vinyl onto CD-R - it sounds just like the
| original vinyl. Now try cutting vinyl from a CD, and see what you
| get................
|
| Any professional recording engineer can tell you that CD is *much*
| closer to the master tape than is vinyl.
|
| That was sorta tongue-in-cheek ;-)
|
| There are cases where vinyl is more accurate. Example is Rhino Records
| embelleshed an "oldies sound" to the CD's, where the original recordings
| sounded quite nice.
|
| how many people
| store that music as .wav?
|
| Me, for one. A single 120GB disk can hold about 200 CDs.
|
| Awesome!
|
| I prefer FLAC, just to make more room and it's less CPU intensive in my
| player, XMMS.
|
| Lossless rocks :-)))))))
|
| --
| Gregg "t3h g33k"
| http://geek.scorpiorising.ca
| *Ratings are for transistors, tubes have guidelines*



sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet FLAC-I prefer .wave
in fact-according to your (last time mentioned) URLs --FLAC-ed file is just
30%
smaller than wave;
or I miss something?

)

ZM



  #47   Report Post  
tubesforall
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Here is a decent article that puts some science behind the claims of vinyl
superiority.

http://users.bigpond.net.au/christie/comparo/part4.html


"tubesforall" wrote in message
...
Nyquist theorem states that a non-variant signal freqency can be
reproduced that is 1/2 the sample rate. Unfortunately, music that is
invariant is not terribly interesting. Thus, the common wisdom that
44.1KHz sampling can reproduce 22 KHz music is not true.

A seminal paper from MIT shows that distortion related to sampling must
consider both the sample rate and the target word size. For today's
CDs--that is 16 bits. Thus, according to this paper, a minimum of 8X
frequency is required--10X is better. Working backwards, that means that
CD technology can only reproduce, at best, 5.5 KHz before distortion
starts to enter in. This is independant of the construction of filters
and assumes a boxcar filter (impossible in real life.)

Other solutions have worked hard to reduce this problem by oversampling,
adding bits, etc. All these solutions smooth the distortion created by
the original system, but they can not add information back in that is
lost. What they can do is create better sounding music by smoothing out
the jaggies in the distortion.



  #48   Report Post  
Jeff Thompson
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Gregg wrote:
Behold, robert casey scribed on tube chassis:




Fourier demonstrates that *any* waveform, including music, can be
represented as a series of superimposed sinewaves. Hence, Nyquist and
Shannon are correct in their postulations. While music may not *appear*
to be sinewaves, it can be so treated for the purposes of reproduction.
Bottom line of course is that digital audio works, and reproduces music
more accurately than any other system.


And after going through any compression, other than lossless (FLAC or
APE), makes the whoke kit-and-kaboodle math moot.


CDs don't use compression (mp3 sort or the sort of thing done by radio
stations). The sample frequency and bit depth was chosen such that the
errors fall outside normal human hearing ability.



I'm aware of that.

Even if you had the perfect CD (ie - a vinyl record), how many people
store that music as .wav?

That's what I meant.

I do. So, at least one.

  #49   Report Post  
robert casey
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Not an argument at all. Rather the point should be, why stick with the
at-the-time best solution nowadays, that is, there is no need to limit the
format
to 16 bits 44.1 KHz sampling - polycarbonate costs the same, whatever you
sandwitch in between. With some 9 GB available on DVD, provision for
200 GB on the Blu Ray format disks, the CD format should become a relic !
Rudy


I'd rather go for a disc that holds 9 gigs of 16 bit 44.1KHz music,
about 9 hours of material. Say the entire Beatles library on
one disk. Or Beethoven in a small box set. "One hit wonder"
bands will have a problem though.....

  #50   Report Post  
Ruud Broens
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"robert casey" wrote in message
ink.net...
:
: Not an argument at all. Rather the point should be, why stick with the
: at-the-time best solution nowadays, that is, there is no need to limit the
: format
: to 16 bits 44.1 KHz sampling - polycarbonate costs the same, whatever you
: sandwitch in between. With some 9 GB available on DVD, provision for
: 200 GB on the Blu Ray format disks, the CD format should become a relic !
: Rudy
:
: I'd rather go for a disc that holds 9 gigs of 16 bit 44.1KHz music,
: about 9 hours of material. Say the entire Beatles library on
: one disk. Or Beethoven in a small box set. "One hit wonder"
: bands will have a problem though.....
:
well, do the math: 200 GB, admittedly, that's some way off, requiring
8 layer technique (!), will hold *a lot* more, even in very high res.:-)

Rudy




  #51   Report Post  
robert casey
 
Posts: n/a
Default


You may *prefer* the distinctive sound of vinyl, but it's certainly
not accurate. I share your sensitivity to harsh treble, but I have
found CD to be exceptionally good in the upper reaches of the
spectrum, whereas vinyl becomes very 'splashy', especially in the
inner grooves. Perhaps you need better speakers? :-)



What would it take to make CD music have the desirable
"vinyl sound" (without the scratches and crackle, or the
above splashies)? Might be something in the process of
sending the audio thru an inverse RIAA filter, then a
cutter amp, cutter needle, then back thru another needle
phono cart, then RIAA filter and preamp. The filters
likely cause various group delay errors, but does the
ear much care about that (if both channels see the
same errors)?
  #52   Report Post  
Phil Allison
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"tubesforall"


I agree that CD's will probably become a relic.



** Long after you have first - ****head.



I've been very impressed with SACD technology--



** Proof beyond doubt that YOU are an audiophool moron.




............. Phil







  #53   Report Post  
Phil Allison
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"tubesforall"

THis is after all tube group--and I agree that tubes do sound better than
SS. I use SET 45 tube and SET 2A3 tube amps for all my playback.



** Plus an old nag and a buggy parked in the drive !!!!

Got an ice chest too ???





.............. Phil


  #54   Report Post  
Mister
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 13:20:52 +1100, "Phil Allison"
wrote:


"Mister" = horse and cart lover

no. digital is a way to create (perfect) storage and reproduction thereof
due to
the fact you only need an acurate list of numbers.

but music and sound is analog, and an analog system with no D/A or A/D
converters is more accurate by rule of simplicity.



** Just like a horse and cart is a better mode of transport !!!!!!!!

What a colossal ****wit !!!!


so you say taking an audio signal on one hand, and on the other hand passing it
through a set of D/A and A/D converters, there is no difference between them? no
digitization errors? you didn't graduate college, did you?



don't mistake added noise with quality of reproduction, as in the case of
scratchy vinyl!



** Audible noise is bad reproduction per se.


i say quality of reproduction as in the fidelity of the signal. some people
equate the added noise of vinyl as a change in this fidelity, which is not true.
ie a sine wave would look the same, it is not distorted, there is merely noise
added. this is different then a distortion of the waveform. you need to think in
more then one dimension.


an analog system with greater resolution will sound better then a digital
system, assuming you can hear the distortion products.



** A cart with enough horses is better that a car ??


depends on what you're doing. pulling a wreck out of a ditch is easier with a
team of horses then with a ford escort, which probably wouldn't do it. your
imagination is as lacking as your education, it would seem.


the last studio reel to reel machines that were made had a S/N of up to
120db,
far better than CD.



** Massive, stupid lie.


i had the spec sheet for that particular tape machine a while back, it was
running at 30ips. i'd look for it, but you aren't worth the trouble.

as for other systems, high freq. FM modulation tape systems also beat out
CD.



** Second massive, stupid lie.


it's not my fault you are so limited in your knowledge of technical devices. you
could try looking up video tape sound for a start.


Another demented vinyl bigot for sure.


another person who revels in labeling people in a pitiful attempt to elevate
their status. it's too bad you can't place yourself above other people, you are
so low you can only think to shovel the masses beneath you. sorry, but even a
skinny fellow like myself couldn't possibly fit in the social space beneath the
likes of you!


................ Phil





  #55   Report Post  
Mister
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 17:58:15 +0100, Sander deWaal wrote:

Mister said:

the last studio reel to reel machines that were made had a S/N of up to 120db,
far better than CD.



??????????????????


i know i know everyone says that. it was a machine built in the golden age of
r-r in the 70s, and was running 30ips. i used to have the spec sheet here. i
have no need to invent equipment specs. no doubt it was weighted!



  #56   Report Post  
Phil Allison
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Mister" = horse and cart tech lover


but music and sound is analog, and an analog system with no D/A or A/D
converters is more accurate by rule of simplicity.


** Just like a horse and cart is a better mode of transport !!!!!!!!

What a colossal ****wit !!!!



so you say taking an audio signal on one hand, and on the other hand
passing it
through a set of D/A and A/D converters, there is no difference between
them? no
digitization errors? you didn't graduate college, did you?



** Hey Mister ****wit - all analogue storage methods have far greater
errors than 16 bit PCM.


don't mistake added noise with quality of reproduction, as in the case
of
scratchy vinyl!



** Audible noise is bad reproduction per se.


i say quality of reproduction as in the fidelity of the signal. some
people
equate the added noise of vinyl as a change in this fidelity, which is not
true.



** Of course it is - you colossal ASS !!


the last studio reel to reel machines that were made had a S/N of up to
120db, far better than CD.



** Massive, stupid lie.


i had the spec sheet for that particular tape machine a while back, it was
running at 30ips. i'd look for it, but you aren't worth the trouble.



** Hey, Mister Asshole - you are a DAMN LIAR !!!



as for other systems, high freq. FM modulation tape systems also beat
out
CD.



** Second massive, stupid lie.


it's not my fault you are so limited in your knowledge of technical
devices. you
could try looking up video tape sound for a start.



** 16 bit PCM is far better - Mister Massive LIAR .



Another demented vinyl bigot for sure.


another person who revels in labelling people in a pitiful attempt to
elevate
their status.



** Labelling you as a nut case and a colossal liar is the best I can do via
usenet.

How about I email the instructions for committing suicide ??





.............. Phil




  #57   Report Post  
Phil Allison
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Mister"

the last studio reel to reel machines that were made had a S/N of up to
120db,
far better than CD.



??????????????????


i know i know everyone says that.



** ROTFL - what a cretin !!!


it was a machine built in the golden age of
r-r in the 70s, and was running 30ips. i used to have the spec sheet here.
i
have no need to invent equipment specs. no doubt it was weighted!



** No doubt it is a stupid misprint.





.................. Phil








  #58   Report Post  
John Byrns
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , Mister
wrote:

i say quality of reproduction as in the fidelity of the signal. some people
equate the added noise of vinyl as a change in this fidelity, which is not
true. ie a sine wave would look the same, it is not distorted, there is merely
noise added. this is different then a distortion of the waveform. you need to
think in more then one dimension.


I think you are the one that is neglecting "to think in more then one
dimension"! An audio signal passing "through a set of D/A and A/D
converters" will not be suffer any wave form distortion, assuming the D/A
and A/D converters, and sampler are linear, and that the signal feed into
the A/D converter is properly dithered. There is no distortion produced
by a properly dithered A/D - D/A process, the only change to the signal is
the added dithering noise.

It sounds like you didn't graduate college either.


Regards,

John Byrns


Surf my web pages at, http://users.rcn.com/jbyrns/
  #59   Report Post  
Gregg
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Behold, Choky scribed on tube chassis:

snip 10Km of thread

sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet FLAC-I prefer .wave in fact-according to your
(last time mentioned) URLs --FLAC-ed file is just 30% smaller than wave;
or I miss something?

)

ZM


You're just being a Choky ;-p

--
Gregg "t3h g33k"
http://geek.scorpiorising.ca
*Ratings are for transistors, tubes have guidelines*
  #60   Report Post  
Gregg
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Behold, tubesforall scribed on tube chassis:

Here is a decent article that puts some science behind the claims of
vinyl superiority.

http://users.bigpond.net.au/christie/comparo/part4.html


There are lies, damn lies and specs ;-)

--
Gregg "t3h g33k"
http://geek.scorpiorising.ca
*Ratings are for transistors, tubes have guidelines*


  #61   Report Post  
R
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Stewart Pinkerton wrote in
:

On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 05:30:58 GMT, "audiodir"
wrote:

Nyquist assumes that all you want is to reproduce is a sine wave. Music is
not all sine waves.


Fourier demonstrates that *any* waveform, including music, can be
represented as a series of superimposed sinewaves. Hence, Nyquist and
Shannon are correct in their postulations. While music may not
*appear* to be sinewaves, it can be so treated for the purposes of
reproduction. Bottom line of course is that digital audio works, and
reproduces music more accurately than any other system.


You are correct Stewart. I forgot about that.

r
  #62   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 22:09:56 -0500, Mister
wrote:

On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 13:20:52 +1100, "Phil Allison"
wrote:


"Mister" = horse and cart lover

no. digital is a way to create (perfect) storage and reproduction thereof
due to
the fact you only need an acurate list of numbers.

but music and sound is analog, and an analog system with no D/A or A/D
converters is more accurate by rule of simplicity.



** Just like a horse and cart is a better mode of transport !!!!!!!!

What a colossal ****wit !!!!


so you say taking an audio signal on one hand, and on the other hand passing it
through a set of D/A and A/D converters, there is no difference between them? no
digitization errors? you didn't graduate college, did you?


There is no *audible* difference, which is what matters. There's also
no measurable difference above -90dB from 5Hz to 20kHz, which is
seriously impressive.

don't mistake added noise with quality of reproduction, as in the case of
scratchy vinyl!



** Audible noise is bad reproduction per se.


i say quality of reproduction as in the fidelity of the signal. some people
equate the added noise of vinyl as a change in this fidelity, which is not true.
ie a sine wave would look the same, it is not distorted, there is merely noise
added. this is different then a distortion of the waveform. you need to think in
more then one dimension.


Actually, the signal is badly distorted *as well* as noisy.

an analog system with greater resolution will sound better then a digital
system, assuming you can hear the distortion products.


There is however *no* analogue system which approaches even 16/44, let
alone 24/96.

** A cart with enough horses is better that a car ??


depends on what you're doing. pulling a wreck out of a ditch is easier with a
team of horses then with a ford escort, which probably wouldn't do it. your
imagination is as lacking as your education, it would seem.


the last studio reel to reel machines that were made had a S/N of up to
120db,
far better than CD.


** Massive, stupid lie.


i had the spec sheet for that particular tape machine a while back, it was
running at 30ips. i'd look for it, but you aren't worth the trouble.


You had no such spec sheet, that's utter rubbish.

as for other systems, high freq. FM modulation tape systems also beat out
CD.



** Second massive, stupid lie.


it's not my fault you are so limited in your knowledge of technical devices. you
could try looking up video tape sound for a start.


Look it up yourself - it's way behind 16/44 digital. The limited
knowledge is yours, as is the analogue bigotry.

Another demented vinyl bigot for sure.


another person who revels in labeling people in a pitiful attempt to elevate
their status. it's too bad you can't place yourself above other people, you are
so low you can only think to shovel the masses beneath you. sorry, but even a
skinny fellow like myself couldn't possibly fit in the social space beneath the
likes of you!


Finally, a true statement! :-)
--

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

Gregg wrote in news:xDvXd.9448$ZO2.9020@edtnps84:

Behold, tubesforall scribed on tube chassis:

Here is a decent article that puts some science behind the claims of
vinyl superiority.

http://users.bigpond.net.au/christie/comparo/part4.html


There are lies, damn lies and specs ;-)


There is always the issue of fragility of LP, the cleaning ritual, the
expense not to mention the fact that I am clumsy and lazy. I will never go
back to vinyl for all of the above reasons. One oopsie and I'll have just
tossed a few hundred bucks out the window. I will get better digital gear as
time goes on. Besides, if I start a vinyl collection my wife will likely
shoot me.

No thanks. I'll stick with digital.
r
  #64   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 00:27:52 GMT, robert casey
wrote:


You may *prefer* the distinctive sound of vinyl, but it's certainly
not accurate. I share your sensitivity to harsh treble, but I have
found CD to be exceptionally good in the upper reaches of the
spectrum, whereas vinyl becomes very 'splashy', especially in the
inner grooves. Perhaps you need better speakers? :-)



What would it take to make CD music have the desirable
"vinyl sound" (without the scratches and crackle, or the
above splashies)?


Just record vinyl to CD-R, run it through a de-clicker, and there you
have it! :-)

--

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

On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 14:06:10 -0500, "cowboy"
cacheoverflow@yahooDOTcom wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 02:36:17 +1100, Patrick Turner
wrote:

Vinyl refuses to go entirely away.


Gettin' darned close these days..... :-)

When its really good, and by no means is it ever always good,
its bleedin fabulous, and the same might be said about digital,
but I don't know many who'd say that digital will always be better than
the best
from vinyl..


The best digital always will be.


Pinkerton:

we could actually take you much more seriously on the subject of digital vs.
vinyl, if it weren't for the fact that your ears are too tone-deaf to hear
the day & night superiority of the musicality of tubes over the relatively
ugly harsh sound of even the best solid state gear.


Actually, you should take me seriously *because* I can hear past the
mush and warmth of tubes, to the crystal clarity and accurate
reproduction of SS!

I am not saying that
vinyl is superior to digital, but rather just saying that Pinky is
ill-equipped to hear the differences, he has no credibility if he can't even
hear that tubes sound better than transistors.

This group would not even exist, if not for the fact that a lot of people in
the world have the ears to hear the huge difference between tubes and solid
state.


There are also 'Elvis lives' groups, with similar credibility.......

It is sad that you must have used a circular saw too much in your youth, and
can nowadays not hear the harshness of even the best solid state equipment.
If transistors and negative feedback were good things, no one in their right
mind would put up with tubes, tube reliability, tube efficiency, tube
testers or any of this mess.


The lady doth protest too much, methinks. Now, if you were to put up
*any* kind of credible argument, that might be more productive than
these shrill cries of "you must be deaf if you don't prefer toobs!"

It hurts my heart that you haven't discovered the magic of tubes,


I discovered that in the sixties, and then I progressed from magic to
better engineering - like the rest of the world.

reminds me
of a friend who has never been fortunate enough to make love to a beautiful
woman,


Personally, I prefer a truly sensual and experienced woman, but
whatever blows your skirt up. IME, the beautiful ones are too
self-absorbed, and just hate to mess up their appearance with anything
that might involve some sweating and makeup-smearing............

I can describe it to him, but he will never understand what all the
fuss is about until he experiences it and the magic will have taken him in.
Great food is another analogy, one can say great food is over-rated, only
until they experience it and it clicks in their brain that they have been
missing a huge something all these years.


You have been missing the purity of good SS, but it's hard to explain
a sunset to those with no vision.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering


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

On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 14:04:58 -0800, "tubesforall"
wrote:

THis is after all tube group--and I agree that tubes do sound better than
SS. I use SET 45 tube and SET 2A3 tube amps for all my playback.


It is indeed a tube group, but surely just for nostalgic anacrophiles?
After all, no one *seriously* thinks that tubes are *better* in any
real-world way than SS, do they?

I've never understand why SS could not sound as good--but I suspect it has
to do with the requirement of NFB in the design.


There is no such requirement, if you agree that local degeneration is
the same as what happens *inside* a 300B.
--

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

On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 14:01:19 -0800, "tubesforall"
wrote:

I also record my vinyl to digital, but at 96Khz/24 bit using a professional
sampling system. I have to play it back through the same system--but it
does sound very close to identical to the original vinyl.

My complaint is not about digital, just about the choice of 44.1KHz as an
adequate sampling technology. If I record my vinyl at 44.1KHz and play it
back through the same system, there is a definate loss of musicality, stage
presence, and high frequency clarity.


I find it fascinating that almost all 'tubies' are also vinylphiles -
there seems to be some weird kind of dislike for the original sound,
and a desperate desire for *any* available distortion. I guess you're
all into horn speakers, too.............

--

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



cowboy wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 02:36:17 +1100, Patrick Turner
wrote:

Vinyl refuses to go entirely away.


Gettin' darned close these days..... :-)

When its really good, and by no means is it ever always good,
its bleedin fabulous, and the same might be said about digital,
but I don't know many who'd say that digital will always be better than
the best
from vinyl..


The best digital always will be.


Pinkerton:

we could actually take you much more seriously on the subject of digital vs.
vinyl, if it weren't for the fact that your ears are too tone-deaf to hear
the day & night superiority of the musicality of tubes over the relatively
ugly harsh sound of even the best solid state gear. I am not saying that
vinyl is superior to digital, but rather just saying that Pinky is
ill-equipped to hear the differences, he has no credibility if he can't even
hear that tubes sound better than transistors.

This group would not even exist, if not for the fact that a lot of people in
the world have the ears to hear the huge difference between tubes and solid
state.

It is sad that you must have used a circular saw too much in your youth, and
can nowadays not hear the harshness of even the best solid state equipment.
If transistors and negative feedback were good things, no one in their right
mind would put up with tubes, tube reliability, tube efficiency, tube
testers or any of this mess.

It hurts my heart that you haven't discovered the magic of tubes, reminds me
of a friend who has never been fortunate enough to make love to a beautiful
woman, I can describe it to him, but he will never understand what all the
fuss is about until he experiences it and the magic will have taken him in.
Great food is another analogy, one can say great food is over-rated, only
until they experience it and it clicks in their brain that they have been
missing a huge something all these years.


Beautiful women usually charge an enormous sum to allow you to
indulge *their* every whim, and its kind of takes the gloss off such a dame.

I'd rather a plain girl who knows how to do a well done blow job that the
beauty won't lower herself to.
Are not they all pink inside when the lights are out?

Alas, (excuse the pun), very few dames of any age know about doing a real great
blow job,
and concentrate on getting whatever it is that can be got out of a man for the
night
or a life time.

So it doesn't break this heart to not have experienced the delights of
Miss Universe for an evening, even if I could have the free services of
a good physician and chiropractor next morning.

But during an evenin of all this too and froing and ins and outs with Miss Plane
Jane,
maybe aged about 45, I'd miss having some vinyl and tubes to provide
some backgound sound and set a mood.

And some decent wine as well; but neither of us would be trying to
discern the accuracy and chemisty of the wine, nor the accuracy
or distortion in the music; all is either optimally wonderful enough, or not.

I cannot for the life of me feel enthused with archiving my limited collection
of vinyl onto CD.
Why?

Isn't it just easier to keep the vinyl replay system in good order,
and play records when i want to rather than
record them onto CD for CD replay?
Adding the extra process *cannot* add any more
listening pleasure, only convenience.

My oldest client of 92 has two turntables, and he must be the oldest
DJ ex lutheran minister I will ever know. He likes his Bach.
He also has great ears while his 96 yr old wife is nearly stone deaf.
He has all tube gear, and it sounds warm and accurate.
I have helped him upgrade his gear that he originally built in 1960.
He even has a sub, mounted in the disused fireplace.

As I grow older, the need for setting midnight ambience
while partaking in pleasures of the flesh have diminished.
As they say, as one ages, there is less opportunity for temptation;
temptation will avoid *you*.
But I am very happy with my quite accurate all tubed system, which I now mostly
share
with myself.
I sometimes try a repaired SS amp in my room with my speakers and find
that yes, they sound acceptable, and others are downright horrors.
Its rare to ever hear a poor tube amp when its working properly.

As a younger man I cared not about tubes much; I was glad to have any
sort of system at all, so I purchased a solid state reciever
made in Korea and costing $200 in 1977, and which had slightly better specs than
a
35 watt/channel Marantz with the same power and costing $450,
which was the equivalant of $6,000 now, or many weeks of pay
at average earnings.
I still have that receiver, and it still runs, but its switches are dodgy,
but most wouldn't pick the difference between it and anything made last year
tubed or not.
Its only major tweak I did was to include regulated rails to
reduce the hum levels, one of the first things i did in 1993 to improve the
sound.
The sound nor the hum didn't get much better, because I didn't know
about the subtleties of earth paths, (and nor did the guys in Korea who made
it.)

The home brew speakers I made in 1977 couldn't convey the superiority
of any superior amp I may have purchased.
Anyway, then i didn't care too much as long
as Ms Temptation was keen and wine was drinkable, and the firewood dry.
My ears were better, but less educated; I became fussier about audio
when distortion became more offensive as i aged, and levels that may have just
been loud
in 1977 would be unthinkable now, even painful if at least not edgy,
since the speakers I made then were anything but flat in their response.
Everyone else's crummy speakers purchased at high expense
were the same, coloured, boxy, and poorly engineered.
Mine seemed to have better bass than most, and unlike nearly all my friends'
speakers at the time
I at least had gone to a library, looked up RDH4 on reflex
speakers, then built a pair of large vented boxes about like the one I must have
seen on page 845,
and mounted a suitable driver of the day.
I still have these, and bass is still great, but the other drivers have all been
changed...

Its not until you have a decent tube kit and speaker kit that the tubes tend to
please more
than SS when switching from one to the other if you have a decent room, good
speakers,
and a decent source, such as a moving coil cart, or a decent
CD player.
One client went looking for a CD player and found that they all sounded very
different
when he got them home and tried them.
I don't hear huge differences in CD players.
But there are huge differences in the quality in CDs.

Many are quite unrewarding to listen to.

So there are many variables, and one has to be careful about the basis for
comparisons.

Redheads are not always as expensive as blondes, who tend to be dumb,
and slim brunnettes are the ones to go for.

But as we age, these ladies avoid us, unless we are stinking rich, and many
of them have become so corrupted to think that even more is to be had out of a
man than when
they first learned of men at 20, and they think now only of rights, and have no
idea
of duty of care, both in bed or out of it.

It pays to remember not to have expectations which are too high
for any system one may have, as one cannot expect everything
from a woman, bearing in mind our own gradual decay.


Patrick Turner.





cheers!

cowboy


  #69   Report Post  
Patrick Turner
 
Posts: n/a
Default



tubesforall wrote:

THis is after all tube group--and I agree that tubes do sound better than
SS. I use SET 45 tube and SET 2A3 tube amps for all my playback.

I've never understand why SS could not sound as good--but I suspect it has
to do with the requirement of NFB in the design.


Many boil down the difference to NFB.

NFB is needed for SS to work at all.

There is more to it than that, and maybe you'd like a Nelson Pass
Zen amp, with one lone mosfet in class A as the active device,
with about 12 dB of shunt NFB, or about the same amount
of native local electrostatic NFB in your 2A3.

Not all NFB is evil, imho.

Patrick Turner.



"cowboy" cacheoverflow@yahooDOTcom wrote in message
...

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 02:36:17 +1100, Patrick Turner
wrote:

Vinyl refuses to go entirely away.

Gettin' darned close these days..... :-)

When its really good, and by no means is it ever always good,
its bleedin fabulous, and the same might be said about digital,
but I don't know many who'd say that digital will always be better than
the best
from vinyl..

The best digital always will be.


Pinkerton:

we could actually take you much more seriously on the subject of digital
vs. vinyl, if it weren't for the fact that your ears are too tone-deaf to
hear the day & night superiority of the musicality of tubes over the
relatively ugly harsh sound of even the best solid state gear. I am not
saying that vinyl is superior to digital, but rather just saying that
Pinky is ill-equipped to hear the differences, he has no credibility if he
can't even hear that tubes sound better than transistors.

This group would not even exist, if not for the fact that a lot of people
in the world have the ears to hear the huge difference between tubes and
solid state.

It is sad that you must have used a circular saw too much in your youth,
and can nowadays not hear the harshness of even the best solid state
equipment. If transistors and negative feedback were good things, no one
in their right mind would put up with tubes, tube reliability, tube
efficiency, tube testers or any of this mess.

It hurts my heart that you haven't discovered the magic of tubes, reminds
me of a friend who has never been fortunate enough to make love to a
beautiful woman, I can describe it to him, but he will never understand
what all the fuss is about until he experiences it and the magic will have
taken him in. Great food is another analogy, one can say great food is
over-rated, only until they experience it and it clicks in their brain
that they have been missing a huge something all these years.


cheers!

cowboy


  #70   Report Post  
Joseph Meditz
 
Posts: n/a
Default

'"...vinyl superiority.'

Vinyl is superior to CD in only one respect. It burns longer!

Joe



  #71   Report Post  
Lord Valve
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

It is indeed a tube group, but surely just for nostalgic anacrophiles?
After all, no one *seriously* thinks that tubes are *better* in any
real-world way than SS, do they?


Well, yeah.

In fact, I *know* they are. When the goal is non-linear operation,
tubes kick the **** out of SS, even mosfets. There are still
no SS amps, including the modelers, which will outperform
tube guitar amps. And when the coloration of a tube is
desirable, SS emulations don't do the trick.

When it comes to playback equipment, though - make mine SS.
And you can have vinyl - ugh. Why anyone would want their
music presented to them on a bed of ticks, pops, hiss, and
rumble is beyond my understanding. And let's not forget
that wow, folks. You have no idea how disconcerting it is
to a musician (like me) who can hear the the cyclic pitch
variations induced by a slightly mislocated center hole.

I may be a tube salesman, but I know where they belong.

On the stage with the pickers, not in the living room with
the grinners.

Lord Valve
Expert




  #72   Report Post  
cowboy
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote

I guess you're
all into horn speakers, too.............


of course, since every engineer or audiophile worth his salt knows all the
best sound is in the first watt, how else would we get to 110db?

you are confusing the old Klipsch sound with the newer sound of the
exponential designs, find some horns that are shaped like the bell of a
trumpet and you will be on track

Avantgarde makes some with a snob price, so even you should be happy with
them!
http://www.avantgarde-usa.com/trio.html

also: ever wonder why full-range speakers command such high prices on the
used market? perhaps you should listen & learn

cheers!

cowboy
---------------------
civilians murdered by various right-wing war criminals:

Joseph Stalin ~ 30 million
Adolph Hitler ~ 7 million
George W. Bush ~ 1/4 million
Osama bin Laden ~ 3000
http://semiskimmed.net/bushhitler/bush-hitler1.mov
http://semiskimmed.net/bushhitler/bush-hitler2.mov



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

On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 17:08:59 GMT, Lord Valve
wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

It is indeed a tube group, but surely just for nostalgic anacrophiles?
After all, no one *seriously* thinks that tubes are *better* in any
real-world way than SS, do they?


Well, yeah.

In fact, I *know* they are. When the goal is non-linear operation,
tubes kick the **** out of SS, even mosfets. There are still
no SS amps, including the modelers, which will outperform
tube guitar amps. And when the coloration of a tube is
desirable, SS emulations don't do the trick.


Different matter entirely - you *know* you want to maximise distortion
in *that* application! :-)

When it comes to playback equipment, though - make mine SS.
And you can have vinyl - ugh. Why anyone would want their
music presented to them on a bed of ticks, pops, hiss, and
rumble is beyond my understanding. And let's not forget
that wow, folks. You have no idea how disconcerting it is
to a musician (like me) who can hear the the cyclic pitch
variations induced by a slightly mislocated center hole.


Probably the single biggest factor in the rush to CD, for lovers of
solo piano.

I may be a tube salesman, but I know where they belong.

On the stage with the pickers, not in the living room with
the grinners.


OK, I'm with you on that one.
--

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


"Mister" wrote


no. digital is a way to create (perfect) storage and reproduction thereof
due to
the fact you only need an acurate list of numbers.

but music and sound is analog, and an analog system with no D/A or A/D
converters is more accurate by rule of simplicity.

don't mistake added noise with quality of reproduction, as in the case of
scratchy vinyl!




*Scratchy* Vinyl?

I hate to break into yet another mind-numbing digital/analogue debate, but
I've got to take issue with this 'scratchy' epithet that is forever being
tacked to the word 'vinyl'...

I posted these tracks:

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show...Track%2001.mp3

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show...Track%2002.mp3

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show...Track%2003.mp3

for non-Usenet purposes (to demonstrate a new valve phono stage, as it
happens) - allowing for the fact they are MP3s, how scratchy (or even
'splashy') are they?

It might interest you to know that they have had no 'treatment' whatsoever
(other than trimming to length) and the deck and cart they were recorded
with are both getting on for 30 years old and cost about the same price as 2
(UK) chart CDs! (The record itself cost a whole UK quid + P&P...).

(It might please the Yanks here to know the cart is no more than an M75ED2
and quite probably still on its original stylus....!! :-)





  #75   Report Post  
Ian Iveson
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Phil Allison" wrote

The theorem is true for any possible wave form, or combinations of
waveforms and varying in any possible way.


Only whilst remaining waveforms. I don't think music quite
qualifies. Waves are about sameness, music is about change.

cheers, Ian




  #76   Report Post  
Don Pearce
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 9 Mar 2005 17:49:54 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show...Track%2001.mp3

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show...Track%2002.mp3

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show...Track%2003.mp3

for non-Usenet purposes (to demonstrate a new valve phono stage, as it
happens) - allowing for the fact they are MP3s, how scratchy (or even
'splashy') are they?


Just had a listen to the first one on my nice Stax headphones, and I
have to say - very scratchy. The first fairly quiet bit is badly
marred by a forest of crackly background.

No need to allow for MP3 either - quite a nice transcription of the
original.

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com
  #77   Report Post  
Sergey Kubushin
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ian Iveson wrote:
"Phil Allison" wrote

The theorem is true for any possible wave form, or combinations of
waveforms and varying in any possible way.


Only whilst remaining waveforms. I don't think music quite
qualifies. Waves are about sameness, music is about change.


There is another problem - the spectrum width... Even 1 Hz square wave has
an extremely wide spectrum, infinite for an ideal square wave. So the sound
might be right but all the attacks are distorted in some way.

And don't forget, Kotelnikov's theorem is not about the signal frequency,
its about signal _spectrum_ . So it is possible to record a 20 KHz
squarewave with 44/16, but when played back it'll become a perfect sinus...

---
************************************************** ****************
* KSI@home KOI8 Net The impossible we do immediately. *
* Las Vegas NV, USA Miracles require 24-hour notice. *
************************************************** ****************
  #78   Report Post  
Keith G
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Don Pearce" wrote


Just had a listen to the first one on my nice Stax headphones, and I
have to say - very scratchy. The first fairly quiet bit is badly
marred by a forest of crackly background.

No need to allow for MP3 either - quite a nice transcription of the
original.



Oops!

Scrub all that - I've just played 'em myself and they sound like ****e!

The deck is 'sizzling' throughout - I had forgotten that!! (It was doing
that for a while - an earthing thing - came and went...)

I still don't think think they are 'scratchy' as such, though!

Anyway, 'nuff said - carry on as you were....!!

:-)




  #79   Report Post  
Chad Wahls
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"cowboy" cacheoverflow@yahooDOTcom wrote in message
...

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote

I guess you're
all into horn speakers, too.............


of course, since every engineer or audiophile worth his salt knows all the
best sound is in the first watt, how else would we get to 110db?

you are confusing the old Klipsch sound with the newer sound of the
exponential designs, find some horns that are shaped like the bell of a
trumpet and you will be on track

Avantgarde makes some with a snob price, so even you should be happy with
them!
http://www.avantgarde-usa.com/trio.html

also: ever wonder why full-range speakers command such high prices on the
used market? perhaps you should listen & learn


Close to $122,000 for a system pictured in a room with no treatment, wood
floors, brick walls, and lots-o-glass exposed? I think I'll drive my
Lamborghini through a hail-storm. If I can't trust a company to picture a
system in a good listening room, why would I give them that kind of cash, I
mean come on, I spent 20K more than that for a 2100 sq/ft log home and 4
acres!!!

Yep I've heard them, they sound great, but I'm not THAT avid.

Chad


  #80   Report Post  
Don Pearce
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 9 Mar 2005 19:44:47 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote


Just had a listen to the first one on my nice Stax headphones, and I
have to say - very scratchy. The first fairly quiet bit is badly
marred by a forest of crackly background.

No need to allow for MP3 either - quite a nice transcription of the
original.



Oops!

Scrub all that - I've just played 'em myself and they sound like ****e!

The deck is 'sizzling' throughout - I had forgotten that!! (It was doing
that for a while - an earthing thing - came and went...)

I still don't think think they are 'scratchy' as such, though!

Anyway, 'nuff said - carry on as you were....!!

:-)


Yeah I heard the sizzling, but I was ignoring that - I presumed
something was wrong somewhere. But the crackly background is something
else - very noticeably there.

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com
Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Some Recording Techniques kevindoylemusic Pro Audio 19 February 16th 05 08:54 PM
Artists cut out the record biz [email protected] Pro Audio 64 July 9th 04 10:02 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:36 PM.

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

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"