[Sonnova]

The current wisdom, and a wisdom that I mostly agree with, says that vinyl is
vastly inferior to digital as a music media. There are exceptions, of course,
but generally speaking this would seem to be true.

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
formats and of course, much better than regular CD. To prove his point, he
shows a number of photographs of the spectral analysis of a short tutti
passage from the 24/192 master of Shostakovich's 15th Symphony. Also shown
are spectral analysis pictures of the same passage on LP and on CD. Except
for some high-frequency noise in the LP spectral analysis photos, the LP
looks almost identical to the master recording. The CD shows everything above
22KHz as GONE, just a big black space taking up 3/4 of the spectral
photograph. This shows that the LP faithfully preserves the HF content of the
master, while the CD does not.

Koschnike says that he is confident that its the HF cutoff that makes CD
sound less natural than hi-rez digital or LP, when the latter is properly
executed. He goes on to say that he thinks that his LPs are more than
competitive with those from vinyl's golden age.

While I DOUBT seriously that what's going-on in the ultrasonic stratosphere
can have any affect on what goes on in the range of human hearing (and that
assumes ideal human hearing (20-20Khz) which is a state that goes away
quickly as youth fades.), it is interesting to see just how much of the
recorded spectrum that the CD plot shows thrown away (and I wonder how much
of the LP spectrum analysis will be left after a few plays - even on top
flight playback gear). I urge everyone interested to pick-up the December
issue of Stereophile the next time that you are at your local magazine
emporium and turn to pages 16 and 18 and take a look at the spectral analysis
pictures. Very interesting.

[Kalman Rubinson[_3_]]

Of course, he blows off SACD and DVD-A with a cursory remark that "he
has experimented" with them. Your point about in-band background
noise on the LP and the eventual erasure of its HF spectrum is well
taken. I also find it interesting that he does not consider regular
DVD which, for stereo at least, is capable of 24/96 on mass market
players.

Kal

On 20 Nov 2008 22:50:17 GMT, Sonnova
wrote:

The current wisdom, and a wisdom that I mostly agree with, says that vinyl is
vastly inferior to digital as a music media. There are exceptions, of course,
but generally speaking this would seem to be true.

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
formats and of course, much better than regular CD. To prove his point, he
shows a number of photographs of the spectral analysis of a short tutti
passage from the 24/192 master of Shostakovich's 15th Symphony. Also shown
are spectral analysis pictures of the same passage on LP and on CD. Except
for some high-frequency noise in the LP spectral analysis photos, the LP
looks almost identical to the master recording. The CD shows everything above
22KHz as GONE, just a big black space taking up 3/4 of the spectral
photograph. This shows that the LP faithfully preserves the HF content of the
master, while the CD does not.

Koschnike says that he is confident that its the HF cutoff that makes CD
sound less natural than hi-rez digital or LP, when the latter is properly
executed. He goes on to say that he thinks that his LPs are more than
competitive with those from vinyl's golden age.

While I DOUBT seriously that what's going-on in the ultrasonic stratosphere
can have any affect on what goes on in the range of human hearing (and that
assumes ideal human hearing (20-20Khz) which is a state that goes away
quickly as youth fades.), it is interesting to see just how much of the
recorded spectrum that the CD plot shows thrown away (and I wonder how much
of the LP spectrum analysis will be left after a few plays - even on top
flight playback gear). I urge everyone interested to pick-up the December
issue of Stereophile the next time that you are at your local magazine
emporium and turn to pages 16 and 18 and take a look at the spectral analysis
pictures. Very interesting.

[Steven Sullivan]

Kalman Rubinson wrote:
Of course, he blows off SACD and DVD-A with a cursory remark that "he
has experimented" with them. Your point about in-band background
noise on the LP and the eventual erasure of its HF spectrum is well
taken. I also find it interesting that he does not consider regular
DVD which, for stereo at least, is capable of 24/96 on mass market
players.


Indeed. And of course, no one with a clue would be in the least bit
surprised that there is no 22kHz content on a CD. Nor would
they conclude, merely from spectra, that the LP is
*accurate* to its source at those frequencies, nor does it
tell you what the content *is* (music? noise?).

I haven't yet seen the issue, but from Sonnova's
description, sadly, this sounds like another 'expert' -- with a commercial
stake in LP -- of the sort your editor likes to trot out who's
claims should have been subjected to
critique from a *real* expert on digital audio.
*That's* something the Stereophile readership could have
learned from.



On 20 Nov 2008 22:50:17 GMT, Sonnova
wrote:

The current wisdom, and a wisdom that I mostly agree with, says that vinyl is
vastly inferior to digital as a music media. There are exceptions, of course,
but generally speaking this would seem to be true.

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
formats and of course, much better than regular CD. To prove his point, he
shows a number of photographs of the spectral analysis of a short tutti
passage from the 24/192 master of Shostakovich's 15th Symphony. Also shown
are spectral analysis pictures of the same passage on LP and on CD. Except
for some high-frequency noise in the LP spectral analysis photos, the LP
looks almost identical to the master recording. The CD shows everything above
22KHz as GONE, just a big black space taking up 3/4 of the spectral
photograph.


If it takes up 3/4 of a spectrum, then that only means that the scale of
the 'spectrum' has been absurdly expanded to ~100kHz.


This shows that the LP faithfully preserves the HF content of the
master, while the CD does not.

Did he test the low frequency content, to see which medium more faithfully
renders sequences near the BOTTOM of the human hearing range?

Koschnike says that he is confident that its the HF cutoff that makes CD
sound less natural than hi-rez digital or LP, when the latter is properly
executed. He goes on to say that he thinks that his LPs are more than
competitive with those from vinyl's golden age.

While I DOUBT seriously that what's going-on in the ultrasonic stratosphere
can have any affect on what goes on in the range of human hearing (and that
assumes ideal human hearing (20-20Khz) which is a state that goes away
quickly as youth fades.), it is interesting to see just how much of the
recorded spectrum that the CD plot shows thrown away (and I wonder how much
of the LP spectrum analysis will be left after a few plays - even on top
flight playback gear).


Interesting why? If there was anything above 22 kHz on a *CD* (44.1
kHz sample rate) spectrum, it would be a sign that something was radically *wrong*.



--
-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

[Sonnova]

On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 06:15:19 -0800, Steven Sullivan wrote
(in article ):

Kalman Rubinson wrote:
Of course, he blows off SACD and DVD-A with a cursory remark that "he
has experimented" with them. Your point about in-band background
noise on the LP and the eventual erasure of its HF spectrum is well
taken. I also find it interesting that he does not consider regular
DVD which, for stereo at least, is capable of 24/96 on mass market
players.


Indeed. And of course, no one with a clue would be in the least bit
surprised that there is no 22kHz content on a CD. Nor would
they conclude, merely from spectra, that the LP is
*accurate* to its source at those frequencies, nor does it
tell you what the content *is* (music? noise?).

I haven't yet seen the issue, but from Sonnova's
description, sadly, this sounds like another 'expert' -- with a commercial
stake in LP -- of the sort your editor likes to trot out who's
claims should have been subjected to
critique from a *real* expert on digital audio.
*That's* something the Stereophile readership could have
learned from.



On 20 Nov 2008 22:50:17 GMT, Sonnova
wrote:

The current wisdom, and a wisdom that I mostly agree with, says that vinyl
is
vastly inferior to digital as a music media. There are exceptions, of
course,
but generally speaking this would seem to be true.

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
formats and of course, much better than regular CD. To prove his point, he
shows a number of photographs of the spectral analysis of a short tutti
passage from the 24/192 master of Shostakovich's 15th Symphony. Also shown
are spectral analysis pictures of the same passage on LP and on CD. Except
for some high-frequency noise in the LP spectral analysis photos, the LP
looks almost identical to the master recording. The CD shows everything
above
22KHz as GONE, just a big black space taking up 3/4 of the spectral
photograph.


If it takes up 3/4 of a spectrum, then that only means that the scale of
the 'spectrum' has been absurdly expanded to ~100kHz.

Well, of course. Koschnike's point was that 192 KHz sampling has response out
to 96KHz (half the sampling frequency). so, obviously, the DC-22KHz would be
roughly 1/4 of a spectrum that goes to 100KHz.


This shows that the LP faithfully preserves the HF content of the
master, while the CD does not.

Did he test the low frequency content, to see which medium more faithfully
renders sequences near the BOTTOM of the human hearing range?

Well, obviously, CD goes deeper, down to just a couple of Hz, in fact.

Koschnike says that he is confident that its the HF cutoff that makes CD
sound less natural than hi-rez digital or LP, when the latter is properly
executed. He goes on to say that he thinks that his LPs are more than
competitive with those from vinyl's golden age.

While I DOUBT seriously that what's going-on in the ultrasonic
stratosphere
can have any affect on what goes on in the range of human hearing (and
that
assumes ideal human hearing (20-20Khz) which is a state that goes away
quickly as youth fades.), it is interesting to see just how much of the
recorded spectrum that the CD plot shows thrown away (and I wonder how
much
of the LP spectrum analysis will be left after a few plays - even on top
flight playback gear).


Interesting why? If there was anything above 22 kHz on a *CD* (44.1
kHz sample rate) spectrum, it would be a sign that something was radically
*wrong*.

No, that's not what's interesting. What's interesting is how high of
frequencies the LP can resolve. I would not have expected it. Even during the
days of multiplexed quadraphonic sound (the JVC CD-4 system) they only tried
to record up to about 50Khz and they had trouble making THAT reliable.

[Harry Lavo]

"Sonnova" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 06:15:19 -0800, Steven Sullivan wrote
(in article ):


snip


Interesting why? If there was anything above 22 kHz on a *CD* (44.1
kHz sample rate) spectrum, it would be a sign that something was
radically
*wrong*.

No, that's not what's interesting. What's interesting is how high of
frequencies the LP can resolve. I would not have expected it. Even during
the
days of multiplexed quadraphonic sound (the JVC CD-4 system) they only
tried
to record up to about 50Khz and they had trouble making THAT reliable.

In fact, it was the CD-4 recordings that led to many of the cutter
improvments that have taken place, and the commercialization of the
Shibata-style stylii.. Now that such stylii are in widespread use,
obtaining high frequencies off of recordings doesn't surprise me.

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message


In fact, it was the CD-4 recordings that led to many of
the cutter improvements that have taken place, and the
commercialization of the Shibata-style stylii..

CD-4 recordings have very short useful lives. One of the fellows in our
audio club collects them. He says maybe 10 playings.

Now that such stylii are in widespread use, obtaining high
frequencies off of recordings doesn't surprise me.

Obtaining high frequencies off of LPs is very easy.

Oh, you want music?

That's considerably harder.

[Sonnova]

On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 15:55:37 -0800, Harry Lavo wrote
(in article ):

"Sonnova" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 06:15:19 -0800, Steven Sullivan wrote
(in article ):


snip


Interesting why? If there was anything above 22 kHz on a *CD* (44.1
kHz sample rate) spectrum, it would be a sign that something was
radically
*wrong*.

No, that's not what's interesting. What's interesting is how high of
frequencies the LP can resolve. I would not have expected it. Even during
the
days of multiplexed quadraphonic sound (the JVC CD-4 system) they only
tried
to record up to about 50Khz and they had trouble making THAT reliable.

In fact, it was the CD-4 recordings that led to many of the cutter
improvments that have taken place, and the commercialization of the
Shibata-style stylii.. Now that such stylii are in widespread use,
obtaining high frequencies off of recordings doesn't surprise me.


Response to 50 KHz (at least on a new record) doesn't surprise me. Response
to 100K does.

[Steven Sullivan]

Sonnova wrote:
On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 06:15:19 -0800, Steven Sullivan wrote
(in article ):

Kalman Rubinson wrote:
photograph.


If it takes up 3/4 of a spectrum, then that only means that the scale of
the 'spectrum' has been absurdly expanded to ~100kHz.

Well, of course. Koschnike's point was that 192 KHz sampling has response out
to 96KHz (half the sampling frequency). so, obviously, the DC-22KHz would be
roughly 1/4 of a spectrum that goes to 100KHz.

Sorry, but what is the 'point' of making a point like that? All it is, is an
entirely predictable confirmation of Shannon/Nyquist: your 'response' will extend out
to just less than half of whatever your sample rate is. No one with a clue
would ever *expect* to see anything in spectral view beyond what the
Nyquist limit of 'response' dictates. So OF COURSE any spectral content
visible beyond 22 in 192 kHz-sampled audio, will be absent in a 44kHz
sampled version.


This shows that the LP faithfully preserves the HF content of the
master, while the CD does not.

Did he test the low frequency content, to see which medium more faithfully
renders sequences near the BOTTOM of the human hearing range?

Well, obviously, CD goes deeper, down to just a couple of Hz, in fact.

And obviously, 192kHz 'goes higher' than 44.1kHz. But we typically can
hear down to 20, feel below that, whereas audibility above 20K is typicially
*nada*.


Koschnike says that he is confident that its the HF cutoff that makes CD
sound less natural than hi-rez digital or LP, when the latter is properly
executed. He goes on to say that he thinks that his LPs are more than
competitive with those from vinyl's golden age.

While I DOUBT seriously that what's going-on in the ultrasonic
stratosphere
can have any affect on what goes on in the range of human hearing (and
that
assumes ideal human hearing (20-20Khz) which is a state that goes away
quickly as youth fades.), it is interesting to see just how much of the
recorded spectrum that the CD plot shows thrown away (and I wonder how
much
of the LP spectrum analysis will be left after a few plays - even on top
flight playback gear).


Interesting why? If there was anything above 22 kHz on a *CD* (44.1
kHz sample rate) spectrum, it would be a sign that something was radically
*wrong*.

No, that's not what's interesting. What's interesting is how high of
frequencies the LP can resolve. I would not have expected it. Even during the
days of multiplexed quadraphonic sound (the JVC CD-4 system) they only tried
to record up to about 50Khz and they had trouble making THAT reliable.

Depends on what you mean by 'resolve'. Again, having 'content' up there is not
a guarantee that it's faithful to source, and certainly no guarantee that
it's audible *music*.



--
-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

[Andrew Haley]

Sonnova writes:

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 formats and of course, much better than regular
CD. To prove his point, he shows a number of photographs of the
spectral analysis of a short tutti passage from the 24/192 master
of Shostakovich's 15th Symphony. Also shown are spectral analysis
pictures of the same passage on LP and on CD. Except for some
high-frequency noise in the LP spectral analysis photos, the LP
looks almost identical to the master recording. The CD shows
everything above 22KHz as GONE, just a big black space taking up
3/4 of the spectral photograph. This shows that the LP faithfully
preserves the HF content of the master, while the CD does not.

I saw that too, and I found it quite incredible. There is a huge
amount of HF energy near the beginning of the track, extending to
50kHz and beyond. Consider that the 50 kHz component, significant in
amplitude if the spectrogram is to be believed, would be boosted by
the RIAA curve by 30-40 dB. (Depending on whether a tweaked RIAA
curve is used.) Half-speed mastering might allow such levels to be
put onto the master but I have no idea how you'd track the resulting
record at full speed.

I think more information is required.

Andrew.

[Andrew Haley]

Andrew Haley writes:

the 50 kHz component, significant in amplitude if the spectrogram
is to be believed, would be boosted by the RIAA curve by 30-40 dB.

I miscalculated: if you take the 0dB point of the RIAA curve as 500
Hz, that's a boost of 28 dB, not 30-40.

Andrew.

[Eeyore]

Sonnova wrote:

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
formats and of course, much better than regular CD.

For exactly how many plays ?

Tracing distortion alone will instantly render them inferior and there's no way a
cartridge pre-amp will ever remotely approach the S/N ratio of even standard CD.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Andrew Haley wrote:

I saw that too, and I found it quite incredible. There is a huge
amount of HF energy near the beginning of the track, extending to
50kHz and beyond. Consider that the 50 kHz component, significant in
amplitude if the spectrogram is to be believed, would be boosted by
the RIAA curve by 30-40 dB. (Depending on whether a tweaked RIAA
curve is used.) Half-speed mastering might allow such levels to be
put onto the master but I have no idea how you'd track the resulting
record at full speed.

I think more information is required.

I think testing you brain is required.

Bats may be able to hear 50kHz but YOU can't, nor can your loudspeakers
reproduce it.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Steven Sullivan wrote:

Kalman Rubinson wrote:
Of course, he blows off SACD and DVD-A with a cursory remark that "he
has experimented" with them. Your point about in-band background
noise on the LP and the eventual erasure of its HF spectrum is well
taken. I also find it interesting that he does not consider regular
DVD which, for stereo at least, is capable of 24/96 on mass market
players.

Indeed. And of course, no one with a clue would be in the least bit
surprised that there is no 22kHz content on a CD.

I do wish they'd used 48kHz sampling though and used maybe 18 bits. It would have saved any of
this discussion ever (well aside from nutcases).

Some early CDs and players were pretty disgusting too which is where the criticism originated.

Early DTRs certainly went to 50kHz sampling.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Steven Sullivan wrote:

Sonnova wrote:

No, that's not what's interesting. What's interesting is how high of
frequencies the LP can resolve. I would not have expected it. Even during the
days of multiplexed quadraphonic sound (the JVC CD-4 system) they only tried
to record up to about 50Khz and they had trouble making THAT reliable.

Depends on what you mean by 'resolve'. Again, having 'content' up there is not
a guarantee that it's faithful to source, and certainly no guarantee that
it's audible *music*.

Bats and dogs may like it. ;~)

I fail to see any relevance to humans.

Graham

[Rob Tweed]

On 23 Nov 2008 18:32:52 GMT, Steven Sullivan wrote:

No, that's not what's interesting. What's interesting is how high of
frequencies the LP can resolve. I would not have expected it. Even during the
days of multiplexed quadraphonic sound (the JVC CD-4 system) they only tried
to record up to about 50Khz and they had trouble making THAT reliable.

Depends on what you mean by 'resolve'. Again, having 'content' up there is not
a guarantee that it's faithful to source, and certainly no guarantee that
it's audible *music*.

I'm sure pet dogs and passing bats may appreciate the difference....

---

Rob Tweed
Company: M/Gateway Developments Ltd
Registered in England: No 3220901
Registered Office: 58 Francis Road,Ashford, Kent TN23 7UR

Web-site: http://www.mgateway.com

[Eeyore]

Sonnova wrote:

The current wisdom, and a wisdom that I mostly agree with, says that vinyl is
vastly inferior to digital as a music media. There are exceptions, of course,
but generally speaking this would seem to be true.

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

I damn well hope NOT ! Alesis is cheap consumer crap.

One of the few companies making such converters with total credibility is a
one-time former employer and old friends Prism Sound. All the founder members and
early staff were ex-Neve including myself.

http://prismsound.com/music_recordin...ducts_home.php

Graham

[Eeyore]

Sonnova wrote:

While I DOUBT seriously that what's going-on in the ultrasonic stratosphere
can have any affect on what goes on in the range of human hearing

GOOD.

Because as you state, you can't HEAR it ! Mind you, as a youngster, I could
'detect' albeit not hear as a tone, some 24kHz. Not sure how accurate the
markings were on the oscillator though and it was at killer level.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Andrew Haley wrote:

Andrew Haley writes:

the 50 kHz component, significant in amplitude if the spectrogram
is to be believed, would be boosted by the RIAA curve by 30-40 dB.

I miscalculated: if you take the 0dB point of the RIAA curve as 500
Hz, that's a boost of 28 dB, not 30-40.

The purpose of RIAA EQ is to correct for the inverse RIAA EQ applied when
making the master.

There is NO BOOST overall at any frequency.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

In fact, it was the CD-4 recordings that led to many of
the cutter improvements that have taken place, and the
commercialization of the Shibata-style stylii..

CD-4 recordings have very short useful lives. One of the fellows in our
audio club collects them. He says maybe 10 playings.

Inevitable with any process than includes wear as a significant phenomenon.
Very significant in terms of LPs.

Even the best analogue tape will lose HF after repeated playings.

Graham

[Codifus]

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

[Sonnova]

On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 07:43:20 -0800, Rob Tweed wrote
(in article ):

On 23 Nov 2008 18:32:52 GMT, Steven Sullivan wrote:

No, that's not what's interesting. What's interesting is how high of
frequencies the LP can resolve. I would not have expected it. Even during
the
days of multiplexed quadraphonic sound (the JVC CD-4 system) they only
tried
to record up to about 50Khz and they had trouble making THAT reliable.

Depends on what you mean by 'resolve'. Again, having 'content' up there is
not
a guarantee that it's faithful to source, and certainly no guarantee that
it's audible *music*.

I'm sure pet dogs and passing bats may appreciate the difference....

---

Rob Tweed
Company: M/Gateway Developments Ltd
Registered in England: No 3220901
Registered Office: 58 Francis Road,Ashford, Kent TN23 7UR

Web-site: http://www.mgateway.com


Nobody said that it's audible music, or that it's anything that the average
person need concern themselves about from an audibility standpoint. its just
that we're talking about physical undulations which are extremely tiny being
PRESSED into hot, molten vinyl in such a way, that when the vinyl cools and
sets, those 100 KHz undulations are, apparently, still there and readable by
a stylus! That's what's interesting. I'd also be interested in knowing how
many plays those 100 Khz undulations will survive.

[Sonnova]

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.

[Arny Krueger]

"Sonnova" wrote in message


The current wisdom, and a wisdom that I mostly agree
with, says that vinyl is vastly inferior to digital as a
music media. There are exceptions, of course, but
generally speaking this would seem to be true.

Well, that's true unless you actually believe PR from people with LPs to
sell.

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.

Interesting how dead Google is on the topic of this fellow.

He records at
24-bit, 192KHz sampling rate using Alesis A to D
converters

Alesis doesn't sell stand-alone A/D converters, but packages them in
mid-priced stand-alone digital recorders such as the HD24 and Masterlink.
Trust me, Prism and Lynx Studio are not shivering in some corner, over the
thought of this. ;-)

then he down converts those files to 16/44.1
for Redbook CD release.

He has no choice! ;-)

He also makes LPs from his
masters using the latest incarnation of the Direct Metal
Master (DMM) technique.

Probably via one of the well-known LP production houses.

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
formats and of course, much better than regular CD.

Thus falling into line with the Stereophile company line.

To
prove his point, he shows a number of photographs of the
spectral analysis of a short tutti passage from the
24/192 master of Shostakovich's 15th Symphony.

Obviouisly, he's one of those "Measurementalist" guys. ;-)

Also shown
are spectral analysis pictures of the same passage on LP
and on CD.

I guess I'll have to wait amonth for that to show up on the SP web site...

Except for some high-frequency noise in the LP
spectral analysis photos, the LP looks almost identical
to the master recording. The CD shows everything above
22KHz as GONE, just a big black space taking up 3/4 of
the spectral photograph. This shows that the LP
faithfully preserves the HF content of the master, while
the CD does not.

This would appear to be more "Measurementalist" propaganda. ;-)

Koschnike says that he is confident that its the HF
cutoff that makes CD sound less natural than hi-rez
digital or LP, when the latter is properly executed.

Waiting to see his rebuttal to the recent JAES article that says the exact
opposite.

He goes on to say that he thinks that his LPs are more than
competitive with those from vinyl's golden age.

I'm glad that he feels positively about this product, but what can we
reliably infer from such claims?

While I DOUBT seriously that what's going-on in the
ultrasonic stratosphere can have any affect on what goes
on in the range of human hearing (and that assumes ideal
human hearing (20-20Khz) which is a state that goes away
quickly as youth fades.), it is interesting to see just
how much of the recorded spectrum that the CD plot shows
thrown away (and I wonder how much of the LP spectrum
analysis will be left after a few plays - even on top
flight playback gear).

Good question. Also, spectrum analysis of music doesn't tell you whether the
spectrum you see is music or locally-generated garbage. You *can* figure
that out if you work with test tones, but again that is Measurementalist
dogma. ;-)

I urge everyone interested to
pick-up the December issue of Stereophile the next time
that you are at your local magazine emporium and turn to
pages 16 and 18 and take a look at the spectral analysis
pictures. Very interesting.

I checked the local Barnes and Noble and came up empty.

[Jenn[_3_]]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Sonnova" wrote in message


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
formats and of course, much better than regular CD.

Thus falling into line with the Stereophile company line.

Really? You believe that SP has a pro-LP bias? What evidence do you
have for that?

[C. Leeds]

Eeyore wrote:

Inevitable with any process than includes wear as a significant phenomenon.
Very significant in terms of LPs.

This is urban legend. Many audiophiles own LPs that are 20, 30, 40 years
old or more, and have been frequently played. Wear is insignificant when
they have been properly used and care for. This explains, in part, the
high prices for the most desirable used records, such as the Mercurys
and RCAs.

Some of the old stuff on Atlantic, such as Ray Charles recorded in he
'60s, is spectacular even now.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Sonnova" wrote in message


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
formats and of course, much better than regular CD.

Thus falling into line with the Stereophile company line.

Really? You believe that SP has a pro-LP bias?

Yes.

What evidence do you have for that?

All of the fictitious digital angst, combined with the unbelievable
glorification of vinyl.

[C. Leeds]

IN
Eeyore wrote:
.....Alesis is cheap consumer crap.

Hmmm, sounds like prejudice. The Masterlink 9600 is really quite
outstanding, by most accounts.

[Arny Krueger]

"C. Leeds" wrote in message

Eeyore wrote:

Inevitable with any process than includes wear as a
significant phenomenon. Very significant in terms of LPs.

This is urban legend. Many audiophiles own LPs that are
20, 30, 40 years old or more, and have been frequently
played.

It's a classic case of the Boiled frog syndrome.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog


Wear is insignificant when they have been
properly used and care for.

That's a myth that was debunked in the day of, when leading audio magazines
printed pictures of actual groove wear.

This explains, in part, the
high prices for the most desirable used records, such as
the Mercurys and RCAs.

They are antiques - they don't have to sound good, they just need to be
"collectable".

Some of the old stuff on Atlantic, such as Ray Charles
recorded in he '60s, is spectacular even now.

The Ray Charles CDs I have always sounded better than the best vinyl of the
day.

[Sonnova]

On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 18:51:28 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Sonnova" wrote in message


The current wisdom, and a wisdom that I mostly agree
with, says that vinyl is vastly inferior to digital as a
music media. There are exceptions, of course, but
generally speaking this would seem to be true.

Well, that's true unless you actually believe PR from people with LPs to
sell.

Or, if you actually HAVE some exceptional-sounding LPs.

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.

Interesting how dead Google is on the topic of this fellow.

He records at
24-bit, 192KHz sampling rate using Alesis A to D
converters

Alesis doesn't sell stand-alone A/D converters, but packages them in
mid-priced stand-alone digital recorders such as the HD24 and Masterlink.
Trust me, Prism and Lynx Studio are not shivering in some corner, over the
thought of this. ;-)

I suspect that he uses their I/O26 (I use one of those myself, on occasion)
the article did not elaborate. The I/O26 does support 24/192, however.

then he down converts those files to 16/44.1
for Redbook CD release.

He has no choice! ;-)

He also makes LPs from his
masters using the latest incarnation of the Direct Metal
Master (DMM) technique.

Probably via one of the well-known LP production houses.

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
formats and of course, much better than regular CD.

Thus falling into line with the Stereophile company line.

Meh!

To
prove his point, he shows a number of photographs of the
spectral analysis of a short tutti passage from the
24/192 master of Shostakovich's 15th Symphony.

Obviouisly, he's one of those "Measurementalist" guys. ;-)

Also shown
are spectral analysis pictures of the same passage on LP
and on CD.

I guess I'll have to wait amonth for that to show up on the SP web site...

Except for some high-frequency noise in the LP
spectral analysis photos, the LP looks almost identical
to the master recording. The CD shows everything above
22KHz as GONE, just a big black space taking up 3/4 of
the spectral photograph. This shows that the LP
faithfully preserves the HF content of the master, while
the CD does not.

This would appear to be more "Measurementalist" propaganda. ;-)

Koschnike says that he is confident that its the HF
cutoff that makes CD sound less natural than hi-rez
digital or LP, when the latter is properly executed.

Waiting to see his rebuttal to the recent JAES article that says the exact
opposite.

He goes on to say that he thinks that his LPs are more than
competitive with those from vinyl's golden age.

I'm glad that he feels positively about this product, but what can we
reliably infer from such claims?

While I DOUBT seriously that what's going-on in the
ultrasonic stratosphere can have any affect on what goes
on in the range of human hearing (and that assumes ideal
human hearing (20-20Khz) which is a state that goes away
quickly as youth fades.), it is interesting to see just
how much of the recorded spectrum that the CD plot shows
thrown away (and I wonder how much of the LP spectrum
analysis will be left after a few plays - even on top
flight playback gear).

Good question. Also, spectrum analysis of music doesn't tell you whether the
spectrum you see is music or locally-generated garbage. You *can* figure
that out if you work with test tones, but again that is Measurementalist
dogma. ;-)

I urge everyone interested to
pick-up the December issue of Stereophile the next time
that you are at your local magazine emporium and turn to
pages 16 and 18 and take a look at the spectral analysis
pictures. Very interesting.

I checked the local Barnes and Noble and came up empty.


I subscribe. Usually subscriptions go out a couple of weeks in advance of
news stand deliveries. Try again this coming weekend.

[C. Leeds]

In
Eeyore wrote:

Tracing distortion alone will instantly render them inferior...

Tracing distortion? What's that?

[Arny Krueger]

"C. Leeds" wrote in message


IN

Eeyore wrote:
....Alesis is cheap consumer crap.

Hmmm, sounds like prejudice. The Masterlink 9600 is
really quite outstanding, by most accounts.

Well since you don't demand that reliable testing methodologies be used, the
following should be relevant to you:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...c9200370752164

"Possibly on the paper they are equals... and although the converters in my
Masterlink are certainly not bad, I've found Apogees and other 3rd party
designs to be a bit more musical. The Masterlink A-to-Ds always sounded a
bit
harsh in the higher frequencies and very sterile all-around, at least
compared
to the Lucid AD9624 I use in front of it. "

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...cb222a3368c1f6

"I have used it. The converters didn't seem all that good to me, but that's
not a problem since I could use my own external ones."

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...68436872a2cc2a

"none the less , took the masterlink back to the store."

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...3cbbe904a2215d

"Of course its converters are not state of the art..."

[[email protected]]

On Nov 26, 8:32�am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"C. Leeds" wrote in message



Eeyore wrote:

Inevitable with any process than includes wear as a
significant phenomenon. Very significant in terms of LPs.

This is urban legend. Many audiophiles own LPs that are
20, 30, 40 years old or more, and have been frequently
played.

It's a classic case of the Boiled frog syndrome.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog

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.



Wear is insignificant when they have been
properly used and care for.

That's a myth that was debunked in the day of, when leading audio magazines
printed pictures of actual groove wear.

This explains, in part, the
high prices for the most desirable used records, such as
the Mercurys and RCAs.

They are antiques - they don't have to sound good, they just need to be
"collectable".

Technically they are not antiques although the point of collectability
is a legitimate. But these recordings are collectable largely due to
their reputation as sonic wonders. The introduction of audiophile
reissues of these titles both on LP and SACD has brought the prices
down. I think a better example of sales price as an indicator of
percieved sonic merits is the success of audiophile reissues on vinyl
fetching 50 dollars a pop. Many of these reissues sell out while the
same titles are available on CD for a fraction of the price.



Some of the old stuff on Atlantic, such as Ray Charles
recorded in he '60s, is spectacular even now.

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. Can you
give us the specifics? What Ray Charles recordings were used? How did
you do the comparisons? Were any measures taken to control bias
effects? Which sepcific Ray Charles masterings on CD are you refering
to? What do you mean the "best vinyl of the day?" Which vinyl versions
were used for comparisons?

[Codifus]

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

[Jenn[_3_]]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Sonnova" wrote in message


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
formats and of course, much better than regular CD.

Thus falling into line with the Stereophile company line.

Really? You believe that SP has a pro-LP bias?

Yes.

What evidence do you have for that?

All of the fictitious digital angst, combined with the unbelievable
glorification of vinyl.

Hmmm, I guess that we just read it differently. I don't read any LP
bias except from Fremer.

[Sonnova]

On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 05:11:49 -0800, C. Leeds wrote
(in article ):

IN
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,

[Arny Krueger]

"C. Leeds" wrote in message

In
Eeyore wrote:

Tracing distortion alone will instantly render them
inferior...

Tracing distortion? What's that?

Please see the Loefgren paper that is referenced by a very recent post.

[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message

On Nov 26, 8:32�am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"C. Leeds" wrote in message



Eeyore wrote:

Inevitable with any process than includes wear as a
significant phenomenon. Very significant in terms of
LPs.

This is urban legend. Many audiophiles own LPs that are
20, 30, 40 years old or more, and have been frequently
played.

It's a classic case of the Boiled frog syndrome.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog

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.

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?


Wear is insignificant when they have been
properly used and care for.

That's a myth that was debunked in the day of, when
leading audio magazines printed pictures of actual
groove wear.

no response to a critical point - presume that the respondent conceeds it

This explains, in part, the
high prices for the most desirable used records, such as
the Mercurys and RCAs.

They are antiques - they don't have to sound good, they
just need to be "collectable".

Technically they are not antiques

Technically they a

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antique

"An item which is at least 50 to 100 years old and is collected or desirable
due to rarity, condition, utility, or some other unique feature. Motor
vehicles, tools and other items subject to vigorous use in contrast, may be
considered antiques in the U.S. if older than 25 years, and some electronic
gadgets of more recent vintage may be considered antiques"


Some of the old stuff on Atlantic, such as Ray Charles
recorded in he '60s, is spectacular even now.

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.

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.

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.

[Arny Krueger]

"codifus" wrote in message


The whole premise of this LP business is like 1 step
forward and 2 steps back.

Please remind me about what the 1 step forward of the LP has been, since
the introduction of the CD.

I see some evidence that the development of the LP since the introduction of
the CD has actually followed a similar path as the development of the tubed
amplifier since the introduction of good solid state amplifiers.

It appears that in both cases, subsequent developments were along the lines
of producing components that had more of the characteristic sound of their
genre of components.

The next development of the tubed amplifier after obsolescence by SS, seems
to be the SET, which appears to be intentionally designed to avoid about 50
years of technical progress in the development of the tubed amplifier, right
up until its obsolescence in the 1960s. Distortion and frequency response
aberrations were encouraged, not avoided. Important effective technical
innovations such as push-pull and inverse feedback were avoided.

Preliminary technical test results show that most of the LP playback
equipment that was developed after the introduction of the CD player has
been covertly designed to have no better or even worse frequency response
and distortion aberrations, then the best LP playback equipment that was
widely available in earlier times.

[[email protected]]

On Nov 27, 1:38�am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in message







On Nov 26, 8:32 am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"C. Leeds" wrote in message



Eeyore wrote:

Inevitable with any process than includes wear as a
significant phenomenon. Very significant in terms of
LPs.

This is urban legend. Many audiophiles own LPs that are
20, 30, 40 years old or more, and have been frequently
played.

It's a classic case of the Boiled frog syndrome.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog

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. That makes your argument invalid.



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. In many cases the noise on vinyl is either inaudible or
indistinguishable as noise. In many cases the other differences are
the over riding factor. Yopur argument is based on a false prmise and
follows with a nonsequitor.



This explains, in part, the
high prices for the most desirable used records, such as
the Mercurys and RCAs.

They are antiques - they don't have to sound good, they
just need to be "collectable".
Technically they are not antiques

Technically they a

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antique

"An item which is at least 50 to 100 years old and is collected or desirable
due to rarity, condition, utility, or some other unique feature. Motor
vehicles, tools and other items subject to vigorous use in contrast, may be
considered antiques in the U.S. if older than 25 years, and some electronic
gadgets of more recent vintage may be considered antiques"

Looks like the definition is drifting. I was familiar to the old rule
of 100 years or more. I guess antique dealers needed wiggle room. Fair
enough. There are some Mercuries that are over fifty years old.



Some of the old stuff on Atlantic, such as Ray Charles
recorded in he '60s, is spectacular even now.

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


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. 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. How is it that you own "lots"
of Ray Charles LPs and CDs and you can't name any of them?



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. What
happend to the LPs Arny? What stopped you from just grabbing them and
looking at them to see what issues they are? Aren't they sitting there
with your two copies of the HFN test records? I thought you said you
got rid of your vinyl collection when CDs came out? Am I mistaken
about that recollection?

[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message

On Nov 27, 1:38�am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
wrote in message







On Nov 26, 8:32 am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"C. Leeds" wrote in message



Eeyore wrote:

Inevitable with any process than includes wear as a
significant phenomenon. Very significant in terms of
LPs.

This is urban legend. Many audiophiles own LPs that
are 20, 30, 40 years old or more, and have been
frequently played.

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

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?

In contrast, just about anybody can master their own CDs from whatever
musical sources they may have, including other CDs. They can then play a
given CD as much as they desire and readily compare the sound quality of the
oft-played test CD to the source that it was mastered from.

Furthermore, we know a priori that CDs are played by a means that does not
involve mechanical contact, thus a common source of wear that inherent in
the LP is not present in the CD.

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? 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.

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?

This explains, in part, the
high prices for the most desirable used records, such
as the Mercurys and RCAs.

They are antiques - they don't have to sound good, they
just need to be "collectable".

Technically they are not antiques

Technically they a

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antique

"An item which is at least 50 to 100 years old and is
collected or desirable due to rarity, condition,
utility, or some other unique feature. Motor vehicles,
tools and other items subject to vigorous use in
contrast, may be considered antiques in the U.S. if
older than 25 years, and some electronic gadgets of more
recent vintage may be considered antiques"

Looks like the definition is drifting.

No, this definition has been generally accepted for decades.

I was familiar to
the old rule of 100 years or more. I guess antique
dealers needed wiggle room. Fair enough. There are some
Mercuries that are over fifty years old.

This comment suggests a rather extreme lack of awareness of the history of
vinyl recordings, or perhaps a lack of familiarity with the current
calendar date. Vinyl records have been marketed by a number of companies
since 1948. A host of companies have produced vinyl records that are now as
much as 60 years old.

Some of the old stuff on Atlantic, such as Ray Charles
recorded in he '60s, is spectacular even now.

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.

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.

Interestingly enough Ray Charles was first released on vinyl LP in 1957, in
contrast to your apparent claim that their something remarkable about LPs
that are more than 50 years old, other than those made by Mercury.

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.

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.

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.

What happend to the LPs Arny?

I sold them in the mid-1980s when I abandoned analog.

What stopped you from just grabbing them and looking at them
to see what issues they are?

They are in storage due to a major rehabilitation of my home, some of which
can be seen on Microsoft's Live Search Maps facility.

Aren't they sitting there
with your two copies of the HFN test records?

Nope. I have about 25 LPs that I bought since Y2K. They have always been
separate frommy CDs.

I thought you said you got rid of your vinyl collection when CDs
came out?

So you do remember that? Why are you questioning me about something that
you now have admitted that you know?

Am I mistaken about that recollection?

Apparently, there is a problem with you correlating what you know with what
you don't seem to know at all. They appear to be the same thing!