Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#41
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
The Limits of the LP
|
#47
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#56
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Natural Limits to high frequencies? | Pro Audio | |||
Interesting article | Audio Opinions | |||
USB Audio limits? | Pro Audio | |||
Richman's ethical lapses | Audio Opinions | |||
Steve Winwood on Austin City Limits, did anyone | Pro Audio |