[Arny Krueger]

"Sonnova" wrote in message

On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 09:45:09 -0800,
wrote (in article ):

On Nov 11, 6:35�am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Sonnova" wrote in message



Most AAD or ADD CDs - I'm talking about those made from
two-channel, two track or three track analog master
tapes, do not image as well as do the LPs made from
these same masters.

Depends on how you define "good imaging".

If you define "good imaging" as delivering the
frequency, amplitude, and phase relationships on the
original master, then the CD wins hands down.

If you define "good" imaging as a peculiar combination
of modified frequency, amplitude, and phase
relationships, plus additional noises on the original
master that are customary for a tiny segment of the
population of music lovers, then the LP is *their*
favorite.

You are presenting a false dichotomy here in which
neither extreme bears any resemblance to the audible
phenomenon known as imaging. "Good imaging" is an aural
illusion of a life like soundspace or an aural illusion
of sounds emanating in a convincing fashion form places
in the listening room other than the speakers
themselves. neither of your options are in any way any
sort of definition of "good Imaging" much less any sort
of definition of imaging at all.

BTW, the paragraph above is an example of attempted falsification by
changing the question and confusing the means with the end.

My paragraph is about the technical means whereby good imaging is delivered
by a recorded medium. The response is about the subjective end results.
Since it does not address any of the points I made, the response is
completely irrelevant to my post. It's like arguing against a design for an
efficient car by presenting a treatise about the desirability of good fuel
economy.

FWIW I agree that Good imaging as a subjective outcome or result is indeed
an aural illusion of a life like soundspace or an aural illusion of sounds
emanating in a convincing fashion form places in the listening room other
than the speakers themselves. In fact, this is a truism.

I'm sure Arny has too much experience not to understand
that good imaging is the ability to pick-out individual
instruments from their proper location within a recorded
ensemble or, put another way, is an accurate reproduction
of the space that an ensemble occupies while being
recorded.

Exactly. This is all motherhood and apple pie. Good stuff, but not a very
interesting debate because in general people agree with it.


His belief that co-incident microphone
techniques are better than spaced mikes or multi-miking,
must be based, at least partially, on the ability of
co-incident techniques to do this better than spaced
mikes, and the total inability to get any real soundstage
info out of multi-miking.multi-track techniques.

Right, and the point is that coincident microphone techniques are about a
means to an end result, not the end result itself. Of all the ways that
microphones can be deployed, X/Y or M/S micing (they are different
implementations of the same basic idea) are among the simpler, more
effective and mathematically defensible way to produce a very predictable
pair of signals that can be translated into a good stereo image.

He is just extremely prejudiced against vinyl and finds
it an obsolete and unsatisfying medium not worthy of any
merit.

Again, we have a failure to communicate. Vinyl has great merit as a legacy
medium, and is still worthy of tangling with when it has entrapped some
great old music of the past. It is the claim that it is more effective in
any sense but sentimentality that is so easy to present evidence against.

Sometimes, he goes a bit overboard in his
criticism and tends to use hyperbole to make his point
strongly.

The real problem is audio mysticism. The idea that a thousand monkeys could
ever type the complete works of Shakespeare is no less credible than the
idea that superior sound quality or imaging could possibly result from
adding noise and distortion to music. Furthermore there is insufficient
similarity in the kinds of noise and distortion that vinyl adds, so that a
generalized performance advantage could be reasonably attributed to it.

[Steven Sullivan]

wrote:
On Nov 10, 1:18?pm, Steven Sullivan wrote:
wrote:
On Nov 9, 4:33???pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in message



He pointed out that
there was in fact even less processing in this reissue
project than there was in mastering the LP's. He noted,
too, that the new bit-stream technology had made it
possible to deal successfully with the hardest part of
the restorative effort - preserving the original hall
ambiance, by providing ''more of an analog treatment of
digital sound,'' without the ''empty spaces'' between the
notes or the absence of ''decay'' that many listeners
objected to in the digital process."

It is well known that those "empty spaces" are audiophile folklore. Sounds
to me like we have an audio engineer who is pandering to know-nothing
audiophiles.
No. He was addressing a serious concern of critical listeners. There
is a wealth of CDs that suffer from this problem. It is quite easy to
hear.

The 'solution' is called dither and noise shaping, and it has been pretty standard since the
time those CDs were released. Lip****'z and Vanderkooy's JAES papers on the uses of dither in
thhe audio chain were publisehd in the mid 80's. Since the late 80's there's been no reason
for the 'serious concern' you cite -- which is really audible quantization distortion of
recorded decays and tails -- to be an issue at all, if the mastering is competently done.

I am very skeptical that adding dither to a CD that has already failed
to capture hall sound or the complexity of the decay of the
instruments will somehow restore that which was lost.

It won't. The dither should be applied during A/D conversion (if 16bit), and also at any
conversion from higher to lower wordlength (e.g. if recording or production is done at 24bits,
and delivery is at 16).

The 'new thing' in Drake's transfers of the original masters was probably bitmapping -- i.e.,
noise-shaped dithering.



All of which makes it amusing how much first-issue CDs from the 80's are fetishized by certain
'audiophile' forums.

I hear the lack of hall ambience on far too many CDs.

That's a function of the recording, not the CD format. ?

It most certainly is not a function of these recordings. The Decca
classical recordings are famously outstanding. There is no lack of
hall sound or complexity of decay from the instruments on the LPs from
the early Decca masterings or the audiophile masterings from King
super Analog or Speakers Corner with these great recordings.

If hall ambience was actually well-captured by a 'live' analog recording, and
is absent on the CD, then the fault is in the *digital* recording -- that is,
the transfer of the analog source to digital. It is a poor transfer, not
indicative of what CD can do.

The decay
issue is also easily heard and identified. Once you notice it, it
becomes pretty obvious. One need look no further than the London/Decca
CDs from West Germany back in the 80s to find ?a multitude of gross
examples of this phenomenon. Those CDs were truly horrible. The lack
of hall sound and their failure to capture the complexity of the decay
of the instruments was painfully obvious. With the same recordings on
various incarnations of LPs the hall ambience and complex decays are
easily heard. Night and day difference really.

One would presume those would be recordings that didn't use dither. Which is to say, a bad
recording.

These recordings were analog. Adding dither would have been a very
strange choice. they are actually quite outstanding recordings. some
of the very best ever made IMO.

It would not at all have been a strange choice, for an good, low-noise analog recording
subjected to analog-to-digital transfer. It would have been *recommended*, as per Lip****z and
Vanderkooy. But that doesn't guarantee it was a choice taken, if the CDs are from the
early/mid 1980s.

If they were transfers of analog, tape, though the argument is less solid,
because at sufficient levels tape noise itself can 'dither' the transfer.

If you don't even know whether or not these recordings are digital or
analog how can you begin to comment on their quality? It would seem
your comments lack the basic foundation of actual familiarity to have
any value.

It doesn't matter whether I have heard the recordings or not, and if you
understood what dither (and noise-shaped dither) is for, you'd understand why.

Dither is the means by which low-level information is recovered from possible
quantization noise artifacts.

If you don't believe CDs can capture them, simply make a good digital recording at 16/44.1 of
one of your LPs that have these lovely reverb tails. You don't even need to dither in this
case; I would wager the LP is inherently noisy enough to make the recording effectively 'self
dithering'.

The problem arises when digitizing a truly low-noise source at 16 bits or less; there,
paradoxically, it helps to *add* noise (dither). The same holds true when going from 24 bits
to 16 bits.


As far as the issue of preserving the natural decay of notes, that is
ultimitely a dynamic range problem, and we've already settled the fact that
vinyl has less dynamic range than CD.

The problem is easy to hear. Just pick up any of those 80s London/
Deccas from West Germany and listen for yourself.

That wouldn't tell you anything, unless you had the 'better' version to compare it to.

I did. I thought I was very clear about that.

And that wouldn't tell you anything conclusive, unless only one variable was
changed.

It tells me quite conclusively that the claim that some CDs have
failed to do a good job of capturing hall sound and instrument decay
is not a myth as Arny asserted but a real world phenomenon. One that
is all too common unfortunately.

The 'myth' would be to construe a poor CD transfer as some sort of intrinsic
property of CD.

?They restored the original tape machines and the original mastering
console, that fed the A/D converter. That is the chain in it's
entirety. All vintage right up to the A/D converter.

complete with vintage tube distortion that wasn't on the master tapes!

It wasn't? Are you saying the tube gear distorts during playback but
not during recording? Have anything to support that assertion?

Tube gear distorts at both stages, of course. Playing back at tape recorded
with tube gear, on tubed playback gear, doesn't 'complement' the original
recording; it merely adds more distortion.




--
-S
I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can
seldom accept the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit
the falsity of conclusions which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have
woven, thread by thread, into the fabrics of their life -- Leo Tolstoy

[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message

On Nov 10, 1:18?pm, Steven Sullivan
wrote:

The 'solution' is called dither and noise shaping, and
it has been pretty standard since the time those CDs
were released. Lip****'z and Vanderkooy's JAES papers on
the uses of dither in thhe audio chain were publisehd in
the mid 80's. Since the late 80's there's been no reason
for the 'serious concern' you cite -- which is really
audible quantization distortion of recorded decays and
tails -- to be an issue at all, if the mastering is
competently done.

I am very skeptical that adding dither to a CD that has
already failed to capture hall sound or the complexity of
the decay of the instruments will somehow restore that
which was lost.

You should be, that's not what dither is for. Dither has *always* been part
of the digital recording process, and was part of the CD format during its
development and introduction. A digital recording without dither is like an
automobile without a transmission.

If you have some examples of adding
dither to these CDs after the fact actually acomplishing
this I'd be very keen to hear it in practice.

What you don't have is any proof or even reliable evidence that decay that
was present in the 3 track master tapes was somehow adversely affected by
being transcribed to the CD format.

BTW, its easy to show that the LP format overlays tonal decay with noise to
the point where hearing it is difficult or impossible as compared to a far
clearer reproduction from a CD.

I hear the lack of hall ambience on far too many CDs.

That's a function of the recording, not the CD format. ?

It most certainly is not a function of these recordings.
The Decca classical recordings are famously outstanding.

How about some evidence in place of all the hype?

You do realize that in addition to being a perceived sound, tonal decay is
clearly measurable, right? You do realize that the key to accurate
reproduction of tonal decay is good dynamic range, right?

Contrary to what some audiophiles seem to believe, musical characteristics
are not purely metaphysical, or perceptions that may be illusions, but real,
temporal, events that can be reliably measured quite easily!

[Arny Krueger]

"Sonnova" wrote in message


You didn't answer my comment about what dither in control
systems has to do with low-level ambience retrieval on
CDs.

In both cases the dither can effectively linearize something that is
basically a nonlinear system.

[Steven Sullivan]

Sonnova wrote:
On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 05:50:06 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Sonnova" wrote in message

On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 05:37:53 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"C. Leeds" wrote in message

Steven Sullivan wrote:

The interestings thing is the interests of the typical
audiophile, at least as envisioned by some, may
actually be at odds with progress in audio.

You can bet that people who design recording studios,
and concert halls, and loudspeakers, use
'measurementalist rituals' you are so dismissive of.

We are not discussing designers of recording studios,
concert halls and loudspeakers. We were clearly
discussing home audio playback, as shown by these
remarks by Arny Krueger:

We've seen many claims by anti-technologists that
introducing an equalizer into a sound system ruins it
because of its purported inherent distortion, and
ringing. We've seen explicitly claims that measuring
room acoustics is a kind of religious rite, performed
due to misplaced faith. If that is true, then all these
recording studios and concert halls must all sound like
crap, no? If virtually every modern and legacy recording
is/was made using a recording console and mastering
chain with extensive equalization facilities hard-wired
into the signal path, then all of these recordings have
been ruined, no?

No and bringing hyperbole into the picture does nothing
to clarify the subject nor to resolve the differences
between the various camps here on this issue.

There is no hyperbole in saying that equalizers, measurements, and other
so-called "Objectivist" and "Measurmentalist" activities figure
significantly in the design and operation of virtually every new music
and/or dramatic venue that has any significance. This includes almost all
high school auditoriums, for example.


The hyperbole comes from your strawman argument that equates home listeners
with professionals using the tools of their trades to do a proper job.

But home listeners can, and do, use versions of the tools of that trade, today.
This is not 'equating' them, it is merely acknowledging that EQ for home use has
come a very long way from the 'bad old days'.

or
that good concert halls cannot be built without these. I'm sure that the
designers of Carnegie Hall, Boston and Chicago's symphony halls. all of which
have been praised for generations for their acoustics, and all of which were
designed before these tools were even thought of, would disagree with you.

But you've chosen a few good halls -- one of which (Carnegie) has certainly undergone
renovation employing 'measurementalist' techniques, btw -- that ended up sounding good,
leaving out the many that didn't sound so good. Acoustics in signficant part developed as a
means to systematize and understand why particular halls end up sounding good -- the only
other alternative would be to simply try to copy ones that were found , empirically, to sound
good. No credible concert hall architect today would FAIL to consult the corpus of acoustic
knowledge and tools developed since those halls were first built. And down the line, we begin
also to understand how small rooms are different from big rooms...work ranging at least from
the BBCs in the 50s, up through Floyd Toole's texts today.

--

-S
I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can
seldom accept the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit
the falsity of conclusions which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have
woven, thread by thread, into the fabrics of their life -- Leo Tolstoy

[[email protected]]

On Nov 11, 3:28�pm, Sonnova wrote:
On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 05:39:14 -0800, wrote
(in article ):





On Nov 10, 3:39 pm, Sonnova wrote:
On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 05:37:38 -0800, wrote
(in article ):

and equalization in order to
read the signal to the max. The restoration of the equipment was not
without difficulty and took about six months. The Ampex machines are
special machines with three heads and three channels, with three head
amplifiers. They were built specifically by Ampex for Bob Fine."
http://www.soundfountain.com/amb/mercury.html
The entire chain of original equipment used to feed the cutting amps
of the original LPs was restored and used to feed the A/D converter
for the mastering of the CDs.

Which seem irrelevant to me. The signal that a cutting head of a disc
cutting
setup needs is far different from the signal that one would feed an A/D
converter.

What difference is needed other than level?

Plenty. Usually the "cutting master" was pre EQ'd �for vinyl. This meant that
high frequencies are generally boosted �(even before RIAA is applied) and
dynamics are tamed. I.E. low level passages are boosted and crescendos are
attenuated. Also, depending upon the kind cutting equipment used, the cutting
master might also have had it's signal run through a limiter. This is because
there is a spec for track-ability and few record companies wanted to produce
a record that only high-end playback equipment could negotiate (although
since the middle '60's, the mastering electronics contained their own signal
limiters as well as acceleration limiters). One of the early criticisms of CD
was that cutting masters were apparently often used to master early CDs.
Which explains why many people complained that they were harsh and strident
sounding. CD is flat in frequency response from below 10Hz to about 22KHz
with a 96dB dynamic range. They don't require any pre- processing as the CD
can accurately accept anything that the actual master tape, whether analog or
digital could throw at it. mastering a CD with a vinyl cutting master did the
CD and the music no favors at all.

Vinyl mastering required so many compromises, that it is a wonder that they
sound as good as they often do. Most people don't realize what a Rube
Goldberg device a record mastering setup is. The modern cutting head, for
instance, requires hundreds of watts to get the cutting stylus (usually ruby
or sapphire) to move at all, and then just a few more to burn it out.
Accelerating the cutting stylus too quickly on high-level transients could
snap it off of its shank, and even burn out the head. There is a maximum
velocity at which the stylus (which is heated) can cut through the "lacquer".
Exceed this and the stylus starts to skip, and again can break off. Groove
pitch is critical and excessive excursions can cut through the groove wall,
ruining the master. For this reason, cutters used two playback heads on the
cutting master analog tape deck (digital feeds used digital delay to achieve
the same goal). The upstream head looked at the amplitude of the "coming"
signal in advance of that signal being read by the tape head which will
actually feed the cutter. This pre-signal tells the variable-pitch lathe
assembly to decrease or increase the number of grooves per inch being cut.
This means that a loud bass drum whack would cause the space between grooves
to be widened so that the drum could be safely recorded without fear of it
cutting trough the adjacent groove walls. Cutting heads fail so often that
spares must be kept on hand and damaged ones are returned to the manufacturer
for refurbishing.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It is my understanding that Piros did not alter the signal in any such
way when he mastered the original LPs. I don't know whether or not his
console had a built in limiter or not. But according to Barry Diament,
a mastering engineer who worked with Piros, George Piros was not one
to use any compression when mastering. The Classics were definitely
mastered with no compression or use of any limiters.

[[email protected]]

On Nov 11, 6:11�pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in message







On Nov 10, 1:18?pm, Steven Sullivan
wrote:
The 'solution' is called dither and noise shaping, and
it has been pretty standard since the time those CDs
were released. Lip****'z and Vanderkooy's JAES papers on
the uses of dither in thhe audio chain were publisehd in
the mid 80's. Since the late 80's there's been no reason
for the 'serious concern' you cite -- which is really
audible quantization distortion of recorded decays and
tails -- to be an issue at all, if the mastering is
competently done.

I am very skeptical that adding dither to a CD that has
already failed to capture hall sound or the complexity of
the decay of the instruments will somehow restore that
which was lost.

You should be, that's not what dither is for. Dither has *always* been part
of the digital recording process, and was part of the CD format during its
development and introduction. A digital recording without dither is like an
automobile without a transmission.

If you have some examples of adding
dither to these CDs after the fact actually acomplishing
this I'd be very keen to hear it in practice.

What you don't have is any proof or even reliable evidence that decay that
was present in the 3 track master tapes was somehow adversely affected by
being transcribed to the CD format.

The proof is in the CDs. Just listen for yourself if you don;t believe
me.



BTW, its easy to show that the LP format overlays tonal decay with noise to
the point where hearing it is difficult or impossible as compared to a far
clearer reproduction from a CD.

I have LPs that when played back on my system simply prove that
assertion wrong. Maybe you need to upgrade your vinyl playback
equipment to hear it.



I hear the lack of hall ambience on far too many CDs.

That's a function of the recording, not the CD format. ?
It most certainly is not a function of these recordings.
The Decca classical recordings are famously outstanding.

How about some evidence in place of all the hype?

I don't feel any need to prove anything. If you really want to know go
out and get one of the CDs I am refering to. They can be found for a
few bucks at just about any place that sells used CDs. You can listen
for yourself.


You do realize that in addition to being a perceived sound, tonal decay is
clearly measurable, right? �You do realize that the key to accurate
reproduction of tonal decay is good dynamic range, right?

I figured as much.

[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message

On Nov 10, 3:35�pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
wrote in message







On Nov 9, 4:33 pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
wrote in message


He pointed out that
there was in fact even less processing in this reissue
project than there was in mastering the LP's. He
noted, too, that the new bit-stream technology had
made it possible to deal successfully with the
hardest part of the restorative effort - preserving
the original hall ambiance, by providing ''more of an
analog treatment of digital sound,'' without the
''empty spaces'' between the notes or the absence of
''decay'' that many listeners objected to in the
digital process."
It is well known that those "empty spaces" are
audiophile folklore. Sounds
to me like we have an audio engineer who is pandering
to know-nothing audiophiles.
No. He was addressing a serious concern of critical
listeners.
There is a wealth of CDs that suffer from this
problem.
It is quite easy to hear. I hear the lack of
hall ambience on far too many CDs.

Nahh, that's a lack of so-called euphonic noise and
distortion that you hear.

How do you know?

I have ears, too.

I also have a fairly extensive measurement facility. My ears and my gear
generally agree.

Have you actually listened to any of those CDs?

I'm sure I have.

Have you done any comparisons between those
CDs and the original master tapes?

I will do that as soon as you do some reliable unbiased comparisons of LPs
and the original master tapes.

I suspect your
assertion lacks the basic need of any actual familiarity
with the CDs in question to have any value. Please
correct me if I am wrong about your lack of familiarity
with the CDs in question.

Oh, they are unique magic CDs and have more dynamic range than any others
that I've heard?

I seriously doubt that, and so should any reasonable person.

This is a typical Usenet tactic only a certain product can possibly be
relevant, so if you don't happen to have it on hand, you've lost the
argument. The fundamental deception is the idea that only a certain CD will
have the desired characteristic.

�The decay issue is also easily heard and identified.
�Once you notice it, it becomes pretty obvious.

Interesting that the noise and distortion that is there,
isn't heard, and the empty spaces that aren't there, are
heard.

How do you know that the noise that is there is not being
heard?

Because it apparently doesn't bother you.

What do you base that assertion on?

You preference for noisy, audibly distorted media. The noise and distortion
has been documented based on reliable technical and listening tests.

I'm not sure
what you mean by "empty spaces that are not there."

Since you brought up the issue of "empty spaces", and that is the only
terminology that is in any way unique, I'll leave that up to you. I'm surely
not going to waste bandwidth by explaining what "not there" means.

I think that's one reason why bias controls are so
important - no matter what they say, people can be very
biased.

Of course they can.

But you see no need to effectively control bias in your own evaluations.
Isn't that "lip service".

Perhaps you can cite the bias
controlled listen tests that support your assertions that
the existence of some CDs that do a poor job of
portraying Hall sound and the natural decay of
instruments are a myth?

You've defined the problem so vaguely that any response I make can be argued
with.

However, any test involving the proper use of test equipment has a great
deal of inherent bias control. Meter's don't "know" whether they are
measuring vinyl or CDs. They just tell it like it is. It is quite clear
from measurements that it takes more dynamic range than the LP format has in
order to accurately reproduce natural decay that is easily cleanly
reproduced by CDs.


One need look no further than the
London/Decca CDs from West Germany back in the 80s to
find �a multitude of gross examples of this
phenomenon.

That was almost 30 years ago! I tend to look at the
present and the future.

So how are you enjoying those future recordings that you
are not listening to yet? All kidding aside. Your
assertion was that the existence of CDs that have failed
to do a good job of capturing hall sound and natural
decay of the instruments was a myth.

Since you are unable to provide any unbiased information to support your
claim, you are going nowhere. In fact it's quite easy to do this analysis,
and I do it all the time. I've done it with CDs that have natural decay to
levels that are almost 20 dB below the typical noise floor of LPs. At that
point, the CD still puts the noise floor 10 dB below the natural decay.

I merely pointed out
the actual existence a large group of such CDs that I
happened to have had some experience with.

But your so-called experiences lack credibility - they are not based on
bias-controlled tests, or technical measurements. That's typical of urban
legends - the people who promote them have no reliable evidence, just
highly-biased anecdotes.

Their existence does not fade into mythical status just because
they are twenty years old.

No reliable evidence has been provided. Loss of natural decay is a
measurable effect, and no measurements of it have ever been presented. In
fact, when I've gone looking for it, its like talking to plants - the
effects go away faster, the more effectively you look for them.

On a broader note, I don't understand your dismissive
attitude towards our great legacy of recorded music.

That would be a figment of someone's imagination. The music is great, and
much of it is well-transcribed to CDs.

For me that great legacy is the primary reason to be an
audiophile.

I thought that it was fiddling with obsolete technology that was your reason
to be an audiophile. It is a fact that playing LPs slowly destroys them, and
that the only responsible thing to do is to transcribe them to digital ASAP.
How many of your LPs have you transcribed to digital so far?

I have always been an audiophile because I
want to hear my favorite recordings of all time at their best.

Then why are you so irresponsible about destroying them by playing them
again and again so destructively?


Those CDs were truly horrible.

OK, so you don't like how they were mastered.

I don't like how they sound. I don't know how they were
mastered. I don't presume to know things I don't know
much less form an opinion about them.

I'm not buying it. I hear a lot of misapprehensions and fixation on folk
legends about digital. I hear of valuable LP recordings being gratuitously
destroyed by unnecessary playing.

[[email protected]]

On Nov 11, 3:25�pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in message







On Nov 10, 3:39 pm, Sonnova
wrote:
On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 05:37:38 -0800,
wrote (in article ):
and equalization in order to
read the signal to the max. The restoration of the
equipment was not without difficulty and took about six
months. The Ampex machines are special machines with
three heads and three channels, with three head
amplifiers. They were built specifically by Ampex for
Bob Fine."
http://www.soundfountain.com/amb/mercury.html
The entire chain of original equipment used to feed the
cutting amps of the original LPs was restored and used
to feed the A/D converter for the mastering of the CDs.
Which seem irrelevant to me. The signal that a cutting
head of a disc cutting setup needs is far different from
the signal that one would feed an A/D converter.
What difference is needed other than level?

Well, thanks for admitting that you don't know what it is.

You miss understood the intention of my question. It was meant to
point out that there was in fact no needed differences for the purpose
of cutting any of the Mercury LPs other than level.

This is pretty
peculiar given how many times it has been described on RAHE and elsewhere.
One more time:

The answer is that a signal that one would feed to an A/D converter, and
then to a CD recorder lacks any inherent need for additional processing. A
CD recorder can handle any audio signal that is matched to the recorder's
input sensitivity.

Unlike a CD recorder, a cutting lathe *CANNOT* handle just any signal. The
cutter's power bandwidth capabilities are limited by heating of the cutter
head at high frequencies, and mechanical limits (the cutter penetrates [yes,
cuts a hole!] the lacquer or jumps into the air, or makes incursions on
adjacent grooves or causes pre-echo). Furthermore, cutters can cut grooves
that can't be tracked by any cartridge or cheap cartridges, because they
imply impossible accelerations, or run into the "pinch effect".- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That simply is not the case with the Mercury Living Presence
recordings. They have already been cut on LP without any processing of
the signal.

[Sonnova]

On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 18:11:41 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Sonnova" wrote in message

On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 09:45:09 -0800,
wrote (in article ):

On Nov 11, 6:35�am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Sonnova" wrote in message



Most AAD or ADD CDs - I'm talking about those made from
two-channel, two track or three track analog master
tapes, do not image as well as do the LPs made from
these same masters.

Depends on how you define "good imaging".

If you define "good imaging" as delivering the
frequency, amplitude, and phase relationships on the
original master, then the CD wins hands down.

If you define "good" imaging as a peculiar combination
of modified frequency, amplitude, and phase
relationships, plus additional noises on the original
master that are customary for a tiny segment of the
population of music lovers, then the LP is *their*
favorite.

You are presenting a false dichotomy here in which
neither extreme bears any resemblance to the audible
phenomenon known as imaging. "Good imaging" is an aural
illusion of a life like soundspace or an aural illusion
of sounds emanating in a convincing fashion form places
in the listening room other than the speakers
themselves. neither of your options are in any way any
sort of definition of "good Imaging" much less any sort
of definition of imaging at all.

BTW, the paragraph above is an example of attempted falsification by
changing the question and confusing the means with the end.

My paragraph is about the technical means whereby good imaging is delivered
by a recorded medium. The response is about the subjective end results.
Since it does not address any of the points I made, the response is
completely irrelevant to my post. It's like arguing against a design for an
efficient car by presenting a treatise about the desirability of good fuel
economy.

FWIW I agree that Good imaging as a subjective outcome or result is indeed
an aural illusion of a life like soundspace or an aural illusion of sounds
emanating in a convincing fashion form places in the listening room other
than the speakers themselves. In fact, this is a truism.

I'm sure Arny has too much experience not to understand
that good imaging is the ability to pick-out individual
instruments from their proper location within a recorded
ensemble or, put another way, is an accurate reproduction
of the space that an ensemble occupies while being
recorded.

Exactly. This is all motherhood and apple pie. Good stuff, but not a very
interesting debate because in general people agree with it.


His belief that co-incident microphone
techniques are better than spaced mikes or multi-miking,
must be based, at least partially, on the ability of
co-incident techniques to do this better than spaced
mikes, and the total inability to get any real soundstage
info out of multi-miking.multi-track techniques.

Right, and the point is that coincident microphone techniques are about a
means to an end result, not the end result itself. Of all the ways that
microphones can be deployed, X/Y or M/S micing (they are different
implementations of the same basic idea) are among the simpler, more
effective and mathematically defensible way to produce a very predictable
pair of signals that can be translated into a good stereo image.

Agreed 100%.

[Sonnova]

On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 20:12:05 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Sonnova" wrote in message


You didn't answer my comment about what dither in control
systems has to do with low-level ambience retrieval on
CDs.

In both cases the dither can effectively linearize something that is
basically a nonlinear system.


OK.

[Sonnova]

On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 18:11:49 -0800, Steven Sullivan wrote
(in article ):

wrote:
On Nov 10, 1:18?pm, Steven Sullivan wrote:
wrote:
On Nov 9, 4:33???pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in message



He pointed out that
there was in fact even less processing in this reissue
project than there was in mastering the LP's. He noted,
too, that the new bit-stream technology had made it
possible to deal successfully with the hardest part of
the restorative effort - preserving the original hall
ambiance, by providing ''more of an analog treatment of
digital sound,'' without the ''empty spaces'' between the
notes or the absence of ''decay'' that many listeners
objected to in the digital process."

It is well known that those "empty spaces" are audiophile folklore.
Sounds
to me like we have an audio engineer who is pandering to know-nothing
audiophiles.
No. He was addressing a serious concern of critical listeners. There
is a wealth of CDs that suffer from this problem. It is quite easy to
hear.

The 'solution' is called dither and noise shaping, and it has been pretty
standard since the
time those CDs were released. Lip****'z and Vanderkooy's JAES papers on
the uses of dither in
thhe audio chain were publisehd in the mid 80's. Since the late 80's
there's been no reason
for the 'serious concern' you cite -- which is really audible quantization
distortion of
recorded decays and tails -- to be an issue at all, if the mastering is
competently done.

I am very skeptical that adding dither to a CD that has already failed
to capture hall sound or the complexity of the decay of the
instruments will somehow restore that which was lost.

It won't. The dither should be applied during A/D conversion (if 16bit), and

also at any
conversion from higher to lower wordlength (e.g. if recording or production
is done at 24bits,
and delivery is at 16).

The 'new thing' in Drake's transfers of the original masters was probably
bitmapping -- i.e.,
noise-shaped dithering.



All of which makes it amusing how much first-issue CDs from the 80's are
fetishized by certain
'audiophile' forums.

I hear the lack of hall ambience on far too many CDs.

That's a function of the recording, not the CD format. ?

It most certainly is not a function of these recordings. The Decca
classical recordings are famously outstanding. There is no lack of
hall sound or complexity of decay from the instruments on the LPs from
the early Decca masterings or the audiophile masterings from King
super Analog or Speakers Corner with these great recordings.

If hall ambience was actually well-captured by a 'live' analog recording, and
is absent on the CD, then the fault is in the *digital* recording -- that is,
the transfer of the analog source to digital. It is a poor transfer, not
indicative of what CD can do.

I agree. I've made some outsanding digital recordings with great llow-level
detail and hall ambience.

The decay
issue is also easily heard and identified. Once you notice it, it
becomes pretty obvious. One need look no further than the London/Decca
CDs from West Germany back in the 80s to find ?a multitude of gross
examples of this phenomenon. Those CDs were truly horrible. The lack
of hall sound and their failure to capture the complexity of the decay
of the instruments was painfully obvious. With the same recordings on
various incarnations of LPs the hall ambience and complex decays are
easily heard. Night and day difference really.

One would presume those would be recordings that didn't use dither. Which
is to say, a bad
recording.

These recordings were analog. Adding dither would have been a very
strange choice. they are actually quite outstanding recordings. some
of the very best ever made IMO.

It would not at all have been a strange choice, for an good, low-noise analog

recording
subjected to analog-to-digital transfer. It would have been *recommended*, as

per Lip****z and
Vanderkooy. But that doesn't guarantee it was a choice taken, if the CDs are
from the
early/mid 1980s.

If they were transfers of analog, tape, though the argument is less solid,
because at sufficient levels tape noise itself can 'dither' the transfer.

If you don't even know whether or not these recordings are digital or
analog how can you begin to comment on their quality? It would seem
your comments lack the basic foundation of actual familiarity to have
any value.

It doesn't matter whether I have heard the recordings or not, and if you
understood what dither (and noise-shaped dither) is for, you'd understand
why.

Dither is the means by which low-level information is recovered from possible
quantization noise artifacts.

If you don't believe CDs can capture them, simply make a good digital
recording at 16/44.1 of
one of your LPs that have these lovely reverb tails. You don't even need to
dither in this
case; I would wager the LP is inherently noisy enough to make the recording
effectively 'self
dithering'.

The problem arises when digitizing a truly low-noise source at 16 bits or
less; there,
paradoxically, it helps to *add* noise (dither). The same holds true when
going from 24 bits
to 16 bits.


As far as the issue of preserving the natural decay of notes, that is
ultimitely a dynamic range problem, and we've already settled the fact
that
vinyl has less dynamic range than CD.

The problem is easy to hear. Just pick up any of those 80s London/
Deccas from West Germany and listen for yourself.

That wouldn't tell you anything, unless you had the 'better' version to
compare it to.

I did. I thought I was very clear about that.

And that wouldn't tell you anything conclusive, unless only one variable
was
changed.

It tells me quite conclusively that the claim that some CDs have
failed to do a good job of capturing hall sound and instrument decay
is not a myth as Arny asserted but a real world phenomenon. One that
is all too common unfortunately.

The 'myth' would be to construe a poor CD transfer as some sort of intrinsic
property of CD.

?They restored the original tape machines and the original mastering
console, that fed the A/D converter. That is the chain in it's
entirety. All vintage right up to the A/D converter.

complete with vintage tube distortion that wasn't on the master tapes!

It wasn't? Are you saying the tube gear distorts during playback but
not during recording? Have anything to support that assertion?

Tube gear distorts at both stages, of course. Playing back at tape recorded
with tube gear, on tubed playback gear, doesn't 'complement' the original
recording; it merely adds more distortion.

Tube gear is capable of being every bit as low in distortion as is transistor
gear. When biased on the linear portion of the transfer curve, tube amplifier
circuits with very low distortion (0.001% or less) are easily possible. What
was difficult back in the day was to get circuits (of any kind) that were
quiet. The carbon composite resistors used in tube gear back in the 50's and
60's had a lot of thermal noise that was not abel to be overcome until the
advent of metal film resistors. Today's properly designed tube gear is quiet
(although probably not as ultimately quite as is possible with solid-state,
It's certainly close enough for all but the most demanding applications -
such as phono preamps for low-out-put moving coil cartridges) and as
distortion free as any solid state stuff. In fact the best tube and the best
solid-state gear are so close in performance nowadays, that there is little
to choose between them.

[[email protected]]

On Nov 11, 6:11�pm, Steven Sullivan wrote:
wrote:
On Nov 10, 1:18?pm, Steven Sullivan wrote:
wrote:
On Nov 9, 4:33???pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in message



He pointed out that
there was in fact even less processing in this reissue
project than there was in mastering the LP's. He noted,
too, that the new bit-stream technology had made it
possible to deal successfully with the hardest part of
the restorative effort - preserving the original hall
ambiance, by providing ''more of an analog treatment of
digital sound,'' without the ''empty spaces'' between the
notes or the absence of ''decay'' that many listeners
objected to in the digital process."

It is well known that those "empty spaces" are audiophile folklore. Sounds
to me like we have an audio engineer who is pandering to know-nothing
audiophiles.
No. He was addressing a serious concern of critical listeners. There
is a wealth of CDs that suffer from this problem. It is quite easy to
hear.

The 'solution' is called dither and noise shaping, and it has been pretty standard since the
time those CDs were released. Lip****'z and Vanderkooy's JAES papers on the uses of dither in
thhe audio chain were publisehd in the mid 80's. Since the late 80's there's been no reason
for the 'serious concern' you cite -- which is really audible quantization distortion of
recorded decays and tails -- to be an issue at all, if the mastering is competently done.
I am very skeptical that adding dither to a CD that has already failed
to capture hall sound or the complexity of the decay of the
instruments will somehow restore that which was lost.

It won't.

Then it wasn't really a solution to the problems of those particular
CDs. The ship had sailed and the information was lost.

I hear the lack of hall ambience on far too many CDs.

That's a function of the recording, not the CD format. ?
It most certainly is not a function of these recordings. The Decca
classical recordings are famously outstanding. There is no lack of
hall sound or complexity of decay from the instruments on the LPs from
the early Decca masterings or the audiophile masterings from King
super Analog or Speakers Corner with these great recordings.

If hall ambience was actually well-captured by a 'live' analog recording, and
is absent on the CD, then the fault is in the *digital* recording -- that is,
the transfer of the analog source to digital. It is a poor transfer, not
indicative of what CD can do.

I never said it was indicative of what a CD *can* do. I merely was
pointing out it was what those particular CDs *did* do despite Arny's
claims that such CDs only existed in audio mythology.


The decay
issue is also easily heard and identified. Once you notice it, it
becomes pretty obvious. One need look no further than the London/Decca
CDs from West Germany back in the 80s to find ?a multitude of gross
examples of this phenomenon. Those CDs were truly horrible. The lack
of hall sound and their failure to capture the complexity of the decay
of the instruments was painfully obvious. With the same recordings on
various incarnations of LPs the hall ambience and complex decays are
easily heard. Night and day difference really.

One would presume those would be recordings that didn't use dither. Which is to say, a bad
recording.
These recordings were analog. Adding dither would have been a very
strange choice. they are actually quite outstanding recordings. some
of the very best ever made IMO.

It would not at all have been a strange choice, for an good, low-noise analog recording
subjected to analog-to-digital transfer. It would have been *recommended*, as per Lip****z and
Vanderkooy. But that doesn't guarantee it was a choice taken, if the CDs are from the
early/mid 1980s.

The recordings I am speaking of were from the early 60s to the early
70s. I'm talking about the great ones from the Decca catalog. It would
be a poor choice for any analog recording to be made with added
dither.


If they were transfers of analog, tape, though the argument is less solid,
because at sufficient levels tape noise itself can 'dither' the transfer.
If you don't even know whether or not these recordings are digital or
analog how can you begin to comment on their quality? It would seem
your comments lack the basic foundation of actual familiarity to have
any value.

It doesn't matter whether I have heard the recordings or not, and if you
understood what dither (and noise-shaped dither) is for, you'd understand why.

I know very well what dither does. There is absoloutely no need to add
dither while making an analog recording. It does matter that you
didn't know the nature of these recordings when you made your comments
about adding dither to them when they were made. You might have at
least understood that there was no such thing as dither when these
recordings were made much less any reason to add dither to any
recording when these recordings were made.


Dither is the means by which low-level information is recovered from possible
quantization noise artifacts.

Yeah, I know. Not an issue for an analog recording is it?

�
As far as the issue of preserving the natural decay of notes, that is
ultimitely a dynamic range problem, and we've already settled the fact that
vinyl has less dynamic range than CD.

The problem is easy to hear. Just pick up any of those 80s London/
Deccas from West Germany and listen for yourself.

That wouldn't tell you anything, unless you had the 'better' version to compare it to.
I did. I thought I was very clear about that.
And that wouldn't tell you anything conclusive, unless only one variable was
changed.
It tells me quite conclusively that the claim that some CDs have
failed to do a good job of capturing hall sound and instrument decay
is not a myth as Arny asserted but a real world phenomenon. One that
is all too common unfortunately.

The 'myth' would be to construe a poor CD transfer as some sort of intrinsic
property of CD.

That really has nothing to do with Arny's claims. you can see them on
this post up at the top.


?They restored the original tape machines and the original mastering
console, that fed the A/D converter. That is the chain in it's
entirety. All vintage right up to the A/D converter.

complete with vintage tube distortion that wasn't on the master tapes!
It wasn't? Are you saying the tube gear distorts during playback but
not during recording? Have anything to support that assertion?

Tube gear distorts at both stages, of course. �Playing back at tape recorded
with tube gear, on tubed playback gear, doesn't 'complement' the original
recording; it merely adds more distortion.

So the tube distortion is on the master tape.

[Arny Krueger]

"Sonnova" wrote in message

On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 05:50:06 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

There is no hyperbole in saying that equalizers,
measurements, and other so-called "Objectivist" and
"Measurmentalist" activities figure significantly in the
design and operation of virtually every new music and/or
dramatic venue that has any significance. This includes
almost all high school auditoriums, for example.

The hyperbole comes from your strawman argument that
equates home listeners with professionals using the tools
of their trades to do a proper job.

I'm not. As Steven Sullivan pointed out, room equalization with automatic
setup is a common feature among surround receivers.

Here are some examples found with just a little searching:

Denon AVR-985SP A/V Surround Receiver
Auto Setup & Room EQ Function
Room EQ Memory
Assignable Room EQ

Harman Kardon AVR635 - 7.1 Channel Surround Receiver

"EzSet/EQ Using a standard, high-precision microphone, and onboard test and
control circuitry with accuracy that rivals expensive test gear, EzSet/EQ
not only configures your system for the correct speaker settings, delay
times and crossover frequencies; it uses a parametric equalizer to optimize
the receiver's output to match the sonic signature of your listening room. "

Marantz AVR-985SP A/V surround sound receiver

auto setup and room EQ function with microphone
room EQ memory
assignable room EQ

Pioneer VSX-74TXVi Digital Surround Receiver
"Pioneer's auto-setup routine goes by the awkward acronym MCACC, which
stands for Multi-Channel Acoustic Calibration Circuit. When you hit the
onscreen Go button, about 5 minutes of noise bursts and clicks cycle through
your speakers as the receiver dials in speaker "sizes," levels, distances,
and crossover frequencies. There are also a couple types of equalization,
including a graphic EQ adjustment for each main channel. (You can repeat the
setup process for different listening positions and store the results, along
with speaker setup choices, in six different memories.) The Pioneer's
self-selected speaker level and distance settings were accurate, closely
matching those I'd come up with using my own sound meter."

Sony STR-DG2100 Digital Surround Receiver

Digital Cinema Auto Calibration: An ideal listening experience is only one
button away. Simply place the included microphone in your listening
position, push the calibration button, and speaker position, distance, and
delays are automatically calibrated. Sony's Digital Signal Processing uses
feedback between the microphone and receiver to optimize sound settings.

or that good concert
halls cannot be built without these.

I never said that good concert halls cannot be built without these, because
history shows that it happened. What I said is that rarely is a new concert
hall of any significance built without the use of acoustical measurements,
acoustical modeling, and other technical tools that have been quaintly
labeled "measurementalist". Any modern room of any significance, even those
which only have enough electronics to support announcements before the
concert, includes some kind of system equalization. Since virtually all new
venues are for mixed uses, they have sound systems that are far more capable
and complex than those.

I'm sure that the
designers of Carnegie Hall, Boston and Chicago's symphony
halls. all of which have been praised for generations for
their acoustics, and all of which were designed before
these tools were even thought of, would disagree with
you.

It seems very strange to make policy for the present and future based on a
increasingly distant past when we did not have the resources that we
actually take for granted today. Do you seriously think that had the
designers of those halls had modern tools available, they would have avoided
using them?

[[email protected]]

On Nov 12, 6:01�am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in message







On Nov 10, 3:35 pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
wrote in message



On Nov 9, 4:33 pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
wrote in message


He pointed out that
there was in fact even less processing in this reissue
project than there was in mastering the LP's. He
noted, too, that the new bit-stream technology had
made it possible to deal successfully with the
hardest part of the restorative effort - preserving
the original hall ambiance, by providing ''more of an
analog treatment of digital sound,'' without the
''empty spaces'' between the notes or the absence of
''decay'' that many listeners objected to in the
digital process."
It is well known that those "empty spaces" are
audiophile folklore. Sounds
to me like we have an audio engineer who is pandering
to know-nothing audiophiles.
No. He was addressing a serious concern of critical
listeners.
There is a wealth of CDs that suffer from this
problem.
It is quite easy to hear. I hear the lack of
hall ambience on far too many CDs.

Nahh, that's a lack of so-called euphonic noise and
distortion that you hear.
How do you know?

I have ears, too.

I also have a fairly extensive measurement facility. My ears and my gear
generally agree.

how do you know that isn't just a function of your biases?



Have you actually listened to any of those CDs?

I'm sure I have.

What does that mean? Either you have or you have not?



�Have you done any comparisons between those
CDs and the original master tapes?

I will do that as soon as you do some reliable unbiased comparisons of LPs
and the original master tapes.

That is just another argument that uses faulty logic.
Tu quoque Literally, you too. This is an attempt to justify wrong
action because someone else also does it. "My evidence may be invalid,
but so is yours."
And in general we find you using a double standard of proof when it
comes to the quality of vinyl playback. We know you have strong anti
vinyl biases. But none of your opinions about the sound quality of
vinyl playback is ever supported by biased controlled listening tests.
So your opinions are unfortunately handcuffed to those obvious biases.



I suspect your
assertion lacks the basic need of any actual familiarity
with the CDs in question to have any value. Please
correct me if I am wrong about your lack of familiarity
with the CDs in question.

Oh, they are unique magic CDs and have more dynamic range than any others
that I've heard?

No, they are common CDs and are very much like so many other CDs that
you seem to believe don't exist. I assure you there is nothing magic
or magical about them. It now seems quite clear that you have no first
hand experience with them.


This is a typical Usenet tactic only a certain product can possibly be
relevant, so if you don't happen to have it on hand, you've lost the
argument. The fundamental deception is the idea that only a certain CD will
have the desired characteristic.

I do happen to have a few of them on hand. Arny, tell you what, come
on over and I'll play them for you. Although I got rid of most of them
I did not get rid of all of them. You can hear for yourself.



The decay issue is also easily heard and identified.
Once you notice it, it becomes pretty obvious.
Interesting that the noise and distortion that is there,
isn't heard, and the empty spaces that aren't there, are
heard.
How do you know that the noise that is there is not being
heard?

Because it apparently doesn't bother you.

That is another argument that uses faulty logic. 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.
Just because one is not bothered by something they hear does not mean
they can't hear it. You also make the false assumption that I am not
bothered by any of the noise I hear on vinyl. I am bothered by some of
it.



What do you base that assertion on?

You preference for noisy, audibly distorted media. �The noise and distortion
has been documented based on reliable technical and listening tests.


You are over simplifiying things. There are more differences between
any two CDs and LPs of the same recording than just noise that is
obviously just noise.




I think that's one reason why bias controls are so
important - no matter what they say, people can be very
biased.
Of course they can.

But you see no need to effectively control bias in your own evaluations.
Isn't that "lip service".

Actually I do. I do single blind comparisons all the time when
comparing various masterings of a given title. do you ever do any kind
of blind comparisons between such things? Do you ever do blind
comparisons between LPs and CDs of the same title to see which one you
actually like better with your biases in check?


Perhaps you can cite the bias
controlled listen tests that support your assertions that
the existence of some CDs that do a poor job of
portraying Hall sound and the natural decay of
instruments are a myth?

You've defined the problem so vaguely that any response I make can be argued
with.

IOW tha answer is no.

On a broader note, I don't understand your dismissive
attitude towards our great legacy of recorded music.

That would be a figment of someone's imagination. The music is great, and
much of it is well-transcribed to CDs.

Really? Do you have bias controlled tests to prove that they are
actually well trnascribed CDs?

[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message


On Nov 11, 6:11?pm, Steven Sullivan
wrote:

wrote:

On Nov 10, 1:18?pm, Steven Sullivan
wrote:
wrote:

On Nov 9, 4:33???pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
wrote in message

?They restored the original tape machines and the
original mastering console, that fed the A/D
converter. That is the chain in it's entirety. All
vintage right up to the A/D converter.

complete with vintage tube distortion that wasn't on
the master tapes!
It wasn't? Are you saying the tube gear distorts during
playback but not during recording? Have anything to
support that assertion?

Tube gear distorts at both stages, of course. ?Playing
back at tape recorded
with tube gear, on tubed playback gear, doesn't
'complement' the original
recording; it merely adds more distortion.

So the tube distortion is on the master tape.

But playing it back through tubed playback amps added more distortion that
was not complementary to that which was added during recording.

If they'd used a good SS tape head preamp with a playback eq tailored to the
heads and tape they used, they'd have a more accurate result.

There's no guarantee that the same identical, or even same make and model
tape machine was used for playback in the day of. In fact, I seem to recall
a comment to that effect in the flood of PR pieces that have been cited
here.

[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message


It is my understanding that Piros did not alter the
signal in any such way when he mastered the original LPs.

Just one misunderstanding of many.

I don't know whether or not his console had a built in
limiter or not.

In those days, limiters were outboard devices as a rule.

But according to Barry Diament, a
mastering engineer who worked with Piros, George Piros
was not one to use any compression when mastering.

The leading alternatives to that a

(1) Get the musicians to not play as dynamically as they can when the
recording was made.

(2) Rely on analog tape to do the compressing for you.

(3) Ride gains, manually, either during recording, editing, or mastering.

The
Classics were definitely mastered with no compression or
use of any limiters.

Or so the PR releases say.

[Arny Krueger]

"Sonnova" wrote in message


On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 18:11:49 -0800, Steven Sullivan wrote
(in article ):

wrote:
On Nov 10, 1:18?pm, Steven Sullivan
wrote:

wrote:

On Nov 9, 4:33???pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

wrote in message


?They restored the original tape machines and the
original mastering console, that fed the A/D
converter. That is the chain in it's entirety. All
vintage right up to the A/D converter.

complete with vintage tube distortion that wasn't on
the master tapes!

It wasn't? Are you saying the tube gear distorts during
playback but not during recording? Have anything to
support that assertion?

Tube gear distorts at both stages, of course. Playing
back at tape recorded with tube gear, on tubed playback
gear, doesn't 'complement' the original recording; it
merely adds more distortion.

Agreed.

Tube gear is capable of being every bit as low in
distortion as is transistor gear.

I'm actually unsure of that, if you are comparing "best" with "best". I
think that SS gear's current 0.0005 % or better nonlinear distortion has not
been equaled by production tubed audio gear. It pretty well bottomed out in
the 0.05-0.01% range/ Of course, we're counting angels dancing on pin heads.
But, just for the record... ;-)

What I will agree with is the idea that tubed equipment can be sonically
transparent.

When biased on the
linear portion of the transfer curve, tube amplifier
circuits with very low distortion (0.001% or less) are
easily possible.

I've never seen that with useful audio signals (e.g. 2 v rms) in production
equipment.

What was difficult back in the day was
to get circuits (of any kind) that were quiet.

Well, that too.

The carbon
composite resistors used in tube gear back in the 50's
and 60's had a lot of thermal noise that was not able to
be overcome until the advent of metal film resistors.

I've seen lots of tubed gear with good carbon and metal film resistors, even
built some of it myself back in the day.

Didn't help with the noise, that much.

Today's properly designed tube gear is quiet (although
probably not as ultimately quite as is possible with
solid-state, It's certainly close enough for all but the
most demanding applications - such as phono preamps for
low-out-put moving coil cartridges)

I don't know about MC preamps unless transformers are used.

and as distortion
free as any solid state stuff.

I need to be shown that. Has Stereophile ever published a review with tech
tests that showed 0.0005% THD at useful levels like 10 watts (power amps) or
2 volts (preamps).

In fact the best tube and
the best solid-state gear are so close in performance
nowadays, that there is little to choose between them.

Well, there is the slight matter of cost and reliability.

[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message

On Nov 11, 3:25?pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
wrote in message







On Nov 10, 3:39 pm, Sonnova
wrote:
On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 05:37:38 -0800,
wrote (in article ):
and equalization in order to
read the signal to the max. The restoration of the
equipment was not without difficulty and took about
six months. The Ampex machines are special machines
with three heads and three channels, with three head
amplifiers. They were built specifically by Ampex for
Bob Fine."
http://www.soundfountain.com/amb/mercury.html
The entire chain of original equipment used to feed
the cutting amps of the original LPs was restored and
used to feed the A/D converter for the mastering of
the CDs.

Which seem irrelevant to me. The signal that a cutting
head of a disc cutting setup needs is far different
from the signal that one would feed an A/D converter.

What difference is needed other than level?

Well, thanks for admitting that you don't know what it
is.

You miss understood the intention of my question.

You didn't read my answer before starting up another argument.

It was
meant to point out that there was in fact no needed
differences for the purpose of cutting any of the Mercury
LPs other than level.

No evidence of that.

This is pretty
peculiar given how many times it has been described on
RAHE and elsewhere.
One more time:

The answer is that a signal that one would feed to an
A/D converter, and
then to a CD recorder lacks any inherent need for
additional processing. A
CD recorder can handle any audio signal that is matched
to the recorder's
input sensitivity.

Unlike a CD recorder, a cutting lathe *CANNOT* handle
just any signal. The cutter's power bandwidth
capabilities are limited by heating of the cutter
head at high frequencies, and mechanical limits (the
cutter penetrates [yes,
cuts a hole!] the lacquer or jumps into the air, or
makes incursions on
adjacent grooves or causes pre-echo). Furthermore,
cutters can cut grooves
that can't be tracked by any cartridge or cheap
cartridges, because they
imply impossible accelerations, or run into the "pinch
effect".- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That simply is not the case with the Mercury Living
Presence recordings.

Sure it is. The laws of physics were not suspended for Mercury;s benefit,
neither then nor now.

They have already been cut on LP without any processing of the signal.

No evidence of that.

[Sonnova]

On Wed, 12 Nov 2008 06:01:17 -0800, wrote
(in article ):

On Nov 11, 3:28�pm, Sonnova wrote:
On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 05:39:14 -0800, wrote
(in article ):





On Nov 10, 3:39 pm, Sonnova wrote:
On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 05:37:38 -0800, wrote
(in article ):

and equalization in order to
read the signal to the max. The restoration of the equipment was not
without difficulty and took about six months. The Ampex machines are
special machines with three heads and three channels, with three head
amplifiers. They were built specifically by Ampex for Bob Fine."
http://www.soundfountain.com/amb/mercury.html
The entire chain of original equipment used to feed the cutting amps
of the original LPs was restored and used to feed the A/D converter
for the mastering of the CDs.

Which seem irrelevant to me. The signal that a cutting head of a disc
cutting
setup needs is far different from the signal that one would feed an A/D
converter.

What difference is needed other than level?

Plenty. Usually the "cutting master" was pre EQ'd �for vinyl. This meant
that
high frequencies are generally boosted �(even before RIAA is applied) and
dynamics are tamed. I.E. low level passages are boosted and crescendos are
attenuated. Also, depending upon the kind cutting equipment used, the
cutting
master might also have had it's signal run through a limiter. This is
because
there is a spec for track-ability and few record companies wanted to produce
a record that only high-end playback equipment could negotiate (although
since the middle '60's, the mastering electronics contained their own signal
limiters as well as acceleration limiters). One of the early criticisms of
CD
was that cutting masters were apparently often used to master early CDs.
Which explains why many people complained that they were harsh and strident
sounding. CD is flat in frequency response from below 10Hz to about 22KHz
with a 96dB dynamic range. They don't require any pre- processing as the CD
can accurately accept anything that the actual master tape, whether analog
or
digital could throw at it. mastering a CD with a vinyl cutting master did
the
CD and the music no favors at all.

Vinyl mastering required so many compromises, that it is a wonder that they
sound as good as they often do. Most people don't realize what a Rube
Goldberg device a record mastering setup is. The modern cutting head, for
instance, requires hundreds of watts to get the cutting stylus (usually ruby
or sapphire) to move at all, and then just a few more to burn it out.
Accelerating the cutting stylus too quickly on high-level transients could
snap it off of its shank, and even burn out the head. There is a maximum
velocity at which the stylus (which is heated) can cut through the
"lacquer".
Exceed this and the stylus starts to skip, and again can break off. Groove
pitch is critical and excessive excursions can cut through the groove wall,
ruining the master. For this reason, cutters used two playback heads on the
cutting master analog tape deck (digital feeds used digital delay to achieve
the same goal). The upstream head looked at the amplitude of the "coming"
signal in advance of that signal being read by the tape head which will
actually feed the cutter. This pre-signal tells the variable-pitch lathe
assembly to decrease or increase the number of grooves per inch being cut.
This means that a loud bass drum whack would cause the space between grooves
to be widened so that the drum could be safely recorded without fear of it
cutting trough the adjacent groove walls. Cutting heads fail so often that
spares must be kept on hand and damaged ones are returned to the
manufacturer
for refurbishing.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It is my understanding that Piros did not alter the signal in any such
way when he mastered the original LPs. I don't know whether or not his
console had a built in limiter or not. But according to Barry Diament,
a mastering engineer who worked with Piros, George Piros was not one
to use any compression when mastering. The Classics were definitely
mastered with no compression or use of any limiters.


I can't say for the PIros-cut Mercurys, but given the intended audience for
the Classic Records releases, I can certainly believe that. I mean nobody is
going to pay $60 for a single title cut at 45 RPM and occupying only one side
of four 200 gram LPs and then play them on a cheap record player. They can
afford to "pull out all the stops"

BTW, I had a friend over last night who is as down on LP as is Arny. I played
the Classic Records remastered Mercury "Firebird" for him. His jaw dropped.
He said "I've never heard a commercial release that sounded so palpably real.
The soundstage, the ambience, the air around the instruments, all of these
things that we want to hear are THERE. I wouldn't have believed it possible
had I not heard it myself." He left a changed man. It's that good. We then
listened to one of Keith O. Johnson's latest recordings on Reference. The
"Symphonic Dances" by Rachmaninioff. While it sounded really good, his
comment was that the recording lacked the palpability of the Mercury
"Firebird" LP that we had just listened to. I agree.

[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message

On Nov 12, 6:01�am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
wrote in message







On Nov 10, 3:35 pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
wrote in message



On Nov 9, 4:33 pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
wrote in message


He pointed out that
there was in fact even less processing in this
reissue project than there was in mastering the
LP's. He noted, too, that the new bit-stream
technology had made it possible to deal
successfully with the hardest part of the
restorative effort - preserving the original hall
ambiance, by providing ''more of an analog
treatment of digital sound,'' without the ''empty
spaces'' between the notes or the absence of
''decay'' that many listeners objected to in the
digital process."

It is well known that those "empty spaces" are
audiophile folklore. Sounds
to me like we have an audio engineer who is pandering
to know-nothing audiophiles.

No. He was addressing a serious concern of critical
listeners.


There is a wealth of CDs that suffer from this
problem.

It is quite easy to hear. I hear the lack of
hall ambience on far too many CDs.

Nahh, that's a lack of so-called euphonic noise and
distortion that you hear.

How do you know?

I have ears, too.

I also have a fairly extensive measurement facility. My
ears and my gear generally agree.

how do you know that isn't just a function of your biases?

Are you suggesting that biases some how creep down my fingers and change
the readings on my test equipment? ;-)

Are you suggesting that only people with biases against vinyl can hear the
audible noise and distortion that it adds?


�Have you done any comparisons between those
CDs and the original master tapes?

I have done comparisons between audio in CD format and master tapes. Rather
obviously I don't have every master tape in the world at my disposal.

I will do that as soon as you do some reliable unbiased
comparisons of LPs and the original master tapes.

That is just another argument that uses faulty logic.

Many recent so-called claims of faulty logic have been shown to include
considerable faulty logic of their own.

Tu quoque Literally, you too. This is an attempt to
justify wrong action because someone else also does it.

Well done then! The wrong action that I was using as an example was
something that you seem to have done. Or, didn't you notice? If you wish to
criticize your own claims, I shan't stand in the way. ;-)

This strange argument against yourself does not relate to me, because I have
done blind, level matched, time-synched comparisons between master tapes and
audio in CD format. Furthermore this claim of mine is verified by an
independent authority:

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

These same tests were referenced in a JAES article, if memory serves.

Coding audio in CD format need not create an audible difference. This is
just one piece of evidence of many showing that the CD format lacks the
audible noise and, distortion that is well-known to be inherent in the LP
format.


And in general we find you using a double standard of
proof when it comes to the quality of vinyl playback.

False claim which I have just cleared myself of, yet again.

We know you have strong anti vinyl biases.

Wrong, I simply know vinyl for what it is. I have done noting more than
agree with the many academic papers that described vinyl's audible flaws.
Remember that 99% or more of all music lovers have abandoned vinyl over the
past nearly 30 years for many reasons, of which poor sound quality is just
one.

I suspect your
assertion lacks the basic need of any actual familiarity
with the CDs in question to have any value. Please
correct me if I am wrong about your lack of familiarity
with the CDs in question.

Oh, they are unique magic CDs and have more dynamic
range than any others that I've heard?

No, they are common CDs and are very much like so many
other CDs that you seem to believe don't exist.

I know that "empty spaces" don't exist because I happen to understand that
much about how digital technology works. I find it easy to disbelieve in
the existence of recordings that supposedly hold evidence of impossible
effects. Perhaps I buy the wrong brand CDs, is there a CD label called
"Urban Myth?"

I assure
you there is nothing magic or magical about them. It now
seems quite clear that you have no first hand experience
with them.

I can't have experience with evidence supporting the existence of well-known
urban myths, since a myth by definition can never exist.

This is a typical Usenet tactic only a certain product
can possibly be relevant, so if you don't happen to have
it on hand, you've lost the argument. The fundamental
deception is the idea that only a certain CD will have
the desired characteristic.

I do happen to have a few of them on hand. Arny, tell you
what, come on over and I'll play them for you.

Last I knew, you lived in LA, and I have court-admissible evidence that you
know that I live near Detroit. Has that changed significantly? If not, then
your suggestion is ludicrous.

Although I
got rid of most of them I did not get rid of all of them.
You can hear for yourself.

Well, send me some that you would otherwise trash.

The decay issue is also easily heard and identified.
Once you notice it, it becomes pretty obvious.
Interesting that the noise and distortion that is
there, isn't heard, and the empty spaces that aren't
there, are heard.

How do you know that the noise that is there is not
being heard?

Because it apparently doesn't bother you.

That is another argument that uses faulty logic.
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.

So then you are saying that you do hear all that noise and distortion, but
somehow you have confused it with the music so that it doesn't bother you at
all?

What do you base that assertion on?

You preference for noisy, audibly distorted media.
�The noise and distortion has been documented based on
reliable technical and listening tests.

You are over simplifying things. There are more
differences between any two CDs and LPs of the same
recording than just noise that is obviously just noise.

Right, there's also all that audible distortion. You tried to omit that
here, but we all know that it exists.


I think that's one reason why bias controls are so
important - no matter what they say, people can be very
biased.
Of course they can.

But you see no need to effectively control bias in your
own evaluations. Isn't that "lip service".

Actually I do. I do single blind comparisons all the time
when comparing various mastering of a given title.

IOW your comparisons are inherently faulty. Are you not aware of the
inherent difficulties with single blind tests?

do you ever do any kind of blind comparisons between such things?

Asked and answered.

Do you ever do blind comparisons between LPs and
CDs of the same title to see which one you actually like
better with your biases in check?

I don't feel obliged to re-invent the wheel and waste time proving that the
LP format has vast amounts of audible noise and distortion. I have proven to
any reasonable person's satisfaction that the CD format is inherently
sonically transparent.

Perhaps you can cite the bias
controlled listen tests that support your assertions
that the existence of some CDs that do a poor job of
portraying Hall sound and the natural decay of
instruments are a myth?

You've defined the problem so vaguely that any response
I make can be argued with.

IOW the answer is no.

IOW the answer has been yes for about 30 years, if proof to reasonable
standards is desired.

On a broader note, I don't understand your dismissive
attitude towards our great legacy of recorded music.

That would be a figment of someone's imagination. The
music is great, and much of it is well-transcribed to
CDs.

Really? Do you have bias controlled tests to prove that
they are actually well transcribed CDs?

Asked and answered.

[Sonnova]

On Wed, 12 Nov 2008 07:18:53 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

wrote in message


It is my understanding that Piros did not alter the
signal in any such way when he mastered the original LPs.

Just one misunderstanding of many.

I don't know whether or not his console had a built in
limiter or not.

In those days, limiters were outboard devices as a rule.

But according to Barry Diament, a
mastering engineer who worked with Piros, George Piros
was not one to use any compression when mastering.

The leading alternatives to that a

(1) Get the musicians to not play as dynamically as they can when the
recording was made.

Definitely not the case. Mercury's used to be used as demonstration discs in
Hi-Fi salons back in the day and were highly regarded for their dynamic
range.

(2) Rely on analog tape to do the compressing for you.

To a certain extent, I suppose.

(3) Ride gains, manually, either during recording, editing, or mastering.

Not done on the Mercurys.

The
Classics were definitely mastered with no compression or
use of any limiters.

Or so the PR releases say.

The LPs sure sound like that that's true and why would they lie about that
anyway? It's not like you can hide that sort of thing for long.

[Sonnova]

On Wed, 12 Nov 2008 06:41:09 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Sonnova" wrote in message

On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 05:50:06 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

There is no hyperbole in saying that equalizers,
measurements, and other so-called "Objectivist" and
"Measurmentalist" activities figure significantly in the
design and operation of virtually every new music and/or
dramatic venue that has any significance. This includes
almost all high school auditoriums, for example.

The hyperbole comes from your strawman argument that
equates home listeners with professionals using the tools
of their trades to do a proper job.

I'm not. As Steven Sullivan pointed out, room equalization with automatic
setup is a common feature among surround receivers.

Here are some examples found with just a little searching:

Denon AVR-985SP A/V Surround Receiver
Auto Setup & Room EQ Function
Room EQ Memory
Assignable Room EQ

Harman Kardon AVR635 - 7.1 Channel Surround Receiver

"EzSet/EQ Using a standard, high-precision microphone, and onboard test and
control circuitry with accuracy that rivals expensive test gear, EzSet/EQ
not only configures your system for the correct speaker settings, delay
times and crossover frequencies; it uses a parametric equalizer to optimize
the receiver's output to match the sonic signature of your listening room. "

Marantz AVR-985SP A/V surround sound receiver

auto setup and room EQ function with microphone
room EQ memory
assignable room EQ

Pioneer VSX-74TXVi Digital Surround Receiver
"Pioneer's auto-setup routine goes by the awkward acronym MCACC, which
stands for Multi-Channel Acoustic Calibration Circuit. When you hit the
onscreen Go button, about 5 minutes of noise bursts and clicks cycle through
your speakers as the receiver dials in speaker "sizes," levels, distances,
and crossover frequencies. There are also a couple types of equalization,
including a graphic EQ adjustment for each main channel. (You can repeat the
setup process for different listening positions and store the results, along
with speaker setup choices, in six different memories.) The Pioneer's
self-selected speaker level and distance settings were accurate, closely
matching those I'd come up with using my own sound meter."

Sony STR-DG2100 Digital Surround Receiver

Digital Cinema Auto Calibration: An ideal listening experience is only one
button away. Simply place the included microphone in your listening
position, push the calibration button, and speaker position, distance, and
delays are automatically calibrated. Sony's Digital Signal Processing uses
feedback between the microphone and receiver to optimize sound settings.

or that good concert
halls cannot be built without these.

I never said that good concert halls cannot be built without these, because
history shows that it happened. What I said is that rarely is a new concert
hall of any significance built without the use of acoustical measurements,
acoustical modeling, and other technical tools that have been quaintly
labeled "measurementalist". Any modern room of any significance, even those
which only have enough electronics to support announcements before the
concert, includes some kind of system equalization. Since virtually all new
venues are for mixed uses, they have sound systems that are far more capable
and complex than those.

I'm sure that the
designers of Carnegie Hall, Boston and Chicago's symphony
halls. all of which have been praised for generations for
their acoustics, and all of which were designed before
these tools were even thought of, would disagree with
you.

It seems very strange to make policy for the present and future based on a
increasingly distant past when we did not have the resources that we
actually take for granted today. Do you seriously think that had the
designers of those halls had modern tools available, they would have avoided
using them?



Not at all. I am saying that they understood what they were doing well enough
to not really need them in order to get superior sounding venues. Today, even
with all of these modern tools, it seems to be hit or miss. Davies Symphony
Hall in S.F., for instance sounds OK but not great, and they've never been
able to get Avery Fisher Hall at Lincoln Center in NYC to sound right in
spite of many tries at redesigning it. These tools are no panacea and
certainly no substitute for knowledge and talent.

[[email protected]]

On Nov 12, 7:18�am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in message



It is my understanding that Piros did not alter the
signal in any such way when he mastered the original LPs.

Just one misunderstanding of many.

If you have some reliable informationt hat contradicts mine please
fill us in. What do you actually know about george Piros's methods of
cutting that would conflict with what I have heard from someone who
worked along side him?


I don't know whether or not his console had a built in
limiter or not.

In those days, limiters were outboard devices as a rule.

Then there is a very good chance he didn't use that as well as not
using any compression.


But according to Barry Diament, a
mastering engineer who worked with Piros, George Piros
was not one to use any compression when mastering.

The leading alternatives to that a

(1) Get the musicians to not play as dynamically as they can when the
recording was made.

(2) Rely on analog tape to do the compressing for you.

(3) Ride gains, manually, either during recording, editing, or mastering.


Do you have any actual information on what George Piros actually did?

The
Classics were definitely mastered with no compression or
use of any limiters.

Or so the PR releases say.

So now you imply that Bernie Grundman is being less than truthful. Do
you have any actual evidence to support these implied accusations?.

[[email protected]]

On Nov 12, 6:26�pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in message







On Nov 11, 3:25?pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
wrote in message



On Nov 10, 3:39 pm, Sonnova
wrote:
On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 05:37:38 -0800,
wrote (in article ):
and equalization in order to
read the signal to the max. The restoration of the
equipment was not without difficulty and took about
six months. The Ampex machines are special machines
with three heads and three channels, with three head
amplifiers. They were built specifically by Ampex for
Bob Fine."
http://www.soundfountain.com/amb/mercury.html
The entire chain of original equipment used to feed
the cutting amps of the original LPs was restored and
used to feed the A/D converter for the mastering of
the CDs.
Which seem irrelevant to me. The signal that a cutting
head of a disc cutting setup needs is far different
from the signal that one would feed an A/D converter.
What difference is needed other than level?
Well, thanks for admitting that you don't know what it
is.
You miss understood the intention of my question.
It was
meant to point out that there was in fact no needed
differences for the purpose of cutting any of the Mercury
LPs other than level.

No evidence of that.

Actually there is plenty. We have testimonial from everyone involved.







�This is pretty
peculiar given how many times it has been described on
RAHE and elsewhere.
One more time:
The answer is that a signal that one would feed to an
A/D converter, and
then to a CD recorder lacks any inherent need for
additional processing. A
CD recorder can handle any audio signal that is matched
to the recorder's
input sensitivity.
Unlike a CD recorder, a cutting lathe *CANNOT* handle
just any signal. The cutter's power bandwidth
capabilities are limited by heating of the cutter
head at high frequencies, and mechanical limits (the
cutter penetrates [yes,
cuts a hole!] the lacquer or jumps into the air, or
makes incursions on
adjacent grooves or causes pre-echo). Furthermore,
cutters can cut grooves
that can't be tracked by any cartridge or cheap
cartridges, because they
imply impossible accelerations, or run into the "pinch
effect".- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
That simply is not the case with the Mercury Living
Presence recordings.

Sure it is. The laws of physics were not suspended for Mercury;s benefit,
neither then nor now.

Please prove that the laws of physics would have to be suspended for
the Mercury Living Presence LPs to have been cut with no compression.



They have already been cut on LP without any processing of the signal.

No evidence of that

Again there is plenty. Just ask Bernie Grundman.or any of the folks at
Classics. I think getting facts from the source is much more reliable
than just speculating.

[Arny Krueger]

"Sonnova" wrote in message

On Wed, 12 Nov 2008 06:01:17 -0800,
wrote (in article ):

On Nov 11, 3:28�pm, Sonnova
wrote:
On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 05:39:14 -0800,

It is my understanding that Piros did not alter the
signal in any such way when he mastered the original
LPs. I don't know whether or not his console had a built
in limiter or not. But according to Barry Diament, a
mastering engineer who worked with Piros, George Piros
was not one to use any compression when mastering. The
Classics were definitely mastered with no compression or
use of any limiters.

Where's the technical proof of that?

I can't say for the PIros-cut Mercurys, but given the
intended audience for the Classic Records releases, I can
certainly believe that. I mean nobody is going to pay $60
for a single title cut at 45 RPM and occupying only one
side of four 200 gram LPs and then play them on a cheap
record player. They can afford to "pull out all the
stops"

Except they can't afford to "pull out the stops" because the LP format can't
handle the full dynamic range of a modern orchestra.

There are extant digital recordings of the same or similar musical works
that have up to 20 dB more dynamic range. Same claims - no gain riding or
dynamics processing were used. Let's say that everybody is telling the
truth. Where did the dynamic range go to from the legacy recordings?

BTW, I had a friend over last night who is as down on LP
as is Arny. I played the Classic Records remastered
Mercury "Firebird" for him. His jaw dropped.

So what? He's your friend. Clear case of criterial biasing. He told you what
you wanted to hear.

Scientific analysis is nobody's friend. It is scientific analysis, not
complements from friends that enabled the great technical progress that we
have today.

[Sonnova]

On Wed, 12 Nov 2008 18:24:51 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Sonnova" wrote in message


On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 18:11:49 -0800, Steven Sullivan wrote
(in article ):

wrote:
On Nov 10, 1:18?pm, Steven Sullivan
wrote:

wrote:

On Nov 9, 4:33???pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

wrote in message


?They restored the original tape machines and the
original mastering console, that fed the A/D
converter. That is the chain in it's entirety. All
vintage right up to the A/D converter.

complete with vintage tube distortion that wasn't on
the master tapes!

It wasn't? Are you saying the tube gear distorts during
playback but not during recording? Have anything to
support that assertion?

Tube gear distorts at both stages, of course. Playing
back at tape recorded with tube gear, on tubed playback
gear, doesn't 'complement' the original recording; it
merely adds more distortion.

Agreed.

Tube gear is capable of being every bit as low in
distortion as is transistor gear.

I'm actually unsure of that, if you are comparing "best" with "best". I
think that SS gear's current 0.0005 % or better nonlinear distortion has not
been equaled by production tubed audio gear. It pretty well bottomed out in
the 0.05-0.01% range/ Of course, we're counting angels dancing on pin heads.
But, just for the record... ;-)

Indeed you are. Below about .1% is academic and some say that below 1% for
amplifier distortion is undetectable by the human ear. I can't vouche the
latter for sure, but I have certainly heard that from designers that I trust
(David Manley, for one).

What I will agree with is the idea that tubed equipment can be sonically
transparent.

Yes.

When biased on the
linear portion of the transfer curve, tube amplifier
circuits with very low distortion (0.001% or less) are
easily possible.

I've never seen that with useful audio signals (e.g. 2 v rms) in production
equipment.

I've seen it advertised for tubed voltage amplifiers.

What was difficult back in the day was
to get circuits (of any kind) that were quiet.

Well, that too.

The carbon
composite resistors used in tube gear back in the 50's
and 60's had a lot of thermal noise that was not able to
be overcome until the advent of metal film resistors.

I've seen lots of tubed gear with good carbon and metal film resistors, even
built some of it myself back in the day.

Didn't help with the noise, that much.

Today's properly designed tube gear is quiet (although
probably not as ultimately quite as is possible with
solid-state, It's certainly close enough for all but the
most demanding applications - such as phono preamps for
low-out-put moving coil cartridges)

I don't know about MC preamps unless transformers are used.

and as distortion
free as any solid state stuff.

I need to be shown that. Has Stereophile ever published a review with tech
tests that showed 0.0005% THD at useful levels like 10 watts (power amps) or
2 volts (preamps).

Again, I have seen voltage amps spec'd at that, but as we said its really
academic.

In fact the best tube and
the best solid-state gear are so close in performance
nowadays, that there is little to choose between them.

Well, there is the slight matter of cost and reliability.

If you compare like to like, they're comparable. A 500 Watt pair of Levinson
#53 monoblocs (SS) actually costs more than a pair of 800 Watt VTL
Siegfrieds (tube). But, I will certainly give you that a decent solid-state
power amp can be had for far less than a similar spec'd tube amp (The
Behringer A500 at about 160 Watts/Channel into 8 Ohms = $200.)

I have a pair of VTL 140s that I bought ages ago. Expecting high failure
rates of output tubes (six 807s each), I bought a "lifetime" supply of WWII
vintage NOS JAN 807s from a radio ham. I have yet to change but one of them
in the more than 15 years that I've owned the amps (and they're used just
about every day). I don't think that tube life is the problem that it used
to be. Modern amps don't seem to run the output tubes with as much current as
they used to. MY VTLs only drive the 807s with about 24 mils of plate
current,

[[email protected]]

On Nov 12, 6:47�pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in message







On Nov 12, 6:01 am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
wrote in message



On Nov 10, 3:35 pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
wrote in message



On Nov 9, 4:33 pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
wrote in message


He pointed out that
there was in fact even less processing in this
reissue project than there was in mastering the
LP's. He noted, too, that the new bit-stream
technology had made it possible to deal
successfully with the hardest part of the
restorative effort - preserving the original hall
ambiance, by providing ''more of an analog
treatment of digital sound,'' without the ''empty
spaces'' between the notes or the absence of
''decay'' that many listeners objected to in the
digital process."
It is well known that those "empty spaces" are
audiophile folklore. Sounds
to me like we have an audio engineer who is pandering
to know-nothing audiophiles.
No. He was addressing a serious concern of critical
listeners.
There is a wealth of CDs that suffer from this
problem.
It is quite easy to hear. I hear the lack of
hall ambience on far too many CDs.
Nahh, that's a lack of so-called euphonic noise and
distortion that you hear.
How do you know?
I have ears, too.
I also have a fairly extensive measurement facility. My
ears and my gear generally agree.
how do you know that isn't just a function of your biases?

Are you suggesting that �biases some how creep down my fingers and change
the readings on my test equipment? ;-)

Nope. I am suggesting that your subjective opinions on vinyl are
affected by your biases. Do you believe that any of your sonic
impressions of vinyl playback have been bias free?


Are you suggesting that only people with biases against vinyl can hear the
audible noise and distortion that it adds?

No. But I suspect that many with substantial anti-vinyl biases often
grossly overstate the impact.



Have you done any comparisons between those
CDs and the original master tapes?

I have done comparisons between audio in CD format and master tapes. Rather
obviously I don't have every master tape in the world at my disposal.

I was speaking specifically of the Decca recordings in question. You
seem to have some pretty strong opinions about how they sound but it
seems you have nothing of substance to base upon which to base those
opinions.


I will do that as soon as you do some reliable unbiased
comparisons of LPs and the original master tapes.
That is just another argument that uses faulty logic.
Tu quoque Literally, you too. This is an attempt to
justify wrong action because someone else also does it.

Well done then! �The wrong action that I was using as an example was
something that you seem to have done. Or, didn't you notice? If you wish to
criticize your own claims, I shan't stand in the way. ;-)

You are mistaken. I actually do often make blind comparisons between
various competing masterings of recordings.

I suspect your
assertion lacks the basic need of any actual familiarity
with the CDs in question to have any value. Please
correct me if I am wrong about your lack of familiarity
with the CDs in question.
Oh, they are unique magic CDs and have more dynamic
range than any others that I've heard?
No, they are common CDs and are very much like so many
other CDs that you seem to believe don't exist.

I know that "empty spaces" don't exist because I happen to understand that
much about how digital technology works. � I find it easy to disbelieve in
the existence of recordings that supposedly hold evidence of impossible
effects. �Perhaps I buy the wrong brand CDs, is there a CD label called
"Urban Myth?"

It seems you don't actually understand the crtticism of those CDs. It
directly relates to a loss of the ambient sound of the music halls. Do
you think that ambient hall sound is a myth? Do you think that all
the CDs that have been criticized by audiophiles for failing to do a
good job of capturing hall ambience actually did a good job of
capturing the hall ambience and all those audiophiles are imagining
that it is a problem and all those CDs actually did a good job of
capturing the ambient sound of the music halls?


I assure
you there is nothing magic or magical about them. It now
seems quite clear that you have no first hand experience
with them.

This is a typical Usenet tactic only a certain product
can possibly be relevant, so if you don't happen to have
it on hand, you've lost the argument. The fundamental
deception is the idea that only a certain CD will have
the desired characteristic.
I do happen to have a few of them on hand. Arny, tell you
what, come on over and I'll play them for you.

Last I knew, you lived in LA, and I have court-admissible evidence that you
know that I live near Detroit. Has that changed significantly? If not, then
your suggestion is ludicrous.

You are claiming I have no evidence to support my assertion about the
sound of these CDs. You can always go out and buy a few for yourself
if you don't wish to make the trip out here to L.A. But to claim that
these CDs don't exist when I have given very specific information in
identifying them seems a bit of a stretch. I would liken it to denying
the existance of Australia because you have never been there and seen
it for yourself.



�Although I
got rid of most of them I did not get rid of all of them.
You can hear for yourself.

Well, send me some that you would otherwise trash.

I will consider it.



The decay issue is also easily heard and identified.
Once you notice it, it becomes pretty obvious.
Interesting that the noise and distortion that is
there, isn't heard, and the empty spaces that aren't
there, are heard.
How do you know that the noise that is there is not
being heard?
Because it apparently doesn't bother you.
That is another argument that uses faulty logic.
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.

So then you are saying that you do hear all that noise and distortion, but
somehow you have confused it with the music so that it doesn't bother you at
all?

You are once again over simplifying things. certainly audible surface
noise is identifiable as such when it is actually audible. I am quite
certain that there are other distortions in my rig that are not
identifiable by ear as distortion at all by anyone. Those are the
euphonic distortions I have refered to in the past. My am confident
that my rig does have them and I am equallt confident that no one can
sit down and identify them as distortions by ear without a distortion
free source of the same master to use as a reference. I would even bet
that if one were to use a less colored source of the same master one
would more often than not mistake my rig and it's particular euphonic
colorations as the less colored source than an actual less colored
source. If you don't follow what i am saying just think of Sonoma's
claims about the Firebird suite on the Classic resissue from Mercury.



What do you base that assertion on?

You preference for noisy, audibly distorted media.
The noise and distortion has been documented based on
reliable technical and listening tests.
You are over simplifying things. There are more
differences between any two CDs and LPs of the same
recording than just noise that is obviously just noise.

Right, there's also all that audible distortion. �You tried to omit that
here, but we all know that it exists.

I have not tried to omit it at all. I am just trying to shed some
light on your mischaracterizations of it.



I think that's one reason why bias controls are so
important - no matter what they say, people can be very
biased.
Of course they can.

But you see no need to effectively control bias in your
own evaluations. Isn't that "lip service".
Actually I do. I do single blind comparisons all the time
when comparing various mastering of a given title.

IOW your comparisons are inherently faulty.

This is yet another argument that suffers from a classic logical
fallacy.
False Continuum The idea that because there is no definitive
demarcation line between two extremes, that the distinction between
the extremes is not real or meaningful: There is a fuzzy line between
cults and religion, therefore they are really the same thing.
All comparisons are inherently faulty. Just some more so than others.
While single blindness would be an issue if I were to try to write my
comparisons up as a scientific study for peer reviewed publication,
for the purpose of reasonably controling bias I have been told by none
other than JJ that single blind is quite adequate for home brewed
comparisons.I took his word for it. If you disagree you can always
take it up with JJ. It's all shades of grey. I don't claim my
comparisons are bullet proof but there is no evidence that they are
actually inherently faulty to the point that they are worthless.


Are you not aware of the
inherent difficulties with single blind tests?

Sure. I do take some measures to make them as good as i possibly can.
I think for the purpose of comparing different masterings of the same
recording my methodologies are more than adequate. I doubt very much
that my results would be altered much if at all were I to do the
comparisons double blind.



do you ever do any kind of blind comparisons between such things?

Asked and answered.

I think that was a no.



�Do you ever do blind comparisons between LPs and
CDs of the same title to see which one you actually like
better with your biases in check?

I don't feel obliged to re-invent the wheel and waste time proving that the
LP format has vast amounts of audible noise and distortion. I have proven to
any reasonable person's satisfaction that the CD format is inherently
sonically transparent.

I'll take that as a no. By all of your accounts it would appear that
your opinions are affected by your obviously intense anti-vinyl
biases. You offer no evidence to the contrary in the way of bias
controlled listening tests and we all know that without those your
biases were always in play when you were forming subjective opinions
about the sonic merits of any vinyl playback.




On a broader note, I don't understand your dismissive
attitude towards our great legacy of recorded music.
That would be a figment of someone's imagination. The
music is great, and much of it is well-transcribed to
CDs.
Really? Do you have bias controlled tests to prove that
they are actually well transcribed CDs?


I believe that answer was no. If I am incorrect please feel free to
give us the skinny on the specific bias controlled comparisons you
made between the commercial CDs and the original master tapes of those
legacy recordings.

[Arny Krueger]

"Sonnova" wrote in message

On Wed, 12 Nov 2008 07:18:53 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

wrote in message


It is my understanding that Piros did not alter the
signal in any such way when he mastered the original
LPs.

Just one misunderstanding of many.

I don't know whether or not his console had a built in
limiter or not.

In those days, limiters were outboard devices as a rule.

But according to Barry Diament, a
mastering engineer who worked with Piros, George Piros
was not one to use any compression when mastering.

The leading alternatives to that a

(1) Get the musicians to not play as dynamically as they
can when the recording was made.

Definitely not the case. Mercury's used to be used as
demonstration discs in Hi-Fi salons back in the day and
were highly regarded for their dynamic range.

Right, but everybody but naive audiophiles know the limitations of vinyl.
That includes recording engineers and conductors. There are extant
recordings of the same or similar works with up to 20 dB more dynamic range.
Of course, they aren't LPs, they are CDs.

(2) Rely on analog tape to do the compressing for you.

To a certain extent, I suppose.

(3) Ride gains, manually, either during recording,
editing, or mastering.

Not done on the Mercurys.

Prove that it didn't happen.

The
Classics were definitely mastered with no compression or
use of any limiters.

Or so the PR releases say.

The LPs sure sound like that that's true and why would
they lie about that anyway?

It's not lying, its "truth enhancement". ;-)

It's not like you can hide that sort of thing for long.

Really? How can anybody who is independent of the process know what actually
happened?

[Mike Gilmour[_2_]]

"Sonnova" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 12 Nov 2008 06:41:09 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):
[clip]
Digital Cinema Auto Calibration: An ideal listening experience is only
one
button away. Simply place the included microphone in your listening
position, push the calibration button, and speaker position, distance,
and
delays are automatically calibrated. Sony's Digital Signal Processing
uses
feedback between the microphone and receiver to optimize sound settings.

or that good concert
halls cannot be built without these.

I never said that good concert halls cannot be built without these,
because
history shows that it happened. What I said is that rarely is a new
concert
hall of any significance built without the use of acoustical
measurements,
acoustical modeling, and other technical tools that have been quaintly
labeled "measurementalist". Any modern room of any significance, even
those
which only have enough electronics to support announcements before the
concert, includes some kind of system equalization. Since virtually all
new
venues are for mixed uses, they have sound systems that are far more
capable
and complex than those.

I'm sure that the
designers of Carnegie Hall, Boston and Chicago's symphony
halls. all of which have been praised for generations for
their acoustics, and all of which were designed before
these tools were even thought of, would disagree with
you.

It seems very strange to make policy for the present and future based on
a
increasingly distant past when we did not have the resources that we
actually take for granted today. Do you seriously think that had the
designers of those halls had modern tools available, they would have
avoided
using them?



Not at all. I am saying that they understood what they were doing well
enough
to not really need them in order to get superior sounding venues. Today,
even
with all of these modern tools, it seems to be hit or miss. Davies
Symphony
Hall in S.F., for instance sounds OK but not great, and they've never been
able to get Avery Fisher Hall at Lincoln Center in NYC to sound right in
spite of many tries at redesigning it. These tools are no panacea and
certainly no substitute for knowledge and talent.

I'm very impressed by the acoustics of the new 2262 seat auditorium at
Symphony Hall, Birmingham (UK) as its now become my benchmark for comparing
live Vs recorded. I know the whole area rests on resilient mounts and
series of huge, concrete doors each weighing one tonne opens from the Hall
and are computer adjusted to create the required degree of acoustic
adjustments dependant on temperature, hall occupancy etc.
As proof of the pudding an acoustic test demonstrated that if a pin was
dropped on stage, the sound could be heard from anywhere in the Hall.
The acousticians responsible are from Artec Consultants N.Y, Sonnova I'm
interested to know of any work they've done Stateside?
Before the hall opened, tests were carried out on the air conditioning in
which the heat of an audience was simulated by two thousand 200-watt light
bulbs placed on the seats

[Sonnova]

On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 06:22:32 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Sonnova" wrote in message

On Wed, 12 Nov 2008 07:18:53 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

wrote in message


It is my understanding that Piros did not alter the
signal in any such way when he mastered the original
LPs.

Just one misunderstanding of many.

I don't know whether or not his console had a built in
limiter or not.

In those days, limiters were outboard devices as a rule.

But according to Barry Diament, a
mastering engineer who worked with Piros, George Piros
was not one to use any compression when mastering.

The leading alternatives to that a

(1) Get the musicians to not play as dynamically as they
can when the recording was made.

Definitely not the case. Mercury's used to be used as
demonstration discs in Hi-Fi salons back in the day and
were highly regarded for their dynamic range.

Right, but everybody but naive audiophiles know the limitations of vinyl.

The limitations of vinyl are irrelevant to this point. A record label that is
highly touted for the dynamic range of its products (over other, similar
products from other record producers) is likely doing something different,
dynamics-wise to differentiate them from their competition. Since many LPs
were highly signal processed and obviously compressed and possibly limited,
it should be apparent that the Mercury's must have been less so.

That includes recording engineers and conductors. There are extant
recordings of the same or similar works with up to 20 dB more dynamic range.
Of course, they aren't LPs, they are CDs.

True, but, ultimately, irrelevant to my point.

(2) Rely on analog tape to do the compressing for you.

To a certain extent, I suppose.

(3) Ride gains, manually, either during recording,
editing, or mastering.

Not done on the Mercurys.

Prove that it didn't happen.

You're a recording engineer, I'm sure that you can tell when gain riding is
being utilized. I certainly can. I notice none on the original Mercury
releases or on the Classic Records' reissues. However, the Philips remastered
Mercury LPs from the 1970's and 80's are compressed compared to George Piros'
originals.

The
Classics were definitely mastered with no compression or
use of any limiters.

Or so the PR releases say.

The LPs sure sound like that that's true and why would
they lie about that anyway?

It's not lying, its "truth enhancement". ;-)

It's not like you can hide that sort of thing for long.

Really? How can anybody who is independent of the process know what actually
happened?

It's called listening, I believe.

[Arny Krueger]

"Sonnova" wrote in message

On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 06:22:32 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Sonnova" wrote in message

On Wed, 12 Nov 2008 07:18:53 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

wrote in message


It is my understanding that Piros did not alter the
signal in any such way when he mastered the original
LPs.

Just one misunderstanding of many.

I don't know whether or not his console had a built in
limiter or not.

In those days, limiters were outboard devices as a
rule.

But according to Barry Diament, a
mastering engineer who worked with Piros, George Piros
was not one to use any compression when mastering.

The leading alternatives to that a

(1) Get the musicians to not play as dynamically as
they can when the recording was made.

Definitely not the case. Mercury's used to be used as
demonstration discs in Hi-Fi salons back in the day and
were highly regarded for their dynamic range.

Right, but everybody but naive audiophiles know the
limitations of vinyl.

The limitations of vinyl are irrelevant to this point. A
record label that is highly touted for the dynamic range
of its products (over other, similar products from other
record producers) is likely doing something different,
dynamics-wise to differentiate them from their
competition. Since many LPs were highly signal processed
and obviously compressed and possibly limited, it should
be apparent that the Mercury's must have been less so.

That includes recording engineers and conductors. There
are extant recordings of the same or similar works with
up to 20 dB more dynamic range. Of course, they aren't
LPs, they are CDs.

True, but, ultimately, irrelevant to my point.

(2) Rely on analog tape to do the compressing for you.

To a certain extent, I suppose.

(3) Ride gains, manually, either during recording,
editing, or mastering.

Not done on the Mercurys.

Prove that it didn't happen.

You're a recording engineer, I'm sure that you can tell
when gain riding is being utilized.

I'm sure I can do it in a way that is undetectable, particularly with
wide-dynamic range music.

I certainly can.

The difference between us is that I know about how natural human limitations
impinge on our perceptions.

The
Classics were definitely mastered with no compression
or use of any limiters.

Or so the PR releases say.

The LPs sure sound like that that's true and why would
they lie about that anyway?

It's not lying, its "truth enhancement". ;-)

It's not like you can hide that sort of thing for long.

Really? How can anybody who is independent of the
process know what actually happened?

It's called listening, I believe.

Listening is a highly fallible process. After all, we've got all these
listeners who believe in green pens and magic cables.

[[email protected]]

On Nov 13, 6:06�am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Sonnova" wrote in message



On Wed, 12 Nov 2008 06:01:17 -0800,
wrote (in article ):

On Nov 11, 3:28 pm, Sonnova
wrote:
On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 05:39:14 -0800,
It is my understanding that Piros did not alter the
signal in any such way when he mastered the original
LPs. I don't know whether or not his console had a built
in limiter or not. But according to Barry Diament, a
mastering engineer who worked with Piros, George Piros
was not one to use any compression when mastering. The
Classics were definitely mastered with no compression or
use of any limiters.

Where's the technical proof of that?

I can't say for the PIros-cut Mercurys, but given the
intended audience for the Classic Records releases, I can
certainly believe that. I mean nobody is going to pay $60
for a single title cut at 45 RPM and occupying only one
side of four 200 gram LPs and then play them on a cheap
record player. They can afford to "pull out all the
stops"

Except they can't afford to "pull out the stops" because the LP format can't
handle the full dynamic range of a modern orchestra.

There are extant digital recordings of the same or similar musical works
that have up to 20 dB more dynamic range. Same claims - no gain riding or
dynamics processing were used. Let's say that everybody is telling the
truth. Where did the dynamic range go to from the legacy recordings?

BTW, I had a friend over last night who is as down on LP
as is Arny. I played the Classic Records remastered
Mercury "Firebird" for him. His jaw dropped.

So what? He's your friend. Clear case of criterial biasing. He told you what
you wanted to hear.

Scientific analysis is nobody's friend. It is scientific analysis, not
complements from friends that enabled the great technical progress that we
have today.

Here is an email to Classics records asking about the use of
compression and the answer.

From: Scott Wheeler
Date: November 14, 2008 7:36:45 AM PST
To:
Subject: ClassicRecords.com Contact

Just a question regarding your Mercury Living Presence reissues on LP.
Was there any compression used in mastering them?

Scott,
NO compression whatsoever.

There is nothing vague about that answer. It would seem you believe
that the president of Classics is misrepresenting how his product is
produced. If you wish to continue to deny the claims by the very
people who produced this product I would say tha onus is on you to
prove it. You have waved the science flag as some sort of proof of
your assertion and yet you have failed to provide any scientific
evidence that the original master tapes from Mercury could not
possibly be cut onto vinyl without compression.

[Doug McDonald[_3_]]

wrote:


Just a question regarding your Mercury Living Presence reissues on LP.
Was there any compression used in mastering them?

Scott,
NO compression whatsoever.



There is nothing vague about that answer.But it is incomplete.

You have to ask the original recording engineer "Was there any
gain riding done during the recording session?" and ask the
conductor "did you hold back on dynamic range to fit it
onto the recording dynamic range?"

I seem to remember seeing a photo of either Mr. or Mrs. Fine
sitting at a console reading a score to allow gain riding.

Doug McDonald

[[email protected]]

On Nov 14, 9:58�pm, Doug McDonald wrote:
wrote:

Just a question regarding your Mercury Living Presence reissues on LP.
Was there any compression used in mastering them?

Scott,
NO compression whatsoever.

There is nothing vague about that answer.But it is incomplete.

You have to ask the original recording engineer "Was there any
gain riding done during the recording session?" and ask the
conductor "did you hold back on dynamic range to fit it
onto the recording dynamic range?"

I seem to remember seeing a photo of either Mr. or Mrs. Fine
sitting at a console reading a score to allow gain riding.

Doug McDonald

We really don't have to ask that question at all. The original
recordings are what they are. They sound amazing. I don't judge a
recording by how it is made but by how it sounds. The Mercuries were
consistantly outstanding. Some titles are among the very best sounding
reocrdings ever made. That is all the more remarkable an achievement
given that stereo recording was still in it's infancy and given the
limited resources the production team had. If they used gain riding
during the recordings that is the way it is regardless of what medium
they are transcribed onto.

[Jenn[_3_]]

In article ,
Doug McDonald wrote:

wrote:


Just a question regarding your Mercury Living Presence reissues on LP.
Was there any compression used in mastering them?

Scott,
NO compression whatsoever.



There is nothing vague about that answer.But it is incomplete.

You have to ask the original recording engineer "Was there any
gain riding done during the recording session?" and ask the
conductor "did you hold back on dynamic range to fit it
onto the recording dynamic range?"

I can testify regarding the statements of one of Mercury's conductors.
Frederick Fennell (Eastman Wind Ensemble, Eastman-Rochester Orchestra,
London Pops Orchestra) said many times that, on his recordings at least,
there was no "holding back on the dynamic range". They played the works
as they played them in concerts which usually took place the week before
the session. Fred's work was characterized by dynamic extremes, and he
said that there was absolutely no holding back (witness the amazing EWE
recording of Walton: Crown Imperial). "They didn't tell me how to
conduct, and I didn't tell them how to make records. It was a beautiful
relationship."

By the way, nearly all of FF's Mercury recordings were done in one or
two takes, always played straight through.

[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message

On Nov 14, 9:58?pm, Doug McDonald
wrote:
wrote:

Just a question regarding your Mercury Living Presence
reissues on LP. Was there any compression used in
mastering them?

Scott,
NO compression whatsoever.

There is nothing vague about that answer.But it is
incomplete.

You have to ask the original recording engineer "Was
there any gain riding done during the recording
session?" and ask the conductor "did you hold back on
dynamic range to fit it
onto the recording dynamic range?"

I seem to remember seeing a photo of either Mr. or Mrs.
Fine sitting at a console reading a score to allow gain
riding.

Doug McDonald

We really don't have to ask that question at all. The
original recordings are what they are.

Appeal to blind faith, noted.

They sound amazing.

.....to some people.

I don't judge a recording by how it is made but
by how it sounds.

That seems to be a sharp reversal of recent behavior.

The Mercuries were consistantly outstanding.

Perhaps, in their day.

Some titles are among the very best sounding
reocrdings ever made.

Highly unlikely, if you're talking about recordings made in the 50s and 60s.
Microphone and recording technology has made significant gains since then.

That is all the more remarkable an
achievement given that stereo recording was still in it's
infancy and given the limited resources the production
team had.

In short, they did well with equipment that few would use even on a bet,
given all that is available today.

If they used gain riding during the recordings
that is the way it is regardless of what medium they are
transcribed onto.

Seems like a concession speech.

[[email protected]]

On Nov 15, 11:11�am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in message







On Nov 14, 9:58?pm, Doug McDonald
wrote:
wrote:

Just a question regarding your Mercury Living Presence
reissues on LP. Was there any compression used in
mastering them?

Scott,
NO compression whatsoever.

There is nothing vague about that answer.But it is
incomplete.

You have to ask the original recording engineer "Was
there any gain riding done during the recording
session?" and ask the conductor "did you hold back on
dynamic range to fit it
onto the recording dynamic range?"

I seem to remember seeing a photo of either Mr. or Mrs.
Fine sitting at a console reading a score to allow gain
riding.

Doug McDonald
We really don't have to ask that question at all. The
original recordings are what they are.

Appeal to blind faith, noted.

What are you trying to say Arny? That the original recordings *aren't*
what they *are*????
I'm not sure how a rhetorical statement of fact is somehow an appeal
to blind faith. I'm pretty confident that the original recordings
really are... what they are. I don't see the blind faith in that
assertion.


They sound amazing.

....to some people.

Do you think they sound something less than amazing? Perhaps you could
give us a list of commericla CDs that IYO offer substantially more
life like sounding symphonic recordings.


I don't judge a recording by how it is made but
by how it sounds.

That seems to be a sharp reversal of recent behavior.

What behavior would that be? I think my pragmatic approach to audio
has been pretty consistant on this thread.


The Mercuries were consistantly outstanding.

Perhaps, in their day.

No such qualification is needed. IME they more than stand up to the
recordings of any era.


Some titles are among the very best sounding
reocrdings ever made.

Highly unlikely, if you're talking about recordings made in the 50s and 60s.
Microphone and recording technology has made significant gains since then.

It's not a question of probability. You might try actually listening
to the Mercury recordings instead of speculating about the likelyhood
of their excellence. Thus far it would appear that you have not
actually done so. Actual listening strikes as a crucial step in
forming any kind of meaningful opinion about the quality of any
recording.

[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message

On Nov 15, 11:11?am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
wrote in message







On Nov 14, 9:58?pm, Doug McDonald
wrote:
wrote:

Just a question regarding your Mercury Living Presence
reissues on LP. Was there any compression used in
mastering them?

Scott,
NO compression whatsoever.

There is nothing vague about that answer.But it is
incomplete.

You have to ask the original recording engineer "Was
there any gain riding done during the recording
session?" and ask the conductor "did you hold back on
dynamic range to fit it
onto the recording dynamic range?"

I seem to remember seeing a photo of either Mr. or Mrs.
Fine sitting at a console reading a score to allow gain
riding.

Doug McDonald

We really don't have to ask that question at all. The
original recordings are what they are.

Appeal to blind faith, noted.

What are you trying to say Arny? That the original
recordings *aren't* what they *are*????

They are what they are - good examples of legacy technology. A technology
that had any number of audible limitations compared to what can easily be
done today.


They sound amazing.

....to some people.

Do you think they sound something less than amazing?

Well, they are amazing for the day, but the day and the technology used to
make them has long passed out of the relam of the best that can be done.

Perhaps you could give us a list of commerical CDs that
IYO offer substantially more life like sounding symphonic
recordings.

I'm not into playing preferenced games with people who think that added
noise and distortion sounds best.

I don't judge a recording by how it is made but
by how it sounds.

That seems to be a sharp reversal of recent behavior.

What behavior would that be? I think my pragmatic
approach to audio has been pretty consistant on this
thread.

Pragmatism biased for the sounds of the distant past seems to be some kind
of contradiction in terms. Biased Pragmatism, isn't that an oxymoron?

The Mercuries were consistantly outstanding.

Perhaps, in their day.

No such qualification is needed. IME they more than stand
up to the recordings of any era.

Same question as I asked Harry - since you avoid bias controlled listening
tests, how do we know that your evaluation isn't the result of your biases
as opposed to your personal biases?

Some titles are among the very best sounding
reocrdings ever made.

Highly unlikely, if you're talking about recordings made
in the 50s and 60s. Microphone and recording technology
has made significant gains since then.

It's not a question of probability.

Right, recording technology has progressed to the point where the audible
superiority is more like a certainty, presuming equal care and attention to
the SOTA.

You might try
actually listening to the Mercury recordings instead of
speculating about the likelyhood of their excellence.

Beem there, done that.

Thus far it would appear that you have not actually done
so. Actual listening strikes as a crucial step in forming
any kind of meaningful opinion about the quality of any
recording.

Listening with your biases running amok is no way to judge in any
generalizable, accurate sort of way.

[C. Leeds]

wrote in message

(about the legendary Mercury recordings)

Some titles are among the very best sounding
reocrdings ever made.

Arny Krueger answered
in :

Highly unlikely, if you're talking about recordings made in the 50s and 60s.
Microphone and recording technology has made significant gains since then.

This is a good example of how measurementalist thinking results in
prejudiced, faulty reasoning. Yes, it is certainly true that huge gains
in recording technology have been made since these recordings were made.
Playback quality has also improved, and it's likely that the people who
made these recordings had no was to assess just how exemplary a job they
were doing.

But, the proof is in the pudding. There is overwhelming opinion that
agrees with S888Wheel that these records "are among the very best" that
have ever been made. What explains the difference between what they
think and what Arny thinks? It's simple: we've actually heard these
recordings.

It's interesting to me just how superior the original LPs are to the CD
reissues. The master tapes have degraded so badly that the CD releases
just can't compare to the original LPs. The best sounding CD I have of
"Balalaika Favorites" is the one I burned from the LP.