wrote in message


I myself am an analog designer. I have 30 years experience designing
analog microcircuits and have 22 patents. I also have several honors
from EDN and Electronic Design magazines. I mention this so you can
understand I have a strong appreciation for analog design.
Nevertheless, as a realistic engineer, I know that digital does a
better job in many areas, including CD and records. Given the same
music source for both, then

1) To make the record you must use a lathe to cut spiral groves into a
laquer coated aluminum disc, then the music source is used to modulate
a second, precise cutting stylus to cut the music grooves, then the
disc is metal plated multiple times, and the original disc is removed,
leaving a metal negative suitable for stamping vinyl. Each processing
step is a later generation copy, and every step results in some degree
of degradation, hopefully not audible, but there nevertheless. Also,
the cutting stylus is controlled by an electromechanical transducer,
which has a non-linear response, so the transducer is operated in an
approximately linear range, and it is hoped that the non-linearities
are small enough not to be audible. The next step is stamping the
vinyl, and each pressing degrades the metal stamping negative, they
are only good for about 1000 pressings, and the 1000th record is not
as good as the first, but again, hopefully the degradation will not be
noticed. Further, due to the limitations of the vinyl and to reduce
certain distortions, particularly distorions of the required
electromechanical transducer required for playback, a defined
amplitude distorion in introduced on the stamping master, called RIAA
equalization. To play the resulting record, we have to drag a stylus
through the grooves, using again a non-linear electromechanical
transducer, and again we need a good transducer so the non-linear
region is far enough outside the operating region that they are small
enough not to be noticable. Of course, we have to introduce a defined
distortion to compensate for the RIAA distorion, and hope they match
well enough not to be audible.

2) To make a CD, a digital music source is preferred, but if an analog
master is used, it goes through an A/D converter. A/D converters come
in different speeds and accuracies. and it is easy to find one that
has accuracy as arbitrarily low as desired. Very high quality A/D's
are used and 0.001% accuracy is commonly available. The CD also has a
number of manufacturing steps, but each digital generation, unlike the
succeeding analog generations above, lose no data. No soft harmonics
are lost or noise generated because the copied data are large
amplitude pulses. If a pulse were to be dropped due to a defect in the
medium, there is sufficient data for digital algorithyms to precisely
recover the pulse, resulting in an exact copy. There is no
electromechanical transducer used anywhere, and light is used to read
the digital data stream. It is easy to find a high accuracy D/A
converter to keep distortion levels extremely low.

So, one medium degrades at each step of the manufacturing process,
requires a defined distortion to be introduced, uses non-linear
electromechanical transducers as part of the manufacturing and
playback process, and each stamped copy is degraded from the previous
one as the stamping master grooves degrade. Further, the resulting
record degrades each playback as the mechanical stylus wears the
vinyl. When the first records were wax cyliners, the manufacturing and
playback ditortions were obvious, when they were 78 discs, they were
better but still obvious, when they were 45's and electronics were
used, they were better still, but still there, and with 33's and
better electronics and manufacturing methods, they are much better
yet. They are still there, but at a level most people don't notice.
Further, the record has significantlimitations on dynamic range and
stereo separation, again because of the use of electromechanical
transducers in the manufacturing and playback.

The other medium makes exact copies at all manufacturing steps,
results in an exact copy, is played back with light as a pickup, and
reproduces the original source with all fundamentals and harmonics,
alll amplitudes and phases, and does so with distortion levels on the
0.001% level. No mechanical transducers, no playback wear, no dynamic
range compromises, no stereo limitations, and distortion levels prders
of magnitude lower than vinyl.

It's no wonder the CD replaced the record overnight. If someone claims
to prefer the sound of the record, that's fine, but they are not
listening to a cleaner, more accurate recording, it just means that
the remaining distortions give a sound that is pleasing to them. Do
not make the claim, though, that the record is more accurate or has
less distortion, or that digital processing loses information that one
can hear in the record. This is nonsense.

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

wrote in message


snip

So, one medium degrades at each step of the manufacturing process,
requires a defined distortion to be introduced, uses non-linear
electromechanical transducers as part of the manufacturing and
playback process, and each stamped copy is degraded from the previous
one as the stamping master grooves degrade. Further, the resulting
record degrades each playback as the mechanical stylus wears the
vinyl. When the first records were wax cyliners, the manufacturing and
playback ditortions were obvious, when they were 78 discs, they were
better but still obvious, when they were 45's and electronics were
used, they were better still, but still there, and with 33's and
better electronics and manufacturing methods, they are much better
yet. They are still there, but at a level most people don't notice.
Further, the record has significantlimitations on dynamic range and
stereo separation, again because of the use of electromechanical
transducers in the manufacturing and playback.

Limits rarely challenged on commercial recordings.

The other medium makes exact copies at all manufacturing steps,
results in an exact copy, is played back with light as a pickup, and
reproduces the original source with all fundamentals and harmonics,
alll amplitudes and phases, and does so with distortion levels on the
0.001% level.

Below 20 kHz, that is, and assuming competent playback.

No mechanical transducers, no playback wear, no dynamic
range compromises, no stereo limitations, and distortion levels prders
of magnitude lower than vinyl.

It's no wonder the CD replaced the record overnight. If someone claims
to prefer the sound of the record, that's fine, but they are not
listening to a cleaner, more accurate recording, it just means that
the remaining distortions give a sound that is pleasing to them. Do
not make the claim, though, that the record is more accurate or has
less distortion, or that digital processing loses information that one
can hear in the record. This is nonsense.

He left out recording and mastering, and his opinion of "accurate" is an
engineer's view that doesn't include the perceptual process, or
"listening," as we call it.

Stephen

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

wrote in message


snip

So, one medium degrades at each step of the
manufacturing process, requires a defined distortion to
be introduced, uses non-linear electromechanical
transducers as part of the manufacturing and playback
process, and each stamped copy is degraded from the
previous one as the stamping master grooves degrade.
Further, the resulting record degrades each playback as
the mechanical stylus wears the vinyl. When the first
records were wax cyliners, the manufacturing and
playback ditortions were obvious, when they were 78
discs, they were better but still obvious, when they
were 45's and electronics were used, they were better
still, but still there, and with 33's and better
electronics and manufacturing methods, they are much
better yet. They are still there, but at a level most
people don't notice. Further, the record has
significantlimitations on dynamic range and stereo
separation, again because of the use of
electromechanical transducers in the manufacturing and
playback.

Limits rarely challenged on commercial recordings.

Untrue.

The audible limitations of the LP format are extremely intrusive and
pervasive. The intergenerational losses inherent in the LP format are
generally intolerable for commercial purposes, except in extreme situations.
Note how quickly magnetic tape replaced LPs as mastering media back in the
1950s, never to return.

The other medium makes exact copies at all manufacturing
steps, results in an exact copy, is played back with
light as a pickup, and reproduces the original source
with all fundamentals and harmonics, alll amplitudes and
phases, and does so with distortion levels on the
0.001% level.

Below 20 kHz, that is,

There's no known generally-accepted scientific reason to worry about
response above 20 KHz.

and assuming competent playback.

A straw man argument if there ever was one.

No mechanical transducers, no playback wear, no dynamic
range compromises, no stereo limitations, and distortion
levels prders of magnitude lower than vinyl.

It's no wonder the CD replaced the record overnight. If
someone claims to prefer the sound of the record, that's
fine, but they are not listening to a cleaner, more
accurate recording, it just means that the remaining
distortions give a sound that is pleasing to them. Do
not make the claim, though, that the record is more
accurate or has less distortion, or that digital
processing loses information that one can hear in the
record. This is nonsense.

He left out recording and mastering, and his opinion of
"accurate" is an engineer's view that doesn't include the
perceptual process, or "listening," as we call it.

That's true for *any* distribution format, which means that its inclusion
here is yet another straw man argument.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
wrote in message


[snip]

This is, to me, old hat.
My understanding of the issue is that most people who prefer vinyl
understand that measured distortion of vinyl is much, much higher than any
digital format. The reason they prefer vinyl is because it agrees with their
ears more.

I accept the "vinyl process" as one which modifies sound to be more
agreeable to some listeners. They may additionally argue that the result
sounds to them more like the live event. Since this is a subjective
statement, there really is nothing to argue about.

Is there anyone out there who actually believes that vinyl can best CD in
the "live mic feed" distinguishability test?

"Robert Morein" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
wrote in message


[snip]

This is, to me, old hat.
My understanding of the issue is that most people who
prefer vinyl understand that measured distortion of vinyl
is much, much higher than any digital format. The reason
they prefer vinyl is because it agrees with their ears
more.

Not generally true, even in the case of the RAHE thread from which this post
was taken.

There are a lot of people who think that the LP format has even one
technical leg to stand on. For example, see Stephen's response to my OP. He
started on the issue of response 20 KHz. IOW he believes that there is a
technical justification for the LP format based on its purported ability to
respond 20 KHz. BTW the LP's response above 10 KHz, let alone 20 KHz has
severely limited dynamic range and is generally highly distorted.


Is there anyone out there who actually believes that
vinyl can best CD in the "live mic feed"
distinguishability test?

Please see the RAHE thread this text came from, which is currently active.

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Robert Morein" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
wrote in message


[snip]

This is, to me, old hat.
My understanding of the issue is that most people who
prefer vinyl understand that measured distortion of vinyl
is much, much higher than any digital format. The reason
they prefer vinyl is because it agrees with their ears
more.

Not generally true, even in the case of the RAHE thread from which this post
was taken.

There are a lot of people who think that the LP format has even one
technical leg to stand on. For example, see Stephen's response to my OP. He
started on the issue of response 20 KHz. IOW he believes that there is a
technical justification for the LP format based on its purported ability to
respond 20 KHz. BTW the LP's response above 10 KHz, let alone 20 KHz has
severely limited dynamic range and is generally highly distorted.

But present.

Is there anyone out there who actually believes that
vinyl can best CD in the "live mic feed"
distinguishability test?

Please see the RAHE thread this text came from, which is currently active.

Mic feed is still the winner.

Stephen

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

wrote in message


snip

So, one medium degrades at each step of the
manufacturing process, requires a defined distortion to
be introduced, uses non-linear electromechanical
transducers as part of the manufacturing and playback
process, and each stamped copy is degraded from the
previous one as the stamping master grooves degrade.
Further, the resulting record degrades each playback as
the mechanical stylus wears the vinyl. When the first
records were wax cyliners, the manufacturing and
playback ditortions were obvious, when they were 78
discs, they were better but still obvious, when they
were 45's and electronics were used, they were better
still, but still there, and with 33's and better
electronics and manufacturing methods, they are much
better yet. They are still there, but at a level most
people don't notice. Further, the record has
significantlimitations on dynamic range and stereo
separation, again because of the use of
electromechanical transducers in the manufacturing and
playback.

Limits rarely challenged on commercial recordings.

Untrue.

jj says lp is equivalent to about 11 bits. You've said 13 bits is enough
for transparent playback. Lots of fuss for two bits, eh?

The audible limitations of the LP format are extremely intrusive and
pervasive. The intergenerational losses inherent in the LP format are
generally intolerable for commercial purposes, except in extreme situations.
Note how quickly magnetic tape replaced LPs as mastering media back in the
1950s, never to return.

Noise is bad, but not necessarily intolerable. Low-rate mp3 and whatever
goes on satellite radio is enjoyed by many despite audible limitations.

Aren't we mixing up production and reproduction? Editing by lp is
awkward enough to be avoided no matter the fidelity.

The other medium makes exact copies at all manufacturing
steps, results in an exact copy, is played back with
light as a pickup, and reproduces the original source
with all fundamentals and harmonics, alll amplitudes and
phases, and does so with distortion levels on the
0.001% level.

Below 20 kHz, that is,

There's no known generally-accepted scientific reason to worry about
response above 20 KHz.

Unless you really want to relax to gamelan music or get the most of your
Harmon-muted trumpet recordings.

and assuming competent playback.

A straw man argument if there ever was one.

No, an oblique reference to jitter.

No mechanical transducers, no playback wear, no dynamic
range compromises, no stereo limitations, and distortion
levels prders of magnitude lower than vinyl.

It's no wonder the CD replaced the record overnight. If
someone claims to prefer the sound of the record, that's
fine, but they are not listening to a cleaner, more
accurate recording, it just means that the remaining
distortions give a sound that is pleasing to them. Do
not make the claim, though, that the record is more
accurate or has less distortion, or that digital
processing loses information that one can hear in the
record. This is nonsense.

He left out recording and mastering, and his opinion of
"accurate" is an engineer's view that doesn't include the
perceptual process, or "listening," as we call it.

That's true for *any* distribution format, which means that its inclusion
here is yet another straw man argument.

No, because the mature analog recording process wasn't instantly
equalled by the new digital recording process.

Stephen

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Robert Morein" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
wrote in message


[snip]

This is, to me, old hat.
My understanding of the issue is that most people who
prefer vinyl understand that measured distortion of
vinyl is much, much higher than any digital format. The
reason they prefer vinyl is because it agrees with
their ears more.

Not generally true, even in the case of the RAHE thread
from which this post was taken.

There are a lot of people who think that the LP format
has even one technical leg to stand on. For example, see
Stephen's response to my OP. He started on the issue of
response 20 KHz. IOW he believes that there is a
technical justification for the LP format based on its
purported ability to respond 20 KHz. BTW the LP's
response above 10 KHz, let alone 20 KHz has severely
limited dynamic range and is generally highly distorted.

But present.

Is there anyone out there who actually believes that
vinyl can best CD in the "live mic feed"
distinguishability test?

Please see the RAHE thread this text came from, which is
currently active.

Mic feed is still the winner.

Actually, mic feed is still the loser, compared to live.

Anecdote - I just spent two days seated about 12' from the front edge of a
stage in a very good-sounding classic old high school auditorium about 100
miles from here. I was recording a high school band competition. I had the
opportunity to listen to the mic feed through a pair of well-respected
high-accuracy headphones and compare that to the life sound. Close, but no
cigar. I also auditioned every CD I burned with the same headphones. Within
the obvious limits of non-level-matched non bias-controlled comparisons
which many deny exist, the CDs sounded just like the mic feed.

Arny Krueger wrote:


There's no known generally-accepted scientific reason to worry about
response above 20 KHz.

Remember quadrophonic vinyl records where the rear channels were
multiplexed above 20 khz? That's a reason. Maybe not a particularly
relevant one to this thread, but a reason nonetheless.

//Walt

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

wrote in message


snip

So, one medium degrades at each step of the
manufacturing process, requires a defined distortion to
be introduced, uses non-linear electromechanical
transducers as part of the manufacturing and playback
process, and each stamped copy is degraded from the
previous one as the stamping master grooves degrade.
Further, the resulting record degrades each playback as
the mechanical stylus wears the vinyl. When the first
records were wax cyliners, the manufacturing and
playback ditortions were obvious, when they were 78
discs, they were better but still obvious, when they
were 45's and electronics were used, they were better
still, but still there, and with 33's and better
electronics and manufacturing methods, they are much
better yet. They are still there, but at a level most
people don't notice. Further, the record has
significantlimitations on dynamic range and stereo
separation, again because of the use of
electromechanical transducers in the manufacturing and
playback.

Limits rarely challenged on commercial recordings.

Untrue.

jj says lp is equivalent to about 11 bits.

Right.

You've said 13 bits is enough for transparent playback. Lots of fuss for
two bits, eh?

You've missed the point which is that since the LP format is the equivalent
of 11 bits and it takes at least 13 bits for transparency, the LP format is
two bits shy of a full load.


The audible limitations of the LP format are extremely
intrusive and pervasive. The intergenerational losses
inherent in the LP format are generally intolerable for
commercial purposes, except in extreme situations. Note
how quickly magnetic tape replaced LPs as mastering
media back in the 1950s, never to return.

Noise is bad, but not necessarily intolerable. Low-rate
mp3 and whatever goes on satellite radio is enjoyed by
many despite audible limitations.

If you want to characterize the LP format as being comparable to the sonic
drek that the satellite radio providers current dish out, be my guest.

Aren't we mixing up production and reproduction? Editing
by lp is awkward enough to be avoided no matter the fidelity.

If you've ever heard a second-generation LP transcription, you'd know that
editing while problematical, was not the most serious problem.

The other medium makes exact copies at all
manufacturing steps, results in an exact copy, is
played back with light as a pickup, and reproduces the
original source with all fundamentals and harmonics,
alll amplitudes and phases, and does so with
distortion levels on the
0.001% level.

Below 20 kHz, that is,

There's no known generally-accepted scientific reason to
worry about response above 20 KHz.

Unless you really want to relax to gamelan music

That claim is far from being accepted by the general scientific community.
Harry Lavo is one of the very few people I know who is desperate enough to
even bring that study up.

or get the most of your Harmon-muted trumpet recordings.

There are no scientific claims about audibility in that paper at all, and
the paper in question has AFAIK never been published in a refereed journal
or even given at a an appropriate professional gathering.

and assuming competent playback.

A straw man argument if there ever was one.

No, an oblique reference to jitter.

See "scientific claims".

No mechanical transducers, no playback wear, no dynamic
range compromises, no stereo limitations, and
distortion levels prders of magnitude lower than vinyl.

It's no wonder the CD replaced the record overnight. If
someone claims to prefer the sound of the record,
that's fine, but they are not listening to a cleaner,
more accurate recording, it just means that the
remaining distortions give a sound that is pleasing to
them. Do not make the claim, though, that the record
is more accurate or has less distortion, or that
digital processing loses information that one can hear
in the record. This is nonsense.

He left out recording and mastering, and his opinion of
"accurate" is an engineer's view that doesn't include
the perceptual process, or "listening," as we call it.

That's true for *any* distribution format, which means
that its inclusion here is yet another straw man
argument.

No, because the mature analog recording process wasn't
instantly equalled by the new digital recording process.

See "scientific claims".

The recording process (i.e., 16/44 stereo digitization) was proven to be
sonically transparent several years before the first commercial CD was even
released.

"Walt" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:

There's no known generally-accepted scientific reason to
worry about response above 20 KHz.

Remember quadrophonic vinyl records where the rear
channels were multiplexed above 20 khz? That's a reason.

Huh?

Maybe not a particularly relevant one to this thread, but
a reason nonetheless.

Reason for what?

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

wrote in message


snip

So, one medium degrades at each step of the
manufacturing process, requires a defined distortion to
be introduced, uses non-linear electromechanical
transducers as part of the manufacturing and playback
process, and each stamped copy is degraded from the
previous one as the stamping master grooves degrade.
Further, the resulting record degrades each playback as
the mechanical stylus wears the vinyl. When the first
records were wax cyliners, the manufacturing and
playback ditortions were obvious, when they were 78
discs, they were better but still obvious, when they
were 45's and electronics were used, they were better
still, but still there, and with 33's and better
electronics and manufacturing methods, they are much
better yet. They are still there, but at a level most
people don't notice. Further, the record has
significantlimitations on dynamic range and stereo
separation, again because of the use of
electromechanical transducers in the manufacturing and
playback.

Limits rarely challenged on commercial recordings.

Untrue.

jj says lp is equivalent to about 11 bits.

Right.

You've said 13 bits is enough for transparent playback. Lots of fuss for
two bits, eh?

You've missed the point which is that since the LP format is the equivalent
of 11 bits and it takes at least 13 bits for transparency, the LP format is
two bits shy of a full load.

"At least"? Your argument was "at most."

The audible limitations of the LP format are extremely
intrusive and pervasive. The intergenerational losses
inherent in the LP format are generally intolerable for
commercial purposes, except in extreme situations. Note
how quickly magnetic tape replaced LPs as mastering
media back in the 1950s, never to return.

Noise is bad, but not necessarily intolerable. Low-rate
mp3 and whatever goes on satellite radio is enjoyed by
many despite audible limitations.

If you want to characterize the LP format as being comparable to the sonic
drek that the satellite radio providers current dish out, be my guest.

It speaks to your "intolerable."

Aren't we mixing up production and reproduction? Editing
by lp is awkward enough to be avoided no matter the fidelity.

If you've ever heard a second-generation LP transcription, you'd know that
editing while problematical, was not the most serious problem.

Noise would be a problem. Still, "Sheik of Araby" was done with acetates
and was a hit.

The other medium makes exact copies at all
manufacturing steps, results in an exact copy, is
played back with light as a pickup, and reproduces the
original source with all fundamentals and harmonics,
alll amplitudes and phases, and does so with
distortion levels on the
0.001% level.

Below 20 kHz, that is,

There's no known generally-accepted scientific reason to
worry about response above 20 KHz.

Unless you really want to relax to gamelan music

That claim is far from being accepted by the general scientific community.
Harry Lavo is one of the very few people I know who is desperate enough to
even bring that study up.

Neither has it been refuted.

It's desperate to bring up real science?

or get the most of your Harmon-muted trumpet recordings.

There are no scientific claims about audibility in that paper at all, and
the paper in question has AFAIK never been published in a refereed journal
or even given at a an appropriate professional gathering.

If it's there, you want it on the record.

and assuming competent playback.

A straw man argument if there ever was one.

No, an oblique reference to jitter.

See "scientific claims".

Jitter is audible.

No mechanical transducers, no playback wear, no dynamic
range compromises, no stereo limitations, and
distortion levels prders of magnitude lower than vinyl.

It's no wonder the CD replaced the record overnight. If
someone claims to prefer the sound of the record,
that's fine, but they are not listening to a cleaner,
more accurate recording, it just means that the
remaining distortions give a sound that is pleasing to
them. Do not make the claim, though, that the record
is more accurate or has less distortion, or that
digital processing loses information that one can hear
in the record. This is nonsense.

He left out recording and mastering, and his opinion of
"accurate" is an engineer's view that doesn't include
the perceptual process, or "listening," as we call it.

That's true for *any* distribution format, which means
that its inclusion here is yet another straw man
argument.

No, because the mature analog recording process wasn't
instantly equalled by the new digital recording process.

See "scientific claims".

No, we can hear this for ourselves using commercial releases.

The recording process (i.e., 16/44 stereo digitization) was proven to be
sonically transparent several years before the first commercial CD was even
released.

But not necessarily the recording equipment.

Stephen

I read this earlier and immediatley saved it, since I figure it will be
useful in the future.
Obviously, as indicated by the responses, you can lead a man to light,but
you can't makehim see.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
wrote in message


I myself am an analog designer. I have 30 years experience designing
analog microcircuits and have 22 patents. I also have several honors
from EDN and Electronic Design magazines. I mention this so you can
understand I have a strong appreciation for analog design.
Nevertheless, as a realistic engineer, I know that digital does a
better job in many areas, including CD and records. Given the same
music source for both, then

1) To make the record you must use a lathe to cut spiral groves into a
laquer coated aluminum disc, then the music source is used to modulate
a second, precise cutting stylus to cut the music grooves, then the
disc is metal plated multiple times, and the original disc is removed,
leaving a metal negative suitable for stamping vinyl. Each processing
step is a later generation copy, and every step results in some degree
of degradation, hopefully not audible, but there nevertheless. Also,
the cutting stylus is controlled by an electromechanical transducer,
which has a non-linear response, so the transducer is operated in an
approximately linear range, and it is hoped that the non-linearities
are small enough not to be audible. The next step is stamping the
vinyl, and each pressing degrades the metal stamping negative, they
are only good for about 1000 pressings, and the 1000th record is not
as good as the first, but again, hopefully the degradation will not be
noticed. Further, due to the limitations of the vinyl and to reduce
certain distortions, particularly distorions of the required
electromechanical transducer required for playback, a defined
amplitude distorion in introduced on the stamping master, called RIAA
equalization. To play the resulting record, we have to drag a stylus
through the grooves, using again a non-linear electromechanical
transducer, and again we need a good transducer so the non-linear
region is far enough outside the operating region that they are small
enough not to be noticable. Of course, we have to introduce a defined
distortion to compensate for the RIAA distorion, and hope they match
well enough not to be audible.

2) To make a CD, a digital music source is preferred, but if an analog
master is used, it goes through an A/D converter. A/D converters come
in different speeds and accuracies. and it is easy to find one that
has accuracy as arbitrarily low as desired. Very high quality A/D's
are used and 0.001% accuracy is commonly available. The CD also has a
number of manufacturing steps, but each digital generation, unlike the
succeeding analog generations above, lose no data. No soft harmonics
are lost or noise generated because the copied data are large
amplitude pulses. If a pulse were to be dropped due to a defect in the
medium, there is sufficient data for digital algorithyms to precisely
recover the pulse, resulting in an exact copy. There is no
electromechanical transducer used anywhere, and light is used to read
the digital data stream. It is easy to find a high accuracy D/A
converter to keep distortion levels extremely low.

So, one medium degrades at each step of the manufacturing process,
requires a defined distortion to be introduced, uses non-linear
electromechanical transducers as part of the manufacturing and
playback process, and each stamped copy is degraded from the previous
one as the stamping master grooves degrade. Further, the resulting
record degrades each playback as the mechanical stylus wears the
vinyl. When the first records were wax cyliners, the manufacturing and
playback ditortions were obvious, when they were 78 discs, they were
better but still obvious, when they were 45's and electronics were
used, they were better still, but still there, and with 33's and
better electronics and manufacturing methods, they are much better
yet. They are still there, but at a level most people don't notice.
Further, the record has significantlimitations on dynamic range and
stereo separation, again because of the use of electromechanical
transducers in the manufacturing and playback.

The other medium makes exact copies at all manufacturing steps,
results in an exact copy, is played back with light as a pickup, and
reproduces the original source with all fundamentals and harmonics,
alll amplitudes and phases, and does so with distortion levels on the
0.001% level. No mechanical transducers, no playback wear, no dynamic
range compromises, no stereo limitations, and distortion levels prders
of magnitude lower than vinyl.

It's no wonder the CD replaced the record overnight. If someone claims
to prefer the sound of the record, that's fine, but they are not
listening to a cleaner, more accurate recording, it just means that
the remaining distortions give a sound that is pleasing to them. Do
not make the claim, though, that the record is more accurate or has
less distortion, or that digital processing loses information that one
can hear in the record. This is nonsense.

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Walt" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:

There's no known generally-accepted scientific reason to
worry about response above 20 KHz.

Remember quadrophonic vinyl records where the rear
channels were multiplexed above 20 khz? That's a reason.

Huh?

Maybe not a particularly relevant one to this thread, but
a reason nonetheless.

Reason for what?

For 20 kHz response, if not for audibility.

Stephen

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

wrote in message


snip

So, one medium degrades at each step of the
manufacturing process, requires a defined distortion
to be introduced, uses non-linear electromechanical
transducers as part of the manufacturing and playback
process, and each stamped copy is degraded from the
previous one as the stamping master grooves degrade.
Further, the resulting record degrades each playback
as the mechanical stylus wears the vinyl. When the
first records were wax cyliners, the manufacturing
and playback ditortions were obvious, when they were
78 discs, they were better but still obvious, when
they were 45's and electronics were used, they were
better still, but still there, and with 33's and
better electronics and manufacturing methods, they
are much better yet. They are still there, but at a
level most people don't notice. Further, the record
has significantlimitations on dynamic range and
stereo separation, again because of the use of
electromechanical transducers in the manufacturing
and playback.

Limits rarely challenged on commercial recordings.

Untrue.

jj says lp is equivalent to about 11 bits.

Right.

You've said 13 bits is enough for transparent
playback. Lots of fuss for two bits, eh?

You've missed the point which is that since the LP
format is the equivalent of 11 bits and it takes at
least 13 bits for transparency, the LP format is two
bits shy of a full load.

"At least"? Your argument was "at most."

Huh?

The audible limitations of the LP format are extremely
intrusive and pervasive. The intergenerational losses
inherent in the LP format are generally intolerable for
commercial purposes, except in extreme situations. Note
how quickly magnetic tape replaced LPs as mastering
media back in the 1950s, never to return.

Noise is bad, but not necessarily intolerable. Low-rate
mp3 and whatever goes on satellite radio is enjoyed by
many despite audible limitations.

If you want to characterize the LP format as being
comparable to the sonic drek that the satellite radio
providers current dish out, be my guest.

It speaks to your "intolerable."

IT speaks well, I might add.

Aren't we mixing up production and reproduction? Editing
by lp is awkward enough to be avoided no matter the
fidelity.

If you've ever heard a second-generation LP
transcription, you'd know that editing while
problematical, was not the most serious problem.

Noise would be a problem. Still, "Sheik of Araby" was
done with acetates and was a hit.

The other medium makes exact copies at all
manufacturing steps, results in an exact copy, is
played back with light as a pickup, and reproduces
the original source with all fundamentals and
harmonics, alll amplitudes and phases, and does so
with distortion levels on the
0.001% level.

Below 20 kHz, that is,

There's no known generally-accepted scientific reason
to worry about response above 20 KHz.

Unless you really want to relax to gamelan music

That claim is far from being accepted by the general
scientific community. Harry Lavo is one of the very few
people I know who is desperate enough to even bring that
study up.

Neither has it been refuted.

Says who?

It's desperate to bring up real science?

or get the most of your Harmon-muted trumpet
recordings.

There are no scientific claims about audibility in that
paper at all, and the paper in question has AFAIK never
been published in a refereed journal or even given at a
an appropriate professional gathering.

If it's there, you want it on the record.

and assuming competent playback.

A straw man argument if there ever was one.

No, an oblique reference to jitter.

See "scientific claims".

Jitter is audible.

It is true that the LP format with inherent jitter orders of magnitude
greater than that of the CD, has audible jitter.


No mechanical transducers, no playback wear, no
dynamic range compromises, no stereo limitations, and
distortion levels prders of magnitude lower than
vinyl.

It's no wonder the CD replaced the record overnight.
If someone claims to prefer the sound of the record,
that's fine, but they are not listening to a cleaner,
more accurate recording, it just means that the
remaining distortions give a sound that is pleasing
to them. Do not make the claim, though, that the
record is more accurate or has less distortion, or
that digital processing loses information that one
can hear in the record. This is nonsense.

He left out recording and mastering, and his opinion
of "accurate" is an engineer's view that doesn't
include the perceptual process, or "listening," as we
call it.

That's true for *any* distribution format, which means
that its inclusion here is yet another straw man
argument.

No, because the mature analog recording process wasn't
instantly equalled by the new digital recording process.

See "scientific claims".

No, we can hear this for ourselves using commercial
releases.

You're confusing poor implementations (e.g. no mastering or incompetent
mastering) with inherent problems with the technology.

The recording process (i.e., 16/44 stereo digitization)
was proven to be sonically transparent several years
before the first commercial CD was even released.

But not necessarily the recording equipment.

When the CD format was introduced, Sony and Philips had 100% control over
the production of CDs - all CDs were made in their plants. They produced
100% of all of the digital masters. The recording equipment that was unique
to the CD format was under their control. The new digital recording process
was standardized by them and known to be sonically transparent.

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Walt" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:

There's no known generally-accepted scientific reason
to worry about response above 20 KHz.

Remember quadrophonic vinyl records where the rear
channels were multiplexed above 20 khz? That's a
reason.

Huh?

Maybe not a particularly relevant one to this thread,
but a reason nonetheless.

Reason for what?

For 20 kHz response, if not for audibility.

From the standpoint of music, quad LP's did not have 20 KHz response.

Furthermore, LP performance above 10 KHz, let alone 20 KHz is very troubled.

"François Yves Le Gal" wrote in
message
On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 13:36:18 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

The recording process (i.e., 16/44 stereo digitization)
was proven to be sonically transparent several years
before the first commercial CD was even released.

It is not.



The Compact Disc format was chosen because it was within
the technological bounds of the end of the 70's: disc
size was initially set, based on the size of a compact
cassette; Philips wanted to fit 74 minutes; the 16-bit
approach was pushed by Sony while Philips wanted to go
the 14-bit route (their first players were 14-bit only,
while Sony shared the same 16-bit DA converter,
alternating it between the two channels - a clever
kludge, but a kludge anyway); leaving sampling rate as
the sole remaining variable.

As it had to be compatible with PAL or NTSC tape
recorders - the media of choice for recording and
mastering at that time - and digital technology was in
it's infancy, Philips and Sony only considered 44.056 and
44.1 KHz sampling rates. Finally 44.1 KHz was picked
because it was easier to remember.

Compact disc was born out of convenience, nothing more.

No evidence has been provided to support this exceptional claim.

For more info, please read "The Compact Disc Story", Kees
A. Schouhamer Immink, Journal of the Audio Engineering
Society, vol. 46, pp. 458-465, May 1998.

A poor quality - but readable - copy is available on
Immin's personal web site:
http://www.exp-math.uni-essen.de/~im...df/cdstory.pdf

It's plenty readible. I see nothing there that supports any claim that the
CD was born solely out of convenience, and nothing more. It is true that the
exact details of certain choices were borne out of convenience. However
these choices were made within ranges known to produce excellent sonic
performance.

Getting back to it's sonic transparency, later works have
demonstrated that 16/44 is *close* to being transparent,
but that around 20 bits with proper noise shaping (21.5
bits flat) at a sample rate of at least 55 KHz are
required to properly encode audio signals. Some
researchers such as Fielder dissent and propose even
higher resolutions - I would tend to agree with them.

Please refer to "Auditory modelling related to the bit
budget", J.R. Stuart Proceedings of AES UK Conference
"Managing the Bit Budget", 167-178, 1994 or to ARA's "A
Proposal for the High-Quality Audio Application
High-Density CD Carriers" - available at
http://www.meridian-audio.com/ara/ara13.pdf - for more
details.

It's already been more recently shown that at the time these papers were
written, Mr. Stuart had misapprehensions about psychoacoustics.

A 55 KHz sample rate doesn't exist, you can either
downgrade to 48 KHz, forgetting some transparency, or go
higher. The two next options are 88.2 and 96 Khz. The
former isn't widely used, leaving only 96 KHz as a viable
option.

There remains no evidence that the 16/44 KHz format is incapable of
sonically transparent reproduction of music.

Ditto for resolution : 21.5-bit DA and AD converters
aren't the norm, 24-bit models are. Additionally, as all
converters are far from linear when it comes to LSB's,
going the 24-bit route allows for a clean monotonic
operation down to 22 bits or so.

In fact sigma-delta converters are inherently free of practical problems
with monotonicity.

In fact commercial recordings with more than 14 bit resolution just don't
seem to exist. We don't need 5.5 bits to reproduce the noise floor of our
mic preamps when that noise floor is masked over by ambient nose in studios
and concert halls.


So basically, a properly implemented 24/96 system -
widely available today in professional or consumer
equipment - is required for transparent digital recording
and playback, very far from what the humble Compact Disc
can offer.

Reaserching the papers cited above shows that any problems are with the
outdated assumptions contained in those papers. Note that none of the cited
papers that call for greater than 16 bit resolution or more than 22 KHz
bandwidth have passed review by the usual relevant accredited referees.

There is at least one JAES paper that calls for 16 bit resolution, but it
contains assumptions that have zero real-world relevance.

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Robert Morein" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
wrote in message


[snip]

This is, to me, old hat.
My understanding of the issue is that most people who
prefer vinyl understand that measured distortion of
vinyl is much, much higher than any digital format.
The reason they prefer vinyl is because it agrees with
their ears more.

Not generally true, even in the case of the RAHE thread
from which this post was taken.

There are a lot of people who think that the LP format
has even one technical leg to stand on. For example,
see Stephen's response to my OP. He started on the
issue of response 20 KHz. IOW he believes that there
is a technical justification for the LP format based
on its purported ability to respond 20 KHz. BTW the
LP's response above 10 KHz, let alone 20 KHz has
severely limited dynamic range and is generally highly
distorted.

But present.

Is there anyone out there who actually believes that
vinyl can best CD in the "live mic feed"
distinguishability test?

Please see the RAHE thread this text came from, which
is currently active.

Mic feed is still the winner.

Actually, mic feed is still the loser, compared to live.

Anecdote - I just spent two days seated about 12' from
the front edge of a stage in a very good-sounding
classic old high school auditorium about 100 miles from
here. I was recording a high school band competition. I
had the opportunity to listen to the mic feed through a
pair of well-respected high-accuracy headphones and
compare that to the life sound. Close, but no cigar. I
also auditioned every CD I burned with the same
headphones. Within the obvious limits of
non-level-matched non bias-controlled comparisons which
many deny exist, the CDs sounded just like the mic feed.

Cd equals mic feed live over headphones in the same room
12' from the performers? How did cd replicate the skin
response?

Since the acoustic source was headphones in either case, this would be yet
another straw man argument.

Fran?ois Yves Le Gal wrote:
On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 13:36:18 -0500, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

The recording process (i.e., 16/44 stereo digitization) was proven to be
sonically transparent several years before the first commercial CD was even
released.

It is not.

The Compact Disc format was chosen because it was within the technological
bounds of the end of the 70's: disc size was initially set, based on the
size of a compact cassette; Philips wanted to fit 74 minutes; the 16-bit
approach was pushed by Sony while Philips wanted to go the 14-bit route
(their first players were 14-bit only, while Sony shared the same 16-bit DA
converter, alternating it between the two channels - a clever kludge, but a
kludge anyway); leaving sampling rate as the sole remaining variable.

As it had to be compatible with PAL or NTSC tape recorders - the media of
choice for recording and mastering at that time - and digital technology was
in it's infancy, Philips and Sony only considered 44.056 and 44.1 KHz
sampling rates. Finally 44.1 KHz was picked because it was easier to
remember.

Compact disc was born out of convenience, nothing more.

For more info, please read "The Compact Disc Story", Kees A. Schouhamer
Immink, Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, vol. 46, pp. 458-465, May
1998.

A poor quality - but readable - copy is available on Immin's personal web
site:
http://www.exp-math.uni-essen.de/~im...df/cdstory.pdf

Getting back to it's sonic transparency, later works have demonstrated that
16/44 is *close* to being transparent, but that around 20 bits with proper
noise shaping (21.5 bits flat) at a sample rate of at least 55 KHz are
required to properly encode audio signals. Some researchers such as Fielder
dissent and propose even higher resolutions - I would tend to agree with
them.


Keep in mind the 'transparency' needs of *recording*, versus playback.
20 bits of resolution for a normal playback environment is excessive, for
pretty much any commerical recording.


Please refer to "Auditory modelling related to the bit budget", J.R. Stuart
Proceedings of AES UK Conference "Managing the Bit Budget", 167?178, 1994 or
to ARA's "A Proposal for the High-Quality Audio Application
High-Density CD Carriers" - available at
http://www.meridian-audio.com/ara/ara13.pdf - for more details.


Meridian has never, to my knowledge, demonstrated that such specs are
*necessary* to achieve audible transparency in a normal listening
environment. They have published more than one paper on why such specs can make
transparency easier to achieve...or why they would be needed if *other*
unproved hypotheses turn out to be true (e.g., audible content above
20 kHz).



A 55 KHz sample rate doesn't exist, you can either downgrade to 48 KHz,
forgetting some transparency, or go higher. The two next options are 88.2
and 96 Khz. The former isn't widely used, leaving only 96 KHz as a viable
option.

Ditto for resolution : 21.5-bit DA and AD converters aren't the norm, 24-bit
models are. Additionally, as all converters are far from linear when it
comes to LSB's, going the 24-bit route allows for a clean monotonic
operation down to 22 bits or so.

So basically, a properly implemented 24/96 system - widely available today
in professional or consumer equipment - is required for transparent digital
recording and playback, very far from what the humble Compact Disc can
offer.


The higher bitdepth allows for extensive digital processing without
information loss -- *that*, as I understand it, is the main reason for
its adoption.







--

___
-S
"Excuse me? What solid proof do you have that I'm insane?" - soundhaspriority

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message


The higher bitdepth allows for extensive digital
processing without information loss -- *that*, as I understand it, is
the
main reason for its adoption.

Exactly.

BTW at my two-day recording session last week, here are some numbers that
relate to observed resolution. The equivalent noise of the mics is speced at
16 dB SPL.

(1) Peak level for any discernable amount of time (1 sample or a trio of
samples that suggest a higher excursion) - call that -1 dB FS. This
corresponded to about 95 dB SPL, A-weighted and slow meter averaging.

(2) Noise floor of all electronics with phantom power removed from
mics - -95 dB

(3) Noise floor of empty room with phantom power applied to mics -65 dB

(4) Noise floor of room with performers present and ready to play but
maximally quiet -60 dB

I estimate that the noise floor of the mics in this context was -75 dB or
better. IOW, they were not the weakest link. The room was.

"François Yves Le Gal" wrote in
message
On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 15:50:12 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Furthermore, LP performance above 10 KHz, let alone 20
KHz is very troubled.

Not with a properly set-up turntable/arm/cartridge combo
reading quality vinyl LP's.

How much time have you spent reading the classic papers about theoretical
and practical LP performance in the JAES, François?

François Yves Le Gal said to CheapskateBorg:

Furthermore, LP performance above 10 KHz, let alone 20 KHz is very troubled.

Not with a properly set-up turntable/arm/cartridge combo reading quality
vinyl LP's.

You know perfectly well that the Krooborg does not have the means to procure
such hardware. Please stop rubbing Mr. ****'s indigence in his face.






--
NewsGuy.Com 30Gb $9.95 Carry Forward and On Demand Bandwidth

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

snip

Anecdote - I just spent two days seated about 12' from
the front edge of a stage in a very good-sounding
classic old high school auditorium about 100 miles from
here. I was recording a high school band competition. I
had the opportunity to listen to the mic feed through a
pair of well-respected high-accuracy headphones and
compare that to the life sound. Close, but no cigar. I
also auditioned every CD I burned with the same
headphones. Within the obvious limits of
non-level-matched non bias-controlled comparisons which
many deny exist, the CDs sounded just like the mic feed.

Cd equals mic feed live over headphones in the same room
12' from the performers? How did cd replicate the skin
response?

Since the acoustic source was headphones in either case, this would be yet
another straw man argument.

No, it's not, and it may be time to amend the RAO Krooglish dictionary
to include "strawman" on the list of inoperative responses best ignored.

How could you listen to a live mic feed while in the same room as the
performance without skin contact? Whole body headphone enclosure?

Didn't your chair rumble with the bass drum? One would espect 12' from
the lip of the stage with a marching band on it to be somewhat loud. You
even claimed being close to a band was inherently deafening a week or
two ago.

Stephen

"François Yves Le Gal" wrote in
message
On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 16:07:04 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

It's already been more recently shown that at the time
these papers were written, Mr. Stuart had
misapprehensions about psychoacoustics.

Care to back this with some facts for a change?

I'm referring to a claim made in HFN by Bob Stuart that distortions might be
audible when
accompanied by the waveform they were changing even if the distortion was
so low a level as to be inaudible when unaccompanied. This is of course
counter to the what has been since clearly proven by the science of
psychoacoustics, and was effectively rebutted at the time by no less than
Peter Baxandall


There remains no evidence that the 16/44 KHz format is
incapable of sonically transparent reproduction of music.

There's an ample body of evidence, widely discussed
everywhere and accepted by all bar the resident luddites.

???????????

Here's what I posted some four years ago on rahe:

Let me begin by quoting an AES preprint, "Compatible Resolution
Enhancement in Digital Audio Systems", [1] by Keith O.
Johnson, an AES Fellow, and Michael W. Pflaumer:

"As the compact disc (CD) has become a widely used medium
for
distribution of high fidelity audio, it has become
apparent that its
sound quality is not as high as original expectations,
which were based primarily on conventional distortion and
frequency response
measurements. This view has been expressed both by those
involved in the production of CD's and by fidelity
conscious consumers.

Dissatisfaction with the fidelity of CD digital
recordings when compared to analog master tapes of the same recording
sessions
prompted the authors to investigate the factors responsible for the
loss of fidelity and to devise approaches for improving the situation.

These were of course sighted evaluations. I've seen that experiment done
both sighted and in a bias-controlled test. Needless to say removing the
biases removed the supposed effect.



The peak dynamic range requirement for professional
recording has been shown to approach 130 dB [2]. Even
conservative estimates produce
numbers greater than 120 dB [3]. While the capabilities
of an average home playback system cannot cover this range because the
average home speaker system cannot reach the necessary
peak sound pressure level (SPL), there will always be
some systems which can. In addition, edit situations and
listeners who change gain during a program pose added
dynamic requirements. Therefore, these numbers remain a
valid target.

The major problem with this theory is estimating dynamic range by comparing
very high peak levels with the threshold of hearing. One serious practical
problem is that SPL's this high make a complete and total mess of the ear
at least in the short and intermediate term, causing tremendous shifts of
the threshold of hearing. A second major problem is that this theory ignores
the well-known fact that the noise floor in concert halls is *always* vastly
more than the threshold of hearing.


../...

Research [2] has shown that distortion products other
than low order harmonics must be kept at least 120 dB
below peak levels in the presence
of complex signals in order to achieve a satisfactory
level of accuracy
in a critical listening environment.

Complete and total nonsense. Between the nonlinearity of the human ear above
75 dB, and concurrent masking, 120 dB is about half science fiction and I'm
not saying 6 dB science fiction, I', saying more like 60 dB science fiction.
Even Stuart admits to far more conservative numbers for hearing nonlinear
distortion, some of which are even in some of his papers advocating DVD-A. I
reproduce some of them at my PCAVTech web site.

Since interactions
with different listening systems may bring out different
problems, this level of performance is required to be
safe for all cases.

"All cases" in this case being cases that are so deep into error and science
fiction as to be completely laughable.

../...

Our current research indicates that infrequent distortion
products with peak levels in the -120 dB full scale
(dBFS) range are potentially
audible [4]".

See above.

Johnson and Pflaumer very clearly establish that the
dynamic range of CD
is vastly insufficient, building on research conducted by
Louis D.
Fielder, an AES Fellow and a former AES president [2 and
4], who had established years earlier that the
"reproduction of music at natural
sound levels requires very high peak sound levels of up
to 129dB spl",
with some instruments, such as percussions or brass
sections, being "capable of producing over 40 acoustic
watts".

snip, snip, snip

Cutting to the chase...

Many of these papers are from the late 1980s and early 1990s, which predates
widespread exposure of the well-known Psychoacoustics book by Zwicker and
Fastl. For this reason Fielder's paper, which was hyping the now-failed
HDCD process, would not pass the AES review board if resubmitted today, or
even near the end of the previous century.

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

wrote in message


snip

So, one medium degrades at each step of the
manufacturing process, requires a defined distortion
to be introduced, uses non-linear electromechanical
transducers as part of the manufacturing and playback
process, and each stamped copy is degraded from the
previous one as the stamping master grooves degrade.
Further, the resulting record degrades each playback
as the mechanical stylus wears the vinyl. When the
first records were wax cyliners, the manufacturing
and playback ditortions were obvious, when they were
78 discs, they were better but still obvious, when
they were 45's and electronics were used, they were
better still, but still there, and with 33's and
better electronics and manufacturing methods, they
are much better yet. They are still there, but at a
level most people don't notice. Further, the record
has significantlimitations on dynamic range and
stereo separation, again because of the use of
electromechanical transducers in the manufacturing
and playback.

Limits rarely challenged on commercial recordings.

Untrue.

jj says lp is equivalent to about 11 bits.

Right.

You've said 13 bits is enough for transparent
playback. Lots of fuss for two bits, eh?

You've missed the point which is that since the LP
format is the equivalent of 11 bits and it takes at
least 13 bits for transparency, the LP format is two
bits shy of a full load.

"At least"? Your argument was "at most."

Huh?

You don't remember "Arny's thirteen bit mastering studio"? Because you
ran tests in which your listeners couldn't id 13-bit from 16-bit you
claimed that 13 was enough. Of course, this was in a context of
discussing high rez formats which you argued were overkill.

The audible limitations of the LP format are extremely
intrusive and pervasive. The intergenerational losses
inherent in the LP format are generally intolerable for
commercial purposes, except in extreme situations. Note
how quickly magnetic tape replaced LPs as mastering
media back in the 1950s, never to return.

Noise is bad, but not necessarily intolerable. Low-rate
mp3 and whatever goes on satellite radio is enjoyed by
many despite audible limitations.

If you want to characterize the LP format as being
comparable to the sonic drek that the satellite radio
providers current dish out, be my guest.

It speaks to your "intolerable."

IT speaks well, I might add.

Yes, lps and mp3s have potentially pleasing and high fidelity playback
capabilities.

Aren't we mixing up production and reproduction? Editing
by lp is awkward enough to be avoided no matter the
fidelity.

If you've ever heard a second-generation LP
transcription, you'd know that editing while
problematical, was not the most serious problem.

Noise would be a problem. Still, "Sheik of Araby" was
done with acetates and was a hit.

The other medium makes exact copies at all
manufacturing steps, results in an exact copy, is
played back with light as a pickup, and reproduces
the original source with all fundamentals and
harmonics, alll amplitudes and phases, and does so
with distortion levels on the
0.001% level.

Below 20 kHz, that is,

There's no known generally-accepted scientific reason
to worry about response above 20 KHz.

Unless you really want to relax to gamelan music

That claim is far from being accepted by the general
scientific community. Harry Lavo is one of the very few
people I know who is desperate enough to even bring that
study up.

Neither has it been refuted.

Says who?

Cite the refuting study, please.

It's desperate to bring up real science?

or get the most of your Harmon-muted trumpet
recordings.

There are no scientific claims about audibility in that
paper at all, and the paper in question has AFAIK never
been published in a refereed journal or even given at a
an appropriate professional gathering.

If it's there, you want it on the record.

and assuming competent playback.

A straw man argument if there ever was one.

No, an oblique reference to jitter.

See "scientific claims".

Jitter is audible.

It is true that the LP format with inherent jitter orders of magnitude
greater than that of the CD, has audible jitter.

Cd jitter should be considered a pressing defect or a mastering failure.

No mechanical transducers, no playback wear, no
dynamic range compromises, no stereo limitations, and
distortion levels prders of magnitude lower than
vinyl.

It's no wonder the CD replaced the record overnight.
If someone claims to prefer the sound of the record,
that's fine, but they are not listening to a cleaner,
more accurate recording, it just means that the
remaining distortions give a sound that is pleasing
to them. Do not make the claim, though, that the
record is more accurate or has less distortion, or
that digital processing loses information that one
can hear in the record. This is nonsense.

He left out recording and mastering, and his opinion
of "accurate" is an engineer's view that doesn't
include the perceptual process, or "listening," as we
call it.

That's true for *any* distribution format, which means
that its inclusion here is yet another straw man
argument.

No, because the mature analog recording process wasn't
instantly equalled by the new digital recording process.

See "scientific claims".

No, we can hear this for ourselves using commercial
releases.

You're confusing poor implementations (e.g. no mastering or incompetent
mastering) with inherent problems with the technology.

I see Francois has addressed the scientific part of the claim with JAES
cites.

The recording process (i.e., 16/44 stereo digitization)
was proven to be sonically transparent several years
before the first commercial CD was even released.

But not necessarily the recording equipment.

When the CD format was introduced, Sony and Philips had 100% control over
the production of CDs - all CDs were made in their plants. They produced
100% of all of the digital masters. The recording equipment that was unique
to the CD format was under their control. The new digital recording process
was standardized by them and known to be sonically transparent.

Until it was improved by dithering techniques. Then it was even more
transparent. Then came higher rez recordings and it more transparent
still.

Salome should have so many layers of transparency.

Stephen

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

wrote in message


snip

So, one medium degrades at each step of the
manufacturing process, requires a defined
distortion to be introduced, uses non-linear
electromechanical transducers as part of the
manufacturing and playback process, and each
stamped copy is degraded from the previous one as
the stamping master grooves degrade. Further, the
resulting record degrades each playback as the
mechanical stylus wears the vinyl. When the first
records were wax cyliners, the manufacturing and
playback ditortions were obvious, when they were
78 discs, they were better but still obvious, when
they were 45's and electronics were used, they
were better still, but still there, and with 33's
and better electronics and manufacturing methods,
they are much better yet. They are still there,
but at a level most people don't notice. Further,
the record has significantlimitations on dynamic
range and stereo separation, again because of the
use of electromechanical transducers in the
manufacturing and playback.

Limits rarely challenged on commercial recordings.

Untrue.

jj says lp is equivalent to about 11 bits.

Right.

You've said 13 bits is enough for transparent
playback. Lots of fuss for two bits, eh?

You've missed the point which is that since the LP
format is the equivalent of 11 bits and it takes at
least 13 bits for transparency, the LP format is two
bits shy of a full load.

"At least"? Your argument was "at most."

Huh?

You don't remember "Arny's thirteen bit mastering
studio"? Because you ran tests in which your listeners
couldn't id 13-bit from 16-bit you claimed that 13 was
enough. Of course, this was in a context of discussing
high rez formats which you argued were overkill.

The audible limitations of the LP format are
extremely intrusive and pervasive. The
intergenerational losses inherent in the LP format
are generally intolerable for commercial purposes,
except in extreme situations. Note how quickly
magnetic tape replaced LPs as mastering media back
in the 1950s, never to return.

Noise is bad, but not necessarily intolerable.
Low-rate mp3 and whatever goes on satellite radio is
enjoyed by many despite audible limitations.

If you want to characterize the LP format as being
comparable to the sonic drek that the satellite radio
providers current dish out, be my guest.

It speaks to your "intolerable."

IT speaks well, I might add.

Yes, lps and mp3s have potentially pleasing and high
fidelity playback capabilities.

Aren't we mixing up production and reproduction?
Editing by lp is awkward enough to be avoided no
matter the fidelity.

If you've ever heard a second-generation LP
transcription, you'd know that editing while
problematical, was not the most serious problem.

Noise would be a problem. Still, "Sheik of Araby" was
done with acetates and was a hit.

The other medium makes exact copies at all
manufacturing steps, results in an exact copy, is
played back with light as a pickup, and reproduces
the original source with all fundamentals and
harmonics, alll amplitudes and phases, and does so
with distortion levels on the
0.001% level.

Below 20 kHz, that is,

There's no known generally-accepted scientific reason
to worry about response above 20 KHz.

Unless you really want to relax to gamelan music

That claim is far from being accepted by the general
scientific community. Harry Lavo is one of the very few
people I know who is desperate enough to even bring
that study up.

Neither has it been refuted.

Says who?

Cite the refuting study, please.

It's desperate to bring up real science?

or get the most of your Harmon-muted trumpet
recordings.

There are no scientific claims about audibility in that
paper at all, and the paper in question has AFAIK never
been published in a refereed journal or even given at a
an appropriate professional gathering.

If it's there, you want it on the record.

and assuming competent playback.

A straw man argument if there ever was one.

No, an oblique reference to jitter.

See "scientific claims".

Jitter is audible.

It is true that the LP format with inherent jitter
orders of magnitude greater than that of the CD, has
audible jitter.

Cd jitter should be considered a pressing defect or a
mastering failure.

Shows ignornace of the fact that CD jitter is rampant at the laser pickup
but vastly reduced by the data buffer and reclocking that is by definition
and absolute necessity present in every CD player, no matter how cheap or
simple.

No mechanical transducers, no playback wear, no
dynamic range compromises, no stereo limitations,
and distortion levels prders of magnitude lower
than vinyl.

It's no wonder the CD replaced the record
overnight. If someone claims to prefer the sound
of the record, that's fine, but they are not
listening to a cleaner, more accurate recording,
it just means that the remaining distortions give
a sound that is pleasing to them. Do not make the
claim, though, that the record is more accurate or
has less distortion, or that digital processing
loses information that one can hear in the record.
This is nonsense.

He left out recording and mastering, and his opinion
of "accurate" is an engineer's view that doesn't
include the perceptual process, or "listening," as
we call it.

That's true for *any* distribution format, which
means that its inclusion here is yet another straw
man argument.

No, because the mature analog recording process wasn't
instantly equalled by the new digital recording
process.

See "scientific claims".

No, we can hear this for ourselves using commercial
releases.

You're confusing poor implementations (e.g. no mastering
or incompetent mastering) with inherent problems with
the technology.

I see Francois has addressed the scientific part of the
claim with JAES cites.

His cites don't stand the test of time. Two words: Zwicker and Fastl. Two
other words: concurrent masking.

The recording process (i.e., 16/44 stereo digitization)
was proven to be sonically transparent several years
before the first commercial CD was even released.

But not necessarily the recording equipment.

When the CD format was introduced, Sony and Philips had
100% control over the production of CDs - all CDs were
made in their plants. They produced 100% of all of the
digital masters. The recording equipment that was unique
to the CD format was under their control. The new
digital recording process was standardized by them and
known to be sonically transparent.

Until it was improved by dithering techniques.

That happened well before the CD format was even a twinkle in anybody's eye.

Then it was even more transparent.

No, it was transparent at the outset, aside from possible imperfections in
some players. As is often the case, the recording equipment was better than
some of the players.

Then came higher rez
recordings and it more transparent still.

You can't improve on transparent.

Salome should have so many layers of transparency.

Yawn.

Fran?ois Yves Le Gal wrote:
On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 15:50:12 -0500, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

Furthermore, LP performance above 10 KHz, let alone 20 KHz is very troubled.

Not with a properly set-up turntable/arm/cartridge combo reading quality
vinyl LP's.

So, what's the frequency response of the best LP + LP playback system like
from, say 15-20 kHz? How linear/undistorted is it?

From what I've read, not so hot. This, from people like jj, not just Arny.



___
-S
"Excuse me? What solid proof do you have that I'm insane?" - soundhaspriority

"François Yves Le Gal" wrote in
message
On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 21:15:36 +0000 (UTC), Steven Sullivan
wrote:

Keep in mind the 'transparency' needs of *recording*,
versus playback. 20 bits of resolution for a normal
playback environment is excessive, for pretty much any
commerical recording.

Why should playback be limited at the source? It's pretty
trivial to dynamically compress the signal during
playback if needed.

Meridian has never, to my knowledge, demonstrated that
such specs are *necessary* to achieve audible
transparency in a normal listening environment.

The ARA white paper pretty well summarizes the state of
the art.

You mean

http://www.meridian-audio.com/ara/ara13.pdf ?

Please cf. to one of my posts on rahe
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...e=source&hl=en
giving full references as well as relevant quotes from
various publications.

The ARA paper showed considerable ignorance of the dynamic range of real
world recordings and emerging understanding of psychoacoustics.

The same year it came out, in 1996 Stuart was presenting data that rebutted
the alleged but totally fallacious requirment for 120 dB dynamic range in
The Psychoacoustics of Multichannel Audio, please see figures 9 and 14:

http://www.meridian-audio.com/ara/multips3.pdf




The higher bitdepth allows for extensive digital
processing without information loss -- *that*, as I
understand it, is the main reason for its adoption.

Agreed, but more and more software is delivered in 24/96,
compressed or not. Most DAW's work at least on 32-bit
words. Recent models go up to 64 bits, using the latest
64-bit DSP's.

Fran?ois Yves Le Gal wrote:
On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 21:15:36 +0000 (UTC), Steven Sullivan
wrote:

Keep in mind the 'transparency' needs of *recording*, versus playback.
20 bits of resolution for a normal playback environment is excessive, for
pretty much any commerical recording.

Why should playback be limited at the source? It's pretty trivial to
dynamically compress the signal during playback if needed.

Meridian has never, to my knowledge, demonstrated that such specs are
*necessary* to achieve audible transparency in a normal listening
environment.

The ARA white paper pretty well summarizes the state of the art. Please cf.
to one of my posts on rahe
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...e=source&hl=en
giving full references as well as relevant quotes from various publications.

where your post didn't exactly go unchallenged.


The higher bitdepth allows for extensive digital processing without
information loss -- *that*, as I understand it, is the main reason for
its adoption.

Agreed, but more and more software is delivered in 24/96, compressed or not.


For necessary reasons, or simply for marketing reasons?

Most DAW's work at least on 32-bit words. Recent models go up to 64 bits,
using the latest 64-bit DSP's.

And again.



___
-S
"Excuse me? What solid proof do you have that I'm insane?" - soundhaspriority

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message

Fran?ois Yves Le Gal wrote:
On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 15:50:12 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Furthermore, LP performance above 10 KHz, let alone 20
KHz is very troubled.

Not with a properly set-up turntable/arm/cartridge combo
reading quality vinyl LP's.

So, what's the frequency response of the best LP + LP
playback system like from, say 15-20 kHz? How
linear/undistorted is it?

From what I've read, not so hot. This, from people like
jj, not just Arny.


Also, there are the Ben Bauer JAES papers that detail the limitions of the
LP format.

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

snip

Anecdote - I just spent two days seated about 12' from
the front edge of a stage in a very good-sounding
classic old high school auditorium about 100 miles from
here. I was recording a high school band competition.
I had the opportunity to listen to the mic feed
through a pair of well-respected high-accuracy
headphones and compare that to the life sound. Close,
but no cigar. I also auditioned every CD I burned with
the same headphones. Within the obvious limits of
non-level-matched non bias-controlled comparisons which
many deny exist, the CDs sounded just like the mic
feed.

Cd equals mic feed live over headphones in the same room
12' from the performers? How did cd replicate the skin
response?

Since the acoustic source was headphones in either case,
this would be yet another straw man argument.

No, it's not, and it may be time to amend the RAO
Krooglish dictionary to include "strawman" on the list of
inoperative responses best ignored.

How could you listen to a live mic feed while in the same
room as the performance without skin contact? Whole body
headphone enclosure?

Oh, that. I guess skin contact isn't that significant at normal SPLs.


Didn't your chair rumble with the bass drum?

No. Cement floor, I guess.

One would
espect 12' from the lip of the stage with a marching band
on it to be somewhat loud.

They weren't marching at the time.

You even claimed being close
to a band was inherently deafening a week or two ago.

I did some measurements with a SPL meter and found my ear plugs to limit
long-term exposures.

On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 18:17:25 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

One would
espect 12' from the lip of the stage with a marching band
on it to be somewhat loud.

They weren't marching at the time.

Yeah, the sound of marching feet certainly adds at least 20dB to the
sound.

That's why The Who was so loud - Townsend's big feet and all...

In article ,
MINe 109 wrote:

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

snip

Anecdote - I just spent two days seated about 12' from
the front edge of a stage in a very good-sounding
classic old high school auditorium about 100 miles from
here. I was recording a high school band competition. I
had the opportunity to listen to the mic feed through a
pair of well-respected high-accuracy headphones and
compare that to the life sound. Close, but no cigar. I
also auditioned every CD I burned with the same
headphones. Within the obvious limits of
non-level-matched non bias-controlled comparisons which
many deny exist, the CDs sounded just like the mic feed.

Cd equals mic feed live over headphones in the same room
12' from the performers? How did cd replicate the skin
response?

Since the acoustic source was headphones in either case, this would be yet
another straw man argument.

No, it's not, and it may be time to amend the RAO Krooglish dictionary
to include "strawman" on the list of inoperative responses best ignored.

How could you listen to a live mic feed while in the same room as the
performance without skin contact? Whole body headphone enclosure?

Didn't your chair rumble with the bass drum? One would espect 12' from
the lip of the stage with a marching band on it to be somewhat loud. You
even claimed being close to a band was inherently deafening a week or
two ago.

Stephen

To be fair, I think that he was at a concert band contest.

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message


The higher bitdepth allows for extensive digital
processing without information loss -- *that*, as I understand it, is
the
main reason for its adoption.

Exactly.

BTW at my two-day recording session last week, here are some numbers that
relate to observed resolution. The equivalent noise of the mics is speced at
16 dB SPL.

(1) Peak level for any discernable amount of time (1 sample or a trio of
samples that suggest a higher excursion) - call that -1 dB FS. This
corresponded to about 95 dB SPL, A-weighted and slow meter averaging.

Peak levels measured on slow meter averaging? That sounds wrong to
me.

http://www.norsonic.cz/web_pages/sou...ssessment.html

Matter of fact it is wrong.... incredibly wrong...infinintely wrong....

ScottW

MINe 109 wrote:
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:
"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

snip

Anecdote - I just spent two days seated about 12' from
the front edge of a stage in a very good-sounding
classic old high school auditorium about 100 miles from
here. I was recording a high school band competition. I
had the opportunity to listen to the mic feed through a
pair of well-respected high-accuracy headphones and
compare that to the life sound. Close, but no cigar. I
also auditioned every CD I burned with the same
headphones. Within the obvious limits of
non-level-matched non bias-controlled comparisons which
many deny exist, the CDs sounded just like the mic feed.

Cd equals mic feed live over headphones in the same room
12' from the performers? How did cd replicate the skin
response?

Since the acoustic source was headphones in either case, this
would be yet another straw man argument.

No, it's not, and it may be time to amend the RAO Krooglish dictionary
to include "strawman" on the list of inoperative responses best ignored.

How could you listen to a live mic feed while in the same room as the
performance without skin contact? Whole body headphone enclosure?

I had a similar experience a couple of weekends ago, recording a
4-piece free jazz group in a smallish room. I was recording 8 tracks of
digital but also a 2-channel mixdown for the musicians to take away
with them. You just can't judge the sound of the mix on headphones
when the musicans are playing in the same room.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

"François Yves Le Gal" wrote in
message
On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 18:00:32 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Cutting to the chase...

As usual, you've neither adressed a single issue by
properly refuting what was advanced by the authors of the
papers I've quoted, nor supplied any references backing
your claims.

Here's a partial deconstruction of your so-called
arguments.

"Many of these papers are from the late 1980s and early
1990s, which predates widespread exposure of the
well-known Psychoacoustics book by Zwicker and Fastl."

E. Zwicker and H. Fastl's "Psychoacoustics Facts and
Models" was published by Springer Verlag in 1990. As
anyone can verify by getting back to the list of papers
and publications I've supplied, the vast majority was
published fater Z & F

That's why I included the catchwords "widespread exposure". Their ideas
were not accepted immediately by everybody.

Fielder has never hyped HDCD

I may be wrong about that.

- he happens to work for
Dolby Labortories, a competitor; his paper was published
*five* years after Z & F and his credentials, including
being an AES Fellow as well as serving as president of
the Audio Engineering Society, are impeccable.

Impeccable except that something like 5 years after . Zwicker and H. Fastl's
"Psychoacoustics Facts and Models" was published by Springer Verlag in
1990, Fielder allowed a paper about dynamic range requirements be published
over his name that failed to mention threshold shifting, concurrent masking,
temporal masking, and ambient noise levels in concert halls and recording
studios.

You know François all you have to do is show us some real world recordings
made with real world mics in a real world room that have 120 dB worth of
dynamic range. Tell you what - I'll even give you an order of magnitude
break - just do 100 dB, special for you, today! ;-)

"ScottW" wrote in message
oups.com
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message


The higher bitdepth allows for extensive digital
processing without information loss -- *that*, as I
understand it, is the
main reason for its adoption.

Exactly.

BTW at my two-day recording session last week, here are
some numbers that relate to observed resolution. The
equivalent noise of the mics is speced at 16 dB SPL.

(1) Peak level for any discernable amount of time (1
sample or a trio of samples that suggest a higher
excursion) - call that -1 dB FS. This corresponded to
about 95 dB SPL, A-weighted and slow meter averaging.

Peak levels measured on slow meter averaging? That
sounds wrong to me.

It is what it was.

If you had much real world experience with SPL meters, you'd see that this
is not an oxymoron.

You see, you have this SPL meter set for slow averaging, and you keep track
of the peak readings on the meter.

http://www.norsonic.cz/web_pages/sou...ssessment.html

So what?

Matter of fact it is wrong.... incredibly wrong...infinintely wrong....

Like I said - much real world experience with a SPL meter...



ScottW

"François Yves Le Gal" wrote in
message
On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 23:11:11 +0000 (UTC), Steven Sullivan
wrote:

So, what's the frequency response of the best LP + LP
playback system like from, say 15-20 kHz? How
linear/undistorted is it?

I've seen TT's flat to above 30 KHz (using suitable test
records, of course), with a very low disto by mechanical
playback standards.

IOW disortion that is low by a standard that is high by CD standards. ;-)

Also, the recorded levels have to be low or geometric tracking distortion
will be horrendous.

True fact - I put a suite of test signals and musical samples on the most
recent of the CD sets that rec.audio.pro circulates from time to time. I
then challenged any and all of the guys who cut LPs to cut a LP with that
test suite on it. No takers!

"John Atkinson" wrote
in message
oups.com
MINe 109 wrote:
In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:
"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

snip

Anecdote - I just spent two days seated about 12' from
the front edge of a stage in a very good-sounding
classic old high school auditorium about 100 miles
from here. I was recording a high school band
competition. I had the opportunity to listen to the
mic feed through a pair of well-respected
high-accuracy headphones and compare that to the life
sound. Close, but no cigar. I also auditioned every
CD I burned with the same headphones. Within the
obvious limits of non-level-matched non
bias-controlled comparisons which many deny exist,
the CDs sounded just like the mic feed.

Cd equals mic feed live over headphones in the same
room 12' from the performers? How did cd replicate the
skin response?

Thats not really what I said, BTW.

Since the acoustic source was headphones in either
case, this would be yet another straw man argument.

No, it's not, and it may be time to amend the RAO
Krooglish dictionary to include "strawman" on the list
of inoperative responses best ignored.

How could you listen to a live mic feed while in the
same room as the performance without skin contact? Whole
body headphone enclosure?

I had a similar experience a couple of weekends ago,
recording a 4-piece free jazz group in a smallish room. I
was recording 8 tracks of digital but also a 2-channel
mixdown for the musicians to take away with them. You
just can't judge the sound of the mix on headphones when
the musicans are playing in the same room.

I'd like to exapand on that - few if any can do well at judging anything
they hear just once.

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
Fran?ois Yves Le Gal wrote:
On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 13:36:18 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

The recording process (i.e., 16/44 stereo digitization) was proven to be
sonically transparent several years before the first commercial CD was
even
released.

It is not.

The Compact Disc format was chosen because it was within the
technological
bounds of the end of the 70's: disc size was initially set, based on the
size of a compact cassette; Philips wanted to fit 74 minutes; the 16-bit
approach was pushed by Sony while Philips wanted to go the 14-bit route
(their first players were 14-bit only, while Sony shared the same 16-bit
DA
converter, alternating it between the two channels - a clever kludge, but
a
kludge anyway); leaving sampling rate as the sole remaining variable.

As it had to be compatible with PAL or NTSC tape recorders - the media of
choice for recording and mastering at that time - and digital technology
was
in it's infancy, Philips and Sony only considered 44.056 and 44.1 KHz
sampling rates. Finally 44.1 KHz was picked because it was easier to
remember.

Compact disc was born out of convenience, nothing more.

For more info, please read "The Compact Disc Story", Kees A. Schouhamer
Immink, Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, vol. 46, pp. 458-465,
May
1998.

A poor quality - but readable - copy is available on Immin's personal web
site:
http://www.exp-math.uni-essen.de/~im...df/cdstory.pdf

Getting back to it's sonic transparency, later works have demonstrated
that
16/44 is *close* to being transparent, but that around 20 bits with
proper
noise shaping (21.5 bits flat) at a sample rate of at least 55 KHz are
required to properly encode audio signals. Some researchers such as
Fielder
dissent and propose even higher resolutions - I would tend to agree with
them.


Keep in mind the 'transparency' needs of *recording*, versus playback.
20 bits of resolution for a normal playback environment is excessive, for
pretty much any commerical recording.


Please refer to "Auditory modelling related to the bit budget", J.R.
Stuart
Proceedings of AES UK Conference "Managing the Bit Budget", 167?178, 1994
or
to ARA's "A Proposal for the High-Quality Audio Application
High-Density CD Carriers" - available at
http://www.meridian-audio.com/ara/ara13.pdf - for more details.


Meridian has never, to my knowledge, demonstrated that such specs are
*necessary* to achieve audible transparency in a normal listening
environment. They have published more than one paper on why such specs
can make
transparency easier to achieve...or why they would be needed if *other*
unproved hypotheses turn out to be true (e.g., audible content above
20 kHz).



A 55 KHz sample rate doesn't exist, you can either downgrade to 48 KHz,
forgetting some transparency, or go higher. The two next options are 88.2
and 96 Khz. The former isn't widely used, leaving only 96 KHz as a viable
option.

Ditto for resolution : 21.5-bit DA and AD converters aren't the norm,
24-bit
models are. Additionally, as all converters are far from linear when it
comes to LSB's, going the 24-bit route allows for a clean monotonic
operation down to 22 bits or so.

So basically, a properly implemented 24/96 system - widely available
today
in professional or consumer equipment - is required for transparent
digital
recording and playback, very far from what the humble Compact Disc can
offer.


The higher bitdepth allows for extensive digital processing without
information loss -- *that*, as I understand it, is the main reason for
its adoption.


That's what my understanding is as well, it has nothing to do with fidelity
or transparency.