Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
Jenn
 
Posts: n/a
Default The Limits of the LP

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message


And yet, to my ears, the best LPs surpass CDs in their
reproduction of acoustic music.


How do you avoid the involvement of your brain in the listening process,
Jenn?


In what way do you believe the brain should be involved in the listening
process, Arny?
  #42   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
Jenn
 
Posts: n/a
Default The Limits of the LP

In article ,
Sander deWaal wrote:

Jenn said:


And yet, to my ears, the best LPs surpass CDs in their reproduction of
acoustic music.



An interesting experiment would then be to record a good sounding LP
onto CD and report back whether you hear differences, or that you like
what you hear, or not.

I'd be very interested in the opinion of a professional musician such
as yourself on this.


I agree; that would be interesting. I'd like to do this in a couple of
weeks.
  #43   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
George M. Middius
 
Posts: n/a
Default The Limits of the LP



Jenn said:

EXACTLY LIKE the turntable they were played.


According to whom?


Anybody with a brain.


I see. Have you done a comparison? When did you do the comparison?


If you're talking about comparing turds, Arnii's your 'borg.




  #44   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
Clyde Slick
 
Posts: n/a
Default The Limits of the LP


"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..

How do you avoid the involvement of your brain in the listening process,
Jenn?



The best way to avoid using ANY part of your brain is to
indoctrinate yourself with www.pcabx.com



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
  #45   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
 
Posts: n/a
Default The Limits of the LP


Jenn wrote:
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message


And yet, to my ears, the best LPs surpass CDs in their
reproduction of acoustic music.


How do you avoid the involvement of your brain in the listening process,
Jenn?


In what way do you believe the brain should be involved in the listening
process, Arny?


It seems to me that the most important failure of
recorded audio gets lost in all these emotional debates..
It is the abysmal quality of many
(most?) recordings: lp, cd no matter. Part of the pleasure of an old lp
collection is that by and large it was all the way downhill since the
early days of stereo. More mikes, more mixers, equalisers, sound
shapers, more engineering graduates who think they know how to
please the car-rock deafened youth and the owners of the Best Buy
systems.
That does not mean that awful recordings were not made
in the sixties, But beside the drequently awful DG there were
London, Columbia at
its best, Philips reliably fair to good, Audio Fidelity, Westminster
and Everest.(at its best when using 35mm film) . And that leaves
out the niche specialists like Sheffield etc. Usually
expensive and usually recording old crowd pleasers only...
But in all fairness the quality of many cds seems to be
improving.
And SACD is still surviving . Whether due to format or to greater
care when recording it can be very good.
Ludovic Mirabel



  #46   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
Jenn
 
Posts: n/a
Default The Limits of the LP

In article .com,
wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message


And yet, to my ears, the best LPs surpass CDs in their
reproduction of acoustic music.

How do you avoid the involvement of your brain in the listening process,
Jenn?


In what way do you believe the brain should be involved in the listening
process, Arny?


It seems to me that the most important failure of
recorded audio gets lost in all these emotional debates..
It is the abysmal quality of many
(most?) recordings: lp, cd no matter. Part of the pleasure of an old lp
collection is that by and large it was all the way downhill since the
early days of stereo. More mikes, more mixers, equalisers, sound
shapers, more engineering graduates who think they know how to
please the car-rock deafened youth and the owners of the Best Buy
systems.
That does not mean that awful recordings were not made
in the sixties, But beside the drequently awful DG there were
London, Columbia at
its best, Philips reliably fair to good, Audio Fidelity, Westminster
and Everest.(at its best when using 35mm film) . And that leaves
out the niche specialists like Sheffield etc. Usually
expensive and usually recording old crowd pleasers only...


I agree with nearly everything above. About Columbia, there are several
worthwhile early LPs that are very good (the "eyes" labels). But, all
of that important repertoire and those important performances by
Bernstein, Ax, Ormandy, et al are saddled with TERRIBLE recordings,
often produced by John McClure. Very sad.

But in all fairness the quality of many cds seems to be
improving.
And SACD is still surviving . Whether due to format or to greater
care when recording it can be very good.
Ludovic Mirabel

  #47   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
paul packer
 
Posts: n/a
Default The Limits of the LP

On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 12:41:47 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


The idea of clean bass from vinyl much below 100Hz is generally a fantasy.

Two words: tone arm resonance.


Isn't that three?
  #48   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
paul packer
 
Posts: n/a
Default The Limits of the LP

On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 22:25:10 GMT, Jenn
wrote:


I've yet to hear orchestral strings, for example, particularly upper
range violin, sound as right on CD as it can on LP.


Agreed. If only vinyl wasn't such a totally inconvenient and
fault-ridden invention....
  #49   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default The Limits of the LP

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message


And yet, to my ears, the best LPs surpass CDs in their
reproduction of acoustic music.


How do you avoid the involvement of your brain in the
listening process, Jenn?


In what way do you believe the brain should be involved
in the listening process, Arny?


That's a long story that is way over your head, Jenn.


  #50   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default The Limits of the LP

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

wrote in message
oups.com

In order to try to get at home the "natural"
sound of violins one must know what violins do sound
like.


This statement is missing so much relevant info that it
is worthless.


Contrary to golden ear dogma, all violins do not sound
the same. The identical same violin does not sound the
same with different strings. The identical same violin
with the same strings does not sound the same when
played by a different person. No player plays the same
every time they play. No violin sounds the same in
different places.


snip childish comment #1

A violin sounds substantiatlly different depending on
where you sit in the room, whether that room is a room
with poor acoustics or whether that room is Detroit's
Orchestra hall. The same is true of entire orchestras,
as I found out when I was a member of a study group that
did a comparison of Orchestra Hall and the Detroit
Symphony's former location, at the request of the
Symphony's Board of Directors.


snip childish comment #2

To paraphrase Mirabel's grotesque error into far better
truth, let me write:

In order to try to get at home the "natural" sound of
specific violins one must know what those specific
violins sound like when played by specific players,
playing a specific piece of music, on a specific
occasion, and playing in a specific place.


I obtain that knowlege on the average three times a
week, and have recordings that match that particular
knowlege.

AFAIK nobody else who posts on this newssgroup or RAHE
can come close. Furthermore much of the time I have the
option of listening seated as a member of an audience,
or while standing as close to the instrument as a player.


snip childish comment #3

However, a few nits
remain. For one, your definition of natural sound is too
specific.


Nonsense. If we're going to discuss whether the sound of a violin as
reproduced matches or does not match that of a live violin, then we need a
good reference.

The nature of that reference has been generally agreed-upon going back to
Edgar Vuillchur's live-versus-recorded tests of the late 1950s, and before
that.

The reference standard for the reproduction of live sound is the live sound
that is being reproduced. Nothing more, nothing less.





  #51   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default The Limits of the LP

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message


That's the clincher for the whole LP vs. CD debate. A
CD plays back exactly what was fed to it, and the proof
of that is when LP's are copied to CD, they sound just
as they would when played back through the TT they were
played on. EXACTLY LIKE the turntable they were
played.


According to whom?


Anybody with a brain.


I see. Have you done a comparison? When did you do the
comparison?


Asked and answered.



  #52   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default The Limits of the LP

"paul packer" wrote in message

On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 22:25:10 GMT, Jenn
wrote:


I've yet to hear orchestral strings, for example,
particularly upper range violin, sound as right on CD as
it can on LP.


Agreed. If only vinyl wasn't such a totally inconvenient
and fault-ridden invention....


If only thinking wasn't such a lost art on RAO. :-(


  #53   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
George M. Middius
 
Posts: n/a
Default The Limits of the LP



paul packer said:

Two words: tone arm resonance.


Isn't that three?


paulie, it looks like you've discovered a new branch of Kroosciccecene --
Kroomath. Congratulations!




  #54   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
MINe 109
 
Posts: n/a
Default The Limits of the LP

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

snippy snip snip

Too bad you snipped out the substantive points, too.

Nonsense. If we're going to discuss whether the sound of a violin as
reproduced matches or does not match that of a live violin, then we need a
good reference.


If one has experience with violins, one has a reference.

The nature of that reference has been generally agreed-upon going back to
Edgar Vuillchur's live-versus-recorded tests of the late 1950s, and before
that.

The reference standard for the reproduction of live sound is the live sound
that is being reproduced. Nothing more, nothing less.


That reference is ephemeral, so there's no real way to say a recording
sounds exactly like the event. However, short of the ideal, there are
many ways a recording can fail to achieve perfection.

Your claim that you alone really know what a violin sounds like is
ludicrous. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only other RAOer to regularly
hear strings.

Stephen
  #55   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
MD
 
Posts: n/a
Default The Limits of the LP

wrote:
"Jenn" wrote in message
...

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:


wrote in message
egroups.com


In order to try to get at home the "natural" sound of
violins one must know what violins do sound like.

This statement is missing so much relevant info that it is worthless.

Contrary to golden ear dogma, all violins do not sound the same. The
identical same violin does not sound the same with different strings. The
identical same violin with the same strings does not sound the same when
played by a different person. No player plays the same every time they
play.
No violin sounds the same in different places.

A violin sounds substantiatlly different depending on where you sit in
the
room, whether that room is a room with poor acoustics or whether that
room
is Detroit's Orchestra hall. The same is true of entire orchestras, as I
found out when I was a member of a study group that did a comparison of
Orchestra Hall and the Detroit Symphony's former location, at the request
of
the Symphony's Board of Directors.

To paraphrase Mirabel's grotesque error into far better truth, let me
write:

In order to try to get at home the "natural" sound of specific violins
one
must know what those specific violins sound like when played by specific
players, playing a specific piece of music, on a specific occasion, and
playing in a specific place.


While what you write here is obvious and true, you leave out one
important consideration. That is, there are common traits to the sound
of, in this case, all violins in all performance spaces, heard from each
of the seats. As an example, you could listen to a person speaking in a
variety of rooms, etc. and still know that it is THAT person speaking.
In my experience, this is what is missing from the upper frequency
string sound on CDs; it is as though it is a different "voice".

I obtain that knowlege on the average three times a week, and have
recordings that match that particular knowlege.

AFAIK nobody else who posts on this newssgroup or RAHE can come close.


Can come close to what; your level of experience with live acoustic
music? I would beg to differ.


Be that as it may, it is still impossible for LPs to be as accurate at
playing back the sound of a violin. Here's another lesson on how limited
LP's a
http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~jcgl/Sc...t12/page2.html

It would be possible to go on considering various other factors which alter
the detailed performance of Long Playing records. For example, any serious
comparison of 'LP versus CD' would have to take into account the relatively
high levels of signal distortion which commercial cartridges produce when
recovering signals louder than the 0 dB level. Typically, signals of +10 dB
or above are accompanied by harmonic distortion levels of 10% or more - not
a very high fidelity performance! Even at the 0 dB level, many cartridges
produce around 1% (or more!) harmonic distortion. The frequency response of
signals recorded on LP are also modified - the high frequency level boosted
and the low frequency level reduced - to obtain better S/N and distortion
performance. This means that an LP replay system must include a De-Emphasis
network to Correct the recovered signal's frequency response. Here, however,
we are only interested in considering those physical factors which make the
LP less than an ideally 'analog' way to communicate information. These extra
factors affect the performance of an LP but they don't change the basic
nature of the system.


What levels are normally recorded on an LP? Seems to me it's not the
overall loudness you are worried about here but a transient? One could
record everything lower than 0db and make it up in the phono amp.

I use LP and CD. Until recently I thought the remastered CD or well
recorded CDs sounded as good or in some cases better than their LP
counter part - so I played the CD. Recently I upgraded my cartridge
from a Grado Prestige Silver to a Goldring 1012GX. The GX has a much
smaller stylus. Now when I compare the LP to the CD the LP is clearly
better - especially in the highs. (Sony remastered version of Kind of
Blue compared to the original 6 eye pressing and the Kansas Leftoveture
remastered CD compared to the half speed mastered LP)
System - AMC Int tube Amp, Systemdek IIX, Triangle Celius speakers,
Denon CD with Audio Alchemy D/A and Jitter box


  #56   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
George M. Middius
 
Posts: n/a
Default The Limits of the LP



MD said:

Recently I upgraded my cartridge
from a Grado Prestige Silver to a Goldring 1012GX. The GX has a much
smaller stylus. Now when I compare the LP to the CD the LP is clearly
better - especially in the highs.


Oops! This is where duh-Mikey will start squawking about "level matching"
and "DBT" and "aBx". Then he'll claim you hate science, and from there it's
just a short leap to "Clinton-loving liberal".






  #57   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
 
Posts: n/a
Default The Limits of the LP


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

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

wrote in message
oups.com

In order to try to get at home the "natural" sound of
violins one must know what violins do sound like.

This statement is missing so much relevant info that it is worthless.

Contrary to golden ear dogma, all violins do not sound the same. The
identical same violin does not sound the same with different strings.
The
identical same violin with the same strings does not sound the same
when
played by a different person. No player plays the same every time they
play.
No violin sounds the same in different places.

A violin sounds substantiatlly different depending on where you sit in
the
room, whether that room is a room with poor acoustics or whether that
room
is Detroit's Orchestra hall. The same is true of entire orchestras, as
I
found out when I was a member of a study group that did a comparison
of
Orchestra Hall and the Detroit Symphony's former location, at the
request
of
the Symphony's Board of Directors.

To paraphrase Mirabel's grotesque error into far better truth, let me
write:

In order to try to get at home the "natural" sound of specific
violins
one
must know what those specific violins sound like when played by
specific
players, playing a specific piece of music, on a specific occasion,
and
playing in a specific place.

While what you write here is obvious and true, you leave out one
important consideration. That is, there are common traits to the sound
of, in this case, all violins in all performance spaces, heard from
each
of the seats. As an example, you could listen to a person speaking in
a
variety of rooms, etc. and still know that it is THAT person speaking.
In my experience, this is what is missing from the upper frequency
string sound on CDs; it is as though it is a different "voice".

I obtain that knowlege on the average three times a week, and have
recordings that match that particular knowlege.

AFAIK nobody else who posts on this newssgroup or RAHE can come close.

Can come close to what; your level of experience with live acoustic
music? I would beg to differ.

Be that as it may, it is still impossible for LPs to be as accurate at
playing back the sound of a violin. Here's another lesson on how limited
LP's a
http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~jcgl/Sc...t12/page2.html

It would be possible to go on considering various other factors which
alter
the detailed performance of Long Playing records. For example, any
serious
comparison of 'LP versus CD' would have to take into account the
relatively
high levels of signal distortion which commercial cartridges produce when
recovering signals louder than the 0 dB level. Typically, signals of +10
dB
or above are accompanied by harmonic distortion levels of 10% or more -
not
a very high fidelity performance! Even at the 0 dB level, many cartridges
produce around 1% (or more!) harmonic distortion. The frequency response
of
signals recorded on LP are also modified - the high frequency level
boosted
and the low frequency level reduced - to obtain better S/N and distortion
performance. This means that an LP replay system must include a
De-Emphasis
network to Correct the recovered signal's frequency response. Here,
however,
we are only interested in considering those physical factors which make
the
LP less than an ideally 'analog' way to communicate information. These
extra
factors affect the performance of an LP but they don't change the basic
nature of the system.


And yet, to my ears, the best LPs surpass CDs in their reproduction of
acoustic music.


That's nothing to do with which IS more accurate. No LP can reproduce
anything better than a CD. Unless it's click and pops.

The fact still remains that whatver sound you hear from a CD is the sound
that was on the master tape.

Your prefernce for the sound of violin from LP simply means that you have a
preference for something other that the sound of real violins.



  #58   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
 
Posts: n/a
Default The Limits of the LP


"MD" wrote in message
...
wrote:
"Jenn" wrote in message
...

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:


wrote in message
legroups.com


In order to try to get at home the "natural" sound of
violins one must know what violins do sound like.

This statement is missing so much relevant info that it is worthless.

Contrary to golden ear dogma, all violins do not sound the same. The
identical same violin does not sound the same with different strings.
The
identical same violin with the same strings does not sound the same when
played by a different person. No player plays the same every time they
play.
No violin sounds the same in different places.

A violin sounds substantiatlly different depending on where you sit in
the
room, whether that room is a room with poor acoustics or whether that
room
is Detroit's Orchestra hall. The same is true of entire orchestras, as I
found out when I was a member of a study group that did a comparison of
Orchestra Hall and the Detroit Symphony's former location, at the
request of
the Symphony's Board of Directors.

To paraphrase Mirabel's grotesque error into far better truth, let me
write:

In order to try to get at home the "natural" sound of specific violins
one
must know what those specific violins sound like when played by
specific
players, playing a specific piece of music, on a specific occasion, and
playing in a specific place.

While what you write here is obvious and true, you leave out one
important consideration. That is, there are common traits to the sound
of, in this case, all violins in all performance spaces, heard from each
of the seats. As an example, you could listen to a person speaking in a
variety of rooms, etc. and still know that it is THAT person speaking.
In my experience, this is what is missing from the upper frequency
string sound on CDs; it is as though it is a different "voice".

I obtain that knowlege on the average three times a week, and have
recordings that match that particular knowlege.

AFAIK nobody else who posts on this newssgroup or RAHE can come close.

Can come close to what; your level of experience with live acoustic
music? I would beg to differ.


Be that as it may, it is still impossible for LPs to be as accurate at
playing back the sound of a violin. Here's another lesson on how limited
LP's a
http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~jcgl/Sc...t12/page2.html

It would be possible to go on considering various other factors which
alter the detailed performance of Long Playing records. For example, any
serious comparison of 'LP versus CD' would have to take into account the
relatively high levels of signal distortion which commercial cartridges
produce when recovering signals louder than the 0 dB level. Typically,
signals of +10 dB or above are accompanied by harmonic distortion levels
of 10% or more - not a very high fidelity performance! Even at the 0 dB
level, many cartridges produce around 1% (or more!) harmonic distortion.
The frequency response of signals recorded on LP are also modified - the
high frequency level boosted and the low frequency level reduced - to
obtain better S/N and distortion performance. This means that an LP
replay system must include a De-Emphasis network to Correct the recovered
signal's frequency response. Here, however, we are only interested in
considering those physical factors which make the LP less than an ideally
'analog' way to communicate information. These extra factors affect the
performance of an LP but they don't change the basic nature of the
system.


What levels are normally recorded on an LP? Seems to me it's not the
overall loudness you are worried about here but a transient? One could
record everything lower than 0db and make it up in the phono amp.

I use LP and CD. Until recently I thought the remastered CD or well
recorded CDs sounded as good or in some cases better than their LP counter
part - so I played the CD. Recently I upgraded my cartridge from a Grado
Prestige Silver to a Goldring 1012GX. The GX has a much smaller stylus.
Now when I compare the LP to the CD the LP is clearly better - especially
in the highs. (Sony remastered version of Kind of Blue compared to the
original 6 eye pressing and the Kansas Leftoveture remastered CD compared
to the half speed mastered LP)
System - AMC Int tube Amp, Systemdek IIX, Triangle Celius speakers, Denon
CD with Audio Alchemy D/A and Jitter box


The differences between phono cartridges is not news. They tend to be large
and very noticiable.

It has no bearing on accuracy compared to CD. CD's simply play back exactly
what was recorded on them.


  #59   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
 
Posts: n/a
Default The Limits of the LP


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

"Jenn" wrote in message


That's the clincher for the whole LP vs. CD debate. A
CD plays back exactly what was fed to it, and the proof
of that is when LP's are copied to CD, they sound just
as they would when played back through the TT they were
played on. EXACTLY LIKE the turntable they were played.


According to whom?


Anybody with a brain.


I see. Have you done a comparison? When did you do the comparison?


Many people have done so, and for those who had expected some CD imposed
differnce, they have all reported none.

Get over it, CD's playback the exact sound that was recorded on them, it is
simply not a matter for debate. That is the single biggest advantage to
CD's.

The reason I posted the link regarding the limits of LP's was because I
wanted people unfamiliar with their limits to know what they are, yet still
denial is a powerful thing.




  #60   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
Steven Sullivan
 
Posts: n/a
Default The Limits of the LP

Jenn wrote:
And yet, to my ears, the best LPs surpass CDs in their reproduction of
acoustic music.



That's too bad for you, given how much easier it is to find works on CD than LP these days.
But in any case, you do realize that this is all you'll ever be able to say, right? IT's the
answer you always end up giving, no matter how much about digital to analog is explained to
you. It's no sort of *rejoinder*, it's simply a statement of preference that says as much, or
more, about YOU as it does about the formats. If you think LPs sound better than their CD
counterparts, but still want to hear 'LP sound' on CD, I suggest you carefully record your LPs
to CD. That way the euphonic distortions you're enjoying so much,a nd which are missing on
well-made digital recordings, will be rendered in an exremely faithful, yet far more
convenient and damage-proof, format.




  #61   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
Steven Sullivan
 
Posts: n/a
Default The Limits of the LP

Sander deWaal wrote:
Jenn said:



And yet, to my ears, the best LPs surpass CDs in their reproduction of
acoustic music.



An interesting experiment would then be to record a good sounding LP
onto CD and report back whether you hear differences, or that you like
what you hear, or not.


I'd be very interested in the opinion of a professional musician such
as yourself on this.


I'd be more interested to hear the results of the comparison done sighted,
then blind. It ain't gonna happen, though.


  #62   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
MINe 109
 
Posts: n/a
Default The Limits of the LP

In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

Jenn wrote:
And yet, to my ears, the best LPs surpass CDs in their reproduction of
acoustic music.



That's too bad for you, given how much easier it is to find works on CD than
LP these days.
But in any case, you do realize that this is all you'll ever be able to say,
right? IT's the
answer you always end up giving, no matter how much about digital to analog
is explained to
you. It's no sort of *rejoinder*, it's simply a statement of preference that
says as much, or
more, about YOU as it does about the formats. If you think LPs sound better
than their CD
counterparts, but still want to hear 'LP sound' on CD, I suggest you
carefully record your LPs
to CD. That way the euphonic distortions you're enjoying so much,a nd which
are missing on
well-made digital recordings, will be rendered in an exremely faithful, yet
far more
convenient and damage-proof, format.


I hope you sneered as you wrote that. I don't remember you being such a
bully-boy. Maybe there's something about Jenn that encourages your
brutal propensities.

"Best LPs" is not "all LPs." And, fortunately for classical musicians,
there is still an enormous number of little-worn classical lps out
there, many of recordings that will never receive a proper cd release.

As for archiving LPs, why limit yourself to CD format? Get an Alesis
Masterlink or similar device, encode at 24/88.2 or 24/96 and enjoy all
those overtones that can fit on LP but not on CD.

Stephen
  #63   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
Steven Sullivan
 
Posts: n/a
Default The Limits of the LP

MINe 109 wrote:
In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:


Jenn wrote:
And yet, to my ears, the best LPs surpass CDs in their reproduction of
acoustic music.



That's too bad for you, given how much easier it is to find works on CD than
LP these days.
But in any case, you do realize that this is all you'll ever be able to say,
right? IT's the
answer you always end up giving, no matter how much about digital to analog
is explained to
you. It's no sort of *rejoinder*, it's simply a statement of preference that
says as much, or
more, about YOU as it does about the formats. If you think LPs sound better
than their CD
counterparts, but still want to hear 'LP sound' on CD, I suggest you
carefully record your LPs
to CD. That way the euphonic distortions you're enjoying so much,a nd which
are missing on
well-made digital recordings, will be rendered in an exremely faithful, yet
far more
convenient and damage-proof, format.


I hope you sneered as you wrote that. I don't remember you being such a
bully-boy. Maybe there's something about Jenn that encourages your
brutal propensities.


*You* hope I sneered, but *I'm* the brutal one? Amazing. It's like you guys don't
even read what you write sometimes.

As for Jenn, she's been posting her 'it doesn't matter what you say, I HEAR IT' non-argument
for months on rahe.

"Best LPs" is not "all LPs." And, fortunately for classical musicians, there is still an

enormous number of little-worn classical lps out there, many of recordings that will never
receive a proper cd release.


"Best LPs' is just another subjective call, unless there's some objective yardstick. But
certainly my suggestion applies just as well to vinyl or shellac or wax cylinder that has yet
to be released on CD. Go for it.


As for archiving LPs, why limit yourself to CD format? Get an Alesis Masterlink or similar

device, encode at 24/88.2 or 24/96 and enjoy all those overtones that can fit on LP but not
on CD.

As for 'overtones' beyond 20 kHz -- 1) what evidence have you that you
can *hear* them 2) what evidence have you LP would reproduce them *accurately* and without
significant distortion and 3) what
makes you think they'd remain that way after one or two passes of a stylus?

Btw, you don't need an Alesis Masterlink to do excellent recording at higher sampling rates
and bit depths than Redbook. A $150 M-Audio soundcard will do. Higher bitdepths are useful
to prevent audible errors if you plan to do digital cleanup of the messy LP, while higher
sampling rates are simply pointless for this application, though they can be useful if you
suspect that antialiasing filters of your Redbook chain are introducing audible artifacts.
But then you'll need something that can play back at the higher sampling rate..
  #64   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
Jenn
 
Posts: n/a
Default The Limits of the LP

In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

Sander deWaal wrote:
Jenn said:



And yet, to my ears, the best LPs surpass CDs in their reproduction of
acoustic music.



An interesting experiment would then be to record a good sounding LP
onto CD and report back whether you hear differences, or that you like
what you hear, or not.


I'd be very interested in the opinion of a professional musician such
as yourself on this.


I'd be more interested to hear the results of the comparison done sighted,
then blind. It ain't gonna happen, though.


Why not?
  #65   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
Jenn
 
Posts: n/a
Default The Limits of the LP

In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

Jenn wrote:
And yet, to my ears, the best LPs surpass CDs in their reproduction of
acoustic music.



That's too bad for you, given how much easier it is to find works on CD than
LP these days.


I agree.

But in any case, you do realize that this is all you'll ever be able to say,
right? IT's the
answer you always end up giving, no matter how much about digital to analog
is explained to
you.


What does "how much about digital to analog is explained to (me)" have
to do with it? I should change my opinion about what my ears tell me
based on some kind of "information" that is offered?

It's no sort of *rejoinder*, it's simply a statement of preference that
says as much, or
more, about YOU as it does about the formats.


I've not stated anything else.

If you think LPs sound better
than their CD
counterparts, but still want to hear 'LP sound' on CD, I suggest you
carefully record your LPs
to CD. That way the euphonic distortions you're enjoying so much,a nd which
are missing on
well-made digital recordings, will be rendered in an exremely faithful, yet
far more
convenient and damage-proof, format.


We'll see how the sound is when I get around to trying that, in a couple
of weeks.


  #66   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
Jenn
 
Posts: n/a
Default The Limits of the LP

In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:


wrote in message
oups.com

In order to try to get at home the "natural" sound of
violins one must know what violins do sound like.

This statement is missing so much relevant info that it is worthless.

Contrary to golden ear dogma, all violins do not sound the same. The
identical same violin does not sound the same with different strings. The
identical same violin with the same strings does not sound the same when
played by a different person. No player plays the same every time they
play.
No violin sounds the same in different places.

A violin sounds substantiatlly different depending on where you sit in
the
room, whether that room is a room with poor acoustics or whether that
room
is Detroit's Orchestra hall. The same is true of entire orchestras, as I
found out when I was a member of a study group that did a comparison of
Orchestra Hall and the Detroit Symphony's former location, at the request
of
the Symphony's Board of Directors.

To paraphrase Mirabel's grotesque error into far better truth, let me
write:

In order to try to get at home the "natural" sound of specific violins
one
must know what those specific violins sound like when played by specific
players, playing a specific piece of music, on a specific occasion, and
playing in a specific place.


While what you write here is obvious and true, you leave out one
important consideration. That is, there are common traits to the sound
of, in this case, all violins in all performance spaces, heard from each
of the seats. As an example, you could listen to a person speaking in a
variety of rooms, etc. and still know that it is THAT person speaking.
In my experience, this is what is missing from the upper frequency
string sound on CDs; it is as though it is a different "voice".




Odd.. I can *always* tell if it's a violin playing, on a CD or LP, versus,
say, a viola or a
cello.


So can I, of course.

And I can even often sometimes tell which famous player is playing
it.


As can I, of course.

(I'm much
better with electric basses and bassists.) So apparently the 'common' sound
of violins,
survives digital recording, to my ears.


I'm speaking of something else here. In every case, I can tell that the
CD violin sound is supposed to be a violin. (well, there is a case on a
DGG CD where if I didn't know the score, I literally wouldn't know that
the sound presented was supposed to be a trumpet; but that's an isolated
case.) What I'm getting to is that the violin sound is much more unlike
the sound of real violins on CD than it is on the best LPs. I can still
tell that it's supposed to be violin. It's a matter of degree and
subtlety.
  #67   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
Jenn
 
Posts: n/a
Default The Limits of the LP

In article ,
wrote:

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

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

wrote in message
oups.com

In order to try to get at home the "natural" sound of
violins one must know what violins do sound like.

This statement is missing so much relevant info that it is worthless.

Contrary to golden ear dogma, all violins do not sound the same. The
identical same violin does not sound the same with different strings.
The
identical same violin with the same strings does not sound the same
when
played by a different person. No player plays the same every time they
play.
No violin sounds the same in different places.

A violin sounds substantiatlly different depending on where you sit in
the
room, whether that room is a room with poor acoustics or whether that
room
is Detroit's Orchestra hall. The same is true of entire orchestras, as
I
found out when I was a member of a study group that did a comparison
of
Orchestra Hall and the Detroit Symphony's former location, at the
request
of
the Symphony's Board of Directors.

To paraphrase Mirabel's grotesque error into far better truth, let me
write:

In order to try to get at home the "natural" sound of specific
violins
one
must know what those specific violins sound like when played by
specific
players, playing a specific piece of music, on a specific occasion,
and
playing in a specific place.

While what you write here is obvious and true, you leave out one
important consideration. That is, there are common traits to the sound
of, in this case, all violins in all performance spaces, heard from
each
of the seats. As an example, you could listen to a person speaking in
a
variety of rooms, etc. and still know that it is THAT person speaking.
In my experience, this is what is missing from the upper frequency
string sound on CDs; it is as though it is a different "voice".

I obtain that knowlege on the average three times a week, and have
recordings that match that particular knowlege.

AFAIK nobody else who posts on this newssgroup or RAHE can come close.

Can come close to what; your level of experience with live acoustic
music? I would beg to differ.

Be that as it may, it is still impossible for LPs to be as accurate at
playing back the sound of a violin. Here's another lesson on how limited
LP's a
http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~jcgl/Sc...t12/page2.html

It would be possible to go on considering various other factors which
alter
the detailed performance of Long Playing records. For example, any
serious
comparison of 'LP versus CD' would have to take into account the
relatively
high levels of signal distortion which commercial cartridges produce when
recovering signals louder than the 0 dB level. Typically, signals of +10
dB
or above are accompanied by harmonic distortion levels of 10% or more -
not
a very high fidelity performance! Even at the 0 dB level, many cartridges
produce around 1% (or more!) harmonic distortion. The frequency response
of
signals recorded on LP are also modified - the high frequency level
boosted
and the low frequency level reduced - to obtain better S/N and distortion
performance. This means that an LP replay system must include a
De-Emphasis
network to Correct the recovered signal's frequency response. Here,
however,
we are only interested in considering those physical factors which make
the
LP less than an ideally 'analog' way to communicate information. These
extra
factors affect the performance of an LP but they don't change the basic
nature of the system.


And yet, to my ears, the best LPs surpass CDs in their reproduction of
acoustic music.


That's nothing to do with which IS more accurate.


I didn't say that it did.

No LP can reproduce
anything better than a CD. Unless it's click and pops.


And to my ears, timbres of instruments.

The fact still remains that whatver sound you hear from a CD is the sound
that was on the master tape.

Your prefernce for the sound of violin from LP simply means that you have a
preference for something other that the sound of real violins.


Says you; not my ears.
  #68   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
Jenn
 
Posts: n/a
Default The Limits of the LP

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message


That's the clincher for the whole LP vs. CD debate. A
CD plays back exactly what was fed to it, and the proof
of that is when LP's are copied to CD, they sound just
as they would when played back through the TT they were
played on. EXACTLY LIKE the turntable they were
played.

According to whom?

Anybody with a brain.


I see. Have you done a comparison? When did you do the
comparison?


Asked and answered.


Where?
  #69   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
Jenn
 
Posts: n/a
Default The Limits of the LP

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message


And yet, to my ears, the best LPs surpass CDs in their
reproduction of acoustic music.

How do you avoid the involvement of your brain in the
listening process, Jenn?


In what way do you believe the brain should be involved
in the listening process, Arny?


That's a long story that is way over your head, Jenn.


I see.
  #71   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
Jenn
 
Posts: n/a
Default The Limits of the LP

In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

MINe 109 wrote:
In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:


Jenn wrote:
And yet, to my ears, the best LPs surpass CDs in their reproduction of
acoustic music.


That's too bad for you, given how much easier it is to find works on CD
than
LP these days.
But in any case, you do realize that this is all you'll ever be able to
say,
right? IT's the
answer you always end up giving, no matter how much about digital to
analog
is explained to
you. It's no sort of *rejoinder*, it's simply a statement of preference
that
says as much, or
more, about YOU as it does about the formats. If you think LPs sound
better
than their CD
counterparts, but still want to hear 'LP sound' on CD, I suggest you
carefully record your LPs
to CD. That way the euphonic distortions you're enjoying so much,a nd
which
are missing on
well-made digital recordings, will be rendered in an exremely faithful,
yet
far more
convenient and damage-proof, format.


I hope you sneered as you wrote that. I don't remember you being such a
bully-boy. Maybe there's something about Jenn that encourages your
brutal propensities.


*You* hope I sneered, but *I'm* the brutal one? Amazing. It's like you guys
don't
even read what you write sometimes.

As for Jenn, she's been posting her 'it doesn't matter what you say, I HEAR
IT' non-argument
for months on rahe.


OK, you win. I now "know" that CDs sound better, so I'll just ignore
what my ears tell me, since that's a "non-argument". I'm sure that my
ears will now agree that CDs sound better, since I have been told that
they do. My enjoyment of hi-fi in my home will no doubt now increase.
  #72   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!
 
Posts: n/a
Default The Limits of the LP

From: Jenn
Date: Sun, Feb 19 2006 10:48 pm
Email: Jenn

OK, you win. I now "know" that CDs sound better, so I'll just ignore
what my ears tell me, since that's a "non-argument". I'm sure that my
ears will now agree that CDs sound better, since I have been told that
they do. My enjoyment of hi-fi in my home will no doubt now increase.


I found several nice mint LPs today. A Telefunken, four philips and
four Melodia (not Angel, releases but in Russian. Did they follow RIAA
EQ?). Total investment, $12.

I like LPs too. No matter how 'inferior' they are.

I have CDs and LPs of the same music. Usually the LP sounds better.

  #73   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
Jenn
 
Posts: n/a
Default The Limits of the LP

In article .com,
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote:

From: Jenn
Date: Sun, Feb 19 2006 10:48 pm
Email: Jenn

OK, you win. I now "know" that CDs sound better, so I'll just ignore
what my ears tell me, since that's a "non-argument". I'm sure that my
ears will now agree that CDs sound better, since I have been told that
they do. My enjoyment of hi-fi in my home will no doubt now increase.


I found several nice mint LPs today. A Telefunken, four philips and
four Melodia (not Angel, releases but in Russian. Did they follow RIAA
EQ?). Total investment, $12.


Cool. The Soviets generally did NOT follow the RIAA equalization curve.

I like LPs too. No matter how 'inferior' they are.

I have CDs and LPs of the same music. Usually the LP sounds better.

  #74   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!
 
Posts: n/a
Default The Limits of the LP

From: Jenn - view profile
Date: Mon, Feb 20 2006 2:05 am
Email: Jenn

Cool. The Soviets generally did NOT follow the RIAA equalization curve.


Well, then they should sound, um, interesting. LOL!

Oh well. $4 down the ****er...:-)

  #75   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!
 
Posts: n/a
Default The Limits of the LP

From: Steven Sullivan - view profile
Date: Sun, Feb 19 2006 9:39 pm
Email: Steven Sullivan

As for Jenn, she's been posting her 'it doesn't matter what you say, I HEAR IT' non-argument for months on rahe.


How is that different from the 'it doesn't matter what you hear, I
MEASURE IT' non-argument?

Just curious. I thought we were talking about preference here.



  #76   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!
 
Posts: n/a
Default The Limits of the LP

From: George M. Middius
Date: Sun, Feb 19 2006 10:10 am
Email: George M. Middius cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast
[dot] net

Oops! This is where duh-Mikey will start squawking about "level matching"
and "DBT" and "aBx". Then he'll claim you hate science, and from there it's
just a short leap to "Clinton-loving liberal".


I must be off nob's scale. According to him, I want American soldiers
to die.

That's worse than 'Clinton-loving liberal,' isn't it?

  #77   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
vlad
 
Posts: n/a
Default The Limits of the LP


Jenn wrote:
In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

MINe 109 wrote:
In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:


Jenn wrote:
And yet, to my ears, the best LPs surpass CDs in their reproduction of
acoustic music.


That's too bad for you, given how much easier it is to find works on CD
than
LP these days.
But in any case, you do realize that this is all you'll ever be able to
say,
right? IT's the
answer you always end up giving, no matter how much about digital to
analog
is explained to
you. It's no sort of *rejoinder*, it's simply a statement of preference
that
says as much, or
more, about YOU as it does about the formats. If you think LPs sound
better
than their CD
counterparts, but still want to hear 'LP sound' on CD, I suggest you
carefully record your LPs
to CD. That way the euphonic distortions you're enjoying so much,a nd
which
are missing on
well-made digital recordings, will be rendered in an exremely faithful,
yet
far more
convenient and damage-proof, format.


I hope you sneered as you wrote that. I don't remember you being such a
bully-boy. Maybe there's something about Jenn that encourages your
brutal propensities.


*You* hope I sneered, but *I'm* the brutal one? Amazing. It's like you guys
don't
even read what you write sometimes.

As for Jenn, she's been posting her 'it doesn't matter what you say, I HEAR
IT' non-argument
for months on rahe.


OK, you win. I now "know" that CDs sound better, so I'll just ignore
what my ears tell me, since that's a "non-argument". I'm sure that my
ears will now agree that CDs sound better, since I have been told that
they do. My enjoyment of hi-fi in my home will no doubt now increase.



Jenn,

People are trying to explain to you one simple thing - your
preference for LP's is not a fact proving that LP's are more
accurate, superior, etc. It is just your preference. You are entitled
to any opinions and preferences that you want. If you will say "In my
humble opinion LP's are better then CD" nobody will have an
argument with you. You have a right for an opinion. You attempts to use
your subjective feelings as a proof of LP's superiority are pathetic.

Now if you want to claim a fact "LP's are better then CD'c in ..." then
people have a right to question your reasoning. And because you use you
'ears' as a proof you must be ready to critique of your ears. :-)

Are we still friends? :-)

Vlad

  #78   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
MINe 109
 
Posts: n/a
Default The Limits of the LP

In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

As for archiving LPs, why limit yourself to CD format? Get an Alesis
Masterlink or similar

device, encode at 24/88.2 or 24/96 and enjoy all those overtones that can
fit on LP but not
on CD.

As for 'overtones' beyond 20 kHz -- 1) what evidence have you that you
can *hear* them 2) what evidence have you LP would reproduce them
*accurately* and without
significant distortion and 3) what
makes you think they'd remain that way after one or two passes of a stylus?


1) Your argument to Jenn is that cd is superior because it measures
better, so I figured more so would be better still even if you can't
hear it.

2) I read somewhere the ear is relatively insensitive to distortion in
that range. I know, it was Sony explaining DSD.

3) I don't have nickels taped to my headshell.

Stephen
  #79   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default The Limits of the LP

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message


And yet, to my ears, the best LPs surpass CDs in their
reproduction of acoustic music.

How do you avoid the involvement of your brain in the
listening process, Jenn?

In what way do you believe the brain should be involved
in the listening process, Arny?


That's a long story that is way over your head, Jenn.


I see.


No you don't Jenn. You perceive.


  #80   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default The Limits of the LP

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article
,
wrote:

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

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

wrote in message
oups.com

In order to try to get at home the "natural"
sound of violins one must know what violins do
sound like.

This statement is missing so much relevant info that
it is worthless.

Contrary to golden ear dogma, all violins do not
sound the same. The identical same violin does not
sound the same with different strings. The
identical same violin with the same strings does not
sound the same when
played by a different person. No player plays the
same every time they play.
No violin sounds the same in different places.

A violin sounds substantiatlly different depending
on where you sit in the
room, whether that room is a room with poor
acoustics or whether that room
is Detroit's Orchestra hall. The same is true of
entire orchestras, as I
found out when I was a member of a study group that
did a comparison of
Orchestra Hall and the Detroit Symphony's former
location, at the request
of
the Symphony's Board of Directors.

To paraphrase Mirabel's grotesque error into far
better truth, let me write:

In order to try to get at home the "natural" sound
of specific violins
one
must know what those specific violins sound like
when played by specific
players, playing a specific piece of music, on a
specific occasion, and
playing in a specific place.

While what you write here is obvious and true, you
leave out one important consideration. That is,
there are common traits to the sound of, in this
case, all violins in all performance spaces, heard
from each
of the seats. As an example, you could listen to a
person speaking in a
variety of rooms, etc. and still know that it is THAT
person speaking. In my experience, this is what is
missing from the upper frequency string sound on CDs;
it is as though it is a different "voice".

I obtain that knowlege on the average three times a
week, and have recordings that match that particular
knowlege.

AFAIK nobody else who posts on this newssgroup or
RAHE can come close.

Can come close to what; your level of experience with
live acoustic music? I would beg to differ.

Be that as it may, it is still impossible for LPs to
be as accurate at playing back the sound of a violin.
Here's another lesson on how limited LP's a
http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~jcgl/Sc...t12/page2.html

It would be possible to go on considering various
other factors which alter
the detailed performance of Long Playing records. For
example, any serious
comparison of 'LP versus CD' would have to take into
account the relatively
high levels of signal distortion which commercial
cartridges produce when recovering signals louder than
the 0 dB level. Typically, signals of +10 dB
or above are accompanied by harmonic distortion levels
of 10% or more - not
a very high fidelity performance! Even at the 0 dB
level, many cartridges produce around 1% (or more!)
harmonic distortion. The frequency response of
signals recorded on LP are also modified - the high
frequency level boosted
and the low frequency level reduced - to obtain better
S/N and distortion performance. This means that an LP
replay system must include a De-Emphasis
network to Correct the recovered signal's frequency
response. Here, however,
we are only interested in considering those physical
factors which make the
LP less than an ideally 'analog' way to communicate
information. These extra
factors affect the performance of an LP but they don't
change the basic nature of the system.

And yet, to my ears, the best LPs surpass CDs in their
reproduction of acoustic music.


That's nothing to do with which IS more accurate.


I didn't say that it did.

No LP can reproduce
anything better than a CD. Unless it's click and pops.


And to my ears, timbres of instruments.

The fact still remains that whatver sound you hear from
a CD is the sound that was on the master tape.

Your prefernce for the sound of violin from LP simply
means that you have a preference for something other
that the sound of real violins.


Says you; not my ears.


Thanks for admitting that you are brainless, Jenn.

Of course you're not brainless - you just say that you are.


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
Natural Limits to high frequencies? Sean Conolly Pro Audio 10 July 24th 05 09:26 PM
Interesting article Schizoid Man Audio Opinions 8 December 29th 03 09:51 PM
USB Audio limits? Jack A. Zucker Pro Audio 55 December 22nd 03 09:23 AM
Richman's ethical lapses Michael McKelvy Audio Opinions 9 December 12th 03 09:16 AM
Steve Winwood on Austin City Limits, did anyone [email protected] Pro Audio 5 October 14th 03 05:24 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:53 AM.

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

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"