| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#1
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.
This is a continuation of a topic that has split off from another
thread. i thought it may benefit from having it's own thread. On that thread there have been assertions about inherent euphonic colorations of vinyl. "You haven't noticed 'the' superior quality, you've noticed a quality that you consider to sound superior. This could be the different mastering used for LPs compared to CDs, or it could be inherent sound qualities added by the vinyl medium and playback devices, or it could be both." Steven Sullivan "For live recordings, a 'clean' digital 2-channel recording will capture the original 'ambience' as well as the master tape did (which is to say, only moderately well, given the limits of 2-channel) -- but transcribing that to LP will actually ADD some spurious, if pleasing to some, 'ambience' of its own, via euphonic distortion inherent in vinyl playback." Steven Sullivan And those assertions have been challenged. "Please tell us how you know about this distortion that is "inherent" in LP playback. What playback equipment have you used to determine this? Please be specific: turntables, pickup arms, phono cartridges, phono preamplifiers. Because you claim this playback characteristic is "inherent," you must have experimented with more than one playback system. Did you conduct any measurements which document your claim? If so, please share. Have you mastered any LPs yourself, or participated in the LP mastering process, that further establishes the veracity of your claim? If so, are these recordings that we can purchase and listen to ourselves? I'd also be interested in what physical properties of LP playback result in this "inherent" result. Surely, you must have a theory or two. Or, as I suspect, is this claim simply opinion stated as fact?" C.Leeds OK.... My two cents. Inherent colorations: Yep, they do exist. Surface noise. If you have a source signal that excedes the dynamic range that the medium will allow (somewhere in the 75-80 db range) You will hear the surface noise during the quitest passages of the music. Surface noise does have some specific characteristics that gives it a distinctive sound which allows much lower level musical information to be heard through that noise. But it is fair to say in cases of extreme dynamic range from the source one cannot avoid audible surface noise. That is an 'inherent' coloration. Another alleged inherent coloration is channel cross talk. My cartridge, a Koetsu Rosewood Signature, has a measured channel separation of just over 30db. I don't know what the measured thresholds of audibility are for channel separation. I also don't know what the maximum channel separation achievable is in vinyl production and playback although I do know there are cartridges that have greater meausred channel separation than mine. I do know on my system with test records the effects of cross talk seem to be inaudible in as much as I can get a clean signal out of one channel without hearing any of the crosstalk from the other channel from the listening position. To the best of my knowledge the lowest measured wow,flutter and rumble found in vinyl playback fall under the thresholds of human hearing. So while these are inherent colorations they apparently are not audible in SOTA vinyl playback. Euphonic colorations: Yep, they do exist as well. I should know, I paid about 15K for them in my TT rig. I don't have any hard data to back up my assertion. My assertion is based on side by side blind comparisons between the TT rig I eventually bought (The Forsell Air Reference with the flywheel) (I eventually bought the same make and model not the same physical rig) and one that was famous for being SOTA in the elimination of TT rig colorations (the Rockport Sirius III). I am confident that they sounded substantially different. The differences were easily identifiable under blind conditions. Based on their designs I am fairly confident that the Rockport Sirius III was the less colored of the two rigs. I very much prefered the Forsell. IMO that is evidence of euphonic colorations present in the Forsell. Inherent euphomic colorations: I have listed the inherent colorations that I know of. I have seen claims that both colorations can be euphonic. I have not seen any contolled listening tests that support that assertion. Maybe in some form and in some proportion they can be euphonic.Maybe not. To date it seems like a theory at best given the lack of meaningful supporting evidence. It strikes me as a reasonable theory. But I think it is a fact that at certain levels and above, those colorations (we are talking levels well above the inherent limitations of the medium) those colorations become inarguably bad ones. It is entirely possible that like any spice, these colorations added in moderation with taste can be euphonic and like any spice when added in excess spoil the dish. |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
;836350]This is a continuation of a topic that has split off from another
thread. i thought it may benefit from having it's own thread. On that thread there have been assertions about inherent euphonic colorations of vinyl. snip Euphonic colorations: Yep, they do exist as well. I should know, I paid about 15K for them in my TT rig. I don't have any hard data to back up my assertion. My assertion is based on side by side blind comparisons between the TT rig I eventually bought (The Forsell Air Reference with the flywheel) (I eventually bought the same make and model not the same physical rig) and one that was famous for being SOTA in the elimination of TT rig colorations (the Rockport Sirius III). I am confident that they sounded substantially different. The differences were easily identifiable under blind conditions. Based on their designs I am fairly confident that the Rockport Sirius III was the less colored of the two rigs. I very much prefered the Forsell. IMO that is evidence of euphonic colorations present in the Forsell. QUOTE] You do indeed hit the nail on the head here, whether by intention or not. In forty years as an audiophile, I have never heard two vinyl rigs which sounded the same. I agree that the Rockport is one of the 'cleanest' I've ever heard, but the basic point is that they *all* sound different, hence they are *all* distorted - though there are of course common themes of treble splash, inner groove distortion, tracing distortion and surface noise, which are inherent to the medium. The Forsell also has an excellent reputation from a purely technical point of view, so a purchaser of the Sirius could fairly argue that his purchase had the euphonic distortions, this being a matter of taste rather than absolute superiority. OTOH, just to rhrow fuel on the flames, most decent CD players, even with widely different DAC technology and output circuitry, sound *identical* in blind testing, which suggests that they do *not* suffer from audible disortion. |
|
#3
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.
wrote in message
This is a continuation of a topic that has split off from another thread. i thought it may benefit from having it's own thread. On that thread there have been assertions about inherent euphonic colorations of vinyl. "You haven't noticed 'the' superior quality, you've noticed a quality that you consider to sound superior. This could be the different mastering used for LPs compared to CDs, or it could be inherent sound qualities added by the vinyl medium and playback devices, or it could be both." I'll vote for both. The fact of the matter is that just about everybody has abandoned vinyl but a few. The preference has to be based on the perception of a desired sound quality, not better sonic accuracy. "For live recordings, a 'clean' digital 2-channel recording will capture the original 'ambience' as well as the master tape did (which is to say, only moderately well, given the limits of 2-channel) -- but transcribing that to LP will actually ADD some spurious, if pleasing to some, 'ambience' of its own, via euphonic distortion inherent in vinyl playback." I do a ton of digital 2-channel live recording using a good-quality coincident pair. It works. And those assertions have been challenged. Of course! ;-) "Please tell us how you know about this distortion that is "inherent" in LP playback. Please compare http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/image...raph-large.gif Note that this graphic shows a 1 KHz tone, with the second harmonic about 20 dB down, which I call 10% second harmonic nonlinear distortion. 10% distortion is a lot of distortion by any standard. to: http://www.pcavtech.com/play-rec/rega-2/grado-SNR.gif Note that this graphic shows a 300 Hz tone, with the second and third harmonics each 40-45 dB down, which I call less than one percent second and third harmonic distortion. What playback equipment have you used to determine this? Looking at the two examples, it appears that we have quite a range of equipment. The PCAVTech equipment is obviously very humble - Turntable was a Rega Planar 2 with RB-100 Tone Arm. Test media was the HFN Test LP . Preamp was a Conrad Johnson CJ-2. The cartridge was either a Shure M44-7 or a Rega Silver. Kinda doesn't matter, their performance is not that dissimilar. The hometheaterhifi.com equipment a McIntosh MT10 Turntable with factory cartridge (made by Clearaudio), seems to be very elegant. It seems to have been set up with great care. Please be specific: turntables, pickup arms, phono cartridges, phono preamplifiers. Because you claim this playback characteristic is "inherent," you must have experimented with more than one playback system. Did you conduct any measurements which document your claim? I've done this kind of test many times over the decades, and the results I posted at http://www.pcavtech.com/play-rec/rega-2/index.htm are very typical of a wide range of equipment. I don't think I could get as good performance out of a $100 plastic USB turntable/arm/cartrdige, but maybe I'm saying that in a state of ignorace and negative prejudice. ;-) The real surprise is the seemingly poor performance posted at http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/image...raph-large.gif I call that really poor performance, and we don't even have a frequency response curve that actually involves playing vinyl. IME you don't get 7-10% THD by accident - that equipment had to be intentionally designed to perform that poorly. |
|
#4
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.
On Oct 22, 3:26*pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in message This is a continuation of a topic that has split off from another thread. i thought it may benefit from having it's own thread. On that thread there have been assertions about inherent euphonic colorations of vinyl. "You haven't noticed 'the' superior quality, you've noticed a quality that you consider to sound superior. This could be the different mastering used for LPs compared to CDs, or it could be inherent sound qualities added by the vinyl medium and playback devices, or it could be both." I'll vote for both. I think that is a reasonable "vote." I certainly would vote for the mastering. I have to say I am still on the fence on the inherent euphonic distortions. OTOH it seems you are not considering the possibility of euphonic distortions that are not neccessarily inherent in vinyl playback may be in play as well. I can vouch for those in my system. For whatever vouching is worth. The fact of the matter is that just about everybody has abandoned vinyl but a few. *The preference has to be based on the perception of a desired sound quality, not better sonic accuracy. I think this is a classic case of.... 6. Confusing association with causation This is similar to the post- hoc fallacy in that it assumes cause and effect for two variables simply because they are correlated, although the relationship here is not strictly that of one variable following the other in time. This fallacy is often used to give a statistical correlation a causal interpretation. For example, during the 1990s both religious attendance and illegal drug use have been on the rise. It would be a fallacy to conclude that therefore, religious attendance causes illegal drug use. It is also possible that drug use leads to an increase in religious attendance, or that both drug use and religious attendance are increased by a third variable, such as an increase in societal unrest. It is also possible that both variables are independent of one another, and it is mere coincidence that they are both increasing at the same time. A corollary to this is the invocation of this logical fallacy to argue that an association does not represent causation, rather it is more accurate to say that correlation does not necessarily mean causation, but it can. Also, multiple independent correlations can point reliably to a causation, and is a reasonable line of argument. http://www.theskepticsguide.org/logicalfallacies.asp "Please tell us how you know about this distortion that is "inherent" in LP playback. Please compare http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/image...8/vinyl-vs-cd-... Note that this graphic shows a 1 KHz tone, with the second harmonic about 20 dB down, which I call 10% second harmonic nonlinear distortion. *10% distortion is a lot of distortion by any standard. Looks to me like a 40db difference. Maybe I am reading it incorrectly. But more importantly, how do you differentiate the distortion that is inherent from the distortion that is unique to that particular rig and the test record? to: http://www.pcavtech.com/play-rec/rega-2/grado-SNR.gif Note that this graphic shows a 300 Hz tone, with the second and third harmonics each 40-45 dB down, which I call less than one percent *second and third harmonic distortion. OK. But again, how do you tell the difference between the inherent distortion in the medium and the distortion that is unique to your rig and the test record? *What playback equipment have you used to determine this? Looking at the two examples, it appears that we have quite a range of equipment. I don't agree at all. I would argue that neither rig would be found to be SOTA. If you are looking for the thresholds of the medium I think you have to start with a disc cut at one of the handful of state of the art mastering studios and you would have to use a Rockport Sirius III or the top model Continuum or maybe the top model Transrotor rig. One may have to use several such assults on the state of the art and sift out the common distortions. I suspect one would need measurements that are far more specific than levels of harmonic distortion. The PCAVTech equipment is obviously very humble - Turntable was a Rega Planar 2 with RB-100 Tone Arm. Test media was the HFN Test LP . Preamp was a Conrad Johnson CJ-2. The cartridge was *either a Shure M44-7 or a Rega Silver. Kinda doesn't matter, their performance is not that dissimilar. I think it matters tremendously. The hometheaterhifi.com equipment *a McIntosh MT10 Turntable with factory cartridge (made by Clearaudio), seems to be very elegant. It seems to have been set up with great care. I'm sure it was. Please be specific: turntables, pickup arms, phono cartridges, phono preamplifiers. Because you claim this playback characteristic is "inherent," you must have experimented with more than one playback system. Did you conduct any measurements which document your claim? I've done this kind of test many times over the decades, and the results I posted athttp://www.pcavtech.com/play-rec/rega-2/index.htm* are very typical of a wide range of equipment. I don't think I could get as good performance out of a $100 plastic USB turntable/arm/cartrdige, but maybe I'm saying that in a state of ignorace and negative prejudice. ;-) I think that is a possibility. If one really wants to get a handle on inherent colorations one has to be extremely careful to differentiate colorations that are inherent from those that are unique to the rig and test record. The real surprise is the seemingly poor performance posted athttp://www.hometheaterhifi.com/images/stories/april-2008/vinyl-vs-cd-... I call that really poor performance, and we don't even have a frequency response curve that actually involves playing vinyl. But aren't you making a qualitative judgement without even knowing what it sounds like? IME you don't get 7-10% THD by accident - that equipment had to be intentionally designed to perform that poorly. If that is the case then clearly we have something more than just "inherent" distortion present don't we? |
|
#5
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.
wrote in message
"Please tell us how you know about this distortion that is "inherent" in LP playback. Please compare http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/image...8/vinyl-vs-cd-... Note that this graphic shows a 1 KHz tone, with the second harmonic about 20 dB down, which I call 10% second harmonic nonlinear distortion. 10% distortion is a lot of distortion by any standard. As you point out, I was mislead by the author's commentary. The difference is just about exactly 40 dB, which is still very poor performance for a modern playback device. The accompanying text talks about 7-10% THD+N which mislead me. But more importantly, how do you differentiate the distortion that is inherent from the distortion that is unique to that particular rig and the test record? One presumes competence on the part of the person doing the test - that they used an adequate test record. to: http://www.pcavtech.com/play-rec/rega-2/grado-SNR.gif Note that this graphic shows a 300 Hz tone, with the second and third harmonics each 40-45 dB down, which I call less than one percent second and third harmonic distortion. OK. But again, how do you tell the difference between the inherent distortion in the medium and the distortion that is unique to your rig and the test record? I used a SOTA test record. My modest rig outperformed a highly-expensive rig. Actually, your point is well taken. The poor technical performance is partially due to the test record in the sense that as a rule, no test like this ever obtains significantly better results, because after all, this is LP playback. Note that while my test results are still signficantly better - almost 6 dB better, they are in the same rather pathetic range. What playback equipment have you used to determine this? Looking at the two examples, it appears that we have quite a range of equipment. I don't agree at all. I would argue that neither rig would be found to be SOTA. You've missed the point - the cheaper rig which most would agree is far less SOTA than the more expensive one, outperformed the more expensive rig by a signficant margin. If you are looking for the thresholds of the medium I think you have to start with a disc cut at one of the handful of state of the art mastering studios and you would have to use a Rockport Sirius III or the top model Continuum or maybe the top model Transrotor rig. Persons with such equipment are free to publish their results. They haven't, and that is because their results won't be signficantly better (i.e., 10 times better) than either of the above tests. The PCAVTech equipment is obviously very humble - Turntable was a Rega Planar 2 with RB-100 Tone Arm. Test media was the HFN Test LP . Preamp was a Conrad Johnson CJ-2. The cartridge was either a Shure M44-7 or a Rega Silver. Kinda doesn't matter, their performance is not that dissimilar. I think it matters tremendously. The hometheaterhifi.com equipment a McIntosh MT10 Turntable with factory cartridge (made by Clearaudio), seems to be very elegant. It seems to have been set up with great care. I'm sure it was. Please be specific: turntables, pickup arms, phono cartridges, phono preamplifiers. Because you claim this playback characteristic is "inherent," you must have experimented with more than one playback system. Did you conduct any measurements which document your claim? I've done this kind of test many times over the decades, and the results I posted athttp://www.pcavtech.com/play-rec/rega-2/index.htm are very typical of a wide range of equipment. I don't think I could get as good performance out of a $100 plastic USB turntable/arm/cartrdige, but maybe I'm saying that in a state of ignorace and negative prejudice. ;-) I think that is a possibility. If one really wants to get a handle on inherent colorations one has to be extremely careful to differentiate colorations that are inherent from those that are unique to the rig and test record. But, I've already show that a humble, apparently outdated rig can outperform a modern, far more apparently sophisticated expensive one. If you check the timing of the tests, my test predated the test of the expensive rig by about 7 years. The real surprise is the seemingly poor performance posted athttp://www.hometheaterhifi.com/images/stories/april-2008/vinyl-vs-cd-... I call that really poor performance, and we don't even have a frequency response curve that actually involves playing vinyl. But aren't you making a qualitative judgement without even knowing what it sounds like? We already know what both rigs sound like - they sound like vinyl, with audible tics, timbre changes both static and dynamic, pops, rumble, hiss, and distortion. |
|
#6
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.
Arny Krueger wrote:
We already know what both rigs sound like - they sound like vinyl, with audible tics, timbre changes both static and dynamic, pops, rumble, hiss, and distortion. As this lengthy thread has demonstrated, there have been no reliable primary sources shown here to substantiate that this is inherently what vinyl sounds like. It's just an oft-repeated canard. |
|
#7
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.
"C. Leeds" wrote in message
... Arny Krueger wrote: We already know what both rigs sound like - they sound like vinyl, with audible tics, timbre changes both static and dynamic, pops, rumble, hiss, and distortion. As this lengthy thread has demonstrated, there have been no reliable primary sources shown here to substantiate that this is inherently what vinyl sounds like. So all those JAES articles that Stephen cited are what, secondary sources? Where do they teach that sort of thinking as good academic research? Have you even looked at their abstracts? Do you know who their authors were? It's just an oft-repeated canard. It is all a trivially-demonstrable fact. I challenge you to post a digital transcription of a LP that contains no detectible evidence of *any* of the problems mentioned above. |
|
#8
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.
On Oct 23, 5:47�pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in message "Please tell us how you know about this distortion that is "inherent" in LP playback. Please compare http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/image...8/vinyl-vs-cd-... Note that this graphic shows a 1 KHz tone, with the second harmonic about 20 dB down, which I call 10% second harmonic nonlinear distortion. 10% �distortion is a lot of distortion by any standard. As you point out, I was mislead by the author's commentary. The difference is just about exactly 40 dB, which is still very poor performance for a modern playback device. The accompanying text talks about 7-10% THD+N which mislead me. �But more importantly, how do you differentiate the distortion that is inherent from the distortion that is unique to that particular rig and the test record? One presumes competence on the part of the person doing the test - that they used an adequate test record. I find that presumption to be unacceptable. One cannot draw such universal conclusions about the inherent colorations of the medium based on such a limited sampling. to: http://www.pcavtech.com/play-rec/rega-2/grado-SNR.gif Note that this graphic shows a 300 Hz tone, with the second and third harmonics each 40-45 dB down, which I call less than one percent second and third harmonic distortion. OK. But again, how do you tell the difference between the inherent distortion in the medium and the distortion that is unique to your rig and the test record? I used a SOTA test record. �My modest rig �outperformed a highly-expensive rig. I disagree. The test record you used was not cut on the latest most advanced cutting lathes and does not represent the state of the art of vinyl mastering. Actually, your point is well taken. The poor technical performance is partially due to the test record �in the sense that as a rule, no test like this ever obtains significantly better results, because after all, this is LP playback. This is a faulty logical argument. 18. Tautology A tautology is an argument that utilizes circular reasoning, which means that the conclusion is also its own premise. The structure of such arguments is A=B therefore A=B, although the premise and conclusion might be formulated differently so it is not immediately apparent as such. For example, saying that therapeutic touch works because it manipulates the life force is a tautology because the definition of therapeutic touch is the alleged manipulation (without touching) of the life force. Note that while my test results are still signficantly better - almost 6 dB better, �they are in the same rather pathetic range. It still tells us very little about what distortions are inherent in the technology and what distortions are unique to each device. It does tell us that one device clearly must have some distortion that is not inherent in the medium. We have no way of determining how much of that measured distortion is inherent in the medium and how much is added by the specific propperties of that rig and that test record. We simply can deduct that at least some of it is indeed added by that specific rig and/or that specific test record. This leaves us with your rig, The one with the lower measured distortion. One would have to presume that your rig and test record are both SOTA and free from any of the added distortion we can deduct is likely present in the other rig and test record to assume that these measurments are purely a measurement of only the inherent colorations of the medium. I think this would be a terribly irrational presumption with no foundation. This leaves us in the same situation we started. We don't know how much of the measured distortion in either test is inherent in the medium. You simply can't determine this just by these two examples. What playback equipment have you used to determine this? Looking at the two examples, it appears that we have quite a range of equipment. I don't agree at all. I would argue that neither rig would be found to be SOTA. You've missed the point - the cheaper �rig which most would agree is far less SOTA than the more expensive one, outperformed the more expensive rig by a signficant margin. My point is that one cannot deduct from these two sets of measurements what distortions are inherent in the medium. This was never about the subjective evaluation of additional distortions that are unique to each rig. That is an entirely different subject. If you are looking for the thresholds of the medium I think you have to start with a disc cut at one of the handful of state of the art mastering studios and you would have to use a Rockport Sirius III or the top model Continuum or maybe the top model Transrotor rig. Persons with such equipment are free to publish their results. They haven't, and that is because their results won't be signficantly better (i.e., 10 times better) than either of the above tests. This is a faulty argument. 12. Non-Sequitur In Latin this term translates to "doesn't follow". This refers to an argument in which the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises. In other words, a logical connection is implied where none exists. The PCAVTech equipment is obviously very humble - Turntable was a Rega Planar 2 with RB-100 Tone Arm. Test media was the HFN Test LP . Preamp was a Conrad Johnson CJ-2. The cartridge was either a Shure M44-7 or a Rega Silver. Kinda doesn't matter, their performance is not that dissimilar. I think it matters tremendously. The hometheaterhifi.com equipment a McIntosh MT10 Turntable with factory cartridge (made by Clearaudio), seems to be very elegant. It seems to have been set up with great care. I'm sure it was. Please be specific: turntables, pickup arms, phono cartridges, phono preamplifiers. Because you claim this playback characteristic is "inherent," you must have experimented with more than one playback system. Did you conduct any measurements which document your claim? I've done this kind of test many times over the decades, and the results I posted athttp://www.pcavtech.com/play-rec/rega-2/index.htmare very typical of a wide range of equipment. I don't think I could get as good performance out of a $100 plastic USB turntable/arm/cartrdige, but maybe I'm saying that in a state of ignorace and negative prejudice. ;-) I think that is a possibility. If one really wants to get a handle on inherent colorations one has to be extremely careful to differentiate colorations that are inherent from those that are unique to the rig and test record. But, I've already show that a humble, apparently outdated rig can outperform a modern, far more apparently sophisticated expensive one. � If you check the timing of the tests, my test predated the test of the expensive rig by about 7 years. It tells nothing about what measured distortions in your rig and your test record are inherent in the medium and what distortions are not inherent in the medium. The real surprise is the seemingly poor performance posted athttp://www.hometheaterhifi.com/images/stories/april-2008/vinyl-vs-cd-... I call that really poor performance, and we don't even have a frequency response curve that actually involves playing vinyl. But aren't you making a qualitative judgement without even knowing what it sounds like? We already know what both rigs sound like No we don't. You have some idea what one of them sounds like under sighted conditions with your personal sound system which makes your opinions limited in scope and subject to your biases. Neither one of us has even listened to the other rig. |
|
#9
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.
wrote in message
... On Oct 23, 5:47�pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote: wrote in message "Please tell us how you know about this distortion that is "inherent" in LP playback. Please compare http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/image...8/vinyl-vs-cd-... Note that this graphic shows a 1 KHz tone, with the second harmonic about 20 dB down, which I call 10% second harmonic nonlinear distortion. 10% �distortion is a lot of distortion by any standard. As you point out, I was mislead by the author's commentary. The difference is just about exactly 40 dB, which is still very poor performance for a modern playback device. The accompanying text talks about 7-10% THD+N which mislead me. �But more importantly, how do you differentiate the distortion that is inherent from the distortion that is unique to that particular rig and the test record? One presumes competence on the part of the person doing the test - that they used an adequate test record. I find that presumption to be unacceptable. I find flat, unjustified, unsupported dismissal of the work of a well-known technician to be unacceptable. One cannot draw such universal conclusions about the inherent colorations of the medium based on such a limited sampling. Scott, that would be proof positive that you haven't bothered to do your reading. You asked for the references, which makes you responsible for reviewing them before you dismiss them. to: http://www.pcavtech.com/play-rec/rega-2/grado-SNR.gif Note that this graphic shows a 300 Hz tone, with the second and third harmonics each 40-45 dB down, which I call less than one percent second and third harmonic distortion. OK. But again, how do you tell the difference between the inherent distortion in the medium and the distortion that is unique to your rig and the test record? I used a SOTA test record. �My modest rig �outperformed a highly-expensive rig. I disagree. The test record you used was not cut on the latest most advanced cutting lathes and does not represent the state of the art of vinyl mastering. Prove it. Actually, your point is well taken. The poor technical performance is partially due to the test record �in the sense that as a rule, no test like this ever obtains significantly better results, because after all, this is LP playback. This is a faulty logical argument. Only if one has not done his homework. 18. Tautology A tautology is an argument that utilizes circular reasoning, which means that the conclusion is also its own premise. It's only a tautology to people who are unfamiliar with the technical literature of LP technology. References to a goodly sample of that literature has been posted here in good bibliographical style. Pretending it doesn't exist would not appear to be a well-justified course of action. Note that while my test results are still signficantly better - almost 6 dB better. IOW, they are in the same rather pathetic range. It still tells us very little about what distortions are inherent in the technology and what distortions are unique to each device. The only people who know little about what distortions are inherent in the various aspects LP technology are those who have at this point intentionally ignored the supplied references to the technical literature of LP technology. The two samples of real-world performance at hand are representative of what the LP format does, and is consistent with a body of knowledge that is available to the general public and has been published over the past 40 years. Anybody who thinks they can obtain better performance from their LP playback systems need only invest in one or more test records and make effective use of a reasonably up-to-date PC or Mac. Thus, it is up to them to obtain reliable evidence that supports their beliefs or have their beliefs dismissed on the ground that they are unwilling to provide reasonable support for their beliefs. |
|
#10
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.
wrote in message ...
This is a continuation of a topic that has split off from another thread. i thought it may benefit from having it's own thread. On that thread there have been assertions about inherent euphonic colorations of vinyl. "You haven't noticed 'the' superior quality, you've noticed a quality that you consider to sound superior. This could be the different mastering used for LPs compared to CDs, or it could be inherent sound qualities added by the vinyl medium and playback devices, or it could be both." Steven Sullivan "For live recordings, a 'clean' digital 2-channel recording will capture the original 'ambience' as well as the master tape did (which is to say, only moderately well, given the limits of 2-channel) -- but transcribing that to LP will actually ADD some spurious, if pleasing to some, 'ambience' of its own, via euphonic distortion inherent in vinyl playback." Steven Sullivan And those assertions have been challenged. "Please tell us how you know about this distortion that is "inherent" in LP playback. What playback equipment have you used to determine this? Please be specific: turntables, pickup arms, phono cartridges, phono preamplifiers. Because you claim this playback characteristic is "inherent," you must have experimented with more than one playback system. Did you conduct any measurements which document your claim? If so, please share. Have you mastered any LPs yourself, or participated in the LP mastering process, that further establishes the veracity of your claim? If so, are these recordings that we can purchase and listen to ourselves? I'd also be interested in what physical properties of LP playback result in this "inherent" result. Surely, you must have a theory or two. Or, as I suspect, is this claim simply opinion stated as fact?" C.Leeds OK.... My two cents. Inherent colorations: Yep, they do exist. Surface noise. If you have a source signal that excedes the dynamic range that the medium will allow (somewhere in the 75-80 db range) You will hear the surface noise during the quitest passages of the music. Surface noise does have some specific characteristics that gives it a distinctive sound which allows much lower level musical information to be heard through that noise. But it is fair to say in cases of extreme dynamic range from the source one cannot avoid audible surface noise. That is an 'inherent' coloration. Another alleged inherent coloration is channel cross talk. My cartridge, a Koetsu Rosewood Signature, has a measured channel separation of just over 30db. I don't know what the measured thresholds of audibility are for channel separation. I also don't know what the maximum channel separation achievable is in vinyl production and playback although I do know there are cartridges that have greater meausred channel separation than mine. I do know on my system with test records the effects of cross talk seem to be inaudible in as much as I can get a clean signal out of one channel without hearing any of the crosstalk from the other channel from the listening position. To the best of my knowledge the lowest measured wow,flutter and rumble found in vinyl playback fall under the thresholds of human hearing. So while these are inherent colorations they apparently are not audible in SOTA vinyl playback. Euphonic colorations: Yep, they do exist as well. I should know, I paid about 15K for them in my TT rig. I don't have any hard data to back up my assertion. My assertion is based on side by side blind comparisons between the TT rig I eventually bought (The Forsell Air Reference with the flywheel) (I eventually bought the same make and model not the same physical rig) and one that was famous for being SOTA in the elimination of TT rig colorations (the Rockport Sirius III). I am confident that they sounded substantially different. The differences were easily identifiable under blind conditions. Based on their designs I am fairly confident that the Rockport Sirius III was the less colored of the two rigs. I very much prefered the Forsell. IMO that is evidence of euphonic colorations present in the Forsell. Inherent euphomic colorations: I have listed the inherent colorations that I know of. I have seen claims that both colorations can be euphonic. I have not seen any contolled listening tests that support that assertion. Maybe in some form and in some proportion they can be euphonic.Maybe not. To date it seems like a theory at best given the lack of meaningful supporting evidence. It strikes me as a reasonable theory. But I think it is a fact that at certain levels and above, those colorations (we are talking levels well above the inherent limitations of the medium) those colorations become inarguably bad ones. It is entirely possible that like any spice, these colorations added in moderation with taste can be euphonic and like any spice when added in excess spoil the dish. In addition to all the above, don't forget that all pick-up cartridge have harmonic distortions of the order of 2-3%, some higher, some perhaps a little lower. Considering that an analogue tape machine will also have 3% distortion (that's how peak level is defined, the 3% distortion point) and I have no idea how much distortion the cutter itself has, plus springback on the lacquer which leads to harmonic distortion, the total is considerable. That's another form of inherent coloration. S. -- http://audiopages.googlepages.com |
|
#11
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.
On Oct 22, 3:35�pm, "Serge Auckland"
wrote: In addition to all the above, don't forget that all pick-up cartridge have harmonic distortions of the order of 2-3%, some higher, some perhaps a little lower. Considering that an analogue tape machine will also have 3% distortion (that's how peak level is defined, the 3% distortion point) and I have no idea how much distortion the cutter itself has, plus springback on the lacquer which leads to harmonic distortion, the total is considerable. That's another form of inherent coloration. S. --http://audiopages.googlepages.com- Hide quoted text - A valid point. But how much of that harmonic distortion is audible? |
|
#12
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.
wrote in message ...
On Oct 22, 3:35�pm, "Serge Auckland" wrote: In addition to all the above, don't forget that all pick-up cartridge have harmonic distortions of the order of 2-3%, some higher, some perhaps a little lower. Considering that an analogue tape machine will also have 3% distortion (that's how peak level is defined, the 3% distortion point) and I have no idea how much distortion the cutter itself has, plus springback on the lacquer which leads to harmonic distortion, the total is considerable. That's another form of inherent coloration. S. --http://audiopages.googlepages.com- Hide quoted text - A valid point. But how much of that harmonic distortion is audible? It's hard to say as it depends on many factors. However, tests done on harmonic distortion that I recall reading many years ago indicated that 1% was the lower limit for audibility, but it depended on frequency and masking by other sounds. As I recall, that was the origin of the 0.1% distortion desiderata for amplifiers as it was 10x better than was likely to be audible, and could therefore be comfortably taken as being completely inaudible under all circumstances. Nothing in the intervening 50 years or so has made this invalid as far as I know. As to vinyl, I suppose one could cut a record from an unequalised digital master and similarly produce a CD and compare the two. However, the limited dynamic range that would result from having necessarily to cut from an unequalised master would not be a valid comparison with "real world" LPs. Practical LPs are cut from masters specially equalised and compressed to get the best subjective result from the limited medium. There is also a great deal of skill (art rather than science) on the part of the Cutting Engineer who will try and balance the conflicting requirements of noise against level, frequency response against level against distortion, level against playing time and pre-echo, level against playability by less sophisticated record players, managing stereo difference i.e stylus vertical movement, and possibly other things I haven't thought of. Can you imaging someone starting out today, with no knowledge of vinyl, and trying to invent a mechanical engraving system to reproduce Hi-Fi sound? I think anyone would conclude it's just not possible, and yet...... S. -- http://audiopages.googlepages.com |
|
#13
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.
On Oct 23, 8:21�am, "Serge Auckland"
wrote: wrote in ... On Oct 22, 3:35 pm, "Serge Auckland" wrote: In addition to all the above, don't forget that all pick-up cartridge have harmonic distortions of the order of 2-3%, some higher, some perhaps a little lower. Considering that an analogue tape machine will also have 3% distortion (that's how peak level is defined, the 3% distortion point) and I have no idea how much distortion the cutter itself has, plus springback on the lacquer which leads to harmonic distortion, the total is considerable. That's another form of inherent coloration. S. --http://audiopages.googlepages.com-Hide quoted text - A valid point. But how much of that harmonic distortion is audible? It's hard to say as it depends on many factors. However, tests done on harmonic distortion that I recall reading many years ago indicated that 1% was the lower limit for audibility, but it depended on frequency and masking by other sounds. As I recall, that was the origin of the 0.1% distortion desiderata for amplifiers as it was 10x better than was likely to be audible, and could therefore be comfortably taken as being completely inaudible under all circumstances. Nothing in the intervening 50 years or so has made this invalid as far as I know. So it stands to reason that this may actually be a source of euphonic distortion in vinyl playback. As to vinyl, I suppose one could cut a record from an unequalised digital master and similarly produce a CD and compare the two. However, the limited dynamic range that would result from having necessarily to cut from an unequalised master would not be a valid comparison with "real world" LPs. Actually James Boyk did something quite similar. He made a comparison pachage with his recording of Pictures at an Exhibition. He took the direct feed from the mic preamp and recorded it both in analog and hi rez digital. From the analog tapes he cut both a CD and an LP with xero signal proccessing other than the obvious RIAA EQ for the LP and A/D conversion for the CD. He included the digital recording on the CD for a comparison between the digital and analog recorders. Practical LPs are cut from masters specially equalised and compressed to get the best subjective result from the limited medium. I'm not sure what you mean by a "practical" LP. I can tell you though that I own a good many LPs that have not been compressed at all. OTOH unfortunately I own a good many CDs that have been compressed to death. It is a sad state of affairs in today's music industry. There is also a great deal of skill (art rather than science) on the part of the Cutting Engineer who will try and balance the conflicting requirements of noise against level, frequency response against level against distortion, level against playing time and pre-echo, level against playability by less sophisticated record players, managing stereo difference i.e stylus vertical movement, and possibly other things I haven't thought of. I can't argue with that. It is a job that takes tremendous skill to do well, so I am told. Can you imaging someone starting out today, with no knowledge of vinyl, and trying to invent a mechanical engraving system to reproduce Hi-Fi sound? I think anyone would conclude it's just not possible, and yet...... And yet... I remember back when I first got into CDs back in 84. It was the begining of my persuit of the hobby of high end audio. I thought the idea of dragging a rock over a piece of plastic to make a sound seemed pretty absurd in the face of this new digital technology. And yet.... to this day I am still for the most part getting my best sound from dragging a rock over a piece of plastic. |
|
#14
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.
"Serge Auckland" wrote in
message wrote in message ... A valid point. But how much of that harmonic distortion is audible? Harmonic distortion is not audible nor is it the intent that it be audible. Harmonic distortion is an abstract means that is commonly, but often erroneously used to characterize something that *IS* relevant, which is nonlinear distortion. The general rule is that nonlinear distortion that would produce 0.1% THD if you properly chose to characterize it that way, can cause reliably audible consequence. It's hard to say as it depends on many factors. However, tests done on harmonic distortion that I recall reading many years ago indicated that 1% was the lower limit for audibility, but it depended on frequency and masking by other sounds. The 1% rule is easy to debunk on the grounds that it can easily be too high. As I recall, that was the origin of the 0.1% distortion desiderata for amplifiers as it was 10x better than was likely to be audible, and could therefore be comfortably taken as being completely inaudible under all circumstances. Actually, if I get to pick the music, there is a high probability that nonlinear distortion of 0.1% in the 20-20 KHz range would likely be objectionable to you, even if you were listening to a good car radio at 70 mph. As to vinyl, I suppose one could cut a record from an unequalised digital master and similarly produce a CD and compare the two. Vinyl is so limited in terms of dynamic range that many if not most digital masters would require further processing if a good-sounding LP were the desired outcome. It is perfectly trivial to create a digital master that would damage most LP cutting equipment if not operated by an expert. The expert would start out by changing the master. Producing an acceptable LP from an unaltered digital master of ordinary music might be impossible. However, the limited dynamic range that would result from having necessarily to cut from an unequalised master would not be a valid comparison with "real world" LPs. Agreed. Practical LPs are cut from masters specially equalised and compressed to get the best subjective result from the limited medium. There is also a great deal of skill (art rather than science) on the part of the Cutting Engineer who will try and balance the conflicting requirements of noise against level, frequency response against level against distortion, level against playing time and pre-echo, level against playability by less sophisticated record players, managing stereo difference i.e stylus vertical movement, and possibly other things I haven't thought of. Agreed. If we want to compare the LP format to the CD format, we first have to bias the test to favor the LP. Obviously, unbiased comparisons of the two are impossible. |
|
#15
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
... Snipped As I recall, that was the origin of the 0.1% distortion desiderata for amplifiers as it was 10x better than was likely to be audible, and could therefore be comfortably taken as being completely inaudible under all circumstances. Actually, if I get to pick the music, there is a high probability that nonlinear distortion of 0.1% in the 20-20 KHz range would likely be objectionable to you, even if you were listening to a good car radio at 70 mph. This is interesting:- What music would have 0.1% distortion that's audible? That's 60dB down on peak, so I would be very surprised to be able to hear anything 60dB down on programme, especially when correlated to the programme. S. -- http://audiopages.googlepages.com |
|
#16
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.
On Oct 23, 5:47�pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
Vinyl is so limited in terms of dynamic range that many if not most digital masters would require further processing if a good-sounding LP were the desired outcome. It is perfectly trivial to create a digital master that would damage most LP cutting equipment if not operated by an expert. The expert would start out by changing the master. Producing an acceptable LP from an unaltered digital master of ordinary music might be impossible. To the best of my knowledge there are very few commercial recordings that have an excess of 75 db dynamic range. This is rarely an issue at all. |
|
#17
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.
I've begun to realise this week that one of the great attractions of
analog audio media was the very fact that they were inherently flawed (for all the many reasons discussed in other threads recently), and therefore there was always a market and opportunity for some new piece of hardware or technology to extract just that little extra bit of signal, with less colouration or less distortion or whatever. That, from a hobbyist's point of view, is really very attractive. There can never be perfection, but you can continually come up with new ideas and tricks to improve the reproduction, albeit with diminishing returns. The "problem" with digital is that once you have the signal digitised, the reading of that signal is always going to be perfect - you can't do anything to improve it. So it's a technically solvable problem which can no longer be tinkered with to improve. My commodity DVD drive in my laptop, or the drive in a 30 pound player from my local supermarket can read that digital stream from a CD perfectly. So what's the fun in that? And of course, from the expensive, high profit-margin hi-fi manufacturer's point of view, where's the market in that? Therein, I believe, lies one of the key reasons for the mythology of "analog sound" or "vinyl sound". Its reproduction can never be perfect but can always be improved. Similarly, technological progress has meant that the processing of the digital signal through a DAC chip has inevitably reached a point where it can barely be improved and is, to all intents and purposes, perfect, but now at a commodity price. I suspect the average DAC in the latest bottom of the range Dell laptop is now more than adequate for even a high-end system. Again, what's the fun in that? It's interesting that the only part in the audio playback chain that we're now left with where near perfection at low cost by cannot be reached by current commodity technology is the loudspeaker. I guess that's now the sole area where the "fun" element and hobbiest element of hi-fi now really resides, with people going to extraordinary lengths to achieve the perfect sound from their latest speaker design. Of course there's still the folks who will try to persuade the gullible that the digital domain can be still improved upon (witness the barmy green pens to paint the edge of your CDs with some years ago, and weights to stop physical vibrations affecting the digital stream), but I guess that what they're pandering to is a final hope that some element of hobbyist tinkering-about must surely be possible in the digital chain. So the fact is that my Mac Mini + USB hard drive + EMU USB DAC + Behringer power amp (total cost not very much, particularly since the Mac was surplus to requirements having been purchased for some other work project) arguably delivers a near perfect signal to my speakers (which I confess sadly let the side down somewhat!). Gone are the days when you need eye-wateringly expensive CD transports with special, separate power supplies, DACs, pre-amps and power amps (though you'd hardly guess that from the magazine articles and adverts). I'm happy - I'm getting the kind of sound I used to dream about, but for only a small amount of capital outlay, and I can enjoy the purpose of the exercise as far as I'm concerned - listening to music which is where I now spend my money. The hobbyist hi-fi enthusiast must look upon this as a bleak utilitarian desert - where's the fun in my system? I guess, from his point of view, very little.... --- Rob Tweed Company: M/Gateway Developments Ltd Registered in England: No 3220901 Registered Office: 58 Francis Road,Ashford, Kent TN23 7UR Web-site: http://www.mgateway.com |
|
#18
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.
On Nov 4, 5:40*am, Rob Tweed wrote:
I've begun to realise this week that one of the great attractions of analog audio media was the very fact that they were inherently flawed (for all the many reasons discussed in other threads recently), and therefore there was always a market and opportunity for some new piece of hardware or technology to extract just that little extra bit of signal, with less colouration or less distortion or whatever. *That, from a hobbyist's point of view, is really very attractive. *There can never be perfection, but you can continually come up with new ideas and tricks to improve the reproduction, albeit with diminishing returns. In general I agree with your post. except in one point. Did you notice how much difference new arm, cartridge, clamps, etc. make? If using it makes a noticeable difference (and I believe it is) then at least in one of cases (clamp/no clamp) we have an audibly distorted sound. And tomorrow new mat on the plate will make a noticeable change in a sound again. So where is "High Fidelity" in this? I think the real answer is that hi-end audiophiles redefined Hi-Fi as something that pleases their ears instead of closeness to the original signal recorded on the media. So they are tweaking their equipment to achieve Hi-FI in this sense. And analogue being fragile and inherently imperfect provides fertile ground for that kind of hobby. There is nothing wrong with that, as long as you know what you are doing. I will not go into sneak oil salesmen's exploits in this area, after all I support the right to be exploited :-) vlad The "problem" with digital is that once you have the signal digitised, the reading of that signal is always going to be perfect - you can't do anything to improve it. *So it's a technically solvable problem which can no longer be tinkered with to improve. *My commodity DVD drive in my laptop, or the drive in a 30 pound player from my local supermarket can read that digital stream from a CD perfectly. *So what's the fun in that? *And of course, from the expensive, high profit-margin hi-fi manufacturer's point of view, where's the market in that? Therein, I believe, lies one of the key reasons for the mythology of "analog sound" or "vinyl sound". *Its reproduction can never be perfect but can always be improved. Similarly, technological progress has meant that the processing of the digital signal through a DAC chip has inevitably reached a point where it can barely be improved and is, to all intents and purposes, perfect, but now at a commodity price. *I suspect the average DAC in the latest bottom of the range Dell laptop is now more than adequate for even a high-end system. *Again, what's the fun in that? It's interesting that the only part in the audio playback chain that we're now left with where near perfection at low cost by cannot be reached by current commodity technology is the loudspeaker. *I guess that's now the sole area where the "fun" element and hobbiest element of hi-fi now really resides, with people going to extraordinary lengths to achieve the perfect sound from their latest speaker design. Of course there's still the folks who will try to persuade the gullible that the digital domain can be still improved upon (witness the barmy green pens to paint the edge of your CDs with some years ago, and weights to stop physical vibrations affecting the digital stream), but I guess that what they're pandering to is a final hope that some element of hobbyist tinkering-about must surely be possible in the digital chain. So the fact is that my Mac Mini + USB hard drive + EMU USB DAC + Behringer power amp (total cost not very much, particularly since the Mac was surplus to requirements having been purchased for some other work project) arguably delivers a near perfect signal to my speakers (which I confess sadly let the side down somewhat!). *Gone are the days when you need eye-wateringly expensive CD transports with special, separate power supplies, DACs, pre-amps and power amps (though you'd hardly guess that from the magazine articles and adverts). I'm happy - I'm getting the kind of sound I used to dream about, but for only a small amount of capital outlay, and I can enjoy the purpose of the exercise as far as I'm concerned - listening to music which is where I now spend my money. The hobbyist hi-fi enthusiast must look upon this as a bleak utilitarian desert - where's the fun in my system? *I guess, from his point of view, very little.... --- Rob Tweed Company: M/Gateway Developments Ltd Registered in England: No 3220901 Registered Office: 58 Francis Road,Ashford, Kent TN23 7UR Web-site:http://www.mgateway.com |
|
#19
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.
On Nov 4, 8:03�am, vlad wrote:
On Nov 4, 5:40�am, Rob Tweed wrote: � � I think the real answer is that hi-end audiophiles redefined Hi-Fi as something that pleases their ears instead of closeness to the original signal recorded on the media. So they are tweaking their equipment to achieve Hi-FI in this sense. And analogue being fragile and inherently imperfect provides fertile ground for that kind of hobby. There is nothing wrong with that, as long as you know what you are doing. The original "signal" recorded on the media does not have an intrinsic sound of it's own. How do you use the "original signal" as any kind of *sonic* reference without setting up playback equipment as a part of that reference sound as well? You talk about audiophiles seeking sound that pleases their ears as though it were a bad choice. If hifi does not please the end users ears how is that ever good? I am going to go out on a limb and guess you have a philosophy that places a priority on alleged "accuracy" in each component in the chain of any playback system. My question is why should that be the priority for audiophiles IYO? |
|
#20
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.
wrote in message
... On Nov 4, 8:03�am, vlad wrote: On Nov 4, 5:40�am, Rob Tweed wrote: � � I think the real answer is that hi-end audiophiles redefined Hi-Fi as something that pleases their ears instead of closeness to the original signal recorded on the media. So they are tweaking their equipment to achieve Hi-FI in this sense. And analogue being fragile and inherently imperfect provides fertile ground for that kind of hobby. There is nothing wrong with that, as long as you know what you are doing. The original "signal" recorded on the media does not have an intrinsic sound of it's own. How do you use the "original signal" as any kind of *sonic* reference without setting up playback equipment as a part of that reference sound as well? You talk about audiophiles seeking sound that pleases their ears as though it were a bad choice. If hifi does not please the end users ears how is that ever good? I am going to go out on a limb and guess you have a philosophy that places a priority on alleged "accuracy" in each component in the chain of any playback system. My question is why should that be the priority for audiophiles IYO? My own priority certainly is accuracy over pleasure. The problem with a system that's nice to listen to but inaccurate, is that you're forever tweaking it, upgrading, sidegrading etc, in an attempt to make is sound even better. Once you have a system that's as accurate as you can get it, then you just stop the whole upgrade stuff and enjoy the music. Accurate doesn't even have to be expensive, as most commercial ordinary electronics is perfectly accurate, and accurate 'speakers have been made for years, and are available used for modest amounts. So, if you enjoy the whole hobby of tweaking, upgrading etc, then fine, but if you just want to enjoy the music, get an accurate system and call that it. S. |
|
#21
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.
On Tue, 4 Nov 2008 15:05:56 -0800, Serge Auckland wrote
(in article ): wrote in message ... On Nov 4, 8:03�am, vlad wrote: On Nov 4, 5:40�am, Rob Tweed wrote: � � I think the real answer is that hi-end audiophiles redefined Hi-Fi as something that pleases their ears instead of closeness to the original signal recorded on the media. So they are tweaking their equipment to achieve Hi-FI in this sense. And analogue being fragile and inherently imperfect provides fertile ground for that kind of hobby. There is nothing wrong with that, as long as you know what you are doing. The original "signal" recorded on the media does not have an intrinsic sound of it's own. How do you use the "original signal" as any kind of *sonic* reference without setting up playback equipment as a part of that reference sound as well? You talk about audiophiles seeking sound that pleases their ears as though it were a bad choice. If hifi does not please the end users ears how is that ever good? I am going to go out on a limb and guess you have a philosophy that places a priority on alleged "accuracy" in each component in the chain of any playback system. My question is why should that be the priority for audiophiles IYO? My own priority certainly is accuracy over pleasure. The problem with a system that's nice to listen to but inaccurate, is that you're forever tweaking it, upgrading, sidegrading etc, in an attempt to make is sound even better. Once you have a system that's as accurate as you can get it, then you just stop the whole upgrade stuff and enjoy the music. Accurate doesn't even have to be expensive, as most commercial ordinary electronics is perfectly accurate, and accurate 'speakers have been made for years, and are available used for modest amounts. So, if you enjoy the whole hobby of tweaking, upgrading etc, then fine, but if you just want to enjoy the music, get an accurate system and call that it. S. Accurate to what? That's my question. Most audiophiles use CD as a source, and CD players all sound the same and are as accurate as modern D/A converters can make them. Modern amplifying equipment has extremely low distortion and wide bandwidth making them, essentially transparent. Speakers are the only modern component that has any real affect on how the system sounds (and, of course, the room, but few of us have other than very limited control over that). Like I said in another post, if one listens to pop music, the only way that it will sound as the artists and producers intended is for you, the listener, to use the same make and model of speakers to listen to the playback as they used to make it to begin with. Otherwise, your system is NOT accurate. To that extent, ALL systems are inaccurate and all of us are buying systems that are ultimately, merely nice to listen to. If one thinks otherwise, it seems to me that he is deluding himself. |
|
#22
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.
"Serge Auckland" wrote in message
... wrote in message ... On Nov 4, 8:03�am, vlad wrote: On Nov 4, 5:40�am, Rob Tweed wrote: � � I think the real answer is that hi-end audiophiles redefined Hi-Fi as something that pleases their ears instead of closeness to the original signal recorded on the media. So they are tweaking their equipment to achieve Hi-FI in this sense. And analogue being fragile and inherently imperfect provides fertile ground for that kind of hobby. There is nothing wrong with that, as long as you know what you are doing. The original "signal" recorded on the media does not have an intrinsic sound of it's own. How do you use the "original signal" as any kind of *sonic* reference without setting up playback equipment as a part of that reference sound as well? You talk about audiophiles seeking sound that pleases their ears as though it were a bad choice. If hifi does not please the end users ears how is that ever good? I am going to go out on a limb and guess you have a philosophy that places a priority on alleged "accuracy" in each component in the chain of any playback system. My question is why should that be the priority for audiophiles IYO? My own priority certainly is accuracy over pleasure. The problem with a system that's nice to listen to but inaccurate, is that you're forever tweaking it, upgrading, sidegrading etc, in an attempt to make is sound even better. Once you have a system that's as accurate as you can get it, then you just stop the whole upgrade stuff and enjoy the music. Accurate doesn't even have to be expensive, as most commercial ordinary electronics is perfectly accurate, and accurate 'speakers have been made for years, and are available used for modest amounts. So, if you enjoy the whole hobby of tweaking, upgrading etc, then fine, but if you just want to enjoy the music, get an accurate system and call that it. That's not necessarily true, Scott. If the selection of equipment (that is not "accurate" in all respects) honors the music (in other word, whatever deviation it has serves to reinforce the illusion of live music, or helps foster an emotional "connection" to the music), then one can put together a system and live happily with it, without essential change, for 25 or 30 years. My own system meets that criteria, and having done recording and knowing the sound of acoustical music performed live in many different facilities, I was able to assemble a system that satisfied me musically. The urge to tweak and upgrade tends to come from people who think (or are told) there is something better, but don't have the inbred knowledge of live musical performance to know (without being told) that it sounds "musical" in the best sense of the word. |
|
#23
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.
On Nov 4, 3:05�pm, "Serge Auckland"
wrote: wrote in message ... On Nov 4, 8:03 am, vlad wrote: On Nov 4, 5:40 am, Rob Tweed wrote: I think the real answer is that hi-end audiophiles redefined Hi-Fi as something that pleases their ears instead of closeness to the original signal recorded on the media. So they are tweaking their equipment to achieve Hi-FI in this sense. And analogue being fragile and inherently imperfect provides fertile ground for that kind of hobby. There is nothing wrong with that, as long as you know what you are doing. The original "signal" recorded on the media does not have an intrinsic sound of it's own. How do you use the "original signal" as any kind of *sonic* reference without setting up playback equipment as a part of that reference sound as well? You talk about audiophiles seeking sound that pleases their ears as though it were a bad choice. If hifi does not please the end users ears how is that ever good? I am going to go out on a limb and guess you have a philosophy that places a priority on alleged "accuracy" in each component in the chain of any playback system. My question is why should that be the priority for audiophiles IYO? My own priority certainly is accuracy over pleasure. OK lets hold on to this thought. The problem with a system that's nice to listen to but inaccurate, is that you're forever tweaking it, upgrading, sidegrading etc, in an attempt to make is sound even better. Thta arguement fails IMO on two levels. 1. It really is a non sequitor argument. 2. How is any of what you describe a problem? You have audiophiles enjoying pleasent sound and then enjoying the persuit of even more pleasing sound and then enjoying the more pleasing sound even more than before etc etc etc. That sounds like the life of a very successful audiophile to me. How would any of that be a problem? Once you have a system that's as accurate as you can get it, then you just stop the whole upgrade stuff and enjoy the music. But one enjoys the music on a system that is sonically pleasing and one can always choose to stop where ever they are and continue to enjoy the plessing sounding music. OTOH you sort of shifted the accuracy thing here. Originally you said you would take accuracy over pleasure and yet you are now claiming accurate sound, whatever that may be, is pleasing. So if one is actually choosing accuracy over pleasure then you are not ending up with a more pleasing sound. Accurate doesn't even have to be expensive, as most commercial ordinary electronics is perfectly accurate, and accurate 'speakers have been made for years, and are available used for modest amounts. What do you mean by accurate here? Are you suggesting that for a modest price we can get playback that is indistinguishable from live music? Isn't that what truly "accurate" playback means? So, if you enjoy the whole hobby of tweaking, upgrading etc, then fine, but if you just want to enjoy the music, get an accurate system and call that it. How does a pleasing sounding system prevent us from enjoying the music? How does an "accurate" system insure of of enjoyment when, as you say, one may have to choose between "accurate" sound and "pleasing" sound? Why do you think listening to pleasing sound will lead to chronic upgrading while listening to accurate sound that will in some cases by something less than pleasing leave listeners sonically satisfied? It seems to me like you atr promoting an aesthetic sacrifice based on nonaesthetic principles. I think that would lead me to want to change things. |
|
#24
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.
|
|
#25
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.
On Tue, 4 Nov 2008 08:03:33 -0800, vlad wrote
(in article ): On Nov 4, 5:40*am, Rob Tweed wrote: I've begun to realise this week that one of the great attractions of analog audio media was the very fact that they were inherently flawed (for all the many reasons discussed in other threads recently), and therefore there was always a market and opportunity for some new piece of hardware or technology to extract just that little extra bit of signal, with less colouration or less distortion or whatever. *That, from a hobbyist's point of view, is really very attractive. *There can never be perfection, but you can continually come up with new ideas and tricks to improve the reproduction, albeit with diminishing returns. In general I agree with your post. except in one point. Did you notice how much difference new arm, cartridge, clamps, etc. make? If using it makes a noticeable difference (and I believe it is) then at least in one of cases (clamp/no clamp) we have an audibly distorted sound. And tomorrow new mat on the plate will make a noticeable change in a sound again. So where is "High Fidelity" in this? I think the real answer is that hi-end audiophiles redefined Hi-Fi as something that pleases their ears instead of closeness to the original signal recorded on the media. So they are tweaking their equipment to achieve Hi-FI in this sense. And analogue being fragile and inherently imperfect provides fertile ground for that kind of hobby. There is nothing wrong with that, as long as you know what you are doing. I will not go into sneak oil salesmen's exploits in this area, after all I support the right to be exploited :-) vlad What you say IS true to a certain extent. The term "High-Fidelity" means, simply, a high-degree of faithfulness to the original. This, in itself, is fairly vague, you must admit. Faithful to what? The original performance? What if the original performance exists only inside the recording electronics used to capture it (like it is with so much modern pop)? How do we know when our playback is being faithful to such a performance, unless, we were there at the mixing desk, listening to the final mix on the same make and model of loudspeakers that the producers and musicians were listening to at the time? Or does High-Fidelity refer to faithfulness to the electrical signal representing the performance? All we can do is buy equipment which is low distortion and hope for the best. Remember, whatever High-Fidelity actually means, its a to a degree. That degree is dictated by the states of the various arts and sciences involved. In the 1930's, RCA called their "Photophone" sound-on-film process 'High-Fidelity" but with an upper limit of about 7KHz and huge peak in the 2-4 KHz region, I doubt seriously if any of us would agree that it's high-fidelity anything. What it comes down to is that modern Hi-Fi is the purveyor or an illusion. The illusion is that of either being metaphorically transported to a live performance, or, having that live performance brought into our living room. Various industry pundits even argue over which of those is the most efficacious approach to High-Fidelity reproduction. So, you can't blame audiophiles, for finally, resorting to an attitude that says that High-Fidelity is what sounds good to them. And that attitude covers a multitude of different opinions. Most of us weren't at the original performance/recording session. Many recording sessions produce performances that don't even exist in real time or space. How are we to know, then, what constitutes a "...closeness to the original signal recorded on the media." when we don't know what that signal is representing in terms of the sound? |
|
#26
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.
On Nov 4, 3:10*pm, Sonnova wrote:
So, you can't blame audiophiles, for finally, resorting to an attitude that says that High-Fidelity is what sounds good to them. And that attitude covers a multitude of different opinions. Most of us weren't at the original performance/recording session. Many recording sessions produce performances that don't even exist in real time or space. How are we to know, then, what constitutes a "...closeness to the original signal recorded on the media." when we don't know what that signal is representing in terms of the sound? If you noticed I did not blame audiophiles for anything. If Hi-Fi means "whatever pleases me most" then may be we have to replace it with Mo-Pl "Most Pleasing". Then we will have as many Mo-Pl's as many hi-enders are there. BTW, is SOTA the collection of equipment that provides Hi-Fi or Mo-Pl? I think it is rather Mo-Pl. About "...closeness to the original signal". Yes, I don't know in most cases how original performance sounded live. However, I believe that it is a duty of recording engineer and mastering engineer after him to provide a recording that is as close as possible to original live sound. And if it is the case then I trust their judgment and prefer equipment that provide Hi-Fi in a sense of "...closeness to the original signal recorded on the media.". Did I make myself clear? vlad |
|
#27
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.
On Tue, 4 Nov 2008 17:07:23 -0800, vlad wrote
(in article ): On Nov 4, 3:10*pm, Sonnova wrote: So, you can't blame audiophiles, for finally, resorting to an attitude that says that High-Fidelity is what sounds good to them. And that attitude covers a multitude of different opinions. Most of us weren't at the original performance/recording session. Many recording sessions produce performances that don't even exist in real time or space. How are we to know, then, what constitutes a "...closeness to the original signal recorded on the media." when we don't know what that signal is representing in terms of the sound? If you noticed I did not blame audiophiles for anything. If Hi-Fi means "whatever pleases me most" then may be we have to replace it with Mo-Pl "Most Pleasing". Then we will have as many Mo-Pl's as many hi-enders are there. BTW, is SOTA the collection of equipment that provides Hi-Fi or Mo-Pl? I think it is rather Mo-Pl. The term High-Fidelity was coined soon after the introduction of electrical recording methods and stuck. Most people don't even use it any more, and many think that it means "mono". "Is that recording High-Fidelity or Stereo?" About "...closeness to the original signal". Yes, I don't know in most cases how original performance sounded live. However, I believe that it is a duty of recording engineer and mastering engineer after him to provide a recording that is as close as possible to original live sound. And if it is the case then I trust their judgment and prefer equipment that provide Hi-Fi in a sense of "...closeness to the original signal recorded on the media.". Did I make myself clear? Not really. Ultimately, your system reflects your idea of what music should sound like. Whether or not it does sound like that is fairly unimportant. What is important is that one try to make their system as neutral as possible. You do that by buying speakers that are fairly flat, and well extended at both ends. If the speakers present a reasonable facsimile of what real music sounds like to YOUR aural memory, that's about as much as you can hope for. Whether or not I (or anyone else) like your version of reality is irrelevant. vlad |
|
#28
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.
Rob Tweed wrote:
The "problem" with digital is that once you have the signal digitised, the reading of that signal is always going to be perfect - you can't do anything to improve it. So it's a technically solvable problem which can no longer be tinkered with to improve. Well, sort of. OF COURSE it can be tinkered with, I myself do extensive tinkering. First, you can play with the frequency response. One of the "euphonic colorations" of some phono cartridges is unflat frequency response. That can easily be faked, digitally. You can also play with the dynamic range of a recording, if you wish. You can decrease or increase it. In fact, I (not, admittedly, you, unless you ask me for a copy of my program) can volume compress it in a far better manner that the usual commercial process. And, in fact, for my iPod I do just that, since I wear it while walking outdoors in somewhat noisy areas. Doug McDonald |
|
#29
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.
On Tue, 4 Nov 2008 05:40:52 -0800, Rob Tweed wrote
(in article ): I've begun to realise this week that one of the great attractions of analog audio media was the very fact that they were inherently flawed (for all the many reasons discussed in other threads recently), and therefore there was always a market and opportunity for some new piece of hardware or technology to extract just that little extra bit of signal, with less colouration or less distortion or whatever. That, from a hobbyist's point of view, is really very attractive. There can never be perfection, but you can continually come up with new ideas and tricks to improve the reproduction, albeit with diminishing returns. The "problem" with digital is that once you have the signal digitised, the reading of that signal is always going to be perfect - you can't do anything to improve it. So it's a technically solvable problem which can no longer be tinkered with to improve. My commodity DVD drive in my laptop, or the drive in a 30 pound player from my local supermarket can read that digital stream from a CD perfectly. So what's the fun in that? And of course, from the expensive, high profit-margin hi-fi manufacturer's point of view, where's the market in that? Therein, I believe, lies one of the key reasons for the mythology of "analog sound" or "vinyl sound". Its reproduction can never be perfect but can always be improved. Similarly, technological progress has meant that the processing of the digital signal through a DAC chip has inevitably reached a point where it can barely be improved and is, to all intents and purposes, perfect, but now at a commodity price. I suspect the average DAC in the latest bottom of the range Dell laptop is now more than adequate for even a high-end system. Again, what's the fun in that? It's interesting that the only part in the audio playback chain that we're now left with where near perfection at low cost by cannot be reached by current commodity technology is the loudspeaker. I guess that's now the sole area where the "fun" element and hobbiest element of hi-fi now really resides, with people going to extraordinary lengths to achieve the perfect sound from their latest speaker design. Of course there's still the folks who will try to persuade the gullible that the digital domain can be still improved upon (witness the barmy green pens to paint the edge of your CDs with some years ago, and weights to stop physical vibrations affecting the digital stream), but I guess that what they're pandering to is a final hope that some element of hobbyist tinkering-about must surely be possible in the digital chain. So the fact is that my Mac Mini + USB hard drive + EMU USB DAC + Behringer power amp (total cost not very much, particularly since the Mac was surplus to requirements having been purchased for some other work project) arguably delivers a near perfect signal to my speakers (which I confess sadly let the side down somewhat!). Gone are the days when you need eye-wateringly expensive CD transports with special, separate power supplies, DACs, pre-amps and power amps (though you'd hardly guess that from the magazine articles and adverts). I'm happy - I'm getting the kind of sound I used to dream about, but for only a small amount of capital outlay, and I can enjoy the purpose of the exercise as far as I'm concerned - listening to music which is where I now spend my money. The hobbyist hi-fi enthusiast must look upon this as a bleak utilitarian desert - where's the fun in my system? I guess, from his point of view, very little.... --- Rob Tweed Company: M/Gateway Developments Ltd Registered in England: No 3220901 Registered Office: 58 Francis Road,Ashford, Kent TN23 7UR Web-site: http://www.mgateway.com After all of this falderol lately about CD vs Vinyl, I pulled out a bunch of my favorite LPs and played them over the weekend (Michell Gyrodec SE with the Orb Platter, Audioquest PT-8 arm - damped, Sumiko Blackbird, AR SP-11). I had forgotten (haven't played a record in about three years) how much shear sonic pleasure the best of them give! Much more satisfying than CD, I'm afraid. Can't explain it, but I LIKE what I'm hearing! |
|
#30
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.
"Rob Tweed" wrote in message
The "problem" with digital is that once you have the signal digitised, the reading of that signal is always going to be perfect - you can't do anything to improve it. Of course you can *improve* sound that has been digitized, in the same sense that anolog sound has been *improved* for years. Just put some standard signal processors into the signal path. *All* of the things that has been done to the LP format for past several decades havn't improved it technically. At best those changes have only changed how the LP sounded. In many cases not even that has happened. So it's a technically solvable problem which can no longer be tinkered with to improve. My commodity DVD drive in my laptop, or the drive in a 30 pound player from my local supermarket can read that digital stream from a CD perfectly. Well, close enough to fool the ear, in many cases. So what's the fun in that? But, that's not the only way to have fun. I really believe that if more audiophiles obtained effective equalizers and learned how to use them properly, there would be more happy campers. And of course, from the expensive, high profit-margin hi-fi manufacturer's point of view, where's the market in that? In fact most the high-profit-margin high end vinyl playback equipment manufacturers have been at best playing with the FR curve of their products. In many cases they have been selling placebos. Therein, I believe, lies one of the key reasons for the mythology of "analog sound" or "vinyl sound". Its reproduction can never be perfect but can always be improved. Well, in all of the cases swhere there actually was a significant change in the sound some new pieces of vinyl equipment, it was almost certainly obtained by making small changes in its frequency response. Nothing magic about that, nothing that people can't do for themselves at home. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Updated Vinyl Catalog-30,555 Vinyl Records FS | Marketplace | |||
| Canadian Vinyl Store-29,930 Vinyl Records FS | Marketplace | |||
| Euphonic versus accurate | High End Audio | |||
Hybrid Mode
