[ST]

Recently, I saw an oscilloscope screen capture of digital and vinyl signal =
in a forum. The vinyl signal as expected was wobbling and jittery. It was c=
oncluded for that reason that digital playback is more accurate representat=
ion of real sound as it preserves and plays back the original signal almost=
unaltered.


However, in real life, how much of vinyl signal is distorted compared to th=
e actual sound waves arriving at the ear's canal? We are talking about the =
most fluid medium (air) that stands in between our ears and the source. Unl=
ike a wire, the air that transmit the waves to our ears relies on the vibra=
ting particles of air. The air's density varies every inch. It is the most=
unstable medium to transfer any audio signal accurately. Signal reaching o=
ur ears may very well be wobbling and jittery like seen in the oscilloscope=
..

A simple speaker's measurement of loudness itself reveals at any other dist=
ance of 1 meter it varies so much that the measurement becomes so much mean=
ingless for a proper evaluation of speakers. That's exactly the reason why =
some manufacturers are not publishing the technical specs other than what's=
can be measured by point to point wired measurements. That medium (wires) =
is stable and repeatable but not the measurements involving signals traveli=
ng through the air which varies with temperature, pressure, wind and many o=
thers factors.

We are actually listening to wavy, wobbly and jittery signal all the time. =
That's natural. Vinyl signal maybe be distorted but it may be the correct r=
epresentation of the way real signal reaching our ears or at least make it =
as close as what actually reaches our ears in live sound.

ST

[Ed Presson[_2_]]

"ST" wrote in message ...

Recently, I saw an oscilloscope screen capture of digital and vinyl signal
in a forum. The vinyl signal as expected was wobbling and jittery. It was
concluded for that reason that digital playback is more accurate
representation of real sound as it preserves and plays back the original
signal almost unaltered.


However, in real life, how much of vinyl signal is distorted compared to the
actual sound waves arriving at the ear's canal? We are talking about the
most fluid medium (air) that stands in between our ears and the source.
Unlike a wire, the air that transmit the waves to our ears relies on the
vibrating particles of air. The air's density varies every inch. It is the
most unstable medium to transfer any audio signal accurately. Signal
reaching our ears may very well be wobbling and jittery like seen in the
oscilloscope.

A simple speaker's measurement of loudness itself reveals at any other
distance of 1 meter it varies so much that the measurement becomes so much
meaningless for a proper evaluation of speakers. That's exactly the reason
why some manufacturers are not publishing the technical specs other than
what's can be measured by point to point wired measurements. That medium
(wires) is stable and repeatable but not the measurements involving signals
traveling through the air which varies with temperature, pressure, wind and
many others factors.

We are actually listening to wavy, wobbly and jittery signal all the time.
That's natural. Vinyl signal maybe be distorted but it may be the correct
representation of the way real signal reaching our ears or at least make it
as close as what actually reaches our ears in live sound.

ST

This view seems to ignore that the wavy, wobbly, and jittery signal that
arrives the ear from the vinyl will be subject to further wavy, wobbly, and
jittery distortion once it leaves the speaker resulting in even more
distortion. Somehow, I doubt that results in a closer representation of
live sound. Perhaps I've misunderstood the OP.

Ed Presson

[Oregonian Haruspex]

On 2013-12-29 19:19:45 +0000, ST said:


We are actually listening to wavy, wobbly and jittery signal all the
time. That's natural. Vinyl signal maybe be distorted but it may be the
correct representation of the way real signal reaching our ears or at
least make it as close as what actually reaches our ears in live sound.

ST

That sounds highly dubious at best. One way to tell for sure is to
acquire a recent high-grade recording that has been printed to a CD and
pressed to vinyl in the same form, mic up your listening room with some
lab-grade mics, and play each of them over the same system. I but you
can predict the outcome quite accurately.

[ST[_2_]]

On Saturday, January 4, 2014 11:14:59 PM UTC+8, Oregonian Haruspex wrote:
On 2013-12-29 19:19:45 +0000, ST said:
......
=20
That sounds highly dubious at best. One way to tell for sure is to=20
=20
acquire a recent high-grade recording that has been printed to a CD and=
=20
=20
pressed to vinyl in the same form, mic up your listening room with some=
=20
=20
lab-grade mics, and play each of them over the same system. I but you=20
=20
can predict the outcome quite accurately.

[For some unknown reasons, my replies being rejected at the server level. I=
am trying once more ( maybe my fifth or sixth time) to reply. Now I am usi=
ng a new account and hope it reaches the mod.]


That is the kind of evidence I am looking for. Technically, is it possible =
to press exact replica of CD version on vinyl?=20


On Wednesday, January 1, 2014 4:58:25 AM UTC+8, Ed Presson wrote:




This view seems to ignore that the wavy, wobbly, and jittery signal that

arrives the ear from the vinyl will be subject to further wavy, wobbly, =
and

jittery distortion once it leaves the speaker resulting in even more

distortion. Somehow, I doubt that results in a closer representation of

live sound. Perhaps I've misunderstood the OP.



Ed Presson

Yes, the loudspeakers contribute a fair share of distortion but what matte=
rs here is how much of the sound wave is closer to the live performance whe=
n reaching the ears. Too much distortion in vinyl degrades the sound, but h=
ere I am referring to the correct balance. I do agree some digital recordin=
gs are very good. In most cases, I can't make out whether it is vinyl or di=
gital. I do not play vinyl but AB'ing the very best of both formats, I find=
vinyl is musically more pleasant.

I started this thread because all the discussions about vinyl and digital =
is based on the ability of each medium to capture and replay the signal as =
close to the original sound recorded at source but not the actual signal qu=
ality heard which is wobbling and jittery when reaching our ears.

At close range, microphones capture a fraction of the total sound. In live=
music, a bigger slice of the sound of instruments reaches our ears, althou=
gh there too only a fraction of the entire sound reaches the ears, but the =
mix is entirely different compared to what's heard at close range. The di=
fference here is the whole sound loses it original wave shape by interactin=
g with other factors creating it own cocktail of coloration when it arrives=
at our ears.

Maybe, vinyl with his own distortion makes the sound natural when it arriv=
es to our ears. So far, I have not seen actual measurement of live vs digit=
al vs vinyl measured at the ear level which hopefully provides a better und=
erstanding about the real sound quality that matters to us for musical enjo=
yment (not accuracy).

[news]

"ST" wrote in message ...

On Saturday, January 4, 2014 11:14:59 PM UTC+8, Oregonian Haruspex wrote:
On 2013-12-29 19:19:45 +0000, ST said:
.......

That sounds highly dubious at best. One way to tell for sure is to

acquire a recent high-grade recording that has been printed to a CD and

pressed to vinyl in the same form, mic up your listening room with some

lab-grade mics, and play each of them over the same system. I but you

can predict the outcome quite accurately.

[For some unknown reasons, my replies being rejected at the server level. I
am trying once more ( maybe my fifth or sixth time) to reply. Now I am
using a new account and hope it reaches the mod.]


That is the kind of evidence I am looking for. Technically, is it possible
to press exact replica of CD version on vinyl?


On Wednesday, January 1, 2014 4:58:25 AM UTC+8, Ed Presson wrote:




This view seems to ignore that the wavy, wobbly, and jittery signal that

arrives the ear from the vinyl will be subject to further wavy, wobbly,
and

jittery distortion once it leaves the speaker resulting in even more

distortion. Somehow, I doubt that results in a closer representation of

live sound. Perhaps I've misunderstood the OP.



Ed Presson

Yes, the loudspeakers contribute a fair share of distortion but what
matters here is how much of the sound wave is closer to the live
performance when reaching the ears. Too much distortion in vinyl degrades
the sound, but here I am referring to the correct balance. I do agree some
digital recordings are very good. In most cases, I can't make out whether
it is vinyl or digital. I do not play vinyl but AB'ing the very best of
both formats, I find vinyl is musically more pleasant.

I started this thread because all the discussions about vinyl and digital
is based on the ability of each medium to capture and replay the signal as
close to the original sound recorded at source but not the actual signal
quality heard which is wobbling and jittery when reaching our ears.

At close range, microphones capture a fraction of the total sound. In live
music, a bigger slice of the sound of instruments reaches our ears,
although there too only a fraction of the entire sound reaches the ears,
but the mix is entirely different compared to what's heard at close range.
The difference here is the whole sound loses it original wave shape by
interacting with other factors creating it own cocktail of coloration when
it arrives at our ears.

Maybe, vinyl with his own distortion makes the sound natural when it
arrives to our ears. So far, I have not seen actual measurement of live vs
digital vs vinyl measured at the ear level which hopefully provides a
better understanding about the real sound quality that matters to us for
musical enjoyment (not accuracy).

I think it was back 10 to 20 years ago and before, they would tailor the
sound recordings to produce a Master recording to fit onto a record without
overcutting into adjacent tracks (grooves). That final master was then used
to produce the CD. This made CDs back then not sound as good as they could
because the used the vinyl master to make the CDs as well. Now many
recording companies are making Master Recordings for CDs and if they want to
cut some vinyl too, they would have to make a separate vinyl master that
would cut out some of the bass and use some compression to reduce the really
loud parts so that the record cutter doesn't cut into adjacent grooves.

So the answer is NO, a CD recording and a Vinyl recording will not be quite
the same!

I have also used an oscilloscope with a mic to view pure tones that I was
making with a homemade circuit. It didn't wobble or jump up and down.
There was a little bit of movement, but very little. This was along time
ago, like 1994.

As for air density changing every few centimeters in a calm room, I don't
think so. Air and any gas evenly disperses itself in its give area; in this
case a room. The atmospheric pressure is the force exerted on the walls and
everything else in the room by the air molecules bumping against everything.

Shaun

[Scott[_6_]]

On Saturday, January 25, 2014 6:15:56 AM UTC-8, news wrote:
"ST" wrote in message ...
=20
=20
=20
On Saturday, January 4, 2014 11:14:59 PM UTC+8, Oregonian Haruspex wrote=
:
=20
On 2013-12-29 19:19:45 +0000, ST said:
=20
......
=20

=20
That sounds highly dubious at best. One way to tell for sure is to
=20

=20
acquire a recent high-grade recording that has been printed to a CD and
=20

=20
pressed to vinyl in the same form, mic up your listening room with some
=20

=20
lab-grade mics, and play each of them over the same system. I but you
=20

=20
can predict the outcome quite accurately.
=20
=20
=20
[For some unknown reasons, my replies being rejected at the server level=
.. I=20
=20
am trying once more ( maybe my fifth or sixth time) to reply. Now I am=
=20
=20
using a new account and hope it reaches the mod.]
=20
=20
=20
=20
=20
That is the kind of evidence I am looking for. Technically, is it possib=
le=20
=20
to press exact replica of CD version on vinyl?
=20
=20
=20
=20
=20
On Wednesday, January 1, 2014 4:58:25 AM UTC+8, Ed Presson wrote:
=20
=20
=20
=20
=20
=20
=20
=20
=20
This view seems to ignore that the wavy, wobbly, and jittery signal tha=
t
=20

=20
arrives the ear from the vinyl will be subject to further wavy, wobbly,=
=20
=20
and
=20

=20
jittery distortion once it leaves the speaker resulting in even more
=20

=20
distortion. Somehow, I doubt that results in a closer representation o=
f
=20

=20
live sound. Perhaps I've misunderstood the OP.
=20

=20

=20

=20
Ed Presson
=20
=20
=20
Yes, the loudspeakers contribute a fair share of distortion but what=20
=20
matters here is how much of the sound wave is closer to the live=20
=20
performance when reaching the ears. Too much distortion in vinyl degrad=
es=20
=20
the sound, but here I am referring to the correct balance. I do agree s=
ome=20
=20
digital recordings are very good. In most cases, I can't make out whe=
ther=20
=20
it is vinyl or digital. I do not play vinyl but AB'ing the very best of=
=20
=20
both formats, I find vinyl is musically more pleasant.
=20
=20
=20
I started this thread because all the discussions about vinyl and digit=
al=20
=20
is based on the ability of each medium to capture and replay the signal=
as=20
=20
close to the original sound recorded at source but not the actual signa=
l=20
=20
quality heard which is wobbling and jittery when reaching our ears.
=20
=20
=20
At close range, microphones capture a fraction of the total sound. In l=
ive=20
=20
music, a bigger slice of the sound of instruments reaches our ears,=20
=20
although there too only a fraction of the entire sound reaches the ears=
,=20
=20
but the mix is entirely different compared to what's heard at close ran=
ge.=20
=20
The difference here is the whole sound loses it original wave shape by=
=20
=20
interacting with other factors creating it own cocktail of coloration w=
hen=20
=20
it arrives at our ears.
=20
=20
=20
Maybe, vinyl with his own distortion makes the sound natural when it=20
=20
arrives to our ears. So far, I have not seen actual measurement of live=
vs=20
=20
digital vs vinyl measured at the ear level which hopefully provides a=
=20
=20
better understanding about the real sound quality that matters to us fo=
r=20
=20
musical enjoyment (not accuracy).
=20
=20
=20
I think it was back 10 to 20 years ago and before, they would tailor the=
=20
=20
sound recordings to produce a Master recording to fit onto a record witho=
ut=20
=20
overcutting into adjacent tracks (grooves). That final master was then u=
sed=20
=20
to produce the CD. This made CDs back then not sound as good as they cou=
ld=20
=20
because the used the vinyl master to make the CDs as well.=20


This makes no sense. This was one of the most common explanations offered a=
s to why some of us find fault with so many CDs. But if we prefer the vinyl=
version cut from the same master it hardly explains what we don't like abo=
ut a CD cut from the same master. Further more, while this was done with so=
me LPs it was hardly done with all of them. Many LPs have been cut directly=
from original masters with none of the assumed rolling of the high frequen=
cies or folding of the bass to mono.=20


Now many=20
=20
recording companies are making Master Recordings for CDs and if they want=
to=20
=20
cut some vinyl too, they would have to make a separate vinyl master that=
=20
=20
would cut out some of the bass and use some compression to reduce the rea=
lly=20
=20
loud parts so that the record cutter doesn't cut into adjacent grooves.


No. The compression added to the CD mastering to make it as loud as possibl=
e actually is a potential problem. So with many new recordings they have to=
go to the original uncompressed master tape and cut from that or at least =
a copy of it. They don't have to cut out the bass. This is one reason why w=
e find so many people preferring the vinyl version of many new releases ove=
r the CD versions.=20


=20
=20
=20
So the answer is NO, a CD recording and a Vinyl recording will not be qui=
te=20
=20
the same!

Except when they are. There are a number of well documented examples.

[ST[_2_]]

On Saturday, 25 January 2014 22:15:56 UTC+8, news wrote:


As for air density changing every few centimeters in a calm room, I don't

think so. Air and any gas evenly disperses itself in its give area; in this

case a room. The atmospheric pressure is the force exerted on the walls and

everything else in the room by the air molecules bumping against everything.



Shaun

Unless, the air in the room stands still and conducts sound as linear and consistence like wires.

[ST]

On Saturday, January 25, 2014 10:15:56 PM UTC+8, news wrote:
As for air density changing every few centimeters in a calm room, I don'=
t=20
=20
think so. Air and any gas evenly disperses itself in its give area; in t=
his=20
=20
case a room. The atmospheric pressure is the force exerted on the walls =
and=20
=20
everything else in the room by the air molecules bumping against everythi=
ng.
=20
=20
=20
Shaun

But they don't stand still. They move around. Air is a poor conductor of so=
und. Just like a ripple which can be seen clearly in calm pond. The air sme=
ars the ripples by its movement. Your measurement at source of the sound an=
d at the receiving end of the ears is not going to be the same at longer di=
stance.

[news]

"ST" wrote in message ...

---------SNIP-------
A simple speaker's measurement of loudness itself reveals at any other
distance of 1 meter it varies so much that the measurement becomes so
much meaningless for a proper evaluation of speakers. That's exactly the
reason why some manufacturers are not publishing the technical specs other
than what's can be measured by point to point wired measurements. That
medium (wires) is stable and repeatable but not the measurements involving
signals traveling through the air which varies with temperature, pressure,
wind and many others factors.

We are actually listening to wavy, wobbly and jittery signal all the time.
That's natural. Vinyl signal maybe be distorted but it may be the correct
representation of the way real signal reaching our ears or at least make
it as close as what actually reaches our ears in live sound.

ST


In your listening room, There are not going to be fans blowing because they
make audible and electrical noise. There maybe a gradient temperature
difference across the room, but they are not likely to be large temp
differences. There could be air conditioning or up north a furnace running.
Some listeners will turn off heating and cooling systems again to reduce
background noise, and possible electrical interference. You can close
windows too to block outside noise from getting into your listening area and
again this will reduce temp differences. The temperature differences will
cause slight air currents. The air pressure in the room is not going to
change much unless there is blowing air or large temperature differences.

These possible sources of air differences occur everywhere and as a listener
you can reduce the number of changes. Everywhere you go and hear something
or talk to someone; this is going on. I wouldn't doubt that our brains have
adapted to this. I think your barking up the wrong tree.

Shaun

[ST[_2_]]

On Sunday, 19 January 2014 21:43:16 UTC+8, news wrote:
"ST" wrote in message ...
=20

I wouldn't doubt that our brains have=20
=20
adapted to this. I think your barking up the wrong tree.
=20
=20
=20
Shaun

I thought I explained it in the last post. We are used to listening distort=
ed sound all the time. No clean signal as captured by the microphones at cl=
ose distance ever reaches our ears under normal circumstances. You are repe=
ating what I already said earlier. So I am asking again; is it possible tha=
t is giving the right mix of distortion compared to digital. What kind of m=
easurements would prove or disprove this?

[Scott[_6_]]

On Tuesday, January 21, 2014 4:25:25 AM UTC-8, ST wrote:
On Sunday, 19 January 2014 21:43:16 UTC+8, news wrote:

"ST" wrote in message ...





I wouldn't doubt that our brains have



adapted to this. I think your barking up the wrong tree.







Shaun



I thought I explained it in the last post. We are used to listening distorted sound all the time. No clean signal as captured by the microphones at close distance ever reaches our ears under normal circumstances. You are repeating what I already said earlier. So I am asking again; is it possible that is giving the right mix of distortion compared to digital. What kind of measurements would prove or disprove this?

What about hi res recordings run through low distortion SS electronics and played back through low distortion headphones? Seems like that ought to be a pretty low distortion recording and playback system. It is also fairly "normal" too.