[Terry[_3_]]

I have several MP3's that I've downloaded and want to
copy them to my RX-505.
If analog is suppose to give a warmer better sound, wouldn't
it have to be analog to analog copy from a record
instead of digital to analog copy from a computer to get that warm
analog sound?

Terry

[Steven Sullivan]

Terry wrote:
I have several MP3's that I've downloaded and want to
copy them to my RX-505.
If analog is suppose to give a warmer better sound, wouldn't
it have to be analog to analog copy from a record
instead of digital to analog copy from a computer to get that warm
analog sound?

the 'warmth' of analog is distortion -- so you'd
have to make an LP of it first, or copy it to 1/2 inch tape
or run it through a tube amp.

___
-S
maybe they wanna rock.
maybe they need to rock.
Maybe it's for the money? But That's none of our business..our business as fans is to rock
with them.

[Peter Wieck]

On Apr 6, 8:58*pm, Terry wrote:
I have several MP3's that I've downloaded and want to
copy them to my RX-505.
If analog is suppose to give a warmer better sound, wouldn't
it have to be analog to analog copy from a record
instead of digital to analog copy from a computer to get that warm
analog sound?

Terry

My goodness! What a question!

Short answer is that the "analog" sound is a moving target depending
on the philosophy of the individual(s) involved. Does the playback
system serve as an instrument in its own right (add/delete/alter
artifacts), or is it to be entirely colorless, neutral, add/delete/
alter nothing? And as to the digital source, at what level of
quality?

Don't forget to add tubes to the mix when looking for "warmer, better"
sound.

If I were to render an opinion, a digital source will generally sound
the same however many times it is re-recorded from medium to medium
until it "falls off the cliff". Analog sources have a more continuous
degredation curve as they are re-recorded/transferred from medium to
medium. Much as with analog television - fringe areas will get ghosts
and poor images, but something gets through. Fringe areas with digital
television get nothing useful or everything useful with little
transition between the two states. (Think about that next year).

In any case the answer to your question is Yes and No.

By the way, a good system, analog or digital, will be merciless in
exposing poor sources. Digital or analog.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[bob]

On Apr 6, 8:58*pm, Terry wrote:
I have several MP3's that I've downloaded and want to
copy them to my RX-505.
If analog is suppose to give a warmer better sound, wouldn't
it have to be analog to analog copy from a record
instead of digital to analog copy from a computer to get that warm
analog sound?

If by "that analog sound," you mean tape hiss, high-frequency rolloff,
and wobbly wow & flutter, then you're in luck. Putting your newly
acquired MP3s on cassette will give you all of those things!

If what you're really after is "that vinyl sound"--surface noise, pops
& clicks, W&F, phase distortion, frequency response anomalies,
tracking error (have I missed anything?)--then you do indeed have to
start with a vinyl disk.

bob

[Serge Auckland[_2_]]

"Terry" wrote in message
...
I have several MP3's that I've downloaded and want to
copy them to my RX-505.
If analog is suppose to give a warmer better sound, wouldn't
it have to be analog to analog copy from a record
instead of digital to analog copy from a computer to get that warm
analog sound?

Terry

What is a "warm analogue sound"? How does it differ from any other sort of
sound?

Copying from MP3 to cassette, the main limitation will most probably be the
cassette. MP3s if done at a decent data rate (128kbps) will have better
performance than analogue cassette tape, even one as good as a Nakamichi
RX-505. What you will end up with is a recording that at it's best could be
indistinguishable from the original, but most likely will have worse
frequency response at both bass and treble end, higher noise, compression at
higher levels especially in the high treble and higher distortion on peaks.
If that's a "warm analogue sound", then that's what you'll get.

I used to line up Nakamichis before sale many years ago, and although they
were pretty good straight from the factory, they could be made to give much
better performance if they were lined up for one specific tape.

S.

--
http://audiopages.googlepages.com

[Sonnova]

On Mon, 7 Apr 2008 15:18:29 -0700, bob wrote
(in article ):

On Apr 6, 8:58*pm, Terry wrote:
I have several MP3's that I've downloaded and want to
copy them to my RX-505.
If analog is suppose to give a warmer better sound, wouldn't
it have to be analog to analog copy from a record
instead of digital to analog copy from a computer to get that warm
analog sound?

If by "that analog sound," you mean tape hiss, high-frequency rolloff,
and wobbly wow & flutter, then you're in luck. Putting your newly
acquired MP3s on cassette will give you all of those things!

If what you're really after is "that vinyl sound"--surface noise, pops
& clicks, W&F, phase distortion, frequency response anomalies,
tracking error (have I missed anything?)--then you do indeed have to
start with a vinyl disk.

bob

Actually, I doubt that the OP meant ANY of the negative analog "artifacts"
that you mentioned. When one listens THROUGH or AROUND those things there is
a certain "alive" character to analog that many people prefer. And who is to
say that their preferences are wrong? Wrong for you, maybe . Wrong for many
people, I'm sure. If one gets down to absolutes, there is only one absolute
"right" and that is the sound of real acoustic music played in real space.
Digital gets that no more right than analog, it just gets it wrong in a
different way. No audio system, analog or digital, tube or solid state sounds
like real music and it likely never will. Each person's exploration of the
possibilities that technology gives us determines which parameters of real
music are the most important to each. If digital gets you closer, fine. If
analog gives you a clearer glimpse of the muse, that's OK too. but either
way, there's no need for the sarcasm.

The only thing that I find destructive to the sound of real music is lossy
compression. Its the old conflict between quality and quantity. Do you want
more of less or less of more? 3000 mediocre (or worse) sounding recordings in
your musical library or 1000 excellent sounding recordings. Seems to me that
those like our OP here who is looking to make MP3s sound more like analog is
engaged in an effort more akin to rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic than
he is working on the problem of getting better sounding music. He is,
ultimately, barking up the wrong tree.

[Codifus]

Steven Sullivan wrote:
Terry wrote:

I have several MP3's that I've downloaded and want to
copy them to my RX-505.
If analog is suppose to give a warmer better sound, wouldn't
it have to be analog to analog copy from a record
instead of digital to analog copy from a computer to get that warm
analog sound?


the 'warmth' of analog is distortion -- so you'd
have to make an LP of it first, or copy it to 1/2 inch tape
or run it through a tube amp.

___
-S
maybe they wanna rock.
maybe they need to rock.
Maybe it's for the money? But That's none of our business..our business as fans is to rock
with them.

The 'warmth' of analog is distortion, not to mention limited dynamic
range, saturated high frequency response et al

All these factors contribute to a less harsh delivery of sound to the ear.

CD

[bob]

On Apr 8, 6:15*pm, Sonnova wrote:
Actually, I doubt that the OP meant ANY of the negative analog "artifacts" *
that you mentioned. When one listens THROUGH or AROUND those things there is
a certain "alive" character to analog that many people prefer. And who is to
say that their preferences are wrong? Wrong for you, maybe . Wrong for many
people, I'm sure.

Agreed, absolutely.

If one gets down to absolutes, there is only one absolute
"right" and that is the sound of real acoustic music played in real space.

My sense of what "real acoustic music played in real space" sounds
like is based on my experiences of it, which are very different from
your experiences of it. So this is hardly an absolute at all.

The only thing that I find destructive to the sound of real music is lossy
compression.

Seriously, you find that more destructive than, say, multiple
generations of analog tape? (I'll leave vinyl out of this discussion.)
I'd say you have a very odd notion of "the sound of real music," then.

bob

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article ,
Codifus wrote:

Steven Sullivan wrote:
Terry wrote:

I have several MP3's that I've downloaded and want to
copy them to my RX-505.
If analog is suppose to give a warmer better sound, wouldn't
it have to be analog to analog copy from a record
instead of digital to analog copy from a computer to get that warm
analog sound?


the 'warmth' of analog is distortion -- so you'd
have to make an LP of it first, or copy it to 1/2 inch tape
or run it through a tube amp.

___
-S
maybe they wanna rock.
maybe they need to rock.
Maybe it's for the money? But That's none of our business..our business as
fans is to rock
with them.

The 'warmth' of analog is distortion, not to mention limited dynamic
range, saturated high frequency response et al

It doesn't matter many people, myself included. Whatever makes a
recording sound the most like acoustic music is what floats my boat.

[Steven Sullivan]

bob wrote:
On Apr 8, 6:15*pm, Sonnova wrote:
Actually, I doubt that the OP meant ANY of the negative analog "artifacts" *
that you mentioned. When one listens THROUGH or AROUND those things there is
a certain "alive" character to analog that many people prefer. And who is to
say that their preferences are wrong? Wrong for you, maybe . Wrong for many
people, I'm sure.

Agreed, absolutely.

But you aren't listening 'through and around' them. What you are liking
is THEIR effects on the recording.

If one gets down to absolutes, there is only one absolute
"right" and that is the sound of real acoustic music played in real space.

My sense of what "real acoustic music played in real space" sounds
like is based on my experiences of it, which are very different from
your experiences of it. So this is hardly an absolute at all.

The only thing that I find destructive to the sound of real music is lossy
compression.

Seriously, you find that more destructive than, say, multiple
generations of analog tape? (I'll leave vinyl out of this discussion.)
I'd say you have a very odd notion of "the sound of real music," then.

I';d say he hasn't done any blind comparisons of good lossy encodings,
to their lossless counterparts.

___
-S
maybe they wanna rock.
maybe they need to rock.
Maybe it's for the money? But That's none of our business..our business as fans is to rock
with them.

[Sonnova]

On Tue, 8 Apr 2008 19:33:16 -0700, bob wrote
(in article ):

On Apr 8, 6:15*pm, Sonnova wrote:
Actually, I doubt that the OP meant ANY of the negative analog "artifacts" *
that you mentioned. When one listens THROUGH or AROUND those things there is
a certain "alive" character to analog that many people prefer. And who is to
say that their preferences are wrong? Wrong for you, maybe . Wrong for many
people, I'm sure.

Agreed, absolutely.

If one gets down to absolutes, there is only one absolute
"right" and that is the sound of real acoustic music played in real space.

My sense of what "real acoustic music played in real space" sounds
like is based on my experiences of it, which are very different from
your experiences of it. So this is hardly an absolute at all.

Except that it has never been proven that people with normal hearing hear
music all that differently. Anyway, it doesn't really matter whether it
sounds different to each of us. The point is that the sound of real, live
music played in real space will always sound the same way to YOU. That it
might sound different to me doesn't matter because it also always sounds the
same way to ME too.

The only thing that I find destructive to the sound of real music is lossy
compression.

Seriously, you find that more destructive than, say, multiple
generations of analog tape?

It depends upon how many generations. I certainly prefer tape hiss to
compression artifacts.

Case in point about lossy compression. I've never been much of an iTunes
music store downloader, but recently, I downloaded two "albums" from them.
One was the soundtrack to "The Mummy 2" and secondly, was a large album of
the Music of Miklos Rozsa. Both were standard downloads, done at 128 kbps,
and both were UNLISTENABLE. Veiled, homogenized, lacking in real dynamics,
musical mush is my best description. I've never heard any muti-generaltion
analog audio tape that bad. I've also heard (heard, hell, I own them) some
pretty nasty sounding LPs in my time as well, but again, nothing this bad. A
friend loaned me his CD copy of "The Mummy 2" soundtrack and I ripped it
using Apple Lossless Compression. The difference is so great that its
ludicrous. It's hard to believe that the two versions were both from the same
source material. I ordered the Rozsa from Amazon, and it sounds very good too
(although much of that compilation is from analog source material recorded in
the 1970's and 1980's). I ripped it using ALC as well. I connect my Apple TV
box to my stereo via a long TOSLINK cable to my outboard D/A converter, and
now when I play these two albums they sound at least as good as the CD.

(I'll leave vinyl out of this discussion.)
I'd say you have a very odd notion of "the sound of real music," then.

Then, I'd say that you don't have a lot of experience with analog. The kinds
of distortion that build up mult-generational with analog tape aren't that
audible until one gets at least 4 generations away from the master. Also,
most records were cut with master tapes no more than two generations down
from the master. Since pro recording was always done at at least 15 ips, and
more likely 30 ips, the hiss isn't that bad in the first place.

But if you grew-up listening to tape and LP as I did, you learn to listen
around those obstacles because the music is STILL there. With MP3 and other
lossy schemes, I find that the music sounds like its been put in a blender
and reduced to mush. Mush that has nasty artifacts riding on it. In other
words I find that I cannot listen around MP3 nastiness because the music
ISN'T still there. While I realize that it's possible for one to use a higher
bit-rate when one is ripping their own CDs, and at 320 kbps, MP3 doesn't
sound all that bad, Apple is the largest online music store in the world and
they only give one the option of 128 kbps. I always thought that Sony's
Mini-Disc compression scheme sounded much better than MP3 and the downloads
available on Sony's on-line music store (now defunct) Sounded MUCH more
listenable than did the MP3s available from Apple and other on-line music
sources.

And, finally, I don't see what my tolerance for canned music sins, whether
they be analog or digital has to do with my notion of "real music". Live
music has none of the drawbacks of recording and storage schemes past or
present.

[Sonnova]

On Wed, 9 Apr 2008 15:31:17 -0700, Steven Sullivan wrote
(in article ):

bob wrote:
On Apr 8, 6:15*pm, Sonnova wrote:
Actually, I doubt that the OP meant ANY of the negative analog "artifacts"
*
that you mentioned. When one listens THROUGH or AROUND those things there
is
a certain "alive" character to analog that many people prefer. And who is
to
say that their preferences are wrong? Wrong for you, maybe . Wrong for many
people, I'm sure.

Agreed, absolutely.

But you aren't listening 'through and around' them. What you are liking
is THEIR effects on the recording.

No. That's not true. Who LIKES ticks and pops? Not me. I keep my records
scrupulously clean and try to avoid them. Tape-hiss, OTOH, is an artifact
that most people simply ignore. If it has an affect on the recording, then
the introduction of Dolby-A should have diminished the perceived "quality" of
vinyl reproduction. It didn't, it just made the records quieter. If
noticeable wow and flutter is present on a recording I either take it back
(hard to do these days) of I don't listen to the recording.

If one gets down to absolutes, there is only one absolute
"right" and that is the sound of real acoustic music played in real space.

My sense of what "real acoustic music played in real space" sounds
like is based on my experiences of it, which are very different from
your experiences of it. So this is hardly an absolute at all.

The only thing that I find destructive to the sound of real music is lossy
compression.

Seriously, you find that more destructive than, say, multiple
generations of analog tape? (I'll leave vinyl out of this discussion.)
I'd say you have a very odd notion of "the sound of real music," then.

I'd say he hasn't done any blind comparisons of good lossy encodings,
to their lossless counterparts.

And you'd say wrong. High bit-rate MP3 is OK, but the stuff Apple (for
instance, sells on the Apple Music Store is all 128 kbps, and if you can't
hear the musical mush THAT makes out of a recording, then you have no right
to call yourself an audiophile. It sounds AWFUL! BTW, "good lossy encodings"
is an oxymoron when your talking music download services. Ripping one's own
is another story, but I find that by the time I rip something at 320 kbps or
higher, I might as well use Apple Lossless - so I do.

[bob]

On Apr 9, 6:36*pm, Sonnova wrote:
Except that it has never been proven that people with normal hearing hear
music all that differently. Anyway, it doesn't really matter whether it
sounds different to each of us. The point is that the sound of real, live
music played in real space will always sound the same way to YOU.

No, it doesn't. Live music sounds different to me, every time I hear
it. I've heard the same instrument played by the same musician in five
different halls. It never sounds quite the same. But perhaps my
hearing perception is just more refined than most.

bob

[Norman M. Schwartz]

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Codifus wrote:

Steven Sullivan wrote:
Terry wrote:

I have several MP3's that I've downloaded and want to
copy them to my RX-505.
If analog is suppose to give a warmer better sound, wouldn't
it have to be analog to analog copy from a record
instead of digital to analog copy from a computer to get that warm
analog sound?


the 'warmth' of analog is distortion -- so you'd
have to make an LP of it first, or copy it to 1/2 inch tape
or run it through a tube amp.

___
-S
maybe they wanna rock.
maybe they need to rock.
Maybe it's for the money? But That's none of our business..our
business as
fans is to rock
with them.

The 'warmth' of analog is distortion, not to mention limited dynamic
range, saturated high frequency response et al

It doesn't matter many people, myself included. Whatever makes a
recording sound the most like acoustic music is what floats my boat.

So it then appears to be the case that a more of less random change (by
going through the vinyl path) imposed on top of a music recording, makes it
(the music) sound more like 'acoustic' music. How fortuitous! :-)

[[email protected]]

On Apr 8, 7:33*pm, bob wrote:

The only thing that I find destructive to the sound of real music is lossy
compression.

Seriously, you find that more destructive than, say, multiple
generations of analog tape? (

Wouldn't several generations of analog tape induce lossy compression?

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article ,
"Norman M. Schwartz" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Codifus wrote:

Steven Sullivan wrote:
Terry wrote:

I have several MP3's that I've downloaded and want to
copy them to my RX-505.
If analog is suppose to give a warmer better sound, wouldn't
it have to be analog to analog copy from a record
instead of digital to analog copy from a computer to get that warm
analog sound?


the 'warmth' of analog is distortion -- so you'd
have to make an LP of it first, or copy it to 1/2 inch tape
or run it through a tube amp.

___
-S
maybe they wanna rock.
maybe they need to rock.
Maybe it's for the money? But That's none of our business..our
business as
fans is to rock
with them.

The 'warmth' of analog is distortion, not to mention limited dynamic
range, saturated high frequency response et al

It doesn't matter to (corrected) many people, myself included. Whatever makes a
recording sound the most like acoustic music is what floats my boat.

So it then appears to be the case that a more of less random change (by
going through the vinyl path) imposed on top of a music recording, makes it
(the music) sound more like 'acoustic' music. How fortuitous! :-)

You could say that about me if I believed (or ever stated) that vinyl
is, as a group, better than digital. I don't believe that, nor have I
ever said that.

[Arny Krueger]

"Sonnova" wrote in message


But if you grew-up listening to tape and LP as I did, you
learn to listen around those obstacles because the music
is STILL there.

Sorta. I grew up on a steady diet of acoustical music, and I was never that
happy with the LP format. I did like tape, particularly half-track at 7 1/2
or 15 ips.

With MP3 and other lossy schemes, I find
that the music sounds like its been put in a blender and
reduced to mush.

Depends on the bitrate. In a earlier portion of this post that you clipped,
you mentioned 128 bps, and that has always been sort of a hinge point. Below
128 kbps, music is often in trouble, and well above 128 kbps, music is often
unhindered.

Mush that has nasty artifacts riding on it. In other words I find that I
cannot listen around MP3
nastiness because the music ISN'T still there.

Like I said, try bitrates higher than 128 kbps, try other coders.

While I
realize that it's possible for one to use a higher
bit-rate when one is ripping their own CDs, and at 320
kbps, MP3 doesn't sound all that bad, Apple is the
largest online music store in the world and they only
give one the option of 128 kbps.

Remember that the music business still nurtures hopes of selling you
physical media, even after you've downloaded the song. I see the choice of
128 kbps as being a commercial strategy to foster further sales.

I always thought that
Sony's Mini-Disc compression scheme sounded much better
than MP3 and the downloads available on Sony's on-line
music store (now defunct) Sounded MUCH more listenable
than did the MP3s available from Apple and other on-line
music sources.

My recollection is that the basic historical MD format was based on a much
higher basic bitrate that 128 kbps. Of course Sony cut that down a lot in
the later days. I believe that bit for bit, ATRAC can't hold a candle to AAC
and really good MP3.

And, finally, I don't see what my tolerance for canned
music sins, whether they be analog or digital has to do
with my notion of "real music". Live music has none of
the drawbacks of recording and storage schemes past or
present.

However, there are as many different flavors of live music as there are
seats in the auditorium and on stage.

[Arny Krueger]

"bob" wrote in message

On Apr 9, 6:36 pm, Sonnova
wrote:
Except that it has never been proven that people with
normal hearing hear music all that differently. Anyway,
it doesn't really matter whether it sounds different to
each of us. The point is that the sound of real, live
music played in real space will always sound the same
way to YOU.

No, it doesn't. Live music sounds different to me, every
time I hear it. I've heard the same instrument played by
the same musician in five different halls. It never
sounds quite the same. But perhaps my hearing perception
is just more refined than most.

This is so true. I get to hear the same groups singing and playing the same
groups in different rooms, and its a vastly different experience. In many
cases I get to move around while the groups are rehearsing and in some cases
even while they are performing. There are plenty of differences.

I've also measured the transfer function from the center of a performance
space to various locations in that space, and of course they are all
different, and all highly non-flat.

[Peter Wieck]

On Apr 9, 11:36*pm, bob wrote:
On Apr 9, 6:36*pm, Sonnova wrote:

Except that it has never been proven that people with normal hearing hear
music all that differently. Anyway, it doesn't really matter whether it
sounds different to each of us. The point is that the sound of real, live
music played in real space will always sound the same way to YOU.

No, it doesn't. Live music sounds different to me, every time I hear
it. I've heard the same instrument played by the same musician in five
different halls. It never sounds quite the same. But perhaps my
hearing perception is just more refined than most.

bob

I am not sure you got the point - Not that one event will not sound
differently than another event, but that the way you hear things does
not change relative to Analog, Live, Digital, Recorded. And with the
normal variations of hearing due to health/diet/time-of-day/
temperature/mood aside, your hearing process does not change one day
to the next - and so may aptly be compared to others as a similar
relatively invariable process.

Your ears are hard-wired devices. What they hear is not. I think that
is the point - Steven?

Again, what with the recent discussions on the transition to Digital
OTA television and the attendant problems, that would serve as an
excellent analogy to the discussion here. Digital signal does fine
until it does not - it drops right off the cliff. Analog signal
degrades in a more-or-less linear fashion. Depending on one's
individual tolerance for additional artifacts, ghosting, snow,
shadows, color distortion and so forth it is more-or-less acceptable
but the basic information does get through.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[jwvm]

On Apr 9, 11:37 pm, wrote:
On Apr 8, 7:33 pm, bob wrote:

The only thing that I find destructive to the sound of real music is lossy
compression.
Seriously, you find that more destructive than, say, multiple
generations of analog tape? (

Wouldn't several generations of analog tape induce lossy compression?

It would certainly be lossy but it would not be compressed in the
digital sense. If the recording levels were kept high, there would be
some level compression during loud passages. Perhaps this is some of
the "warming" that the OP is seeking.

[Steven Sullivan]

bob wrote:
On Apr 9, 6:36*pm, Sonnova wrote:
Except that it has never been proven that people with normal hearing hear
music all that differently. Anyway, it doesn't really matter whether it
sounds different to each of us. The point is that the sound of real, live
music played in real space will always sound the same way to YOU.

No, it doesn't. Live music sounds different to me, every time I hear
it. I've heard the same instrument played by the same musician in five
different halls. It never sounds quite the same. But perhaps my
hearing perception is just more refined than most.

Live music has also sounds very different depending on where I've heard it.
And even in the same venue, where you sit makes a big difference

--
___
-S
maybe they wanna rock.
maybe they need to rock.
Maybe it's for the money? But That's none of our business..our business as fans is to rock
with them.

[Sonnova]

On Wed, 9 Apr 2008 20:36:24 -0700, bob wrote
(in article ):

On Apr 9, 6:36*pm, Sonnova wrote:
Except that it has never been proven that people with normal hearing hear
music all that differently. Anyway, it doesn't really matter whether it
sounds different to each of us. The point is that the sound of real, live
music played in real space will always sound the same way to YOU.

No, it doesn't. Live music sounds different to me, every time I hear
it.

I knew someone was going to make JUST that pedantic comment. Of course it
sounds "different" every time, but it still sounds like the instrument or the
set of instruments that it is. But does a sax not sound like a sax - every
time you hear one? A violin like a violin? A piano like a piano? Can you not
ALWAYS discern live music from canned? I think anybody can. Music and
reproduction wouldn't mean very much if you couldn't make those
determinations. The fact that the venue changes some aspects of the sound
doesn't mean that a saxophone becomes something else. It's always a saxophone
and its always recognizable as a sax and will be every time. Now, I'm not
discounting the possibility that a sax (or any other instrument) sounds
different to you than it might to me, but still, the sound that a saxophone
makes whether different for each of us or the same is stored in our aural
memory and when we hear one, we think "saxophone". Therefore the sound of a
live baritone sax, for instance, is an absolute because it always sounds like
a sax to each of us, even though, if I could hear it as you hear it, not
having YOUR aural memory, I might think it sounds strange (and vice versa).
The point is that it sounds like a baritone sax to you and you are able to
identify that sound and tell whether its live or reproduced.

I've heard the same instrument played by the same musician in five
different halls. It never sounds quite the same. But perhaps my
hearing perception is just more refined than most.

That's irrelevant. The instrument still sounds like the instrument its
supposed to be. The fact that the player might change inflection, breathing,
or phrasing or that the venue enters into the equation has no bearing on
whether or not the instrument or instruments sound like what they are
supposed to be rather than sounding like something else.

Ever been to New Orleans? Walk down Basin Street in the French Quarter on a
nice, warm evening. Out of almost every door, music is blaring. One can pass
each door and without looking in, say to oneself: "Canned music here, live
music here, live music with a sound reinforcement system here, more live
music, canned music in this place......" etc. It's that apparent. The sound
of live music is an absolute because it always SOUNDS like live music, and no
audio system on earth can recreate that certain palpability that live music
imparts. Whether that live music sounds different every time, or whether each
of us hears it differently, it matters not. As long as each of us can
recognize live music when we hear it and remember enough to realize the
difference between what comes out of a loudspeaker and what comes out of the
mouth of a sax, or the body of a violin, or the open-top of a grand piano,
live music will remain the absolute judge of whether or not a system is
accurate, and that difference is also the measure of the delta between the
two.

[Sonnova]

On Wed, 9 Apr 2008 20:37:11 -0700, wrote
(in article ):

On Apr 8, 7:33*pm, bob wrote:

The only thing that I find destructive to the sound of real music is lossy
compression.

Seriously, you find that more destructive than, say, multiple
generations of analog tape? (

Wouldn't several generations of analog tape induce lossy compression?


no, several generations of analog tape would introduce analog compression if
any at all. The concept of lossy compression exists only in the digital world
and is meant to convey the idea that in a lossy compression scheme, a set
algorithm has been pre-programmed to "throw away" portions of the quantized
waveform that have been decided by the algorithm to be "not needed". This is
in opposition to lossless compression whereby the algorithm uses digital
"shorthand" to compress the digital bit stream. IOW, in lossless compression,
everything is represented, nothing is discarded and when uncompressed
everything is reconstructed exactly, bit-for-bit as it was before the
bitstream was compressed at all.

Analog compression works by either reducing the loudest signals to the level
of the softest, or by increasing the level of the softest to equal the level
of the loudest or a combination of the two. This can be done full spectrum
(like DBX) or selectively (like Dolby A, B).

In a tape recording, each generation of tape causes noise to build-up,
distortion to build-up, and transients to become less and less distinct, but
unless the original recording was recorded wildly "hot" (consistently
driving the meters over "0" Vu), no actual compression is indicated.

[Harry Lavo]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"bob" wrote in message

On Apr 9, 6:36 pm, Sonnova
wrote:
Except that it has never been proven that people with
normal hearing hear music all that differently. Anyway,
it doesn't really matter whether it sounds different to
each of us. The point is that the sound of real, live
music played in real space will always sound the same
way to YOU.

No, it doesn't. Live music sounds different to me, every
time I hear it. I've heard the same instrument played by
the same musician in five different halls. It never
sounds quite the same. But perhaps my hearing perception
is just more refined than most.

This is so true. I get to hear the same groups singing and playing the
same
groups in different rooms, and its a vastly different experience. In many
cases I get to move around while the groups are rehearsing and in some
cases
even while they are performing. There are plenty of differences.

I've also measured the transfer function from the center of a performance
space to various locations in that space, and of course they are all
different, and all highly non-flat.

Isn't it marvelous, therefore, that with all the variety the human brain is
rarely fooled into mistaking reproduced sound from live music. Which
suggests why comparing components to our "gestalt recollection" of what
makes music sound "live" is a better standard than comparing two pieces of
"sound".

[Sonnova]

On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 17:39:25 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Sonnova" wrote in message


But if you grew-up listening to tape and LP as I did, you
learn to listen around those obstacles because the music
is STILL there.

Sorta. I grew up on a steady diet of acoustical music, and I was never that
happy with the LP format. I did like tape, particularly half-track at 7 1/2
or 15 ips.

With MP3 and other lossy schemes, I find
that the music sounds like its been put in a blender and
reduced to mush.

Depends on the bitrate. In a earlier portion of this post that you clipped,
you mentioned 128 bps, and that has always been sort of a hinge point. Below
128 kbps, music is often in trouble, and well above 128 kbps, music is often
unhindered.

Mush that has nasty artifacts riding on it. In other words I find that I
cannot listen around MP3
nastiness because the music ISN'T still there.

Like I said, try bitrates higher than 128 kbps, try other coders.

While I
realize that it's possible for one to use a higher
bit-rate when one is ripping their own CDs, and at 320
kbps, MP3 doesn't sound all that bad, Apple is the
largest online music store in the world and they only
give one the option of 128 kbps.

Remember that the music business still nurtures hopes of selling you
physical media, even after you've downloaded the song. I see the choice of
128 kbps as being a commercial strategy to foster further sales.

I always thought that
Sony's Mini-Disc compression scheme sounded much better
than MP3 and the downloads available on Sony's on-line
music store (now defunct) Sounded MUCH more listenable
than did the MP3s available from Apple and other on-line
music sources.

My recollection is that the basic historical MD format was based on a much
higher basic bitrate that 128 kbps. Of course Sony cut that down a lot in
the later days. I believe that bit for bit, ATRAC can't hold a candle to AAC
and really good MP3.

And, finally, I don't see what my tolerance for canned
music sins, whether they be analog or digital has to do
with my notion of "real music". Live music has none of
the drawbacks of recording and storage schemes past or
present.

However, there are as many different flavors of live music as there are
seats in the auditorium and on stage.


Yet we can always tell live from canned - from any of those seats. That's why
live music played in real space is the one absolute reference in audio

[bob]

On Apr 10, 8:45*pm, Sonnova wrote:
On Wed, 9 Apr 2008 20:36:24 -0700, bob wrote

No, it doesn't. Live music sounds different to me, every time I hear
it.

I knew someone was going to make JUST that pedantic comment. Of course it
sounds "different" every time, but it still sounds like the instrument or the
set of instruments that it is. But does a sax not sound like a sax - every
time you hear one? A violin like a violin? A piano like a piano? Can you not
ALWAYS discern live music from canned? *I think anybody can. Music and
reproduction wouldn't mean very much if you couldn't make those
determinations. The fact that the venue changes some aspects of the sound
doesn't mean that a saxophone becomes something else. It's always a saxophone
and its always recognizable as a sax and will be every time. Now, I'm not
discounting the possibility that a sax (or any other instrument) sounds
different to you than it might to me, but still, the sound that a saxophone
makes whether different for each of us or the same is stored in our aural
memory and when we hear one, we think "saxophone". Therefore the sound of a
live baritone sax, for instance, is an absolute because it always sounds like
a sax to each of us, even though, if I could hear it as you hear it, not
having YOUR aural memory, I might think it sounds strange (and vice versa).
The point is that it sounds like a baritone sax to you and you are able to
identify that sound and tell whether its live or reproduced. *

Granted, the binary distinction live vs. recorded is (at least
usually) clear. But that isn't strong enough to make your point. You
want to be able to determine whether one recorded sound is closer to
live than another recorded sound. I don't think you can do that
without specifying *which* live sound you have in mind--a full Avery
Fisher, or an empty Alice Tully.

At least, you can't if you want to anchor your perception to some
objective reality. Which is why I think you don't really anchor your
perception to some objective reality at all. You develop a mental
construct of what a live performance (of the particular type you're
listening to) *ought* to sound like. And it's not at all clear that
this construct is fixed. You could have a different idea of what live
music sounds like each day. It's hard, then, to call that a
"standard."

bob

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article , bob
wrote:

On Apr 10, 8:45*pm, Sonnova wrote:
On Wed, 9 Apr 2008 20:36:24 -0700, bob wrote

No, it doesn't. Live music sounds different to me, every time I hear
it.

I knew someone was going to make JUST that pedantic comment. Of course it
sounds "different" every time, but it still sounds like the instrument or
the
set of instruments that it is. But does a sax not sound like a sax - every
time you hear one? A violin like a violin? A piano like a piano? Can you
not
ALWAYS discern live music from canned? *I think anybody can. Music and
reproduction wouldn't mean very much if you couldn't make those
determinations. The fact that the venue changes some aspects of the sound
doesn't mean that a saxophone becomes something else. It's always a
saxophone
and its always recognizable as a sax and will be every time. Now, I'm not
discounting the possibility that a sax (or any other instrument) sounds
different to you than it might to me, but still, the sound that a saxophone
makes whether different for each of us or the same is stored in our aural
memory and when we hear one, we think "saxophone". Therefore the sound of a
live baritone sax, for instance, is an absolute because it always sounds
like
a sax to each of us, even though, if I could hear it as you hear it, not
having YOUR aural memory, I might think it sounds strange (and vice versa).
The point is that it sounds like a baritone sax to you and you are able to
identify that sound and tell whether its live or reproduced. *

Granted, the binary distinction live vs. recorded is (at least
usually) clear. But that isn't strong enough to make your point. You
want to be able to determine whether one recorded sound is closer to
live than another recorded sound. I don't think you can do that
without specifying *which* live sound you have in mind--a full Avery
Fisher, or an empty Alice Tully.

I disagree. Live acoustic music ALWAYS displays distinctive qualities
that separate it from any recorded sound. Live acoustic music produced
in Alice Tully, whether full or empty, will always sound like live
music, and recorded sound has never displayed the those distinctive
qualities. For example, it's easy to tell the difference between an
oboe and an English Horn in any live situation I've ever experienced,
even when you don't know the score and can't see which instrument is
being played. It's often possible to even tell the make and model of
the instrument. In the case of recordings, it's sometimes impossible to
tell the difference.

[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message

On Apr 8, 7:33 pm, bob wrote:

The only thing that I find destructive to the sound of
real music is lossy compression.

Seriously, you find that more destructive than, say,
multiple generations of analog tape? (

Wouldn't several generations of analog tape induce lossy
compression?

Actually, several generations of analog tape induce several kinds of signal
loss without any beneficial compression.

Every generation of analog tape adds significant noise and both static and
dynamic frequency response variations. Audible amounts of nonlinear
distortion of several kinds are also added.

ABX tests can clearly detect the difference between an origional recording
and the first generation copy, even when the analog recording process is
very carefully controlled, using the best equipment.

http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_tapg.htm

[Norman M. Schwartz]

"Sonnova" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 17:39:25 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Sonnova" wrote in message


But if you grew-up listening to tape and LP as I did, you
learn to listen around those obstacles because the music
is STILL there.


But too, if you _grew-up_ listening to tape and LP as I too did, you now
suffer age related hearing loss, (and/or loss from listening to years of
music (canned and/or live), so you are not at sensitive to tape hiss and
certain frequencies of LP surface noise.

Sorta. I grew up on a steady diet of acoustical music, and I was never
that
happy with the LP format. I did like tape, particularly half-track at 7
1/2
or 15 ips.

With MP3 and other lossy schemes, I find
that the music sounds like its been put in a blender and
reduced to mush.

Depends on the bitrate. In a earlier portion of this post that you
clipped,
you mentioned 128 bps, and that has always been sort of a hinge point.
Below
128 kbps, music is often in trouble, and well above 128 kbps, music is
often
unhindered.

Mush that has nasty artifacts riding on it. In other words I find that I
cannot listen around MP3
nastiness because the music ISN'T still there.

Like I said, try bitrates higher than 128 kbps, try other coders.

While I
realize that it's possible for one to use a higher
bit-rate when one is ripping their own CDs, and at 320
kbps, MP3 doesn't sound all that bad, Apple is the
largest online music store in the world and they only
give one the option of 128 kbps.

Remember that the music business still nurtures hopes of selling you
physical media, even after you've downloaded the song. I see the choice
of
128 kbps as being a commercial strategy to foster further sales.

I always thought that
Sony's Mini-Disc compression scheme sounded much better
than MP3 and the downloads available on Sony's on-line
music store (now defunct) Sounded MUCH more listenable
than did the MP3s available from Apple and other on-line
music sources.

My recollection is that the basic historical MD format was based on a
much
higher basic bitrate that 128 kbps. Of course Sony cut that down a lot in
the later days. I believe that bit for bit, ATRAC can't hold a candle to
AAC
and really good MP3.

And, finally, I don't see what my tolerance for canned
music sins, whether they be analog or digital has to do
with my notion of "real music". Live music has none of
the drawbacks of recording and storage schemes past or
present.

However, there are as many different flavors of live music as there are
seats in the auditorium and on stage.


Yet we can always tell live from canned - from any of those seats. That's
why
live music played in real space is the one absolute reference in audio

Yes, some canned sounds much better than that from some seats, and from many
seats in some auditoriums.

[Steven Sullivan]

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

On Apr 9, 6:36 pm, Sonnova
wrote:
Except that it has never been proven that people with
normal hearing hear music all that differently. Anyway,
it doesn't really matter whether it sounds different to
each of us. The point is that the sound of real, live
music played in real space will always sound the same
way to YOU.

No, it doesn't. Live music sounds different to me, every
time I hear it. I've heard the same instrument played by
the same musician in five different halls. It never
sounds quite the same. But perhaps my hearing perception
is just more refined than most.

This is so true. I get to hear the same groups singing and playing the
same
groups in different rooms, and its a vastly different experience. In many
cases I get to move around while the groups are rehearsing and in some
cases
even while they are performing. There are plenty of differences.

I've also measured the transfer function from the center of a performance
space to various locations in that space, and of course they are all
different, and all highly non-flat.

Isn't it marvelous, therefore, that with all the variety the human brain is
rarely fooled into mistaking reproduced sound from live music.

Aside from the obvious bias-inducing factor -- oen already KNOWs that the music is not live --
there's the fact that (2-channel) reproduced music does not accurately reproduce the spatial
information of the live event... a long-known deficit of the medium.

However, it's also interesting that many recordings and systems considered 'excellent' by
audiophiles, actually render live music in much more minute detail and with more finely etched
'imaging' , than one would be able to hear in a concert hall.

Which raises the question of how 'real' people really want music to sound at home.

___
-S
maybe they wanna rock.
maybe they need to rock.
Maybe it's for the money? But That's none of our business..our business as fans is to rock
with them.

[Sonnova]

On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 20:29:31 -0700, bob wrote
(in article ):

On Apr 10, 8:45*pm, Sonnova wrote:
On Wed, 9 Apr 2008 20:36:24 -0700, bob wrote

No, it doesn't. Live music sounds different to me, every time I hear
it.

I knew someone was going to make JUST that pedantic comment. Of course it
sounds "different" every time, but it still sounds like the instrument or
the
set of instruments that it is. But does a sax not sound like a sax - every
time you hear one? A violin like a violin? A piano like a piano? Can you not
ALWAYS discern live music from canned? *I think anybody can. Music and
reproduction wouldn't mean very much if you couldn't make those
determinations. The fact that the venue changes some aspects of the sound
doesn't mean that a saxophone becomes something else. It's always a
saxophone
and its always recognizable as a sax and will be every time. Now, I'm not
discounting the possibility that a sax (or any other instrument) sounds
different to you than it might to me, but still, the sound that a saxophone
makes whether different for each of us or the same is stored in our aural
memory and when we hear one, we think "saxophone". Therefore the sound of a
live baritone sax, for instance, is an absolute because it always sounds
like
a sax to each of us, even though, if I could hear it as you hear it, not
having YOUR aural memory, I might think it sounds strange (and vice versa).
The point is that it sounds like a baritone sax to you and you are able to
identify that sound and tell whether its live or reproduced. *

Granted, the binary distinction live vs. recorded is (at least
usually) clear. But that isn't strong enough to make your point. You
want to be able to determine whether one recorded sound is closer to
live than another recorded sound. I don't think you can do that
without specifying *which* live sound you have in mind--a full Avery
Fisher, or an empty Alice Tully.

At least, you can't if you want to anchor your perception to some
objective reality. Which is why I think you don't really anchor your
perception to some objective reality at all. You develop a mental
construct of what a live performance (of the particular type you're
listening to) *ought* to sound like. And it's not at all clear that
this construct is fixed. You could have a different idea of what live
music sounds like each day. It's hard, then, to call that a
"standard."

bob

I disagree. I record live musicians playing in real space at least once a
week (and lately, as much as two and three times a week). I think I have a
fairly accurate mental picture about how live music sounds. Wednesday
evening, for instance, I recorded a large jazz band, Tonight it will be a
symphony orchestra, and Monday it will be a wind ensemble (concert band).
Later next week, I record a string quartet in concert in a big hall. I think
that this keeps my perspective on the sound of live music very fresh and as
accurate as aural memory allows. I know that it's really very easy for one's
prejudices to color that aural memory, but anybody who regularly attends
concerts of different types of music can mostly keep those prejudices at bay.

[Arny Krueger]

"Sonnova" wrote in message

On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 17:39:25 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

However, there are as many different flavors of live
music as there are seats in the auditorium and on stage.

Yet we can always tell live from canned - from any of
those seats. That's why live music played in real space
is the one absolute reference in audio

Except that that live music played in real space is not just one thing. It
is as many different things there are seats in the auditorium and on stage.

[Sonnova]

On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 14:47:16 -0700, Steven Sullivan wrote
(in article ):

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

On Apr 9, 6:36 pm, Sonnova
wrote:
Except that it has never been proven that people with
normal hearing hear music all that differently. Anyway,
it doesn't really matter whether it sounds different to
each of us. The point is that the sound of real, live
music played in real space will always sound the same
way to YOU.

No, it doesn't. Live music sounds different to me, every
time I hear it. I've heard the same instrument played by
the same musician in five different halls. It never
sounds quite the same. But perhaps my hearing perception
is just more refined than most.

This is so true. I get to hear the same groups singing and playing the
same
groups in different rooms, and its a vastly different experience. In many
cases I get to move around while the groups are rehearsing and in some
cases
even while they are performing. There are plenty of differences.

I've also measured the transfer function from the center of a performance
space to various locations in that space, and of course they are all
different, and all highly non-flat.

Isn't it marvelous, therefore, that with all the variety the human brain is
rarely fooled into mistaking reproduced sound from live music.

Aside from the obvious bias-inducing factor -- oen already KNOWs that the
music is not live --
there's the fact that (2-channel) reproduced music does not accurately
reproduce the spatial
information of the live event... a long-known deficit of the medium.

However, it's also interesting that many recordings and systems considered
'excellent' by
audiophiles, actually render live music in much more minute detail and with
more finely etched
'imaging' , than one would be able to hear in a concert hall.

Good point but kind of irrelevant. Whatever technical wizardly allows a
recording to have that marvelous soundstage or those minute details still
can't make a recorded trumpet sound like a real one. That's the basic flaw in
audio technology. That barrier between recorded and real has never been
breeched. I remember the Acoustic Research live vs recorded demonstrations
that they used to hold in their showroom on Broadway in NYC. I used to go
every time I was in New York (which was often in those days). I was rarely
fooled. Even though they used a small string ensemble (either a quartet or a
trio) and put a heavy scrim between the listeners and the players (and of
course the speakers). I think that they believed that the scrim would be the
great equalizer, but my 16 year-old ears could tell every time the group was
actually playing, though many who were there couldn't tell.

Which raises the question of how 'real' people really want music to sound at
home.

That's the supposed goal of High-Fidelity.

[Sonnova]

On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 14:45:35 -0700, Norman M. Schwartz wrote
(in article ):

"Sonnova" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 17:39:25 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Sonnova" wrote in message


But if you grew-up listening to tape and LP as I did, you
learn to listen around those obstacles because the music
is STILL there.


But too, if you _grew-up_ listening to tape and LP as I too did, you now
suffer age related hearing loss, (and/or loss from listening to years of
music (canned and/or live), so you are not at sensitive to tape hiss and
certain frequencies of LP surface noise.

Sorta. I grew up on a steady diet of acoustical music, and I was never
that
happy with the LP format. I did like tape, particularly half-track at 7
1/2
or 15 ips.

With MP3 and other lossy schemes, I find
that the music sounds like its been put in a blender and
reduced to mush.

Depends on the bitrate. In a earlier portion of this post that you
clipped,
you mentioned 128 bps, and that has always been sort of a hinge point.
Below
128 kbps, music is often in trouble, and well above 128 kbps, music is
often
unhindered.

Mush that has nasty artifacts riding on it. In other words I find that I
cannot listen around MP3
nastiness because the music ISN'T still there.

Like I said, try bitrates higher than 128 kbps, try other coders.

While I
realize that it's possible for one to use a higher
bit-rate when one is ripping their own CDs, and at 320
kbps, MP3 doesn't sound all that bad, Apple is the
largest online music store in the world and they only
give one the option of 128 kbps.

Remember that the music business still nurtures hopes of selling you
physical media, even after you've downloaded the song. I see the choice
of
128 kbps as being a commercial strategy to foster further sales.

I always thought that
Sony's Mini-Disc compression scheme sounded much better
than MP3 and the downloads available on Sony's on-line
music store (now defunct) Sounded MUCH more listenable
than did the MP3s available from Apple and other on-line
music sources.

My recollection is that the basic historical MD format was based on a
much
higher basic bitrate that 128 kbps. Of course Sony cut that down a lot in
the later days. I believe that bit for bit, ATRAC can't hold a candle to
AAC
and really good MP3.

And, finally, I don't see what my tolerance for canned
music sins, whether they be analog or digital has to do
with my notion of "real music". Live music has none of
the drawbacks of recording and storage schemes past or
present.

However, there are as many different flavors of live music as there are
seats in the auditorium and on stage.


Yet we can always tell live from canned - from any of those seats. That's
why
live music played in real space is the one absolute reference in audio

Yes, some canned sounds much better than that from some seats, and from many
seats in some auditoriums.


I've never experienced that. I've never heard an audio system that comes
within a country mile of sounding like real music - even when heard from the
worst seat in the house. Sure perspectives can be skewed by being in the
wrong seat, even certain frequencies attenuated or artificially boosted, but
still it's live music and it doesn't sound like canned no matter where one
sits.

[[email protected]]

On Apr 11, 2:44*pm, Jenn wrote:

I disagree. *Live acoustic music ALWAYS displays distinctive qualities
that separate it from any recorded sound. *

Yet my quite modest system occasionally fools me into believing that I
am hearing a live sound. Mostly on non musical signals from TV
programs, but every once in awhile I have been fooled by snippets of
music. The effect is often very striking and on one occasion I only
became convinced that the neigbors in the next townhouse were not
actually having a loud conversation in their back yard by turning down
the sound.

[Codifus]

Jenn wrote:
In article ,
Codifus wrote:


Steven Sullivan wrote:

Terry wrote:


I have several MP3's that I've downloaded and want to
copy them to my RX-505.
If analog is suppose to give a warmer better sound, wouldn't
it have to be analog to analog copy from a record
instead of digital to analog copy from a computer to get that warm
analog sound?


the 'warmth' of analog is distortion -- so you'd
have to make an LP of it first, or copy it to 1/2 inch tape
or run it through a tube amp.

___
-S
maybe they wanna rock.
maybe they need to rock.
Maybe it's for the money? But That's none of our business..our business as
fans is to rock
with them.

The 'warmth' of analog is distortion, not to mention limited dynamic
range, saturated high frequency response et al


It doesn't matter many people, myself included. Whatever makes a
recording sound the most like acoustic music is what floats my boat.
Please don't take my comment as saying that analog is un-listenable
compared to digital.

Some of my favorite digital recordings were recorded to my computer
from the turntable or cassette. If it's the best version of a recording
I have, I'll listen to it and enjoy it. Hiss, rumble and all.

I even have some double copies of recordings, a CD and vinyl version. If
I feel that the vinyl version still sounds better, I burn a CD of it and
retire the mass produced CD.

Heck, I even enjoy itunes AAC 128kbps recordings. They're not perfect,
but they're quite good.

Through all this I hope I have conveyed the message that I do believe
that digital is better than analog, but you do have to work at it, just
as with anything. It is no way near the "perfect sound forvever"
simplicity that the marketing guys used when CD was first introduced.

CD

[bob]

On Apr 12, 10:13*am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Sonnova" wrote in message

Yet we can always tell live from canned - from any of
those seats. That's why live music played in real space
is the one absolute reference in audio

Except that that *live music played in real space is not just one thing. It
is as many different things there are seats in the auditorium and on stage.

That's why calling it an "absolute reference" is nonsensical. It isn't
absolute.

It's really a subjective standard, based (let us hope) on objective
experiences. And being subjective, it is subject to a whole lot of
influences (including, ironically, our experiences of recorded
music!).

bob

[Sonnova]

On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 07:15:59 -0700, Codifus wrote
(in article ):

Jenn wrote:
In article ,
Codifus wrote:


Steven Sullivan wrote:

Terry wrote:


I have several MP3's that I've downloaded and want to
copy them to my RX-505.
If analog is suppose to give a warmer better sound, wouldn't
it have to be analog to analog copy from a record
instead of digital to analog copy from a computer to get that warm
analog sound?


the 'warmth' of analog is distortion -- so you'd
have to make an LP of it first, or copy it to 1/2 inch tape
or run it through a tube amp.

___
-S
maybe they wanna rock.
maybe they need to rock.
Maybe it's for the money? But That's none of our business..our business
as
fans is to rock
with them.

The 'warmth' of analog is distortion, not to mention limited dynamic
range, saturated high frequency response et al


It doesn't matter many people, myself included. Whatever makes a
recording sound the most like acoustic music is what floats my boat.
Please don't take my comment as saying that analog is un-listenable
compared to digital.

Some of my favorite digital recordings were recorded to my computer
from the turntable or cassette. If it's the best version of a recording
I have, I'll listen to it and enjoy it. Hiss, rumble and all.

I even have some double copies of recordings, a CD and vinyl version. If
I feel that the vinyl version still sounds better, I burn a CD of it and
retire the mass produced CD.

Mercury Living Presence. Antal Dorati and the Minneapolis Symphony:
Stravinsky's "Firebird". The Classic Records Reissue on single-sided 45RPM
12" , 180 gram Virgin vinyl Vs. the CD mastered by Wilma Cozert Fine (the
original producer). The Classic Records vinyl is the best sounding commercial
recording I think I've ever heard. The CD (and the SACD) of the same
performance are mediocre.

Heck, I even enjoy itunes AAC 128kbps recordings. They're not perfect,
but they're quite good.

Can't agree with you there. I think they are unlistenable. Of course, I
suspect that this result would depend on the kinds of music one listens to.
Rock and pop might be acceptable downloaded from iTunes Music Store at
128kbps, but classical and film scores are awful.

Through all this I hope I have conveyed the message that I do believe
that digital is better than analog, but you do have to work at it, just
as with anything. It is no way near the "perfect sound forvever"
simplicity that the marketing guys used when CD was first introduced.

I make digital recordings of a big-band jazz ensemble, a symphony orchestra
and a classical wind ensemble. I give those organizations Red Book CDs, that
is to say, 16-bit, 44KHz - I.E. nothing special. What is special is that the
CDs I make of these recordings are made straight. No after-the-fact EQ, no
compression, no limiting. Sometimes the orchestra plays so softly that one
cannot hear it without the playback gain cranked all the way up, at other
times, "normal listening setting" for the volume control will have the
neighbors calling the cops. That is a case where I'm using as much of the
96dB dynamic range of the CD medium as the recording needs (I record in
24-bit or 32-bit floating). The sound I'm getting is stupendous, really first
rate. I have no doubt that correctly made, modern digital recordings are
superior to the very best that analog has to offer - even at 16-bit, 44KHz
sampling rate. Having said that, I must follow it up with the opinion that
90% of all commercial releases - on any label are junk. They are compressed
and limited and do not represent the master recording in any appreciable way.
You want to hear what CD is really capable of? Pick up Michael Tilson Thomas
conducting the San Francisco Symphony recording of Mahler's First Symphony on
the SFS label. Its dual layer SACD/regular CD and even the regular CD layer
has dynamic range that one rarely if ever gets on commercial CD. If it
doesn't make the hairs on the back of your neck stand up, you're not really
an audiophile!

Like you said, digital is a better system of recording than is analog, but to
reap its rewards, you really have to work at it and do it RIGHT.

[Sonnova]

On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 07:13:09 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Sonnova" wrote in message

On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 17:39:25 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

However, there are as many different flavors of live
music as there are seats in the auditorium and on stage.

Yet we can always tell live from canned - from any of
those seats. That's why live music played in real space
is the one absolute reference in audio

Except that that live music played in real space is not just one thing. It
is as many different things there are seats in the auditorium and on stage.


It doesn't matter. In any of those different circumstances and situations, it
still sounds like real, live music and anybody can tell that it is.

[Sonnova]

On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 07:15:08 -0700, wrote
(in article ):

On Apr 11, 2:44*pm, Jenn wrote:

I disagree. *Live acoustic music ALWAYS displays distinctive qualities
that separate it from any recorded sound. *

Yet my quite modest system occasionally fools me into believing that I
am hearing a live sound. Mostly on non musical signals from TV
programs, but every once in awhile I have been fooled by snippets of
music. The effect is often very striking and on one occasion I only
became convinced that the neigbors in the next townhouse were not
actually having a loud conversation in their back yard by turning down
the sound.

Yeah, I think most of us have "glimpsed the muse" occasionally. Every now and
then, I mistake a phone ringing on TV for my own.