But here's what he has to say about the CD vs LP thread on RAHE, or rather
an excerpt from it.
Begin long quote:

All THAT being said, I am prepared to say, given that I have
sitting in the next room (a 1975 Hubbard reproduction of the
1760 Pascal Taskin prototype), an instrument VERY similar to the
one used by Gilbert in the Couperin recordings, what I feel the
differences between the LP and CD versions are.

But, let me start with the reference: French double manual
harpsichords from the first half of the 18th century, as an
intrinsic property that was caused by the basic geometry,
materials and structure, one very unmistakable quality: the
lower registers had a solid articulation and authority that is
almost unexpected when you first hear such an instrument live.
One normally expects a light, complex almost metallic quality to
the instrument, but when confronted with an instrument that,
when played in the two octave below the middle of the keyboard,
has real power to it, it's something of a very pleasant shock.

Both the CD and LP version convey that, but the LP version is
EVER so slightly less distinct and articulate. It's almost as
iff a small portion of the solid aithority has been replaced
with a subtle "boom." It's not unpleasant, but it is noticeably
different.

And have said ALL OF THAT, let me part with one anecdote which,
in many ways, bespeaks all that is wrong with high-end
self-appointed experts. Please note that I am NOT attempting to
whitewash our respondant here as one of this ilk, but more as an
example of how the high-end drivvle often ends up besmirching a
prefectly wonderful instrument and repetoire.

I believe it was a review of a piece of equipment some years ago
in Absolute Sound (it might have been stereophile or something
else: that's irrelevant). The reviewer was waxing eloquently
about how wonderful this equipment was, and made the statement,
which I paraphrase, how the device clearly imaged the sound,
giving the example of a harpsichord recording on which he could
clearly discern how the strings were arrayed on two levels.

Here is a guy who ASSUMED if the instrument has two keyboards,
the strings must be on two levels, and took that same assumption
and essentially invented some attribute that he then heard.

Unfortunately, the way he THOUGH the instrument constructed had
NOTHING to do with how they really are. There are two very
important reasons why is was, in a word, full of it:

1. The unison strings in the harpsichord are indeed on exactly
the same plane, in fact they pass over exactly the same nut
on the wrestplank and over the same bridge on the soundboard.
Unison strings for the same note are about 3/8" apart, just
enough for the jacks to pass up between them.

2. The strings themselves contribute almost NOTHING to the sound
of the instrument: their radiation impedance is SO high that
they can vibrate all they want and you would be hard pressed
to hear them even with your ear right next to them. The VAST
majority of the acoustic radiation is from the soundboard, to
which the strings are mechanically coupled by the brass
bridge pins and through the wooden bridge. And, with al that,
the sound does NOT eminate from one particualr place, but is
all over the place in a very complex fashion that is highly
dependent upon the note.

What this guy THOUGHT he heard, I have NEVER once heard from ANY
harpsichord from ANY position under ANY circumstances. And I am
quite sure that if he had ever heard a live harpsichord himself,
neither would he.

As to the rest of the original post, I will simply make the
comment that I find the assertions to be grossly simplistic
misrepresentations constructed for the purpose of argumentation
only, and thus I will at this point withdraw from any further
discussion.

wrote in message
nk.net
But here's what he has to say about the CD vs LP thread
on RAHE, or rather an excerpt from it.

The context is that some poor mislead soul wrote:

"Just as one example, I can hear the harmonic quality of intervals in
analog. A fifth on a harpsichord is a beautiful, stable interval, that
makes musical sense in context. On CD, this quality of beauty is lost."

snip Pierece's explanation of how Harpsichords are tuned and played

What this guy THOUGHT he heard, I have NEVER once heard
from ANY harpsichord from ANY position under ANY
circumstances. And I am quite sure that if he had ever heard a live
harpsichord
himself, neither would he.

IOW the OP made an exceptional claim, being that digital can't reproduce
certain harmonic qualities. I suspect that an incomplete understanding of
how digital works might lead to that conclusion. It is of course, completely
untrue.

The ability of digital recording to reproduce tones at various intervals is
identically the same as analog. This is one of the few things that analog
does as well as digital. In most other areas of reproduction, in accordance
with the so called "immutable laws of physics" (apologies to Paul Klipsch)
analog is inferior to digital.

The OP went wrong by carrying his mistaken belief about how digital audio
works into a poorly-informed and unscientific listening context: He compared
dissimilar recordings.

As to the rest of the original post, I will simply make the comment that
I find the assertions to be grossly
simplistic misrepresentations constructed for the purpose
of argumentation only, and thus I will at this point withdraw from any
further discussion.

In fact most vinyl bigots have picked up various bits of misinformation, or
a general aura of distrust, that they use to justify their out-dated belief
system. Dealing with vinyl and tube bigots is like dealing with
creationists. Some of them are otherwise good people, but boy are their
brains tied in knots!

wrote in message
nk.net...
But here's what he has to say about the CD vs LP thread on RAHE, or rather
an excerpt from it.
Begin long quote:

All THAT being said, I am prepared to say, given that I have
sitting in the next room (a 1975 Hubbard reproduction of the
1760 Pascal Taskin prototype), an instrument VERY similar to the
one used by Gilbert in the Couperin recordings, what I feel the
differences between the LP and CD versions are.

But, let me start with the reference: French double manual
harpsichords from the first half of the 18th century, as an
intrinsic property that was caused by the basic geometry,
materials and structure, one very unmistakable quality: the
lower registers had a solid articulation and authority that is
almost unexpected when you first hear such an instrument live.
One normally expects a light, complex almost metallic quality to
the instrument, but when confronted with an instrument that,
when played in the two octave below the middle of the keyboard,
has real power to it, it's something of a very pleasant shock.

Both the CD and LP version convey that, but the LP version is
EVER so slightly less distinct and articulate. It's almost as
iff a small portion of the solid aithority has been replaced
with a subtle "boom." It's not unpleasant, but it is noticeably
different.

And have said ALL OF THAT, let me part with one anecdote which,
in many ways, bespeaks all that is wrong with high-end
self-appointed experts. Please note that I am NOT attempting to
whitewash our respondant here as one of this ilk, but more as an
example of how the high-end drivvle often ends up besmirching a
prefectly wonderful instrument and repetoire.

I believe it was a review of a piece of equipment some years ago
in Absolute Sound (it might have been stereophile or something
else: that's irrelevant). The reviewer was waxing eloquently
about how wonderful this equipment was, and made the statement,
which I paraphrase, how the device clearly imaged the sound,
giving the example of a harpsichord recording on which he could
clearly discern how the strings were arrayed on two levels.

Here is a guy who ASSUMED if the instrument has two keyboards,
the strings must be on two levels, and took that same assumption
and essentially invented some attribute that he then heard.

Unfortunately, the way he THOUGH the instrument constructed had
NOTHING to do with how they really are. There are two very
important reasons why is was, in a word, full of it:

1. The unison strings in the harpsichord are indeed on exactly
the same plane, in fact they pass over exactly the same nut
on the wrestplank and over the same bridge on the soundboard.
Unison strings for the same note are about 3/8" apart, just
enough for the jacks to pass up between them.

2. The strings themselves contribute almost NOTHING to the sound
of the instrument: their radiation impedance is SO high that
they can vibrate all they want and you would be hard pressed
to hear them even with your ear right next to them. The VAST
majority of the acoustic radiation is from the soundboard, to
which the strings are mechanically coupled by the brass
bridge pins and through the wooden bridge. And, with al that,
the sound does NOT eminate from one particualr place, but is
all over the place in a very complex fashion that is highly
dependent upon the note.

What this guy THOUGHT he heard, I have NEVER once heard from ANY
harpsichord from ANY position under ANY circumstances. And I am
quite sure that if he had ever heard a live harpsichord himself,
neither would he.

As to the rest of the original post, I will simply make the
comment that I find the assertions to be grossly simplistic
misrepresentations constructed for the purpose of argumentation
only, and thus I will at this point withdraw from any further
discussion.

You left out the parts where he said he had equal numbers of harpsichord CD
and LP in numbers, and that he had glorious and attrocious sound on both
media...and made no defense of digital whatsoever, except to point out that
the person making the comments had confused the tuning of the instruments to
the medium.

And by the way, if you are going to quote somebody on another newsgroup, it
is normal etiquette to a) ask his/her permission, and b) include quotations
around the quote. Just as it is in any other medium.

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message


You left out the parts where he said he had equal numbers
of harpsichord CD and LP in numbers,

So what?

Harry keeps trying to turn technical discussions into popularity contests

and that he had
glorious and attrocious sound on both media...

Speaks to the inexactness of the recording and mastering processes, which
many poorly informed people tend to conflate with recording media.

and made no
defense of digital whatsoever, except to point out that
the person making the comments had confused the tuning of
the instruments to the medium.

In the 21st century, digital needs no defense - in many ways vinyl bigots
are like Chiropractic doctors ranting and raving against flouridation in the
1950s and 1960s.

snip Harry's usual pompous attempts to limit discussion

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message


You left out the parts where he said he had equal numbers
of harpsichord CD and LP in numbers,

So what?

Harry keeps trying to turn technical discussions into popularity
contests


As a matter of fact, I am usually the one point out your tendency to do
this......

And in this case I was simply paraphrasing what Dick said of his collection
of harpsichord recordings, not stating a point of view....

Oh, I forgot, you don't know the difference....


and that he had
glorious and attrocious sound on both media...

Speaks to the inexactness of the recording and mastering processes, which
many poorly informed people tend to conflate with recording media.

Speaks also to the fact that the LP medium which you disparage has no
trouble reproducing the frequencies and harmonics of a variety of
harpsichords.

So much for your "LP's can't reproduce high frequencies" anthemn. Time for
a re-write.



and made no
defense of digital whatsoever, except to point out that
the person making the comments had confused the tuning of
the instruments to the medium.

In the 21st century, digital needs no defense - in many ways vinyl bigots
are like Chiropractic doctors ranting and raving against flouridation in
the 1950s and 1960s.


Didn't know any chiropractic doctors in the '50's or '60's, so I can't judge
their pronouncements.
But even if they did as you say, it would be a lame and meaningless analogy.
Try harder.



snip Harry's usual pompous attempts to limit discussion

What? Simply reminding folks that their is such as thing as internet
ettiquette is attempting to cut off discussion?
Did I say anything other than -- if you are going to quote, there is a
protocol for doing it properly?

I guess it's all in the eye of the offender.

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message


You left out the parts where he said he had equal numbers
of harpsichord CD and LP in numbers,

So what?

Wait for it.

Harry keeps trying to turn technical discussions into popularity contests

and that he had
glorious and attrocious sound on both media...

That's what.

Speaks to the inexactness of the recording and mastering processes, which
many poorly informed people tend to conflate with recording media.

My favorite harpsichord recordings tend to be digital, if only because I
prefer more recent instruments, copies rather than 'revivals.'

Wildboar has a good reputation for harpsichord recordings. I also enjoy
Joseph Payne on BIS and the harpsichord volume of Gabe Wiener's
"Buxtehude Project." This last has instructions for setting the playback
level correctly using a meter. IMO, many recordings of old-style
instruments suffer because the recording engineer tries to supply the
impact one would expect from a modern piano, leading to an unrealistic
recorded level.

Stephen

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message



Speaks also to the fact that the LP medium which you
disparage has no trouble reproducing the frequencies and
harmonics of a variety of harpsichords.

So much for your "LP's can't reproduce high frequencies"
anthemn. Time for a re-write.

As usual Harry, you couldn't correctly quote me properly singing the
Star-Spangled Banner. :-(

What I really say is that LP's can't reproduce high frequencies at high
levels with low distortion for reasons of geometry that are practically
unsolvable.

That's a fact, well-illustrated by application of the laws of physics which
you seem to be very ignorant of, Harry.

You aren't very well-informed about vinyl's technology, are you Harry?

and made no
defense of digital whatsoever, except to point out that
the person making the comments had confused the tuning
of the instruments to the medium.

In the 21st century, digital needs no defense - in many
ways vinyl bigots are like Chiropractic doctors ranting
and raving against flouridation in the 1950s and 1960s.

Didn't know any chiropractic doctors in the '50's or
'60's, so I can't judge their pronouncements.

Oh I forgot Harry you're younger than I and from a less cosmopolitan area
than I. I don't think so - the controversy was raging in the media all over
the US but it was over your head.

But even if they did as you say, it would be a lame and
meaningless analogy. Try harder.

The truth hurts, eh Harry?

You haven't properly addressed one issue I raised Harry, which is one rason
why I tend to fall asleep while debating you.

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message


You left out the parts where he said he had equal
numbers of harpsichord CD and LP in numbers,

So what?

Wait for it.

Harry keeps trying to turn technical discussions into
popularity contests

and that he had
glorious and attrocious sound on both media...

That's what.

Speaks to the inexactness of the recording and mastering
processes, which many poorly informed people tend to
conflate with recording media.

My favorite harpsichord recordings tend to be digital, if
only because I prefer more recent instruments, copies
rather than 'revivals.'

Wildboar has a good reputation for harpsichord
recordings. I also enjoy Joseph Payne on BIS and the
harpsichord volume of Gabe Wiener's "Buxtehude Project."
This last has instructions for setting the playback level
correctly using a meter. IMO, many recordings of
old-style instruments suffer because the recording
engineer tries to supply the impact one would expect from
a modern piano, leading to an unrealistic recorded level.

You're talking about unrealistic levels in recordings of an ensemble?

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message


You left out the parts where he said he had equal
numbers of harpsichord CD and LP in numbers,

So what?

Wait for it.

Harry keeps trying to turn technical discussions into
popularity contests

and that he had
glorious and attrocious sound on both media...

That's what.

Speaks to the inexactness of the recording and mastering
processes, which many poorly informed people tend to
conflate with recording media.

My favorite harpsichord recordings tend to be digital, if
only because I prefer more recent instruments, copies
rather than 'revivals.'

Wildboar has a good reputation for harpsichord
recordings. I also enjoy Joseph Payne on BIS and the
harpsichord volume of Gabe Wiener's "Buxtehude Project."
This last has instructions for setting the playback level
correctly using a meter. IMO, many recordings of
old-style instruments suffer because the recording
engineer tries to supply the impact one would expect from
a modern piano, leading to an unrealistic recorded level.

You're talking about unrealistic levels in recordings of an ensemble?

No, solo harpsichord, specifically, but also fortepiano.

A Hantai Mozart cd illustrates a problem of integrating close-mic'ed
instruments. In a piece for harpsichord and viola the balance favors the
latter to an absurd extent in both relative level and soundstage
placement.

Stephen

MINe 109 said:

A Hantai Mozart cd illustrates a problem of integrating close-mic'ed
instruments. In a piece for harpsichord and viola the balance favors the
latter to an absurd extent in both relative level and soundstage
placement.

THank's Mr. MNIe for, admitting you dno't know what an euqalizer is. Also
Stehpen, are you accusing me of not know what a harp's I chord is? LOl! Its
like you, were in knee-pant's when I was cutting my teethe on violin
recordings, in the snow, with mono microphone's. Tell us about you're tube
ampliffier's Stephene since, you'er not a bigot are you sTephen? ROMTITFLF!

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message


You left out the parts where he said he had equal
numbers of harpsichord CD and LP in numbers,

So what?

Wait for it.

Harry keeps trying to turn technical discussions into
popularity contests

and that he had
glorious and attrocious sound on both media...

That's what.

Speaks to the inexactness of the recording and
mastering processes, which many poorly informed people
tend to conflate with recording media.

My favorite harpsichord recordings tend to be digital,
if only because I prefer more recent instruments, copies
rather than 'revivals.'

Wildboar has a good reputation for harpsichord
recordings. I also enjoy Joseph Payne on BIS and the
harpsichord volume of Gabe Wiener's "Buxtehude Project."
This last has instructions for setting the playback
level correctly using a meter. IMO, many recordings of
old-style instruments suffer because the recording
engineer tries to supply the impact one would expect
from a modern piano, leading to an unrealistic recorded
level.

You're talking about unrealistic levels in recordings of
an ensemble?

No, solo harpsichord, specifically, but also fortepiano.

What's wrong with the level control on your audio system?

A Hantai Mozart cd illustrates a problem of integrating
close-mic'ed instruments.

That's a different issue. Its not a matter of levels, its a matter of sonic
perspective, more specifically the balance between direct and reflected
sound.

In a piece for harpsichord and
viola the balance favors the latter to an absurd extent
in both relative level and soundstage placement.

Now that duet would be a small ensemble of a kind, right?

In that context it is possible to get the balance wrong, in ways that you
can't correct locally with a volume control. However, if the instruments
were recorded with each favoring a different channel (the usual way IME),
then the balance control is your friend.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

In fact most vinyl bigots have picked up various bits of misinformation,
or a general aura of distrust, that they use to justify their out-dated
belief system. Dealing with vinyl and tube bigots is like dealing with
creationists. Some of them are otherwise good people, but boy are their
brains tied in knots!




If you can't beleive in the Creation, as told
in the Old Testament, how can you believe that
anything in the rest of it is true?



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message


You left out the parts where he said he had equal
numbers of harpsichord CD and LP in numbers,

So what?

Wait for it.

Harry keeps trying to turn technical discussions into
popularity contests

and that he had
glorious and attrocious sound on both media...

That's what.

Speaks to the inexactness of the recording and
mastering processes, which many poorly informed people
tend to conflate with recording media.

My favorite harpsichord recordings tend to be digital,
if only because I prefer more recent instruments, copies
rather than 'revivals.'

Wildboar has a good reputation for harpsichord
recordings. I also enjoy Joseph Payne on BIS and the
harpsichord volume of Gabe Wiener's "Buxtehude Project."
This last has instructions for setting the playback
level correctly using a meter. IMO, many recordings of
old-style instruments suffer because the recording
engineer tries to supply the impact one would expect
from a modern piano, leading to an unrealistic recorded
level.

You're talking about unrealistic levels in recordings of
an ensemble?

No, solo harpsichord, specifically, but also fortepiano.

What's wrong with the level control on your audio system?

It doesn't work separately on the close mic and the room mics.

The greater point is that Wiener takes the guess-work out of playback
levels for those with a sound level meter.

A Hantai Mozart cd illustrates a problem of integrating
close-mic'ed instruments.

That's a different issue. Its not a matter of levels, its a matter of sonic
perspective, more specifically the balance between direct and reflected
sound.

Yes, that's kind of thing I meant.

There's also a different issue: the viola's too loud.

In a piece for harpsichord and
viola the balance favors the latter to an absurd extent
in both relative level and soundstage placement.

Now that duet would be a small ensemble of a kind, right?

Of course, but my original point is about a solo instrument.

In that context it is possible to get the balance wrong, in ways that you
can't correct locally with a volume control.

That's what I thought. I guess my level control works after all.

However, if the instruments
were recorded with each favoring a different channel (the usual way IME),
then the balance control is your friend.

In this specific case, center and center for the instruments.

Stephen