Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#41
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Quote without comment
In article ,
"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote: "MiNe 109" wrote in message ... Was someone arguing in favor of damaged, poor-quality vinyl? Unfortunately that was just the new stuff! And after it was damaged, too, forget it! Stephen |
#42
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Quote without comment
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message . net In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Robert Orban" wrote in message news Through hard experience I've found that with recordings of this vintage, it really pays to find sealed, unplayed copies even if one has to wait for them to show up on eBay and even if one has to pay more. There were a *lot* of bad phono playback systems in the late 60s, and even one play through some of them could audibly damage the vinyl. Finally, after doing this a hundred times or so I have to observe that the audio quality of the run of the mill vinyl from that era was pretty bad. It got a lot better starting in mid-1969, probably because a new generation of disc cutters was just coming on line. I find incomprehensible the affection that some people evidently have for the audio quality of vinyl from that era. Bob Orban I don't find a whole lot to disagree with here. Except when you start free-associating with the usual vinylista propaganda about certain LPs sounding more realistic than any CD. What does that have to do with your quote? There was a lot of junk out there, as there is presently in digital. The difference is that the junk problem with the LP could never be adequately solved. The junk problem with CDs is simply that there's no accounting for taste. Whatever. There are bad LPs and there are bad CDs. So? Just about all Columbia and DGG was very bad in the 60s. A shame considering the performances they recorded. Most of Mercury, Decca, EMI, Harmonia Mundi, and much of RCA sounded terrific on the other hand. Still had the usual litany of vinyl noises, distortion and coloration. And many sounded more like music than any CD I've heard. Jen, even with the usual litany of vinyl noises, distortion and coloration? I seriously doubt it. More like you're a hopeless romantic, as demonstrated by how you throw good money after bad for overpriced vinyl players. Yes, that must be it. My name is Jenn, btw.) That's based on the highest authority for the purposes of my music listening: my ears. No doubt damaged by exposure to too much live music way too loud. Yes, I'm sure. |
#43
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Quote without comment
In article . com,
Bret Ludwig wrote: On Aug 29, 10:28 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in odigy.net In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message .net In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Robert Orban" wrote in message news5mdndg4J_p6UzLbnZ2dnUVZ_gednZ2d@giganews .com Through hard experience I've found that with recordings of this vintage, it really pays to find sealed, unplayed copies even if one has to wait for them to show up on eBay and even if one has to pay more. There were a *lot* of bad phono playback systems in the late 60s, and even one play through some of them could audibly damage the vinyl. Finally, after doing this a hundred times or so I have to observe that the audio quality of the run of the mill vinyl from that era was pretty bad. It got a lot better starting in mid-1969, probably because a new generation of disc cutters was just coming on line. I find incomprehensible the affection that some people evidently have for the audio quality of vinyl from that era. Bob Orban I don't find a whole lot to disagree with here. Except when you start free-associating with the usual vinylista propaganda about certain LPs sounding more realistic than any CD. What does that have to do with your quote? There was a lot of junk out there, as there is presently in digital. The difference is that the junk problem with the LP could never be adequately solved. The junk problem with CDs is simply that there's no accounting for taste. Whatever. There are bad LPs and there are bad CDs. So? Just about all Columbia and DGG was very bad in the 60s. A shame considering the performances they recorded. Most of Mercury, Decca, EMI, Harmonia Mundi, and much of RCA sounded terrific on the other hand. Still had the usual litany of vinyl noises, distortion and coloration. And many sounded more like music than any CD I've heard. Jen, even with the usual litany of vinyl noises, distortion and coloration? I seriously doubt it. More like you're a hopeless romantic, as demonstrated by how you throw good money after bad for overpriced vinyl players. That's based on the highest authority for the purposes of my music listening: my ears. No doubt damaged by exposure to too much live music way too loud. It is a fact classical musicians suffer even more hearing damage than rock musicians in many cases. No, it's not. You're really saying that the average classical musician suffers more hearing damage than the average rock band musician? |
#44
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Quote without comment
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message . .. My experience in the 60's/70's was that the vast majority of vinyl records (the only kind available, of course) were real crap, quality wise. In the US, particularly true. I spent a year in Germany near the end of the 60s and the quality of LPs was considerably better over there. But the inherent limitations of the LP format still intruded, big time. Yes, and Japanese pressings. You can imagine how bad Australian pressings of US artists were, that I even imported US pressings where necessary :-( I still have a number of identical recodings from both countries, and the US pressings were almost always better. And yet we get people in Australia who still prefer vinyl too. In fact the worse it sounds, the better they seem to like it :-) Hence my Revox A-77 in the day. My choice too. And I'm so pleased I don't have to bother with the tape costs any more though! Or the inconvenience of all that tape handling. Not to mention the initial cost of buying the Revox or that other popular choice for many, the Nakamichi 1000 or Dragon etc. PLUS the cost of the turntable/tone arm/cartridge and stylus replacements! Now that a $30 CD player sounds better, it really makes a lot of people think it must be impossible. Hurray for technology I say. I think that in the end, it will be yet another boomer thing that dies with that generation. One can hope, but there will always be a few people with a need to confront reality somehow. MrT. |
#45
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Quote without comment
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message . .. The problem comes when a tiny minority of vinyl bigots confuse sentimentality for LP's well-known audible foilbles with improved sound quality and realism. It is impossible to be the former, without the latter delusion. MrT. |
#46
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Quote without comment
"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message oups.com... The fact is is that when best practices were followed throughout the chain, vinyl wasn't too bad, but it was never intended to equal 30 ips half inch half track, and it never did. So true. To this day GOOD analog tape is the gold standard of recording, and neither vinyl nor CD equals it. Yeah right :-) As long as you ignore all the problems with tape, and don't actually have a clue about the ACTUAL performance of tape Vs digital recording. MrT |
#47
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Quote without comment
"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message oups.com... Some people prefer the treble digital artifacts of CD And some people like to pluck quasi-scientific sounding terms out of their arse :-) MrT. |
#48
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Quote without comment
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message news The SACD and DVD-A advocates have missed a tremendous sales demonstration opportunity. All they have to do is set up a booth or room at the AES or some high end show (e.g. HE 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008...), composed of one of their new and nifty players playing one of their new and nifty discs thorugh a great audio system in a great room. Of course, there would be a back-to-back 16/44 KHz converter pair (example: Midiman's Flying Cow) operating at unity gain and with minimal delay, that listeners could switch in and out of the signal path. A blind demonstration facility would be an available option. But since that doesn't work for their purpose, what they first do is totally REMASTER the sound before going to DVDA/SACD so that it MUST sound different. Then people can pick the difference, when compared to a standard CD. :-) Fortunately for once the number of people conned seems to be well short of expectations :-) MrT. |
#49
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Quote without comment
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message . .. I have an mechanical engineer friend that worked on the Orenda engine project (basically an aluminum BB Chevy certified as an aircraft engine.) He was assigned the cylinder heads, which had to have two spark plugs per cylinder. He immediately sent off a memo stating that he felt that this would decrease reliability by making another stress riser to form cracks. They wrote the Canada Transport people and they wrote back: It's not our job to prove that two ignition systems are more reliable: it's your job to prove they are less reliable. it's our job to determine what constitutes proof. And since there are thirty thousand airplanes with dual ignition in Canada we will have to make change over if you do, we will require really good proof. Now if you would like to continue..... This relates to the audio topic how??????????????? Not at all, but at least it was an interesting read, unlike most of this thread :-) MrT. |
#50
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Quote without comment
In article ,
"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote: "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... It should be pretty obvious to an unbiased reader (not Stephen or Jen for example) that the second paragraph refers to undamaged, even completely virgin LPs. The point of the first paragraph is that Orban has very high standards for choosing and preparing LPs for digitizing. But even given that, the LP format still falls way short of modern standards for quality audio. And that debate was finished a decade or two ago for *intelligent* people. If by "quality audio" you mean technical superiority, then I would go with that. Past that, we're talking preference, and therefore intelligence has nothing to do with it. Anyone may still PREFER to listen to anything they like, the problem they have is accepting that they may PREFER something that is actually INFERIOR to the original sound. Hence their continued need to convince themselves. No, it's very simple: if a person likes the sound of some recording, based on his/her experience of that music, "inferior" has nothing to do with it. By definition, for that person, it is "superior". Such people even prefer vinyl, and valve amps to live music concerts without PA, but I don't see so many debates on that issue. Even they have trouble arguing that case :-) I think that it's a perfectly legit preference. Now if your ideal is reproducing, as closely as you can, the live music experience in your home, then what you say above seems odd. |
#51
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Quote without comment
|
#52
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Quote without comment
"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message ups.com... Two track masters have been generally used since about a decade before 1965. Since most releases then were mono, they were one track masters. Mono LPs were available until well into the rock era. And in fact most people prefer mono Beatles and Stones LPs (of that era) sonically. And in fact most of the Beatles and stones MONO releases were made on FOUR track tape, just as many albums of the era were. The Original Sgt Peppers mix was MONO, and master recordings made using TWO by FOUR track tape machines synced together. The mix down tape, and the original master tapes are not the same. MrT. |
#53
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Quote without comment
"ScottW" wrote in message ups.com... Anyone may still PREFER to listen to anything they like, the problem they have is accepting that they may PREFER something that is actually INFERIOR to the original sound. Hence their continued need to convince themselves. I've been to enough live rock concerts to know that if not being true to the original sound is inferior, I'll take inferiority....no, I'll demand it. But of course live ROCK concerts involve so many variables as far as sound reinforcement equipment and venue acoustics, that EVERY gig is unique. (even ignoring the performance itself) YOU of course are welcome to demand inferior sound, just don't expect the rest of us to do so. MrT. |
#54
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Quote without comment
"Jenn" wrote in message news:jennconductsREMOVETHIS- And that debate was finished a decade or two ago for *intelligent* people. If by "quality audio" you mean technical superiority, then I would go with that. Past that, we're talking preference, Which is what I said. Anyone may still PREFER to listen to anything they like, the problem they have is accepting that they may PREFER something that is actually INFERIOR to the original sound. Hence their continued need to convince themselves. No, it's very simple: if a person likes the sound of some recording, based on his/her experience of that music, "inferior" has nothing to do with it. By definition, for that person, it is "superior". And that's the problem, you still can't seperate PREFERENCE from reality. The recording that most closely matches the original input signal is technically "superior" no matter what YOU might PREFER. Such people even prefer vinyl, and valve amps to live music concerts without PA, but I don't see so many debates on that issue. Even they have trouble arguing that case :-) I think that it's a perfectly legit preference. Now if your ideal is reproducing, as closely as you can, the live music experience in your home, then what you say above seems odd. ??? What YOU say seems odd! But keep trying, I'm sure you will convince yourself sooner or later. MrT. |
#55
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Quote without comment
On Aug 29, 4:27 pm, "Mr.T" MrT@home wrote:
"ScottW" wrote in message ups.com... Anyone may still PREFER to listen to anything they like, the problem they have is accepting that they may PREFER something that is actually INFERIOR to the original sound. Hence their continued need to convince themselves. I've been to enough live rock concerts to know that if not being true to the original sound is inferior, I'll take inferiority....no, I'll demand it. But of course live ROCK concerts involve so many variables as far as sound reinforcement equipment and venue acoustics, that EVERY gig is unique. (even ignoring the performance itself) I don't think symphonys are all that consistent and venue acoustics are also highly variable. YOU of course are welcome to demand inferior sound, just don't expect the rest of us to do so. Of course it does take a superior system to create a more pleasing experience from inferior sound. For technical audible accuracy....an iPod will probably do. ScottW |
#56
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Quote without comment
Robert Orban wrote:
In my opinion (and that of my colleague Greg Ogonowski, an aficionado of music from that era as well as an audio processing designer who is well respected in the industry) the majority of popular music LPs from the late '60s sound mediocre or worse. Oh, absolutely. BUT, it was typical of the times. In the case of classical music, in which there was a reference to go by, it's clear that you can make sonic changes to the originals. But in the case of pop and rock music in which the reference was only in the head of the producer, I am really reluctant to see sonic changes, because they affect the music. Whether those changes are adverse or not is in the eye of the beholder, of course, but I think the first rule is to do no harm. A couple examples: first, the Leon Russell live album. It has _no_ low end. Someone just ran it through a sharp high-pass in the cutting room, maybe to get rid of some low end problems in the live tapes. The CD issue has the low end restored, more or less to what we would consider concert level today... and it totally changes the impact of the music. I think it does so in a bad way. You could argue it does so in a good way, but either way it changes it. Itchykoo Park used to be famous for the really, really deep kick drum, which sounded like cardboard on small speakers. It was the lowest I had ever seen anyone cut on a 45, and there was no way that record could be played on a typical record player of the sixties. The CD reissue turns it into a modern-style kick drum. It's a totally different song when you do this. Because of a lack of standardized control room monitoring and haphazard acoustic treatment, tonal balances from one LP to the next were *grossly* (and unmusically) inconsistent. Many records had sibilance distortion cut into them (I base this statement on the fact that I have heard sibilance breakup during the first play of a surprising number of virgin, factory-sealed LPs with a well set up Shure V15VXMR). Absolutely. Sibilance distortion could be cut into the vinyl for several reasons. "Acceleration limiters" of the era (like the Fairchild Conax) were crude at best and not always used as required, and channel-strip de-essers were almost unknown outside of cinema re-recording stages. So vocals in LPs of the era tended to be boxy-sounding (although with natural sibilance balances) or to be equalized to have more presence. The latter technique allowed sibilance to sound clean on 15 ips and 30 ips master tapes (which have plenty of high frequency headroom) but could cause major problems in cutting because the HF headroom characteristic of vinyl (expressed in terms of cutting stylus velocity) basically follows a 75 microsecond de-emphasis curve (i.e. -3 dB at 2122 Hz with a 6 dB/octave rolloff above that frequency), which is the high frequency pole of RIAA playback EQ. I created the first Orban/Parasound de- esser after watching mixers wrestle with the "vocal presence vs. sibilance" problem. Admittedly, some engineers of the era coped reasonably well with the presence/sibilance tradeoff, mostly by choice and placement of microphones, but a surprising number did not. (My hat is off to Chuck Britz, who recorded the Beach Boys at Capitol during this era.) This is where microscopic examination comes into play because it allows you to see if the sibilance is due to groove geometry or due to something wrong in the mixing room. If it's due to groove geometry, there is often something that you can do about it in playback (sometimes involving major changes to the cartridge alignment to compensate for misaligned cutting heads). In 2007, people expect better sound than most pop music studios were able to produce in the mid to late '60s. That is why my philosophy in transferring LPs is to also remaster them to take advantage of signal processing tools that engineers in the late '60s didn't have available. I know that some people have a fetish for maintaining the original sound as much as possible, but most folks who were actually studio engineers at the time have no nostalgia for the technical limitations of the studios back in the day. I understand the technical limitations of the day, but I think those technical limitations affect the music stylistically and they need to be retained. I also think Bach should be played on original instruments for the same time. If I have done my job well, the music should appear to have snapped into focus, no matter how murky or badly equalized the original LP sounded. Percussion should sound punchy. Vocals should sound present but not sibilant. The technical quality of the recording should never get in the way of the music. I'd agree with this in the case of classical music, but with some rock, the recording does get in the way of the music and that's what makes the music what it is. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#57
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Quote without comment
"ScottW" wrote in message ups.com... I don't think symphonys are all that consistent and venue acoustics are also highly variable. Yes, true. So what? YOU of course are welcome to demand inferior sound, just don't expect the rest of us to do so. Of course it does take a superior system to create a more pleasing experience from inferior sound. For "superior" read "more expensive" anyway :-) For technical audible accuracy....an iPod will probably do. Sure, using non compressed files, they can be damn good. Better than a $100k turntable, which always amuses me. But no need to spend the money Apple charge, a cheap CD player will do just as well :-) MrT. |
#58
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Quote without comment
My God -- is Krooglish kontagious? And that's the problem, you still can't seperate PREFERENCE from reality. The recording that most closely matches the original input signal is technically "superior" no matter what YOU might PREFER. Maybe she didn't mean "superior" in a "technical" sense, you fatuous fart. |
#59
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Quote without comment
On Aug 29, 5:13 pm, ScottW wrote:
On Aug 29, 1:27 pm, wrote: On Aug 29, 1:56 pm, ScottW wrote: On Aug 29, 10:37 am, John Byrns wrote: Exactly what is the CD sample rate not high enough for, and how do you justify that statement? If the audio is first run through a 20 kHz brick-wall filter the CD sample rate is plenty high. Brick-wall filters can be built with today's digital techniques that do not contribute phase distortion to the filtered signal. How does one implement an anti-aliasing filter on the input before a signal is digitized.....digitally? Yes, in essence. Put in a VERY gentle analog filter whose low-pass is at, say, 64x that of your base sample rate. Oversample the A/D at 64x Is the A/D output changing at every sample or is constant for 64 samples? Irrelevant, all the data in the other 63 samples represents information that's above the baseband, and whether it's constant, changing or simply zeros, it's not in the baseband. If its constant....then how does this prevent aliasing that gets past the digital antialiasing filter? Because the digital anti-aliasing filter IS A FILTER. Its low-pass is at 20+ kHz. The aliasing issue will only occur at 64x that, or at 1.28 MHz, and above. Now, a simple, gentle, low-order analog filter is all that's needed prior to the oversampler to prevent this from generating aliases. That 1280 Mhz band limit for the oversampler is SIX OCTAVES away from from the baseband limit of 20+ kHz. It, by the way, has been routinely this for the last couple of decades in one form or another. Which seems to indicate that the CD sample rate is truly insufficient for the entire process. It would seem that way if you don't understand the process. The oversampling is done NOT because of the bandwidth requirements, or any nonsense like "capturing the stuff between the samples," it is done because a 20 kHz anti-aliasing filter is SO much better done in the digital domain than in the analog domain. One of the outcomes of the Nyquist/Shannon principles is that once you know the bandwidth, sampling at a rate just greater than that bandwidth will COMPLETELY capture the entire waveform, contrary to the nonsense that Ludwig claims. That's because it is the bandwidth AND THE BANDWIDTH ALONE (all other things being equal) that determines the trajectory of the signal between the two sample intervals. If the bandwidth is limited to less than 1/2 the sample rate, than what the signal does between each sample is FULLY determined: it can only take one path. Therefore, sampling at a rate higher than that will NOT get you ANY more information, it will only give you more data (and, that data is effectively redundant: it contains nothing new or different than what the minimally required sample rate already gave you). With no intent on being insulting, if you feel that oversampling means "indicate that the CD sample rate is truly insufficient for the entire process," than you clearly do not understand the process at all. If you feel the need to make that comment, I might suggest you study up on the principles involved, If you still believe your view to be correct, be prepared to make the criticism with the same degree of mathematical and scientific rigor that Shannon, Nyquist, Blesser and others have used in developing that foundation. Me, I absolutely would NOT take the bet that you'd have any success. |
#60
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Quote without comment
"George M. Middius" cmndr _ george @ comcast . net wrote in message ... And that's the problem, you still can't seperate PREFERENCE from reality. The recording that most closely matches the original input signal is technically "superior" no matter what YOU might PREFER. Maybe she didn't mean "superior" in a "technical" sense, Just the "Alice in Wonderland" sense then? you fatuous fart. Looking in the mirror are you? MrT. |
#61
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Quote without comment
|
#62
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Quote without comment
Robert Casey wrote:
I submit the CD does too. And in the case of pop music made after 1965 or so, we shouldn't have to go from a vinyl release but the original two track tape masters. This assumes that those tapes were kept in good enviroments all this time. And that the tape was of good quality and was able to last without chemical breakdown and such. Assuming they could even be found. -- ha Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam |
#63
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Quote without comment
First it's derivative Krooglish, then it's a lame IKYABWAI. Audio 'borgism is definitely viral. The recording that most closely matches the original input signal is technically "superior" no matter what YOU might PREFER. Maybe she didn't mean "superior" in a "technical" sense, Just the "Alice in Wonderland" sense then? No, in the human sense, you putz. you fatuous fart. Looking in the mirror are you? sigh Why don't you ask yourself this simple question: "Why am I so threatened by the viability of vinyl and turntables?" Much better than a feeble-minded IKYABWAI, don't you "think"? |
#64
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Quote without comment
On Aug 29, 9:04 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
The problem comes when a tiny minority of vinyl bigots confuse sentimentality for LP's well-known audible foilbles with improved sound quality and realism. Then it's war, and rightfully so! |
#65
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Quote without comment
Bret Ludwig wrote:
The rule of analog accuracy is five times bandwidth, as every old Tektronix catalog stated, No, you misunderstand. What you need your scope to have "5X bandwidth" is to see the *harmonics* which may be in the signal that you want to see. You do *not* need 100kHz bandwidth in your scope to see a 20kHz sine wave. Indeed, a scope with 20kHz bandwidth would work (see note). You *do* need 5X or more the bandwidth (relative to the fundamental) of a *complex* wave, for example a square wave, since, as you should know, a complex wave is a sine wave with added harmonics, in this example 60kHz, 100kHz, 140kHz, etc. Without enough bandwidth in the scope to handle the harmonics, the display will show a gross distortion of what's really there - perhaps showing only a sine wave when the signal is in fact a square wave. You can see that the above situation does *not* apply to audible sound, since your ears do not hear anything above around 20kHz. Your ears literally don't give a rats ass (can't tell) the difference between a 20kHz sine wave and a 20kHz square wave, so there's *no* need for anything like 5X "bandwidth headroom". but a 23 kHz brick wall for 20 kHz repro is obvious horse**** on its face. As is your entire erroneous "case", it seems. (Note: the analog bandwidth rating of a scope is the -3dB point of it's vertical amplifiers, so you would not expect to get an accurate measurement of your signal's amplitude if you were looking at a signal over about 80% of the scope's bandwidth, i.e. if accurately measuring the amplitude of your 20kHz sine wave was something you wanted to do, you'd want at least a 25kHz scope. In practice this is rarely an issue - the far more common issues are distortion of the displayed signal due to capacitive loading of the circuit by the scope-probe, and sometimes, yes, insufficient bandwidth to capture the higher harmonics required to accurately display the true waveform.) |
#66
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Quote without comment
ScottW wrote:
It is only sufficient for storage and playback. Duh, that's what the CD is for. The CD is indeed quite sufficient, for the job it needs to do - store and distribute audio. |
#67
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Quote without comment
In article ,
"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message news:jennconductsREMOVETHIS- And that debate was finished a decade or two ago for *intelligent* people. If by "quality audio" you mean technical superiority, then I would go with that. Past that, we're talking preference, Which is what I said. Anyone may still PREFER to listen to anything they like, the problem they have is accepting that they may PREFER something that is actually INFERIOR to the original sound. Hence their continued need to convince themselves. No, it's very simple: if a person likes the sound of some recording, based on his/her experience of that music, "inferior" has nothing to do with it. By definition, for that person, it is "superior". And that's the problem, you still can't seperate PREFERENCE from reality. The recording that most closely matches the original input signal is technically "superior" no matter what YOU might PREFER. Of course. But when I sit back in my chair and listen, what medium is "technically superior" matters not a bit. What matters is how the music sounds. YMMV, of course. Such people even prefer vinyl, and valve amps to live music concerts without PA, but I don't see so many debates on that issue. Even they have trouble arguing that case :-) I think that it's a perfectly legit preference. Now if your ideal is reproducing, as closely as you can, the live music experience in your home, then what you say above seems odd. ??? What YOU say seems odd! How so? But keep trying, I'm sure you will convince yourself sooner or later. I'm not trying to convince myself of anything. I know what I listen for in music. You seem to want me to listen for "technical superiority". |
#68
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Quote without comment
"George M. Middius" cmndr _ george @ comcast . net wrote in message ... Maybe she didn't mean "superior" in a "technical" sense, Just the "Alice in Wonderland" sense then? No, in the human sense, you putz. you fatuous fart. Name calling, the last resort of those who have no rational argument. Why don't you ask yourself this simple question: "Why am I so threatened by the viability of vinyl and turntables?" Since I already said you are welcome to YOUR *preference*, why don't you ask YOURSELF why you cannot just accept YOUR OWN *preference* without trying to change the rest of the worlds opinion? Or somehow feel the need to justify a preference with total bull****! Insecurity issues perhaps? MrT. |
#69
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Quote without comment
Shhhh! said to TurdBorg: The problem comes when a tiny minority of vinyl bigots confuse sentimentality for LP's well-known audible foilbles with improved sound quality and realism. Then it's war, and rightfully so! Arnii appreciates the free flow of information.... http://www.nogw.com/images/fox_septic.jpg |
#70
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Quote without comment
"Jenn" wrote in message news:jennconductsREMOVETHIS- The recording that most closely matches the original input signal is technically "superior" no matter what YOU might PREFER. Of course. But when I sit back in my chair and listen, what medium is "technically superior" matters not a bit. What matters is how the music sounds. Which is fine, that's why we all get to choose our own preferences. But then there is no need to argue suedo scientific bull**** to justify a *preference*. I'm not trying to convince myself of anything. I know what I listen for in music. You seem to want me to listen for "technical superiority". In fact I couldn't give a rat's what you prefer to listen to, just your continuing need to justify it. MrT. |
#71
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Quote without comment
"George M. Middius" cmndr _ george @ comcast . net wrote in message ... First it's derivative Krooglish, then it's a lame IKYABWAI. Audio 'borgism is definitely viral. The recording that most closely matches the original input signal is technically "superior" no matter what YOU might PREFER. Maybe she didn't mean "superior" in a "technical" sense, Just the "Alice in Wonderland" sense then? No, in the human sense, you putz. you fatuous fart. Looking in the mirror are you? sigh Why don't you ask yourself this simple question: "Why am I so threatened by the viability of vinyl and turntables?" Much better than a feeble-minded IKYABWAI, don't you "think"? For the record...the Middiot dumped his TT over a decade ago. He can't handle vinyl. His oft state purpose here is to ridicule and carry on a vendetta with Arny. As far as audio goes, he's either clueless or incapable of rationally expressing himself, or both. The subject you two have delved into...technical superiority vs preference is far beyond his ability to discuss. Actually, most anything is beyond his ability to discuss. Anyway watching George defend vinyl is as intolerable to vinylphiles as objectivists must find Arny representing objectivism. ScottW |
#72
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Quote without comment
In article ,
"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message news:jennconductsREMOVETHIS- The recording that most closely matches the original input signal is technically "superior" no matter what YOU might PREFER. Of course. But when I sit back in my chair and listen, what medium is "technically superior" matters not a bit. What matters is how the music sounds. Which is fine, that's why we all get to choose our own preferences. Exactly. But then there is no need to argue suedo scientific bull**** to justify a *preference*. Perhaps you should address that to someone who has actually done what you accuse, rather than to me. I'm not trying to convince myself of anything. I know what I listen for in music. You seem to want me to listen for "technical superiority". In fact I couldn't give a rat's what you prefer to listen to, just your continuing need to justify it. And I couldn't give a rat's what YOU prefer either. Again, I suggest that you relax, have a cookie, and complain to those who actually DO have a need to justify their preferences. |
#73
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Quote without comment
"Jenn" wrote in message et... Perhaps you should address that to someone who has actually done what you accuse, rather than to me. Maybe you can tell us again what you were actually disagreeing with then? MrT. |
#74
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Quote without comment
"MiNe 109" wrote in message
Since that cite isn't important enough to your argument for you to quote, I will wait for you to actually state a case. You're cornered and talking trash Stephen. I win. |
#75
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Quote without comment
"Jenn" wrote in
message And I couldn't give a rat's what YOU prefer either. If preferences are so worthless, why do you keep bothering us with yours, Jen? |
#76
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Quote without comment
Keeerist....
Ninety-two (92) post including this one to-date. Fly-poop to the right. Pepper to the left. Ain't none of you gonna change your closely held beliefs or reach any sort of religious, vinyl, analog or digital epiphany. Give it up, already! Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA |
#77
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Quote without comment
"Jenn" wrote in
message In article . com, Bret Ludwig wrote: On Aug 29, 10:28 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in odigy.net That's based on the highest authority for the purposes of my music listening: my ears. No doubt damaged by exposure to too much live music way too loud. Jenn does not deny that she has hearing damage. It is a fact classical musicians suffer even more hearing damage than rock musicians in many cases. No, it's not. Proof by assertion? Simple denial is miles from an intelligent argument. You're really saying that the average classical musician suffers more hearing damage than the average rock band musician? Jenn proves once again that she can paraphrase what others write. Trouble is, she's again adding nothing of substance to the discussion. |
#78
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Quote without comment
"ScottW" wrote in message
Anyway watching George defend vinyl is as intolerable to vinylphiles Couldn't happen to a nicer group of people. as objectivists must find Arny representing objectivism. Why would I bother trying to represent objectivism when I am a subjectivist? You seem to be very badly confused, Scott. |
#79
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Quote without comment
"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message
u "Bret Ludwig" wrote in message oups.com... The fact is is that when best practices were followed throughout the chain, vinyl wasn't too bad, but it was never intended to equal 30 ips half inch half track, and it never did. So true. To this day GOOD analog tape is the gold standard of recording, and neither vinyl nor CD equals it. Yeah right :-) I still remember the days when people were serious about distributing pre-recorded open reel tapes. Compared to vinyl, a 7.5 ips half or quarter track tape could be quite a treat. Especially the half tracks. But, compared to the CD format, 7.5 ips quarter track is a very sonically limited medium. Frankly, it sometimes has a tendency to take some of the life out of LPs transcribed with it. As long as you ignore all the problems with tape, and don't actually have a clue about the ACTUAL performance of tape Vs digital recording. Agreed. Relevant evidence: 16/44 is sonically transparent: http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_digi.htm Very high quality high speed analog tape isn't sonically transparent: http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_tapg.htm |
#80
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Quote without comment
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message In article . com, Bret Ludwig wrote: On Aug 29, 10:28 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in . pr odigy.net That's based on the highest authority for the purposes of my music listening: my ears. No doubt damaged by exposure to too much live music way too loud. Jenn does not deny that she has hearing damage. I don't feel the need to counter every ridiculous claim that is made. It is a fact classical musicians suffer even more hearing damage than rock musicians in many cases. No, it's not. Proof by assertion? Gee, why don't you make the same assertion about Bret's statement just above mine? Simple denial is miles from an intelligent argument. Making an unsupported statement like Bret's is miles from an intelligent argument. You're really saying that the average classical musician suffers more hearing damage than the average rock band musician? Jenn proves once again that she can paraphrase what others write. Trouble is, she's again adding nothing of substance to the discussion. It's called "asking for clarification". |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Quote without comment | Audio Opinions | |||
quote | Car Audio | |||
A quote | Audio Opinions | |||
Quote: Wikpedia | Audio Opinions | |||
Howie's Quote of the Day | Audio Opinions |