wrote in message
...
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote in message
...
wrote:
wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
In article ,

wrote:







OK, now we've established that our opinions differ.


That was established long long agao. Sorry i didn't give you
anything
to attack.


End of yet another
pointless exercise.


Pointless? Examining and trying to understand different POVs is
pointless? I suppose for those who believe they already know it
all and
are right about everything.


What new thng did you actually learn?


That in moments of noncombativeness, some objectivists actually
were
aware fo the real world shortcomings of so many commercial CDs
including failings in the digitization an manufacturing of them.

That was not news AFAICT,

It wasn't? Then why did you say this about comercial CDs just in your
previous post?
"They sound like they are supposed to, like the master tape, and like
the engineer intended. " Please tell me how this claim doesn't
blanketly deny the fact that many CDs were sonically screwed up by the
A/D conversion or the manufacturing or the mastering or any combination
of these problems or even other real world documented causes. It
*can't* be both.


Sure they can,

So you are saying that a CD can be both soncially screwed up by colored
AD conversion and poor manufacturing and "sound like they are supposed
to, like the master tape and like the eengineer intended"? to me that
makes zero sense.

In the days when all the bugs had not been worked out, the CD's that were
badly done IME were usually the result of bad masters to begin with. Those
that weren't were still more accurate than any LP could be.

they can be better than the Lp version due to better
dynamics and lower noise and lack of compression and still not match up
to todays SOTA.


While this is true i t has nothing to do with the apparent conflict
between your beliefs about the sound of commercial CDs and the reality
of the sound of comercial CDs.

Nor does much of your belief about the superiority of or equality of LP, but
it's what you like so you keep strain to try and give it some legitmacy,
despite the fact that technically, you don't ahve a leg to stand on.

There are some bad CD;s, there are IMO more good ones.
All of them are vastly more accurate than an LP can ever hope to be.

They can still be more accurate and faithful to the
master.


Sure but that wasn't your claim.

It's always been one of the claims.



it is the same as so many badly produced LP's.


Which ones were badly digitized?

None theat I know of.


Odd, you brought that up.


Whic LP's were badly analoged?

Analoged? Please explain.


You first.

It's a question that I can't answer and
I doubt anybody else can either unless they were there.


Others, such as yourself have a completely unrealistic idealized
impression of CDs no matter how bad any number of them sound and
some,
like yourself are willing to accept such bad sound under the
mistaken
belief that because it is CD it is always more "accurate" to the
master
tape and more true to the intentions of the people who made the
recording.

So then YOU are the one collecting the Million Dollars for being able
to
read minds?


No I base it on your words. Let me remind you of them.This is what you
said about commercial CDs
"They sound like they are supposed to, like the master tape, and like
the engineer intended. "

Which is the truth, they sound as close to the master tape (if one was
used) than the LP ever can.

::sigh:: It simply isn't true most of the time.

And the proof of that is where? Have you spoken with most of the artists
and engineers?

I have explianed why
and offered references to support those explinations. I guess you don't
get it or don't want to get it. Nothing I can do about that.

I guess you don't get that nothing changes the facts. CD is more accurate.

Today, the tecnology exists so that the CD is the exact copy of the
master no matter how it was created, something that LP can never be.


I agree that with the needed care and hardware that it is possible
toget commercial CDs to sound very close to the original source.

Not very close, exact copies of whatever was used as the master.

Unfortunately that doesn't help the thousands and thousands of crappy
CDs that have been released.

That's simply your opinion.

I cannot imagine how anyone with a geniune
interest in the sound quality of the music they listen to (provided
that is commercially released music) would be worried more about
abstract arguments about which media is more accurate and less about
what those commercial releases actually sound like.


And I can't imagine how anyone who claims tolove music, could stand to
listen to all the coloration, noise, and distortion that is every LP ever
made.

It was OK when there was nothing else, but now there is no excuse.











The reasoning behind that belief is fataly flawed on so many
levels. 1. The presumption that the transfer was transparent

When done by nominally competent people it is.


That is a ridiculous, selfserving, conveniently vague, claim. The
*fact* is many, most are not.

And the proof of this is where?


If it were a sanke it would have bit you until it were exhausted. As it
is, I am tired of directing yo to that proof over and over again. As I
said before, you either don't get it or don't want to. I have provided
everything you need to understand that most CDs are not transparent
copies of their original source.



There is no warning sign on CDs telling
you whether they are transparent copies of the master tape or not.

There is no warning on LP's telling you how many times removed from the
master it is either, yet it will never be as close as a CD is.

No there are no warnings. It takes careful investigation. Had you ever
engaged in such investigation you would realize just how wrong you are
about your assumptions.

I do it with my ears and they tell me that what I'm hearing is as good as it
is possible to get until they make better microphones or better speakers.
The fault is not the CD's or the CD medium, it is the fault, when it exists
of the choices made by the people making the recording.

You
don't know which are and are not. Now if you can come up with a list
stating which commercial Cds are and which are not.... Otherwise your
claim doesn't mean anything in the real world. It also doesn't jive
with this ridiculous claim of yours.
"They sound like they are supposed to, like the master tape, and like
the engineer intended." Are you suggesting that *all* Cds were
"nominally competently" made?

I'm responding to the title of the thread, CD is more accurate than LP
always has been and will ever be thus.

Sorry but that simply is not the case in so many commercial releases.
You don't get it? Fine, your problem not mine.

I think the one ot getting it is clear. The title of the thread was the
truth about CD vs LP and the truth is that LP is less accurate, always and
forever.

You want to discuss other issues like production values instead.


Production as in the mastering and manfacturing of CDs and LPs is not
another issue. It is a primary issue.

It is not what make the medium accurate or not.

The truth is that CD is the most accurate way to playback music, it
also has lower noise and better dynamics. I can't control how they
master them any more than you can control the mastering of any LP's.
The facts don't change if there was a bad decision in how to mix the
final version, but the CD is going to be truer than the LP.

The quality of sound does change. That is the issue you prefer to
ignore it seems.

But the accuracy doesn't, CD is ore accurate. If yo get a POS for a source,
you will get a POS CD, just like with LP's.

If it were not the goal to have that accuracy to the master, then why
bother making one?


That is a ridiculous question. You make one so you can have a
commerical release.

But if you don't care about how it sounds, you don't spend any time mixing
or using the tecnology of the studio. The fact that so much of what is
recorded now is done on DAT should tell you that teh digital medium is the
more accurate way to go. I know you will probably claim that it better than
CD because of the higher sampling rate, but that has zero to do with it,
that has only to do with signal shaping and other things done to enhance the
final product.

So it stands to reason, that if you care about such things, you stick
with CD's.


No it does not stand to reason. Please review my post where I explain
why it is far from reasonable for a consumer to pretend the "master
tape" is any kind of meaningful reference.

I've reviewed it, it is a cry for legitimacy for an outdated medium.

If you want something that creates an alternate reality
from what was recorded so that it suits your idea of what things should
sound like, use whatever you like, form Lp's and different cartridges
to, EQ and sonic holography. Whatever floats your boat.

"Alternate reality?" Do tell me how one determines the "reality" of the
sound of a "master tape?" If in carefully explaining how one determines
what a "master tape" is supposed to "sound like" you haven't figured
out what so many of the problems are in rying to make this a reference,
I don't know what else to tell you.

Tell me youunderstand that whatever the master is, the CD is the copy of
that,and I willknow that you finally understand.



2. The
presumption that the right choices were made in picking and playing
"the" master tape

That's different for LP's how?

With original issues that should be selfevident. the masters that were
used were specifically chosen or made by the people making the
recording for the purpose of mastering the LP. But asking about LPs
makes the assumption that CDs are more accurate to the artists'
intentions how?


Because the artist hears what he recorded exactly as it entered the
mixing board and doesn't have to wait to hear what they have to do to
make it suitable for an LP master.


This makes no sense without a time machine.

I thought you understood the mixing and mastering process?




3 The presumption that the mastering engineer did a
good job

See above.


Tell me this. How would *you* know which suffered more from bad
mastering between any given LP and CD?

How would you tell that about an LP?


I see you have no answer to the question. thank you. i think you know
the answer is that you cant without access to the source. Something we
don't have.

If I have a CD I have an exact copy of the source used to make the CD.
I've snipped the rest of this for one simple reason, to get back to the
thread title.

The Truth About accuracy of CD v LP.


I've snipped the rest of this post because it contains nothing relevant
to the topic above just misguided beliefs held despite all the evidence
presented to the contrary of those misguided beliefs.


You're right, you have nothing relevant to say on the topic of accuracy of
either medium since you obviously refuse to acknowldege that CD's are exact
copies of the source material given to the people who produce them and put
them in the little jewel boxes.

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
MC wrote:
wrote in message ...

Some people prefer beer to burgundy, some people prefer rye to Napoleon
brandy, and some people prefer Twinkies to mousse. ...

That is of course true. Is the goal of "high fidelity" to produce the
sound
of the original instruments, or to produce a copy of that sound that is
colored to reflect the hearer's further preferences? And what if the
music
was electronically synthesized, so there was never any original sound to
begin with? Then, is it purely a matter of taste how any particular
listener chooses to make it sound?

Maybe all we can say is that "high fidelity" means delivering a copy of
the
master tapes into the listener's final amplifier stages as faithfully as
possible.

We at home generally don't deal with the recording and mastering stages
ourselves, but only with playback. Most of us can't know personally
how the master tape sounded in the mastering suite, much less how the live
performance sounded. So we can't even say for sure how 'faithful' the
reproduction of is. We can't know in fine detail how it's 'supposed
to ' sound. Thus for the vast majority of listeners, 'high
fidelity' as a hobby comes down to reaching for what they *believe*
the 'right sound' is. And the 'right sound' ends up being, of course,
'what sounds good to me'. Lots of audiophiles then make the leap backwards
to : 'this is the way it's *supposed to* sound'. ;




I assume that when a mix is done and a final product is ready to have CD's
made from it, that is the product that we are expected to hear. If you make
a CD from that and an LP, the CD is going to be the one that is an exact
copy of that end product. That it is the one that the entire group of eople
who worked on the project decided sounded the way they wanted it to sound
and that anything that deviates from that is not what we were supposed to
hear.

On 15 Mar 2006 00:40:18 GMT, wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 12 Mar 2006 18:56:53 GMT, Jenn wrote:

Even at that stratospheric level, the
argument still rages, as the Goldmund Reference table was produced
using both technologies at different times.

When was the Goldman Reference ever a DD TT?

In the '70s. Both technologies were used, I believe the DD came before
the belt-drive, although there may also have been an original
belt-drive model. That table went through several iterations in its
long and illustrious lifetime, although it certaily finished as a
belt-drive unit.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On 15 Mar 2006 00:28:58 GMT, "Dennis Moore"
wrote:

Yes, but to reiterate the point, Stewart is trying to ignore.
Good execution is very important.

Simple one piece plastic bearings that won't last are inferior
to two bearings and a belt if well made. Not much way to
argue that the design that lasts years is worse than one giving up
the ghost in 18 months.

I have cheap plastic CD-ROM drives, spinning at 40x real-time, which
have lasted more than 4 years. Basically, you don't know what you're
talking about.

A matter of basic engineering, simple overly flimsy parts don't
last as long as adequately engineered parts much less over
engineered parts. Hence a well done belt drive isn't inept
rather simply well done.

The point is not about reliability (A Philips CDM-9 is beautifully
made from alloy with brass bearings, and will essentially last for
ever), but about basic function (see original post below). The
massively greater inertia of these belt-drive abortions means that you
need a *huge* servo motor, with concomitant massive current pulses in
the power supply. To keep this electrical noise away from the DAC
circuitry requires heroic power supplies, and on it goes. The bottom
line is that this is *bad* engineering, done to con those who think
that a belt-drive CD transport should in some mystical way be better
than direct drive, just because this tends to be the case for LP,
which is a *totally* different kind of disc.

Dennis

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message :

It's a matter of basic engineering. LPs spin at constant angular
velocity, therefore you want a table with an absolutely constant
rotational speed, where high inertia is an advantage. Being a fully
mechanical medium, you also need extremely low bearing noise and no
transmission of motor vibrations.

CDs have a constant linear velocity, hence the rotational speed is
constantly varying, and low inertia is an advantage. Combine that with
the use of a FIFO buffer and a servo circuit, and the fact that
'cogging' and bearing noise are irrelevant for a CD transport, and it
becomes obvious that the addition of a second bearing assembly and
intermediate belt offers no advantage, just more to go wrong and
higher mechanical stresses.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

wrote:
wrote in message
...
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote in message
...
wrote:
wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
In article ,

wrote:







OK, now we've established that our opinions differ.


That was established long long agao. Sorry i didn't give you
anything
to attack.


End of yet another
pointless exercise.


Pointless? Examining and trying to understand different POVs is
pointless? I suppose for those who believe they already know it
all and
are right about everything.


What new thng did you actually learn?


That in moments of noncombativeness, some objectivists actually
were
aware fo the real world shortcomings of so many commercial CDs
including failings in the digitization an manufacturing of them.

That was not news AFAICT,

It wasn't? Then why did you say this about comercial CDs just in your
previous post?
"They sound like they are supposed to, like the master tape, and like
the engineer intended. " Please tell me how this claim doesn't
blanketly deny the fact that many CDs were sonically screwed up by the
A/D conversion or the manufacturing or the mastering or any combination
of these problems or even other real world documented causes. It
*can't* be both.


Sure they can,

So you are saying that a CD can be both soncially screwed up by colored
AD conversion and poor manufacturing and "sound like they are supposed
to, like the master tape and like the eengineer intended"? to me that
makes zero sense.

In the days when all the bugs had not been worked out, the CD's that were
badly done IME were usually the result of bad masters to begin with.


In your experience? Do tell us about this experience that allowed you
to make a determination about the state of any given master tape used
for any particular CD. Can you cite any examples?


Those
that weren't were still more accurate than any LP could be.


How do you know? What comparisons did you make betwen early CDs and the
master tapes used to produce them?



they can be better than the Lp version due to better
dynamics and lower noise and lack of compression and still not match up
to todays SOTA.


While this is true i t has nothing to do with the apparent conflict
between your beliefs about the sound of commercial CDs and the reality
of the sound of comercial CDs.

Nor does much of your belief about the superiority of or equality of LP,


That is correct. The capacity of CDs has next to nothing to do with my
preference between an LP and CD of the same title most of the time.
Fact is it has nothing to do with my preference for CDs over LPs of the
same title most of the time as well. Do you understand the significance
of this fact you stumbled upon?


but
it's what you like so you keep strain to try and give it some legitmacy,
despite the fact that technically, you don't ahve a leg to stand on.


Wrong and wrong. I don't strain to give my choices any legitmacy
whatsoever. They are perfectly legitimate enough for me because they
are my preferences and they are not swayed by a commitment to one
technology or another. Im not looking for a technical leg to stand on
but it was interesting to find out possible reasons why so many CDs
failed me when it came to sound quality.



There are some bad CD;s, there are IMO more good ones.


You are entitled to that opinion. Mine is quite different.


All of them are vastly more accurate than an LP can ever hope to be.


That is plainly wrong. I suggest you reread the interview with Rudy Van
Gelder.




They can still be more accurate and faithful to the
master.


Sure but that wasn't your claim.

It's always been one of the claims.

No your claim was far more direct. Not that they can be but that they
are. Huge difference.






it is the same as so many badly produced LP's.


Which ones were badly digitized?

None theat I know of.


Odd, you brought that up.


Whic LP's were badly analoged?

Analoged? Please explain.


You first.


How can I explain a word you made up?




It's a question that I can't answer and
I doubt anybody else can either unless they were there.


Others, such as yourself have a completely unrealistic idealized
impression of CDs no matter how bad any number of them sound and
some,
like yourself are willing to accept such bad sound under the
mistaken
belief that because it is CD it is always more "accurate" to the
master
tape and more true to the intentions of the people who made the
recording.

So then YOU are the one collecting the Million Dollars for being able
to
read minds?


No I base it on your words. Let me remind you of them.This is what you
said about commercial CDs
"They sound like they are supposed to, like the master tape, and like
the engineer intended. "

Which is the truth, they sound as close to the master tape (if one was
used) than the LP ever can.

::sigh:: It simply isn't true most of the time.

And the proof of that is where?

Right in front of your face on this thread as explianed to you several
times.

Have you spoken with most of the artists
and engineers?

Of course not. You have heard of sampling and extrapolation no? I have
spoke with and read interviews of numerous engineers and producers. You
could have done as well if you just look at this thread. I believe I
have heard and read enough to have a very good sampling of how CDs and
LPs are made. naturally I have focused more on the music that I like.




I have explianed why
and offered references to support those explinations. I guess you don't
get it or don't want to get it. Nothing I can do about that.

I guess you don't get that nothing changes the facts.

What does that mean to a guy who continues to rfuse to look at them?


CD is more accurate.


Some CDs are many are not. You and I have no way of testing it.
Sometimes it is a good thing some times it is not.



Today, the tecnology exists so that the CD is the exact copy of the
master no matter how it was created, something that LP can never be.


I agree that with the needed care and hardware that it is possible
toget commercial CDs to sound very close to the original source.

Not very close, exact copies of whatever was used as the master.

And you know this how? All you have so far is one blind test.



Unfortunately that doesn't help the thousands and thousands of crappy
CDs that have been released.

That's simply your opinion.


No it is a fact.




I cannot imagine how anyone with a geniune
interest in the sound quality of the music they listen to (provided
that is commercially released music) would be worried more about
abstract arguments about which media is more accurate and less about
what those commercial releases actually sound like.


And I can't imagine how anyone who claims tolove music, could stand to
listen to all the coloration, noise, and distortion that is every LP ever
made.

Ridiculous claim. Fist it is a complete mischaracterization of the
medium. Second it begs the question how you can stand to listen to any
playback given the colorations that are present in all transducers.
Third it suggests that one cannot enjoy music over anything less than
SOTA playback if they are a true music lover. Do you bleive that your
playback system is less colored compared to the original live source
than any LP is to it's master tape on any LP playback system? If you do
we have nothing more to talk about.



It was OK when there was nothing else, but now there is no excuse.


Yes there is. But I hve already explained it to you.














The reasoning behind that belief is fataly flawed on so many
levels. 1. The presumption that the transfer was transparent

When done by nominally competent people it is.


That is a ridiculous, selfserving, conveniently vague, claim. The
*fact* is many, most are not.

And the proof of this is where?


If it were a sanke it would have bit you until it were exhausted. As it
is, I am tired of directing yo to that proof over and over again. As I
said before, you either don't get it or don't want to. I have provided
everything you need to understand that most CDs are not transparent
copies of their original source.


Still closing your eyes?





There is no warning sign on CDs telling
you whether they are transparent copies of the master tape or not.

There is no warning on LP's telling you how many times removed from the
master it is either, yet it will never be as close as a CD is.

No there are no warnings. It takes careful investigation. Had you ever
engaged in such investigation you would realize just how wrong you are
about your assumptions.

I do it with my ears and they tell me that what I'm hearing is as good as it
is possible to get until they make better microphones or better speakers.


Really? You can listen to a CD and without comparing it to the master
tape know that it is a transparent copy of the master tape used to make
it? Do you really believe this?



The fault is not the CD's


Wrong in most cases.


or the CD medium,

Debatable.


it is the fault, when it exists
of the choices made by the people making the recording.


You just don't get it.Let's apply this claim to a specific documented
example and see how well it plays out. In the Rudy Van Gelder interview
I cited earlier in this thread he says
http://www.allaboutjazz.com/iviews/vangelder.htm
"AAJ: Please discuss your approach to the new Rudy Van Gelder Edition
Blue Notes in terms of working with the stereo and mono tapes and
deciding which format to use for the new master."

"RVG: My approach was totally different from what I had heard in the
previous CDs. This was first time I had any opportunity to deal with
those tapes. Once or twice they sent to me both the mono and stereo
versions, which I described to you a minute ago, and the mono would
sound much better for obvious reasons, because no one who had been
involved in the creation of the original session had ever listened to
stereo, but everyone had listened to mono. So I tried to convince them
to release the mono version even though it had previously been issued
as stereo because I felt that the mono version sounded as if Alfred
would have wanted it to be that way. And that is really my goal here.
However, there are plenty of albums in this series that are in very
good stereo. Until now no one has heard my version of what these early
recordings should sound like on CD. "

So tell me how it is Rudy Van Gelder's fault (he was the recording
engineer) that all earlier CD releases of the Blue Note recordings,
according to him, did not sound like they "should?" Good luck on this
one.






You
don't know which are and are not. Now if you can come up with a list
stating which commercial Cds are and which are not.... Otherwise your
claim doesn't mean anything in the real world. It also doesn't jive
with this ridiculous claim of yours.
"They sound like they are supposed to, like the master tape, and like
the engineer intended." Are you suggesting that *all* Cds were
"nominally competently" made?

I'm responding to the title of the thread, CD is more accurate than LP
always has been and will ever be thus.

Sorry but that simply is not the case in so many commercial releases.
You don't get it? Fine, your problem not mine.

I think the one ot getting it is clear. The title of the thread was the
truth about CD vs LP and the truth is that LP is less accurate, always and
forever.

Wrong, as explained earlier. Not only that but you seem to be
completely oblivious to a key point about "the truth about the accuracy
of CD v. LP" that being the uselessness of accuracy to a master as any
kind of meaningful goal. The truth you seem to continue to ignore is
that you cannot judge that accuracy becaus of all the variables that go
into producing any CD or LP of the same title and because of the utter
lack of access to the original source for comparisons and because of
the inherent flaws in the idea of a master tape as a reference due to
the *fact* that it *requires* that you use playaback as reference. Not
just playback but ll the playback systems and control rooms used world
wide to ecord and master CDs and LPs. I'm betting you will continue to
ignore this truth about the accuracy of CDs and LPs.






You want to discuss other issues like production values instead.


Production as in the mastering and manfacturing of CDs and LPs is not
another issue. It is a primary issue.

It is not what make the medium accurate or not.

It is what makes actual CDs and LPs accurate or not. Again, your lack
of interest in real world LPs an CDs continues to baffle me.



The truth is that CD is the most accurate way to playback music, it
also has lower noise and better dynamics. I can't control how they
master them any more than you can control the mastering of any LP's.
The facts don't change if there was a bad decision in how to mix the
final version, but the CD is going to be truer than the LP.

The quality of sound does change. That is the issue you prefer to
ignore it seems.

But the accuracy doesn't,

Oh come on! If the sound changes the "accuracy " changes.

CD is ore accurate.


I'm begining to think you might believe that saying it over and over
again will make it so. trust me, saying it over and over again while
ignoring all the evidence I give you to the contrary won't change
reality.


If yo get a POS for a source,
you will get a POS CD, just like with LP's.

You even got that wrong.wow.



If it were not the goal to have that accuracy to the master, then why
bother making one?


That is a ridiculous question. You make one so you can have a
commerical release.

But if you don't care about how it sounds, you don't spend any time mixing
or using the tecnology of the studio.

That has nothing, nothing , nothing to do with this topic. We are
talking about what happens well after any mixing has taken place.


The fact that so much of what is
recorded now is done on DAT should tell you that teh digital medium is the
more accurate way to go.


No it doesn't tell me that at all. But that isn't the issue anyways. We
are not talking about recording quality except when we talk about the
best of the best v. the best of the best. But mostly we have been
talking about differences between various issues on CD and LP of the
mulittude of commercial recordings.


I know you will probably claim that it better than
CD because of the higher sampling rate, but that has zero to do with it,


We are not discussing the quality of digital *recording* so there is
nothing to claim do to complete irrelvance.


that has only to do with signal shaping and other things done to enhance the
final product.

So it stands to reason, that if you care about such things, you stick
with CD's.


No it does not stand to reason. Please review my post where I explain
why it is far from reasonable for a consumer to pretend the "master
tape" is any kind of meaningful reference.

I've reviewed it, it is a cry for legitimacy for an outdated medium.


Wrong.

But if you later wish to spport your claim with citations of what was
actually said and logical arguments to support your assertion i will
offer a better rebuttal than a simple "wrong" but as it stands "wrong"
does the job.



If you want something that creates an alternate reality
from what was recorded so that it suits your idea of what things should
sound like, use whatever you like, form Lp's and different cartridges
to, EQ and sonic holography. Whatever floats your boat.

"Alternate reality?" Do tell me how one determines the "reality" of the
sound of a "master tape?" If in carefully explaining how one determines
what a "master tape" is supposed to "sound like" you haven't figured
out what so many of the problems are in rying to make this a reference,
I don't know what else to tell you.

Tell me youunderstand that whatever the master is, the CD is the copy of
that,and I willknow that you finally understand.

Your failure to explain how one determines the "reality" of the sound
of a master tape is duly noted. until you can explian this you have no
business refering to the sound of the master tape as ny kind of sonic
reference.



2. The
presumption that the right choices were made in picking and playing
"the" master tape

That's different for LP's how?

With original issues that should be selfevident. the masters that were
used were specifically chosen or made by the people making the
recording for the purpose of mastering the LP. But asking about LPs
makes the assumption that CDs are more accurate to the artists'
intentions how?


Because the artist hears what he recorded exactly as it entered the
mixing board and doesn't have to wait to hear what they have to do to
make it suitable for an LP master.


This makes no sense without a time machine.

I thought you understood the mixing and mastering process?


I thought you undertood the difference between recordings that have
been made and recordings that will be made. I think perhaps it is you
who does not understand the mixing and mastering process. For instance
you seem to not understand that while mastering *is* an issue when
comparing LPs and CDs of the same title mixing isn't.






3 The presumption that the mastering engineer did a
good job

See above.


Tell me this. How would *you* know which suffered more from bad
mastering between any given LP and CD?

How would you tell that about an LP?


I see you have no answer to the question. thank you. i think you know
the answer is that you cant without access to the source. Something we
don't have.

If I have a CD I have an exact copy of the source used to make the CD.

Wrong. you may or may not and you have no way of knowing. I have
offered well researched proof of that but you continue to ignore it and
make these unsupported proclimations.


I've snipped the rest of this for one simple reason, to get back to the
thread title.

The Truth About accuracy of CD v LP.


I've snipped the rest of this post because it contains nothing relevant
to the topic above just misguided beliefs held despite all the evidence
presented to the contrary of those misguided beliefs.


You're right,


I know.

the rest snipped due to the misundestanding of who is who.





Scott

wrote:
I have tried to follow the logic in this thread for a while but it
seems that I can get the same information on rao.

A simplification:

x the music that the composer/soloist/producer/conductor wants us to
perceive.

No, x is what they played. Their intent is indeterminate. It's quite
possible (and I would argue inevitable) that what they played is really
only the raw material from which they will fashion (in your step g)
their intent--which might be very close to the sound that someone would
have heard standing in a particular spot in the room, or it might not.

f(x) the result after recording x (A/D)

IOW, the sound that is captured on the tape (or, these days, maybe the
hard drive).

g(f(x)) the remastering process(A/D)

I would argue that this stage really represents their *intent*--to put
out a recording that sounds like this.

h(g(f(x))) the production process (A/D)
i(h(g(f(x)))) the playback hardware
p(i(h(g(f(x))))) how we will perceive the playback

How many of you (objectivist, subjectivists ... ) are professionals
involved in any of the transformations f(),g() or h()

None that I know of. And I would be wary of any claim of secondary
expertise here. Some people only "know" what they want to know.

and how valid is
the information found in the links about the recording process problems
that George refers to?

Not sure which links you're referring to. I don't recall Scott (aka
George) offering any links. If you mean the one that Steven Sullivan
supplied:

http://www.themusiclab.net/aespaper.pdf

...then the validity depends on the information. In general, only blind
comparisons have much validity. So, for example, you'll note that in
the final section, discussing a comparison between the final CD and the
master tape, there was a blind comparison which showed them to be
audibly indistinguishable. Whereas the earlier comparisons of ADCs do
not appear to have been done blind (or, necessarily, level-matched), so
we do not know for sure whether their conclusions about the various
ADCs are accurate or not. They might be, but there is room for doubt.
(Please note that this paper was not peer-reviewed.)

Is the information found there obsolete!

In what way?

bob

Slice it any way you like it Stewart. I most definitely know how
long CD drives lasted that I have owned.

I too own a 40x drive that is 4 years old. Working on computers
for other people I have replaced several less than two years old.
In my personal machines I have had two go bad in less than 2 years.
One being the same brand as the old one I have.

And I assure you Stewart if executed well, many things can be made
to function very well. If a designer uses something requiring a huge
servo, uses the appropriate servo, and power supply, spaces things
to accomplish the task I hardly call that inept when it produces good
results doing so for a long time.

As for my motivations for owning such a thing, you are simply in
fantasy land. For you can in no way know, but only guess. And
your guesses have not hit anywhere close to the mark so far.

Furthermore, while the CDM 9 drive is very well made, that actually
agrees quite well with what I have been saying. It is well executed,
well made design. You are trying to "jump to confusions" as if I
implied non-belt drives were all bad. Sorry, not something I claimed.

I will struggle on with my belt driven abomination. Pity me as it may
lasts for many years yet to come. Hideously providing the basic function
of spinning CD's in a manner needed to allow musical replay.

Dennis


"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message news:

The point is not about reliability (A Philips CDM-9 is beautifully
made from alloy with brass bearings, and will essentially last for
ever), but about basic function (see original post below). The
massively greater inertia of these belt-drive abortions means that you
need a *huge* servo motor, with concomitant massive current pulses in
the power supply. To keep this electrical noise away from the DAC
circuitry requires heroic power supplies, and on it goes. The bottom
line is that this is *bad* engineering, done to con those who think
that a belt-drive CD transport should in some mystical way be better
than direct drive, just because this tends to be the case for LP,
which is a *totally* different kind of disc.

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 15 Mar 2006 00:40:18 GMT, wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 12 Mar 2006 18:56:53 GMT, Jenn wrote:

Even at that stratospheric level, the
argument still rages, as the Goldmund Reference table was produced
using both technologies at different times.

When was the Goldman Reference ever a DD TT?

In the '70s. Both technologies were used, I believe the DD came before
the belt-drive, although there may also have been an original
belt-drive model. That table went through several iterations in its
long and illustrious lifetime, although it certaily finished as a
belt-drive unit.


Maybe you are thing of the Goldmund Studio which was a DD TT. The
reference went into production in 82 an I don't think it went through
many changes at all.



Scott

Scott - obsolete as in "obsolete if this has been done today
considering technical improvements of "gear" used in g() and h()"
- this in the context of the problems they with the A/D
transformations according to http://www.themusiclab.net/aespaper.pdf.

It would also be interesting if anyone has a theory/information about
the technical skill level required nowadays - handling f() g() -
compared to the vinyl era.

/mu

wrote:
I have tried to follow the logic in this thread for a while but it
seems that I can get the same information on rao.

A simplification:

x the music that the composer/soloist/producer/conductor wants us to
perceive.
f(x) the result after recording x (A/D)
g(f(x)) the remastering process(A/D)
h(g(f(x))) the production process (A/D)
i(h(g(f(x)))) the playback hardware
p(i(h(g(f(x))))) how we will perceive the playback

How many of you (objectivist, subjectivists ... ) are professionals
involved in any of the transformations f(),g() or h() and how valid is
the information found in the links about the recording process problems
that George refers to? Is the information found there obsolete!

/mu
x should not equal a perception but a reality. Objective vs subjective.
Unless they want to record something different than what it actually
sounds like. Recording is or should be an archival process not a rendering.

Steven Sullivan wrote:
MC wrote:
wrote in message ...

Some people prefer beer to burgundy, some people prefer rye to Napoleon
brandy, and some people prefer Twinkies to mousse. ...

That is of course true. Is the goal of "high fidelity" to produce the sound
of the original instruments, or to produce a copy of that sound that is
colored to reflect the hearer's further preferences?


An interesting qustion considering you think playback of a master tape
is "the correct" reference for "high fidelity." The goal ultimately is
in the mind of the beholder. My goal is capture as much of the
intrinsic beauty of live music in the playback of live music.


And what if the music
was electronically synthesized, so there was never any original sound to
begin with? Then, is it purely a matter of taste how any particular
listener chooses to make it sound?

It is very much a matter of taste for those recordings.



Maybe all we can say is that "high fidelity" means delivering a copy of the
master tapes into the listener's final amplifier stages as faithfully as
possible.

We at home generally don't deal with the recording and mastering stages
ourselves, but only with playback. Most of us can't know personally
how the master tape sounded in the mastering suite, much less how the live
performance sounded. So we can't even say for sure how 'faithful' the
reproduction of is. We can't know in fine detail how it's 'supposed
to ' sound. Thus for the vast majority of listeners, 'high
fidelity' as a hobby comes down to reaching for what they *believe*
the 'right sound' is. And the 'right sound' ends up being, of course,
'what sounds good to me'. Lots of audiophiles then make the leap backwards
to : 'this is the way it's *supposed to* sound'. ;



Well, what can I say? Well said Steven, well said. But I would like to
add that if one states a reference that is at least reviewable then it
is not just "what sounds good to me" but what sounds good to me because
it brings me closer to this particular ideal.




Scott

wrote:
Scott - obsolete as in "obsolete if this has been done today
considering technical improvements of "gear" used in g() and h()"
- this in the context of the problems they with the A/D
transformations according to http://www.themusiclab.net/aespaper.pdf.


The problem with that is that most commercial CDs were not mastered and
manufactured "today." If you are interested in a given title there is a
reaonable chance you will be forced to choose from different "obsolete"
versions with no newer version available. But even further, those Cds
made by "obsolete" technology may still be better than a current
remastering for other reasons particularly excessive compression which
is a major issue in current CDs.



It would also be interesting if anyone has a theory/information about
the technical skill level required nowadays - handling f() g() -
compared to the vinyl era.

The vinyl era? Vinyl is at it's best right now. And don't forget that
difficulty does not always dictate success. I would be surprised to
find out that it is more difficult to make an excellent CD than it is
to make an excellent LP at this point in time. But when you consider
the huge problem with so many current CDs being made as loud as
possible for reasons that have nothing to do with good sound quality
you see why dificulty comes in diferent flavors.



Scott

MD wrote:
wrote:
I have tried to follow the logic in this thread for a while but it
seems that I can get the same information on rao.

A simplification:

x the music that the composer/soloist/producer/conductor wants us to
perceive.
f(x) the result after recording x (A/D)
g(f(x)) the remastering process(A/D)
h(g(f(x))) the production process (A/D)
i(h(g(f(x)))) the playback hardware
p(i(h(g(f(x))))) how we will perceive the playback

How many of you (objectivist, subjectivists ... ) are professionals
involved in any of the transformations f(),g() or h() and how valid is
the information found in the links about the recording process problems
that George refers to? Is the information found there obsolete!

/mu
x should not equal a perception but a reality. Objective vs subjective.
Unless they want to record something different than what it actually
sounds like. Recording is or should be an archival process not a rendering.


That is wishful thinking. any recording involves subjective decisions.
What an objectiely better perspective for an orchestral recording? Row
G or row M? There is no way to actually archive a live performance so
all we ever have is a rendering.


Scott

MD wrote:
wrote:
I have tried to follow the logic in this thread for a while but it
seems that I can get the same information on rao.

A simplification:

x the music that the composer/soloist/producer/conductor wants us to
perceive.
f(x) the result after recording x (A/D)
g(f(x)) the remastering process(A/D)
h(g(f(x))) the production process (A/D)
i(h(g(f(x)))) the playback hardware
p(i(h(g(f(x))))) how we will perceive the playback

How many of you (objectivist, subjectivists ... ) are professionals
involved in any of the transformations f(),g() or h() and how valid is
the information found in the links about the recording process problems
that George refers to? Is the information found there obsolete!

/mu
x should not equal a perception but a reality. Objective vs subjective.
Unless they want to record something different than what it actually
sounds like. Recording is or should be an archival process not a rendering.

Why must recording be an archival process? Do you object to efforts to
correct misplayed notes? Do you object to efforts to correct
intentionally misplayed notes? How about splicing together pieces of
different takes? And if you don't object to that, why should you object
to efforts to, say, bring forward certain instruments in the mix?

bob

Correct, x is what it's played - that's why I choose not to define
x as a function().

I belive that the word "intended" was ambiguous. - I used
"intended" referring to the composer. To be picky; as long as the
composer is not the conductor or the soloist we can't exactly know
how he/she wanted the music to be played. E.g. crescendo, vibrato etc.
are not absolute terms.

But again, x _is_.

/mu

wrote:
MD wrote:

wrote:

I have tried to follow the logic in this thread for a while but it
seems that I can get the same information on rao.

A simplification:

x the music that the composer/soloist/producer/conductor wants us to
perceive.
f(x) the result after recording x (A/D)
g(f(x)) the remastering process(A/D)
h(g(f(x))) the production process (A/D)
i(h(g(f(x)))) the playback hardware
p(i(h(g(f(x))))) how we will perceive the playback

How many of you (objectivist, subjectivists ... ) are professionals
involved in any of the transformations f(),g() or h() and how valid is
the information found in the links about the recording process problems
that George refers to? Is the information found there obsolete!

/mu

x should not equal a perception but a reality. Objective vs subjective.
Unless they want to record something different than what it actually
sounds like. Recording is or should be an archival process not a rendering.



That is wishful thinking. any recording involves subjective decisions.
What an objectiely better perspective for an orchestral recording? Row
G or row M? There is no way to actually archive a live performance so
all we ever have is a rendering.


Scott
Understood. Intention and execution are two different things. Sure
everything in the chain - whether it's analog or digital in the end
alters the original. My premise was that in the core freq range
analog's technology tries to get everything - where as digital does not.

bob wrote:

MD wrote:

wrote:

I have tried to follow the logic in this thread for a while but it
seems that I can get the same information on rao.

A simplification:

x the music that the composer/soloist/producer/conductor wants us to
perceive.
f(x) the result after recording x (A/D)
g(f(x)) the remastering process(A/D)
h(g(f(x))) the production process (A/D)
i(h(g(f(x)))) the playback hardware
p(i(h(g(f(x))))) how we will perceive the playback

How many of you (objectivist, subjectivists ... ) are professionals
involved in any of the transformations f(),g() or h() and how valid is
the information found in the links about the recording process problems
that George refers to? Is the information found there obsolete!

/mu

x should not equal a perception but a reality. Objective vs subjective.
Unless they want to record something different than what it actually
sounds like. Recording is or should be an archival process not a rendering.


Why must recording be an archival process? Do you object to efforts to
correct misplayed notes? Do you object to efforts to correct
intentionally misplayed notes? How about splicing together pieces of
different takes? And if you don't object to that, why should you object
to efforts to, say, bring forward certain instruments in the mix?

bob
I wasn't trying to say recording should or has to be archival. I was
trying to say that most often it is and when it is analog's technical
capabilities - in the main listening/freq domain - are geared to capture
everything. Digital samples and relies on algorithms, over sampling and
the hope (maybe proof) that the ear can't hear the flaws.

MD wrote:
wrote:
MD wrote:

wrote:

I have tried to follow the logic in this thread for a while but it
seems that I can get the same information on rao.

A simplification:

x the music that the composer/soloist/producer/conductor wants us to
perceive.
f(x) the result after recording x (A/D)
g(f(x)) the remastering process(A/D)
h(g(f(x))) the production process (A/D)
i(h(g(f(x)))) the playback hardware
p(i(h(g(f(x))))) how we will perceive the playback

How many of you (objectivist, subjectivists ... ) are professionals
involved in any of the transformations f(),g() or h() and how valid is
the information found in the links about the recording process problems
that George refers to? Is the information found there obsolete!

/mu

x should not equal a perception but a reality. Objective vs subjective.
Unless they want to record something different than what it actually
sounds like. Recording is or should be an archival process not a rendering.



That is wishful thinking. any recording involves subjective decisions.
What an objectiely better perspective for an orchestral recording? Row
G or row M? There is no way to actually archive a live performance so
all we ever have is a rendering.


Scott
Understood. Intention and execution are two different things. Sure
everything in the chain - whether it's analog or digital in the end
alters the original. My premise was that in the core freq range
analog's technology tries to get everything - where as digital does not.


I think the idea is to try to get everything that is audible either
way.

Scott

bob wrote:
wrote:
I have tried to follow the logic in this thread for a while but it
seems that I can get the same information on rao.

A simplification:

x the music that the composer/soloist/producer/conductor wants us to
perceive.

No, x is what they played. Their intent is indeterminate.


No, their intentions are not indeterminate so long as they are alive
and able to communicate.

It's quite
possible (and I would argue inevitable) that what they played is really
only the raw material from which they will fashion (in your step g)
their intent--which might be very close to the sound that someone would
have heard standing in a particular spot in the room, or it might not.


Not if the recording engineer is doing his job.




f(x) the result after recording x (A/D)

IOW, the sound that is captured on the tape (or, these days, maybe the
hard drive).


No, the sound is captured by the mics, the signal from the mics is
captured by the recording. Not an insignificant difference.



g(f(x)) the remastering process(A/D)

I would argue that this stage really represents their *intent*--to put
out a recording that sounds like this.


But in the case of live recordings it likely isn't the intent but the
closest they could come to intent.




h(g(f(x))) the production process (A/D)
i(h(g(f(x)))) the playback hardware
p(i(h(g(f(x))))) how we will perceive the playback

How many of you (objectivist, subjectivists ... ) are professionals
involved in any of the transformations f(),g() or h()

None that I know of. And I would be wary of any claim of secondary
expertise here. Some people only "know" what they want to know.

And some of us actully go out of our way to read what actual pros have
to say and even ask questions. It is much easier to know what you want
to know by assuming answers rather than asking for them from those who
really do know.




and how valid is
the information found in the links about the recording process problems
that George refers to?

Not sure which links you're referring to. I don't recall Scott (aka
George) offering any links.


I have offered several links supporting my assertions on the subject.
Not sure how anybody reading my posts would have missed them.


If you mean the one that Steven Sullivan
supplied:

http://www.themusiclab.net/aespaper.pdf

..then the validity depends on the information. In general, only blind
comparisons have much validity. So, for example, you'll note that in
the final section, discussing a comparison between the final CD and the
master tape, there was a blind comparison which showed them to be
audibly indistinguishable.


That is not what it showed at all. It showed then to be
indistinguishable under those listening conditions with that group of
listeners as a whole.


Whereas the earlier comparisons of ADCs do
not appear to have been done blind (or, necessarily, level-matched),


Wrong, they make no appearances either way. You are just making
assumptions. I OTOH saw that and did the obvious thing, I asked Dennis
Drake whether or not those comparisons were done blind. According to
Dennis Drake in his email to me many were done blind. here is a cut and
paste from that actual email.
__________________________________________________ ______________________
Yes, many of those comparisons involved blind listening tests. I would
switch between sources/devices in privacy while Wilma, the producer,
listened, and then she would switch, while I made listening judgements.

Best Regards,
Dennis Drake/The Music Lab


on 2/20/06 1:41 PM, at
wrote:



The final presentation involved blind comparisons, did your work in
evaluating the A/D converters, dithering, choice of tubes etc. also
involve blind comparisons?

Thank you
Scott Wheeler
__________________________________________________ _______________________

we do not know for sure whether their conclusions about the various
ADCs are accurate or not. They might be, but there is room for doubt.
(Please note that this paper was not peer-reviewed.)


There is always room for doubt.


Scott

MD wrote:

I wasn't trying to say recording should or has to be archival. I was
trying to say that most often it is

Hardly. Most commercial recordings aren't even of a single performance,
for starters.

and when it is analog's technical
capabilities - in the main listening/freq domain - are geared to capture
everything. Digital samples and relies on algorithms, over sampling and
the hope (maybe proof) that the ear can't hear the flaws.

Oh really? And just what is it that analog tape is capturing that 24/96
digital is missing? You aren't trying to give us the old 'analog has
infinite resolution' nonsense, are you?

bob

bob wrote:
MD wrote:


I wasn't trying to say recording should or has to be archival. I was
trying to say that most often it is


Hardly. Most commercial recordings aren't even of a single performance,
for starters.


and when it is analog's technical
capabilities - in the main listening/freq domain - are geared to capture
everything. Digital samples and relies on algorithms, over sampling and
the hope (maybe proof) that the ear can't hear the flaws.


Oh really? And just what is it that analog tape is capturing that 24/96
digital is missing? You aren't trying to give us the old 'analog has
infinite resolution' nonsense, are you?

bob
Nope just saying that analog's technology tries to capture everything
and digital does not. Digital relies on the premise (or fact) that it
can sample and make up the holes in a manner the ear cannot detect.

I have yet to A/B a top of the line system with an analog and CD source
of the same recording. I have also yet to hear 24/96. I have no doubt
that that format could be better than analog. However when comparing
mid-price CD and analog I have determined that analog sounds better.
This is when using a Goldring 1012GX cartridge vs a Denon front end with
Audio Alchemy Jitter Box and D/A. When I had a cheaper Grado cartridge
I thought it was a toss up so I defaulted to digital because of no pops
and ticks and I didn't have to get up to change tracks or hear both
sides. With the new cartridge digital isn't close.

I wonder how many people who have compared analog to digital have done
so with an inferior analog set up?

MD wrote:
bob wrote:
MD wrote:


I wasn't trying to say recording should or has to be archival. I was
trying to say that most often it is


Hardly. Most commercial recordings aren't even of a single performance,
for starters.


and when it is analog's technical
capabilities - in the main listening/freq domain - are geared to capture
everything. Digital samples and relies on algorithms, over sampling and
the hope (maybe proof) that the ear can't hear the flaws.


Oh really? And just what is it that analog tape is capturing that 24/96
digital is missing? You aren't trying to give us the old 'analog has
infinite resolution' nonsense, are you?

bob
Nope just saying that analog's technology tries to capture everything
and digital does not. Digital relies on the premise (or fact) that it
can sample and make up the holes in a manner the ear cannot detect.

I have yet to A/B a top of the line system with an analog and CD source
of the same recording. I have also yet to hear 24/96. I have no doubt
that that format could be better than analog. However when comparing
mid-price CD and analog I have determined that analog sounds better.
This is when using a Goldring 1012GX cartridge vs a Denon front end with
Audio Alchemy Jitter Box and D/A. When I had a cheaper Grado cartridge
I thought it was a toss up so I defaulted to digital because of no pops
and ticks and I didn't have to get up to change tracks or hear both
sides. With the new cartridge digital isn't close.

I wonder how many people who have compared analog to digital have done
so with an inferior analog set up?

Most likely almost all. SOTA LP playback is not commonly found. There
are only a handful of rigs that I would even consider assults on SOTA
and IME most audiophiles have not ever heard them except at hifi shows
which is not an acceptable much less ideal envirement to evaluate sound
quality. I would bet even you haven't heard SOTA LP playback.


Scott

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

If distortion is what creates this wonderful effect (even though for
some reason this effect resembles live music) then so be it.

Mike

As a harpsichord and organ player, I have not noticed this. It's
particularly easy to hear distortion in a fifth, and recognizing a
fifth is an important component of tuning instruments. I cannot hear
any difference between CD or LP reproduction of fifths in the (small
number of) recordings I own in both media.

Are you comparing identical source recordings? True fifths are
perturbed differently in different temperaments, so you might be
hearing a more musically satisfying temperament for the piece. If your
view is correct, at least for your system, then a revealing recording
might be the Colin Tilney performance of the 48 on clavichord. A
particularly interesting harpsichord recording would be Richard Egarr's
performance of Gibbons' keyboard pieces, or the Naxos recording of
Froberger's toccatas and partitas, performed by Sergio Vartolo. This
last recording has pieces performed in mean tone and Werckmeister, so
should be an interesting test.

Brad.

There are many recordings still being produced which use historically
sensible tunings. If anything, I would say that such recordings are
becoming more common, if only because good electronic tuning aids make
them so much easier to attain when tuning a harpsichord or clavichord.
Some recent beautiful recordings include Richard Egarr's performance of
Gibbons' keyboard works, Tilney's performance of the Bach 48 on
Hyperion, and most of the keyboard pieces on the Bach Edition of his
collected works. You could also try Sarah Yates recordings of Purcell's
harpsichord works.

Brad.

MD wrote:
bob wrote:
MD wrote:

and when it is analog's technical
capabilities - in the main listening/freq domain - are geared to capture
everything. Digital samples and relies on algorithms, over sampling and
the hope (maybe proof) that the ear can't hear the flaws.


Oh really? And just what is it that analog tape is capturing that 24/96
digital is missing? You aren't trying to give us the old 'analog has
infinite resolution' nonsense, are you?

bob
Nope just saying that analog's technology tries to capture everything
and digital does not.

But it doesn't succeed any better than digital does.

Digital relies on the premise (or fact) that it
can sample and make up the holes in a manner the ear cannot detect.

Yeah, and you wanna think about all the compromises that any form of
analog recording hopes (perhaps correctly, in many cases) the ear
cannot detect?

This may not be the old 'analog has infinite resolution' nonsense, but
it's just as wrong, and for the same reason.

bob

MD wrote:
Nope just saying that analog's technology tries to capture everything
and digital does not. Digital relies on the premise (or fact) that it
can sample and make up the holes in a manner the ear cannot detect.

No, it does not. Please do not propogate this nonsense.

You might want to check out Shannon and others on the topic.
You;ll find there is no such "making up of holes) because
there are no "holes."

I wonder how many people who have compared analog to digital
have done so with an inferior analog set up?

And, alas, I know how many people make statements like "digital
relies on the premise (or fact) that it can sample and make up the
holes in a manner the ear cannot detect." without ever once actually
investigating the prinsiples of what's going on. And, regrettably, the
answer is many more than I can count.

bjcb0 wrote:
There are many recordings still being produced which use historically
sensible tunings. If anything, I would say that such recordings are
becoming more common, if only because good electronic tuning aids make
them so much easier to attain when tuning a harpsichord or clavichord.

Such recordings are more common, but I don't know a single harpsichordist
or technician that uses electronic tuning aids, and I know quite a few.

Once you get good at it, (and the electronic devices can help here
sometimes) it is really quite eaisier to just tune by ear. No need to carry
around a device when you can carry it in your brain!

Organs can be an exception because there are usually so many pipes to tune.
Even then, somebody that knows what they are doing always does a final touch
up by ear because the pipes talk to one another (called 'pulling') and tuning
devices tune by a single note at a time, which can't catch that.

wrote:
MD wrote:
Nope just saying that analog's technology tries to capture everything
and digital does not. Digital relies on the premise (or fact) that it
can sample and make up the holes in a manner the ear cannot detect.

No, it does not. Please do not propogate this nonsense.


What does not? Are you saying that analog recordings are not trying to
capture everything (that being the entire audible signal) or are you
saying that digital recordings dont sample the signal and D/A
converters don't reconstruct the wave form (make up the holes)? Or
both? Any which way it looks right to me. But hey you ae the expert.
Maybe yo can tell us what is wrong with the claim?


You might want to check out Shannon and others on the topic.
You;ll find there is no such "making up of holes) because
there are no "holes."


Well sure there are. What do you think sampling is? how could any
expert not know that any form of "sampling" leaves holes? Granted they
are reconstructed later but that is what is meant by "filling in the
holes." I don't think it takes that much deductive reasoning to figure
out that is what the poster is talking about.



I wonder how many people who have compared analog to digital
have done so with an inferior analog set up?

And, alas, I know how many people make statements like "digital
relies on the premise (or fact) that it can sample and make up the
holes in a manner the ear cannot detect." without ever once actually
investigating the prinsiples of what's going on. And, regrettably, the
answer is many more than I can count.


Sorry that you have such an issue with non-technical language. But he
basically got it right. how often do you talk to non-technical people
about digital?



Scott

MD wrote:
bob wrote:
MD wrote:


I wasn't trying to say recording should or has to be archival. I was
trying to say that most often it is


Hardly. Most commercial recordings aren't even of a single performance,
for starters.


and when it is analog's technical
capabilities - in the main listening/freq domain - are geared to capture
everything. Digital samples and relies on algorithms, over sampling and
the hope (maybe proof) that the ear can't hear the flaws.


Oh really? And just what is it that analog tape is capturing that 24/96
digital is missing? You aren't trying to give us the old 'analog has
infinite resolution' nonsense, are you?

bob
Nope just saying that analog's technology tries to capture everything
and digital does not.

Then you are saying the wrong things.

Analog does not try to capture everything; no recording technology does.
Both analog and digital are trying to capture everything that is
*audible*, and digital does a much superior job of it, by any objective
measurement.


Digital relies on the premise (or fact) that it
can sample and make up the holes in a manner the ear cannot detect.

That is yet another very poor understanding of digital audio. There are
no holes as long as you believe that you do not need to capture at an
infinite bandwidth. IOW, if you believe that your hearing has limited
bandwidth, then there are no "holes" to be made up. BTW, the sampling
theorem is not a premise. It is a mathematically fact that is prove
mathematically. That's why it is a *theorem*.

Once again, we see another example of vinylphiles justifying, or
sometimes forming, a preference based on poor technical knowledge.

Chung wrote:
MD wrote:
bob wrote:
MD wrote:


I wasn't trying to say recording should or has to be archival. I was
trying to say that most often it is


Hardly. Most commercial recordings aren't even of a single performance,
for starters.


and when it is analog's technical
capabilities - in the main listening/freq domain - are geared to capture
everything. Digital samples and relies on algorithms, over sampling and
the hope (maybe proof) that the ear can't hear the flaws.


Oh really? And just what is it that analog tape is capturing that 24/96
digital is missing? You aren't trying to give us the old 'analog has
infinite resolution' nonsense, are you?

bob
Nope just saying that analog's technology tries to capture everything
and digital does not.

Then you are saying the wrong things.

Analog does not try to capture everything; no recording technology does.
Both analog and digital are trying to capture everything that is
*audible*,

Seems like a bit o a nit to pick considering th newsgroup is about
audio. but thankyou for clearing un any misunderstandings about
possible attempts at capturing all things inaudible on analog or
digitial.


and digital does a much superior job of it, by any objective
measurement.


That is simply to broad a claim to have any meaning given the mulitude
of possibilities in both digital and analog. But at it's best it is not
possible to be much superior to analog because there just isn' that
much room for improvement.





Digital relies on the premise (or fact) that it
can sample and make up the holes in a manner the ear cannot detect.

That is yet another very poor understanding of digital audio.


It may be a technically poor description but it has nothing to do with
the posters understanding or lack there of. But so what? so what if it
is not a very technical description? It is essentially correct. digital
recordings sample the signal and then relies on a D/A converter to
reconstruct the analog signal or in layman's terms "make up the holes."


There are
no holes as long as you believe that you do not need to capture at an
infinite bandwidth.


There are holes in the digital data so long as there is sampling going
on.


IOW, if you believe that your hearing has limited
bandwidth, then there are no "holes" to be made up.


Sure there is. What does a D/A converter do?


BTW, the sampling
theorem is not a premise. It is a mathematically fact that is prove
mathematically. That's why it is a *theorem*.


It's botha premise and a fact. They are not mutually exclusive
concepts.




Once again, we see another example of vinylphiles justifying, or
sometimes forming, a preference based on poor technical knowledge.


Once again we see "objectivists" reading things into a post that aren't
there.



Scott

bjcb0 wrote:
There are many recordings still being produced which use historically
sensible tunings. If anything, I would say that such recordings are
becoming more common, if only because good electronic tuning aids make
them so much easier to attain when tuning a harpsichord or clavichord.

Nope. Electronic tuning aids are seldom if ever used for tuning
harpsichords and clavichords in the historical temperments,
because, among other reasons, they are completely unnecessary.

If you're tuning equal temperement, with the exception of the octave
there are no pure intervals to tne by ear, and many of the intervals,
thirds nad sixths noted, that are quite out-of-tune. Since all the
"ratios" are "irrational" (the third represents a ratio of the cube
root
of 2, the fifth is the 2^7/12 and so on), there are almost no
reliable intervals to tune on. Certainly equal temperement can be
tuned by ear, but it takes a great deal of skill and patience to do it.

Many of the older temeprements,, such as the so-called "well
temperements," are extremely easy to tune by ear, since they
harbor many pure intervals. Werkmeister III, for example, tunes
by a cycle of oure 5ths starting at C, e.g. C-F-Bb-Eb-Ab-Db-F#.
Then it tunes a series of paired intervals for "equal beats", e.g.,
tune D so that Bb-D has the same beat rate as D-F#, tune G so
G-C has the same beat rate as G-D, tune A so F-A beat rate is
the same as A-D, then tune pure intervals for A-E and then E-B.
Very simple to do, it requires only the ability to tune pure intervals
and to match tempo of beats rates. Much easier to do by ear than
by machine. I can lay out the bearings on my harpsichord in about
2 minutes then have the whole thing tuned (2 unison and one
octave choir of strings) in maybe 10-15 minutes.

On 21 Mar 2006 00:04:08 GMT, wrote:

Chung wrote:
MD wrote:
bob wrote:
MD wrote:

It may be a technically poor description but it has nothing to do with
the posters understanding or lack there of. But so what? so what if it
is not a very technical description? It is essentially correct. digital
recordings sample the signal and then relies on a D/A converter to
reconstruct the analog signal or in layman's terms "make up the holes."


There are
no holes as long as you believe that you do not need to capture at an
infinite bandwidth.


There are holes in the digital data so long as there is sampling going
on.

No, no, no. The sampling process is a TRANSFORM. It converts the
varying amplitude, continuous time signal into a fixed amplitude,
discreet pulsed signal. Neither the analog signal nor the digital
signal contains any more music information than the other within the
defined bandwidth. The "hole" between samples provides duplicate
information for the transform and is not required. There is enough
information to completey reconstruct the original analog waveform,
including all fundamentals, all their harmonics, and all with exact
amplitudes and phases.


IOW, if you believe that your hearing has limited
bandwidth, then there are no "holes" to be made up.


Sure there is. What does a D/A converter do?

It provides the inverse transform. The fixed amplitude, discreet
pulsed signal is transformed back into a continuous, varying amplitude
signal. The "holes" in the digital signal between pulses contain no
information and are not part of the transform. You could put any
arbitrary time length between pulses and it does not affect the
inverse transform accuracy. Of course, if you want to transfer and
transform the data as fast as possible, you would want to keep time
between pulses as short as possible.

I myself am an analog designer. I have 30 years experience designing
analog microcircuits and have 22 patents. I also have several honors
from EDN and Electronic Design magazines. I mention this so you can
understand I have a strong appreciation for analog design.
Nevertheless, as a realistic engineer, I know that digital does a
better job in many areas, including CD and records. Given the same
music source for both, then

1) To make the record you must use a lathe to cut spiral groves into a
laquer coated aluminum disc, then the music source is used to modulate
a second, precise cutting stylus to cut the music grooves, then the
disc is metal plated multiple times, and the original disc is removed,
leaving a metal negative suitable for stamping vinyl. Each processing
step is a later generation copy, and every step results in some degree
of degradation, hopefully not audible, but there nevertheless. Also,
the cutting stylus is controlled by an electromechanical transducer,
which has a non-linear response, so the transducer is operated in an
approximately linear range, and it is hoped that the non-linearities
are small enough not to be audible. The next step is stamping the
vinyl, and each pressing degrades the metal stamping negative, they
are only good for about 1000 pressings, and the 1000th record is not
as good as the first, but again, hopefully the degradation will not be
noticed. Further, due to the limitations of the vinyl and to reduce
certain distortions, particularly distorions of the required
electromechanical transducer required for playback, a defined
amplitude distorion in introduced on the stamping master, called RIAA
equalization. To play the resulting record, we have to drag a stylus
through the grooves, using again a non-linear electromechanical
transducer, and again we need a good transducer so the non-linear
region is far enough outside the operating region that they are small
enough not to be noticable. Of course, we have to introduce a defined
distortion to compensate for the RIAA distorion, and hope they match
well enough not to be audible.

2) To make a CD, a digital music source is preferred, but if an analog
master is used, it goes through an A/D converter. A/D converters come
in different speeds and accuracies. and it is easy to find one that
has accuracy as arbitrarily low as desired. Very high quality A/D's
are used and 0.001% accuracy is commonly available. The CD also has a
number of manufacturing steps, but each digital generation, unlike the
succeeding analog generations above, lose no data. No soft harmonics
are lost or noise generated because the copied data are large
amplitude pulses. If a pulse were to be dropped due to a defect in the
medium, there is sufficient data for digital algorithyms to precisely
recover the pulse, resulting in an exact copy. There is no
electromechanical transducer used anywhere, and light is used to read
the digital data stream. It is easy to find a high accuracy D/A
converter to keep distortion levels extremely low.

So, one medium degrades at each step of the manufacturing process,
requires a defined distortion to be introduced, uses non-linear
electromechanical transducers as part of the manufacturing and
playback process, and each stamped copy is degraded from the previous
one as the stamping master grooves degrade. Further, the resulting
record degrades each playback as the mechanical stylus wears the
vinyl. When the first records were wax cyliners, the manufacturing and
playback ditortions were obvious, when they were 78 discs, they were
better but still obvious, when they were 45's and electronics were
used, they were better still, but still there, and with 33's and
better electronics and manufacturing methods, they are much better
yet. They are still there, but at a level most people don't notice.
Further, the record has significantlimitations on dynamic range and
stereo separation, again because of the use of electromechanical
transducers in the manufacturing and playback.

The other medium makes exact copies at all manufacturing steps,
results in an exact copy, is played back with light as a pickup, and
reproduces the original source with all fundamentals and harmonics,
alll amplitudes and phases, and does so with distortion levels on the
0.001% level. No mechanical transducers, no playback wear, no dynamic
range compromises, no stereo limitations, and distortion levels prders
of magnitude lower than vinyl.

It's no wonder the CD replaced the record overnight. If someone claims
to prefer the sound of the record, that's fine, but they are not
listening to a cleaner, more accurate recording, it just means that
the remaining distortions give a sound that is pleasing to them. Do
not make the claim, though, that the record is more accurate or has
less distortion, or that digital processing loses information that one
can hear in the record. This is nonsense.

"Chung" wrote in message
...
MD wrote:
bob wrote:
MD wrote:


I wasn't trying to say recording should or has to be archival. I was
trying to say that most often it is


Hardly. Most commercial recordings aren't even of a single performance,
for starters.


and when it is analog's technical
capabilities - in the main listening/freq domain - are geared to
capture
everything. Digital samples and relies on algorithms, over sampling
and
the hope (maybe proof) that the ear can't hear the flaws.


Oh really? And just what is it that analog tape is capturing that 24/96
digital is missing? You aren't trying to give us the old 'analog has
infinite resolution' nonsense, are you?

bob
Nope just saying that analog's technology tries to capture everything and
digital does not.

Then you are saying the wrong things.

Analog does not try to capture everything; no recording technology does.
Both analog and digital are trying to capture everything that is
*audible*, and digital does a much superior job of it, by any objective
measurement.


Digital relies on the premise (or fact) that it can sample and make up
the holes in a manner the ear cannot detect.

That is yet another very poor understanding of digital audio. There are no
holes as long as you believe that you do not need to capture at an
infinite bandwidth. IOW, if you believe that your hearing has limited
bandwidth, then there are no "holes" to be made up. BTW, the sampling
theorem is not a premise. It is a mathematically fact that is prove
mathematically. That's why it is a *theorem*.

Once again, we see another example of vinylphiles justifying, or sometimes
forming, a preference based on poor technical knowledge.

I find it fascinating to watch a 1000Hz signal from a test LP on an
oscilloscope, and compare it with one from a test CD. The LP signal is a
mess; I'm amazed you can recognize it in playback! The CD signal looks just
like it came from a sine wave generator.

Norm Strong

wrote:
On 21 Mar 2006 00:04:08 GMT, wrote:

Chung wrote:
MD wrote:
bob wrote:
MD wrote:

It may be a technically poor description but it has nothing to do with
the posters understanding or lack there of. But so what? so what if it
is not a very technical description? It is essentially correct. digital
recordings sample the signal and then relies on a D/A converter to
reconstruct the analog signal or in layman's terms "make up the holes."


There are
no holes as long as you believe that you do not need to capture at an
infinite bandwidth.


There are holes in the digital data so long as there is sampling going
on.

No, no, no. The sampling process is a TRANSFORM. It converts the
varying amplitude, continuous time signal into a fixed amplitude,
discreet pulsed signal.


yeah, so?

Neither the analog signal nor the digital
signal contains any more music information than the other within the
defined bandwidth.

Not really the issue although the diital signal is entirely incomplete
without the correct D/A conversion.


The "hole" between samples provides duplicate
information for the transform and is not required.


That information may not be required in some cases but it is not
duplicate information. It is inofrmation that is missing. The D/A
converter does the job of reconstructing it.


There is enough
information to completey reconstruct the original analog waveform,
including all fundamentals, all their harmonics, and all with exact
amplitudes and phases.


No, with the best digital technology there seems to be enough to do so
within the thresholds of human hearing but the amplitudes will never be
*exact* even with 24 bits. Not that this is relevant to the fact that
any sampling involves gaps in the information that has to later be
extrapolated.




IOW, if you believe that your hearing has limited
bandwidth, then there are no "holes" to be made up.


Sure there is. What does a D/A converter do?

It provides the inverse transform. The fixed amplitude, discreet
pulsed signal is transformed back into a continuous, varying amplitude
signal.


It extrapolates an analog wave form from the digital data. It "fills in
the holes."


The "holes" in the digital signal between pulses contain no
information and are not part of the transform.


Well at least you are acknowledging the existance of the "holes."

You could put any
arbitrary time length between pulses and it does not affect the
inverse transform accuracy.


Sure it does! anything less than oduble the highest frequency you are
trying to capture will be lost or corrupted. And there are good reasons
for oversampling.


Of course, if you want to transfer and
transform the data as fast as possible, you would want to keep time
between pulses as short as possible.

I myself am an analog designer. I have 30 years experience designing
analog microcircuits and have 22 patents. I also have several honors
from EDN and Electronic Design magazines. I mention this so you can
understand I have a strong appreciation for analog design.
Nevertheless, as a realistic engineer, I know that digital does a
better job in many areas, including CD and records. Given the same
music source for both, then


That is all fine and wel but not really the issue when it comes to the
idea that a digital signal has "holes" in it that need to be "filled
in." Granted it may not be the sort of technical jargon some would like
to see but the idea is basically correct.




1) To make the record you must use a lathe to cut spiral groves into a
laquer coated aluminum disc, then the music source is used to modulate
a second, precise cutting stylus to cut the music grooves, then the
disc is metal plated multiple times, and the original disc is removed,
leaving a metal negative suitable for stamping vinyl. Each processing
step is a later generation copy, and every step results in some degree
of degradation, hopefully not audible, but there nevertheless. Also,
the cutting stylus is controlled by an electromechanical transducer,
which has a non-linear response, so the transducer is operated in an
approximately linear range, and it is hoped that the non-linearities
are small enough not to be audible. The next step is stamping the
vinyl, and each pressing degrades the metal stamping negative, they
are only good for about 1000 pressings, and the 1000th record is not
as good as the first, but again, hopefully the degradation will not be
noticed. Further, due to the limitations of the vinyl and to reduce
certain distortions, particularly distorions of the required
electromechanical transducer required for playback, a defined
amplitude distorion in introduced on the stamping master, called RIAA
equalization. To play the resulting record, we have to drag a stylus
through the grooves, using again a non-linear electromechanical
transducer, and again we need a good transducer so the non-linear
region is far enough outside the operating region that they are small
enough not to be noticable. Of course, we have to introduce a defined
distortion to compensate for the RIAA distorion, and hope they match
well enough not to be audible.


A nicely stated overview of the LP making process. Doesn't change
anything about digital and how it works. Not that any of that matters.
I was quite aware of these shortcomings of LPs before CDs were ever on
the market. When it was first suggested to me by a dealer that LPs
sound better than CDs I sadi something to the same effect. I think I
aid I find it hard to beleive that dragging a rock over a piece of
plastic is going to be better than digital.




2) To make a CD, a digital music source is preferred, but if an analog
master is used, it goes through an A/D converter. A/D converters come
in different speeds and accuracies. and it is easy to find one that
has accuracy as arbitrarily low as desired. Very high quality A/D's
are used and 0.001% accuracy is commonly available.


Well now, whether or not "high quality" A/D converters have ben used
through out the years in the making of commercial CDs is not something
agreed upon.



The CD also has a
number of manufacturing steps, but each digital generation, unlike the
succeeding analog generations above, lose no data.


Again, in practice that is a claim that I think hasen't held water.



No soft harmonics
are lost or noise generated because the copied data are large
amplitude pulses.


True, the colorations are quite diffeent in nature but none the less
have been detected in blind comparisons.




If a pulse were to be dropped due to a defect in the
medium, there is sufficient data for digital algorithyms to precisely
recover the pulse, resulting in an exact copy. There is no
electromechanical transducer used anywhere, and light is used to read
the digital data stream. It is easy to find a high accuracy D/A
converter to keep distortion levels extremely low.


Apparently it was even easier to find ones that didn't as evidenced by
so many CDs that have been sold. This is further suppoted by
investigation done by any number of recording and mastering engineers
and nicely documented by Denis Drake in his paper presented at the 92nd
AES convention.




So, one medium degrades at each step of the manufacturing process,
requires a defined distortion to be introduced, uses non-linear
electromechanical transducers as part of the manufacturing and
playback process, and each stamped copy is degraded from the previous
one as the stamping master grooves degrade. Further, the resulting
record degrades each playback as the mechanical stylus wears the
vinyl. When the first records were wax cyliners, the manufacturing and
playback ditortions were obvious, when they were 78 discs, they were
better but still obvious, when they were 45's and electroniomented were
used, they were better still, but still there, and with 33's and
better electronics and manufacturing methods, they are much better
yet. They are still there, but at a level most people don't notice.
Further, the record has significantlimitations on dynamic range and
stereo separation, again because of the use of electromechanical
transducers in the manufacturing and playback.


There is no doubt that there are limitations to the medium. OTOH there
is no doubt that any number of recording engineers have commented on
how amazing the fideltiy of LPs is and these are the folks whoa ctually
are comparing master tapesand mic feeds with the resulting LPs and Cds.
You explain how they work in theory but I am more interested in how the
results work in practice.






The other medium makes exact copies at all manufacturing steps,
results in an exact copy, is played back with light as a pickup, and
reproduces the original source with all fundamentals and harmonics,
alll amplitudes and phases, and does so with distortion levels on the
0.001% level. No mechanical transducers, no playback wear, no dynamic
range compromises, no stereo limitations, and distortion levels prders
of magnitude lower than vinyl.


Well, I think the evidence does not support this claim. I think the
evidence strongly suggests that many commercial Cds are not exact
copies of their original source.




It's no wonder the CD replaced the record overnight.


But it didn't.


If someone claims
to prefer the sound of the record, that's fine, but they are not
listening to a cleaner, more accurate recording,


Now how do you know this? you cannot make that claim without having the
original source as a reference.



it just means that
the remaining distortions give a sound that is pleasing to them.


That belief simply ignores far to many real world elements that go into
the making of real world LPs and CDs. Lets bring up a real world
example. One that I have already cirted. Do you believe for example
that the old Bluenote CD reissues are actually more accurtate than the
original Blue Note Lps? Do you believe any prefernece for those Lps is
due to distortions in the Lps? I suggest you review the Rudy Van Gelder
interview that I posted before answering.



Do
not make the claim, though, that the record is more accurate or has
less distortion,


I will if in a particular case it does and I happen to know it for some
reason. But I don't have to make that claim. I'll leave that up to the
recording and mastering engineers who made the legitimate comparisons
to the master tapes and mic feeds. It is not an uncommon claim amoung
those people. Again, I suggest you review the RVG interview just for
starters.


or that digital processing loses information that one
can hear in the record. This is nonsense.



Well, please refer to the Dennis Drake paper and tell me and him what
is wrong with his findings. he found all kinds of problems in the
digital processing with a number of real world processors. His findings
were based on listening comparisons not on discussions on how digital
works.



Scott
--
NewsGuy.Com 30Gb $9.95 Carry Forward and On Demand Bandwidth

On 21 Mar 2006 22:56:41 GMT, wrote:

wrote:
On 21 Mar 2006 00:04:08 GMT, wrote:

Chung wrote:
MD wrote:
bob wrote:
MD wrote:

Neither the analog signal nor the digital
signal contains any more music information than the other within the
defined bandwidth.

Not really the issue although the diital signal is entirely incomplete
without the correct D/A conversion.

You seem preoccupied with semantics. The transformed digital signal is
not incomplete, it contains all necessary information for the inverse
transform process to reconstruct the original with all harmonics,
amplitudes and phases within the bandwidth of interest.


The "hole" between samples provides duplicate
information for the transform and is not required.


That information may not be required in some cases but it is not
duplicate information. It is inofrmation that is missing. The D/A
converter does the job of reconstructing it.

No, the information is not missing. The sampling process is based on
Fourier analysis and we know the sampled signal is composed of sine
waves. Without that knowledge then information would indeed be lost,
but the fact is, we do know it. Unnecessary information can therefore
be discarded without losing the ability to recover the original
signal. A lossless digital compression algorithym does pretty much the
same thing. The A/D and D/A conversions are related and coupled, just
as with any transform.


There is enough
information to completey reconstruct the original analog waveform,
including all fundamentals, all their harmonics, and all with exact
amplitudes and phases.


No, with the best digital technology there seems to be enough to do so
within the thresholds of human hearing but the amplitudes will never be
*exact* even with 24 bits. Not that this is relevant to the fact that
any sampling involves gaps in the information that has to later be
extrapolated.

Well, by exact I meant that all fundamentals, all harmonics, and all
amplitudes and all phases are recovered, nothing is missing within the
bandwidth of interest. Of course there will be resolution
inaccuracies, but these can be arbitrarily small depending on
available technology. 24 bits is 0.000006%, 16 bits is 0.001%. How
good does it need to be for the human ear? Most research places human
hearing accuracy at about 1% for most types of distortion and about a
third that for pitch accuracy.


IOW, if you believe that your hearing has limited
bandwidth, then there are no "holes" to be made up.


Sure there is. What does a D/A converter do?

It provides the inverse transform. The fixed amplitude, discreet
pulsed signal is transformed back into a continuous, varying amplitude
signal.


It extrapolates an analog wave form from the digital data. It "fills in
the holes."

No. Extrapolate imples an estimate. As mentioned earlier, sampling is
based on the Fourier transform and the exact sine wave or waves are
reconstructed, it is not an extrapolated guess.


You could put any
arbitrary time length between pulses and it does not affect the
inverse transform accuracy.


Sure it does! anything less than oduble the highest frequency you are
trying to capture will be lost or corrupted. And there are good reasons
for oversampling.

I didn't say to change the sampling frequency. I meant that there is
nothing magical about the width of the "hole" versus the width of the
sample. I could sample points and leave huge "holes" and still recover
the signal. Again, the key is knowing the signal is composed of sine
waves.


That is all fine and wel but not really the issue when it comes to the
idea that a digital signal has "holes" in it that need to be "filled
in." Granted it may not be the sort of technical jargon some would like
to see but the idea is basically correct.

Again, I think you are arguing semantics. The D/A process recovers the
time and magnitude of the sample and fits the proper sine waves. The
"holes" of an incomplete transform are just that, an incomplete
transform, and the inverse transform is not completed by extrapolation
but by a knowledge of the Fourier transform.


2) To make a CD, a digital music source is preferred, but if an analog
master is used, it goes through an A/D converter. A/D converters come
in different speeds and accuracies. and it is easy to find one that
has accuracy as arbitrarily low as desired. Very high quality A/D's
are used and 0.001% accuracy is commonly available.


Well now, whether or not "high quality" A/D converters have ben used
through out the years in the making of commercial CDs is not something
agreed upon.

Cheap labels can use cheap electronics. That point is certainly
arguable. There's no excuse today to use poor converters.



Apparently it was even easier to find ones that didn't as evidenced by
so many CDs that have been sold. This is further suppoted by
investigation done by any number of recording and mastering engineers
and nicely documented by Denis Drake in his paper presented at the 92nd
AES convention.

Wasn't that 15 years ago?

It's no wonder the CD replaced the record overnight.


But it didn't.

It didn't? Have you compared CD and records sales lately?
--
NewsGuy.Com 30Gb $9.95 Carry Forward and On Demand Bandwidth

wrote:
MD wrote:

bob wrote:

MD wrote:



I wasn't trying to say recording should or has to be archival. I was
trying to say that most often it is


Hardly. Most commercial recordings aren't even of a single performance,
for starters.



and when it is analog's technical
capabilities - in the main listening/freq domain - are geared to capture
everything. Digital samples and relies on algorithms, over sampling and
the hope (maybe proof) that the ear can't hear the flaws.


Oh really? And just what is it that analog tape is capturing that 24/96
digital is missing? You aren't trying to give us the old 'analog has
infinite resolution' nonsense, are you?

bob

Nope just saying that analog's technology tries to capture everything
and digital does not. Digital relies on the premise (or fact) that it
can sample and make up the holes in a manner the ear cannot detect.

I have yet to A/B a top of the line system with an analog and CD source
of the same recording. I have also yet to hear 24/96. I have no doubt
that that format could be better than analog. However when comparing
mid-price CD and analog I have determined that analog sounds better.
This is when using a Goldring 1012GX cartridge vs a Denon front end with
Audio Alchemy Jitter Box and D/A. When I had a cheaper Grado cartridge
I thought it was a toss up so I defaulted to digital because of no pops
and ticks and I didn't have to get up to change tracks or hear both
sides. With the new cartridge digital isn't close.

I wonder how many people who have compared analog to digital have done
so with an inferior analog set up?


Most likely almost all. SOTA LP playback is not commonly found. There
are only a handful of rigs that I would even consider assults on SOTA
and IME most audiophiles have not ever heard them except at hifi shows
which is not an acceptable much less ideal envirement to evaluate sound
quality. I would bet even you haven't heard SOTA LP playback.


Scott
I have heard Sota but at a show with nothing to compare to

My only real reference is a Systemdek IIX with a Profile arm and
Goldring 1012GX cartridge
--
NewsGuy.Com 30Gb $9.95 Carry Forward and On Demand Bandwidth

wrote:

On 21 Mar 2006 00:04:08 GMT, wrote:


Chung wrote:

MD wrote:

bob wrote:

MD wrote:


It may be a technically poor description but it has nothing to do with
the posters understanding or lack there of. But so what? so what if it
is not a very technical description? It is essentially correct. digital
recordings sample the signal and then relies on a D/A converter to
reconstruct the analog signal or in layman's terms "make up the holes."



There are
no holes as long as you believe that you do not need to capture at an
infinite bandwidth.


There are holes in the digital data so long as there is sampling going
on.


No, no, no. The sampling process is a TRANSFORM. It converts the
varying amplitude, continuous time signal into a fixed amplitude,
discreet pulsed signal. Neither the analog signal nor the digital
signal contains any more music information than the other within the
defined bandwidth. The "hole" between samples provides duplicate
information for the transform and is not required. There is enough
information to completey reconstruct the original analog waveform,
including all fundamentals, all their harmonics, and all with exact
amplitudes and phases.


IOW, if you believe that your hearing has limited
bandwidth, then there are no "holes" to be made up.


Sure there is. What does a D/A converter do?


It provides the inverse transform. The fixed amplitude, discreet
pulsed signal is transformed back into a continuous, varying amplitude
signal. The "holes" in the digital signal between pulses contain no
information and are not part of the transform. You could put any
arbitrary time length between pulses and it does not affect the
inverse transform accuracy. Of course, if you want to transfer and
transform the data as fast as possible, you would want to keep time
between pulses as short as possible.

I myself am an analog designer. I have 30 years experience designing
analog microcircuits and have 22 patents. I also have several honors
from EDN and Electronic Design magazines. I mention this so you can
understand I have a strong appreciation for analog design.
Nevertheless, as a realistic engineer, I know that digital does a
better job in many areas, including CD and records. Given the same
music source for both, then

1) To make the record you must use a lathe to cut spiral groves into a
laquer coated aluminum disc, then the music source is used to modulate
a second, precise cutting stylus to cut the music grooves, then the
disc is metal plated multiple times, and the original disc is removed,
leaving a metal negative suitable for stamping vinyl. Each processing
step is a later generation copy, and every step results in some degree
of degradation, hopefully not audible, but there nevertheless. Also,
the cutting stylus is controlled by an electromechanical transducer,
which has a non-linear response, so the transducer is operated in an
approximately linear range, and it is hoped that the non-linearities
are small enough not to be audible. The next step is stamping the
vinyl, and each pressing degrades the metal stamping negative, they
are only good for about 1000 pressings, and the 1000th record is not
as good as the first, but again, hopefully the degradation will not be
noticed. Further, due to the limitations of the vinyl and to reduce
certain distortions, particularly distorions of the required
electromechanical transducer required for playback, a defined
amplitude distorion in introduced on the stamping master, called RIAA
equalization. To play the resulting record, we have to drag a stylus
through the grooves, using again a non-linear electromechanical
transducer, and again we need a good transducer so the non-linear
region is far enough outside the operating region that they are small
enough not to be noticable. Of course, we have to introduce a defined
distortion to compensate for the RIAA distorion, and hope they match
well enough not to be audible.

2) To make a CD, a digital music source is preferred, but if an analog
master is used, it goes through an A/D converter. A/D converters come
in different speeds and accuracies. and it is easy to find one that
has accuracy as arbitrarily low as desired. Very high quality A/D's
are used and 0.001% accuracy is commonly available. The CD also has a
number of manufacturing steps, but each digital generation, unlike the
succeeding analog generations above, lose no data. No soft harmonics
are lost or noise generated because the copied data are large
amplitude pulses. If a pulse were to be dropped due to a defect in the
medium, there is sufficient data for digital algorithyms to precisely
recover the pulse, resulting in an exact copy. There is no
electromechanical transducer used anywhere, and light is used to read
the digital data stream. It is easy to find a high accuracy D/A
converter to keep distortion levels extremely low.

So, one medium degrades at each step of the manufacturing process,
requires a defined distortion to be introduced, uses non-linear
electromechanical transducers as part of the manufacturing and
playback process, and each stamped copy is degraded from the previous
one as the stamping master grooves degrade. Further, the resulting
record degrades each playback as the mechanical stylus wears the
vinyl. When the first records were wax cyliners, the manufacturing and
playback ditortions were obvious, when they were 78 discs, they were
better but still obvious, when they were 45's and electronics were
used, they were better still, but still there, and with 33's and
better electronics and manufacturing methods, they are much better
yet. They are still there, but at a level most people don't notice.
Further, the record has significantlimitations on dynamic range and
stereo separation, again because of the use of electromechanical
transducers in the manufacturing and playback.

The other medium makes exact copies at all manufacturing steps,
results in an exact copy, is played back with light as a pickup, and
reproduces the original source with all fundamentals and harmonics,
alll amplitudes and phases, and does so with distortion levels on the
0.001% level. No mechanical transducers, no playback wear, no dynamic
range compromises, no stereo limitations, and distortion levels prders
of magnitude lower than vinyl.

It's no wonder the CD replaced the record overnight. If someone claims
to prefer the sound of the record, that's fine, but they are not
listening to a cleaner, more accurate recording, it just means that
the remaining distortions give a sound that is pleasing to them. Do
not make the claim, though, that the record is more accurate or has
less distortion, or that digital processing loses information that one
can hear in the record. This is nonsense.



Very well done
--
NewsGuy.Com 30Gb $9.95 Carry Forward and On Demand Bandwidth

wrote:

Chung wrote:

MD wrote:

bob wrote:

MD wrote:



I wasn't trying to say recording should or has to be archival. I was
trying to say that most often it is


Hardly. Most commercial recordings aren't even of a single performance,
for starters.



and when it is analog's technical
capabilities - in the main listening/freq domain - are geared to capture
everything. Digital samples and relies on algorithms, over sampling and
the hope (maybe proof) that the ear can't hear the flaws.


Oh really? And just what is it that analog tape is capturing that 24/96
digital is missing? You aren't trying to give us the old 'analog has
infinite resolution' nonsense, are you?

bob

Nope just saying that analog's technology tries to capture everything
and digital does not.

Then you are saying the wrong things.

Analog does not try to capture everything; no recording technology does.
Both analog and digital are trying to capture everything that is
*audible*,


Seems like a bit o a nit to pick considering th newsgroup is about
audio. but thankyou for clearing un any misunderstandings about
possible attempts at capturing all things inaudible on analog or
digitial.



and digital does a much superior job of it, by any objective
measurement.



That is simply to broad a claim to have any meaning given the mulitude
of possibilities in both digital and analog. But at it's best it is not
possible to be much superior to analog because there just isn' that
much room for improvement.





Digital relies on the premise (or fact) that it
can sample and make up the holes in a manner the ear cannot detect.

That is yet another very poor understanding of digital audio.



It may be a technically poor description but it has nothing to do with
the posters understanding or lack there of. But so what? so what if it
is not a very technical description? It is essentially correct. digital
recordings sample the signal and then relies on a D/A converter to
reconstruct the analog signal or in layman's terms "make up the holes."



There are
no holes as long as you believe that you do not need to capture at an
infinite bandwidth.



There are holes in the digital data so long as there is sampling going
on.



IOW, if you believe that your hearing has limited
bandwidth, then there are no "holes" to be made up.



Sure there is. What does a D/A converter do?



BTW, the sampling
theorem is not a premise. It is a mathematically fact that is prove
mathematically. That's why it is a *theorem*.



It's botha premise and a fact. They are not mutually exclusive
concepts.




Once again, we see another example of vinylphiles justifying, or
sometimes forming, a preference based on poor technical knowledge.



Once again we see "objectivists" reading things into a post that aren't
there.



Scott
There are holes. By default the Nyquist theorem says you sample twice.
This is why the red book standard is 44.1khz - twice 22khz
(safely-hopefully-above the human hearing range). Analog in theory tries
not to sample. It tries to be continuous. (Wonder if tape does this
better than LP?)
--
NewsGuy.Com 30Gb $9.95 Carry Forward and On Demand Bandwidth

On 23 Mar 2006 00:43:16 GMT, wrote:

melbjer wrote:

No, no, no. The sampling process is a TRANSFORM. It converts the
varying amplitude, continuous time signal into a fixed amplitude,
discreet pulsed signal. Neither the analog signal nor the digital
signal contains any more music information than the other within the
defined bandwidth. The "hole" between samples provides duplicate
information for the transform and is not required. There is enough
information to completey reconstruct the original analog waveform,
including all fundamentals, all their harmonics, and all with exact
amplitudes and phases.

( f(x) )
This is a Transformation that involves Interpolation. The validity of
your assertion depends on the statement "enough information to
completey reconstruct the original ... ".

No, it is not an interpolation. Consider the following - there is a
graph of a periodic function and a second graph with only two adjacent
points of the function separated by a distance T. Without having seen
the first graph, can you redraw the function on the second? Of course
not, there could be an infinite number of possible functions that
could pass through the two points. Now you are given more information,
the function is a sine wave and it's frequency is less than 1/2T. Now
can you redraw the function, passing though the two points? Yes, only
one sine wave of amplitude and frequency and phase can meet the
conditions and pass through the points. Just knowing the frequency
limit and having two point samples, the exact sine wave can be drawn.
No interpolations, no extrapolations, and no approximations are
involved, and the two plots will be identical.
If we were to take this sine wave and process it through the D/A
transform, and then process back with the A/D transform the partial
transform of the two samples in time appears to have large "holes" in
between the samples, and some would jump to the conclusion that data
is missing. In reality, it is the opposite, nothing is missing and
there is extra data. The sine wave is indeed there and properly
reconstructed with correct amplitude, frequency, and phase. Also
present are numerous harmonics. Since we know the highest frequency of
interest is 1/2T, since we sampled at T, then all frequencies higher
than 1/2T are extraneous and are removed with a bandpass filter.This
leaves a single sine wave of proper frequency, amplitude, and phase.
The "holes" were an illusion caused by the extraneous harmonics.


Has there ever been made an analogue AND a digital recording of the
same input (x). I suspect it would be waste of tape but still...
1) To make the record you must use a lathe to cut spiral groves into a
laquer coated aluminum disc...

h(g(f(x)))
I'm sure that the production process has more problems when making
LPs compared to making CD's. The vinyl matrix will sooner or later
deteriorate. I also suspect that the companies wanted to get as many
miles as possible from a matrix.

It's no wonder the CD replaced the record overnight.

If you take in consideration the production costs, the ease of use,
logistic, etc etc. there should be no doubt in why the market wanted to
replace the LP ASAP. If Ï remember correct, the price for a CD was the
same as for a LP (if not higher) while I believe the production cost
for a CD was much lower.

There may have been advantages for the manufacturers to replace
records, there were disadvantages too. However, market acceptance was
mandatory or the CD would have flopped. Manufacturers constantly
strive to make their products cheaper and better, but it is the market
that tells them what wins. Think of reel-to reel tape, 8 track,
cassette, digital audio tape, etc. In video, look at beta, laser disc,
RCA Selectavision, and now VHS. Soon, dvd will also fall to HD dvd.
Superior and affordable products always win, but it is the market that
determines that.

If someone claims
to prefer the sound of the record, that's fine, but they are not
listening to a cleaner, more accurate recording, it just means that
the remaining distortions give a sound that is pleasing to them. Do
not make the claim, though, that the record is more accurate or has
less distortion, or that digital processing loses information that one
can hear in the record. This is nonsense.

And the proof is where ?

Dozens and dozens of audio studies of the inputs and outputs of the
two media using instruments orders of magnitude more sensitve than any
human ear, as well as studies on the ear itself showing the best ears
cannot hear distorion levels below 0.3% and most types of distortion
below 1%. With this type of hearing instrument, a high end record
system will not necessarily sound worse than a CD, regardless of how
much less the distortion of the CD has, since the level of distortion
of both is inaudible. However, the CD will accurately give the
amplitudes of all frequencies while the record will not due to the
non-linearities of the cartridge and the resulting amplitude
distortion. While this distortion can sound pleasing, and may be
preferred by some, this does not mean that the record is superior, or
it's distortion is less than the CD, it just means some people don't
prefer the accurate flat bandwidth response of the CD, and do prefer
the non-linear amplitude response of the record system. Going off on a
tangent, the same is true of speakers. Speakers do not sound the same,
even those with the same bandwidth or even the same drivers do not
sound the same. The drivers, cabinet materials, cabinet size,
openings, etc., cause the speaker to "color" the sound by having a
non-linear amplitude response with frequency. They can also add extra
harmonics by resonances and vibrations in response to the resulting
sound from the drivers. So, speakers do not sound alike and we choose
the speaker that sounds pleasing to us. Cartridges do the exact same
thing, like the speaker, it is a non-linear electromechanical
transducer with a non-linear amplitude response. The most accurate
speakers have the flattest bandwidth, but many people don't keep their
system response flat, they use equalizers and tone controls. So, to
some extent, the cartridge does some of that for them. So, you can
prefer the record system, and there are understandable reasons for
doing so, but those reasons cannot be due to less distortion. They can
be due to hearing something not in the CD, but this something is not
something lost by the CD but is something added by the record system.
--
NewsGuy.Com 30Gb $9.95 Carry Forward and On Demand Bandwidth

wrote:

No, the information is not missing. The sampling process is based on
Fourier analysis and we know the sampled signal is composed of sine
waves. Without that knowledge then information would indeed be lost,
but the fact is, we do know it. Unnecessary information can therefore
be discarded without losing the ability to recover the original
signal. A lossless digital compression algorithym does pretty much the
same thing. The A/D and D/A conversions are related and coupled, just
as with any transform.


Mea culpa, there is no interpolation involved. You can get a
"perfect" transformation with Fourier (especially for f(sin)) as
long as you estimate the boundaries (bandwidth) and estimate the finite
set of values (resolution).

No. Extrapolate imples an estimate. As mentioned earlier, sampling is
based on the Fourier transform and the exact sine wave or waves are
reconstructed, it is not an extrapolated guess.
You still have to estimate boundaries and resolution. I suspect that
the estimate is enough for the majority of people.
I didn't say to change the sampling frequency. I meant that there is
nothing magical about the width of the "hole" versus the width of the
sample. I could sample points and leave huge "holes" and still recover
the signal. Again, the key is knowing the signal is composed of sine
waves.

btw Fourier are sin/cos based. Aren't sin/cos values
approximations
, in the real world that is ... only joking.


Wasn't that 15 years ago?

That was my question also. But, has there been a change? I wouldn't
bet on it

It didn't? Have you compared CD and records sales lately?

Have you compared CD sales to MP3 (crappy MP3s I may add) downloads
lately .

I believe that differences between using Analogue or Digital recording
hardware is NOT the decisive factor to why some people still prefer the
LP sound at playback.

Sory for the lousy editing, I will try to find another editor.

/mu


--