| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#41
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
LP inferior?
Sonnova wrote:
C. Leeds wrote Eeyore wrote: ....Alesis is cheap consumer crap. Hmmm, sounds like prejudice. The Masterlink 9600 is really quite outstanding, by most accounts. So is the I/O 26 DAW interface. If you have a laptop with Firewire, it makes a GREAT two channel recorder with 8 quiet, broadband microphone inputs and an excellent 24-bit 192KHz A/D converter, http://www.focusrite.com/products/fi...ire_pro_26_io/ Not even ONE word about the converter specs and a singularly unspectacular mic input noise spec. • Noise: EIN 120dB (measured at 60dB of gain with 150 Ohm termination (20Hz/22kHz bandpass filter) I can get -129dBu with my designs. Graham |
|
#42
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
LP inferior?
Check out this link to popular science. I found the comment on temperature
and humidity interesting. http://www.popsci.com/entertainment-...-really-better I personally enjoy both vinyl and cds. Rick "codifus" wrote in message ... On Nov 24, 9:46 pm, Sonnova wrote: On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 08:22:21 -0800, codifus wrote (in article ): On Nov 20, 5:50 pm, Sonnova wrote: ....... In the latest (December, 2008) issue of Stereophile, there is a story about a German physicist and integrated circuit designer turned "Tonmeister" named Ralf Koschnike who decided to start a record company. He records at 24-bit, 192KHz sampling rate using Alesis A to D converters then he down converts those files to 16/44.1 for Redbook CD release. He also makes LPs from his masters using the latest incarnation of the Direct Metal Master (DMM) technique. After experimenting with both DVD-A and SACD, he finds that his vinyl LPs are closer to his 24/192 masters than are either of these super CD ......... I find it ironic that he starts off with a digital master to then go on to justify that his analog LP is "better." CD The digital master is 24-bit and 192KHz sampling rate, while CD is 16-bit and 44.1 KHz. That's quite a delta in the amount of information represented. What Koshnike is saying is that this ancient, wheezing technology (vinyl) is able to easily (apparently) encompass that information while Redbook CD cannot. It's academic, sure, but his point is interesting. While his argument has merit, and perhaps the LP is capturing info that the CD is not, the argument is moot. First of all, the CD is doing nothing wrong. All it can work with is 20 Hz to 22 Khz. In that range it is pretty damn good. Besides, the weaknesses of CD, like larger frequency range and better digital filtering, have been addressed in DVD-A and SACD. You know, the formats Mr. Koshnike casually passed over in the article. DVD-A is literally CD on steroids. I'm sure if Sony and Philips had to do it over again, they CD probably would have been a DVD-A at the very beginning. The whole premise of this LP business is like 1 step forward and 2 steps back. CD |
|
#43
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
LP inferior?
"C. Leeds" wrote:
Eeyore wrote: ....Alesis is cheap consumer crap. Hmmm, sounds like prejudice. No it sounds like being PROFESSIONAL. The Masterlink 9600 is really quite outstanding, by most accounts. WHOSE accounts ? It's 'prosumer' garbage. As sold at Guitar Center. http://www.guitarcenter.com/Alesis-M...95-i1126269.gc THD+N: 0.002% @ 1kHz, -1dBFS Also note that they have to 'A weight' their numbers to get this: Signal-to-noise ratio: 113dB, A-weighted That gives a typical 15-16 dB 'cheat', so the real figure is about 97-98dB unweighted. Not professional at all. Prism Sound ...... http://prismsound.com/music_recordin...da8xr_spec.php 8C-AD 8-channel A/D converter THD+N (997Hz, -1dBFS) -105dB (0.0006%) Dynamic range (997Hz, -60dBFS) 112dB 8C-DA 8-channel D/A converter THD+N: (997Hz, -1dBFS) -102dB (0.0007%) typical Dynamic range: (997Hz, -60dBFS) 108dB Note that the dynamic range is measured at -60dBFS ! Graham |
|
#44
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
LP inferior?
On Nov 28, 8:47�am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in message It's a classic case of the Boiled frog syndrome. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog no relevant response, persumably it is agreed that audiophiles who prefer LPs behave in accordance with the example of a boiled frog Wow, you just snipped my relevant response and then denied it's existance. Here was my response as was posted and then snipped by you. "No. your argument was based on a premise that does not exist if the listener is exposed to a reference that is not subject to the same slow drift. That makes your argument invalid." That would be a legitimate point if the audiophile in question only had a collection of records that were old and never listened to a new LP or CD. Illogical assumption. No. your argument was based on a premise that does not exist if the listener is exposed to a reference that is not subject to the same slow drift. Since the original master recordings for LPs are almost completely unobtainable to most who listen to LPs, they have no stable reference, right? It seems you do not understand the nature of your own argument. "The story is generally told in a figurative context, with the upshot being that people should make themselves aware of gradual change lest they suffer a catastrophic loss." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog The gradual loss in this case is due to alleged record wear. So one must not be exposed to new records or CDs of the same recordings otherwise they would have an immediate reference with which to measure any such catastophic loss. So unless you are speaking about some unnamed audiophile who only listens to old records over and over again at a steady rate for each record and never listens to any new LPs or CDs of the same title your argument fails because it is based on a requisite condition that does not exist. It is quite clear that many people prefer who prefer LPs over CDs, do so despite the LP's attendant vastly greater noise and distortion. Therefore, they must consider noise and distortion to be a desirable property of a recording, no? No. In many cases the noise on vinyl is either inaudible or indistinguishable as noise. Isn't it true that people with normal hearing rarely have problems hearing the tics, pops, noise and distortion that is well-known to be inherent in the LP format? Tics and pops are not inherent in the medium. They are due to damage or manufacturer defects. I have never heard a LP played without additional computer processing, without audible noise and distortion, and that includes many instances of demonstrations of so-called high end LP playback equipment at high end audio shows and audiophile homes. Your personal testimonial does not represent any universal reality. It would be interesting to put your alleged hearing acuity to the test with a propper high end rig and a pristine new vinyl pressing form a top flight maker of audiophile vinyl under blind conditions. I don't think you would fair as well as you seem to think. �In many cases the other differences are the over riding factor. Your argument is based on a false premise and follows with a nonsequitor. What is the false premise - have I somehow managed to avoid hearing some magical vinyl playback system that exists in some hidden place? It would seem that you have managed to avoid hearing quality vinyl playback or that your biases are so intrusive that you have managed to fail to appreciate the virtues of such playback. Again, I think it would be most revealing to put you to the test on this subject under blind conditions. The Ray Charles CDs I have always sounded better than the best vinyl of the day. Your assertion seems to imply that you made some sort of actual comparison between CDs and LPs of some Ray Charles recordings. Sure, and my comparisons were at least as rigorous as many that others have given here. Can you give us the specifics? Since the local standard for doing so is abysmally low, vis-a-vis a recent discussion of MP3s, there is no need for me to do so. "Tu quoque Literally, you too. This is an attempt to justify wrong action because someone else also does it. "My evidence may be invalid, but so is yours." http://www.theskepticsguide.org/logicalfallacies.asp This appears to be a pompous observation of something that was already stated quite clearly. "Pompous?" OK, ad hominem rears it's ugly head. But please excuse me for not accusing you of insincerity. I was trying to keep things civil and on subject. I'm not sure how the obviousness of your use of Tu quoque" in any way excuses you from offering up some meaningful information on your alleged comparisons of Ray Charles CDs and LPs. What Ray Charles recordings were used? Lots of them, far more than the numbers of MP3 files that have been used by conference members while making even more sweeping generalizations. You used lots of them and yet you can't recall a single title. I'm not good with names. You managed to remember the name of the HFN test record you used if not the actual issue. If you own these items it really isn't a matter of memory. It's a matter of picking them up and looking at them. I sold off my collection of Ray Charles LPs (some of which were european pressings) in the middle 1980s. Therefore, I can't just look at my collection and retrieve the titles. Really? That presents a pretty big problem with your alleged comparisons between the Ray Charles CDs and LPs. There were only three commercial CDs of Ray Charles music available before 1989. So your claim that you compared "lots" of Ray Charles LPs with the CDs back in the mid eighties looks pretty dubious. It would seem that any body who owns several titles by any artist on both LP and CD would be a big enough fan that he or she would easily be able to cite titles from memory alone. I'm not good with names. Apparently you are not so good with dates either. How is it that you own "lots" of Ray Charles LPs and CDs and you can't name any of them? I'm not good with names, and almost all of my recordings are in storage so I can't just look at a cabinet and see what I own. How did you do the comparisons? Just listening. The differences were mind-blowing. Were any measures taken to control bias effects? Sure, in both cases I owned the recordings and so obviously I was not biased towards either one. ;-) Which sepcific Ray Charles masterings on CD are you refering to? Sorry, but my CD collection is in storage. What do you mean the "best vinyl of the day?" Which vinyl versions were used for comparisons? The vinyl of the day would be vinyl that was current in the days of vinyl, IOW prior to 1983.- Hide quoted text - That puts your alleged comparisons in perspective. No bias controls. No titles cited. No knowledge of what masterings were used. Thank you for invalidating this evidence, which is about the same quality as everything that you have presented. Remember that I have also presented the results of proper scientific tests and referreed scientific papers. You have not. Unlike you I can name the actual titles and issues of those titles that have been compared and many of my comparisons were actually done under blind conditions. It would appear that one major difference between my comparisons and yours is that mine actually happened. The descrepencies in dates between your alleged comparisons and the actual existance of "lots" Ray Charles CDs calls your claim that you actually did any such comparisons into question. What happend to the LPs Arny? I sold them in the mid-1980s when I abandoned analog. How did you manage to compare them with "lots" of CDs that did not yet exist? |
|
#45
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
LP inferior?
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote: It is quite clear that many people prefer who prefer LPs over CDs, do so despite the LP's attendant vastly greater noise and distortion. Therefore, they must consider noise and distortion to be a desireable property of a recording, no? No, that doesn't necessarily follow at all. It could well be a matter of "picking your poison". |
|
#46
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
LP inferior?
"Jenn" wrote in message
In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: It is quite clear that many people prefer who prefer LPs over CDs, do so despite the LP's attendant vastly greater noise and distortion. Therefore, they must consider noise and distortion to be a desireable property of a recording, no? No, that doesn't necessarily follow at all. It could well be a matter of "picking your poison". What comparable distortion is inherent in the CD format, that corresponds to the LP's: tics, pops, rumble, flutter, wow, tracking distortion, etc? |
|
#47
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
LP inferior?
"C. Leeds" wrote:
Eeyore wrote: Tracing distortion alone will instantly render them inferior... Tracing distortion? What's that? Something that vinyl nuts prefer to ignore. Also called tracking error. It is now well established that it was Löfgren in 1938, and not Baerwald in 1941, who provided the first comprehensive mathematical analysis of tonearm geometry aimed at minimizing the lateral tracking distortion weighed by the inverse of the groove radius. This is the key concept: Tracking distortion varies proportionately with tracking error and inversely with groove radius; the quantity to minimize is the tracking error per unit radius. As you get closer to the inner recorded radius, groove modulation increases and the signal/noise ratio decreases. Thus, it makes sense to place the maximum distortion at the outer radii. The standard analysis specifies, for a given effective arm length and inner and outer recorded surface radii, the optimum offset angle and overhang. This solution gives two "null radii" (2.32" and 4.62" from the spindle) at which the cartridge is tangential to the groove. Alignment templates use these null points for setting up the optimum tracking geometry. Several optional alignments are possible, each of which introduces additional non-geometrical criteria into the analysis. Löfgren himself believed that the annoyance factor of tracking distortion was cumulative with time and proposed an alternative alignment with increased overhang so that the maximum distortion between the null radii would be lower—but at the cost of briefly increasing distortion at the beginning and end of the record. There is no psychoacoustic evidence to support Löfgren's "hypothesis." I find it hard to believe that a small decrease in second-harmonic distortion would reduce the annoyance factor. In fact, quite the opposite is more likely to happen; ie, an increase in even-order harmonic products is more likely to mask more noxious forms of distortion. http://www.stereophile.com/tonearms/400/index1.html Also see ... http://www.smartdev.com/LT/Align.htm Of course you can entirely avoid 'noxious' forms of distortion by using CDs and modern electronics. Graham |
|
#48
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
LP inferior?
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: It is quite clear that many people prefer who prefer LPs over CDs, do so despite the LP's attendant vastly greater noise and distortion. Therefore, they must consider noise and distortion to be a desireable property of a recording, no? No, that doesn't necessarily follow at all. It could well be a matter of "picking your poison". What comparable distortion is inherent in the CD format, that corresponds to the LP's: tics, pops, rumble, flutter, wow, tracking distortion, etc? The shortcomings of CDs to some people's ears have been discussed at length. If one hears shortcomings in both CDs and LPs, it is often a matter of choosing the recording that is least offensive to you for a given recording. It doesn't mean that the shortcomings of the chosen medium is "desirable" to you, which is what you stated. |
|
#49
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
LP inferior?
On Nov 30, 8:42�am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Jenn" wrote in message In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: It is quite clear that many people prefer who prefer LPs over CDs, do so despite the LP's attendant vastly greater noise and distortion. Therefore, they must consider noise and distortion to be a desireable property of a recording, no? No, that doesn't necessarily follow at all. �It could well be a matter of "picking your poison". What comparable distortion is inherent in the CD format, that corresponds to the LP's: tics, pops, rumble, flutter, wow, tracking distortion, etc? The question is based on a faulty premise that rumble, wow, flutter, tics, pops and tracking distortion are "inherent" audible colorations of the medium. |
|
#50
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
LP inferior?
wrote in message
The question is based on a faulty premise that rumble, wow, flutter, tics, pops and tracking distortion are "inherent" audible colorations of the medium. Still waiting for that unedited, unprocessed CD transcription of a complete side of a LP that lacks any or all of the faults mentioned above. |
|
#51
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
LP inferior?
On Sun, 30 Nov 2008 16:25:49 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): wrote in message The question is based on a faulty premise that rumble, wow, flutter, tics, pops and tracking distortion are "inherent" audible colorations of the medium. Still waiting for that unedited, unprocessed CD transcription of a complete side of a LP that lacks any or all of the faults mentioned above. In other words, lay enough conditions down and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. The actual truth of the matter is that most people who find LP appealing don't care all that much about the occasional tick and pop. And while rumble, wow and flutter are pretty much unacceptable to most everybody, the truth is that few records exhibit these properties in any audible amount. In my own case, I'll admit that LPs without any clicks or pops are rare to non-existent, I don't pay much attention to them. What I'm listening for is a quality that is beyond those occasional faults and find MP3 artifacts much more annoying. In fact, I find CD that has been severely compressed and limited (why would anyone do that, but they do?) to be much more annoying than the occasional tick and pop on an LP. |
|
#52
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
LP inferior?
"Sonnova" wrote in message
On Sun, 30 Nov 2008 16:25:49 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): wrote in message The question is based on a faulty premise that rumble, wow, flutter, tics, pops and tracking distortion are "inherent" audible colorations of the medium. Still waiting for that unedited, unprocessed CD transcription of a complete side of a LP that lacks any or all of the faults mentioned above. In other words, lay enough conditions down and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. The request seems simple enough. I suspect that many who read this forum know how to make the recording and even have the resources to do so. What will stop them all is the requirement that it be at the quality levels specified. The actual truth of the matter is that most people who find LP appealing don't care all that much about the occasional tick and pop. Then you are conceding me my point. There is no such thing as a tic and pop free LP side, no matter what others may say. And while rumble, wow and flutter are pretty much unacceptable to most everybody, But, they are endemic in practical examples of LPs, even brand new ones from top producers. the truth is that few records exhibit these properties in any audible amount. I have to admit that I am in possession of samples of a digitized LP and a ripped CD that sound very much alike to me during casual listening. However, in a time-synched, level-matched, frequency response matched double-blind ABX test, I have no problem distinguishing the two. The samples do not even include low level music or silence between the tracks where modest amounts of noise would be audible. In my own case, I'll admit that LPs without any clicks or pops are rare to non-existent, I don't pay much attention to them. Well, that is what you have to do if you want to enjoy the music on LPs - listen past the noise and distortion. For exceptional music, its worth the effort and inconvenience. Furthermore, LP transcriptions with a modest number of tics and pops can be hand-edited in the digital domain so that they are pretty much tic and pop free. What I'm listening for is a quality that is beyond those occasional faults and find MP3 artifacts much more annoying. MP3 artifacts in commercial downloads and personal files made by unskilled workers are a fact of life, just like all the audible problems that are inherent in the LP format. Unlike the audible problems that are inherent in the LP format they can be easily avoided by careful workers. Forums like the Hydrogen Audio forums provide a means for interested parties to obtain and exchange the latest information with a reasonable level of effort. In fact, I find CD that has been severely compressed and limited (why would anyone do that, but they do?) to be much more annoying than the occasional tick and pop on an LP. I agree with that. Taking the tics and pops out of a reasonably clean LP is pretty easy. Undoing heavy compression has been mission impossible for me. |
|
#53
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
LP inferior?
On Nov 30, 4:25�pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in message The question is based on a faulty premise that rumble, wow, flutter, tics, pops and tracking distortion are "inherent" audible colorations of the medium. Still waiting for that unedited, unprocessed CD transcription of a complete side of a LP that lacks any or all of the faults mentioned above. Your desire to be given a free side of music does not affect the reality of my assertions. Send me copies of all those JAES papers you keep alluding to and I'll borrow a CD burner and make an unedited uncompressed transcription that is free of any audible wow, flutter, pops tics, and tracking distortion. But what good would that do? What would stop you from just claiming you are hearing distortions because of your biases? What assurance do we have that your biases won't affect your evaluation? Prove to me that you will make an unbiased evaluation and we can go from there. |
|
#54
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
LP inferior?
wrote in message
On Nov 30, 4:25?pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote: wrote in message The question is based on a faulty premise that rumble, wow, flutter, tics, pops and tracking distortion are "inherent" audible colorations of the medium. Still waiting for that unedited, unprocessed CD transcription of a complete side of a LP that lacks any or all of the faults mentioned above. Your desire to be given a free side of music does not affect the reality of my assertions. Thats true, since we know that your exceptional claims are false. I've expected all along that no such CD would be delivered because no such CD is possible. Send me copies of all those JAES papers you keep alluding to and I'll borrow a CD burner and make an unedited uncompressed transcription that is free of any audible wow, flutter, pops tics, and tracking distortion. That would cost me 100's of dollars. Burning a CD costs about 25 cents. But what good would that do? (1) It would show good faith. (2) It would demonstrate unexpected competence. (3) It would be really quite remarkable because every reliable indication is that such a CD is impossible. What would stop you from just claiming you are hearing distortions because of your biases? My evaluation would not involve just listening. If I found noise and distortion, I would have measurements to back my findings up. What assurance do we have that your biases won't affect your evaluation? The use of technical means to back up my assertions, no doubt a concept that you can't comprehend. Prove to me that you will make an unbiased evaluation and we can go from there. I think you've already given your answer - no show! |
|
#55
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
LP inferior?
On Dec 1, 4:15�pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in message On Nov 30, 4:25?pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote: wrote in message The question is based on a faulty premise that rumble, wow, flutter, tics, pops and tracking distortion are "inherent" audible colorations of the medium. Still waiting for that unedited, unprocessed CD transcription of a complete side of a LP that lacks any or all of the faults mentioned above. Your desire to be given a free side of music does not affect the reality of my assertions. Thats true, since we know that your exceptional claims are false. Opinion stated as fact. I've expected all along that no such CD would be delivered �because no such CD is possible. Faulty logic. "Argument from final Consequences Such arguments (also called teleological) are based on a reversal of cause and effect, because they argue that something is caused by the ultimate effect that it has, or purpose that is serves." http://www.theskepticsguide.org/logicalfallacies.asp Send me copies of all those JAES papers you keep alluding to and I'll borrow a CD burner and make an unedited uncompressed transcription that is free of any audible wow, flutter, pops tics, and tracking distortion. That would cost me 100's of dollars. How does it cost you hundreds of dollars to make copies of papers you already own? I can easily copy any paper I own free of charge and email it free of charge. Do you really lack the basic technology to make copies? You do realize that one can go make copies for pennies a page? Your claim that it would cost you hundreds of dollars does not seem believable on it's face. Burning a CD costs about 25 cents. I do not own a CD burner. I would have to borrow one. Why should I make that effort for you? You have offered no evidence that you would do bias controlled listening evaluations. We already know that you have a strong anti-vinyl bias. What would prevent your evaluations from being affected by your strong anti-vinyl biases? But what good would that do? (1) It would show good faith. Good faith is a two way street. I would only be interested in your actual ability to identify by ear alone these inherent distortions of vinyl that you have claimed are so gross as to disqualify vinyl playback as high end audio. A meaningful discussion about how you would execute honest bias controlled listening evaluations would be a show of good faith on your part. (2) It would demonstrate unexpected competence. Ad Hominem. (3) It would be really quite remarkable because every reliable indication is that such a CD is impossible. Opinion stated as fact. What would stop you from just claiming you are hearing distortions because of your biases? My evaluation would not involve just listening. Why? Don't you trust your ears? You have made a lot of claims about the gross audible distortions inherent in vinyl. Do you know lack the conviction to prove these distortions are as bad as you say by ear alone? If I found noise and distortion, I would have measurements to back my findings up. Can't you determine the existance of any noise and distortion that is caused by the inherent distortions of the medium just by listening under blind conditions? What assurance do we have that your biases won't affect your evaluation? The use of technical means to back up my assertions, So are you saying that all one has to do is a few measurements and the affects of sighted bias disappear? I don't think that is true. In fact I would assert that any prior knowledge of measurements will only add more bias. no doubt a concept that you can't comprehend. More Ad Hominem Prove to me that you will make an unbiased evaluation and we can go from there. I think you've already given your answer - no show! Not at all. I would be happy to put your claims to the test with bias controlled listening tests. Do you think you can back up your claims about your ability to easily hear these alleged gross distortions inherent in vinyl under bias controlled conditions? If we can arrange for some actual bias controlled tests of your ability to identify vinyl distortions by ear alone I would be more than happy to make the effort to burn some CDs for the purpose of such a test. |
|
#56
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
LP inferior?
On Mon, 1 Dec 2008 15:00:34 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message On Sun, 30 Nov 2008 16:25:49 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): wrote in message The question is based on a faulty premise that rumble, wow, flutter, tics, pops and tracking distortion are "inherent" audible colorations of the medium. Still waiting for that unedited, unprocessed CD transcription of a complete side of a LP that lacks any or all of the faults mentioned above. In other words, lay enough conditions down and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. The request seems simple enough. I suspect that many who read this forum know how to make the recording and even have the resources to do so. What will stop them all is the requirement that it be at the quality levels specified. The actual truth of the matter is that most people who find LP appealing don't care all that much about the occasional tick and pop. Then you are conceding me my point. There is no such thing as a tic and pop free LP side, no matter what others may say. Hmmm. I never said that there was. I also don't recall anyone else saying that or even insinuating it. I do recall that you have repeatedly singled out ticks and pops as one of the faults of LP though. And while rumble, wow and flutter are pretty much unacceptable to most everybody, But, they are endemic in practical examples of LPs, even brand new ones from top producers. It's a question of degree. All analog sources have SOME wow and flutter as opposed to digital which has none, But the point is that in most records its below the level of detectability for most people (some people are more sensitive to it than others, just as some people are more sensitive to speed differences between the cutting lathe and the playback turntable and can notice very small pitch variations). the truth is that few records exhibit these properties in any audible amount. I have to admit that I am in possession of samples of a digitized LP and a ripped CD that sound very much alike to me during casual listening. However, in a time-synched, level-matched, frequency response matched double-blind ABX test, I have no problem distinguishing the two. The samples do not even include low level music or silence between the tracks where modest amounts of noise would be audible. In my own case, I'll admit that LPs without any clicks or pops are rare to non-existent, I don't pay much attention to them. Well, that is what you have to do if you want to enjoy the music on LPs - listen past the noise and distortion. For exceptional music, its worth the effort and inconvenience. But I view it like coughs and program rustling at concerts. It doesn't break my concentration, though. Furthermore, LP transcriptions with a modest number of tics and pops can be hand-edited in the digital domain so that they are pretty much tic and pop free. True, if that bothers you that much. Me, it doesn't bother THAT much. Still and all, I mostly listen to CD and my interest in LP is merely an interest in not throwing the baby out with the bath water. What I'm listening for is a quality that is beyond those occasional faults and find MP3 artifacts much more annoying. MP3 artifacts in commercial downloads and personal files made by unskilled workers are a fact of life, just like all the audible problems that are inherent in the LP format. Unlike the audible problems that are inherent in the LP format they can be easily avoided by careful workers. Forums like the Hydrogen Audio forums provide a means for interested parties to obtain and exchange the latest information with a reasonable level of effort. In fact, I find CD that has been severely compressed and limited (why would anyone do that, but they do?) to be much more annoying than the occasional tick and pop on an LP. I agree with that. Taking the tics and pops out of a reasonably clean LP is pretty easy. Undoing heavy compression has been mission impossible for me. |
|
#57
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
LP inferior?
Sonnova wrote:
On Sun, 30 Nov 2008 16:25:49 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): wrote in message The question is based on a faulty premise that rumble, wow, flutter, tics, pops and tracking distortion are "inherent" audible colorations of the medium. Still waiting for that unedited, unprocessed CD transcription of a complete side of a LP that lacks any or all of the faults mentioned above. In other words, lay enough conditions down and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. I don't really think that the conditions are that onerous. Subjective evaluation of the resulting artifacts is another matter, of course, one of preference. The actual truth of the matter is that most people who find LP appealing don't care all that much about the occasional tick and pop. Apparently that's true. They kinda spoil it for me however. And while rumble, wow and flutter are pretty much unacceptable to most everybody, the truth is that few records exhibit these properties in any audible amount. I've found quite a number of commercial releases that suffer these faults to an audible degree. Audiophile pressings? Maybe not, but then I could name many hundreds of my favorite albums that are not, nor will ever likely be, available on such, so... In my own case, I'll admit that LPs without any clicks or pops are rare to non-existent, I don't pay much attention to them. I find inner groove distortions to be the most annoying, and the most prevalent, in commercial releases, although with the same caveats as mentioned above. What I'm listening for is a quality that is beyond those occasional faults and find MP3 artifacts much more annoying. In fact, I find CD that has been severely compressed and limited (why would anyone do that, but they do?) to be much more annoying than the occasional tick and pop on an LP. Well, that compression is a double edged sword IME. It is actually of value in noisy listening environments (such as the many hundreds of hours I spend in planes each year, or on the road in noisy rental cars). At home, however, its another story, and I agree wholeheartedly with you there. Same for MP3's. They don't bother me at all, because I don't listen to them at home, only on the road where, realistically, any artifacts are subsumed in the ambient noise. Keith Hughes |
|
#58
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
LP inferior?
wrote in message
On Dec 1, 4:15�pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote: wrote in message On Nov 30, 4:25?pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote: wrote in message The question is based on a faulty premise that rumble, wow, flutter, tics, pops and tracking distortion are "inherent" audible colorations of the medium. Still waiting for that unedited, unprocessed CD transcription of a complete side of a LP that lacks any or all of the faults mentioned above. Your desire to be given a free side of music does not affect the reality of my assertions. Thats true, since we know that your exceptional claims are false. Opinion stated as fact. Intentional ignorance is not a valid reply to well-studied scientific knowlege. I've expected all along that no such CD would be delivered �because no such CD is possible. Faulty logic. "Argument from final Consequences Such arguments (also called teleological) are based on a reversal of cause and effect, because they argue that something is caused by the ultimate effect that it has, or purpose that is serves." http://www.theskepticsguide.org/logicalfallacies.asp Irreelvant gibberish. Send me copies of all those JAES papers you keep alluding to and I'll borrow a CD burner and make an unedited uncompressed transcription that is free of any audible wow, flutter, pops tics, and tracking distortion. That would cost me 100's of dollars. How does it cost you hundreds of dollars to make copies of papers you already own? Small matter of the copyright law. I can easily copy any paper I own free of charge and email it free of charge. But not legally. Do you really lack the basic technology to make copies? You do realize that one can go make copies for pennies a page? Your claim that it would cost you hundreds of dollars does not seem believable on it's face. Burning a CD costs about 25 cents. I do not own a CD burner. You don't own a computer with a CD or DVD burner already in it? But what good would that do? (1) It would show good faith. Good faith is a two way street. One that I have travelled on many occasions. I would only be interested in your actual ability to identify by ear alone these inherent distortions of vinyl that you have claimed are so gross as to disqualify vinyl playback as high end audio. You want to control my behavior, yet another example of bad faith. A meaningful discussion about how you would execute honest bias controlled listening evaluations would be a show of good faith on your part. Been there, done that and you were unable to correctly perceive it, it appears. (2) It would demonstrate unexpected competence. Ad Hominem. Prove me wrong, or prove me right. It's all up to you. (3) It would be really quite remarkable because every reliable indication is that such a CD is impossible. Opinion stated as fact. Intentional ignorance is not a valid reply to well-studied scientific knowlege. What would stop you from just claiming you are hearing distortions because of your biases? My evaluation would not involve just listening. Why? Don't you trust your ears? I don't naively trust my perceptions. You have made a lot of claims about the gross audible distortions inherent in vinyl. I simply presented many well-documented relevant facts. Do you know lack the conviction to prove these distortions are as bad as you say by ear alone? I know better than to naively trust my ears. I know too much about human perceptions to engage in that kind of folly. Case in point is a recent level-matched, time-synched blind comparison of a segment of a LP and the corresponding CD that I did using files I downloaded over the web. Based on casual listening, they sounded pretty much the same. However I can easily and reliably distinguish them in an ABX test. If I found noise and distortion, I would have measurements to back my findings up. Can't you determine the existance of any noise and distortion that is caused by the inherent distortions of the medium just by listening under blind conditions? See the above ABX test example. What assurance do we have that your biases won't affect your evaluation? The use of technical means to back up my assertions, So are you saying that all one has to do is a few measurements and the affects of sighted bias disappear? See the above ABX test example. I don't think that is true. In fact I would assert that any prior knowledge of measurements will only add more bias. See the above ABX test example. no doubt a concept that you can't comprehend. More Ad Hominem Your comments prover me correct. Prove to me that you will make an unbiased evaluation and we can go from there. I think you've already given your answer - no show! Not at all. I would be happy to put your claims to the test with bias controlled listening tests. Do you think you can back up your claims about your ability to easily hear these alleged gross distortions inherent in vinyl under bias controlled conditions? If we can arrange for some actual bias controlled tests of your ability to identify vinyl distortions by ear alone I would be more than happy to make the effort to burn some CDs for the purpose of such a test. See the above ABX test example. |
|
#59
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
LP inferior?
|
|
#60
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
LP inferior?
Sonnova wrote:
On Tue, 2 Dec 2008 05:38:22 -0800, wrote (in article ): snip The actual truth of the matter is that most people who find LP appealing don't care all that much about the occasional tick and pop. Apparently that's true. They kinda spoil it for me however. And while rumble, wow and flutter are pretty much unacceptable to most everybody, the truth is that few records exhibit these properties in any audible amount. I've found quite a number of commercial releases that suffer these faults to an audible degree. Audiophile pressings? Maybe not, but then I could name many hundreds of my favorite albums that are not, nor will ever likely be, available on such, so... Cheap turntables with rim drive rumble. Oh, I guess I was unclear. I was referring to the surface noise issues, not the rumble, wow and flutter. Gave that up when I got rid of my various Duals, many years ago, and quit buying vinyl in Phoenix in the summertime. snip I find inner groove distortions to be the most annoying, and the most prevalent, in commercial releases, although with the same caveats as mentioned above. It used to be a problem, for sure. But with improved stylus shapes, that has been minimized to the point where its rare. Of course, if the records have been damaged already by playing with an incorrect stylus shape or worn stylus, this exacerbates the problem. Well, I've always used the various incarnations of the excellent tracking Shure V15 until switching to a Grace F9, about 15 years ago IIRC. Also have a V15Vxmr as well (had a stylus mishap with the Grace, and took a while to source another), but I don't like the sound as well as the Grace. But I have still had quite a number of LPs with inner groove distortion right out of the sleeve, new. Again, may not be a problem with 'audiophile' pressings, but neither they, nor any other commercial LPs are available for most of these recordings. The CD reissues don't suffer the same problems. snip Yes, I can listen to XM/Sirius radio in the car because the high-noise level in a moving car covers the artifacts completely. At home, I can listen to satellite radio as background music if I listen at low levels for the same reason - I.E. if I cannot hear the artifacts, they don't bother me. Well, with oftentimes 45-50 weeks a year on the road, there really is no viable choice for most of my listening time. At home, it's always CD's - and the occasional LP for which no CD has been released. Keith Hughes |
|
#62
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
LP inferior?
In article ,
Sonnova wrote: Surface noise issues are usually the result of "re-grind" vinyl mix, indifferent manufacturing, and poor record care. I have records that are 45 years old and, other than the occasional tick and pop (goes with the territory - some are not even defects, but rather static electricity discharges) are as quiet as they were the day that I removed the shrink-wrap from the album. I can agree with that. My oldest LP was purchased in 1958. It is still quiet. A good record cleaning machine is a great help when you have a problem disk or buy a used one. I had problems with one disk for years. It would always stick at a particular point. When I finally applied a good cleaning to it the problem went away. It turned out to have been some kind of crud that had been in the groove since I bought it. I also bought a used disk that was very noisy. After several cleanings, it still had some pops but it wasn't noisy anymore. BTW, I don't find LPs to be inferior, nor do I find them to be superior. I find them to be different, just as every medium is. LP doesn't sound like SACD doesn't sound like Red Book CD doesn't sound like hi res CD doesn't sound like DVD-A. If the recording is well done I can enjoy them all. If it a bad recording it doesn't matter what the medium is. -- Robert B. Peirce, Venetia, PA 724-941-6883 bob AT peirce-family.com [Mac] rbp AT cooksonpeirce.com [Office] |
|
#63
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
LP inferior?
Robert Peirce wrote:
In article , Sonnova wrote: Surface noise issues are usually the result of "re-grind" vinyl mix, indifferent manufacturing, and poor record care. I have records that are 45 years old and, other than the occasional tick and pop (goes with the territory - some are not even defects, but rather static electricity discharges) are as quiet as they were the day that I removed the shrink-wrap from the album. I can agree with that. My oldest LP was purchased in 1958. It is still quiet. A good record cleaning machine is a great help when you have a problem disk or buy a used one. I had problems with one disk for years. It would always stick at a particular point. When I finally applied a good cleaning to it the problem went away. It turned out to have been some kind of crud that had been in the groove since I bought it. I also bought a used disk that was very noisy. After several cleanings, it still had some pops but it wasn't noisy anymore. BTW, I don't find LPs to be inferior, nor do I find them to be superior. I find them to be different, just as every medium is. LP doesn't sound like SACD doesn't sound like Red Book CD doesn't sound like hi res CD doesn't sound like DVD-A. If the recording is well done I can enjoy them all. If it a bad recording it doesn't matter what the medium is. Except, it's never been demonstrated that 'hi rez CD' or SACD or DVD-A, intrinsically sound any different from Redbook CD, at normal listening levels. Such differences that can normally be heard between then, are more likely due to different mastering choices. -- -S I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabrics of their life -- Leo Tolstoy |
|
#64
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
LP inferior?
On Fri, 5 Dec 2008 14:48:24 -0800, Robert Peirce wrote
(in article ): In article , Sonnova wrote: Surface noise issues are usually the result of "re-grind" vinyl mix, indifferent manufacturing, and poor record care. I have records that are 45 years old and, other than the occasional tick and pop (goes with the territory - some are not even defects, but rather static electricity discharges) are as quiet as they were the day that I removed the shrink-wrap from the album. I can agree with that. My oldest LP was purchased in 1958. It is still quiet. A good record cleaning machine is a great help when you have a problem disk or buy a used one. I had problems with one disk for years. It would always stick at a particular point. When I finally applied a good cleaning to it the problem went away. It turned out to have been some kind of crud that had been in the groove since I bought it. I also bought a used disk that was very noisy. After several cleanings, it still had some pops but it wasn't noisy anymore. BTW, I don't find LPs to be inferior, nor do I find them to be superior. I find them to be different, just as every medium is. LP doesn't sound like SACD doesn't sound like Red Book CD doesn't sound like hi res CD doesn't sound like DVD-A. If the recording is well done I can enjoy them all. If it a bad recording it doesn't matter what the medium is. Agreed. On paper, CD is far superior. In reality, some are, some aren't. One needs to keep an open mind about this stuff. |
|
#65
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
LP inferior?
In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote: Robert Peirce wrote: In article , Sonnova wrote: BTW, I don't find LPs to be inferior, nor do I find them to be superior. I find them to be different, just as every medium is. LP doesn't sound like SACD doesn't sound like Red Book CD doesn't sound like hi res CD doesn't sound like DVD-A. If the recording is well done I can enjoy them all. If it a bad recording it doesn't matter what the medium is. Except, it's never been demonstrated that 'hi rez CD' or SACD or DVD-A, intrinsically sound any different from Redbook CD, at normal listening levels. Such differences that can normally be heard between then, are more likely due to different mastering choices. Doesn't matter why they sound different. Many feel they do. That doesn't mean they can't be enjoyed. Years ago I enjoyed listening to a crummy AM station from 1000 miles away on my car radio. That was inferior. On my system, I usually can't hear much, if any, difference in equally well prepped media in a normal listening situation. However, if you want to really concentrate and look for differences, they are there. Some think one medium always sounds better than another. I have found it isn't that clear-cut. Some things I like better on LP and some on CD. Maybe it was the way they were mastered. -- Robert B. Peirce, Venetia, PA 724-941-6883 bob AT peirce-family.com [Mac] rbp AT cooksonpeirce.com [Office] |
|
#66
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
LP inferior?
Robert Peirce wrote:
In article , Steven Sullivan wrote: Robert Peirce wrote: In article , Sonnova wrote: BTW, I don't find LPs to be inferior, nor do I find them to be superior. I find them to be different, just as every medium is. LP doesn't sound like SACD doesn't sound like Red Book CD doesn't sound like hi res CD doesn't sound like DVD-A. If the recording is well done I can enjoy them all. If it a bad recording it doesn't matter what the medium is. Except, it's never been demonstrated that 'hi rez CD' or SACD or DVD-A, intrinsically sound any different from Redbook CD, at normal listening levels. Such differences that can normally be heard between then, are more likely due to different mastering choices. Doesn't matter why they sound different. Many feel they do. Doesn't matter if claims are true or not? Stating a preference is one thing; claiming a cause for the preference is quite another. The latter is a testable claim. That doesn't mean they can't be enjoyed. Years ago I enjoyed listening to a crummy AM station from 1000 miles away on my car radio. That was inferior. Who said *anything* about what can and can't be enjoyed? On my system, I usually can't hear much, if any, difference in equally well prepped media in a normal listening situation. However, if you want to really concentrate and look for differences, they are there. Some think one medium always sounds better than another. I have found it isn't that clear-cut. Some things I like better on LP and some on CD. Maybe it was the way they were mastered. And the fact is, tHose who think 'one *medium* sounds better than another', are operating from a premise that the *medium* is a cause of the difference. This is supportable in the case of LP vs CD; in the case of CD vs DVD-A/SACD, the evidence is not there. -- -S I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabrics of their life -- Leo Tolstoy |
|
#67
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
LP inferior?
On Sat, 6 Dec 2008 04:02:49 -0800, Steven Sullivan wrote
(in article ): Robert Peirce wrote: In article , Steven Sullivan wrote: Robert Peirce wrote: In article , Sonnova wrote: BTW, I don't find LPs to be inferior, nor do I find them to be superior. I find them to be different, just as every medium is. LP doesn't sound like SACD doesn't sound like Red Book CD doesn't sound like hi res CD doesn't sound like DVD-A. If the recording is well done I can enjoy them all. If it a bad recording it doesn't matter what the medium is. Except, it's never been demonstrated that 'hi rez CD' or SACD or DVD-A, intrinsically sound any different from Redbook CD, at normal listening levels. Such differences that can normally be heard between then, are more likely due to different mastering choices. Doesn't matter why they sound different. Many feel they do. Doesn't matter if claims are true or not? Stating a preference is one thing; claiming a cause for the preference is quite another. The latter is a testable claim. DSD has more headroom and dynamic range than does Redbook (as does 24-bit/96KHz DVD-A), but other than that, I don't see where there's any real difference. Frankly, I'm not sure that those advantages are utilized in current releases very much, if at all. It's hard to make direct comparisons between the SACD layer and the Redbook layer on hybrid DDD discs because it takes so long for most players to switch between SACD mode and CD mode, but I have played the CD layer of works that should have wide dynamic range and then gone back and played the SACD layer on lots of hybrids, and I don't notice any difference in dynamic contrasts between the two encodings AT ALL. Not very scientific, I'll grant you, but there it is. That doesn't mean they can't be enjoyed. Years ago I enjoyed listening to a crummy AM station from 1000 miles away on my car radio. That was inferior. Who said *anything* about what can and can't be enjoyed? On my system, I usually can't hear much, if any, difference in equally well prepped media in a normal listening situation. However, if you want to really concentrate and look for differences, they are there. Some think one medium always sounds better than another. I have found it isn't that clear-cut. Some things I like better on LP and some on CD. Maybe it was the way they were mastered. And the fact is, tHose who think 'one *medium* sounds better than another', are operating from a premise that the *medium* is a cause of the difference. This is supportable in the case of LP vs CD; in the case of CD vs DVD-A/SACD, the evidence is not there. I record a number of groups, a jazz orchestra, a symphonic band and a symphony on a regular basis. Luckily, I get to also record rehearsals which affords me the chance to experiment with recording formats, microphone configuration, and placement, and to try new equipment such as mixers, microphones, recording devices, etc. Since rehearsals, unlike actual performances, are essentially "throw away" performances, if I try something that doesn't work, its of no consequence except that perhaps, I learned something. I have had an opportunity to make recordings in the same sessions of 16-bit/44.1 kHz, 24-bit/44.1 KHz, 24-bit (and 32-bit floating)/96 KHz, and 24-bit (and 32-bit floating)/192 KHz. The only thing I have noticed different is that the headroom afforded by the extra 8 or 16-bits on the acquisition side of the recording process makes recording on-the-fly in live performance, easier. IOW, with a 16-bit recording, one really has to watch one's record levels. Going over zero Vu (which represents 16 bits) is a no-no and produces some absolutely horrid sounding noises. By recording at 24-bit or higher, one doesn't have that problem because one has at least 48 dB MORE headroom than is present at 16-bits (I might record at 32-bit floating, but I meter at 16-bits). Other than the safety margin afforded by the increased headroom, I hear NO difference between 44.1, 96 and 192 KHz (except for the increasingly larger files, that is). I have settled on recording 32-bit floating point at 44.1 KHz for all my recording because I hear no difference between the standard Redbook and the so-called high-resolution sampling rates on playback. |
|
#68
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
LP inferior?
On Dec 5, 7:25*pm, Steven Sullivan wrote:
Robert Peirce wrote: In article , *Sonnova wrote: Surface noise issues are usually the result of "re-grind" vinyl mix, indifferent manufacturing, and poor record care. I have records that are 45 years old and, other than the occasional tick and pop (goes with the territory - some are not even defects, but rather static electricity discharges) are as quiet as they were the day that I removed the shrink-wrap from the album. I can agree with that. *My oldest LP was purchased in 1958. *It is still quiet. A good record cleaning machine is a great help when you have a problem disk or buy a used one. *I had problems with one disk for years. *It would always stick at a particular point. *When I finally applied a good cleaning to it the problem went away. *It turned out to have been some kind of crud that had been in the groove since I bought it. *I also bought a used disk that was very noisy. *After several cleanings, it still had some pops but it wasn't noisy anymore. BTW, I don't find LPs to be inferior, nor do I find them to be superior. * I find them to be different, just as every medium is. *LP doesn't sound like SACD doesn't sound like Red Book CD doesn't sound like hi res CD doesn't sound like DVD-A. *If the recording is well done I can enjoy them all. *If it a bad recording it doesn't matter what the medium is. Except, it's never been demonstrated that 'hi rez CD' or SACD or DVD-A, intrinsically sound any different from Redbook CD, at normal listening levels. Such differences that can normally be heard between then, are more likely due to different mastering choices. Which may just reveal the limits of the current (non-verified for musical evaluation) penchant for using ABX for everything and declaring that it all sounds the same. |
|
#69
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
LP inferior?
wrote in message
On Dec 5, 7:25 pm, Steven Sullivan wrote: Except, it's never been demonstrated that 'hi rez CD' or SACD or DVD-A, intrinsically sound any different from Redbook CD, at normal listening levels. Such differences that can normally be heard between then, are more likely due to different mastering choices. Which may just reveal the limits of the current (non-verified for musical evaluation) penchant for using ABX for everything and declaring that it all sounds the same. There is no such thing as a penchant for using ABX for everything. A statement like this shows a considerable lack of familiarity with how proper subjective tests have been done since the middle 1990s. Interested parties are directed to ITU recommendation BS-1116 and other similar documents from international standards groups. |
|
#70
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
LP inferior?
On Sun, 7 Dec 2008 17:39:12 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): wrote in message On Dec 5, 7:25 pm, Steven Sullivan wrote: Except, it's never been demonstrated that 'hi rez CD' or SACD or DVD-A, intrinsically sound any different from Redbook CD, at normal listening levels. Such differences that can normally be heard between then, are more likely due to different mastering choices. Which may just reveal the limits of the current (non-verified for musical evaluation) penchant for using ABX for everything and declaring that it all sounds the same. There is no such thing as a penchant for using ABX for everything. A statement like this shows a considerable lack of familiarity with how proper subjective tests have been done since the middle 1990s. Interested parties are directed to ITU recommendation BS-1116 and other similar documents from international standards groups. I think that what hlavo meant was that if a difference is noted in an ABX test between an SACD/DVD-A mastering of a particular recording and the Redbook version of the same recording, it may be due to differences between the way the two versions were mastered rather than any actual difference between the sound of the encoding methodologies. |
| Reply |
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| phantom imaging-why digital is inferior to analog in end-use | Pro Audio | |||
| Why duh-Mikey is an inferior being | Audio Opinions | |||
Linear Mode
