Vinyl's Comeback - featured NYTimes article [Archive]

Scott[_6_]

December 8th 09, 11:52 PM

On Dec 7, 8:55=A0pm, bob > wrote:
> On Dec 7, 10:00=3DA0pm, Scott > wrote:
>
> > On Dec 7, 5:05=3D3DA0pm, bob > wrote:
>
> > > "Keep growing" is overstated, What we have here is a couple years of
> > > growth after decades of decline and stagnation.
>
> > Not really sure how a fact stated as a fact can be an overstatement.
> > vinyl sales have been in fairly constant growth for the past decade.
> > But there has been a substantial spike in the last couple years.
>
> A fact is something you don't just make up. "Vinyl sales have been in
> fairly constant growth for the past decade," doesn't qualify as a
> fact.

You might want to check the facts before making such a claim about
what is and is not a fact.

"The booming trend became apparent in 2003. Nielsen SoundScan
announced that ?formats classified as ?Other? (largely vinyl, but
including a small number of DVD audio- albums) showed an increase of
more than 30 per cent in the period 2000-2003.? (Hayes 2006) That same
year The National Association of Recording Merchandisers (NARM)
reported that sales of new and used vinyl records combined had
increased by more than 300 percent since 2000, bringing in $67
million. New CDs alone brought in more than $12 billion. The
mainstream was obviously in the digital domain, but vinyl replay as a
subculture was definitely on the rise. (Manez, 2003) The owner of
independent reissue label Sundazed in New York commented: ?I don't
consider it a small niche anymore. At Sundazed, we did half a million
in sales in vinyl in 2003. That's not small potatoes. "It has become
so much more mainstream that even the lay person knows something's
going on.? (Petrick, 2004) Yet the biggest boom was still to come. 6.4
Vinyl is back in the (youth) mainstream Last year, Virgin Megastores
UK announced it would re-arrange its stores to better accommodate
vinyl records. According to the company, ?up to 70 percent of sales of
new releases are vinyl.? (Glover, 2006). In 2007, in the UK Virgin
Megastores, vinyl outsells CDs 80% to 20% for albums available on both
formats. (Lindich, 2007) Even the 7? vinyl single has returned.
According to the British Phonographic Industry (BPI), ?annual sales of
vinyl singles in the U.K. rose sixfold, accounting for 14.7 percent of
all physical singles sales in 2005, up from 12.2 percent in 2004.? Of
course this applies to customers actually coming into stores to buy
music on a physical carrier. However, Virgin Megastores UK predicts
that digital music downloads "will account for no more than 10 percent
of the overall market by 2009. The company hopes its vinyl strategy ?
will offer consumers enough added value to head off growing
competition from cut-price supermarket CD offers and internet download
services." (Glover, 2006) Also chain store HMV agrees that vinyl is
back and the company has been rapidly expanding its record racks to
meet rising demand. (Allen, 2007)"

http://web.mac.com/dobbelsteen/iWeb/Headroom/Thesis_files/Thesis-final.pdf

Sonnova

December 8th 09, 11:53 PM

On Tue, 8 Dec 2009 06:25:25 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article >):

> "Dick Pierce" > wrote in message
>
>
>> Harry Lavo wrote:
>
>>> Sales of vinyl albums have been climbing steadily for
>>> several years, tromping on the notion that the rebound
>>> was just a fad. Through late November, more than 2.1
>>> million vinyl records had been sold in 2009, an increase
>>> of more than 35 percent in a year, according to Nielsen
>>> Soundscan. That total, though it represents less than 1
>>> percent of all album sales, including CDs and digital
>>> downloads, is the highest for vinyl records in any year
>>> since Nielsen began tracking them in 1991. "
>
>> The same source quotes 2008 CD album sales at 428 million
>> units, and song downloads at 1 billion units. So,
>> attempting to compare 2008 apples to 2008 oranges, that's
>> 428 million cd album sales vs 1.6 million vinyl record
>> sales, making vinyl sales account for 0.37%
>> of the total album market.
>
> The executive summary is that "A rising tide lifts all boats".
>
>> Put it in a slightly different perspective, that's about
>> 1.43 CDs for every person in the United states, vs. one
>> vinyl LP for every 188 persons.
>
>> Another perspective: assume $5 per CD and $10 per LP,
>> that's 2.1G$
>> for CD, and 0.024G$ for LP.
>
> Considering that many of us can remember when the LP had close to 100%
> market share, 0.37% seems like a massive fall from "grace"

But this renewed interest, though small and certainly a niche market by any
stretch, does show that there is life left in the LP and it's far ffrom down
for the count.
>
>> How their data, as revealed, suggests that this is fueled
>> by purchases of the "iPod generation," is certainly a
>> stretch. Where's the breakdown by age, for example?
>
> One irony is that there seems to be amazing amounts of interest in LPs among
> people in their late 30s and early 40s. For many of us older folk, we
> remember when the LP was all we had, and that can be amazingly effective
> aversion therapy.

I remember, and I don't see it as "aversion therapy" at all. I have no bias
against vinyl and I regard it as just another viable source of music. In some
cases, I prefer it, in some I'd rather have the CD or other digital source.

>> Further, there's no breakdown on how many of those sales
>> constitute new vs. resale/preowned product (in either
>> case, to be fair).
>
> Given how often we see gleeful posts about "Amazing LP Finds" found at the
> local Goodwill store, it seems like recycled product is a bigger segment of
> the LP market. One of the keys to any market for used product is people who
> want to discard the product in question. Listening to LPs surely makes me
> want to discard them if I have a viable alternative.

And Interview I saw on the local news last night with the owner of three
stores in the SF Bay Area dedicated to vinyl (but also selling CDs) indicated
that there was a LOT of new vinyl available. Certainly the latest catalogue I
received from "Music Direct" has page after page of new LPs. There is a store
near me that sells nothing but vinyl and record-playing equipment, he has had
to move into larger quarters to accommodate the increased vinyl catalogue. I
realize that all of this is simply anecdotal "evidence", but when a local TV
news program in a market as large as this one takes notice, it certainly seem
s that something is happening in this market.

But as I said in another post, I doubt seriously if I'll be buying much vinyl
from now on. I have thousands of records, mostly everything I want
(classical, film scores and some jazz), and when I buy music these days, it's
almost entirely CD/SACD.
>
>> But the noise in the CD data is larger by a lot than the
>> total LP sales.
>
> One irony is that not too long ago, Vinyl was more like 1% of the total
> market. Now its 0.37%. Where I come from, that's a 63% loss of market share.
> Even though the actual numbers of product sold go up, the market share
> appears to be continuing to all off a cliff.

Not really important. It's the sales numbers that represent profit, not
market share. And with CD sales tanking the way that they are (in favor of
MP3 downloads, I suspect) I'll bet that market share vis-a-vis CD will see an
increase. Vinyl, the music source that refuses to go away. I'm happy about
that because it means that I will have sources of turntables, arms,
cartridges and phono stages as far into perpetuity as I'll need.

Arny Krueger

December 8th 09, 11:54 PM

"Harry Lavo" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...

>> snip opinion to get to factual basis<

>> One irony is that not too long ago, Vinyl was more like
>> 1% of the total market. Now its 0.37%. Where I come
>> from, that's a 63% loss of market share.

>> Even though the actual numbers of product sold go up,
>> the market share appears to be continuing to all off a
>> cliff.

> Uh, Arny....CD and total market sales are falling; LP
> sales are rising. You don't have to be a genius at math
> to know that means that LP's share is increasing.

Harry, you haven't dealt with the fact that Vinyl's market share was far
more, about 3 times more just a few years ago. OK, maybe the sales of vinyl
went up in the past statistical period, compared to the previous one. That
doesn't make it a meaningful trend.

Back a couple-3-4 years back when vinyl's market share was around 1% I
suggested that it might due to media being sold to dance clubs and DJs for
scratching. Interestingly enough, a digital alternative to mechanical
scratching was developed, and now vinyl's market share is more like 0.37%.

Hmmmm.

That begs the question of why vinyl's sales went up just lately. The most
recent relevant technological advance was the under-$200 USB turntable.
Think that might be it - people picking up some new media to see what their
newly-hyped cheap LP playback hardware actually sounds like?

Hmmmm.

Harry Lavo

December 9th 09, 02:40 AM

"Dick Pierce" > wrote in message
...
> Harry Lavo wrote:
>> The Times reporter didn't say it wasn't a fad -- the ower of J&R said it
>> wasn't a fad. Who's better to judge....you, or she who talks to and
>> caters
>> to her customers?
>
> Well, without her supplying the data from which she drew
> her conclusions, the rest of us are excluded from any
> ability to judge. Not only can't we draw any reasonable
> comclusions of our own due to the absence of data, we
> have nothing to evaluate the veracity of hers.
>
> I, for one, am not willing to accept her assertions,
> given that she is making statements that are directly
> influenced by and could influence her business without
> some skepticism.
>
> She could well be right: but there's NO data to suggest
> that. She could just as well be wrong, and there's no
> data to suggest that either.
>
> There's no data.
>

That's a reasonable position, Dick. All I am saying she is well positioned
to judge as opposed to many other of us. I just found it another in an
interesting string of antecdotes re: the pickup in this market over the last
five or so years. She struck me as a reasonably well-positioned source.

Not directly related, but I have a young son (age 25) who is a musician and
has his own band, and he was telling me of the vinyl resurgence five years
ago (we never talked about it, so he didn't know that I already knew
something about it although he did know I still had a lot of records, many
of which I played from time to time). He asked me at that time for a
turntable, and as a result, received a Dual 704 with Shure cartridge that I
had bought and was planning to resell on ebay. My daughter (age 29) came in
one day about two years ago with a bag containing seven used LP's that she
had bought....mostly early '70's rock. She currently does not have her own
apartment, so her stereo is in storage. She asked me to transfer them to CD
so she could play them in her car. Her comment: I wish cars still came with
cassette decks...I liked them better.

Peter Wieck

December 9th 09, 02:40 AM

By my calculations, 320.42 angels can dance on the head of a standard
brass stick-pin of approximately 1mm in diameter.

Vinyl has a place in the audio repertoire. That place appears (in
quantity) to be increasing in size as measured at one particular
moment recently. As compared to all other possible source media, it
may be decreasing in relative percentage. So what? It is still
increasing.

It remains a viable medium and is sought after by a sufficient
proportion of the general public as to continue its viability and
create continuing opportunities for those that use it.

Further discussion of aspects of the continuing survival and
continuing viability of the medium would require delving into the
somatic characteristics of the various angels - something we might
agree to be a rather silly endeavor.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

Scott[_6_]

December 9th 09, 02:40 AM

On Dec 8, 3:54=A0pm, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
>
>
>
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> snip opinion to get to factual basis<
> >> One irony is that not too long ago, Vinyl was more like
> >> 1% of the total market. Now its 0.37%. Where I come
> >> from, that's a 63% loss of market share.
> >> Even though the actual numbers of product sold go up,
> >> the market share appears to be continuing to all off a
> >> cliff.
> > Uh, Arny....CD and total market sales are falling; LP
> > sales are rising. =A0You don't have to be a genius at math
> > to know that means that LP's share is increasing.
>
> Harry, you haven't dealt with the fact that Vinyl's market share was far
> more, about 3 times more just a few years ago. OK, maybe the sales of vin=
yl
> went up in the past statistical period, compared to the previous one. Tha=
t
> doesn't make it a meaningful trend.
>
> Back a couple-3-4 years back when vinyl's market share was around 1% I
> suggested that it might due to media being sold to dance clubs and DJs fo=
r
> scratching. =A0Interestingly enough, a digital alternative to mechanical
> scratching was developed, and now vinyl's market share is more like 0.37%=
..
>
> Hmmmm.

market share is really irrelevant. The actual sales of vinyl has gone
up consistantly for many years and has enjoyed a substantial spike in
the last two years. The people selling it don't worry about market
share, they worry about actual sales. If you are in the business of
making records business is really good right now. pretty cool given
this econemy.

>
> That begs the question of why vinyl's sales went up just lately. The most
> recent relevant technological advance was the under-$200 USB turntable.

The question has been pretty much answered. Many causes are at work
but the unsal recent spike is largely due to the cool factor.

> Think that might be it - people picking up some new media to see what the=
ir
> newly-hyped cheap LP playback hardware actually sounds like?
>
> Hmmmm.

I doubt that has had that big an impact.

Harry Lavo

December 9th 09, 02:40 AM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
>
>
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> ...
>
>>> snip opinion to get to factual basis<
>
>>> One irony is that not too long ago, Vinyl was more like
>>> 1% of the total market. Now its 0.37%. Where I come
>>> from, that's a 63% loss of market share.
>
>>> Even though the actual numbers of product sold go up,
>>> the market share appears to be continuing to all off a
>>> cliff.
>
>> Uh, Arny....CD and total market sales are falling; LP
>> sales are rising. You don't have to be a genius at math
>> to know that means that LP's share is increasing.
>
> Harry, you haven't dealt with the fact that Vinyl's market share was far
> more, about 3 times more just a few years ago. OK, maybe the sales of
> vinyl
> went up in the past statistical period, compared to the previous one. That
> doesn't make it a meaningful trend.
>
> Back a couple-3-4 years back when vinyl's market share was around 1% I
> suggested that it might due to media being sold to dance clubs and DJs for
> scratching. Interestingly enough, a digital alternative to mechanical
> scratching was developed, and now vinyl's market share is more like 0.37%.
>
> Hmmmm.

Hmmm, please read Scotts post corraborating the rise in vinyl sales over
this decade. You are getting yourself further and further out on a bias
limb. The main vinyl aversion around here seems to be yours.

> That begs the question of why vinyl's sales went up just lately. The most
> recent relevant technological advance was the under-$200 USB turntable.
> Think that might be it - people picking up some new media to see what
> their
> newly-hyped cheap LP playback hardware actually sounds like?

Don't be rediculous....people without vinyl don't buy a turntable (even a
cheap one) and THEN buy something to play on it, if they don't have
intention to use it. No the cheap turntables are for older folks like you
and I who are not into quality sound particularly, and just want something
to get their vinyl onto a computer as you've been urging them to do. The
kids are buying direct-drives and lower end belt drives in order to play
their vinyl. They might copy it onto a cd for the car or an iPod for
personal use, but they often play the vinyl at home.

And you are completely overlooking the substantial sales of
medium-to-higher-priced turntables and sales of $25-35 per disk premium
vinyl that is selling to reasonably well-heeled audio enthusiasts.

Arny Krueger

December 9th 09, 04:52 PM

"Harry Lavo" > wrote in message

> That's a reasonable position, Dick. All I am saying she
> is well positioned to judge as opposed to many other of
> us. I just found it another in an interesting string of
> antecdotes re: the pickup in this market over the last
> five or so years. She struck me as a reasonably
> well-positioned source.

I question the logic. The management of a single retail store or a small
retail chain is basically just one small data point.

Furthermore, anybody whose making money selling a certain kind of product is
obviously biased.

Let's face it, only a miniscule percentage of all retailers of media or
audio electronics even bother with vinyl any more.

When you see a news story about LPs, ask yourself - would this be news if it
wasn't about LPs? What makes it news is how improbable it is, all other
things considered.

> Not directly related, but I have a young son (age 25) who
> is a musician and has his own band, and he was telling me
> of the vinyl resurgence five years ago (we never talked
> about it, so he didn't know that I already knew something
> about it although he did know I still had a lot of
> records, many of which I played from time to time). He
> asked me at that time for a turntable, and as a result,
> received a Dual 704 with Shure cartridge that I had
> bought and was planning to resell on ebay.

Letsee, like father, like son?

> My daughter
> (age 29) came in one day about two years ago with a bag
> containing seven used LP's that she had bought....mostly
> early '70's rock. She currently does not have her own
> apartment, so her stereo is in storage. She asked me to
> transfer them to CD so she could play them in her car.

That makes sense, and just shows how unusable LPs are by modern standards.

> Her comment: I wish cars still came with cassette
> decks...I liked them better.

She obviously never saw the many cassettes, twisted tape hanging out like a
long skinny banner, that ended up on the sides of many a busy road, thrown
there in fits of absolute frustration.

Harry Lavo

December 9th 09, 08:23 PM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
>
>
>> That's a reasonable position, Dick. All I am saying she
>> is well positioned to judge as opposed to many other of
>> us. I just found it another in an interesting string of
>> antecdotes re: the pickup in this market over the last
>> five or so years. She struck me as a reasonably
>> well-positioned source.
>
> I question the logic. The management of a single retail store or a small
> retail chain is basically just one small data point.

Agreed to the single point, but this does happen to be the largest music
retailer in NYC.....not exactly podunk, Iowa.

> Furthermore, anybody whose making money selling a certain kind of product
> is
> obviously biased.

J&R sells everything electronic, everything music, everything photo,
everything kitchen, every.....man, that's a lot of biases!

> Let's face it, only a miniscule percentage of all retailers of media or
> audio electronics even bother with vinyl any more.

More and more every year...even Barnes and Noble, about as conservative a
music retailer as there is, is experimenting. And I daresay there are many
more doing so today than ten years ago.

> When you see a news story about LPs, ask yourself - would this be news if
> it
> wasn't about LPs? What makes it news is how improbable it is, all other
> things considered.

Certainly is improbably....after all, "Perfect Sound Forever" was supposed
to do in vinyl. It was buried by the press and by engineering types like
yourself....and flowers planted on it. Funny thing happened though. The
ground heaved, and up she came again.....not quite her old self, but living
and breathing. What's not to marvel over/do a story about?

>
>> Not directly related, but I have a young son (age 25) who
>> is a musician and has his own band, and he was telling me
>> of the vinyl resurgence five years ago (we never talked
>> about it, so he didn't know that I already knew something
>> about it although he did know I still had a lot of
>> records, many of which I played from time to time). He
>> asked me at that time for a turntable, and as a result,
>> received a Dual 704 with Shure cartridge that I had
>> bought and was planning to resell on ebay.
>
> Letsee, like father, like son?

Quite possibly, but the impetus seemed to come from a musician friend who
had started amassing his own vinyl collection. He had never shown much
interest in my vinyl or record playing gear.

>> My daughter
>> (age 29) came in one day about two years ago with a bag
>> containing seven used LP's that she had bought....mostly
>> early '70's rock. She currently does not have her own
>> apartment, so her stereo is in storage. She asked me to
>> transfer them to CD so she could play them in her car.
>
> That makes sense, and just shows how unusable LPs are by modern standards.

Do you understand the definition of "non-sequitor"?

>
>> Her comment: I wish cars still came with cassette
>> decks...I liked them better.
>
> She obviously never saw the many cassettes, twisted tape hanging out like
> a
> long skinny banner, that ended up on the sides of many a busy road, thrown
> there in fits of absolute frustration.

Neither have I, and I lived through the cassette period. She simply
expressed a preference....I didn't grill her to find out why. I assumed
nostalgia for when she was a little girl and used to bring her cassettes
along on trips. But who knows, maybe she's just another budding, totally
irrational audiophile, out to annoy you.

Keith

December 9th 09, 10:25 PM

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

<snip>

>> Let's face it, only a miniscule percentage of all retailers of media or
>> audio electronics even bother with vinyl any more.
>
> More and more every year...even Barnes and Noble, about as conservative a
> music retailer as there is, is experimenting. And I daresay there are many
> more doing so today than ten years ago.

Not around here they (meaning the *many* dealers) aren't (Phoenix area).
I can say that LP's are a much higher *percentage* of the music
available for sale than at any time in recent memory. An artifact of a
small resurgence in vinyl, and primarily a massive decrease in the
numbers and variety of CD's being stocked. Barnes & Noble may be
experimenting with vinyl on-line, but I don't look for any in the stores
here. Borders no longer even sells music - in any format - here in the
Phoenix area. They dumped the lot this year; it's on-line only now.

>> When you see a news story about LPs, ask yourself - would this be news if
>> it
>> wasn't about LPs? What makes it news is how improbable it is, all other
>> things considered.
>
> Certainly is improbably....after all, "Perfect Sound Forever" was supposed
> to do in vinyl.

And, it basically did. Just as streaming and digital downloads (or
their as yet undeveloped successors) will eventually do in CD. But, as
with riding horses, driving Model T's or Stanley Steamers, there will
likely always be niche hobbyist markets for both vinyl and CD. As long
as that niche is commercially viable for a few fringe players, the media
will continue to be available. But, they will, nonetheless, be legacy
technologies relegated to niche constituencies.

In fact, the apparently unavoidable slide from brick and mortar
storefront to non-stocking e-tailers is likely vinyl's best friend (and
will be CD's as well) since it creates availability, albeit not very
timely, without a retailer having to stock slow/no moving inventory.

> It was buried by the press and by engineering types like
> yourself....and flowers planted on it. Funny thing happened though. The
> ground heaved, and up she came again.....not quite her old self, but living
> and breathing. What's not to marvel over/do a story about?

The point is, it's not much of a story IMO. There are a number of
factors that can influence such minor upticks in vinyl sales (e.g.
e-tailing as mentioned previously). Good vinyl playback equipment is not
cheap, so having a listener base that has invested heavily in equipment
(and that has the concomitant disposable income) and likes vinyl sound
supplies a stable buyer base. As more titles are made available - or
higher quality pressings / recordings/ etc. - that same base will likely
buy more, stimulating more variety of production. That is not, however,
sustainable as a method of long term growth unless the base is increased
significantly. However, having that stable base, when even a modest
"fad" of younger folks getting into vinyl occurs (of which I have
personally met exactly *none*) will appear as significant.

I mean, look at the album numbers from 2007-2008:

LP's - increased by 1.6M units - which is well more than double;
CD's - decreased by 126.4M units
Downloads - increased by 14.4M units

The *story*, IMO, is that overall album sales dropped by 108.6M units!

And the uptick in downloads (excluding singles, and DVDs) is almost 9
times the increase in LP's. And that 'massive' increase in LP's is still
only 0.36% of the total sales (for a total LP sales of 0.66%). I mean
let's face it, when the overall album market (comprised of 3 basic media
types) drops 20%, a <0.4% relative change in one medium is statistically
insignificant.

<snip>

>> She obviously never saw the many cassettes, twisted tape hanging out like
>> a
>> long skinny banner, that ended up on the sides of many a busy road, thrown
>> there in fits of absolute frustration.
>
> Neither have I, and I lived through the cassette period.

Wow - you obviously didn't get out much then. They were rather
ubiquitous in the 70's around these parts.

Keith

bob

December 10th 09, 12:43 AM

On Dec 8, 2:50=A0pm, "Harry Lavo" > wrote:

> The Times reporter didn't say it wasn't a fad -- the ower of J&R said it
> wasn't a fad. =A0Who's better to judge....you, or she who talks to and ca=
ters
> to her customers?

Check again, Harry. The sentence has neither quotes nor attribution.
It's the reporter's words.

Dick Pierce[_2_]

December 10th 09, 12:57 AM

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

>>
>>
>>>That's a reasonable position, Dick. All I am saying she
>>>is well positioned to judge as opposed to many other of
>>>us. I just found it another in an interesting string of
>>>antecdotes re: the pickup in this market over the last
>>>five or so years. She struck me as a reasonably
>>>well-positioned source.
>>
>>I question the logic. The management of a single retail store or a small
>>retail chain is basically just one small data point.
>
> Agreed to the single point, but this does happen to be the largest music
> retailer in NYC.....not exactly podunk, Iowa.

But it's but one data point, and missing data at that.

> J&R sells everything electronic, everything music, everything photo,
> everything kitchen, every.....man,

So? How is that relevant?

>that's a lot of biases!

Yes, it is. Are we to think that people are incapable of holding
more than a small handful of biases and opinions at once? Indeed,
I might even suggest that people are quite capably of not only
holding a multitude of biases simultaneously, but that many of
them may contradict and conflict, as irrational as that may seem.

> Certainly is improbably....after all, "Perfect Sound Forever" was supposed
> to do in vinyl.

Harry, if you have problems with the "perfect sound forever"
slogan, take it up with the *marketing* genius who came up
with it. The ongoing attempts to lay that at the feet of
the technical people invilved in the medium might feel good,
but such attempts are quite misdirected and, frankly, are
getting very tiring.

> It was buried by the press and by engineering types like
> yourself....and flowers planted on it. Funny thing happened though. The
> ground heaved, and up she came again.....not quite her old self, but living
> and breathing. What's not to marvel over/do a story about?

Gee, sounds like a zombie movie to me! Where's my nerf gun
bag of tube socks?

--
+--------------------------------+
+ Dick Pierce |
+ Professional Audio Development |
+--------------------------------+

bob

December 10th 09, 01:26 AM

On Dec 9, 5:25=A0pm, Keith > wrote:

> I mean, look at the album numbers from 2007-2008:
>
> LP's - increased by 1.6M units - which is well more than double;
> CD's - decreased by 126.4M units
> Downloads - increased by 14.4M units
>
> The *story*, IMO, is that overall album sales dropped by 108.6M units!
>
> And the uptick in downloads (excluding singles, and DVDs) is almost 9
> times the increase in LP's. And that 'massive' increase in LP's is still
> only 0.36% of the total sales (for a total LP sales of 0.66%). =A0I mean
> let's face it, when the overall album market (comprised of 3 basic media
> types) drops 20%, a <0.4% relative change in one medium is statistically
> insignificant.

These are RIAA shipment figures, if anyone cares. They understate the
download side, which is predominantly singles and rose by 200M units,
equivalent to about 20M albums' worth. Add in the, um, "unofficial"
downloads, and vinyl's market share looks even more puny.

bob

Harry Lavo

December 10th 09, 02:09 AM

"bob" > wrote in message
...
> On Dec 8, 2:50=A0pm, "Harry Lavo" > wrote:
>
>> The Times reporter didn't say it wasn't a fad -- the ower of J&R said it
>> wasn't a fad. =A0Who's better to judge....you, or she who talks to and
>> ca=
> ters
>> to her customers?
>
> Check again, Harry. The sentence has neither quotes nor attribution.
> It's the reporter's words.

I stand corected, Bob, thank you. In fact it was the reporters conclusion.
Whether or not she may have influenced that conclusion we don't know....but
apparently some facts did, as he said in full "Sales of vinyl albums have
been climbing steadily for several years, tromping on the notion that the
rebound was just a fad."

He might have been looking at something like the list of evidence that Scott
published here just a few days ago, which if I may quote in full, was as
follows:

"The booming trend became apparent in 2003. Nielsen SoundScan
announced that ?formats classified as ?Other? (largely vinyl, but
including a small number of DVD audio- albums) showed an increase of
more than 30 per cent in the period 2000-2003.? (Hayes 2006) That same
year The National Association of Recording Merchandisers (NARM)
reported that sales of new and used vinyl records combined had
increased by more than 300 percent since 2000, bringing in $67
million. New CDs alone brought in more than $12 billion. The
mainstream was obviously in the digital domain, but vinyl replay as a
subculture was definitely on the rise. (Manez, 2003) The owner of
independent reissue label Sundazed in New York commented: ?I don't
consider it a small niche anymore. At Sundazed, we did half a million
in sales in vinyl in 2003. That's not small potatoes. "It has become
so much more mainstream that even the lay person knows something's
going on.? (Petrick, 2004) Yet the biggest boom was still to come. 6.4
Vinyl is back in the (youth) mainstream Last year, Virgin Megastores
UK announced it would re-arrange its stores to better accommodate
vinyl records. According to the company, ?up to 70 percent of sales of
new releases are vinyl.? (Glover, 2006). In 2007, in the UK Virgin
Megastores, vinyl outsells CDs 80% to 20% for albums available on both
formats. (Lindich, 2007) Even the 7? vinyl single has returned.
According to the British Phonographic Industry (BPI), ?annual sales of
vinyl singles in the U.K. rose sixfold, accounting for 14.7 percent of
all physical singles sales in 2005, up from 12.2 percent in 2004.? Of
course this applies to customers actually coming into stores to buy
music on a physical carrier. However, Virgin Megastores UK predicts
that digital music downloads "will account for no more than 10 percent
of the overall market by 2009. The company hopes its vinyl strategy ?
will offer consumers enough added value to head off growing
competition from cut-price supermarket CD offers and internet download
services." (Glover, 2006) Also chain store HMV agrees that vinyl is
back and the company has been rapidly expanding its record racks to
meet rising demand. (Allen, 2007)"

Let's see....2003 to 2009....does that constitute a trend?

bob

December 10th 09, 03:08 AM

On Dec 9, 9:09=A0pm, "Harry Lavo" > wrote:

> He might have been looking at something like the list of evidence that Sc=
ott
> published here just a few days ago, which if I may quote in full, was as
> follows:
>
> =A0"The booming trend became apparent in 2003. Nielsen SoundScan
> announced that ?formats classified as ?Other? (largely vinyl, but
> including a small number of DVD audio- albums) showed an increase of
> more than 30 per cent in the period 2000-2003.?

That also includes SACD, which was introduced in that period and, with
DVD-A, likely accounts for the totality of the increase.

> (Hayes 2006) That same
> year The National Association of Recording Merchandisers (NARM)
> reported that sales of new and used vinyl records combined had
> increased by more than 300 percent since 2000,

For every person who buys a used LP, somebody gets rid of one. So
that's evidence of disinterest as well as interest.

Look, there's no question that there's been an uptick, and the data we
have isn't good enough to tell us exactly when it started. The NYT
cites only an increase from 2008 to 2009, according to Nielsen
Soundscan. RIAA shipments began rising in 2007. And, let's face it, if
this had been a trend that had been going on for years, the NYT
probably wouldn't have been interested in writing about it. This is a
man-bites-dog story precisely because the turnaround is so recent.

bob

Harry Lavo

December 10th 09, 11:42 AM

>"Dick Pierce" > wrote in message
...
> Harry Lavo wrote:
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>"Harry Lavo" > wrote in message

>>>
>>>
>>>>That's a reasonable position, Dick. All I am saying she
>>>>is well positioned to judge as opposed to many other of
>>>>us. I just found it another in an interesting string of
>>>>antecdotes re: the pickup in this market over the last
>>>>five or so years. She struck me as a reasonably
>>>>well-positioned source.
>>>
>>>I question the logic. The management of a single retail store or a small
>>>retail chain is basically just one small data point.
>>
>> Agreed to the single point, but this does happen to be the largest music
>> retailer in NYC.....not exactly podunk, Iowa.
>
>But it's but one data point, and missing data at that.

Yep, so clearly it is anecdotal....but based on her own multiyear statistics
and experience in a city that is often a forerunner of trends elsewhere.

>
>> J&R sells everything electronic, everything music, everything photo,
>> everything kitchen, every.....man,
>
>So? How is that relevant?

Because she has no apparent commercial reason to be biased towards vinyl and
against other forms of music and machines to retrieve it, which she also
sells.

>
>>that's a lot of biases!
>
> Yes, it is. Are we to think that people are incapable of holding
> more than a small handful of biases and opinions at once? Indeed,
> I might even suggest that people are quite capably of not only
> holding a multitude of biases simultaneously, but that many of
> them may contradict and conflict, as irrational as that may seem.

Yes indeedy, they can (I was a student of behavioral psychology back in
business school). But I suspect commercial biases are a bit more rational
than that.

>
>> Certainly is improbably....after all, "Perfect Sound Forever" was
>> supposed to do in vinyl.
>
> Harry, if you have problems with the "perfect sound forever"
> slogan, take it up with the *marketing* genius who came up
> with it. The ongoing attempts to lay that at the feet of
> the technical people invilved in the medium might feel good,
> but such attempts are quite misdirected and, frankly, are
> getting very tiring.

I fail to see above where I singled out engineers or technical people...I
was simply referring to the great "brainwash" that took place upon CD's
birth courtesy of SONY. I think you are a bit sensitive to this, although I
can assure you there were any number of technical folk who were happy to
dring the cool aid, as noted below:

>> It was buried by the press and by engineering types like yourself....and
>> flowers planted on it. Funny thing happened though. The ground heaved,
>> and up she came again.....not quite her old self, but living and
>> breathing. What's not to marvel over/do a story about?

Press = marketing releases = marketing folk, whom you don't want to be
associated with
Engineering types = sales support engineers = those who try to snow the
customer/press in support of the marketing types

I am happy to say I know you were not among either group.

> Gee, sounds like a zombie movie to me! Where's my nerf gun
> bag of tube socks?

:-)

Left them on campus, did you?

> --
> +--------------------------------+
> + Dick Pierce |
> + Professional Audio Development |
> +--------------------------------+

Arny Krueger

December 10th 09, 02:44 PM

"Harry Lavo" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>> That's a reasonable position, Dick. All I am saying she
>>> is well positioned to judge as opposed to many other of
>>> us. I just found it another in an interesting string of
>>> anecdotes re: the pickup in this market over the last
>>> five or so years. She struck me as a reasonably
>>> well-positioned source.

>> I question the logic. The management of a single retail
>> store or a small retail chain is basically just one
>> small data point.

> Agreed to the single point, but this does happen to be
> the largest music retailer in NYC.....not exactly podunk,
> Iowa.

So what? The NYC area is an important market, but it is only a tiny
fraction of the US market.

>> Furthermore, anybody whose making money selling a
>> certain kind of product is obviously biased.

> J&R sells everything electronic, everything music,
> everything photo, everything kitchen, every.....man,
> that's a lot of biases!

At this point vinyl is a sort of an exclusive product for them. Most of
their competition wisely abandoned it decades ago.

>> Let's face it, only a miniscule percentage of all
>> retailers of media or audio electronics even bother with
>> vinyl any more.

> More and more every year...even Barnes and Noble, about
> as conservative a music retailer as there is, is
> experimenting. And I daresay there are many more doing
> so today than ten years ago.

But nothing at all like they were doing 30 years ago.

Reality is a series of ups and downs, with the
current numbers appearing to be highly anomalous.

RIAA vinyl sales (millions of units):

1991 29.4

1992 13.5

1993 10.6

1994 17.8

1995 25.1

1996 36.8

1997 33.3

1998 34.0

1999 31.8

2000 27.7

2001 27.4

2002 20.5

2003 21.7

2004 19.2

2005 14.2

2006 15.7

2007 22.9

2008 56.7

> Certainly is improbably....after all, "Perfect Sound
> Forever" was supposed to do in vinyl.

You mean Harry that you haven't noticed that the CD knocked vinyl from 100%
of the consumer recording marketplace to less than 0.4%?

bob

December 10th 09, 02:44 PM

On Dec 10, 6:42=A0am, "Harry Lavo" > wrote:
> >"Dick Pierce" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Harry Lavo wrote:

> >> J&R sells everything electronic, everything music, everything photo,
> >> everything kitchen, every.....man,
>
> >So? How is that relevant?
>
> Because she has no apparent commercial reason to be biased towards vinyl =
and
> against other forms of music and machines to retrieve it, which she also
> sells.

Oh, come now. A reporter calls her up wanting to write a story about
the vinyl "resurgence." Do you really think she's going to talk about
how much better and more popular CDs are? How does it help J&R's
overall business if she talks the reporter out of doing the story? If
the NYT is going to write about vinyl, she wants to use that as a
platform to promote the impression that J&R is where all the kool kids
go to get theirs.

And in a few years' time, when the NYT decides to write a story about
whether CD is dead yet, she'll be happy to tell that same reporter
that it's not, at least not her her store=97and I bet she doesn't even
mention vinyl.

That doesn't mean anything she says is wrong, and most of what she
says sounds pretty plausible to me. But unbiased? Please.

bob

bob

December 10th 09, 04:44 PM

On Dec 10, 9:44=A0am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> Reality is a series of ups and downs, with the
> current numbers appearing to be highly anomalous.
>
> RIAA vinyl sales (millions of units):
>
> 1991 29.4
..
..
..
No, Arny, those are dollar values, not units shipped. Units shipped
bounced around in the high 2 millions in the last half of the 1990s,
then declined monotonically in this decade until 2007. The 2008 figure
matches the 1999 figure, 2.9 million units.

bob

Arny Krueger

December 10th 09, 06:04 PM

"bob" > wrote in message

> On Dec 10, 9:44=A0am, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
>> Reality is a series of ups and downs, with the
>> current numbers appearing to be highly anomalous.
>>
>> RIAA vinyl sales (millions of units):
>>
>> 1991 29.4
> .
> .
> .
> No, Arny, those are dollar values, not units shipped.
> Units shipped bounced around in the high 2 millions in
> the last half of the 1990s, then declined monotonically
> in this decade until 2007. The 2008 figure matches the
> 1999 figure, 2.9 million units.

Right. My apologies. The table of information was first put into a post that
somehow never got posted on RAHE. When I cut and pasted the data to a new
post from the lost post in my sent folder, the headings got scrambled.

Here is the correct information for LPs (millions of units).

1991 4.8

1992 2.3

1993 1.2

1994 1.9

1995 2.2

1996 2.9

1997 2.7

1998 3.4

1999 2.9

2000 2.2

2001 2.3

2002 1.7

2003 1.5

2004 1.4

2005 1.0

2006 0.9

2007 1.3

2008 2.9

What we see is several cycles of boom and bust with local minimums in 1993
and 2006. Sales on the order of the boomlet in 2008 were previously
achieved in 1991 and 1997. The sales data for the LP in the past 20 years
has been up and down and generally noisy. It is hard to find a reliable
trend.

The total number of recordings sold rose far more steadily from 801 million
in 1991 to 1,852 million in 2008. Thus LP market share has generally
trended downward from miniscule to very miniscule.

Keith

December 10th 09, 08:34 PM

Jenn wrote:
> In article >,
> "Harry Lavo" > wrote:
<snip>
> Yes, the largest music retailer in the largest city in the country.
> Anyone who has visited the store knows that shelf space is at a premium.
> J&R wouldn't give an inch of space to any product that they didn't think
> was going to sell. Their job is to make money. The same is true, of
> course, for all of the companies that are making LPs, including the
> "majors". If there was no money in it, there would be no LPs, no CDs,
> no bottles of Coke.
>
> The present thread is, IMV, a very tired argument. Some people would
> like to buy some LPs. In the view of some here, that makes them "vinyl
> bigots". Oh well. The space that the largest music retail chain (brick
> and mortar) on the west coast devotes to new and used LPs is further
> testimony that there is a market for the product, and that market has
> grown.

Well hopefully you don't equate the label "vinylphile" with "vinyl
bigot", at least in my usage. Thermophiles are attracted to heat,
vinylphiles are attracted to vinyl sound, no more, no less. That's all
that -philic means.

My point was that vinyl is a niche market and has been for some time,
and due to the myriad factors discussed previously, will continue to be
a niche market. And it appears that CD is headed that way as well.
Like markets for any vintage product, vinyl sales will likely continue
around some low baseline level for the forseeable future. But minor
oscillations around an essentially zero baseline shouldn't be seen as
indicative of any resurgence unless the 2009 data is clearly shown as an
inflection point. Something that will require several additional data
points. For example, compare the vinyl sales trend from 1993 to 1996 below:

1993 1.2M

1994 1.9M

1995 2.2M

1996 2.9M

Looks familiar no? From 1993 to 2009, vinyl sales have oscillated
between 0.9M and 3.4M, the same range they inhabit now. That's not a
new "story", just indicative of the nature of niche markets.

While I don't, personally, mourn the passing of vinyl from the
mainstream (although I too listen to LP's of music not available on CD,
I don't buy any new albums), I certainly will mourn CD's passage, and it
appears that demise is also inevitable. But so be it, I'll continue on
in the niche world undaunted :-)

Keith

Arny Krueger

December 10th 09, 08:35 PM

"Jenn" > wrote in message

> In article >,
> "Harry Lavo" > wrote:

>>> I question the logic. The management of a single retail
>>> store or a small retail chain is basically just one
>>> small data point.

>> Agreed to the single point, but this does happen to be
>> the largest music retailer in NYC.....not exactly
>> podunk, Iowa.

Not exactly proof of a trend or even support for such a claim.

> Yes, the largest music retailer in the largest city in
> the country.

The largest music retailer in the US is iTunes.

http://gizmodo.com/375816/apple-confirms-1-music-retailer-status-with-four-billion-songs-sold

"Apple's just confirmed the morning's news on them being the number one
music retailer in the US."

I have it on good authority that iTunes sells no vinyl. ;-) Something about
it being technically impossible to download LPs...

The largest music store in NYC is the Virgin Music Store on Union Square:

http://www.broadwayworld.com/article/Virgin_Megastores_Annouces_Biggest_Sale_in_Music_R etail_History_Starting_Thursday_at_Times_Square_St ore_20090218

The article says that when Virgin closed down their Times Square Store,
their Union Square store became the largest in NTC.

Therefore your claims about J&R are completely falisifed, and there no
reason to answer any false suppositions based on the idea that J&R are "The
largest music retailer in the US".

> The present thread is, IMV, a very tired argument.

Of course. I've shown that every once in a while sales of LPs spike up, and
then they settle down again.

> Some people would like to buy some LPs.

There is no problem with people liking to buy LPs.

The problem is false suppositions based on false claims.

> In the view of some
> here, that makes them "vinyl bigots".

No, it makes people who base false claims on false data look like they are
very passionate, but also wrong.

Harry Lavo

December 10th 09, 08:48 PM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
>
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>
>>>> That's a reasonable position, Dick. All I am saying she
>>>> is well positioned to judge as opposed to many other of
>>>> us. I just found it another in an interesting string of
>>>> anecdotes re: the pickup in this market over the last
>>>> five or so years. She struck me as a reasonably
>>>> well-positioned source.
>
>>> I question the logic. The management of a single retail
>>> store or a small retail chain is basically just one
>>> small data point.
>
>> Agreed to the single point, but this does happen to be
>> the largest music retailer in NYC.....not exactly podunk,
>> Iowa.
>
> So what? The NYC area is an important market, but it is only a tiny
> fraction of the US market.

It and the two California cities are the trendsetters in the US.

>
>>> Furthermore, anybody whose making money selling a
>>> certain kind of product is obviously biased.
>
>> J&R sells everything electronic, everything music,
>> everything photo, everything kitchen, every.....man,
>> that's a lot of biases!
>
> At this point vinyl is a sort of an exclusive product for them. Most of
> their competition wisely abandoned it decades ago.

And your factual basis for this is......? It has a reputation for being one
of the better vinyl markets in the country....new and used.

>
>>> Let's face it, only a miniscule percentage of all
>>> retailers of media or audio electronics even bother with
>>> vinyl any more.
>
>> More and more every year...even Barnes and Noble, about
>> as conservative a music retailer as there is, is
>> experimenting. And I daresay there are many more doing
>> so today than ten years ago.
>
> But nothing at all like they were doing 30 years ago.

Did I say they were doing that? Arguing off the point.

>
> Reality is a series of ups and downs, with the
> current numbers appearing to be highly anomalous.
>
> RIAA vinyl sales (millions of units):
>
> 1991 29.4
>
> 1992 13.5
>
> 1993 10.6
>
> 1994 17.8
>
> 1995 25.1
>
> 1996 36.8
>
> 1997 33.3
>
> 1998 34.0
>
> 1999 31.8
>
> 2000 27.7
>
> 2001 27.4
>
> 2002 20.5
>
> 2003 21.7
>
> 2004 19.2
>
> 2005 14.2
>
> 2006 15.7
>
> 2007 22.9
>
> 2008 56.7

We've chatted here many times about the accuracy (or lack thereof) of the
RIAA numbers. Even so, let's look at them.

We can probably agree that 1993, ten years after introduction of CD,
represented the low point for vinyl, both in sales and in distribution.
After that, it appears we've had four broad patterns:

* A sharp rise in sales from 1993 to 1996 representing compound growth of
50% per year. This coincided with the rise of catalog mail-order companies
such as Music Direct and Audio Advisor, and the concurrent rise of
audiophile vinyl through these specialized distribution channels.

* A broad plateau from 1997 until 2000-2001 at 30.0 +/- 10%, while CD sales
peaked. This most likely reflected a mature audiophile vinyl market.

* A substantial decline from 2001 until 2005 at an annual compound rate of -
9.7%. This coincided with similar overall decline of the total music market
for "hard product" as computer downloading (both illegal and legal) and Home
Theatre gained prominence. CY2001 was peak sales year for CD's, if I recall
(or maybe it was 2000). During this decline bricks and mortar retailers
(particularly the smaller ones) as well as audio retailers (who also handled
audiophile recordings) went out of business and bigger chains retrenched and
reduced their floorspace for music. Vinyl being a minority product if it
was distributed at all was among the first to go and the decline in audio
retailers definitely hurt audiophile vinyl sales.

* An increase since 2005 at a compound annual rate of 41.5% due to....what
we are arguing about.

I would suggest that this hardly suggest a moribund market for vinyl. Now
that catalog and internet distributors assure easy purchase even of niche
products, industry changes in technology and distribution no longer affect
sales as severely as in the past. So long as a substantial portion of the
market for well-recorded audio continues to eschew the complexities of tying
musical servers into their audio systems, conditions are ripe for continued
rise of vinyl with audiophiles forming a base and new young users
discovering the medium as an alternative to CD (which they've already ruled
passe').

>
>
>> Certainly is improbably....after all, "Perfect Sound
>> Forever" was supposed to do in vinyl.
>
> You mean Harry that you haven't noticed that the CD knocked vinyl from
> 100%
> of the consumer recording marketplace to less than 0.4%?

Yep, and McDonald's continues to make the best hamburgers in the US, right?
Just look at their market share. What does that have to do with the rise of
Red Robin and other premium hamburger chains?

Harry Lavo

December 10th 09, 08:48 PM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "bob" > wrote in message
>
>> On Dec 10, 9:44=A0am, "Arny Krueger" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Reality is a series of ups and downs, with the
>>> current numbers appearing to be highly anomalous.
>>>
>>> RIAA vinyl sales (millions of units):
>>>
>>> 1991 29.4
>> .
>> .
>> .
>> No, Arny, those are dollar values, not units shipped.
>> Units shipped bounced around in the high 2 millions in
>> the last half of the 1990s, then declined monotonically
>> in this decade until 2007. The 2008 figure matches the
>> 1999 figure, 2.9 million units.
>
> Right. My apologies. The table of information was first put into a post
> that
> somehow never got posted on RAHE. When I cut and pasted the data to a new
> post from the lost post in my sent folder, the headings got scrambled.
>
> Here is the correct information for LPs (millions of units).
>
> 1991 4.8
>
> 1992 2.3
>
> 1993 1.2
>
> 1994 1.9
>
> 1995 2.2
>
> 1996 2.9
>
> 1997 2.7
>
> 1998 3.4
>
> 1999 2.9
>
> 2000 2.2
>
> 2001 2.3
>
> 2002 1.7
>
> 2003 1.5
>
> 2004 1.4
>
> 2005 1.0
>
> 2006 0.9
>
> 2007 1.3
>
> 2008 2.9
>
> What we see is several cycles of boom and bust with local minimums in 1993
> and 2006. Sales on the order of the boomlet in 2008 were previously
> achieved in 1991 and 1997. The sales data for the LP in the past 20 years
> has been up and down and generally noisy. It is hard to find a reliable
> trend.
>
> The total number of recordings sold rose far more steadily from 801
> million
> in 1991 to 1,852 million in 2008. Thus LP market share has generally
> trended downward from miniscule to very miniscule.
>

I've just written a post to your previous post that I think explains the ups
and downs. It helps to think hard about the numbers, rather than just
reporting them.

Jenn[_2_]

December 10th 09, 10:10 PM

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Harry Lavo" > wrote:
>
> >>> I question the logic. The management of a single retail
> >>> store or a small retail chain is basically just one
> >>> small data point.
>
> >> Agreed to the single point, but this does happen to be
> >> the largest music retailer in NYC.....not exactly
> >> podunk, Iowa.
>
> Not exactly proof of a trend or even support for such a claim.

You've messed up the attributions; I didn't write what you're replying
to above.

>
> > Yes, the largest music retailer in the largest city in
> > the country.
>
> The largest music retailer in the US is iTunes.
>
> http://gizmodo.com/375816/apple-confirms-1-music-retailer-status-with-four-bil
> lion-songs-sold
>
> "Apple's just confirmed the morning's news on them being the number one
> music retailer in the US."
>
> I have it on good authority that iTunes sells no vinyl. ;-) Something about
> it being technically impossible to download LPs...
>
> The largest music store in NYC is the Virgin Music Store on Union Square:
>
> http://www.broadwayworld.com/article/Virgin_Megastores_Annouces_Biggest_Sale_i
> n_Music_Retail_History_Starting_Thursday_at_Times_ Square_Store_20090218
>
> The article says that when Virgin closed down their Times Square Store,
> their Union Square store became the largest in NTC.

No, it doesn't say that at all. Please check the article.

>
> Therefore your claims about J&R are completely falisifed, and there no
> reason to answer any false suppositions based on the idea that J&R are "The
> largest music retailer in the US".

I thought that it was clear that we were discussing brick and mortar
stores. And again, it is you made a false claim concerning Virgin.

>
> > The present thread is, IMV, a very tired argument.
>
> Of course. I've shown that every once in a while sales of LPs spike up, and
> then they settle down again.
>
> > Some people would like to buy some LPs.
>
> There is no problem with people liking to buy LPs.
>
> The problem is false suppositions based on false claims.

IIRC, the claim is that LP sales are up. Clearly, they are.

>
> > In the view of some
> > here, that makes them "vinyl bigots".
>
> No, it makes people who base false claims on false data look like they are
> very passionate, but also wrong.

Then you shouldn't call people "vinyl bigots" because they like to buy
some LPs. Seems reasonable, doesn't it?

bob

December 10th 09, 11:36 PM

On Dec 10, 1:04=A0pm, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> What we see is several cycles of boom and bust with local minimums in 199=
3
> and 2006. =A0 Sales on the order of the boomlet in 2008 were previously
> achieved in 1991 and 1997. =A0The sales data for the LP in the past 20 ye=
ars
> has been up and down and generally noisy. It is hard to find a reliable
> trend.

Actually, I think there's pretty clear story here. After the
introduction of CD, vinyl went into a decline, bottoming out in 1993.
Then we have a little boomlet through the rest of the decade, another
depression, and now we have the *second* vinyl revival. To me, this
data doesn't look particularly noisy. But it does show that we are not
at A Uniquely Momentous Moment in the History of Audio Reproduction.

> The total number of recordings sold rose far more steadily from 801 milli=
on
> in 1991 to 1,852 million in 2008. =A0Thus LP market share has generally
> trended downward from miniscule to very miniscule.

This is misleading, because downloads are predominantly single tracks,
not albums, so comparing units over time is apples-to-oranges. Figure
10 singles per album, and there's clearly been a decline in album
sales over the past decade.

bob

bob

December 11th 09, 01:07 AM

On Dec 10, 3:48=A0pm, "Harry Lavo" > wrote:

> We can probably agree that 1993, ten years after introduction of CD,
> represented the low point for vinyl, both in sales and in distribution.
> After that, it appears we've had four broad patterns:
>
> * A sharp rise in sales from 1993 to 1996 representing compound growth of
> 50% per year. =A0This coincided with the rise of catalog mail-order compa=
nies
> such as Music Direct and Audio Advisor, and the concurrent rise of
> audiophile vinyl through these specialized distribution channels.
>
> * A broad plateau from 1997 until 2000-2001 at 30.0 +/- 10%, while CD sal=
es
> peaked. =A0This most likely reflected a mature audiophile vinyl market.
>
> * A substantial decline from 2001 until 2005 at an annual compound rate o=
f -
> 9.7%. =A0This coincided with similar overall decline of the total music m=
arket
> for "hard product" as computer downloading (both illegal and legal) and H=
ome
> Theatre gained prominence. =A0CY2001 was peak sales year for CD's, if I r=
ecall
> (or maybe it was 2000). =A0During this decline bricks and mortar retailer=
s
> (particularly the smaller ones) as well as audio retailers (who also hand=
led
> audiophile recordings) went out of business and bigger chains retrenched =
and
> reduced their floorspace for music. =A0Vinyl being a minority product if =
it
> was distributed at all was among the first to go and the decline in audio
> retailers definitely hurt audiophile vinyl sales.
>
> * An increase since 2005 at a compound annual rate of 41.5% due to....wha=
t
> we are arguing about.

No, no, no. You're assuming that the minuscule audiophile market is
responsible for any of this. It isn't. Anyone paying attention to the
culture over the last two decades could see that the prime mover of
the vinyl market was the DJ/dance phenomenon. That's why vinyl sales
grew in the 1990s. The availability of digital tools for that market
may have contributed to the drought of the past decade.

As for the very recent increase (which started in 2007, not 2005, if
you're going to use RIAA numbers), if the people buying records at J&R
are also buying their turntables at J&R, they aren't audiophiles.
While J&R does sell Music Halls, the overwhelming majority of its
sales is cheap plastic with USB ports. I'm not knocking it, but it's
not audiophile gear by any stretch of the imagination.

bob

Steven Sullivan

December 11th 09, 02:00 AM

bob > wrote:
> On Dec 10, 6:42=A0am, "Harry Lavo" > wrote:
> > >"Dick Pierce" > wrote in message
> And in a few years' time, when the NYT decides to write a story about
> whether CD is dead yet, she'll be happy to tell that same reporter
> that it's not, at least not her her store=97and I bet she doesn't even
> mention vinyl.

> That doesn't mean anything she says is wrong, and most of what she
> says sounds pretty plausible to me. But unbiased? Please.

> bob

The NY Times has been reporting the imminent comeback of vinyl since at
least 1994

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/12/08/arts/music-lovers-are-voting-for-vinyl.html

We need an experiment -- start selling LPs with just CD-sized cover art.
If it's mainly about the sound, sales shouldn't slump much.

;>

--
-S
We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine

Harry Lavo

December 11th 09, 03:38 AM

"bob" > wrote in message
...
> On Dec 10, 3:48=A0pm, "Harry Lavo" > wrote:
>
>> We can probably agree that 1993, ten years after introduction of CD,
>> represented the low point for vinyl, both in sales and in distribution.
>> After that, it appears we've had four broad patterns:
>>
>> * A sharp rise in sales from 1993 to 1996 representing compound growth of
>> 50% per year. =A0This coincided with the rise of catalog mail-order
>> compa=
> nies
>> such as Music Direct and Audio Advisor, and the concurrent rise of
>> audiophile vinyl through these specialized distribution channels.
>>
>> * A broad plateau from 1997 until 2000-2001 at 30.0 +/- 10%, while CD
>> sal=
> es
>> peaked. =A0This most likely reflected a mature audiophile vinyl market.
>>
>> * A substantial decline from 2001 until 2005 at an annual compound rate
>> o=
> f -
>> 9.7%. =A0This coincided with similar overall decline of the total music
>> m=
> arket
>> for "hard product" as computer downloading (both illegal and legal) and
>> H=
> ome
>> Theatre gained prominence. =A0CY2001 was peak sales year for CD's, if I
>> r=
> ecall
>> (or maybe it was 2000). =A0During this decline bricks and mortar
>> retailer=
> s
>> (particularly the smaller ones) as well as audio retailers (who also
>> hand=
> led
>> audiophile recordings) went out of business and bigger chains retrenched
>> =
> and
>> reduced their floorspace for music. =A0Vinyl being a minority product if
>> =
> it
>> was distributed at all was among the first to go and the decline in audio
>> retailers definitely hurt audiophile vinyl sales.
>>
>> * An increase since 2005 at a compound annual rate of 41.5% due
>> to....wha=
> t
>> we are arguing about.
>
> No, no, no. You're assuming that the minuscule audiophile market is
> responsible for any of this. It isn't. Anyone paying attention to the
> culture over the last two decades could see that the prime mover of
> the vinyl market was the DJ/dance phenomenon. That's why vinyl sales
> grew in the 1990s. The availability of digital tools for that market
> may have contributed to the drought of the past decade.
>
> As for the very recent increase (which started in 2007, not 2005, if
> you're going to use RIAA numbers), if the people buying records at J&R
> are also buying their turntables at J&R, they aren't audiophiles.
> While J&R does sell Music Halls, the overwhelming majority of its
> sales is cheap plastic with USB ports. I'm not knocking it, but it's
> not audiophile gear by any stretch of the imagination.

Bob, you have always asserted that the DJ market was much bigger than the
audiophile market, but it is simply your supposition....hardly a proven
fact. Nor is my opposite supposition a proven fact...let's just say that
that may have been an additional factor I overlooked that worked in
approximately the same direction as the audiophile market at a similar time.

And nowhere did I say that the people buying records were also buying
turntables from J&R....there are a lot of used turntables around, several
online outlets for reasonably inexpenseive turntables (in addition to the
Music Halls), and lots of hand-me-downs.

Harry Lavo

December 11th 09, 04:34 AM

"Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message
...
> bob > wrote:
>> On Dec 10, 6:42=A0am, "Harry Lavo" > wrote:
>> > >"Dick Pierce" > wrote in message
>> And in a few years' time, when the NYT decides to write a story about
>> whether CD is dead yet, she'll be happy to tell that same reporter
>> that it's not, at least not her her store=97and I bet she doesn't even
>> mention vinyl.
>
>> That doesn't mean anything she says is wrong, and most of what she
>> says sounds pretty plausible to me. But unbiased? Please.
>
>> bob
>
> The NY Times has been reporting the imminent comeback of vinyl since at
> least 1994
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/1994/12/08/arts/music-lovers-are-voting-for-vinyl.html
>
>
> We need an experiment -- start selling LPs with just CD-sized cover art.
> If it's mainly about the sound, sales shouldn't slump much.
>

The NYTimes article coincided with the first years of the rising market of
the mid-90's....which was a real (not a fake) boom according to the RIAA
numbers Arny published. So you can say that the NYT caught that boom early,
can't you.

BTW, Bob, the article reminds us that the DJ segment perhaps was the
sustaining factor for LP's in the late '80's and very early 90's but
suggests that was not what was at work by 1994....what they quote is the
beginning rise of the audiophile LP as I speculated.

Arny Krueger

December 11th 09, 02:40 PM

"Jenn" > wrote in message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>

>>> In article >,
>>> "Harry Lavo" > wrote:

>>>>> I question the logic. The management of a single
>>>>> retail store or a small retail chain is basically
>>>>> just one small data point.

>>>> Agreed to the single point, but this does happen to be
>>>> the largest music retailer in NYC.....not exactly
>>>> podunk, Iowa.

>> Not exactly proof of a trend or even support for such a
>> claim.

> You've messed up the attributions; I didn't write what
> you're replying to above.

I didn't mess up any attributions, the quoting is intact. The quoting shows
that you weren't the author, which means that you don't have necesarily have
a dog in this fight. Later on you argue with my comments about the claim, so
you later on have changed your mind.

>>> Yes, the largest music retailer in the largest city in
>>> the country.

>> The largest music retailer in the US is iTunes.
>>
>> http://gizmodo.com/375816/apple-confirms-1-music-retailer-status-with-four-bil
>> lion-songs-sold
>>
>> "Apple's just confirmed the morning's news on them being
>> the number one music retailer in the US."
>
>> I have it on good authority that iTunes sells no vinyl.
>> ;-) Something about it being technically impossible to
>> download LPs...

This part of the debunking of the claim of relevance of J&R's claims then
stands.

>> The largest music store in NYC is the Virgin Music Store
>> on Union Square:
>>
>> http://www.broadwayworld.com/article/Virgin_Megastores_Annouces_Biggest_Sale_i
>> n_Music_Retail_History_Starting_Thursday_at_Times_ Square_Store_20090218
>>
>> The article says that when Virgin closed down their
>> Times Square Store, their Union Square store became the
>> largest in NTC.

> No, it doesn't say that at all. Please check the article.

In the absence of any meaningful discussion, the claim has to stand.

>> Therefore your claims about J&R are completely
>> falisifed, and there no reason to answer any false
>> suppositions based on the idea that J&R are "The largest
>> music retailer in the US".

> I thought that it was clear that we were discussing brick
> and mortar stores. And again, it is you made a false
> claim concerning Virgin.

Since you're not explaining yourself, this is just an unsupported assertion.

>>
>>> The present thread is, IMV, a very tired argument.
>>
>> Of course. I've shown that every once in a while sales
>> of LPs spike up, and then they settle down again.
>>
>>> Some people would like to buy some LPs.
>>
>> There is no problem with people liking to buy LPs.
>>
>> The problem is false suppositions based on false claims.

> IIRC, the claim is that LP sales are up. Clearly, they
> are.

Its all about meaning. LP sales have gone up and down several times in the
past, and after they went up, they went down.

The title of this thead says something about a "Comeback". When the last
place team improves their scores but remains the last place team we don't
call it a comeback.

We've seen some abuse of the principles of statistics and statistical
sources here.

Strip the hype away and we see a number that has a long history of going up
and down go up again, probably preparatory to going down.

>>> In the view of some
>>> here, that makes them "vinyl bigots".
>>
>> No, it makes people who base false claims on false data
>> look like they are very passionate, but also wrong.
>
> Then you shouldn't call people "vinyl bigots" because
> they like to buy some LPs. Seems reasonable, doesn't it?

Since you brought up the issue of "Vinyl bigots", it remains for you to drop
it.

Jenn[_2_]

December 11th 09, 04:38 PM

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>

>
> >>> Yes, the largest music retailer in the largest city in
> >>> the country.
>
> >> The largest music retailer in the US is iTunes.
....
> This part of the debunking of the claim of relevance of J&R's claims then
> stands.

As I wrote, I thought that it was clear that we were discussing brick
and mortar stores.

>
>
> >> The largest music store in NYC is the Virgin Music Store
> >> on Union Square:
> >>
> >> http://www.broadwayworld.com/article/Virgin_Megastores_Annouces_Biggest_Sal
> >> e_i
> >> n_Music_Retail_History_Starting_Thursday_at_Times_ Square_Store_20090218
> >>
> >> The article says that when Virgin closed down their
> >> Times Square Store, their Union Square store became the
> >> largest in NTC.
>
> > No, it doesn't say that at all. Please check the article.
>
> In the absence of any meaningful discussion, the claim has to stand.

The article says that the Virgin store in Union Square is now THEIR
largest store in NYC, not THE largest store in NYC.

>
> >> Therefore your claims about J&R are completely
> >> falisifed, and there no reason to answer any false
> >> suppositions based on the idea that J&R are "The largest
> >> music retailer in the US".
>
> > I thought that it was clear that we were discussing brick
> > and mortar stores. And again, it is you made a false
> > claim concerning Virgin.
>
> Since you're not explaining yourself, this is just an unsupported assertion.

See above.

>
> >>
> >>> The present thread is, IMV, a very tired argument.
> >>
> >> Of course. I've shown that every once in a while sales
> >> of LPs spike up, and then they settle down again.
> >>
> >>> Some people would like to buy some LPs.
> >>
> >> There is no problem with people liking to buy LPs.
> >>
> >> The problem is false suppositions based on false claims.
>
> > IIRC, the claim is that LP sales are up. Clearly, they
> > are.
>
> Its all about meaning. LP sales have gone up and down several times in the
> past, and after they went up, they went down.

And this differs from most other items how? Check in with us when CDs
enjoy a similar rise in sales.

>
> The title of this thead says something about a "Comeback". When the last
> place team improves their scores but remains the last place team we don't
> call it a comeback.

In light of the fact that CD sales, the major physical media, are
tanking, it's a story. If your argument is with the title of the piece,
you could have simply said so and saved some bandwidth.

>
> We've seen some abuse of the principles of statistics and statistical
> sources here.
>
> Strip the hype away and we see a number that has a long history of going up
> and down go up again, probably preparatory to going down.
>
> >>> In the view of some
> >>> here, that makes them "vinyl bigots".
> >>
> >> No, it makes people who base false claims on false data
> >> look like they are very passionate, but also wrong.
> >
> > Then you shouldn't call people "vinyl bigots" because
> > they like to buy some LPs. Seems reasonable, doesn't it?
>
> Since you brought up the issue of "Vinyl bigots", it remains for you to drop
> it.

The term 'vinyl bigots' is often used by you to describe people who like
some LPs.

bob

December 11th 09, 05:13 PM

On Dec 10, 10:38=A0pm, "Harry Lavo" > wrote:
> "bob" > wrote in message
>
> Bob, you have always asserted that the DJ market was much bigger than the
> audiophile market, but it is simply your supposition....hardly a proven
> fact. =A0Nor is my opposite supposition a proven fact...let's just say th=
at
> that may have been an additional factor I overlooked that worked in
> approximately the same direction as the audiophile market at a similar ti=
me.

But at least my explanation fits the data consistently. How is it that
the audiophile market grew substantially in the 90s, the went into a
long decline, and is only now reviving? That doesn't make a lot of
sense. And your tortured explanation focuses (very speculatively) on
the supply side. But demand drives supply. My explanation=97that the
sales cycle follows the market for electronic dance music=97fits a whole
lot better.

bob

bob

December 11th 09, 05:13 PM

On Dec 10, 11:34=A0pm, "Harry Lavo" > wrote:
>
> BTW, Bob, the article reminds us that the DJ segment perhaps was the
> sustaining factor for LP's in the late '80's and very early 90's but
> suggests that was not what was at work by 1994.

A 1994 article can't tell us much about trends in the latter half of
the 90s, now can it? The term "turntablism" was coined in 1995. That's
when the electronic dance music phenomenon started penetrating the
broader culture.

bob

Harry Lavo

December 11th 09, 05:50 PM

"bob" > wrote in message
...
> On Dec 10, 11:34=A0pm, "Harry Lavo" > wrote:
>>
>> BTW, Bob, the article reminds us that the DJ segment perhaps was the
>> sustaining factor for LP's in the late '80's and very early 90's but
>> suggests that was not what was at work by 1994.
>
> A 1994 article can't tell us much about trends in the latter half of
> the 90s, now can it? The term "turntablism" was coined in 1995. That's
> when the electronic dance music phenomenon started penetrating the
> broader culture.

It would help if you could quote a source and/or some statistics in support
of this assertion.

As for what the NYTimes '94 article said, it said the growth was due to the
introduction of new, quality vinyl by companies that specialized in
audiophile reproductions....the same assertion I ascribed to the same factor
based on the timing of the growth in that distribution. You are the one
asserting that something else was at work.

Scott[_6_]

December 11th 09, 11:23 PM

being that this forum is about high end audio you'd think that instead
of arguing about whether or not vinyl sales have spiked in the last
couple years or whether or not it constitutes a "come back" we'd be
discussing the actual impact this spike has had on high end audio. It
has been a double edged sword IMO. While it has brought a few new
people into the niche of high end audio and high end vinyl in
particular it has also affected production of audiophile vinyl in a
bad way. QC has been down at times due to the overloaded demands put
on various pressing plants. reissues are being delayed due to back
logging and there is more crap to sift through in order to find the
gems because the majors have decided it's enough just to get the title
out there and not do a good job of it. the worst thing of all though
is that certain desireable titles are being held back from the labels
that do a great job with high quality reissues because the majors are
doing those titles themselves or licencing them to other players who
wouldn't be in the game were it not for this big upswing. A fine
example. a couple of my all time favorite albums have been reissued as
audiophile LPs. But the company that did them is this outfit called
Friday Music. Their work simply sucks. Now those titles are basically
out of reach for the great reissue labels like Analog Productions,
ORG, Music Matters, Classics, Speaker's Corner or Pure Pleasure, Were
it not for this spike I doubt Friday Music would have even jumped into
the vinyl reissue business.

bob

December 11th 09, 11:25 PM

On Dec 11, 12:50=A0pm, "Harry Lavo" > wrote:
> "bob" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > On Dec 10, 11:34=3DA0pm, "Harry Lavo" > wrote:
>
> >> BTW, Bob, the article reminds us that the DJ segment perhaps was the
> >> sustaining factor for LP's in the late '80's and very early 90's but
> >> suggests that was not what was at work by 1994.
>
> > A 1994 article can't tell us much about trends in the latter half of
> > the 90s, now can it? The term "turntablism" was coined in 1995. That's
> > when the electronic dance music phenomenon started penetrating the
> > broader culture.
>
> It would help if you could quote a source and/or some statistics in suppo=
rt
> of this assertion.

Statistics don't exist, which is why you and I can argue about this
forever. (Fun, huh?) But see, for example, the paper Scott cited
earlier, which looks at this from a historical perspective. BTW, it
includes a section entitled, "Dance saves vinyl." Though it should be
noted that he doesn't have any reliable statistics, either.

> As for what the NYTimes '94 article said, it said the growth was due to t=
he
> introduction of new, quality vinyl by companies that specialized in
> audiophile reproductions....the same assertion I ascribed to the same fac=
tor
> based on the timing of the growth in that distribution. =A0You are the on=
e
> asserting that something else was at work.

Then the article is making the same mistake you are, which is
ascribing an increase in *demand* to a change in supply. Economics
doesn't work that way. Companies expand production because there is
demand. Demand does not increase because somebody produces more.

The only thing that can explain the cyclical nature of the data is
cyclical demand. And I can't think of any reason why audiophile demand
for vinyl would be cyclical, to that extent. I'd expect it to be small
and stable, and rising moderately over time. I think you can get a
clue to its magnitude if you look at the troughs in the shipment data.
Overlaying that are periodic trends (fads, if you will) driven by
consumers outside the audiophile world. And those trends exceed
several-folder the audiophile market itself.

bob

David[_17_]

December 12th 09, 12:42 AM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message > That begs the question
of why vinyl's sales went up just lately. The most
> recent relevant technological advance was the under-$200 USB turntable.
> Think that might be it - people picking up some new media to see what
> their
> newly-hyped cheap LP playback hardware actually sounds like?

LOL, so they go and buy a crappy USB turntable so that they can then
purchase recordings at about twice the price of a CD only to convert it back
to digital, yeah right.
USB turntables are only bought to convert your old collection to digital.

The sales of LPs (in general very good pressings and quite costly) are on
the increase for one reason and one reason only.

Harry Lavo

December 12th 09, 03:24 AM

"bob" > wrote in message
...
On Dec 11, 12:50 pm, "Harry Lavo" > wrote:
> "bob" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > On Dec 10, 11:34=A0pm, "Harry Lavo" > wrote:
>
> >> BTW, Bob, the article reminds us that the DJ segment perhaps was the
> >> sustaining factor for LP's in the late '80's and very early 90's but
> >> suggests that was not what was at work by 1994.
>
> > A 1994 article can't tell us much about trends in the latter half of
> > the 90s, now can it? The term "turntablism" was coined in 1995. That's
> > when the electronic dance music phenomenon started penetrating the
> > broader culture.
>
> It would help if you could quote a source and/or some statistics in
> support
> of this assertion.

Statistics don't exist, which is why you and I can argue about this
forever. (Fun, huh?) But see, for example, the paper Scott cited
earlier, which looks at this from a historical perspective. BTW, it
includes a section entitled, "Dance saves vinyl." Though it should be
noted that he doesn't have any reliable statistics, either.

My interpretation of that is that sales "at the bottom" were probably due in
some part due to disco. I've already conceded that. But other reasons led
to the rise, then the fall, then the rise again as I see it and have
explained it.

> As for what the NYTimes '94 article said, it said the growth was due to
> the
> introduction of new, quality vinyl by companies that specialized in
> audiophile reproductions....the same assertion I ascribed to the same
> factor
> based on the timing of the growth in that distribution. You are the one
> asserting that something else was at work.

Then the article is making the same mistake you are, which is
ascribing an increase in *demand* to a change in supply. Economics
doesn't work that way. Companies expand production because there is
demand. Demand does not increase because somebody produces more.

All you have to do to refute that sentiment is ask yourself "was there
demand for Bob Dylan (say, in Iowa) before his first album?".

When supply is scarce or nonexistant, and then becomes available, and the
product is open to impulse purchase, then, certainly, distribution can lead
to increased sales. Marketing 101. In the case of vinyl, many people are
probably suprised just to see it appear in the catalog or on the internet,
since they haven't been able to see much less buy a vinyl version for years.
Even moreso, many are probably greatly surprised if it greets them in the
entranceway to Barnes & Noble's Music Department.

The only thing that can explain the cyclical nature of the data is
cyclical demand. And I can't think of any reason why audiophile demand
for vinyl would be cyclical, to that extent. I'd expect it to be small
and stable, and rising moderately over time. I think you can get a
clue to its magnitude if you look at the troughs in the shipment data.
Overlaying that are periodic trends (fads, if you will) driven by
consumers outside the audiophile world. And those trends exceed
several-folder the audiophile market itself.

That is your interpretation....I've given you in detail my explanation,
which I think is even more valid, and ties to certain external data points
that are pretty solid. You want to see "fads", Arny wants to see
"noise"....but nobody has any evidence to suggest that my expanation is
somehow in error.....so I'll stay with it.

Arny Krueger

December 12th 09, 04:44 PM

"Scott" > wrote in message

> being that this forum is about high end audio you'd think
> that instead of arguing about whether or not vinyl sales
> have spiked in the last couple years or whether or not it
> constitutes a "come back" we'd be discussing the actual
> impact this spike has had on high end audio.

Just another area where relevant facts are hard to find.

> It has been a double edged sword IMO.

> While it has brought a few new
> people into the niche of high end audio

No real evidence of that. The previous build up had to do with dance clubs,
but high end audio not so much.

> and high end vinyl in particular

No real evidence of that. We do see a proliferation of unbelievably cheap
USB turntables, some of which even work credibly. They seem to have little
or nothing to do with high end vinyl.

> it has also affected production of
> audiophile vinyl in a bad way. QC has been down at times
> due to the overloaded demands put on various pressing
> plants. reissues are being delayed due to back logging
> and there is more crap to sift through in order to find
> the gems because the majors have decided it's enough just
> to get the title out there and not do a good job of it.
> the worst thing of all though is that certain desirable
> titles are being held back from the labels that do a
> great job with high quality reissues because the majors
> are doing those titles themselves or licensing them to
> other players who wouldn't be in the game were it not for
> this big upswing.

An interesting tale, but again one with little or no supporting hard facts.

> A fine example. a couple of my all time
> favorite albums have been reissued as audiophile LPs. But
> the company that did them is this outfit called Friday
> Music. Their work simply sucks. Now those titles are
> basically out of reach for the great reissue labels like
> Analog Productions, ORG, Music Matters, Classics,
> Speaker's Corner or Pure Pleasure, Were it not for this
> spike I doubt Friday Music would have even jumped into
> the vinyl reissue business.

Vinyl reissues strike me as being very pathological. I can justify vinyl in
those cases where it is available when there are no viable digital
transcriptions of the same work. However vinyl reissues don't exactly fit
into that niche.

Scott[_6_]

December 12th 09, 06:39 PM

On Dec 12, 8:44=A0am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Scott" > wrote in message
>
>
>
> > being that this forum is about high end audio you'd think
> > that instead of arguing about whether or not vinyl sales
> > have spiked in the last couple years or whether or not it
> > constitutes a "come back" we'd be discussing the actual
> > impact this spike has had on high end audio.
>
> Just another area where relevant facts are hard to find.

Just gotta know where to look

>
> > It has been a double edged sword IMO.
> > While it has brought a few new
> > people into the niche of high end audio
>
> No real evidence of that. The previous build up had to do with dance club=
s,
> but high end audio not so much.

There is very real evidence of that. I have actually talked to such
people. One can find testimonials of audiophiles who have taken an
interest in vinyl after being made aware of it's viability in the past
few years because of the residual effects of this current spike in
sales. Again, ya gotta know where to look.

>
> > and high end vinyl in particular
>
> No real evidence of that. We do see a proliferation of unbelievably cheap
> USB turntables, some of which even work credibly. They seem to have littl=
e
> or nothing to do with high end vinyl.

The evidence is there in personal testimonials. Not sure what USB
turntables have to do with anything I am talking about. My comments
were in regard to vinyl in high end audio. you really need to learn
the difference between the actual existance of real evidence and your
beliefs about the existance of evidence. They are not the same thing.

>
> > it has also affected production of
> > audiophile vinyl in a bad way. QC has been down at times
> > due to the overloaded demands put on various pressing
> > plants. reissues are being delayed due to back logging
> > and there is more crap to sift through in order to find
> > the gems because the majors have decided it's enough just
> > to get the title out there and not do a good job of it.
> > the worst thing of all though is that certain desirable
> > titles are being held back from the labels that do a
> > great job with high quality reissues because the majors
> > are doing those titles themselves or licensing them to
> > other players who wouldn't be in the game were it not for
> > this big upswing.
>
> An interesting tale, but again one with little or no supporting hard fact=
s.

Arny, is this just a post meant to be a demonstration of what you
don't know? You might want to consider asking for facts before making
declarations about their existance. The facts are there if you just
look. But one would have to have at least a passing interest in these
things to look. Just ask anyone who had preordered the Doors box set
about QC and delays in delivery due to the backlog in pressing records
because of this spike in sales. better yet, ask The folks at WB who
had to replace a couple thousand defective discs. The delays on that
title alone are well documented as are the QC issues that were a
direct result of RTI being totally overloaded. Again you can varify
this with RTI, the actual pressing plant, if you don't know the facts.

>
> > A fine example. a couple of my all time
> > favorite albums have been reissued as audiophile LPs. But
> > the company that did them is this outfit called Friday
> > Music. Their work simply sucks. Now those titles are
> > basically out of reach for the great reissue labels like
> > Analog Productions, ORG, Music Matters, Classics,
> > Speaker's Corner or Pure Pleasure, Were it not for this
> > spike I doubt Friday Music would have even jumped into
> > the vinyl reissue business.
>
> Vinyl reissues strike me as being very pathological. =A0I can justify vin=
yl in
> those cases where it is available when there are no viable digital
> transcriptions of the same work. However vinyl reissues don't exactly fit
> into that niche.

Anyone who is paying attention to mastering (a key step in the process
of making any LP or CD) should have a profound appreciation for the
value of having both media (and SACD). The assumption that a title
merely need to be released in some digital format to render any and
all LP versions obsolete based on the assumption that anything digital
will be sonically superior suggests a lack of experience with the
variations one can find of any given title due to mastering alone. In
many cases these vinyl reissues represent the very best sound
available of that title ever. Of course one would have to actually be
interested enough to do the homework needed to know about these things
in detail. But for those of us who are actually interested in getting
the music we love with the best sound possible this is an amazing
time. There is a glut of such reissues that have completely raised the
bar to unexpected levels of excellence for so many great titles.

Arny Krueger

December 13th 09, 01:44 AM

"Scott" > wrote in message

> On Dec 12, 8:44=A0am, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>> "Scott" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>
>>> being that this forum is about high end audio you'd
>>> think that instead of arguing about whether or not
>>> vinyl sales have spiked in the last couple years or
>>> whether or not it constitutes a "come back" we'd be
>>> discussing the actual impact this spike has had on high
>>> end audio.
>>
>> Just another area where relevant facts are hard to find.
>
> Just gotta know where to look

Since you've provided none, they must be eluding you, as well.

>>> It has been a double edged sword IMO.
>>> While it has brought a few new
>>> people into the niche of high end audio

>> No real evidence of that. The previous build up had to
>> do with dance club= s, but high end audio not so much.

> There is very real evidence of that. I have actually
> talked to such people. One can find testimonials of
> audiophiles who have taken an interest in vinyl after
> being made aware of it's viability in the past few years
> because of the residual effects of this current spike in
> sales. Again, ya gotta know where to look.

The testimonials lack supporting documentation. They could easily be plants
by people merchandising equipment.

>>
>>> and high end vinyl in particular
>>
>> No real evidence of that. We do see a proliferation of
>> unbelievably cheap USB turntables, some of which even
>> work credibly. They seem to have littl= e or nothing to
>> do with high end vinyl.

> The evidence is there in personal testimonials.

But those testimonials aren't well-documented and we have no way to know
that the people giving testimony aren't shills.

> Not sure
> what USB turntables have to do with anything I am talking
> about.

My point, exactly.

> My comments were in regard to vinyl in high end
> audio.

Only a tiny segement of it.

> you really need to learn the difference between
> the actual existance of real evidence and your beliefs
> about the existance of evidence. They are not the same
> thing.

Given the degree of support that you've provided, you are apparently talking
to yourself.

>
>>> it has also affected production of
>>> audiophile vinyl in a bad way. QC has been down at times
>>> due to the overloaded demands put on various pressing
>>> plants. reissues are being delayed due to back logging
>>> and there is more crap to sift through in order to find
>>> the gems because the majors have decided it's enough
>>> just to get the title out there and not do a good job
>>> of it. the worst thing of all though is that certain
>>> desirable titles are being held back from the labels
>>> that do a great job with high quality reissues because
>>> the majors are doing those titles themselves or
>>> licensing them to other players who wouldn't be in the
>>> game were it not for this big upswing.

>> An interesting tale, but again one with little or no
>> supporting hard fact= s.

> Arny, is this just a post meant to be a demonstration of
> what you don't know?

What my post is demonstrating is the lack of reliable documentation. So far,
you've provided hearsay at best.

>You might want to consider asking
> for facts before making declarations about their
> existance.

I was asking for facts, and look what I get!

> The facts are there if you just look.

If they are so easy to find, why haven't you documented them?

> But one
> would have to have at least a passing interest in these
> things to look. Just ask anyone who had preordered the
> Doors box set about QC and delays in delivery due to the
> backlog in pressing records because of this spike in
> sales.

Probably mere incompetence.

> better yet, ask The folks at WB who had to replace
> a couple thousand defective discs.

Documentation?

Google searching comes up empty.

> The delays on that
> title alone are well documented as are the QC issues that
> were a direct result of RTI being totally overloaded.
> Again you can varify this with RTI, the actual pressing
> plant, if you don't know the facts.

If the docmentation is so easy to find, why can't google find it?

>
>>> A fine example. a couple of my all time
>>> favorite albums have been reissued as audiophile LPs.
>>> But the company that did them is this outfit called
>>> Friday Music. Their work simply sucks. Now those titles
>>> are basically out of reach for the great reissue labels
>>> like Analog Productions, ORG, Music Matters, Classics,
>>> Speaker's Corner or Pure Pleasure, Were it not for this
>>> spike I doubt Friday Music would have even jumped into
>>> the vinyl reissue business.
>>
>> Vinyl reissues strike me as being very pathological.
>> =A0I can justify vin= yl in those cases where it is
>> available when there are no viable digital
>> transcriptions of the same work. However vinyl reissues
>> don't exactly fit into that niche.

> Anyone who is paying attention to mastering (a key step
> in the process of making any LP or CD) should have a
> profound appreciation for the value of having both media
> (and SACD).

Only the digital formats can possibly be accurate enough to the artist's
intentions to be interesting to serious listeners.

> The assumption that a title merely need to be
> released in some digital format to render any and all LP
> versions obsolete based on the assumption that anything
> digital will be sonically superior

There is no assumption that anything digital is necessarily sonically
superior. However, if it isn't, then someone didn't do their homework. They
had some great tools, and they blew it!

Steven Sullivan

December 13th 09, 11:02 PM

Scott > wrote:
> being that this forum is about high end audio you'd think that instead
> of arguing about whether or not vinyl sales have spiked in the last
> couple years or whether or not it constitutes a "come back" we'd be
> discussing the actual impact this spike has had on high end audio. It
> has been a double edged sword IMO. While it has brought a few new
> people into the niche of high end audio and high end vinyl in
> particular it has also affected production of audiophile vinyl in a
> bad way. QC has been down at times due to the overloaded demands put
> on various pressing plants. reissues are being delayed due to back
> logging and there is more crap to sift through in order to find the
> gems because the majors have decided it's enough just to get the title
> out there and not do a good job of it. the worst thing of all though
> is that certain desireable titles are being held back from the labels
> that do a great job with high quality reissues because the majors are
> doing those titles themselves or licencing them to other players who
> wouldn't be in the game were it not for this big upswing. A fine
> example. a couple of my all time favorite albums have been reissued as
> audiophile LPs. But the company that did them is this outfit called
> Friday Music. Their work simply sucks. Now those titles are basically
> out of reach for the great reissue labels like Analog Productions,
> ORG, Music Matters, Classics, Speaker's Corner or Pure Pleasure, Were
> it not for this spike I doubt Friday Music would have even jumped into
> the vinyl reissue business.

Perhaps just the 'eternal recurrance'...I am going to guess that
long play vinyl quality was higher in the early days of 'stereo'
when it was aimed mainly at the
classical (and bizzarely the sound-effects market)
market. By the 1980s LPs were mass market and
vinyl quality was routinely **** (this is memory, not guessing).
And so to digital.

Wonder if it will play out the same way now.

--
-S
We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine

Audio Empire

December 14th 09, 01:29 AM

On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 15:02:50 -0800, Steven Sullivan wrote
(in article >):

> Scott > wrote:
>> being that this forum is about high end audio you'd think that instead
>> of arguing about whether or not vinyl sales have spiked in the last
>> couple years or whether or not it constitutes a "come back" we'd be
>> discussing the actual impact this spike has had on high end audio. It
>> has been a double edged sword IMO. While it has brought a few new
>> people into the niche of high end audio and high end vinyl in
>> particular it has also affected production of audiophile vinyl in a
>> bad way. QC has been down at times due to the overloaded demands put
>> on various pressing plants. reissues are being delayed due to back
>> logging and there is more crap to sift through in order to find the
>> gems because the majors have decided it's enough just to get the title
>> out there and not do a good job of it. the worst thing of all though
>> is that certain desireable titles are being held back from the labels
>> that do a great job with high quality reissues because the majors are
>> doing those titles themselves or licencing them to other players who
>> wouldn't be in the game were it not for this big upswing. A fine
>> example. a couple of my all time favorite albums have been reissued as
>> audiophile LPs. But the company that did them is this outfit called
>> Friday Music. Their work simply sucks. Now those titles are basically
>> out of reach for the great reissue labels like Analog Productions,
>> ORG, Music Matters, Classics, Speaker's Corner or Pure Pleasure, Were
>> it not for this spike I doubt Friday Music would have even jumped into
>> the vinyl reissue business.
>
> Perhaps just the 'eternal recurrance'...I am going to guess that
> long play vinyl quality was higher in the early days of 'stereo'
> when it was aimed mainly at the
> classical (and bizzarely the sound-effects market)
> market. By the 1980s LPs were mass market and
> vinyl quality was routinely **** (this is memory, not guessing).
> And so to digital.
>
> Wonder if it will play out the same way now.

Since it's "resurgence", vinyl has been pretty high quality. I.E. 180, or 200
gram virgin vinyl, often times the discs are cut at 45 rpm, and sometimes
they are even pressed on only one side of the disc. Records are expensive,
averaging $30 - $100 for each album. The vinyl makers can't afford to make
schlock at those prices like they could when the average single-disc stereo
LP was $4.98.

Robert Peirce

December 14th 09, 03:24 AM

In article >,
Audio Empire > wrote:

> Since it's "resurgence", vinyl has been pretty high quality. I.E. 180, or 200
> gram virgin vinyl, often times the discs are cut at 45 rpm, and sometimes
> they are even pressed on only one side of the disc. Records are expensive,
> averaging $30 - $100 for each album. The vinyl makers can't afford to make
> schlock at those prices like they could when the average single-disc stereo
> LP was $4.98.

I have been paying about $25/LP, $50 for a 45RPM album of two discs. So
far I have had only one record that we noisy. I returned it for a
replacement.

How do they compare with CD? My philosophy over the years has been to
get all digital recordings on CD and all analog recordings on LP.
Converting a digital recording to LP seems like a waste.

The modern LPs of analog recordings sound pretty much the same as the
CDs of digital recordings. Maybe my hearing is going, but I can't
really tell the difference. OTOH, analog recordings on CD, especially
the earliest, don't really sound as good. I can't quite put my finger
on the problem. They just don't sound as good to me.

Scott[_6_]

December 14th 09, 11:38 AM

On Dec 12, 5:44=A0pm, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Scott" > wrote in message
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 12, 8:44=3DA0am, "Arny Krueger" >
> > wrote:
> >> "Scott" > wrote in message
>
>
>
> >>> being that this forum is about high end audio you'd
> >>> think that instead of arguing about whether or not
> >>> vinyl sales have spiked in the last couple years or
> >>> whether or not it constitutes a "come back" we'd be
> >>> discussing the actual impact this spike has had on high
> >>> end audio.
>
> >> Just another area where relevant facts are hard to find.
>
> > Just gotta know where to look
>
> Since you've provided none, they must be eluding you, as well.

It simply does not follow that I since I have provided none that they
must be eluding me.

>
> >>> It has been a double edged sword IMO.
> >>> While it has brought a few new
> >>> people into the niche of high end audio
> >> No real evidence of that. The previous build up had to
> >> do with dance club=3D s, but high end audio not so much.
> > There is very real evidence of that. I have actually
> > talked to such people. One can find testimonials of
> > audiophiles who have taken an interest in vinyl after
> > being made aware of it's viability in the past few years
> > because of the residual effects of this current spike in
> > sales. Again, ya gotta know where to look.
>
> The testimonials lack supporting documentation. They could easily be plan=
ts
> by people merchandising equipment.

The testimonials are actually well documented. Your awareness of that
documentation does not affect the reality of that documentation. I'm
not sure how you conclude these testimonials can easily be plants when
you have yet to see the testimonials.

>
>
>
> >>> and high end vinyl in particular
>
> >> No real evidence of that. We do see a proliferation of
> >> unbelievably cheap USB turntables, some of which even
> >> work credibly. They seem to have littl=3D e or nothing to
> >> do with high end vinyl.
> > The evidence is there in personal testimonials.
>
> But those testimonials aren't well-documented and we have no way to know
> that the people giving testimony aren't shills.

They are well documented. You seem to just be having trouble finding
them. I have seen them. I have no trouble telling that these
testimonials are not shills.

>
> > Not sure
> > what USB turntables have to do with anything I am talking
> > about.
>
> My point, exactly.

OK so we agree that this point was off topic.

>
> > My comments were in regard to vinyl in high end
> > audio.
>
> Only a tiny segement of it.

No, they were in regard to just all vinyl being produced in high end
audio.

>
> > you really need to learn the difference between
> > the actual existance of real evidence and your beliefs
> > about the existance of evidence. They are not the same
> > thing.
>
> Given the degree of support that you've provided, you are apparently talk=
ing
> to yourself.

Nope, I'm talking to you. And anyone else who may be following.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>> it has also affected production of
> >>> audiophile vinyl in a bad way. QC has been down at times
> >>> due to the overloaded demands put on various pressing
> >>> plants. reissues are being delayed due to back logging
> >>> and there is more crap to sift through in order to find
> >>> the gems because the majors have decided it's enough
> >>> just to get the title out there and not do a good job
> >>> of it. the worst thing of all though is that certain
> >>> desirable titles are being held back from the labels
> >>> that do a great job with high quality reissues because
> >>> the majors are doing those titles themselves or
> >>> licensing them to other players who wouldn't be in the
> >>> game were it not for this big upswing.
> >> An interesting tale, but again one with little or no
> >> supporting hard fact=3D s.
> > Arny, is this just a post meant to be a demonstration of
> > what you don't know?
>
> What my post is demonstrating is the lack of reliable documentation. So f=
ar,
> you've provided hearsay at best.

No it only demonstrates your unawareness of the documentation. I have
made no attempt to provide documentation. So far it has not been asked
for.

>
> >You might want to consider asking
> > for facts before making declarations about their
> > existance.
>
> I was asking for facts, and look what I get!

You weren't asking for facts. You still haven't asked for any
information.

>
> > The facts are there if you just look.
>
> If they are so easy to find, why haven't you documented them?

Largely because they are so easy to find.

>
> > But one
> > would have to have at least a passing interest in these
> > things to look. Just ask anyone who had preordered the
> > Doors box set about QC and delays in delivery due to the
> > backlog in pressing records because of this spike in
> > sales.
>
> Probably mere incompetence.

"Probably?" Seriously, why would you denigrate the hard working pros
at RTI like that without any knowledge of what was going on? I think
this kind of wreckless attack on skilled pros is really in bad taste.
Who are you to call the folks at RTI incompetent? Apparently guideline
4.8: "Posts that have an offensive tone, that is, use rude,
condescending, or tactless language, or that are belittling or
denigrating at all, will be considered inflammatory and returned to
the author for revision" does not apply to you denigrating the folks
at RTI. A shame that is the case.

>
> > better yet, ask The folks at WB who had to replace
> > a couple thousand defective discs.
>
> Documentation?

Now that you finally asked...
http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showthread.php?t=3D104836&highlight=3Ddo=
ors+box+set
I strongly suggest reading the content carefully before attacking it.
It pretty much offers objective evdidence of everything I have
asserted about The Doors box set. OTOH you could actually contact the
folks at WB through their forum. http://board.becausesoundmatters.com/

>
> Google searching comes up empty.

Guess there is more in this world than can be found in a google
search. Like I said, ya gotta know where to look. Or better yet just
ask the people who obviously would know.

>
> > The delays on that
> > title alone are well documented as are the QC issues that
> > were a direct result of RTI being totally overloaded.
> > Again you can varify this with RTI, the actual pressing
> > plant, if you don't know the facts.
>
> If the docmentation is so easy to find, why can't google find it?

It's easy to find if you know where to look. Or who to ask.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>> A fine example. a couple of my all time
> >>> favorite albums have been reissued as audiophile LPs.
> >>> But the company that did them is this outfit called
> >>> Friday Music. Their work simply sucks. Now those titles
> >>> are basically out of reach for the great reissue labels
> >>> like Analog Productions, ORG, Music Matters, Classics,
> >>> Speaker's Corner or Pure Pleasure, Were it not for this
> >>> spike I doubt Friday Music would have even jumped into
> >>> the vinyl reissue business.
>
> >> Vinyl reissues strike me as being very pathological.
> >> =3DA0I can justify vin=3D yl in those cases where it is
> >> available when there are no viable digital
> >> transcriptions of the same work. However vinyl reissues
> >> don't exactly fit into that niche.
> > Anyone who is paying attention to mastering (a key step
> > in the process of making any LP or CD) should have a
> > profound appreciation for the value of having both media
> > (and SACD).
>
> Only the digital formats can possibly be accurate enough to the artist's
> intentions to be interesting to serious listeners.

Wrong.

>
> > The assumption that a title merely need to be
> > released in some digital format to render any and all LP
> > versions obsolete based on the assumption that anything
> > digital will be sonically superior
>
> There is no assumption that anything digital is necessarily sonically
> superior.

I believe your assertion did rely on such an assumption.

> However, if it isn't, then someone didn't do their homework. =A0They
> had some great tools, and they blew it

Really? Do tell. Let's start with the Beatles remasters. CNN did an
interview witht he mastering engineers that documents their work
pretty thouroghly. The mastering engineers have conceded that their
efforts fell short of the original vinyl. Please tell us how they
didn't do their homework and how they "blew it." What would you have
done differently? What homework did they fail to do? After that you
can do the same for the Dennis Drake remasters of the Mercury Living
Presence catalog. That project is also very well documented. Please
tell us how Dennis drake didn't do his homework. Tell us how he "blew
it?" Then maybe you can tell us how Rudy Van Gleder blew it with the
Blue Note CD reissues and explain how Rudy Van Gleder managed to fail
to do his homework. Let's see you apply your assertions to these real
world examples.

Arny Krueger

December 14th 09, 01:07 PM

"Audio Empire" > wrote in message

> Since it's "resurgence", vinyl has been pretty high
> quality. I.E. 180, or 200 gram virgin vinyl,

Quantity does not guarantee quality.

Besides, you can't beat the basic geometric and materials problems of vinyl.
Compared to digital its going to be less reliable, larger, noisier and have
higher audible distortion.

> often times the discs are cut at 45 rpm,

Non sequitor. It's well known that cutting discs at lower than playing
speeds is a potential route to improved quality. If you mean that some discs
are cut to play at 45 rpm, then that has serious problems of its own - lack
of playing time if the levels are reasonably high and there's anything like
realistic deep bass.

> and sometimes they are even pressed on only one side of the disc.

I'm unaware of any necessary advantages to that at all.

> Records are expensive, averaging $30 - $100 for each album.

If you go back to say 1962, LPs had a street price in the $8 range. If you
add the effects of inflation from 1962 to 2009, that's equal to
approximately $56. IOW, all but the most expensive LPs are selling for less
than their price, corrected for inflation.

> The vinyl makers can't afford to make schlock at those prices
> like they could when the average single-disc stereo LP
> was $4.98.

I never ever remember paying that little for a regular-priced LP. Yes there
were loss leaders, blow outs, culls, and cut outs. But even if we take
that as a 1962 price, then it would be $35 today.

Audio Empire

December 14th 09, 01:08 PM

On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 19:24:43 -0800, Robert Peirce wrote
(in article >):

> In article >,
> Audio Empire > wrote:
>
>> Since it's "resurgence", vinyl has been pretty high quality. I.E. 180, or
>> 200
>> gram virgin vinyl, often times the discs are cut at 45 rpm, and sometimes
>> they are even pressed on only one side of the disc. Records are expensive,
>> averaging $30 - $100 for each album. The vinyl makers can't afford to make
>> schlock at those prices like they could when the average single-disc stereo
>> LP was $4.98.
>
> I have been paying about $25/LP, $50 for a 45RPM album of two discs. So
> far I have had only one record that we noisy. I returned it for a
> replacement.
>
> How do they compare with CD? My philosophy over the years has been to
> get all digital recordings on CD and all analog recordings on LP.
> Converting a digital recording to LP seems like a waste.

CD isn't the panacea that some would have you believe. Has anyone read the
obit for Wilma Cozart Fine in the latest TAS? For those who don't know, Ms
Fine was the head of the Classical Division at Mercury Records as well as the
producer of the all of the "living Presence" recordings, during that
company's "golden age" (from about 1954 to about 1965) and was married to the
Mercury recording engineer, the legendary C. Robert Fine. In the obit, the
author, Harry Pearson, who, apparently knew Ms. Fine very well, repeats what
she said to him on the occasion of her transferring her husband's master
tapes to CD: Ms. Fine insisted that CD and LP represented two different views
of the original analog masters and that neither was a perfect replica, but
both told different, but equally valid "truths" about the originals. She
would have known if anybody did. She was reputed to have the most analytical
pair of ears in the industry and was present when the original tapes were
recorded. They must have been very good indeed. Most of the Mercury Living
Presence classical recordings are still regarded as among the very best ever
made. In fact, most modern, commercial, classical recordings aren't nearly
the equal of these fifty-some-year-old marvels.

And yes, I don't see any particular reason to transfer digital recordings to
LP. Not in this day and time. I have some early digital recordings which
were released on LP (simply because the CD wasn't on the market yet) but
there is nothing special about them.

There is, however, a good reason for re-releasing analog material on CD.
Today's autocorrelation software can tell the difference between tape hiss
and music and can remove the one without AUDIBLY affecting the other. This
can make for some spectacular sounding ADD. Many of these analog performances
are priceless and audio tape deteriorates with age - even when carefully
stored. So getting them into digital at this time is the right thing to do
for preservation sake, if nothing else. Hopefully, the digitization process
is done at at least 24-bit, 192 KHz, if not DSD and the transfers are being
archivally preserved and stored without any signal processing. We don't want
to find ourselves in the future stuck with the signal processing technology
of the past, so a straight 24/192 or DSD transfer of the original analog
master will insure that any improvements to to signal processing
(autocorrelation, drop-out compensation, etc) can be applied to each new
remastering of these recordings.

>
> The modern LPs of analog recordings sound pretty much the same as the
> CDs of digital recordings. Maybe my hearing is going, but I can't
> really tell the difference. OTOH, analog recordings on CD, especially
> the earliest, don't really sound as good. I can't quite put my finger
> on the problem. They just don't sound as good to me.

I can help you there, I think. The Sony 1600 series A/D converters. They were
as lousy as they were ubiquitous. Again, referring back to Ms. Fine's
obituary in the January issue of TAS. Apparently, Ms. Fine HATED the Sony
1600 series of converters (1610, 1620, 1630) and decided not to use them for
the Mercury transfers to CD. Instead she commissioned one from dCS which
allowed her and the Philips crew to work in 24-bits. Also, most early analog
to digital transfers were passed through some of the first generation digital
autocorrelation software. It wasn't very good. While it did remove the hiss,
it also left the transfers sounding gritty and strident.

Want to hear an analog-to-digital transfer at its very best? Try some of the
JVC XRCD24 re-releases from the RCA and the British Decca catalogs.
Symphonic recordings simply don't get any better than this.

AudioEmpire

Audio Empire

December 15th 09, 02:05 AM

On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 05:07:11 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article >):

> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
>
>
>> Since it's "resurgence", vinyl has been pretty high
>> quality. I.E. 180, or 200 gram virgin vinyl,
>
> Quantity does not guarantee quality.

Virgin vinyl usually does, though. Thicker plastic means resistance to
warpage - both before and after purchase. Virgin vinyl means quieter
surfaces.

> Besides, you can't beat the basic geometric and materials problems of vinyl.
> Compared to digital its going to be less reliable, larger, noisier and have
> higher audible distortion.

None of which is all that important.
>
>> often times the discs are cut at 45 rpm,
>
> Non sequitor. It's well known that cutting discs at lower than playing
> speeds is a potential route to improved quality. If you mean that some discs
> are cut to play at 45 rpm, then that has serious problems of its own - lack
> of playing time if the levels are reasonably high and there's anything like
> realistic deep bass.

Actually, I misspoke myself. What I meant was that often these modern premium
LPs are designed to be played-back at 45 RPM. Certainly, some of them could
be half-speed mastered.
>
>> and sometimes they are even pressed on only one side of the disc.
>
> I'm unaware of any necessary advantages to that at all.

Less stress on the vinyl. Again, has to do with warpage resistance, mostly. A
case could also be made for print through, although with 180 or 200 gram
vinyl, I can't imagine that this would even be a consideration
>
>> Records are expensive, averaging $30 - $100 for each album.
>
> If you go back to say 1962, LPs had a street price in the $8 range.

Nope. in 1962 a single stereo LP was $4.98 from RCA, Columbia, Mercury, et
al. Some classical titles were $5.98. Eventually prices went to around $10,
but not in 1962.

If you
> add the effects of inflation from 1962 to 2009, that's equal to
> approximately $56. IOW, all but the most expensive LPs are selling for less
> than their price, corrected for inflation.
>
>> The vinyl makers can't afford to make schlock at those prices
>> like they could when the average single-disc stereo LP
>> was $4.98.
>
> I never ever remember paying that little for a regular-priced LP. Yes there
> were loss leaders, blow outs, culls, and cut outs. But even if we take
> that as a 1962 price, then it would be $35 today.
>
>

For many years, there was two-tier pricing for non-budget label LPs. Mono LPs
were US$3.98, and stereo versions were a dollar more. Like I said above, some
classical titles were $5.98 for stereo. This is, of course, for single disc
albums. Multi-disc albums were more.

Arny Krueger

December 15th 09, 02:40 PM

"Audio Empire" > wrote in message

> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 05:07:11 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
> (in article >):
>
>> "Audio Empire" > wrote in
>> message
>>
>>> Since it's "resurgence", vinyl has been pretty high
>>> quality. I.E. 180, or 200 gram virgin vinyl,

>> Quantity does not guarantee quality.

> Virgin vinyl usually does, though. Thicker plastic means
> resistance to warpage - both before and after purchase.

The notion that a LP can somehow resist being warped due to poor storage and
other environmental and usage conditions by being a little heavier is pretty
strange. If a LP is thicker, it just takes a stronger set.

> Virgin vinyl means quieter surfaces.

Most noise on LPs is not due to the material but the process.

>> Besides, you can't beat the basic geometric and
>> materials problems of vinyl. Compared to digital its
>> going to be less reliable, larger, noisier and have
>> higher audible distortion.

> None of which is all that important.

So you seriously believe that excess audible noise and distortion is "not
all that important"? Isn't that the opposite of "High Fidelity"?

>>> and sometimes they are even pressed on only one side of
>>> the disc.
>>
>> I'm unaware of any necessary advantages to that at all.

> Less stress on the vinyl.

IOW no reliable evidence, just unsupported speculation that stress in the
plastic causes audible problems?

> Again, has to do with warpage
> resistance, mostly.

Already debunked once.

> A case could also be made for print
> through, although with 180 or 200 gram vinyl, I can't
> imagine that this would even be a consideration

There is audible print-through in vinyl, but its all in adjacent grooves on
the same side of the LP. Another fable debunked.

>>> Records are expensive, averaging $30 - $100 for each
>>> album.

>> If you go back to say 1962, LPs had a street price in
>> the $8 range.

> Nope. in 1962 a single stereo LP was $4.98 from RCA,
> Columbia, Mercury, et al.

I have here a catalog sheet from 1960 that says that the list price of LPs
from major producers was $5.98 Many first rate record stores sold LPs for
list price.

I have another document that says in the 70s, the list price of LPs from
major producers went from $7.98 to $8.98. Fill in the blanks - that $4.98
LP is very hard to find.

> Some classical titles were
> $5.98. Eventually prices went to around $10, but not in 1962.

Apparently, the late 70s, early 80s.

> If you
>> add the effects of inflation from 1962 to 2009, that's
>> equal to approximately $56. IOW, all but the most
>> expensive LPs are selling for less than their price,
>> corrected for inflation.

>>> The vinyl makers can't afford to make schlock at those
>>> prices like they could when the average single-disc
>>> stereo LP
>>> was $4.98.

>> I never ever remember paying that little for a
>> regular-priced LP. Yes there were loss leaders, blow
>> outs, culls, and cut outs. But even if we take that as
>> a 1962 price, then it would be $35 today.

> For many years, there was two-tier pricing for non-budget
> label LPs. Mono LPs were US$3.98, and stereo versions
> were a dollar more.

This comment has no dates attached to it. Therefore it has no meaning.

Audio Empire

December 16th 09, 12:21 AM

On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 06:40:39 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article >):

> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
>
>> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 05:07:11 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
>> (in article >):
>>
>>> "Audio Empire" > wrote in
>>> message
>>>
>>>> Since it's "resurgence", vinyl has been pretty high
>>>> quality. I.E. 180, or 200 gram virgin vinyl,
>
>>> Quantity does not guarantee quality.
>
>> Virgin vinyl usually does, though. Thicker plastic means
>> resistance to warpage - both before and after purchase.
>
> The notion that a LP can somehow resist being warped due to poor storage and
> other environmental and usage conditions by being a little heavier is pretty
> strange. If a LP is thicker, it just takes a stronger set.

True, but it takes more to warp them.
>
>> Virgin vinyl means quieter surfaces.
>
> Most noise on LPs is not due to the material but the process.

Partially true. Underfill, as well as pressing at the wrong temperature will
cause the vinyl to set-up granular and that will cause increased surface
noise, but such discs SHOULD never get shipped (I emphasize the word should,
because, often, such discs DID get shipped, in spite of any quality
control.). Mixing what the industry called regrind with the virgin vinyl
pellets (records that didn't make the cut wrt quality control would have the
label area punched out of them to avoid getting paper in with the vinyl and
the records were ground-up and the resultant shards of vinyl were used again)
and records were pressed from that. This was mostly done with budget labels
and pop music albums. RCA Red Seal, Mercury Living Presence, Columbia
Masterworks, HMV, Angel, British Decca (London), etc., did not use regrind
But RCA Victorla, Vox Turnabout, Seraphim, etc. often did. A virgin vinyl LP
could have, when new, a s/n ratio of 58 to 60 dB, but an LP with regrind
(depending on the ratio with virgin vinyl) could be as low as 54 dB and still
be considered acceptable. Most historical sources (Tremaine, Welch and Reed,
et al) will quote an LP s/n ratio average as 56 dB, and that's about right.

>>> Besides, you can't beat the basic geometric and
>>> materials problems of vinyl. Compared to digital its
>>> going to be less reliable, larger, noisier and have
>>> higher audible distortion.
>
>> None of which is all that important.
>
> So you seriously believe that excess audible noise and distortion is "not
> all that important"? Isn't that the opposite of "High Fidelity"?

Most people who listen to records learn to "listen around" the surface noise
and regard ticks and pops as they would coughs and sneezes and program
rustling at a concert. Modern stylus shapes and correct alignment have all
but eliminated inner-groove distortion, and other than that, records can
sound pretty damn good in my opinion. In fact, lots of music lovers and audio
enthusiasts share my opinion.

>>>> and sometimes they are even pressed on only one side of
>>>> the disc.
>>>
>>> I'm unaware of any necessary advantages to that at all.
>
>> Less stress on the vinyl.
>
> IOW no reliable evidence, just unsupported speculation that stress in the
> plastic causes audible problems?
>
>> Again, has to do with warpage
>> resistance, mostly.
>
> Already debunked once.

Not debunked, sir. Merely asserted.

>> A case could also be made for print
>> through, although with 180 or 200 gram vinyl, I can't
>> imagine that this would even be a consideration
>
> There is audible print-through in vinyl, but its all in adjacent grooves on
> the same side of the LP. Another fable debunked.

By yet another unsubstantiated assertion.

>>>> Records are expensive, averaging $30 - $100 for each
>>>> album.
>
>>> If you go back to say 1962, LPs had a street price in
>>> the $8 range.
>
>> Nope. in 1962 a single stereo LP was $4.98 from RCA,
>> Columbia, Mercury, et al.
>
> I have here a catalog sheet from 1960 that says that the list price of LPs
> from major producers was $5.98 Many first rate record stores sold LPs for
> list price.
>
> I have another document that says in the 70s, the list price of LPs from
> major producers went from $7.98 to $8.98. Fill in the blanks - that $4.98
> LP is very hard to find.
>
>> Some classical titles were
>> $5.98. Eventually prices went to around $10, but not in 1962.
>
> Apparently, the late 70s, early 80s.

True enough, but remember, in the 1970's we went through double-digit
inflation for a number of years. Between 1970 and 1980, prices on everything
more than doubled including the prices of LPs.
>
>> If you
>>> add the effects of inflation from 1962 to 2009, that's
>>> equal to approximately $56. IOW, all but the most
>>> expensive LPs are selling for less than their price,
>>> corrected for inflation.
>
>>>> The vinyl makers can't afford to make schlock at those
>>>> prices like they could when the average single-disc
>>>> stereo LP
>>>> was $4.98.
>
>>> I never ever remember paying that little for a
>>> regular-priced LP. Yes there were loss leaders, blow
>>> outs, culls, and cut outs. But even if we take that as
>>> a 1962 price, then it would be $35 today.
>
>> For many years, there was two-tier pricing for non-budget
>> label LPs. Mono LPs were US$3.98, and stereo versions
>> were a dollar more.
>
> This comment has no dates attached to it. Therefore it has no meaning.

Well, since stereo records didn't appear, essentially, until 1958, and double
inventory stopped about 1970 when they started making "mono compatible"
stereo discs, that would be the dates we're discussing. I would have thought
that someone with your knowledge of records would have known that. Sorry for
any confusion.

Audio Empire

December 16th 09, 01:26 AM

On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 18:05:35 -0800, Dick Pierce wrote
(in article >):

> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
>>
>>> The vinyl makers can't afford to make schlock at those prices
>>> like they could when the average single-disc stereo LP
>>> was $4.98.
>>
>> I never ever remember paying that little for a regular-priced LP.
>
> Well, uhm, if they are not "regular priced," then I guess
> no one would ever remember paying regular price for
> products that are not regular priced.
>
>> Yes there were loss leaders, blow outs, culls, and cut outs.
>> But even if we take that as a 1962 price, then it would be
> > $35 today.
>
> In the classical realm, there was Nonesuch, Angel Melodiya,
> Seraphim and others that were, for the most part, first-
> rate pressings of first-rate performances that retailed in
> the Boston area in the mid-70's for under $5.00. And there
> was the Musical Heritage Society whose prices were in a
> similar realm. Much of their catalog was U.S. reissues of
> European first releases for the same kind of money. For
> example, the MHS release of Gilberts performances of the
> Couperin Livre de Clavecin and Chapuis' Bach Organ works
> were first avilable in this country through MHS, and at
> half the price of the eventual European releases.

I forgot about MHS. I have a number of British Lyrita titles (mostly the
music of Gustav Holst and Malcolm Arnold) that were released on Musical
Heritage Society and pressed for them by Columbia Special Products division.
These discs (in their plain, signature, black and white MHS covers) always
were quieter and sounded better than the real Lyrita imports. Certainly not
the usual result when comparing U.S. to British pressings of the same title!

> No, things like Nonesuch and MHS were most assuredly NOT
> "loss leaders, blow outs, culls, and cut outs." I was
> paying $2 for "loss leaders, blow outs, culls, and cut
> outs" in the mid 70's.

They were a bit cheaper than the premium labels but were generally of high
quality.
>
> And when I was buying top-of-the-line classical albums
> in the mid '70's, I don't ever recall paying as much
> as $10 per disk. Typical price for this sort of classical
> album was in the realm of $7.98. I'm talking DGG, Phillips,
> Telefunken, and the like. And I bought a LOT of LPs at
> that time, living on a worse-than-student budget. I have
> most of them to this day.

As do I. But my comments on LP prices were a rebuke of Arny Kruger's
assertion that in 1962, LPs were generally priced at ~$10.
>
> Now, to be fair, I didn't buy any of the high-end "audiophile"
> pressings of the day: to me, most of them were dreadful,
> musically (a couple of exceptions: Levinson's multi-disk
> release of the Bach Kunst der Fuge recorded at Yale is
> one of the more haunting performances of that work, most
> especially the incomplete Contrapunctus XIV).

Probably being older than you, and working in these years, I did buy them. I
still have a number of Audiophile discs from Sheffield, Century, and Crystal
Clear as well as Telarc - whose LP of the two Holst suites for military band
had the greatest bass drum whacks ever cut to vinyl (you can see them on the
disc from across the room!). Everybody used that LP for demo purposes. Oddly
enough, the CD version of that early SoundStream digital recording never
achieved the visceral whack of that bass drum like the LP did. I always
thought that CD was supposed to have much better bass than LP, but in spite
of the specs, this belief has never borne fruit with any recordings that I
have ever bought - even pipe organ and Gary Karr's bass viol always sounded
more visceral, more real on LP.

> So, what is $4.98 in 1976 worth today? Well, it's under
> $20. Would I pay $20 for an LP of Helmut Walcha doing
> Bach organ on the Schnitger organ in the Jacobikirke
> in Hamburg on an LP? Damn straight, since I haven't
> seen it on CD (best performance of the BWV565 Tocatta
> and Fugue!)

Probably renders the pipe organ better than a CD too.

Jenn[_2_]

December 16th 09, 04:08 AM

In article >,
Audio Empire > wrote:
>
> As do I. But my comments on LP prices were a rebuke of Arny Kruger's
> assertion that in 1962, LPs were generally priced at ~$10.

As I recall, I bought my first LP as a kid in 1964 for just under $5. I
doubt that it was discounted, as it was a new hot record (Meet the
Beatles).

Jenn[_2_]

December 16th 09, 12:30 PM

In article >,
Audio Empire > wrote:
>
> Most people who listen to records learn to "listen around" the surface noise
> and regard ticks and pops as they would coughs and sneezes and program
> rustling at a concert.

I very much agree with you. If there is an occasional pop or click, if
doesn't bother nearly as much as impossible timbres do.

David E. Bath

December 17th 09, 02:25 AM

In article >,
Jenn > writes:
> In article >,
> Audio Empire > wrote:
>>
>> Most people who listen to records learn to "listen around" the surface noise
>> and regard ticks and pops as they would coughs and sneezes and program
>> rustling at a concert.
>
> I very much agree with you. If there is an occasional pop or click, if
> doesn't bother nearly as much as impossible timbres do.

Well I can't stand any pops or clicks in my music, epecially when they
occur during quieter moments. It takes me right out of the enjoyment
every time.

--
David Bath - RAHE Co-moderator

Keith

December 17th 09, 02:26 AM

Jenn wrote:
> In article >,
> Audio Empire > wrote:
>> Most people who listen to records learn to "listen around" the surface noise
>> and regard ticks and pops as they would coughs and sneezes and program
>> rustling at a concert.

Were you to qualify that with "...who *still primarily* listen..." I
would agree with you. But I, as with all my audiophilic friends, who
having listened pretty exclusively to LP's for decades prior to digital
introduction, found that being set free from the requirement of
"listening around" the LP surface noise was the biggest boon to musical
enjoyment yet contrived.

>
> I very much agree with you. If there is an occasional pop or click, if
> doesn't bother nearly as much as impossible timbres do.

Well, I don't often find "impossible timbres" on digital recordings, but
I do have a few. And where such does occur, I would agree with you. I
have purchased a few CD's that are so bad that even my beat-up decades
old college-days LP copies are preferable. Thankfully that's fairly
rare IME.

I do, however, always find it curious that some folks are seemingly
unable, or simply refuse, to understand how those clicks and pops and
other LP surface noises can be, to some of us, similarly destructive to
musical enjoyment as "impossible timbres" are to others.

Keith Hughes

Arny Krueger

December 17th 09, 10:52 PM

"Jenn" > wrote in message

> In article >,
> Audio Empire > wrote:
>>
>> Most people who listen to records learn to "listen
>> around" the surface noise and regard ticks and pops as
>> they would coughs and sneezes and program rustling at a
>> concert.

That pretty much tells it all. You're talking about listening to music
under technically degraded conditions. Just because the music is live
doesn't mean that its being heard in its most perfected state. In fact it is
pretty well guaranteed that by modern standards, music heard or recorded
live isn't being heard at its best.

Most commercial recordings are not recorded live and are free of distracting
noises like coughs.

The history of recordings is full of anecdotes about large numbers of takes
and careful editing for the purpose of avoiding audible problems that have
to be tolerated in a live concert setting. I recall that there are a small
number of commercial recordings with audible coughing, but they are rare and
the coughs themselves are rare in the small percentage of recordings that
have them at all.

OTOH, the chances of listening to a 20-30 minute side of a LP without
hearing a tic or a pop is very improbable for a person with anything like
normal hearing acuity. Therefore the idea that tics and pops are somehow
comparable to coughs at live concerts is not an accurate general situation.

In fact people go way out of their way to avoid hearing distracting noises,
particularly in recordings that are listened to over and over again. Note
that once a little spec of dirt lodges in the groove of a LP, there's a tic
or a pop at that point in the recording forever. True especially if the
recording is played several times and the spec of dirt lodges into the
groove or makes an imprint on the groove.

> I very much agree with you. If there is an occasional
> pop or click, if doesn't bother nearly as much as
> impossible timbres do.

Jenn, that is easily explainable by the well-known fact that you are a
musician, and therefore your listening is no doubt heavily weighted towards
concern over the music, and not so much the sound quality of the
reproduction.

IOW due to your training and preferences Jenn, you are more concerned over
whether the right notes are played at the right time and with the right
intonation. All of those things can be reliably detected by an experienced
person, even in a highly degraded sonic environment.

To a certain degree, being able to follow a single instrument part in the
middle of a large symphony orchestra is a study in extracting useful
information from a noisy signal. A little random noise, a few tics and
pops, some wow, a little flutter and other audible forms of nonlinear
distortion don't get in your way nearly as much as it might for other people
with different preferences and orientation.

Jenn[_2_]

December 18th 09, 01:44 AM

In article >,
Keith > wrote:

> Jenn wrote:

> > I very much agree with you. If there is an occasional pop or click, if
> > doesn't bother nearly as much as impossible timbres do.
>
> Well, I don't often find "impossible timbres" on digital recordings, but
> I do have a few. And where such does occur, I would agree with you. I
> have purchased a few CD's that are so bad that even my beat-up decades
> old college-days LP copies are preferable. Thankfully that's fairly
> rare IME.

I agree that it's fairly rare these days. My point is that, for me, a
small amount of vinyl surface noise is far preferable to
instruments/voices sounding like they can't actually sound.

>
> I do, however, always find it curious that some folks are seemingly
> unable, or simply refuse, to understand how those clicks and pops and
> other LP surface noises can be, to some of us, similarly destructive to
> musical enjoyment as "impossible timbres" are to others.

I know that you're not referring to me. I understand that we all own
our own listening preferences. Different strokes and all.

Audio Empire

December 18th 09, 02:47 AM

On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 18:26:50 -0800, Keith wrote
(in article >):

> Jenn wrote:
>> In article >,
>> Audio Empire > wrote:
>>> Most people who listen to records learn to "listen around" the surface
>>> noise
>>> and regard ticks and pops as they would coughs and sneezes and program
>>> rustling at a concert.
>
> Were you to qualify that with "...who *still primarily* listen..." I
> would agree with you. But I, as with all my audiophilic friends, who
> having listened pretty exclusively to LP's for decades prior to digital
> introduction, found that being set free from the requirement of
> "listening around" the LP surface noise was the biggest boon to musical
> enjoyment yet contrived.

While I certainly appreciate the quietness of digital in all it's forms, I
also am of the opinion that the surface noise which often (OK, always)
accompanies vinyl does not disqualify LPs from being enjoyable sources of
music. While I do not primarily listen to LP, I do have good record-playing
equipment, thousands of LPs collected since about 1958, and I do listen to
them. I also have thousands of CDs, hundreds of 1/2-track 15 ips analog
master tapes, lots of DATs, and not a few 78's. I listen to and enjoy all of
them.

>> I very much agree with you. If there is an occasional pop or click, if
>> doesn't bother nearly as much as impossible timbres do.
>
> Well, I don't often find "impossible timbres" on digital recordings, but
> I do have a few. And where such does occur, I would agree with you. I
> have purchased a few CD's that are so bad that even my beat-up decades
> old college-days LP copies are preferable. Thankfully that's fairly
> rare IME.

Same here. But there can be a warmth and realism to the very best of LP and
analog tape, that digital seems to lack. I know that the techno-types will
pooh-pooh that observation as being the product of distortion, or noise
modulation, or whatever, but what causes it doesn't concern me as much as
does the listening pleasure I get from the "illusion of reality" that this
distortion often makes possible (to MY ears, anyway).

> I do, however, always find it curious that some folks are seemingly
> unable, or simply refuse, to understand how those clicks and pops and
> other LP surface noises can be, to some of us, similarly destructive to
> musical enjoyment as "impossible timbres" are to others.

I can certainly understand it, I'm just glad that I'm not similarly affected.
If it bothered me that much. I couldn't listen with great pleasure to live
concerts that I've recorded (either via analog or digital), or attended, for
that matter. Not a one of them is without the occasional cough, the rustling
of a program, a squeeking seat, or a sneeze - usually in the quietest
passages.

Audio Empire

Robert Peirce

December 18th 09, 02:47 AM

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> OTOH, the chances of listening to a 20-30 minute side of a LP without
> hearing a tic or a pop is very improbable for a person with anything like
> normal hearing acuity. Therefore the idea that tics and pops are somehow
> comparable to coughs at live concerts is not an accurate general situation.
>
> In fact people go way out of their way to avoid hearing distracting noises,
> particularly in recordings that are listened to over and over again. Note
> that once a little spec of dirt lodges in the groove of a LP, there's a tic
> or a pop at that point in the recording forever. True especially if the
> recording is played several times and the spec of dirt lodges into the
> groove or makes an imprint on the groove.

It is possible to clean your LPs and even to remove deeply imbedded
ticks and pops. I had an LP that would actually skip at one point. It
did this for years. I finally ran it through a record cleaning machine
several times and what I thought might be a defect in the record turned
out to be some kind of gunk that had been there as long as I owned it.

I won't say all my records are totally silent but a surprising number
are. Careful care is required, which most people aren't going to be
willing to do, but it is possible. However, in contrast to CDs, if you
ever do get a serious tick, pop or scratch, it will be there forever.

Jenn[_2_]

December 18th 09, 01:22 PM

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> > In article >,
> > Audio Empire > wrote:
> >>
> >> Most people who listen to records learn to "listen
> >> around" the surface noise and regard ticks and pops as
> >> they would coughs and sneezes and program rustling at a
> >> concert.
>
> That pretty much tells it all. You're talking about listening to music
> under technically degraded conditions. Just because the music is live
> doesn't mean that its being heard in its most perfected state. In fact it is
> pretty well guaranteed that by modern standards, music heard or recorded
> live isn't being heard at its best.

Thanks for your very interesting reply, Arny. Though you aren't
responding to me in the above paragraph, I'd like to chime in. For me,
live IS the "most perfected state". I can imagine that if I attended
rock concerts, for example, I wouldn't feel the same way about that
music.

>
> Most commercial recordings are not recorded live and are free of distracting
> noises like coughs.

Of course. But for the music that I listen to, live performances aren't
coming through distracting speakers, for example.

>
> The history of recordings is full of anecdotes about large numbers of takes
> and careful editing for the purpose of avoiding audible problems that have
> to be tolerated in a live concert setting. I recall that there are a small
> number of commercial recordings with audible coughing, but they are rare and
> the coughs themselves are rare in the small percentage of recordings that
> have them at all.

Of course. No argument.

>
> OTOH, the chances of listening to a 20-30 minute side of a LP without
> hearing a tic or a pop is very improbable for a person with anything like
> normal hearing acuity.

I disagree. While most LPs, either new or used, carry tics or pops,
many don't.

> Therefore the idea that tics and pops are somehow
> comparable to coughs at live concerts is not an accurate general situation.

I'm afraid that this doesn't make sense. There are t&p on many LPs, and
there are coughs at many concerts. Neither noise is desirable, but for
me, other aspects of what I'm hearing are far more important.

>
> In fact people go way out of their way to avoid hearing distracting noises,
> particularly in recordings that are listened to over and over again.

Your point?

>Note
> that once a little spec of dirt lodges in the groove of a LP, there's a tic
> or a pop at that point in the recording forever.

Really? I've found that cleaning an LP often removes the noise.

>True especially if the
> recording is played several times and the spec of dirt lodges into the
> groove or makes an imprint on the groove.

Sure.

>
> > I very much agree with you. If there is an occasional
> > pop or click, if doesn't bother nearly as much as
> > impossible timbres do.
>
> Jenn, that is easily explainable by the well-known fact that you are a
> musician, and therefore your listening is no doubt heavily weighted towards
> concern over the music, and not so much the sound quality of the
> reproduction.

Yes, the main concern is always the music. That's why I listen to
recordings.

>
> IOW due to your training and preferences Jenn, you are more concerned over
> whether the right notes are played at the right time and with the right
> intonation.

Among many other considerations, yes.

>All of those things can be reliably detected by an experienced
> person, even in a highly degraded sonic environment.

Yes on the things you listed. Not so much with other important
considerations.

>
> To a certain degree, being able to follow a single instrument part in the
> middle of a large symphony orchestra is a study in extracting useful
> information from a noisy signal. A little random noise, a few tics and
> pops, some wow, a little flutter and other audible forms of nonlinear
> distortion don't get in your way nearly as much as it might for other people
> with different preferences and orientation.

I suppose that if one's listening activity is directed toward those
things rather than toward the music, you are probably correct. If
you're accusing me of concentrating on the music when I listen rather
than on various distortions, I'll plead guilty. I'm not the kind of
listener that one would want to engage to estimate the flutter
measurement of a given recording. And yes, I hear the flutter on
recordings. My LP collection contains few piano recordings, for
example, for that reason. But realistic sounding voices and instruments
on recordings are far more important to me than detecting some other
distortions. As you know, I believe that on average, CDs sound better
than LPs. But I enjoy the sound on some LPs more than I do on any CD.

Arny Krueger

December 18th 09, 01:25 PM

"Robert Peirce" > wrote in message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> OTOH, the chances of listening to a 20-30 minute side of
>> a LP without hearing a tic or a pop is very improbable
>> for a person with anything like normal hearing acuity.
>> Therefore the idea that tics and pops are somehow
>> comparable to coughs at live concerts is not an accurate
>> general situation.
>>
>> In fact people go way out of their way to avoid hearing
>> distracting noises, particularly in recordings that are
>> listened to over and over again. Note that once a little
>> spec of dirt lodges in the groove of a LP, there's a tic
>> or a pop at that point in the recording forever. True
>> especially if the recording is played several times and
>> the spec of dirt lodges into the groove or makes an
>> imprint on the groove.

> It is possible to clean your LPs and even to remove
> deeply imbedded ticks and pops.

Not without leaving an audible trace. Deeply imbedded dirt that has been
played over several times causes a permanent imprint on the record. Even if
you remove the dirt, the imprint remains.

> I had an LP that would
> actually skip at one point. It did this for years. I
> finally ran it through a record cleaning machine several
> times and what I thought might be a defect in the record
> turned out to be some kind of gunk that had been there as
> long as I owned it.

Seems like a very passive way to treat a skip. In those rare occasions where
I've had skips, I was usually able to use a finely pointed tool to dislodge
the piece of crud without actually touching the surface of the record.

> I won't say all my records are totally silent but a
> surprising number are.

I've heard this story many times. I've asked to listen to the purported
"silent" record ,and when I could, there were still audible tics and pops.

I've also heard the story that if your player is good enough, surface noise
is reduced. What I've found is that if your player is crappy enough or badly
adjusted enough the surface noise can be increased. Address the obvious
problem, and you still have a LP that has audible noise. It might be
exceptionally quiet for a LP, but its basic somewhat noisy nature is still
there.

> Careful care is required, which
> most people aren't going to be willing to do, but it is
> possible. However, in contrast to CDs, if you ever do get
> a serious tick, pop or scratch, it will be there forever.

Given that digital is so pervasive and readily available, there's no need to
torture yourself trying to listen past the inherent noise and distortion in
LPs.

Harry Lavo

December 18th 09, 01:26 PM

"Robert Peirce" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> OTOH, the chances of listening to a 20-30 minute side of a LP without
>> hearing a tic or a pop is very improbable for a person with anything like
>> normal hearing acuity. Therefore the idea that tics and pops are somehow
>> comparable to coughs at live concerts is not an accurate general
>> situation.
>>
>> In fact people go way out of their way to avoid hearing distracting
>> noises,
>> particularly in recordings that are listened to over and over again. Note
>> that once a little spec of dirt lodges in the groove of a LP, there's a
>> tic
>> or a pop at that point in the recording forever. True especially if the
>> recording is played several times and the spec of dirt lodges into the
>> groove or makes an imprint on the groove.
>
> It is possible to clean your LPs and even to remove deeply imbedded
> ticks and pops. I had an LP that would actually skip at one point. It
> did this for years. I finally ran it through a record cleaning machine
> several times and what I thought might be a defect in the record turned
> out to be some kind of gunk that had been there as long as I owned it.
>
> I won't say all my records are totally silent but a surprising number
> are. Careful care is required, which most people aren't going to be
> willing to do, but it is possible. However, in contrast to CDs, if you
> ever do get a serious tick, pop or scratch, it will be there forever.

It seems to me that those who insist that vinyl cannot be enjoyed because of
surface noise must have grown up either indifferent to or ignorant of the
requirements for vinyl care. Those have evolved with time, but going all
the way back to the '50's and '60's it could be done with just a few simple
steps.

1) Never, ever leave a record out of its jacket when not playing.
2) Wipe the record with a dust-cleaning cloth before placing the cartridge
in the groove.
3) (After "Last Record Preservative" came along, "lasting" each side of a
new record.

I was fortunate enough to grow up in a record-loving household headed by a
father who had fine record playing gear. When I went to college it was with
my own hard-earned and hand-built "hi-fi system" and the records I started
accumulating during my senior year of high school and thereafter were always
meticulously maintained. The collection includes many of the vinyl
"classics" that audiophiles pay premium prices for today. I can still play
those records with no real problem with noise.

About four years ago I committed my Christmas music to CD, since I usually
use it as background music much of the time and this prevents the need to
change records while doing other things. I was struck the other day by how
fine my favorite music sounded, to the point where I had to stop and listen
intently. This is a CD that contains two vinyl offerings (on Capitol) by
the Roger Wagner Chorale and a small, mostly brass, orchestra. They were
recorded in 1959 and 1962 repectively, and I bought them in '62-'63 during
my first gainful employment following business school. I played them a
minimum of four times each each holiday season from then on, until as I
said, about four years ago. I was listening to the CD for about twenty
minutes before it entered my consciousness that there was ANY noise...I
simply forgot that I had recorded this disk from vinyl (it was one of five I
had placed in the CD/SACD changer days before). That is how clean the
records had stayed, and how noise free. And while an illuminating
incident, the quietness of the vinyl was not unique....it is typical of my
collection.

So I think it is unfortunately that those who perhaps did not care carefully
of their vinyl years ago put down those who still enjoy it. I had the
advantage of a head start, but most vinyl enthusiasts today KNOW how to care
for vinyl and do. And reap the benefit of quiet sound.

Those who don't want to put fourth the effect or think CD's sound better
have that option. But just let those of us who enjoy vinyl (still) alone,
please. And don't insist that vinyl is inherently so full of "tics and
pops" that it can't be enjoyed. It isn't, and it can be.

Arny Krueger

December 18th 09, 02:54 PM

"Jenn" > wrote in message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>
>>> In article >,
>>> Audio Empire > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Most people who listen to records learn to "listen
>>>> around" the surface noise and regard ticks and pops as
>>>> they would coughs and sneezes and program rustling at a
>>>> concert.
>>
>> That pretty much tells it all. You're talking about
>> listening to music under technically degraded
>> conditions. Just because the music is live doesn't mean
>> that its being heard in its most perfected state. In
>> fact it is pretty well guaranteed that by modern
>> standards, music heard or recorded live isn't being
>> heard at its best.
>
> Thanks for your very interesting reply, Arny. Though you
> aren't responding to me in the above paragraph, I'd like
> to chime in. For me, live IS the "most perfected state".

Actually, I didn't exactly contradict that. I said:

"Just because the music is live doesn't mean
that its being heard in its most perfected state."

The contradiction of what I said would be:

"If the music is live that means that it is being heard in its most
perfected state. "

If you want to contradict what I said, then you're basically saying that
even if a 2 year old attempts to beat out Beethoven's Ninth on his cereal
bowl, that would be Beethoven's Ninth in its most highly perfected state.

Is that what you mean to say?

Jenn[_2_]

December 18th 09, 04:10 PM

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >>
> >>> In article >,
> >>> Audio Empire > wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Most people who listen to records learn to "listen
> >>>> around" the surface noise and regard ticks and pops as
> >>>> they would coughs and sneezes and program rustling at a
> >>>> concert.
> >>
> >> That pretty much tells it all. You're talking about
> >> listening to music under technically degraded
> >> conditions. Just because the music is live doesn't mean
> >> that its being heard in its most perfected state. In
> >> fact it is pretty well guaranteed that by modern
> >> standards, music heard or recorded live isn't being
> >> heard at its best.
> >
> > Thanks for your very interesting reply, Arny. Though you
> > aren't responding to me in the above paragraph, I'd like
> > to chime in. For me, live IS the "most perfected state".
>
> Actually, I didn't exactly contradict that. I said:
>
> "Just because the music is live doesn't mean
> that its being heard in its most perfected state."
>
> The contradiction of what I said would be:
>
> "If the music is live that means that it is being heard in its most
> perfected state. "
>
> If you want to contradict what I said, then you're basically saying that
> even if a 2 year old attempts to beat out Beethoven's Ninth on his cereal
> bowl, that would be Beethoven's Ninth in its most highly perfected state.
>
> Is that what you mean to say?

No, but I think that you know that. The 2 year old beating out the d
minor symphony on his cereal bowl is THAT PERFORMANCE of the symphony in
its most perfected state.

Keith

December 18th 09, 04:42 PM

Harry Lavo wrote:
> "Robert Peirce" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In article >,
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>

<snip>

>> I won't say all my records are totally silent but a surprising number
>> are. Careful care is required, which most people aren't going to be
>> willing to do, but it is possible. However, in contrast to CDs, if you
>> ever do get a serious tick, pop or scratch, it will be there forever.
>
> It seems to me that those who insist that vinyl cannot be enjoyed because of
> surface noise must have grown up either indifferent to or ignorant of the
> requirements for vinyl care.

Then you clearly don't get out much. I can't even begin to count the
number of LP's that, fresh out of the sleeve and cleaned had tics and
pops and audible distortion. In days past I returned *many* LP's, some
several times, to get a copy that was fairly noise free. So please,
drop the "if you can't enjoy LP's you're indifferent or ignorant" ad
hominem nonsense.

> Those have evolved with time, but going all
> the way back to the '50's and '60's it could be done with just a few simple
> steps.
>
> 1) Never, ever leave a record out of its jacket when not playing.
> 2) Wipe the record with a dust-cleaning cloth before placing the cartridge
> in the groove.
> 3) (After "Last Record Preservative" came along, "lasting" each side of a
> new record.
>
> I was fortunate enough to grow up in a record-loving household headed by a
> father who had fine record playing gear. When I went to college it was with
> my own hard-earned and hand-built "hi-fi system" and the records I started
> accumulating during my senior year of high school and thereafter were always
> meticulously maintained. The collection includes many of the vinyl
> "classics" that audiophiles pay premium prices for today. I can still play
> those records with no real problem with noise.

Nice dodge Harry. No "real problem" eh? The whole point is that for
many of us (IME the vast majority of us) those tics, pops, "vinyl rush"
or however you want to characterize the various types of vinyl surface
noise, noise you clearly don't find disagreeable, nonetheless seriously
compromise our listening enjoyment.

<snip>
>
> Those who don't want to put fourth the effect or think CD's sound better
> have that option.

If by this you meant "put forth the effort" to play LP's, then I'll
plead guilty. The convenience of CD is clearly a bonus. But minor
compared to what I feel are the significant sonic advantages.

> But just let those of us who enjoy vinyl (still) alone,
> please.

Who's saying you can't enjoy vinyl? We're talking about vinyl sales,
market, and physical attributes. About "listening around" vinyl noises
and whether that impairs ones ability to enjoy the resulting music. How
does that harm you?

> And don't insist that vinyl is inherently so full of "tics and
> pops" that it can't be enjoyed. It isn't, and it can be.

Well, IME, tics and pops ARE endemic to vinyl, all remonstrations to the
contrary notwithstanding. And, no one said it "can't be enjoyed", as
I'm sure you're aware. It's a matter of degree. I played a couple of
LP's just yesterday, and despite the tics and surface noise, I certainly
enjoyed the music. When I get the time, I'll transfer them to CD and
clean them up, and enjoy them much more. Were they available on CD, I
would happily leave those LP's in the "vault".

Keith Hughes

Audio Empire

December 18th 09, 07:24 PM

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 05:26:49 -0800, Harry Lavo wrote
(in article >):

> "Robert Peirce" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In article >,
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>
>>> OTOH, the chances of listening to a 20-30 minute side of a LP without
>>> hearing a tic or a pop is very improbable for a person with anything like
>>> normal hearing acuity. Therefore the idea that tics and pops are somehow
>>> comparable to coughs at live concerts is not an accurate general
>>> situation.
>>>
>>> In fact people go way out of their way to avoid hearing distracting
>>> noises,
>>> particularly in recordings that are listened to over and over again. Note
>>> that once a little spec of dirt lodges in the groove of a LP, there's a
>>> tic
>>> or a pop at that point in the recording forever. True especially if the
>>> recording is played several times and the spec of dirt lodges into the
>>> groove or makes an imprint on the groove.
>>
>> It is possible to clean your LPs and even to remove deeply imbedded
>> ticks and pops. I had an LP that would actually skip at one point. It
>> did this for years. I finally ran it through a record cleaning machine
>> several times and what I thought might be a defect in the record turned
>> out to be some kind of gunk that had been there as long as I owned it.
>>
>> I won't say all my records are totally silent but a surprising number
>> are. Careful care is required, which most people aren't going to be
>> willing to do, but it is possible. However, in contrast to CDs, if you
>> ever do get a serious tick, pop or scratch, it will be there forever.
>
> It seems to me that those who insist that vinyl cannot be enjoyed because of
> surface noise must have grown up either indifferent to or ignorant of the
> requirements for vinyl care. Those have evolved with time, but going all
> the way back to the '50's and '60's it could be done with just a few simple
> steps.
>
> 1) Never, ever leave a record out of its jacket when not playing.
> 2) Wipe the record with a dust-cleaning cloth before placing the cartridge
> in the groove.
> 3) (After "Last Record Preservative" came along, "lasting" each side of a
> new record.
>
> I was fortunate enough to grow up in a record-loving household headed by a
> father who had fine record playing gear. When I went to college it was with
> my own hard-earned and hand-built "hi-fi system" and the records I started
> accumulating during my senior year of high school and thereafter were always
> meticulously maintained. The collection includes many of the vinyl
> "classics" that audiophiles pay premium prices for today. I can still play
> those records with no real problem with noise.

Same here. I have one LP, the original cast recording of "My Fair Lady" that
I've had since 1956 (when I was 11 years old). I can still play it, it's
reasonably quiet (Mono, of course) and still sounds good. I just wonder if,
by the time my earliest CDs are 54 years old, there will still be players to
play them? I'll bet that were I still around then, there would still be new
turntables and arms and cartridges to play this LP with.
>
> About four years ago I committed my Christmas music to CD, since I usually
> use it as background music much of the time and this prevents the need to
> change records while doing other things. I was struck the other day by how
> fine my favorite music sounded, to the point where I had to stop and listen
> intently. This is a CD that contains two vinyl offerings (on Capitol) by
> the Roger Wagner Chorale and a small, mostly brass, orchestra. They were
> recorded in 1959 and 1962 repectively, and I bought them in '62-'63 during
> my first gainful employment following business school. I played them a
> minimum of four times each each holiday season from then on, until as I
> said, about four years ago. I was listening to the CD for about twenty
> minutes before it entered my consciousness that there was ANY noise...I
> simply forgot that I had recorded this disk from vinyl (it was one of five I
> had placed in the CD/SACD changer days before). That is how clean the
> records had stayed, and how noise free. And while an illuminating
> incident, the quietness of the vinyl was not unique....it is typical of my
> collection.

It is typical of most vinyl-philes' collections, I would bet.
>
> So I think it is unfortunately that those who perhaps did not care carefully
> of their vinyl years ago put down those who still enjoy it. I had the
> advantage of a head start, but most vinyl enthusiasts today KNOW how to care
> for vinyl and do. And reap the benefit of quiet sound.

I know that I do.
>
> Those who don't want to put fourth the effect or think CD's sound better
> have that option. But just let those of us who enjoy vinyl (still) alone,
> please. And don't insist that vinyl is inherently so full of "tics and
> pops" that it can't be enjoyed. It isn't, and it can be.

And the best CDs and SACDs are excellent too. They sound different from LPs,
but can sound excellent. When possible, I prefer an LP but a CD is enjoyable
for it's own sake. I know a number of digital-phobes who think that CD is
cold and sterile, lacking in warmth and realism but I think these people are
looking at it in the wrong way. CD is very ACCURATE to the signal it's
presented with. That signal might be cold and sterile because something in
the recording chain made it so. It might be the venue where the recording
took place, it might be the imperfect transducers that all microphones are,
it might be the way the performance was mixed, etc. All the CD did was
accurately capture the imperfections of the recording process. LPs, perhaps
because of their inherent distortions, seem to "warm up" that coldness and
sterility and complement the errors of the recording process. I don't know,
of course, but I do know that I have CDs (for convenience, mostly) made from
master analog tapes of which I also have the LP (and some of those said LPs
are decades old). What I can tell you is that in MOST cases, the LPs of these
performances from the 50's and 60's sound more like real music than do the CD
"remasters". It's nothing that I can put my finger on, it's not like one can
listen to a comparison and say: "Ah, the LP sounds better because the CD was
made from the master tape decades after the record, and the tape has
deteriorated." While that's certainly possible, the fact remains that I have
some CDs of older master tapes that are astoundingly good. With today's
autocorrelation algorithms, drop-out compensation software and other DSP
provided enhancements, it should be possible to "repair" all but the most
extreme master tape deterioration, so I don't think that tells anywhere near
the whole story.

Audio Empire

December 18th 09, 07:56 PM

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 05:22:51 -0800, Jenn wrote
(in article >):

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>
>>> In article >,
>>> Audio Empire > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Most people who listen to records learn to "listen
>>>> around" the surface noise and regard ticks and pops as
>>>> they would coughs and sneezes and program rustling at a
>>>> concert.
>>
>> That pretty much tells it all. You're talking about listening to music
>> under technically degraded conditions. Just because the music is live
>> doesn't mean that its being heard in its most perfected state. In fact it
>> is
>> pretty well guaranteed that by modern standards, music heard or recorded
>> live isn't being heard at its best.
>
> Thanks for your very interesting reply, Arny. Though you aren't
> responding to me in the above paragraph, I'd like to chime in. For me,
> live IS the "most perfected state". I can imagine that if I attended
> rock concerts, for example, I wouldn't feel the same way about that
> music.

Since rock concerts ARE artificial (in that without the PA system, there
would be no concert performance) You simply cannot compare the two. Live
unamplified music played in a real space simply IS the standard by which
high-fidelity is SUPPOSED to be measured, but most of time it isn't. Most
people (who have significant interest in the audio hobby) simply make their
systems sound GOOD to them. I recently read, in one of the Hi-Fi rags,
someone who put it quite well. This person essentially said that all we have
to go by is our own taste in reproduced sound. And that there is really no
way for my opinion of what sounds good to be translatable to you. When I say
that this sounds "better" than that, what I'm really saying is that this
suits my taste more than that does. This person (whose viewpoint I thought to
be profound) went on to say that when we say that something is "better " than
or provides a "big improvement" over something else, most people attribute
that to mean that the improvements heard are quantifiable, when what the
speaker (writer) should have said was that " I like the way this (component,
recording, whatever) sounds in comparison to that one." In the latter case,
it is clear that the improvements heard were that person's OPINION, while in
the former, it's not so clear that this "better" was not a quantifiable
improvement over something else.

In the case of Arny Kruger's above statement, Unless he's talking about rock
concerts or jazz or classical concerts where sound reinforcement is used, in
my opinion he simply cannot be any more wrong. While there are great
variations in the quality of various venues, and often we don't have any
control over those, I'd have to say that live unamplified music is music
heard at it's best, because IT IS the source. The venue doesn't matter as
much as the direct sound of the instruments. To make an analogy, one can
enjoy a High-Definition video image of the Grand Canyon. It's beautiful,
spectacular and highly stimulating. But if one were to take you out of your
living room for an moment and deposit you on a bank overlooking the REAL
Grand Canyon, even though the weather might lousy, it could be cloudy, windy,
and raining, but STILL, BEING THERE in the presence of that grandeur is a
more stimulating experience than is the Hi-Def picture that you were looking
at, in SPITE of the conditions being, perhaps, less optimal. Hearing live
music is hearing live music, also in spite of the conditions (in this case
the venue) being less than optimal. But add sound reinforcement equipment to
that equation, and indeed the live concert becomes a case of hearing live
music at much less than it's best. In fact, it becomes not hearing live music
at all. I hope that's what Arny Kruger is talking about.
>
>>
>> Most commercial recordings are not recorded live and are free of
>> distracting
>> noises like coughs.
>
> Of course. But for the music that I listen to, live performances aren't
> coming through distracting speakers, for example.

I should hope not. In fact I have walked out of concerts where sound
reinforcement was being employed. If I walk into a concert environment and
see speakers stacked up on either side of the ensemble playing, I turn right
around and go back to the box office and demand my money back. I can hear
reproduced music at home. That's NOT what I go to live concerts for.
>
>>
>> The history of recordings is full of anecdotes about large numbers of takes
>> and careful editing for the purpose of avoiding audible problems that have
>> to be tolerated in a live concert setting. I recall that there are a small
>> number of commercial recordings with audible coughing, but they are rare
>> and
>> the coughs themselves are rare in the small percentage of recordings that
>> have them at all.
>
> Of course. No argument.
>
>>
>> OTOH, the chances of listening to a 20-30 minute side of a LP without
>> hearing a tic or a pop is very improbable for a person with anything like
>> normal hearing acuity.
>
> I disagree. While most LPs, either new or used, carry tics or pops,
> many don't.
>
>> Therefore the idea that tics and pops are somehow
>> comparable to coughs at live concerts is not an accurate general situation.
>
> I'm afraid that this doesn't make sense. There are t&p on many LPs, and
> there are coughs at many concerts. Neither noise is desirable, but for
> me, other aspects of what I'm hearing are far more important.

Well put. That's exactly what I was saying.
>
>>
>> In fact people go way out of their way to avoid hearing distracting noises,
>> particularly in recordings that are listened to over and over again.
>
> Your point?
>
>> Note
>> that once a little spec of dirt lodges in the groove of a LP, there's a tic
>> or a pop at that point in the recording forever.
>
> Really? I've found that cleaning an LP often removes the noise.
>
>> True especially if the
>> recording is played several times and the spec of dirt lodges into the
>> groove or makes an imprint on the groove.
>
> Sure.
>
>>
>>> I very much agree with you. If there is an occasional
>>> pop or click, if doesn't bother nearly as much as
>>> impossible timbres do.
>>
>> Jenn, that is easily explainable by the well-known fact that you are a
>> musician, and therefore your listening is no doubt heavily weighted towards
>> concern over the music, and not so much the sound quality of the
>> reproduction.
>
> Yes, the main concern is always the music. That's why I listen to
> recordings.
>
>>
>> IOW due to your training and preferences Jenn, you are more concerned over
>> whether the right notes are played at the right time and with the right
>> intonation.
>
> Among many other considerations, yes.
>
>> All of those things can be reliably detected by an experienced
>> person, even in a highly degraded sonic environment.
>
> Yes on the things you listed. Not so much with other important
> considerations.
>
>>
>> To a certain degree, being able to follow a single instrument part in the
>> middle of a large symphony orchestra is a study in extracting useful
>> information from a noisy signal. A little random noise, a few tics and
>> pops, some wow, a little flutter and other audible forms of nonlinear
>> distortion don't get in your way nearly as much as it might for other
>> people
>> with different preferences and orientation.
>
> I suppose that if one's listening activity is directed toward those
> things rather than toward the music, you are probably correct. If
> you're accusing me of concentrating on the music when I listen rather
> than on various distortions, I'll plead guilty. I'm not the kind of
> listener that one would want to engage to estimate the flutter
> measurement of a given recording. And yes, I hear the flutter on
> recordings. My LP collection contains few piano recordings, for
> example, for that reason. But realistic sounding voices and instruments
> on recordings are far more important to me than detecting some other
> distortions. As you know, I believe that on average, CDs sound better
> than LPs. But I enjoy the sound on some LPs more than I do on any CD.

Quite so. Both are viable sources of music. We must never forget that the
recording medium and the equipment exist to SERVE THE MUSIC, not the other
way around.

Arny Krueger

December 19th 09, 12:48 AM

"David" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message > That

>> begs the question of why vinyl's sales went up just
>> lately. The most
>> recent relevant technological advance was the under-$200
>> USB turntable. Think that might be it - people picking
>> up some new media to see what their
>> newly-hyped cheap LP playback hardware actually sounds
>> like?

> LOL, so they go and buy a crappy USB turntable so that
> they can then purchase recordings at about twice the
> price of a CD only to convert it back to digital, yeah
> right.

It's not always that simple or single minded.

Some people are buying USB turntables to convert their existing LPs (which
they may not have listened to for a goodly number of years) into CDs based
on fond memories of what the LPs sounded like.

Some people read the hype about vinyl sounding better than CDs, and blow
some "mad money" to do what the cool people do. A USB turntable can play
directly through a PC's speakers in real time, so conversion to CDs is not a
necessary part of their use. These people may have no LPs on hand at all,
and are therefore natural customers for new LPs.

People who are converting their existing LPs are likely to have their sonic
expectations disappointed, and may reasonably blame that on the condition of
their old LPs. Purchasing a few new high-touted LPs is a reasonable step for
them to take to diagnose their problem.

> USB turntables are only bought to convert your old
> collection to digital.

That's not necessarily true. A lot of young people base their home sound
systems on PCs. There's a big market for upscale PC speakers, for example. A
USB turntable is an obvious tool for them to use for listening to LPs in
real time.

> The sales of LPs (in general very good pressings and
> quite costly) are on the increase for one reason and one
> reason only.

There are good reasons, given above, for rejecting this kind of simplistic
statement.

Scott[_6_]

December 19th 09, 12:49 AM

On Dec 18, 6:54=A0am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> >>> In article >,
> >>> Audio Empire > wrote:
>
> >>>> Most people who listen to records learn to "listen
> >>>> around" the surface noise and regard ticks and pops as
> >>>> they would coughs and sneezes and program rustling at a
> >>>> concert.
>
> >> That pretty much tells it all. =A0You're talking about
> >> listening to music under technically degraded
> >> conditions. Just because the music is live doesn't mean
> >> that its being heard in its most perfected state. In
> >> fact it is pretty well guaranteed that by modern
> >> standards, music heard or recorded live isn't being
> >> heard at its best.
>
> > Thanks for your very interesting reply, Arny. =A0Though you
> > aren't responding to me in the above paragraph, I'd like
> > to chime in. =A0For me, live IS the "most perfected state".
>
> Actually, I didn't exactly contradict that. =A0I said:
>
> "Just because the music is live doesn't mean
> that its being heard in its most perfected state."
>
> The contradiction of what I said would be:
>
> "If the music is live that =A0means =A0that it is being heard in its most
> perfected state. "
>
> If you want to contradict what I said, then you're basically saying that
> even if a 2 year old attempts to beat out Beethoven's Ninth on his cereal
> bowl, that would be Beethoven's Ninth in its most highly perfected state.
>
> Is that what you mean to say?

Yes Arny "Live" would be the perfect way to hear a two year old try to
beat out Beethoven's ninth if one wanted to hear a two year old do
that. Recording it digitally and playing it back would be an inferior
way of hearing it. Hence the idea of live as a reference. But of
course most of us don't want to hear that. What we want is to hear is
great performances be it classical, jazz, folk, rock or whatever. here
is the catch, if I want to hear Coltrane play Love Supreme I can't go
the concert hall to hear him live (the ideal) because it ain't gonna
happen for obvious reasons. So all we have is a great legacy of
recordings of these great performances and the virtues and liabilities
of the recording quality that comes with each of them. The question is
what will bring us closer to that superior aesthetic of "live" when
playing back these recordings via their commercial releases. In many
cases (most actually) an LP played back on a high end rig will be
more life like and aesthetically pleasing than any and all possible
combinations of CDP and commercially released CD of the same title.
All this anguish over an occasional tick or pop seems like much ado
over nothing. Ever heard of hi rez digital rips and deticking
programs? Would you really rather listen to say, the RVG CDs over the
Music Matter's or APO reissues because of an occasional tick or pop
that can easily be removed? Really? Ignore the version that is many
times more life like, involving and aesthetically beautiful to avoid
removable ticks and pops? Your gun your foot.

Audio Empire

December 19th 09, 12:51 AM

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 08:56:55 -0800, Dick Pierce wrote
(in article >):

> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> Actually, I didn't exactly contradict that. I said:
>>
>> "Just because the music is live doesn't mean
>> that its being heard in its most perfected state."
>>
>> The contradiction of what I said would be:
>>
>> "If the music is live that means that it is being heard in its most
>> perfected state. "
>>
>> If you want to contradict what I said, then you're basically saying that
>> even if a 2 year old attempts to beat out Beethoven's Ninth on his cereal
>> bowl, that would be Beethoven's Ninth in its most highly perfected state.
>>
>> Is that what you mean to say?
>
> If you're attempting a "reductio ad absurdum," you need to
> start with the premise, and use logical steps to reach an
> absurd conclusion as a means of showing the premise is
> absurd. It doesn't work if you start with a premise and
> use absurd steps to reach an absurd conclusion.
>
> Or, more to the point, no, I see NO reason that the
> inevitable logical conclusion of Jenn's premise is
> as you state. Yes, it is absurd to conclude that a
> 2 year old's attempts to beat out Beethoven on a cereal
> box is that piece in its most highly perfected state.
> But that conclusion is your absurdity, not hers.
>
> While I may agree with some of your assertions on the
> verifiable technical properties of LP playback, it's
> becoming apparent to me that you have moved far beyond
> that and have taken this on as a crusade that seems
> personal and borders on the ad hominem.
>
>

If you are saying that Arny Kruger's negative opinions about vinyl seem to
border on the obsessiveness of a personal crusade, I'd have to say, yes, it
does seem that way. Perhaps it's merely the forcefulness of his assertions
that make his comments seem a bit overboard at times. He strikes me as a
pretty intelligent and knowledgeable guy, overall.

Arny Krueger

December 19th 09, 01:50 AM

"Audio Empire" > wrote in message

> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 05:22:51 -0800, Jenn wrote
> (in article >):
>
>> In article >,
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>
>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>> In article >,
>>>> Audio Empire > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Most people who listen to records learn to "listen
>>>>> around" the surface noise and regard ticks and pops as
>>>>> they would coughs and sneezes and program rustling at
>>>>> a concert.

>>> That pretty much tells it all. You're talking about
>>> listening to music under technically degraded
>>> conditions. Just because the music is live doesn't mean
>>> that its being heard in its most perfected state. In
>>> fact it is
>>> pretty well guaranteed that by modern standards, music
>>> heard or recorded live isn't being heard at its best.

>> Thanks for your very interesting reply, Arny. Though
>> you aren't responding to me in the above paragraph, I'd
>> like to chime in. For me, live IS the "most perfected
>> state". I can imagine that if I attended rock concerts,
>> for example, I wouldn't feel the same way about that
>> music.

The above is an example of narrowing the discussion far more than what it
was it was originally stated. Suddenly a potentially large number of
performances of a given composition have been reduced to just one
performance. Given that there are many musical performances that never ever
exist as a live performance, a great deal of music has been artificially
excluded from the discussion.

In short my point, which is that many live performances so suboptimal as to
have no appreciable public interest has been missed.

> Since rock concerts ARE artificial (in that without the
> PA system, there would be no concert performance) You
> simply cannot compare the two.

I wasn't comparing the two. I didn't even mention whether or not the concert
involved amplified instruments, because it really doesn't matter.

Amplified musical instruments are often used with no PA system at all. It is
very common for amplified instruments to have their own individual
amplification systems. In essence, the electronics is an electrical analog
of the usual mechanical or acoustical amplification that is built into
virtually every acoustical instrument. It does not make sense to me to
quibble whether or not the means of amplification is mechanical or
acoustical or electrical.

Once one realizes that the electronics is simply an analog, then it also
doesn't matter whether or not the electronics is aggregated and shared among
a number of instruments, or individualized. I don't think that either
engineers or listeners should dictate to musicians how their instruments are
implemented. All that should matter to us is whether or not the meet the
usual artistic criteria. IOW, we should judge musical instruments based on
how they sound when played by trained, skilled musicians, and not prejudge
them based on their internal construction.

Arny Krueger

December 19th 09, 11:05 AM

"Dick Pierce" > wrote in message

> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> Actually, I didn't exactly contradict that. I said:
>>
>> "Just because the music is live doesn't mean
>> that its being heard in its most perfected state."
>>
>> The contradiction of what I said would be:
>>
>> "If the music is live that means that it is being
>> heard in its most perfected state. "
>>
>> If you want to contradict what I said, then you're
>> basically saying that even if a 2 year old attempts to
>> beat out Beethoven's Ninth on his cereal bowl, that
>> would be Beethoven's Ninth in its most highly perfected
>> state.
>>
>> Is that what you mean to say?
>
> If you're attempting a "reductio ad absurdum," you need to
> start with the premise, and use logical steps to reach an
> absurd conclusion as a means of showing the premise is
> absurd. It doesn't work if you start with a premise and
> use absurd steps to reach an absurd conclusion.

There seems to be a double standard here. There's no conference rule that
discussions have to follow a predetermined form. All that's necessary is
that they be reasonably understandable. It's quite clear that the intent of
my comments was unstandable and understood.

> Or, more to the point, no, I see NO reason that the
> inevitable logical conclusion of Jenn's premise is
> as you state.

It is very rare that any discussions here ever lead to inevitable logical
conclusions. So we have yet another example of standards being made up and
applied *after* the discussion point was presented.

> Yes, it is absurd to conclude that a
> 2 year old's attempts to beat out Beethoven on a cereal
> box is that piece in its most highly perfected state.

Of course.

> But that conclusion is your absurdity, not hers.

It's a reasonble conclusion that can be reached from an overly broad
statement like:

"If the music is live that means that it is being heard in its most
perfected state."

One rather obvious problem with the above statement is that there is much
music that does not ever exist as a live performance. Much music that is
listened to today is constructed in the studio. The only complete form of
the recording that ever exists is composed of segments and snippets, many
highly processed by sound-altering hardware and software.

Thus the above is a blanket statement that music cannot be in its most
perfected state unless it is live. Seems very short sighted and narrow.

> While I may agree with some of your assertions on the
> verifiable technical properties of LP playback, it's
> becoming apparent to me that you have moved far beyond
> that and have taken this on as a crusade that seems
> personal and borders on the ad hominem.

No personalities were introduced by me into this portion of the discussion.
If there are any ad hominem arguments here, then they must have been
introduced by someone besides me, and are wholly products of their
imaginations.

Jenn[_2_]

December 19th 09, 03:20 PM

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
>
> > On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 05:22:51 -0800, Jenn wrote
> > (in article >):
> >
> >> In article >,
> >> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >>
> >>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >>>
> >>>> In article >,
> >>>> Audio Empire > wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Most people who listen to records learn to "listen
> >>>>> around" the surface noise and regard ticks and pops as
> >>>>> they would coughs and sneezes and program rustling at
> >>>>> a concert.
>
> >>> That pretty much tells it all. You're talking about
> >>> listening to music under technically degraded
> >>> conditions. Just because the music is live doesn't mean
> >>> that its being heard in its most perfected state. In
> >>> fact it is
> >>> pretty well guaranteed that by modern standards, music
> >>> heard or recorded live isn't being heard at its best.
>
> >> Thanks for your very interesting reply, Arny. Though
> >> you aren't responding to me in the above paragraph, I'd
> >> like to chime in. For me, live IS the "most perfected
> >> state". I can imagine that if I attended rock concerts,
> >> for example, I wouldn't feel the same way about that
> >> music.
>
> The above is an example of narrowing the discussion far more than what it
> was it was originally stated. Suddenly a potentially large number of
> performances of a given composition have been reduced to just one
> performance.

Huh? I'm afraid that I don't understand your statement.

>Given that there are many musical performances that never ever
> exist as a live performance, a great deal of music has been artificially
> excluded from the discussion.

You've totally lost me. Every performance is a live performance. The
goal, as I see it, is to capture the sound of that live performance and
reproduce it as faithfully in the home as possible.

>
> In short my point, which is that many live performances so suboptimal as to
> have no appreciable public interest has been missed.

I don't know how that became at all relevant. In what way does the
quality of the performance matter in this discussion?

>
> > Since rock concerts ARE artificial (in that without the
> > PA system, there would be no concert performance) You
> > simply cannot compare the two.
>
> I wasn't comparing the two. I didn't even mention whether or not the concert
> involved amplified instruments, because it really doesn't matter.
>
> Amplified musical instruments are often used with no PA system at all. It is
> very common for amplified instruments to have their own individual
> amplification systems. In essence, the electronics is an electrical analog
> of the usual mechanical or acoustical amplification that is built into
> virtually every acoustical instrument. It does not make sense to me to
> quibble whether or not the means of amplification is mechanical or
> acoustical or electrical.
>
> Once one realizes that the electronics is simply an analog, then it also
> doesn't matter whether or not the electronics is aggregated and shared among
> a number of instruments, or individualized. I don't think that either
> engineers or listeners should dictate to musicians how their instruments are
> implemented. All that should matter to us is whether or not the meet the
> usual artistic criteria. IOW, we should judge musical instruments based on
> how they sound when played by trained, skilled musicians, and not prejudge
> them based on their internal construction.

I believe that the OP (as well as I) were speaking of unamplified
instruments, i.e. "the music that I usually listen to" to which I
referred. Perhaps it was lost in the above, but we were discussion
"distractions" in listening: p&c on LPs vs. coughs and program rustling
at concerts. The rock concert example was used because the
"distractions" (i.e noise) is far greater there than at acoustic
concerts.

Arny Krueger

December 19th 09, 04:28 PM

"Jenn" > wrote in message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Audio Empire" > wrote in
>> message
>>> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 05:22:51 -0800, Jenn wrote
>>> (in article >):
>>>
>>>> In article >,
>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in
>>>>> message
>>>>>> In article >,
>>>>>> Audio Empire > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Most people who listen to records learn to "listen
>>>>>>> around" the surface noise and regard ticks and pops
>>>>>>> as they would coughs and sneezes and program
>>>>>>> rustling at a concert.
>>
>>>>> That pretty much tells it all. You're talking about
>>>>> listening to music under technically degraded
>>>>> conditions. Just because the music is live doesn't
>>>>> mean that its being heard in its most perfected
>>>>> state. In fact it is
>>>>> pretty well guaranteed that by modern standards, music
>>>>> heard or recorded live isn't being heard at its best.
>>
>>>> Thanks for your very interesting reply, Arny. Though
>>>> you aren't responding to me in the above paragraph, I'd
>>>> like to chime in. For me, live IS the "most perfected
>>>> state". I can imagine that if I attended rock
>>>> concerts, for example, I wouldn't feel the same way
>>>> about that music.

When people talk about what they imagine, they are admitting that their
comments have zero empirical or experiential base. I really don't have time
to pay much attention to such things.

>> The above is an example of narrowing the discussion far
>> more than what it was it was originally stated. Suddenly
>> a potentially large number of performances of a given
>> composition have been reduced to just one performance.

> Huh? I'm afraid that I don't understand your statement.

It appears that my comments are being buried in an avalanche of
unrestrained subjectivism and perhaps even solipsism.

In the original context, the discussion seemed to be about music that might
be available in several forms, including perhaps live performances and on
various kinds of media. IOW we were talking about the same basic piece of
music such as a composition or a performance by certain artists at a certain
time in a certain place. A given piece of music would be available as
various performances and/or on various kinds of media. If there is no such
diversity, then there is really nothing to discuss, and we end up with such
useless and trivial nonsense as observations that every instance is a
perfect example of itself.

>> Given that there are many musical performances that
>> never ever
>> exist as a live performance, a great deal of music has
>> been artificially excluded from the discussion.

> You've totally lost me.

I can't help that.

> Every performance is a live performance.

How do you define live performance?

I define live performance as an event with performers and an audience all
together in one place. The music work is performed in real time. In this day
and age some of the elements of the performance may be themselves
recordings.

In some cases the performer and the audience are the same person. IMO, it
is quite a stretch to call this a live performance.

In some cases there is never a day and a time where the performers and the
audience are all together in one place. They are often connected
electronically and displaced from each other by time and space. IMO this is
*not* a live performance. It is in fact very common. There was a musical
performance, but there was no audience in the common meaning of audience.

In some cases there never is a day and a time when even all of the
performers are all together in one place. Again, they are connected
electronically, and displaced from each other by time and space. IMO this is
*not* a live performance. It is also in fact very common. There was a
musical performance, but there was no audience in the common meaning of
audience. Furthermore, even the musical performers were displaced from each
other by time and/or space.

> The goal, as I see it, is to capture the
> sound of that live performance and reproduce it as
> faithfully in the home as possible.

Most if not almost all music listened to at home was not available for
capture at any live performance. "Live Performance" recordings are only a
tiny minority of all commercial recordings that are available.

>> In short my point, which is that many live performances
>> so suboptimal as to have no appreciable public interest
>> has been missed.

> I don't know how that became at all relevant. In what
> way does the quality of the performance matter in this
> discussion?

The quality of the performance started mattering in this discussion when the
phrase "most perfected" was introduced about 2 days ago. It's quoted above.
How can there be a reasonable discussion when such basic issues are denied
by people responding to posts?

>>> Since rock concerts ARE artificial (in that without the
>>> PA system, there would be no concert performance) You
>>> simply cannot compare the two.

This is a very ignorant statement. It is quite possible to play rock music
on acoustical instruments. No PA system or any electronics of any kind are
required.

>> I wasn't comparing the two. I didn't even mention
>> whether or not the concert involved amplified
>> instruments, because it really doesn't matter.
>>
>> Amplified musical instruments are often used with no PA
>> system at all. It is very common for amplified
>> instruments to have their own individual amplification
>> systems. In essence, the electronics is an electrical
>> analog of the usual mechanical or acoustical
>> amplification that is built into virtually every
>> acoustical instrument. It does not make sense to me to
>> quibble whether or not the means of amplification is
>> mechanical or acoustical or electrical.
>>
>> Once one realizes that the electronics is simply an
>> analog, then it also doesn't matter whether or not the
>> electronics is aggregated and shared among a number of
>> instruments, or individualized. I don't think that
>> either engineers or listeners should dictate to
>> musicians how their instruments are implemented. All
>> that should matter to us is whether or not the meet the
>> usual artistic criteria. IOW, we should judge musical
>> instruments based on how they sound when played by
>> trained, skilled musicians, and not prejudge them based
>> on their internal construction.

> I believe that the OP (as well as I) were speaking of
> unamplified instruments, i.e. "the music that I usually
> listen to" to which I referred.

I'm the OP as the quotes at the top of this post indicate, and I would never
make the kind of narrow and ignorant statements that seem to have afflicted
this thread.

> Perhaps it was lost in
> the above, but we were discussion "distractions" in
> listening: p&c on LPs vs. coughs and program rustling at
> concerts.

I'm truly amazed at the logical gyrations that some people will go through
to deny the obvious fact that tics and pops can be very distracting to very
many listeners. In fact the popularity of digital formats is partially based
on the fact that almost all listeners will avoid media with tics and pops,
given the choice.

Furthermore, it is very common for people to complain about coughs at
concerts, which are common in temperate climates for 2 or 3 months of the
year. How something that is disagreeable as coughs at concerts would be
seized on as a defense of endemic flaws in any particular kind of media is
actually quite taxing to my imagination.

> The rock concert example was used because the
> "distractions" (i.e noise) is far greater there than at
> acoustic concerts.

Again we have an example of an ignorant claim that rock music can't be
performed acoustically, and from a source that seems to have shown that she
knows better on other occasions.

It is well known that musical genre and the choice of instruments are often
completely orthogonal to each other. One can play classical music on
electric instruments and one can play rock on acoustical instruments, right?

In fact playing rock and roll on acoustical instruments has lately become
stylish as a number of albums with the word "unplugged" in them shows. I
believe that several have gone gold.

Keith

December 19th 09, 07:32 PM

Jenn wrote:
> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
>>
>>> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 05:22:51 -0800, Jenn wrote
>>> (in article >):
>>>
>>>> In article >,
>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>>>>

<snip>

> I believe that the OP (as well as I) were speaking of unamplified
> instruments, i.e. "the music that I usually listen to" to which I
> referred. Perhaps it was lost in the above, but we were discussion
> "distractions" in listening: p&c on LPs vs. coughs and program rustling
> at concerts.

Perhaps I'm alone in this view, but to me, what makes the "noise" a
"distraction" is the contextual incongruity. While coughs can be
disruptive, they, along with program rustling, and various other such
minor crowd related noises don't really bother me much. In the context
of an audience setting, they are "normal" background noises, and as such
seldom intrude on my consciousness. Tics and pops, however, are totally
incongruous, and are always disruptive and distracting.

An illustration: Say you're sitting in the park having a conversation
with a friend. There are kids playing and making noise, dogs barking,
traffic sounds, etc. Does this bother you or intrude on your
conversation? Likely not, as they are contextually familiar and
"expected" sounds. Now add to this scene a clown with a 'ground pounder'
who pulls in, parks, and starts sharing his/her favorite
hip-hop...music...with you. This immediately becomes (at least to me)
totally disruptive and distracting, irrespective of the relative sound
levels (i.e. it doesn't have to be real loud, just clearly audible). It
is intrusive because it's not (well, didn't use to be) part of the
normal "park sound".

Keith Hughes

Keith

December 19th 09, 07:33 PM

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
>> In article >,
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:

<snip>
>
>> The rock concert example was used because the
>> "distractions" (i.e noise) is far greater there than at
>> acoustic concerts.
>
>
> Again we have an example of an ignorant claim that rock music can't be
> performed acoustically, and from a source that seems to have shown that she
> knows better on other occasions.

You seem to have put and undeservedly negative interpretation on that
one Arny. I took Jenn's "acoustic" moniker, in the statement above, as
simple shorthand to mean "non-rock" genres. Not meaning that rock can't
be "acoustic" (Jenn can correct me if I'm wrong - 'cause then she'd be
:-). Reality is that the vast majority of rock concerts are *not*
acoustic/un-amplified (some of the absolute best are, but that's another
story), and IME, irrespective of whether the music is acoustic or
amplified, rock concerts are, in every case, noisier than would be, say,
a symphony performance. Crowd restraint at rock concerts is not really
an expectation, and lets face it, crowds seldom rise above expectations.

Keith Hughes

Scott[_6_]

December 19th 09, 09:15 PM

On Dec 19, 8:28=A0am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> > =A0The rock concert example was used because the
> > "distractions" (i.e noise) is far greater there than at
> > =A0acoustic concerts.
>
> Again we have an example of an ignorant claim that rock music can't be
> performed acoustically, and from a source that seems to have shown that s=
he
> knows better on other occasions.

No Arny all we have here is either a misunderstanding or a
misrepresentation of what Jenn is actually asserting. "Rock concerts"
are performed with PA systems. This is pretty much a universal truth.
There may be the rare exception but they are not really worth noting.
The noise at a rock concert is almost universally greater then that of
an unamplified acoustic concert. That was the comapraison Jenn was
making. It was clear and easy to understand.

>
> It is well known that musical genre and the choice of instruments are oft=
en
> completely orthogonal to each other. One can play classical music on
> electric instruments and one can play rock on acoustical instruments, rig=
ht?

Given that you have clerarly misrepresented what Jenn was saying....
your point is mut.

>
> In fact playing rock and roll on acoustical instruments has lately become
> stylish as a number of albums with the word "unplugged" in them shows. I
> believe that several have gone gold.

And they were all performed with P.A. systems.

Audio Empire

December 19th 09, 09:18 PM

On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 08:28:28 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article >):

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
>> In article >,
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>
>>> "Audio Empire" > wrote in
>>> message
>>>> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 05:22:51 -0800, Jenn wrote
>>>> (in article >):
>>>>
>>>>> In article >,
>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in
>>>>>> message
>>>>>>> In article >,
>>>>>>> Audio Empire > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Most people who listen to records learn to "listen
>>>>>>>> around" the surface noise and regard ticks and pops
>>>>>>>> as they would coughs and sneezes and program
>>>>>>>> rustling at a concert.
>>>
>>>>>> That pretty much tells it all. You're talking about
>>>>>> listening to music under technically degraded
>>>>>> conditions. Just because the music is live doesn't
>>>>>> mean that its being heard in its most perfected
>>>>>> state. In fact it is
>>>>>> pretty well guaranteed that by modern standards, music
>>>>>> heard or recorded live isn't being heard at its best.
>>>
>>>>> Thanks for your very interesting reply, Arny. Though
>>>>> you aren't responding to me in the above paragraph, I'd
>>>>> like to chime in. For me, live IS the "most perfected
>>>>> state". I can imagine that if I attended rock
>>>>> concerts, for example, I wouldn't feel the same way
>>>>> about that music.
>
> When people talk about what they imagine, they are admitting that their
> comments have zero empirical or experiential base. I really don't have time
> to pay much attention to such things.
>
>>> The above is an example of narrowing the discussion far
>>> more than what it was it was originally stated. Suddenly
>>> a potentially large number of performances of a given
>>> composition have been reduced to just one performance.
>
>> Huh? I'm afraid that I don't understand your statement.
>
> It appears that my comments are being buried in an avalanche of
> unrestrained subjectivism and perhaps even solipsism.
>
> In the original context, the discussion seemed to be about music that might
> be available in several forms, including perhaps live performances and on
> various kinds of media. IOW we were talking about the same basic piece of
> music such as a composition or a performance by certain artists at a certain
> time in a certain place. A given piece of music would be available as
> various performances and/or on various kinds of media. If there is no such
> diversity, then there is really nothing to discuss, and we end up with such
> useless and trivial nonsense as observations that every instance is a
> perfect example of itself.

All Jenn asserts is that hearing live unamplified music, playing in a real
space is the closest one can get to that music (without actually being one of
the performers). Nothing else. She wasn't talking about studio performances
(from what I gather from her posts)of largely electronic instruments which do
not exist outside of the studio (and in a concert environment are the result
of the ensemble carrying the "studio" with them. The difference being instead
of the output of the studio equipment being some recording device, it's a
bunch of PA speakers).
>
>
>>> Given that there are many musical performances that
>>> never ever
>>> exist as a live performance, a great deal of music has
>>> been artificially excluded from the discussion.
>
>> You've totally lost me.
>
> I can't help that.
>
>> Every performance is a live performance.
>
> How do you define live performance?

A live performance is any time musicians play in the presence of an audience
- no matter how big or small that audience might be. But the kind of live
performance being discussed here is, I believe, live, unamplified music,
played in a real space. If one isn't listening to the instruments themselves
(and when sound reinforcement is present, one is listening to the PA system's
reconstruction of those instruments, not the instruments themselves), one is
not HEARING the instruments. One is hearing and seeing the musicians playing
their instruments, but one is not listening TO those instruments.

> I define live performance as an event with performers and an audience all
> together in one place. The music work is performed in real time. In this day
> and age some of the elements of the performance may be themselves
> recordings.

Yes, your definition is, indeed valid, but it's not the kind of "live
performance" that this discussion is about (well, let me be more specific
here. It's certainly not what I mean when I speak of live music performed in
real space, and I don't believe it's what Jenn is talking about either). You
are talking about instruments that have no sound of their own, but rely upon
electronics to provide that sound. A Martin solid-body electric guitar,
without it's amplifier and speaker, makes no sound above a whisper. I suspect
that a Fender-Rhodes or other electric piano makes no sound without it's
speakers, either. I am talking about acoustic instruments that rely totally
on human lung and muscle power to make music. In the kind of live
performance that I'm talking about, there is nothing between that instrument
and my ears except air and that is the most perfect realization of that
performance because I'm hearing the performance DIRECTLY. I don't care about
pop and rock music, would never listen to it, and certainly have never and
would never attend a concert where such music was played. The closest I ever
came was in Rome a few years ago. Paul McCartney was giving a free concert at
the ancient Roman Colosseum and I happened to be in the (empty that day)
Roman Forum next to it. I could hear the music everywhere I went that day,
even up on the Palatine! His crew had put up huge speaker scaffolds all down
that wide avenue for at least a half a mile! God was it loud!

> In some cases the performer and the audience are the same person. IMO, it
> is quite a stretch to call this a live performance.
>
> In some cases there is never a day and a time where the performers and the
> audience are all together in one place. They are often connected
> electronically and displaced from each other by time and space. IMO this is
> *not* a live performance. It is in fact very common. There was a musical
> performance, but there was no audience in the common meaning of audience.
>
> In some cases there never is a day and a time when even all of the
> performers are all together in one place. Again, they are connected
> electronically, and displaced from each other by time and space. IMO this is
> *not* a live performance. It is also in fact very common. There was a
> musical performance, but there was no audience in the common meaning of
> audience. Furthermore, even the musical performers were displaced from each
> other by time and/or space.
>
>> The goal, as I see it, is to capture the
>> sound of that live performance and reproduce it as
>> faithfully in the home as possible.
>
> Most if not almost all music listened to at home was not available for
> capture at any live performance. "Live Performance" recordings are only a
> tiny minority of all commercial recordings that are available.
>
>>> In short my point, which is that many live performances
>>> so suboptimal as to have no appreciable public interest
>>> has been missed.
>
>> I don't know how that became at all relevant. In what
>> way does the quality of the performance matter in this
>> discussion?
>
> The quality of the performance started mattering in this discussion when the
> phrase "most perfected" was introduced about 2 days ago. It's quoted above.
> How can there be a reasonable discussion when such basic issues are denied
> by people responding to posts?

"Most perfected" has a specific meaning. The "most perfected" listening
situation, is, as I said above, when there in nothing between the acoustic
instruments being played and the listener except air. One can stretch that to
mean that there is nothing between the electronic instruments, their
instrument amplifiers and the listener except air, But the moment a PA system
is introduced, IMO, one is no longer hearing live music.
>
>
>>>> Since rock concerts ARE artificial (in that without the
>>>> PA system, there would be no concert performance) You
>>>> simply cannot compare the two.
>
> This is a very ignorant statement. It is quite possible to play rock music
> on acoustical instruments. No PA system or any electronics of any kind are
> required.

I believe that you are grasping at straws here. Of course it's possible to
play rock music on acoustic instruments, but are the great percentage of
these performances GENERALLY performed that way? When one makes a general
statement, I think that it's understood by most people that there are
exceptions. Why didn't you understand that?
>
>>> I wasn't comparing the two. I didn't even mention
>>> whether or not the concert involved amplified
>>> instruments, because it really doesn't matter.
>>>
>>> Amplified musical instruments are often used with no PA
>>> system at all. It is very common for amplified
>>> instruments to have their own individual amplification
>>> systems. In essence, the electronics is an electrical
>>> analog of the usual mechanical or acoustical
>>> amplification that is built into virtually every
>>> acoustical instrument. It does not make sense to me to
>>> quibble whether or not the means of amplification is
>>> mechanical or acoustical or electrical.
>>>
>>> Once one realizes that the electronics is simply an
>>> analog, then it also doesn't matter whether or not the
>>> electronics is aggregated and shared among a number of
>>> instruments, or individualized. I don't think that
>>> either engineers or listeners should dictate to
>>> musicians how their instruments are implemented. All
>>> that should matter to us is whether or not the meet the
>>> usual artistic criteria. IOW, we should judge musical
>>> instruments based on how they sound when played by
>>> trained, skilled musicians, and not prejudge them based
>>> on their internal construction.
>
>> I believe that the OP (as well as I) were speaking of
>> unamplified instruments, i.e. "the music that I usually
>> listen to" to which I referred.
>
> I'm the OP as the quotes at the top of this post indicate, and I would never
> make the kind of narrow and ignorant statements that seem to have afflicted
> this thread.
>
>> Perhaps it was lost in
>> the above, but we were discussion "distractions" in
>> listening: p&c on LPs vs. coughs and program rustling at
>> concerts.
>
> I'm truly amazed at the logical gyrations that some people will go through
> to deny the obvious fact that tics and pops can be very distracting to very
> many listeners. In fact the popularity of digital formats is partially based
> on the fact that almost all listeners will avoid media with tics and pops,
> given the choice.
>
> Furthermore, it is very common for people to complain about coughs at
> concerts, which are common in temperate climates for 2 or 3 months of the
> year. How something that is disagreeable as coughs at concerts would be
> seized on as a defense of endemic flaws in any particular kind of media is
> actually quite taxing to my imagination.
>
>> The rock concert example was used because the
>> "distractions" (i.e noise) is far greater there than at
>> acoustic concerts.
>
>
> Again we have an example of an ignorant claim that rock music can't be
> performed acoustically, and from a source that seems to have shown that she
> knows better on other occasions.
>
> It is well known that musical genre and the choice of instruments are often
> completely orthogonal to each other. One can play classical music on
> electric instruments and one can play rock on acoustical instruments, right?
>
> In fact playing rock and roll on acoustical instruments has lately become
> stylish as a number of albums with the word "unplugged" in them shows. I
> believe that several have gone gold.

It's still irrelevant to the overall point.

Jenn[_2_]

December 19th 09, 09:18 PM

In article >,
Keith > wrote:

> Perhaps I'm alone in this view, but to me, what makes the "noise" a
> "distraction" is the contextual incongruity. While coughs can be
> disruptive, they, along with program rustling, and various other such
> minor crowd related noises don't really bother me much. In the context
> of an audience setting, they are "normal" background noises, and as such
> seldom intrude on my consciousness. Tics and pops, however, are totally
> incongruous, and are always disruptive and distracting.
>
> An illustration: Say you're sitting in the park having a conversation
> with a friend. There are kids playing and making noise, dogs barking,
> traffic sounds, etc. Does this bother you or intrude on your
> conversation? Likely not, as they are contextually familiar and
> "expected" sounds. Now add to this scene a clown with a 'ground pounder'
> who pulls in, parks, and starts sharing his/her favorite
> hip-hop...music...with you. This immediately becomes (at least to me)
> totally disruptive and distracting, irrespective of the relative sound
> levels (i.e. it doesn't have to be real loud, just clearly audible). It
> is intrusive because it's not (well, didn't use to be) part of the
> normal "park sound".

I pretty much agree with this. It also all boils down to the amount of
the noise, I suppose. A few t&p simply don't bother me. A lot of them
do bother me. One that reoccurs for, say, about 3 seconds or more
bothers me the most; I suppose because it creates its own "rhythm". And
it's all a matter of personal tolerance, isn't it? For some, none are
acceptable; for others some are. I'd rather there be none, of course ;-)

Jenn[_2_]

December 19th 09, 10:05 PM

In article >,
Audio Empire > wrote:
> A Martin solid-body electric guitar,

Whoa! THERE'S a rare beast! ;-)

>I suspect
> that a Fender-Rhodes or other electric piano makes no sound without it's
> speakers, either.

True.

Audio Empire

December 19th 09, 10:08 PM

On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 03:05:13 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article >):

> "Dick Pierce" > wrote in message
>
>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>> Actually, I didn't exactly contradict that. I said:
>>>
>>> "Just because the music is live doesn't mean
>>> that its being heard in its most perfected state."
>>>
>>> The contradiction of what I said would be:
>>>
>>> "If the music is live that means that it is being
>>> heard in its most perfected state. "
>>>
>>> If you want to contradict what I said, then you're
>>> basically saying that even if a 2 year old attempts to
>>> beat out Beethoven's Ninth on his cereal bowl, that
>>> would be Beethoven's Ninth in its most highly perfected
>>> state.
>>>
>>> Is that what you mean to say?
>>
>> If you're attempting a "reductio ad absurdum," you need to
>> start with the premise, and use logical steps to reach an
>> absurd conclusion as a means of showing the premise is
>> absurd. It doesn't work if you start with a premise and
>> use absurd steps to reach an absurd conclusion.
>
> There seems to be a double standard here. There's no conference rule that
> discussions have to follow a predetermined form. All that's necessary is
> that they be reasonably understandable. It's quite clear that the intent of
> my comments was unstandable and understood.
>
>> Or, more to the point, no, I see NO reason that the
>> inevitable logical conclusion of Jenn's premise is
>> as you state.
>
> It is very rare that any discussions here ever lead to inevitable logical
> conclusions. So we have yet another example of standards being made up and
> applied *after* the discussion point was presented.
>
>
>> Yes, it is absurd to conclude that a
>> 2 year old's attempts to beat out Beethoven on a cereal
>> box is that piece in its most highly perfected state.
>
> Of course.
>
>
>> But that conclusion is your absurdity, not hers.
>
> It's a reasonble conclusion that can be reached from an overly broad
> statement like:
>
> "If the music is live that means that it is being heard in its most
> perfected state."

But Mr. Kruger, that "overly broad statement" is quite correct. Overlooking,
for a moment the reality that even the parents of this mythical two-year-old
aren't going to listen to him beating on a corn flake box for very long
before they take it away from him ("Parents aren't interested in justice,
they just want QUIET!" - Bill Cosby), that particular sound, musical or not,
heard live, IS the most highly perfected state of THAT SOUND.
>
> One rather obvious problem with the above statement is that there is much
> music that does not ever exist as a live performance. Much music that is
> listened to today is constructed in the studio. The only complete form of
> the recording that ever exists is composed of segments and snippets, many
> highly processed by sound-altering hardware and software.

While what you say is very true, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the
subject at hand. Modern pop has, as you say, no sound as a live performance.
Therefore the idea of it being any kind of a reference has no meaning. The
listener has no idea how it's supposed to sound because he's never heard it
before. We know when a violin sounds like a violin or when a saxophone sounds
like a saxophone because most of us have heard these instruments in the
"flesh".
>
> Thus the above is a blanket statement that music cannot be in its most
> perfected state unless it is live. Seems very short sighted and narrow.

I don't believe that what anyone has said that. I believe the point was that
live, unamplified music, played in real space, is only real when heard live
and in person. Anything other than that is reproduction. The hypothetical
studio music plays no part in this discussion except to muddy the waters. Now
I'm not knocking "studio-produced music" I'm just saying that it's not (as
far as I'm concerned and as I understand this thread) what anyone was talking
about. I assumed that was understood by all. So let's be specific
>
>
>> While I may agree with some of your assertions on the
>> verifiable technical properties of LP playback, it's
>> becoming apparent to me that you have moved far beyond
>> that and have taken this on as a crusade that seems
>> personal and borders on the ad hominem.
>
> No personalities were introduced by me into this portion of the discussion.
> If there are any ad hominem arguments here, then they must have been
> introduced by someone besides me, and are wholly products of their
> imaginations.
>
>

Audio Empire

December 19th 09, 10:08 PM

On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 11:32:58 -0800, Keith wrote
(in article >):

> Jenn wrote:
>> In article >,
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>
>>> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 05:22:51 -0800, Jenn wrote
>>>> (in article >):
>>>>
>>>>> In article >,
>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>>>>>
>
> <snip>
>
>> I believe that the OP (as well as I) were speaking of unamplified
>> instruments, i.e. "the music that I usually listen to" to which I
>> referred. Perhaps it was lost in the above, but we were discussion
>> "distractions" in listening: p&c on LPs vs. coughs and program rustling
>> at concerts.
>
> Perhaps I'm alone in this view, but to me, what makes the "noise" a
> "distraction" is the contextual incongruity. While coughs can be
> disruptive, they, along with program rustling, and various other such
> minor crowd related noises don't really bother me much. In the context
> of an audience setting, they are "normal" background noises, and as such
> seldom intrude on my consciousness. Tics and pops, however, are totally
> incongruous, and are always disruptive and distracting.

Yet they too are "normal" background noises in LP listening. To be fair,
there is a difference. Coughs and program rustling as well as chair squeeks
and other extraneous noises heard in a live concert are truly random and
unanticipated. OTOH, once a loud tick or pop is heard on a favorite LP, it
becomes anticipated with each successive playing and while that IS harder to
ignore or "listen around", it's not impossible to do so.

> An illustration: Say you're sitting in the park having a conversation
> with a friend. There are kids playing and making noise, dogs barking,
> traffic sounds, etc. Does this bother you or intrude on your
> conversation? Likely not, as they are contextually familiar and
> "expected" sounds. Now add to this scene a clown with a 'ground pounder'
> who pulls in, parks, and starts sharing his/her favorite
> hip-hop...music...with you. This immediately becomes (at least to me)
> totally disruptive and distracting, irrespective of the relative sound
> levels (i.e. it doesn't have to be real loud, just clearly audible). It
> is intrusive because it's not (well, didn't use to be) part of the
> normal "park sound".

Good point.

Audio Empire

Jenn[_2_]

December 19th 09, 10:08 PM

In article >,
Keith > wrote:

> Arny Krueger wrote:
> > "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >
> >> In article >,
> >> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
> <snip>
> >
> >> The rock concert example was used because the
> >> "distractions" (i.e noise) is far greater there than at
> >> acoustic concerts.
> >
> >
> > Again we have an example of an ignorant claim that rock music can't be
> > performed acoustically, and from a source that seems to have shown that she
> > knows better on other occasions.
>
> You seem to have put and undeservedly negative interpretation on that
> one Arny. I took Jenn's "acoustic" moniker, in the statement above, as
> simple shorthand to mean "non-rock" genres. Not meaning that rock can't
> be "acoustic" (Jenn can correct me if I'm wrong - 'cause then she'd be
> :-). Reality is that the vast majority of rock concerts are *not*
> acoustic/un-amplified (some of the absolute best are, but that's another
> story), and IME, irrespective of whether the music is acoustic or
> amplified, rock concerts are, in every case, noisier than would be, say,
> a symphony performance. Crowd restraint at rock concerts is not really
> an expectation, and lets face it, crowds seldom rise above expectations.
>
> Keith Hughes

Of course rock CAN be acoustic. I've never heard of a purely acoustic
rock public performance. Have you?

Scott[_6_]

December 19th 09, 10:54 PM

On Dec 19, 2:08=A0pm, Jenn > wrote:
> In article >,
>
>
>
>
>
> =A0Keith > wrote:
> > Arny Krueger wrote:
> > > "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >
> > >> In article >,
> > >> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
> > <snip>
>
> > >> =A0The rock concert example was used because the
> > >> "distractions" (i.e noise) is far greater there than at
> > >> =A0acoustic concerts.
>
> > > Again we have an example of an ignorant claim that rock music can't b=
e
> > > performed acoustically, and from a source that seems to have shown th=
at she
> > > knows better on other occasions.
>
> > You seem to have put and undeservedly negative interpretation on that
> > one Arny. =A0I took Jenn's "acoustic" moniker, in the statement above, =
as
> > simple shorthand to mean "non-rock" genres. Not meaning that rock can't
> > be "acoustic" (Jenn can correct me if I'm wrong - 'cause then she'd be
> > :-). =A0Reality is that the vast majority of rock concerts are *not*
> > acoustic/un-amplified (some of the absolute best are, but that's anothe=
r
> > story), and IME, irrespective of whether the music is acoustic or
> > amplified, rock concerts are, in every case, noisier than would be, say=
,
> > a symphony performance. =A0Crowd restraint at rock concerts is not real=
ly
> > an expectation, and lets face it, crowds seldom rise above expectations=
..
>
> > Keith Hughes
>
> Of course rock CAN be acoustic. =A0I've never heard of a purely acoustic
> rock public performance. =A0Have you?- Hide quoted text -
>

I have seen a few on the streets of New Orleans. But they are the
exception not the norm.

Stephen McElroy

December 20th 09, 01:50 AM

In article >,
Jenn > wrote:

> Of course rock CAN be acoustic. I've never heard of a purely acoustic
> rock public performance. Have you?

Austin's "Unplugged at the Grove" concert series is 'purely acoustic'
only by mistaken inference and is controversial as neighbors complain
when sound levels exceed the 70 dB statutory limit. A band observing
that limit would be in danger of being drowned out by the typically
noisy crowd in attendance. Austin has great music, lousy PAs and
thoughtless concert-goers.

That said, the Asylum Street Spankers, while arguable not rock, are more
unplugged than most:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYulEKYcCgo

Stephen

Keith

December 20th 09, 01:50 AM

Jenn wrote:
> In article >,
> Keith > wrote:
>
>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message

<snip>
>
> Of course rock CAN be acoustic. I've never heard of a purely acoustic
> rock public performance. Have you?
>

Yes, but then again it depends to an extent on your definition of
"rock". I'm not talking about heavy metal going acoustic, but there
have been some great concerts from the likes of 10,000 Maniacs,
Renaissance (in days long past unfortunately), California Guitar trio,
and in smaller venues a number of singer/songwriter type folks, e.g.
Karla Bonoff, Tori Amos, Loreena McKinnit, etc. And a number of
performances where the vocals are the only amplified "instrument", as
well. As I said, not at all the norm, but often exceptional
performances when they do happen.

But the premise, even then, tends to hold true IME. The behavioral
expectations for a symphony performance or a chamber music performance
are just different than those for most rock / pop type performances, and
thus the audience tends to be more raucous.

Keith

Audio Empire

December 20th 09, 01:57 AM

On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 14:05:11 -0800, Jenn wrote
(in article >):

> In article >,
> Audio Empire > wrote:
>> A Martin solid-body electric guitar,
>
> Whoa! THERE'S a rare beast! ;-)

Is it? I wouldn't know. I know of only two brands of electric guitars, Fender
and Martin I used Martin ONLY because I mention Fender-Rhodes in the next
sentence, and figured that I'd use another brand name for "journalistic
balance". If there is no such thing as a Martin solid-body, put it down to my
admitted ignorance of most things rock-related, and accept my humblest
apology.
>
>> I suspect
>> that a Fender-Rhodes or other electric piano makes no sound without it's
>> speakers, either.
>
> True.

Jenn[_2_]

December 20th 09, 03:41 AM

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Audio Empire" > wrote in
> >> message
> >>> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 05:22:51 -0800, Jenn wrote
> >>> (in article >):
> >>>
> >>>> In article >,
> >>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in
> >>>>> message
> >>>>>> In article >,
> >>>>>> Audio Empire > wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Most people who listen to records learn to "listen
> >>>>>>> around" the surface noise and regard ticks and pops
> >>>>>>> as they would coughs and sneezes and program
> >>>>>>> rustling at a concert.
> >>
> >>>>> That pretty much tells it all. You're talking about
> >>>>> listening to music under technically degraded
> >>>>> conditions. Just because the music is live doesn't
> >>>>> mean that its being heard in its most perfected
> >>>>> state. In fact it is
> >>>>> pretty well guaranteed that by modern standards, music
> >>>>> heard or recorded live isn't being heard at its best.
> >>
> >>>> Thanks for your very interesting reply, Arny. Though
> >>>> you aren't responding to me in the above paragraph, I'd
> >>>> like to chime in. For me, live IS the "most perfected
> >>>> state". I can imagine that if I attended rock
> >>>> concerts, for example, I wouldn't feel the same way
> >>>> about that music.
>
> When people talk about what they imagine, they are admitting that their
> comments have zero empirical or experiential base. I really don't have time
> to pay much attention to such things.

Arny, it appears that you are trying to win a debate here, rather than
discuss a topic. So I'll wrap up my contribution to you with this post,
before the moderators kill the thread. All I did in my paragraph above
was state that for ME, the live musical event is the "most perfected".
Since the noise (what we were discussing before the distractions) is
known to be much greater at the average rock concert than it is in the
concerts (and other live music) that I hear, and yet I don't attend rock
concerts, I said that I "can imagine" that I wouldn't consider the live
rock concert to be the "most perfected state" of that music.

>
> >> The above is an example of narrowing the discussion far
> >> more than what it was it was originally stated. Suddenly
> >> a potentially large number of performances of a given
> >> composition have been reduced to just one performance.
>
> > Huh? I'm afraid that I don't understand your statement.
>
> It appears that my comments are being buried in an avalanche of
> unrestrained subjectivism and perhaps even solipsism.

lol Yes, I'm sure that you see solipsism when I use terms such as "for
me" with great regularity. That's your problem, not mine.

> >> Given that there are many musical performances that
> >> never ever
> >> exist as a live performance, a great deal of music has
> >> been artificially excluded from the discussion.
>
> > You've totally lost me.
>
> I can't help that.

Obviously.
>
> > Every performance is a live performance.
>
> How do you define live performance?
>
> I define live performance as an event with performers and an audience all
> together in one place. The music work is performed in real time. In this day
> and age some of the elements of the performance may be themselves
> recordings.
>
> In some cases the performer and the audience are the same person. IMO, it
> is quite a stretch to call this a live performance.

I define performance as music that is played or sung live. A
performance does not need to be a public event. This seems to be part
of the problem.

>
> In some cases there is never a day and a time where the performers and the
> audience are all together in one place. They are often connected
> electronically and displaced from each other by time and space. IMO this is
> *not* a live performance. It is in fact very common. There was a musical
> performance, but there was no audience in the common meaning of audience.

All we're doing is nitpicking what "performance" means. In the context
of the discussion, I believe that it's quite clear that for the
performances that **I** attend, the performers are all in the room with
an audience or without an audience.

<snip of "debate" that goes nowhere>

>
> The quality of the performance started mattering in this discussion when the
> phrase "most perfected" was introduced about 2 days ago.

By you.

> It's quoted above.
> How can there be a reasonable discussion when such basic issues are denied
> by people responding to posts?

Your point seemed to be that just because the music is heard live, that
doesn't mean that it's necessarily being heard in it "most perfected
state". For the music that **I** usually listen to, "live", i.e. the
original performance of the music (with or without an audience) is the
"most perfected".

>
>
> >>> Since rock concerts ARE artificial (in that without the
> >>> PA system, there would be no concert performance) You
> >>> simply cannot compare the two.
>
> This is a very ignorant statement.

Take it up with he who wrote it. But...

>It is quite possible to play rock music
> on acoustical instruments. No PA system or any electronics of any kind are
> required.

True, of course. I've not heard a purely acoustic rock concert. Have
you, or have you ever heard of one? It's uncommon, to say the least.

> I'm truly amazed at the logical gyrations that some people will go through
> to deny the obvious fact that tics and pops can be very distracting to very
> many listeners.

Who has denied that, Arny? Please do let us know.

>In fact the popularity of digital formats is partially based
> on the fact that almost all listeners will avoid media with tics and pops,
> given the choice.

All else being equal, so would I, of course.

> > The rock concert example was used because the
> > "distractions" (i.e noise) is far greater there than at
> > acoustic concerts.
>
>
> Again we have an example of an ignorant claim that rock music can't be
> performed acoustically, and from a source that seems to have shown that she
> knows better on other occasions.

Again, how many purely acoustic rock concerts have you ever heard of?

>
> It is well known that musical genre and the choice of instruments are often
> completely orthogonal to each other. One can play classical music on
> electric instruments and one can play rock on acoustical instruments, right?

Yes. So?

[ Let's end the metadiscussion, please. Back to
audio-related topics, or just drop the thread. -- dsr ]

Jenn[_2_]

December 20th 09, 06:50 AM

In article >,
Keith > wrote:

> Jenn wrote:
> > In article >,
> > Keith > wrote:
> >
> >> Arny Krueger wrote:
> >>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> <snip>
> >
> > Of course rock CAN be acoustic. I've never heard of a purely acoustic
> > rock public performance. Have you?
> >
>
> Yes, but then again it depends to an extent on your definition of
> "rock". I'm not talking about heavy metal going acoustic, but there
> have been some great concerts from the likes of 10,000 Maniacs,
> Renaissance (in days long past unfortunately), California Guitar trio,
> and in smaller venues a number of singer/songwriter type folks, e.g.
> Karla Bonoff, Tori Amos, Loreena McKinnit, etc. And a number of
> performances where the vocals are the only amplified "instrument", as
> well. As I said, not at all the norm, but often exceptional
> performances when they do happen.

Really truly purely acoustic? No mics? No pickups in the acoustic
guitars? Must be a VERY small room! ;-)

The California Guitar Trio...OMG! They are SO good! A great bunch of
guys, too.

Harry Lavo

December 20th 09, 06:31 PM

"Scott" > wrote in message
...
> On Dec 19, 2:08=A0pm, Jenn > wrote:

[quoted text deleted -- deb]

>> Of course rock CAN be acoustic. =A0I've never heard of a purely acoustic
>> rock public performance. =A0Have you?
>>
>
> I have seen a few on the streets of New Orleans. But they are the
> exception not the norm.

And they aren't rock....they come from the New Orleans Brass Band
tradition...a form of jazz/fusion

Andrew Barss

December 21st 09, 02:01 AM

Audio Empire > wrote:

She wasn't talking about studio performances
: (from what I gather from her posts)of largely electronic instruments which do
: not exist outside of the studio (and in a concert environment are the result
: of the ensemble carrying the "studio" with them. The difference being instead
: of the output of the studio equipment being some recording device, it's a
: bunch of PA speakers).

: A live performance is any time musicians play in the presence of an audience
: - no matter how big or small that audience might be. But the kind of live
: performance being discussed here is, I believe, live, unamplified music,
: played in a real space. If one isn't listening to the instruments themselves
: (and when sound reinforcement is present, one is listening to the PA system's
: reconstruction of those instruments, not the instruments themselves), one is
: not HEARING the instruments. One is hearing and seeing the musicians playing
: their instruments, but one is not listening TO those instruments.

I think youk and others expressing much the same idea that there's a big
divide beten (a) acoustic instruments performed live and (b) amplified
instruments that aresomething else, really need to work through what an
instrument actually is.

The instrument, in the case of an electric guitar, is the guitar, plus the
electronics used to pump out the sound. This includes the connector
to the tube or SS amp, the amp itself, and the pickups on the body of the
guitae that interface between the plucked strings and the downsteam parts.
That's the instrument. And that's what you're listening to.

In the case of an acoustic guitar, the instrument is the guitar, plus,
say, picks and a slide, if the player is using those. A bowed instrument
(violin, viola, bass, etc.) consists of the strings, the body they are
strung across, and the bow. That's what you're listening to.

I just don't see that there's some rigid difference according
to which one is pure and unamplified, the other is not. *ALL* instruments
(other than the human voice) involve an initial sound generator (strings,
diaphram of a drum, and so forth), and SOME way of making that sound
louder and different from the initially generated sound. (And if you know
anything about physiology, that's exactly how the human voice works as
well).

As Arny pointed out, all string instruments amplify, modify, and distort
the sound of the string (and the same holds true for wind instruments,
whose bodies amplify, distort, and modify the sound of the reed, etc.).
You'e making an artificial and silly split between aspects of
amplification that involve electrons, and those that do not.

Just think of what an acoustic guitar string sounds like, if it's just
strung in space between two points with no resonating cavity nearby.
THAT, I guess, is an unamplified, purely acoustic "instrument". Good
luck getting people to listen to that on a regular basis!

-- Andy Barss

Scott[_6_]

December 21st 09, 02:01 AM

On Dec 20, 10:31=A0am, "Harry Lavo" > wrote:
> "Scott" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > On Dec 19, 2:08=3DA0pm, Jenn > wrote:
>
> [quoted text deleted -- deb]
>
> >> Of course rock CAN be acoustic. =3DA0I've never heard of a purely acou=
stic
> >> rock public performance. =3DA0Have you?
>
> > I have seen a few on the streets of New Orleans. But they are the
> > exception not the norm.
>
> And they aren't rock....they come from the New Orleans Brass Band
> tradition...a form of jazz/fusion

As the person who actually saw that which I am refering to I will have
to argue from authority. Yes there are plenty on non rock street
musicans and street bands in New Orleans. But there are a few that
actually play rock. When I see a group with a dobro, sax, stand up
bass and miniature drum kit playing Eddie Cochran, Buddy Holly and
Elvis covers I think it is fair to call it rock.

Arny Krueger

December 21st 09, 01:17 PM

"Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message

> Perhaps just the 'eternal recurrence's...I am going to
> guess that long play vinyl quality was higher in the
> early days of 'stereo' when it was aimed mainly at the
> classical (and bizarrely the sound-effects market)
> market.

AFAIK there was a fair amount of technological change and improvement in the
LP format in the early days of Stereo. Since the basic material and geometry
was the same all along, the improvements were mostly related to the process.
One area of technological improvements that emerged related to the studio,
primarily multitracking, overdubbing, and EFX. The others related to cutting
and duplication. Cartridges, tone arms, and turntables also improved,
especially in the area of cost-effectiveness.

About 10 years before the introduction of the CD it was pretty clear that
the rate of worthwhile improvements to the cutting and duplication process
had pretty well worked themselves out, and that dramatic changes such as
optical recording and digital encoding were required for further
improvements. It was not clear until the near the end exactly what the next
step would be. The alternative enhanced technologies involved RF and FM.

> By the 1980s LPs were mass market and
> vinyl quality was routinely $hit (this is memory, not
> guessing). And so to digital.

Actually, vinyl quality was crap all along, if you included 45 rpm singles
as part of that technology. The geometry was wrong, the packaging was
slipshod, and materials quality could be literally bottom of the barrel (of
reground records). Towards the end there was some work on materials quality
and disc construction, which led to some really thin disks. Perhaps
counter-intuitively, thin discs are not necessarily a problem, and thick
discs are not necessarily an improvement.

> Wonder if it will play out the same way now.

Costs and distribution latency are being cut to ribbons by downloads and
fixed media digital players. IOW, it is now possible to cut costs without
sacrificing sound quality.

Harry Lavo

December 21st 09, 02:20 PM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message
>
>
>> Perhaps just the 'eternal recurrence's...I am going to
>> guess that long play vinyl quality was higher in the
>> early days of 'stereo' when it was aimed mainly at the
>> classical (and bizarrely the sound-effects market)
>> market.
>
> AFAIK there was a fair amount of technological change and improvement in
> the
> LP format in the early days of Stereo. Since the basic material and
> geometry
> was the same all along, the improvements were mostly related to the
> process.
> One area of technological improvements that emerged related to the studio,
> primarily multitracking, overdubbing, and EFX. The others related to
> cutting
> and duplication. Cartridges, tone arms, and turntables also improved,
> especially in the area of cost-effectiveness.

The "early days of stereo" (so far as LP's were concerned) was in 1957-58.
Multitrack recorders and studio effects didn't come into widespread use
until the late '60's/early '70's. Your timeline is off.

>
> About 10 years before the introduction of the CD it was pretty clear that
> the rate of worthwhile improvements to the cutting and duplication process
> had pretty well worked themselves out, and that dramatic changes such as
> optical recording and digital encoding were required for further
> improvements. It was not clear until the near the end exactly what the
> next
> step would be. The alternative enhanced technologies involved RF and FM.

So from about '73 to '83, vinyl recording was maxed out. I can buy this
.... it conincided (not coincidently) with perhaps the finest recorded
studio sounds and LP reproduction that pop groups ever had.

>> By the 1980s LPs were mass market and
>> vinyl quality was routinely $hit (this is memory, not
>> guessing). And so to digital.
>
> Actually, vinyl quality was crap all along, if you included 45 rpm singles
> as part of that technology. The geometry was wrong, the packaging was
> slipshod, and materials quality could be literally bottom of the barrel
> (of
> reground records). Towards the end there was some work on materials
> quality
> and disc construction, which led to some really thin disks. Perhaps
> counter-intuitively, thin discs are not necessarily a problem, and thick
> discs are not necessarily an improvement.

Actually, vinyl quality was not a widespread problem until the '80's. The
quote above yours was correct.

Also, anybody who bought both thin vinyl and thick vinyl has known from
experience that thin vinyl warps more readily and more severely.

>
>> Wonder if it will play out the same way now.
>
> Costs and distribution latency are being cut to ribbons by downloads and
> fixed media digital players. IOW, it is now possible to cut costs without
> sacrificing sound quality.

Scott[_6_]

December 21st 09, 06:15 PM

On Dec 21, 6:20=A0am, "Harry Lavo" > wrote:

> So from about '73 to '83, vinyl recording was maxed out. =A0I can buy thi=
s
> ... it conincided (not coincidently) with perhaps the finest recorded
> studio sounds and LP reproduction that pop groups ever had.
>

Not even close. One would be pretty hard pressed to find much of
anything between 1975 and 1983 that sounded decent. 1956- 1974 was
filled with studio recorded marvels when it comes to sonic excellence.
Roy Orbison, Elvis, Johnny Cash, Joan Baez, Joni Mitchell, Cat
Stevens, Pink Floyd, Don McLean, Donovan, Nat King Cole, Fairport
Convention, John Renbourn just to name a few off the top of my head
all recorded amazing sounding studio albums before 1975. Yes there
were still quite a few gems being recorded in 73 and 74 that is why I
shifted the dates. I think if one were to make a list of great
sounding studio recordings from 1975 -1983 it would be quite short.
Multitrack was a blessing for inovation in composition and
arrangements for artists but mostly a curse for sound quality. This
was especially true as the sound boards moved away from tubes and
toward cheap SS technology. All the so called advances in studio
technology during the late seventies and early eighties were not
helping the sound quality at all. This was in many ways one of the
dark ages of recording (even more so for classical but that was not
because of studio techniques or studio technology). Unfortunately we
have been in a second dark age of recording with the loudness wars.

Ironically it was after the advent of the CD that some of the most
substantial sonic advancements in vinyl playback technology came to
be. We went through a sort of renaissance when it came to real
advancement in the state of the art of vinyl playback during that
time. Before the advent of CD one could argue that the early Linn
Sondek represented the state of the art for sonic excellence. By 10
years later we had seen The Goldman Reference, the Versa Dynamics, The
Rockport Sirius, The Basis Debute Gold and the Forsell Air Reference.
These rigs represented a huge leap in sound quality over anything that
preceded them. Maybe it was the threat of CDs that lit a fire under
the designers of vinyl playback gear. That of course was followed by
this amazing renaissance/golden age of audiophile vinyl production
that we are now enjoying.

Audio Empire

December 21st 09, 09:23 PM

On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 05:17:34 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article >):

> "Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message
>
>
>> Perhaps just the 'eternal recurrence's...I am going to
>> guess that long play vinyl quality was higher in the
>> early days of 'stereo' when it was aimed mainly at the
>> classical (and bizarrely the sound-effects market)
>> market.
>
> AFAIK there was a fair amount of technological change and improvement in the
> LP format in the early days of Stereo. Since the basic material and geometry
> was the same all along, the improvements were mostly related to the process.
> One area of technological improvements that emerged related to the studio,
> primarily multitracking, overdubbing, and EFX. The others related to cutting
> and duplication. Cartridges, tone arms, and turntables also improved,
> especially in the area of cost-effectiveness.

First of all, it's highly debatable that multitracking, overdubbing, and EFX
were "improvements" especially with regards to classical music or jazz. The
worst sounding records I have are multi-tracked abominations from Columbia,
RCA and London done during the late sixties and early seventies. They mostly
sound like someone lined-up an 80 piece orchestra across a stage in a single
line (because each instrument was miked separately, and then pan-potted into
position - Yechhh!) and many are extremely harsh - to the point of being
distorted sounding (due to early transistor gear). The CD remasterings are no
better in that regard.

Cutting benefitted from variable-pitch lathes which increased or decreased
the pitch (number of grooves per inch) according to the maximum excursion of
the cutting stylus. Soft passages could have more grooves per inch, loud
passages, fewer. This helped to extend the length of an LP side while
allowing more excursion for really loud passages reducing the need for
pre-cutting compression and increasing dynamic range. Cutting heads received
higher power amplifiers during this time and better stylus feedback circuits.
Most people don't realize what a marvel a cutting head is. Most just assume
that's it's like a phono cartridge- only in reverse. That's a real rough
analogy. They are very sophisticated and quite cantankerous. It could, in the
60's, take as much as 60 Watts of power to get the stylus to move at all
(when cutting) and just a few more Watts to burn the thing out. As solid
state amps allowed for even more power, the cutting heads became even less
efficient. This might seem counterintuitive, but it actually resulted in
lower distortion by allowing for finer control of the cutting stylus through
motion feedback. By the 1970's, computer control of the cutting equipment was
becoming widespread. This automated a lot of the tasks that had been strictly
manual. While I do not think that the computer automation of the cutting
process resulted in better sound, it did cut down on the number of spoiled
masters because it resulted in more precise set-up and less guesswork.

Turntables improved when people like Edgar Villchur of Acoustic Research (AR)
and Ivor Tiefenbrun of Linn realized that a turntable was a system and
started to address things like air and structure-borne feedback by suspending
the platter and arm mount on sprung subassemblies and isolating the platter
and arm from the motor. The highly regarded AR turntable and the LInn Sondeck
LP-12 were the result of this research.
>
> About 10 years before the introduction of the CD it was pretty clear that
> the rate of worthwhile improvements to the cutting and duplication process
> had pretty well worked themselves out, and that dramatic changes such as
> optical recording and digital encoding were required for further
> improvements. It was not clear until the near the end exactly what the next
> step would be. The alternative enhanced technologies involved RF and FM.

RF and FM were applied to vinyl in the form of JVC's CD-4 or "Quadradisk"
format. Adopted by record companies like RCA. Atlantic, Warner, etc., this
was a way to encode four discrete channels of sound onto a single stereo LP.
It worked a bit like FM stereo. Each groove wall carried a composite signal
representing the front + rear (f+r) channel information for that stereo LP
channel (left or right). Therefore, when played back with a regular
two-channel stereo system, the listener would hear the rear channels folded
into the front channels and would thus hear the entire program (much as FM
stereo can be listened to in mono without losing either left or right channel
information). Also on the CD-4 disc was a subcarrier for each stereo channel.
This subcarrier was located above the audible spectrum and extended to 50 KHz
and contained a matrix signal designated as front MINUS rear or f-r. With the
proper cartridge and stylus (called a Shibata stylus shape after it's
inventor at JVC) and a dedicated pre-amp/ decoder the subcarrier would be
detected, stripped off and used to do an electronic matrix decode for each of
the two stereo channels thusly:

Where: Lf = Left front, Lr = Left rear, Rf = Right front and Rr = Right rear:

Left channel = Lf+Lr + (Lf -Lr) = 2Lf
Lf+Lr - (Lf-Lr) = 2Lr

Right Channel = Rf+Rr + (Rf-Rr) = 2Rf
Rf+R - (Rf-Rr) = 2Rr

As can be seen; from two channels, each carrying an ultrasonic subcarrier, we
glean four discrete signals (the 2's in front of each equation product don't
have any electrical meaning).

While it was a good idea and it fostered some real innovations in LP
manufacturing, vinyl chemistry, not to mention cartridge and stylus profile
design, which were applicable to ALL LPs, not just quadraphonic discs, the
system never worked very well. the cartridges never were up to the wide,
peak-free bandwidth required to get a good subcarrier signal, and playback
was similarly de-railed by warped records, dirt in the grooves, poor initial
alignment of the cartridge in the arm, and not least of all, indifferent
manufacturing. The resultant "quad" was often distorted, noisy, and the
effect dropped in and out. While I'm sure that these problems could have been
solved, in time, the fact was that quadraphonic sound was a fad. There were
so many different competing formats and the buying public was so confused by
them, that they decided to stay away and buy nothing. So, before CD-4, which
had been rushed to market, could get the bugs ironed out, the quadraphonic
craze had died.
>
>> By the 1980s LPs were mass market and
>> vinyl quality was routinely $hit (this is memory, not
>> guessing). And so to digital.
>
> Actually, vinyl quality was crap all along, if you included 45 rpm singles
> as part of that technology. The geometry was wrong, the packaging was
> slipshod, and materials quality could be literally bottom of the barrel (of
> reground records).

Major label's classical offerings used NO regrind. Virgin vinyl only. Lots of
pop recordings did use regrind as did some budget classical labels. They were
always nosier than the major label's best classical offerings.

> Towards the end there was some work on materials quality
> and disc construction, which led to some really thin disks. Perhaps
> counter-intuitively, thin discs are not necessarily a problem, and thick
> discs are not necessarily an improvement.

I have some Dyna-discs from RCA. When these ultra-thin, ultra light-weight
records came out, the record collecting community eyed them suspiciously as
merely a cost-cutting ploy. We called them "Dyna-Warp" then. Surprisingly,
ironically, and somewhat to our chagrin, 30-years on, these RCA "Dyna-Warp"
records HAVEN'T warped. Not a one of them!!

>> Wonder if it will play out the same way now.
>
> Costs and distribution latency are being cut to ribbons by downloads and
> fixed media digital players. IOW, it is now possible to cut costs without
> sacrificing sound quality.

Only if lossless compression (or no compression) is used. Your average teen
and young adult who downloads music through iTunes etc., doesn't seem to care
about quality at all. Everything that I have ever bought from iTunes sounds
lousy when compared to the same performance ripped on one's own computer from
the actual CD using lossless compression schemes. The difference is
astonishing. The iTunes downloads are surprisingly bad sounding.

Arny Krueger

December 21st 09, 09:39 PM

"Scott" > wrote in message

> Ironically it was after the advent of the CD that some of
> the most substantial sonic advancements in vinyl playback
> technology came to be.

Do they have names?

Are they the results of research by recognized universities and research
laboratories?

Are there referreed technical papers describing them?

Do they have measurable effects that have been measured and posted on the
web by indepdendent parties?

Audio Empire

December 21st 09, 09:39 PM

On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 10:16:02 -0800, ScottW wrote
(in article >):

> On Dec 21, 6:20=A0am, "Harry Lavo" > wrote:
>>
>> So from about '73 to '83, vinyl recording was maxed out. =A0I can buy thi=
> s
>> ... it conincided (not coincidently) with perhaps the finest recorded
>> studio sounds and LP reproduction that pop groups ever had.
>>
>>>> By the 1980s LPs were mass market and
>>>> vinyl quality was routinely $hit (this is memory, not
>>>> guessing). And so to digital.
>>
>>> Actually, vinyl quality was crap all along, if you included 45 rpm sing=
> les
>>> as part of that technology. The geometry was wrong, the packaging was
>>> slipshod, and materials quality could be literally bottom of the barrel
>>> (of
>>> reground records). =A0Towards the end there was some work on materials
>>> quality
>>> and disc construction, which led to some really thin disks. Perhaps
>>> counter-intuitively, thin discs are not necessarily a problem, and thic=
> k
>>> discs are not necessarily an improvement.
>>
>> Actually, vinyl quality was not a widespread problem until the '80's. =A0=
> The
>> quote above yours was correct.
>
> I can't speak to the 80's having dropped out of the music market for
> a time after graduating from college only to return in the late 80's
> and find the record stores had no records.
>
> But IME of record buying in the 70's, quality was a huge issue.
> Didn't RCA Victor introduce the "dynaflex" record in '69?
>
> ScottW
>

Yes, that was it, Dynaflex! I have dozens of them. Contrary to my belief
THEN, not a ONE of them has ever warped! The system worked - as advertised.
Too bad Dynagroove wasn't as good.

Arny Krueger

December 22nd 09, 12:18 AM

"Harry Lavo" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>> Perhaps just the 'eternal recurrence's...I am going to
>>> guess that long play vinyl quality was higher in the
>>> early days of 'stereo' when it was aimed mainly at the
>>> classical (and bizarrely the sound-effects market)
>>> market.
>>
>> AFAIK there was a fair amount of technological change
>> and improvement in the
>> LP format in the early days of Stereo. Since the basic
>> material and geometry
>> was the same all along, the improvements were mostly
>> related to the process.
>> One area of technological improvements that emerged
>> related to the studio, primarily multitracking,
>> overdubbing, and EFX. The others related to cutting
>> and duplication. Cartridges, tone arms, and turntables
>> also improved, especially in the area of
>> cost-effectiveness.

> The "early days of stereo" (so far as LP's were
> concerned) was in 1957-58. Multitrack recorders and
> studio effects didn't come into widespread use until the
> late '60's/early '70's. Your timeline is off.

The above appears to be a rather fact-challenged personal intrepretation,
followed by an argument with that interpretation.

For example according to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_multitrack_recording

Overdubbing commenced in 1948:

"In 1948 Crosby gave Paul one of the first production units of the new Ampex
Model 200 reel-to-reel tape recorder. Within hours, Paul had the idea of
modifying the machine by the addition of extra recording and playback heads
which could allow him to simultaneously record a new track whilst monitoring
the playback of previously recorded tracks."

Multitracking commenced in 1955:

"Ampex released the first commercial multitrack recorders in 1955, naming
the process "Sel-Sync" (Selective Synchronous Recording). Coinciding the
advent of full frequency range recording (FFRR), stereo and the
high-fidelity microgroove vinyl LP format, multitrack recorders soon became
indispensable to vocalists like Crosby and Nat "King" Cole.

>> About 10 years before the introduction of the CD it was
>> pretty clear that the rate of worthwhile improvements to
>> the cutting and duplication process had pretty well
>> worked themselves out, and that dramatic changes such
>> as optical recording and digital encoding were required
>> for further improvements. It was not clear until the
>> near the end exactly what the next
>> step would be. The alternative enhanced technologies
>> involved RF and FM.

> So from about '73 to '83, vinyl recording was maxed out.

Right.

> I can buy this ... it conincided (not coincidently) with
> perhaps the finest recorded studio sounds and LP
> reproduction that pop groups ever had.

The finest recorded studio sounds were obviously irrelevant to vinyl. They
were done on magnetic tape.

>>> By the 1980s LPs were mass market and
>>> vinyl quality was routinely $hit (this is memory, not
>>> guessing). And so to digital.

>> Actually, vinyl quality was crap all along, if you
>> included 45 rpm singles as part of that technology. The
>> geometry was wrong, the packaging was slipshod, and
>> materials quality could be literally bottom of the
>> barrel (of
>> reground records). Towards the end there was some work
>> on materials quality
>> and disc construction, which led to some really thin
>> disks. Perhaps counter-intuitively, thin discs are not
>> necessarily a problem, and thick discs are not
>> necessarily an improvement.

> Actually, vinyl quality was not a widespread problem
> until the '80's.

Absent any outside support, that would be an unfounded assertion. Many of
found that vinyl quality was always tenuous, and if anything became more
tenuous as it became more popular.

> Also, anybody who bought both thin vinyl and thick vinyl
> has known from experience that thin vinyl warps more
> readily and more severely.

Absent any outside support, that would alson unfounded assertion. I've
purchased both and used both and found that both can easily become warped so
badly that the warping creates audible FM distortion. So, the claim that
"anybody who bought both thin vinyl and thick vinyl has known from
experience that thin vinyl warps more readily and more severely" is
falsified by my personal experience.

Audio Empire

December 22nd 09, 12:20 AM

On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 06:20:53 -0800, Harry Lavo wrote
(in article >):

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>> Perhaps just the 'eternal recurrence's...I am going to
>>> guess that long play vinyl quality was higher in the
>>> early days of 'stereo' when it was aimed mainly at the
>>> classical (and bizarrely the sound-effects market)
>>> market.
>>
>> AFAIK there was a fair amount of technological change and improvement in
>> the
>> LP format in the early days of Stereo. Since the basic material and
>> geometry
>> was the same all along, the improvements were mostly related to the
>> process.
>> One area of technological improvements that emerged related to the studio,
>> primarily multitracking, overdubbing, and EFX. The others related to
>> cutting
>> and duplication. Cartridges, tone arms, and turntables also improved,
>> especially in the area of cost-effectiveness.
>
> The "early days of stereo" (so far as LP's were concerned) was in 1957-58.
> Multitrack recorders and studio effects didn't come into widespread use
> until the late '60's/early '70's. Your timeline is off.

The first stereo LP made using the Westrex 45/45 system was a disc put out by
a company called Audio Fidelity. They actually released a test cutting made
for them by Westrex in direct defiance of an agreement they signed NOT to
release the record. Westrex had a similar agreement with all record companies
that no stereo records would be released until 1959. The time that Westrex
felt they needed to perfect the system. Of course, to make sure that this
agreement would be kept, Westrex mixed white noise with the test recordings
making then unsalable. Each company interested in stereo would send Westrex a
cutting master tape. Westrex would cut a demo disc (after mixing in a bit of
the aforementioned noise), and send it back to the record company for
evaluation purposes. Audio Fidellty figured, what the hey, and plated the
master and started manufacturing stereo discs in spite of the agreement and
the noise. "The Brave Bulls - La Fiesta Brava" hit the market in late 1957,
and the stsreo record was off and running. By mid 1958, companies like RCA
Victor, Columbia, Capitol, etc., all had stereo discs on the shelves.

Early stereo recordings were all either two or three-channel (left, center.
right) with the center channel used either for the mono release (records were
dual inventory in those days) or was blended equally into the right and left
channels. Overdubbing and artificial reverb is credited to a guitar player
and pop producer Les Paul and came about in the late '40's. Paul used to
record in his home with his then wife, Mary Ford, a former country-western
singer from the big-band era. Their first big hit, was, I believe "How High
The Moon" , released in 1951. But in 1948. Paul, working on his own, using
the recently invented tape recorder, had been experimenting with overdubbing.
In his garage, he had recorded a version of the song 'Lover" in which he
played EIGHT different guitar parts. When a Capitol Records producer heard
it, it was immediately released. and became a hit. By 1951. Paul had married
singer Mary Ford and with "How High the Moon" had combined himself doing
multiple guitar parts along with Mary ford singing duets with herself and the
addition of artificial reverb (accomplished with an endless loop of tape and
multiple play-back heads situated a few millimeters apart). The result was
astounding (in its day) and the record sold millions.

Multitrack came along in the mid-sixties and while a useful tool for pop
music, it was a disaster for classical and jazz. Multitrack classical
recordings (especially the early ones using first-gen transistor
electronics), for the most part, sound simply dreadful.

>>
>> About 10 years before the introduction of the CD it was pretty clear that
>> the rate of worthwhile improvements to the cutting and duplication process
>> had pretty well worked themselves out, and that dramatic changes such as
>> optical recording and digital encoding were required for further
>> improvements. It was not clear until the near the end exactly what the
>> next
>> step would be. The alternative enhanced technologies involved RF and FM.
>
> So from about '73 to '83, vinyl recording was maxed out. I can buy this
> ... it conincided (not coincidently) with perhaps the finest recorded
> studio sounds and LP reproduction that pop groups ever had.
>
>>> By the 1980s LPs were mass market and
>>> vinyl quality was routinely $hit (this is memory, not
>>> guessing). And so to digital.
>>
>> Actually, vinyl quality was crap all along, if you included 45 rpm singles
>> as part of that technology. The geometry was wrong, the packaging was
>> slipshod, and materials quality could be literally bottom of the barrel
>> (of
>> reground records). Towards the end there was some work on materials
>> quality
>> and disc construction, which led to some really thin disks. Perhaps
>> counter-intuitively, thin discs are not necessarily a problem, and thick
>> discs are not necessarily an improvement.
>
> Actually, vinyl quality was not a widespread problem until the '80's. The
> quote above yours was correct.
>
> Also, anybody who bought both thin vinyl and thick vinyl has known from
> experience that thin vinyl warps more readily and more severely.

Except for RCA's Dyna-Disc process. I have a number of these thin, floppy
LPs. Not a one has warped in 30 years. OTOH, other cheap, thin LPs do warp
much more readily than do the thicker ones!

Scott[_6_]

December 22nd 09, 12:21 AM

On Dec 21, 1:39=A0pm, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Scott" > wrote in message
>
>
>
> > Ironically it was after the advent of the CD that some of
> > the most substantial sonic advancements in vinyl playback
> > technology came to be.
>
> Do they have names?

Not sure what you mean.

>
> Are they the results of research by recognized universities and research
> laboratories?

Oh yeah, for sure.

>
> Are there referreed technical papers describing them?

I would be very surprised if there weren't any such papers on the sort
of technology utilized by Goldmund, Versa, Rockport, Forsell and
Basis. None of the technology was new to the world. It was just new in
it's implimentation for vinyl playback.

>
> Do they have measurable effects that have been measured and posted on the
> web by indepdendent parties?

Yes the effects are measurable. I don't know what has been posted on
the web.

Arny Krueger

December 22nd 09, 02:01 PM

"Scott" > wrote in message

> I would be very surprised if there weren't any such
> papers on the sort of technology utilized by Goldmund,
> Versa, Rockport, Forsell and Basis.

IOW, no supporting facts at all - 100% speculation.

> None of the
> technology was new to the world. It was just new in it's
> implimentation for vinyl playback.

More likely - no effective new technology at all - just polished metal and
plastic in cosmetically different shapes.

Audio Empire

December 22nd 09, 02:47 PM

On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 18:24:41 -0800, Dick Pierce wrote
(in article >):

> Audio Empire wrote:
>> On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 06:20:53 -0800, Harry Lavo wrote
>>> The "early days of stereo" (so far as LP's were concerned) was in 1957-58.
>>> Multitrack recorders and studio effects didn't come into widespread use
>>> until the late '60's/early '70's. Your timeline is off.
>>
>> Multitrack came along in the mid-sixties and while a useful tool for pop
>> music, it was a disaster for classical and jazz. Multitrack classical
>> recordings (especially the early ones using first-gen transistor
>> electronics), for the most part, sound simply dreadful.
>
> Indeed, Columbia was pretty heavy into classical multi-tracking
> already in the 1960s. For example, all of the E. Power Biggs
> recordings done on the Flentrop organ at Harvard were multi-
> tracked, starting in the early 1960's. Great instrument,
> interesting performances, somewhat weird recordings.
>
>

Yes, Columbia was especially heavy-handed wrt multitracking. My '"favorite"
example was Resphigi's "Church Windows" with Eugene Ormandy and the
Philadelphia Orchestra. Great performance, wonderful orchestral piece, lousy
sound. Then there was British Decca (London) with their 'Phase-4' recordings
and EMI had something similar as well - terrible. RCA's excesses seemed to
stem mostly from a Red Seal producer in the 70's named J. David Saks. I got
into a heated argument with him one year at the Audio Engineering Society
Convention in NYC. I told him that his recordings sucked and he disagreed.
What can I tell you? 8^)

Scott[_6_]

December 22nd 09, 04:53 PM

On Dec 22, 6:01=A0am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Scott" > wrote in message
>
>
>
> > I would be very surprised if there weren't any such
> > papers on the sort of technology utilized by Goldmund,
> > Versa, Rockport, Forsell and Basis.
>
> IOW, no supporting facts at all - 100% speculation.

Not at all Arny. Just because I didn't really want to go on some
easter egg hunt for papers on the technology that went into those
products doesn't mean there are no supporting facts. The technologies
that were utilized by the makers of those rigs is most definitely
based in science. There is no Peter Beltian trickery going on there.
We are talking about things like active pneumatic suspensions, low
tolerance high preasure airbearings, Use of materials with much better
wieght to stiffness ratios than anything used before etc etc etc.
There is no voodoo here. It is all based in engineering and science.
But I am not going to try to find some paper that proves an airbearing
works or that an active pneumatic isolation system works. If you want
to believe such technologies are not based in sound engineering and
science that is your choice. IMO it is so obvious that the
technologies used in these rigs is so clearly based in science and
engineering that it is not worth debating.

>
> > None of the
> > technology was new to the world. It was just new in it's
> > implimentation for vinyl playback.
>
> More likely - no effective new technology at all - just polished metal an=
d
> plastic in cosmetically different shapes.

Now that is a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black. What
were your exact words? Oh yeah "IOW, no supporting facts at all - 100%
speculation." What actual facts did you use to determine the variables
that lead you to assert the alleged level of "likelyhood" that the
rigs in question had no "effective new technology?" wouldn't you have
to actually know what technology was involved for starters?

Arny Krueger

December 23rd 09, 12:25 AM

"Scott" > wrote in message

> On Dec 22, 6:01=A0am, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>> "Scott" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>
>>> I would be very surprised if there weren't any such
>>> papers on the sort of technology utilized by Goldmund,
>>> Versa, Rockport, Forsell and Basis.

>> IOW, no supporting facts at all - 100% speculation.

> Not at all Arny. Just because I didn't really want to go
> on some easter egg hunt for papers on the technology that
> went into those products doesn't mean there are no
> supporting facts.

That's the high price of credibility - actually being able to document one's
claims.

Yes, it can take a little work.

I see no documentation of some pretty expectional claims.

Harry Lavo

December 23rd 09, 01:44 AM

"Audio Empire" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 06:20:53 -0800, Harry Lavo wrote
> (in article >):
>
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>
>>>> Perhaps just the 'eternal recurrence's...I am going to
>>>> guess that long play vinyl quality was higher in the
>>>> early days of 'stereo' when it was aimed mainly at the
>>>> classical (and bizarrely the sound-effects market)
>>>> market.
>>>
>>> AFAIK there was a fair amount of technological change and improvement in
>>> the
>>> LP format in the early days of Stereo. Since the basic material and
>>> geometry
>>> was the same all along, the improvements were mostly related to the
>>> process.
>>> One area of technological improvements that emerged related to the
>>> studio,
>>> primarily multitracking, overdubbing, and EFX. The others related to
>>> cutting
>>> and duplication. Cartridges, tone arms, and turntables also improved,
>>> especially in the area of cost-effectiveness.
>>
>> The "early days of stereo" (so far as LP's were concerned) was in
>> 1957-58.
>> Multitrack recorders and studio effects didn't come into widespread use
>> until the late '60's/early '70's. Your timeline is off.
>
> The first stereo LP made using the Westrex 45/45 system was a disc put out
> by
> a company called Audio Fidelity. They actually released a test cutting
> made
> for them by Westrex in direct defiance of an agreement they signed NOT to
> release the record. Westrex had a similar agreement with all record
> companies
> that no stereo records would be released until 1959. The time that Westrex
> felt they needed to perfect the system. Of course, to make sure that this
> agreement would be kept, Westrex mixed white noise with the test
> recordings
> making then unsalable. Each company interested in stereo would send
> Westrex a
> cutting master tape. Westrex would cut a demo disc (after mixing in a bit
> of
> the aforementioned noise), and send it back to the record company for
> evaluation purposes. Audio Fidellty figured, what the hey, and plated the
> master and started manufacturing stereo discs in spite of the agreement
> and
> the noise. "The Brave Bulls - La Fiesta Brava" hit the market in late
> 1957,
> and the stsreo record was off and running. By mid 1958, companies like RCA
> Victor, Columbia, Capitol, etc., all had stereo discs on the shelves.
>
> Early stereo recordings were all either two or three-channel (left,
> center.
> right) with the center channel used either for the mono release (records
> were
> dual inventory in those days) or was blended equally into the right and
> left
> channels. Overdubbing and artificial reverb is credited to a guitar player
> and pop producer Les Paul and came about in the late '40's. Paul used to
> record in his home with his then wife, Mary Ford, a former country-western
> singer from the big-band era. Their first big hit, was, I believe "How
> High
> The Moon" , released in 1951. But in 1948. Paul, working on his own, using
> the recently invented tape recorder, had been experimenting with
> overdubbing.
> In his garage, he had recorded a version of the song 'Lover" in which he
> played EIGHT different guitar parts. When a Capitol Records producer heard
> it, it was immediately released. and became a hit. By 1951. Paul had
> married
> singer Mary Ford and with "How High the Moon" had combined himself doing
> multiple guitar parts along with Mary ford singing duets with herself and
> the
> addition of artificial reverb (accomplished with an endless loop of tape
> and
> multiple play-back heads situated a few millimeters apart). The result was
> astounding (in its day) and the record sold millions.
>
> Multitrack came along in the mid-sixties and while a useful tool for pop
> music, it was a disaster for classical and jazz. Multitrack classical
> recordings (especially the early ones using first-gen transistor
> electronics), for the most part, sound simply dreadful.
>

Thank you for confirming that my memory hasn't slipped that much.
Essentially this is the timeline I suggested in the paragraph above.
I certainly knew Les Paul invented overdubbing way back in the forties (my
dad actually knew him since he did many of the circa '40's era tape
instalations.) We had all his early recordings at home. But multitracking
for pop as we know it took off in the mid-late sixties as both you and I
state above.

>>>
>>> About 10 years before the introduction of the CD it was pretty clear
>>> that
>>> the rate of worthwhile improvements to the cutting and duplication
>>> process
>>> had pretty well worked themselves out, and that dramatic changes such
>>> as
>>> optical recording and digital encoding were required for further
>>> improvements. It was not clear until the near the end exactly what the
>>> next
>>> step would be. The alternative enhanced technologies involved RF and FM.
>>
>> So from about '73 to '83, vinyl recording was maxed out. I can buy this
>> ... it conincided (not coincidently) with perhaps the finest recorded
>> studio sounds and LP reproduction that pop groups ever had.
>>
>>>> By the 1980s LPs were mass market and
>>>> vinyl quality was routinely $hit (this is memory, not
>>>> guessing). And so to digital.
>>>
>>> Actually, vinyl quality was crap all along, if you included 45 rpm
>>> singles
>>> as part of that technology. The geometry was wrong, the packaging was
>>> slipshod, and materials quality could be literally bottom of the barrel
>>> (of
>>> reground records). Towards the end there was some work on materials
>>> quality
>>> and disc construction, which led to some really thin disks. Perhaps
>>> counter-intuitively, thin discs are not necessarily a problem, and thick
>>> discs are not necessarily an improvement.
>>
>> Actually, vinyl quality was not a widespread problem until the '80's.
>> The
>> quote above yours was correct.
>>
>> Also, anybody who bought both thin vinyl and thick vinyl has known from
>> experience that thin vinyl warps more readily and more severely.
>
> Except for RCA's Dyna-Disc process. I have a number of these thin, floppy
> LPs. Not a one has warped in 30 years. OTOH, other cheap, thin LPs do warp
> much more readily than do the thicker ones!

Again, thanks for confirming my observation.

Scott[_6_]

December 23rd 09, 12:09 PM

On Dec 22, 4:25=A0pm, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Scott" > wrote in message
>
>
>
> > On Dec 22, 6:01=3DA0am, "Arny Krueger" >
> > wrote:
> >> "Scott" > wrote in message
>
>
>
> >>> I would be very surprised if there weren't any such
> >>> papers on the sort of technology utilized by Goldmund,
> >>> Versa, Rockport, Forsell and Basis.
> >> IOW, no supporting facts at all - 100% speculation.
> > Not at all Arny. Just because I didn't really want to go
> > on some easter egg hunt for papers on the technology that
> > went into those products doesn't mean there are no
> > supporting facts.
>
> That's the high price of credibility - actually being able to document on=
e's
> claims.

I said I wasn't interested not that I wasn't able. But if you are
worried about credibility you might want to think twice before asking
for someone cite scientific papers supporting technology like low
tolerance high preasure airbearings, modern composite materials that
offer lower mass and higher stiffness or active pneumatic suspensions
for isolation.

>
> Yes, it can take a little work.
>
> I see no documentation of some pretty expectional claims.

Again if you are really worried about credibility you might want to
reconcider your assertion that my claims are exceptional. You really
doubt there is science behind things like low tolerance high preasure
airbearings, modern low mass high stiffness materials or active
pneumatic suspensions?

Arny Krueger

December 23rd 09, 03:09 PM

"Scott" > wrote in message

> On Dec 22, 4:25=A0pm, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>> "Scott" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Dec 22, 6:01=3DA0am, "Arny Krueger"
>>> > wrote:
>>>> "Scott" > wrote in message
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> I would be very surprised if there weren't any such
>>>>> papers on the sort of technology utilized by Goldmund,
>>>>> Versa, Rockport, Forsell and Basis.
>>>> IOW, no supporting facts at all - 100% speculation.
>>> Not at all Arny. Just because I didn't really want to go
>>> on some easter egg hunt for papers on the technology
>>> that went into those products doesn't mean there are no
>>> supporting facts.
>>
>> That's the high price of credibility - actually being
>> able to document on= e's claims.
>
> I said I wasn't interested not that I wasn't able.

Scott, This statement sounds like a guy who claims he can run a 3 minute
mile, but isn't interested in actually doing so.

> But if
> you are worried about credibility you might want to think
> twice before asking for someone cite scientific papers
> supporting technology like low tolerance high preasure
> airbearings, modern composite materials that offer lower
> mass and higher stiffness or active pneumatic suspensions
> for isolation.

Supporting raw technology is one thing, showing that it actually audibly
improves the sound quality of vinyl performance is something else.

AFAIK, neither thing has shown up on RAHE.

There are some great papers that have been cited here about vinyl playback
particualrly from the JAES, but they all show how it is inherently a highly
limited format. Digital isn't just eyewash, it pushed the performance of the
media so high that the basic limitations of music recording and playback are
all someplace else. The LP could never do that.

>> Yes, it can take a little work.
>>
>> I see no documentation of some pretty exceptional claims.
>
> Again if you are really worried about credibility you
> might want to reconsider your assertion that my claims
> are exceptional. You really doubt there is science behind
> things like low tolerance high pressure air,
> modern low mass high stiffness materials or active
> pneumatic suspensions?

Air bearings have been around for at least 5 decades that I know of. The
Empire 598 turntable had air damped suspension, back in the middle 1960s.
Again, what still seems to be lacking is any reliable evidence that they
actually do any good, as far as listening quality goes.

Arny Krueger

December 23rd 09, 03:36 PM

"Dick Pierce" > wrote in message

> Audio Empire wrote:
>> On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 06:20:53 -0800, Harry Lavo wrote
>>> The "early days of stereo" (so far as LP's were
>>> concerned) was in 1957-58. Multitrack recorders and
>>> studio effects didn't come into widespread use until
>>> the late '60's/early '70's. Your timeline is off.
>>
>> Multitrack came along in the mid-sixties and while a
>> useful tool for pop music, it was a disaster for
>> classical and jazz. Multitrack classical recordings
>> (especially the early ones using first-gen transistor
>> electronics), for the most part, sound simply dreadful.
>
> Indeed, Columbia was pretty heavy into classical
> multi-tracking already in the 1960s. For example, all of
> the E. Power Biggs recordings done on the Flentrop organ
> at Harvard were multi- tracked, starting in the early
> 1960's. Great instrument, interesting performances,
> somewhat weird recordings.

The very idea of multitracking this instrument is pretty amusing.

http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/~organ/images/flentrop.jpg

To summarize, it is a relatively small, very compact, particularly narrow
neo-baroque instrument in a large, live, extremely reverberent, highly
diffusive hall.

The audience's soundstage will be dominated by reflections and
reverberations from the room. The person playing it might be outside the
critical distance, or not! No matter where one sits in the audience seating
area, there will be little if any sense as to the relative or actual
locations of the pipes. The sound might be so diffuse that a blindfolded
person might not be able to tell which end of the hall houses the organ.

I can see recording it with a goodly number of mics and tracks, but only
once or a very few times for the purpose of thoughtfully selecting just a
few mics for the recording that was ultimately sold. Once I figured out the
most characteristic micing location, a well-placed coincident pair might
suffice.

Audio Empire

December 23rd 09, 06:24 PM

On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 07:36:11 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article >):

> "Dick Pierce" > wrote in message
>
>> Audio Empire wrote:
>>> On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 06:20:53 -0800, Harry Lavo wrote
>>>> The "early days of stereo" (so far as LP's were
>>>> concerned) was in 1957-58. Multitrack recorders and
>>>> studio effects didn't come into widespread use until
>>>> the late '60's/early '70's. Your timeline is off.
>>>
>>> Multitrack came along in the mid-sixties and while a
>>> useful tool for pop music, it was a disaster for
>>> classical and jazz. Multitrack classical recordings
>>> (especially the early ones using first-gen transistor
>>> electronics), for the most part, sound simply dreadful.
>>
>> Indeed, Columbia was pretty heavy into classical
>> multi-tracking already in the 1960s. For example, all of
>> the E. Power Biggs recordings done on the Flentrop organ
>> at Harvard were multi- tracked, starting in the early
>> 1960's. Great instrument, interesting performances,
>> somewhat weird recordings.
>
> The very idea of multitracking this instrument is pretty amusing.
>
> http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/~organ/images/flentrop.jpg
>
> To summarize, it is a relatively small, very compact, particularly narrow
> neo-baroque instrument in a large, live, extremely reverberent, highly
> diffusive hall.
>
> The audience's soundstage will be dominated by reflections and
> reverberations from the room. The person playing it might be outside the
> critical distance, or not! No matter where one sits in the audience seating
> area, there will be little if any sense as to the relative or actual
> locations of the pipes. The sound might be so diffuse that a blindfolded
> person might not be able to tell which end of the hall houses the organ.
>
> I can see recording it with a goodly number of mics and tracks, but only
> once or a very few times for the purpose of thoughtfully selecting just a
> few mics for the recording that was ultimately sold. Once I figured out the
> most characteristic micing location, a well-placed coincident pair might
> suffice.
>
>

With classical music, a coincident, Blumlein, or M-S stereo pair is ALWAYS
preferable to multi-miking. I've never heard a multi-miked, multi-track
classical recording that didn't sound like crap. Even spaced omnis is
preferable to multi-miking. Of course, I'm speaking from a listener's
perspective. I understand the economics of multi-miking/multi track, I just
don't think it serves the music very well. I also don't agree with the
three-channel mono methodology that has dominated small jazz ensemble
recording for so long.

Arny Krueger

December 23rd 09, 07:51 PM

"Audio Empire" > wrote in message

> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 07:36:11 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
> (in article >):
>
>> "Dick Pierce" > wrote in message
>>
>>> Audio Empire wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 06:20:53 -0800, Harry Lavo wrote
>>>>> The "early days of stereo" (so far as LP's were
>>>>> concerned) was in 1957-58. Multitrack recorders and
>>>>> studio effects didn't come into widespread use until
>>>>> the late '60's/early '70's. Your timeline is off.
>>>>
>>>> Multitrack came along in the mid-sixties and while a
>>>> useful tool for pop music, it was a disaster for
>>>> classical and jazz. Multitrack classical recordings
>>>> (especially the early ones using first-gen transistor
>>>> electronics), for the most part, sound simply dreadful.
>>>
>>> Indeed, Columbia was pretty heavy into classical
>>> multi-tracking already in the 1960s. For example, all of
>>> the E. Power Biggs recordings done on the Flentrop organ
>>> at Harvard were multi- tracked, starting in the early
>>> 1960's. Great instrument, interesting performances,
>>> somewhat weird recordings.
>>
>> The very idea of multitracking this instrument is pretty
>> amusing.
>>
>> http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/~organ/images/flentrop.jpg
>>
>> To summarize, it is a relatively small, very compact,
>> particularly narrow neo-baroque instrument in a large,
>> live, extremely reverberent, highly diffusive hall.
>>
>> The audience's soundstage will be dominated by
>> reflections and reverberations from the room. The person
>> playing it might be outside the critical distance, or
>> not! No matter where one sits in the audience seating
>> area, there will be little if any sense as to the
>> relative or actual locations of the pipes. The sound
>> might be so diffuse that a blindfolded person might not
>> be able to tell which end of the hall houses the organ.
>>
>> I can see recording it with a goodly number of mics and
>> tracks, but only once or a very few times for the
>> purpose of thoughtfully selecting just a few mics for
>> the recording that was ultimately sold. Once I figured
>> out the most characteristic micing location, a
>> well-placed coincident pair might suffice.

> With classical music, a coincident, Blumlein, or M-S
> stereo pair is ALWAYS preferable to multi-miking.

If wishes were fishes...

Note that my comments related to one particular situation. I've seen organs
with vastly different physical configurations where multi-micing and even
multi-channel playback might work a treat. The very large organ in the Fox
Theatre here in Detroit comes to mind.

> I've never heard a multi-miked, multi-track classical
> recording that didn't sound like crap.

I don't think that it is possible to know for sure how every classical
recording is miced.

> Even spaced omnis is preferable to multi-miking.

Now that has got to be hyperbole!

> Of course, I'm speaking from a listener's perspective. I understand the
> economics
> of multi-miking/multi track, I just don't think it serves
> the music very well.

Please explain why you think that multi-miking/multi track can't serve the
music well.

> I also don't agree with the
> three-channel mono methodology that has dominated small
> jazz ensemble recording for so long.

I'm all about what sounds good. Multi-mono approaches tend towards a phasey,
sort of almost seasick sort of sound in many cases.

Scott[_6_]

December 23rd 09, 07:51 PM

On Dec 23, 7:09=A0am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Scott" > wrote in message
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 22, 4:25=3DA0pm, "Arny Krueger" >
> > wrote:
> >> "Scott" > wrote in message
>
>
>
> >>> On Dec 22, 6:01=3D3DA0am, "Arny Krueger"
> >>> > wrote:
> >>>> "Scott" > wrote in message
>
>
>
> >>>>> I would be very surprised if there weren't any such
> >>>>> papers on the sort of technology utilized by Goldmund,
> >>>>> Versa, Rockport, Forsell and Basis.
> >>>> IOW, no supporting facts at all - 100% speculation.
> >>> Not at all Arny. Just because I didn't really want to go
> >>> on some easter egg hunt for papers on the technology
> >>> that went into those products doesn't mean there are no
> >>> supporting facts.
>
> >> That's the high price of credibility - actually being
> >> able to document on=3D e's claims.
>
> > I said I wasn't interested not that I wasn't able.
>
> Scott, This statement sounds =A0like a guy who claims he can run a 3 minu=
te
> mile, but isn't interested in actually doing so.

Argument by incredulity is nothing more than a logical fallacy. How
you personally percieve these things has no bearing on their validity.

>
> > But if
> > you are worried about credibility you might want to think
> > twice before asking for someone cite scientific papers
> > supporting technology like low tolerance high preasure
> > airbearings, modern composite materials that offer lower
> > mass and higher stiffness or active pneumatic suspensions
> > for isolation.
>
> Supporting raw technology is one thing, showing that it actually audibly
> improves the sound quality of vinyl performance is something else.

So you are of the position that bearing quality, stiffness to mass
ratios and isolation from mechanical feedback do not affect vinyl
playback performance?

>
> AFAIK, neither thing has shown up on RAHE.

neither your knowledge nor the archives of RAHE have any bearing on
the significance of bearing performance, effects of material used or
effects of mechanical feedback on vinyl playback. Those things are
what they are regardless of your knowledge or any discussions on RAHE.
If you have any published scientific studies that suggest none of
these things are a factor in vinyl playback performance feel free to
cite them. So far all we have is your personal opinions.

>
> There are some great papers that have been cited here about vinyl playbac=
k
> particualrly from the JAES, but they all show how it is inherently a high=
ly
> limited format. Digital isn't just eyewash, it pushed the performance of =
the
> media so high that the basic limitations of music recording and playback =
are
> all someplace else. The LP could never do that.

Do tell us which ones actually did DBTs with SOTA equipment to see
which could actually deliver a better illusion of live music.

>
> >> Yes, it can take a little work.
>
> >> I see no documentation of some pretty exceptional claims.
>
> > Again if you are really worried about credibility you
> > might want to reconsider your assertion that my claims
> > are exceptional. You really doubt there is science behind
> > things like low tolerance high pressure air,
> > modern low mass high stiffness materials or active
> > pneumatic suspensions?
>
> Air bearings have been around for at least 5 decades that I know of.

I did not say that any of these designers invented airbearings. What i
did say was that their implimentation of them was a breakthrough in
performance. If you have some scientific evidence that shows bearing
performance for turntables and pickup arms do not affect the
performance of them please cite it.

>The
> Empire 598 turntable had air damped suspension, back in the middle 1960s.

I did not claim that any of these rigs introduced suspensions to the
world of turntables. However the active pneumatic suspension fo the
Rockport was a significant jump over anything used prior to the
commercial release of CDs. Do you really want to argue that all
suspensions are equal and don't affect turntable performance?

> Again, what still seems to be lacking is any reliable evidence that they
> actually do any good, as far as listening quality goes

Please feel free to show us any published scientific evidence that
materials, bearing qaulity and isolation do not affect vinyl playback
performance.

Audio Empire

December 23rd 09, 07:51 PM

On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 07:09:43 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article >):

> "Scott" > wrote in message
>
>> On Dec 22, 4:25=A0pm, "Arny Krueger" >
>> wrote:
>>> "Scott" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Dec 22, 6:01=3DA0am, "Arny Krueger"
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>> "Scott" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>> I would be very surprised if there weren't any such
>>>>>> papers on the sort of technology utilized by Goldmund,
>>>>>> Versa, Rockport, Forsell and Basis.
>>>>> IOW, no supporting facts at all - 100% speculation.
>>>> Not at all Arny. Just because I didn't really want to go
>>>> on some easter egg hunt for papers on the technology
>>>> that went into those products doesn't mean there are no
>>>> supporting facts.
>>>
>>> That's the high price of credibility - actually being
>>> able to document on= e's claims.
>>
>> I said I wasn't interested not that I wasn't able.
>
> Scott, This statement sounds like a guy who claims he can run a 3 minute
> mile, but isn't interested in actually doing so.
>
>> But if
>> you are worried about credibility you might want to think
>> twice before asking for someone cite scientific papers
>> supporting technology like low tolerance high preasure
>> airbearings, modern composite materials that offer lower
>> mass and higher stiffness or active pneumatic suspensions
>> for isolation.
>
> Supporting raw technology is one thing, showing that it actually audibly
> improves the sound quality of vinyl performance is something else.
>
> AFAIK, neither thing has shown up on RAHE.
>
> There are some great papers that have been cited here about vinyl playback
> particualrly from the JAES, but they all show how it is inherently a highly
> limited format. Digital isn't just eyewash, it pushed the performance of the
> media so high that the basic limitations of music recording and playback are
> all someplace else. The LP could never do that.

While what you say is correct, it in no way disqualifies LP as a viable
source for music as you seem to maintain.

>>> Yes, it can take a little work.
>>>
>>> I see no documentation of some pretty exceptional claims.
>>
>> Again if you are really worried about credibility you
>> might want to reconsider your assertion that my claims
>> are exceptional. You really doubt there is science behind
>> things like low tolerance high pressure air,
>> modern low mass high stiffness materials or active
>> pneumatic suspensions?
>
> Air bearings have been around for at least 5 decades that I know of. The
> Empire 598 turntable had air damped suspension, back in the middle 1960s.
> Again, what still seems to be lacking is any reliable evidence that they
> actually do any good, as far as listening quality goes.

Most of it is simple physics. A properly set-up and damped suspension on a
turntable can protect playback from structure and air-bourn feedback as well
as protecting playback from skipping due to footfalls and weak floors. There
are many different routes to this result of which air damped suspensions,
spring suspensions, elastic band suspensions and even pressurized air or oil
suspensions are but some of the methodologies that will get a turntable to
that state. All of them work fine if properly designed, and that's just a
question of the application of well known mechanical engineering principles.

Most turntable improvements over the last quarter-century are related to
materials technology. Some of it is probably a sales gimmick, but much of the
things seen in modern turntable technology do allow for more information to
be gleaned from the grooves than was possible before. I have an Empire 598
and a Michele Gyrodeck SE (with an Audioquest PT-9 arm) and as much as I love
the looks of the 598, the Gyrodeck simply retrieves more information from the
grooves (both have the same cartridge/ pre-amp) than does the Empire. These
things do make a huge difference. I remember well when I placed a lead-filled
Nagaoka record mat on the Empire. The difference in bass was astounding, and
is easy to do double-blind. There is NO doubt when the Nagaoka was in place
instead of the turntable's own ribbed-rubber mat. The bass amplitude is
greater, the bass is more focused and tighter and using a test record and an
audio voltmeter, the difference in amplitude below 50 Hz is easily measured.
The Michele Gyrodeck with its acrylic platter doesn't need a lead-filled mat.
It accomplishes similar low-end performance without it. The Gyrodeck also
exhibits improved immunity from feedback, is more stable with regard to
footfalls on the floor, has a better midrange and smoother highs from the
same cartridge and preamp that the 598 uses. The difference is really quite
eye-opening. Turntable design and the materials used DO make a difference.

Arny Krueger

December 24th 09, 01:26 AM

"Scott" > wrote in message

> On Dec 23, 7:09=A0am, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:

>> Supporting raw technology is one thing, showing that it
>> actually audibly improves the sound quality of vinyl
>> performance is something else.

> So you are of the position that bearing quality,
> stiffness to mass ratios and isolation from mechanical
> feedback do not affect vinyl playback performance?

Excluded middle argument.

First, quality bearings have been around for decades. Bearing quality in the
better ca. 1970 turntables was good enough that rumble from the best cutting
lathes became the weakest link.

>> AFAIK, neither thing has shown up on RAHE.

> neither your knowledge nor the archives of RAHE have any
> bearing on the significance of bearing performance,
> effects of material used or effects of mechanical
> feedback on vinyl playback.

If reliable documentation of these claims exist, why hasn't it shown up on
RAHE? Certainly, there has been no problem finding reliable documentation
of the inherent failings of the vinyl vormat.

> Those things are what they
> are regardless of your knowledge or any discussions on
> RAHE.

If these materials exist, why is finding them so difficult? Are you saying
that only vinyl critics are capable of doing their homework?

> If you have any published scientific studies that
> suggest none of these things are a factor in vinyl
> playback performance feel free to cite them.

Been there, done that.

> So far all we have is your personal opinions.

Denial isn't a river in Africa.

>> There are some great papers that have been cited here
>> about vinyl playback particualrly from the JAES, but
>> they all show how it is inherently a highly limited
>> format. Digital isn't just eyewash, it pushed the
>> performance of the media so high that the basic
>> limitations of music recording and playback are all
>> someplace else. The LP could never do that.

> Do tell us which ones actually did DBTs with SOTA
> equipment to see which could actually deliver a better
> illusion of live music.

Been there, done that. The sonic transparency of good digital equipment was
demonstrated even before the CD format was delivered to the general public:

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

>>
>>>> Yes, it can take a little work.
>>
>>>> I see no documentation of some pretty exceptional
>>>> claims.
>>
>>> Again if you are really worried about credibility you
>>> might want to reconsider your assertion that my claims
>>> are exceptional. You really doubt there is science
>>> behind things like low tolerance high pressure air,
>>> modern low mass high stiffness materials or active
>> pneumatic suspensions?

>> Air bearings have been around for at least 5 decades
>> that I know of.

> I did not say that any of these designers invented
> airbearings. What i did say was that their implimentation
> of them was a breakthrough in performance.

Saying so does not make it so. Where are the test results showing dramatic
improvements in technical or reliable listening comparisons?

>If you have
> some scientific evidence that shows bearing performance
> for turntables and pickup arms do not affect the
> performance of them please cite it.

Not the job of the critic, but the job of the advocate.

>> The
>> Empire 598 turntable had air damped suspension, back in
>> the middle 1960s.
>
> I did not claim that any of these rigs introduced
> suspensions to the world of turntables. However the
> active pneumatic suspension fo the Rockport was a
> significant jump over anything used prior to the
> commercial release of CDs.

Where are the reliable listening tests or technical test results that show
that?

> Do you really want to argue
> that all suspensions are equal and don't affect turntable
> performance?

Not the job of the critic, but the job of the advocate.

>> Again, what still seems to be lacking is any reliable
>> evidence that they actually do any good, as far as
>> listening quality goes

> Please feel free to show us any published scientific
> evidence that materials, bearing qaulity and isolation do
> not affect vinyl playback performance.

Not the job of the critic, but the job of the advocate.

Audio Empire

December 24th 09, 03:14 PM

On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 17:26:35 -0800, ScottW wrote
(in article >):

> On Dec 23, 11:51=A0am, Audio Empire > wrote:
>>
>> Most of it is simple physics. A properly set-up and damped suspension on =
> a
>> turntable can protect playback from structure and air-bourn feedback as w=
> ell
>> as protecting playback from skipping due to footfalls and weak floors. Th=
> ere
>> are many different routes to this result of which air damped suspensions,
>> spring suspensions, elastic band suspensions and even pressurized air or =
> oil
>> suspensions are but some of the methodologies that will get a turntable t=
> o
>> that state. All of them work fine if properly designed, and that's just a
>> question of the application of well known mechanical engineering principl=
> es.
>>
>> Most turntable improvements over the last quarter-century are related to
>> materials technology. Some of it is probably a sales gimmick, but much of=
> the
>> things seen in modern turntable technology do allow for more information =
> to
>> be gleaned from the grooves than was possible before. I have an Empire 59=
> 8
>> and a Michele Gyrodeck SE (with an Audioquest PT-9 arm) and as much as I =
> love
>> the looks of the 598, the Gyrodeck simply retrieves more information from=
> the
>> grooves (both have the same cartridge/ pre-amp) than does the Empire. The=
> se
>> things do make a huge difference. I remember well when I placed a lead-fi=
> lled
>> Nagaoka record mat on the Empire. The difference in bass was astounding, =
> and
>> is easy to do double-blind. There is NO doubt when the Nagaoka was in pla=
> ce
>> instead of the turntable's own ribbed-rubber mat. The bass amplitude is
>> greater, the bass is more focused and tighter and using a test record and=
> an
>> audio voltmeter, the difference in amplitude below 50 Hz is easily measur=
> ed.
>
>
> I'd like to hear your explanation for this with simple physics if you
> don't mind.
>
> ScottW
>

Easy. The grove is supposed to move the stylus, not the other way 'round.
There are two ways to damp out vinyl resonances: use high, non-resonant mass,
or use a mechanical impedance matching. The heavy. lead-filled Nagaoka rubber
mat does the former, the acrylic platter on the Gyrodeck, obviously does the
latter.

Scott[_6_]

December 24th 09, 03:37 PM

On Dec 23, 5:26=A0pm, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Scott" > wrote in message
>
>
>
> > On Dec 23, 7:09=3DA0am, "Arny Krueger" >
> > wrote:
> >> Supporting raw technology is one thing, showing that it
> >> actually audibly improves the sound quality of vinyl
> >> performance is something else.
> > So you are of the position that bearing quality,
> > stiffness to mass ratios and isolation from mechanical
> > feedback do not affect vinyl playback performance?
>
> Excluded middle argument.
>
> First, quality bearings have been around for decades.

Straw man. I have never said that they have not. What i have said was
that Vers and Rockport introduced a level of qaulity bearings that was
not seen in vinyl playback prior to the introduction of commercial
CDs. 2. quality is a matter of degree not a black or white thing.
There is no such dichotomy that divides the world of bearings into two
groups, quality bearings and non quality bearings.

> Bearing quality in the
> better ca. 1970 turntables was good enough that rumble from the best cutt=
ing
> lathes became the weakest link.

Do you have any scientific papers that support this assertion that all
audible artifacts due to the bearings used in turntables and pickup
arms had been eliminated by the 70s? I'd like to see the results of
DBTs proving this assertion.

>
> >> AFAIK, neither thing has shown up on RAHE.
> > neither your knowledge nor the archives of RAHE have any
> > bearing on the significance of bearing performance,
> > effects of material used or effects of mechanical
> > feedback on vinyl playback.
>
> If reliable documentation of these claims exist, why hasn't it shown up o=
n
> RAHE?

Why would you assume that the existance of scientific evidence of
anything is in any way dependent on your ability to find it in the
RAHE archives?

> =A0Certainly, there has been no problem finding reliable documentation
> of the inherent failings of the vinyl vormat.

I'm not so certain about that.

>
> > Those things are what they
> > are regardless of your knowledge or any discussions on
> > RAHE.
>
> If these materials exist, why is finding them so difficult?

I don't know whay it is difficult for you. I have had no problem
finding information on the materials used in making these rigs and I
have had no problem finding information on their properties.

> Are you saying
> that only vinyl critics are capable of doing their homework?

No.

>
> > If you have any published scientific studies that
> > suggest none of these things are a factor in vinyl
> > playback performance feel free to cite them.
>
> Been there, done that.

Sorry but personal testimony is no substitute for evidence. I'll take
your failure to produce any such evidence when directly asked to do so
to mean that you actually don't have any published studies that
support the assertion that bearings, isolation and materials make no
difference in the audible performance of vinyl playback.

>
> > So far all we have is your personal opinions.
>
> Denial isn't a river in Africa.

OK.....

>
> >> There are some great papers that have been cited here
> >> about vinyl playback particualrly from the JAES, but
> >> they all show how it is inherently a highly limited
> >> format. Digital isn't just eyewash, it pushed the
> >> performance of the media so high that the basic
> >> limitations of music recording and playback are all
> >> someplace else. The LP could never do that.
> > Do tell us which ones actually did DBTs with SOTA
> > equipment to see which could actually deliver a better
> > illusion of live music.
>
> Been there, done that.

Sorry but personal testimony is no substitute for evidence. I'll take
your failure to produce any such evidence when directly asked to do so
to mean that you actually don't have any published studies that
support the position that CD offers a more convincing illusion of live
music than vinyl playback.

> The sonic transparency of good digital equipment was
> demonstrated even before the CD format was delivered to the general publi=
c:

The question was in regards to convincing illusions of live music.

>
> >>>> Yes, it can take a little work.
>
> >>>> I see no documentation of some pretty exceptional
> >>>> claims.
>
> >>> Again if you are really worried about credibility you
> >>> might want to reconsider your assertion that my claims
> >>> are exceptional. You really doubt there is science
> >>> behind things like low tolerance high pressure air,
> >>> modern low mass high stiffness materials or active
> >> pneumatic suspensions?
> >> Air bearings have been around for at least 5 decades
> >> that I know of.
> > I did not say that any of these designers invented
> > airbearings. What i did say was that their implimentation
> > of them was a breakthrough in performance.
>
> Saying so does not make it so.

Denying it doesn't make it not so.

> Where are the test results showing dramatic
> improvements in technical or reliable listening comparisons?

Where are the test results showing that they made no audible
difference?

>
> >If you have
> > some scientific evidence that shows bearing performance
> > for turntables and pickup arms do not affect the
> > performance of them please cite it.
>
> Not the job of the critic, but the job of the advocate.

Clearly you are an advocate for the extraordinary claim that there
have been no advancements in the state of vinyl playback performance
since the 70s. Clearly you have offered no evidence to support that
position even when directly asked for that evidence.

>
> >> The
> >> Empire 598 turntable had air damped suspension, back in
> >> the middle 1960s.
>
> > I did not claim that any of these rigs introduced
> > suspensions to the world of turntables. However the
> > active pneumatic suspension fo the Rockport was a
> > significant jump over anything used prior to the
> > commercial release of CDs.
>
> Where are the reliable listening tests or technical test results that sho=
w
> that?

the big question is what are the thresholds of audible feedback in
vinyl playback. The degree of isolation of active pneumatic isolation
systems is pretty easy to find. I suggest you look up the vibraplane
to see for yourself. If you have some published studies that show the
rigs of the 70s had already passed any and all thresholds for audible
feedback please feel free to cite them. Please note that while the
Vibraplane offers superb isolation, the integrated system on the
Rockport is arguably better. but that is neither here nor there since
the comparison is with the isolation built into the rigs from the 70s.

>
> > Do you really want to argue
> > that all suspensions are equal and don't affect turntable
> > performance?
>
> Not the job of the critic, but the job of the advocate.

But you are the advocate of the extraordinary claim that all
suspensions are equal and don't affect turntable performance. Here is
a primer on how isolation works. Certainly if one understands thsi
primer it should be quite obvious that not all isolation systems are
equal. http://www.kineticsystems.com/page306.html
Here is a primer on the effects of mechanical feedback on vinyl
playback complete with measurements. http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/turntables/=
feedback.html

>
> >> Again, what still seems to be lacking is any reliable
> >> evidence that they actually do any good, as far as
> >> listening quality goes
> > Please feel free to show us any published scientific
> > evidence that materials, bearing qaulity and isolation do
> > not affect vinyl playback performance.
>
> Not the job of the critic, but the job of the advocate

IOW you are a complete no show when directly asked to offer scientific
support for any of your assertions.

Audio Empire

December 24th 09, 03:52 PM

On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 11:51:02 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article >):

> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
>
>> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 07:36:11 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
>> (in article >):
>>
>>> "Dick Pierce" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>> Audio Empire wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 06:20:53 -0800, Harry Lavo wrote
>>>>>> The "early days of stereo" (so far as LP's were
>>>>>> concerned) was in 1957-58. Multitrack recorders and
>>>>>> studio effects didn't come into widespread use until
>>>>>> the late '60's/early '70's. Your timeline is off.
>>>>>
>>>>> Multitrack came along in the mid-sixties and while a
>>>>> useful tool for pop music, it was a disaster for
>>>>> classical and jazz. Multitrack classical recordings
>>>>> (especially the early ones using first-gen transistor
>>>>> electronics), for the most part, sound simply dreadful.
>>>>
>>>> Indeed, Columbia was pretty heavy into classical
>>>> multi-tracking already in the 1960s. For example, all of
>>>> the E. Power Biggs recordings done on the Flentrop organ
>>>> at Harvard were multi- tracked, starting in the early
>>>> 1960's. Great instrument, interesting performances,
>>>> somewhat weird recordings.
>>>
>>> The very idea of multitracking this instrument is pretty
>>> amusing.
>>>
>>> http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/~organ/images/flentrop.jpg
>>>
>>> To summarize, it is a relatively small, very compact,
>>> particularly narrow neo-baroque instrument in a large,
>>> live, extremely reverberent, highly diffusive hall.
>>>
>>> The audience's soundstage will be dominated by
>>> reflections and reverberations from the room. The person
>>> playing it might be outside the critical distance, or
>>> not! No matter where one sits in the audience seating
>>> area, there will be little if any sense as to the
>>> relative or actual locations of the pipes. The sound
>>> might be so diffuse that a blindfolded person might not
>>> be able to tell which end of the hall houses the organ.
>>>
>>> I can see recording it with a goodly number of mics and
>>> tracks, but only once or a very few times for the
>>> purpose of thoughtfully selecting just a few mics for
>>> the recording that was ultimately sold. Once I figured
>>> out the most characteristic micing location, a
>>> well-placed coincident pair might suffice.
>
>> With classical music, a coincident, Blumlein, or M-S
>> stereo pair is ALWAYS preferable to multi-miking.
>
> If wishes were fishes...
>
> Note that my comments related to one particular situation. I've seen organs
> with vastly different physical configurations where multi-micing and even
> multi-channel playback might work a treat. The very large organ in the Fox
> Theatre here in Detroit comes to mind.
>
>> I've never heard a multi-miked, multi-track classical
>> recording that didn't sound like crap.
>
> I don't think that it is possible to know for sure how every classical
> recording is miced.

I can tell a multi-miked recording in seconds after it starts.
>
>> Even spaced omnis is preferable to multi-miking.
>
> Now that has got to be hyperbole!

Not at all. All of the Mercury Living Presence recordings were done with
spaced omnis as were many of the Telarcs, especially the early ones. While
they don't image as well as a coincident, Blumlein, or an M-S stereo pair,
and tend to phasing problems, they image better than do multimiked/multitrack
(which have no acoustic image at all). Note that when I say
multimiked/multitracked I don't refer to a proper stereo pair with highlight
mikes on some instruments. I mean a recording where each instrument or
grouping has its own microphone (and sometimes its own track) and is
"pan-potted" into place in the final mix).

>> Of course, I'm speaking from a listener's perspective. I understand the
>> economics
>> of multi-miking/multi track, I just don't think it serves
>> the music very well.
>
> Please explain why you think that multi-miking/multi track can't serve the
> music well.,

First of all, multi-miked/multi track recordings aren't stereo. They are
multiple channel mono with the instrument's positions pan-potted into place.
Close, multiple-miking captures the instruments themselves, not the SPACE
that the instruments occupy. Secondly a string section, for instance, cannot
be made to sound like a string section by mixing the individual violins
together from separate tracks or separate mikes. When strings (or woodwinds,
or brasses) are miked individually and then mixed together electronically,
they don't sound the same as they do when miked as a complete ensemble. In
fact the entire orchestra or wind ensemble or string quartet etc., does not
sound the same close-miked and multi-miked/multi-tracked as they do when
recorded with a proper true stereo microphone technique. Lastly,
multi-miked/multi-track recordings do not image. I have stereo miked
recordings where I can close my eyes and point to every instrument in the
group. That's right-to-left as well as front-to-back. In a proper stereo
recording those positioning clues ARE there, in a multi-miked/multi-track
recording they are NOT there because they weren't captured in the first
place.

>> I also don't agree with the
>> three-channel mono methodology that has dominated small
>> jazz ensemble recording for so long.
>
> I'm all about what sounds good. Multi-mono approaches tend towards a phasey,
> sort of almost seasick sort of sound in many cases.

I'm all about what sounds REAL. YOu have two ears, not twenty, You only need
two microphones to record any musical performance of live instruments played
in a real acoustic space; pop recordings (which have a different set of
values) notwithstanding.

Fred.

December 25th 09, 01:48 AM

On Dec 24, 10:52=A0am, Audio Empire > wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 11:51:02 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
> (in article >):

[ Excessive quotation snipped --dsr ]

> > I don't think that it is possible to know for sure how every classical
> > recording is miced.
>
> I can tell a multi-miked recording in seconds after it starts.
>
>
>
> >> Even spaced omnis is preferable to multi-miking.
>
> > Now that has got to be hyperbole!
>
> Not at all. All of the Mercury Living Presence recordings were done with
> spaced omnis as were many of the Telarcs, especially the early ones. Whil=
e
> they don't image as well as a =A0coincident, Blumlein, or an M-S stereo p=
air,
> and tend to phasing problems, they image better than do multimiked/multit=
rack
> (which have no acoustic image at all). Note that when I say
> multimiked/multitracked I don't refer to a proper stereo pair with highli=
ght
> mikes on some instruments. I mean a recording where each instrument or
> grouping has its own microphone (and sometimes its own track) and is
> "pan-potted" into place in the final mix).
>
> >> Of course, I'm speaking from a listener's perspective. I understand th=
e
> >> economics
> >> of multi-miking/multi track, I just don't think it serves
> >> the music very well.
>
> > Please explain why you think that =A0multi-miking/multi track can't ser=
ve the
> > music well.,
>
> First of all, multi-miked/multi track recordings aren't stereo. They are
> multiple channel mono with the instrument's positions pan-potted into pla=
ce.
> Close, multiple-miking captures the instruments themselves, not the SPACE
> that the instruments occupy. Secondly a string section, for instance, can=
not
> be made to sound like a string section by mixing the individual violins
> together from separate tracks or separate mikes. When strings (or woodwin=
ds,
> or brasses) are miked individually and then mixed together electronically=
,
> they don't sound the same as they do when miked as a complete ensemble. I=
n
> fact the entire orchestra or wind ensemble or string quartet etc., does n=
ot
> sound the same close-miked and multi-miked/multi-tracked as they do when
> recorded with a proper true stereo microphone technique. Lastly,
> multi-miked/multi-track recordings do not image. I have stereo miked
> recordings where I can close my eyes and point to every instrument in the
> group. That's right-to-left as well as front-to-back. In a proper stereo
> recording those positioning clues ARE there, in a multi-miked/multi-track
> recording they are NOT there because they weren't captured in the first
> place.
>
> >> I also don't agree with the
> >> three-channel mono methodology that has dominated small
> >> jazz ensemble recording for so long.
>
> > I'm all about what sounds good. Multi-mono approaches tend towards a ph=
asey,
> > sort of almost seasick sort of sound in many cases.
>
> I'm all about what sounds REAL. YOu have two ears, not twenty, You only n=
eed
> two microphones to record any musical performance of live instruments pla=
yed
> in a real acoustic space; pop recordings (which have a different set of
> values) notwithstanding.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I have several early Mercury Living Presence recordings which are
wonderfully spacious, one of them made in the Bolshoi hall of the
Tchakovsky Conservatory of Music. But, the form I have them in is 3-
channel SACD's made from the original 3-channel, not 2-channel,
masters.

It is difficult to compare 2-channel and muli-channel playback simply
because the 2-channel works best in a fairly live room while the muli-
channel requires a relatively dead room. Mild ringing, which only
makes a stero playback seem fuller and more natural, can mutilate a
multi-channel image.

I have a system which compromises by cutting ringing when in multi-
channel and seems a decent compromise, but may still bias my
comparisons. But, I have both stereo and muiti-channel recordings
which sound very good to me.

My experience is that some of my multi-channel recordings have rather
good images, and some have rather poor ones, and there seems to be
very little correlation between the results and the minimalist/heavy
miking philosophy. However, I suspect that the good heavy miking
recordings record tracks of the room ambience as well as instrumental
zones. This last may apply when down-mixed to stereo as well.

Fred.

Andrew Barss[_2_]

December 25th 09, 03:56 PM

Scott > wrote:
:> Supporting raw technology is one thing, showing that it actually audibly
:> improves the sound quality of vinyl performance is something else.

: So you are of the position that bearing quality, stiffness to mass
: ratios and isolation from mechanical feedback do not affect vinyl
: playback performance?

: If you have any published scientific studies that suggest none of
: these things are a factor in vinyl playback performance feel free to
: cite them. So far all we have is your personal opinions.

Isn't the burden of proof on the advocate for the new thing?

I mean, I completely agree that many improvements in technology can
increase function (that's the major reason they're called "improvements").
But at a certain point, either no further improvement is needed (no one
needs speakers that can reproduce 500,000 KHz tones, for example), or it's
measurable but has no effect on the utility of the object, which is what
Arny Kreuger was suggesting for these bearing 'improvements'.

To make an analogy, I can imgine someone putting these

http://www.zszbearing.com/49/standard-high-temperature-bearing-products

into a turntable, a lawnmower, or a bandsaw. But since their advantage is
continued operation under severe temperature extremes, it would be
pointless.

If you look around in the industrial world, there are bearings with all
sorts of wonderful properties, but no all of them are necessary, or
would make any difference at all, in turntables.

Do you see the logic of this point?

If you do, then you'll surely agree that someone building audio component
X with a newfangled, very high-end ingredient (high-temp bearings,
platters flat to .000025 inch across several feet (which are pretty
standard in the machinist industry, for example), exotic materials), etc.
should, as a matter of common sense, be willing to back up claims of
increased performance with independent data as to whether it is audible.

For which, double-blind perception testing is the only game in town.

-- Andy Barss

Audio Empire

December 25th 09, 08:12 PM

On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 17:48:34 -0800, Fred. wrote
(in article >):

> On Dec 24, 10:52=A0am, Audio Empire > wrote:
>> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 11:51:02 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
>> (in article >):
>
> [ Excessive quotation snipped --dsr ]
>
>
>>> I don't think that it is possible to know for sure how every classical
>>> recording is miced.
>>
>> I can tell a multi-miked recording in seconds after it starts.
>>
>>
>>
>>>> Even spaced omnis is preferable to multi-miking.
>>
>>> Now that has got to be hyperbole!
>>
>> Not at all. All of the Mercury Living Presence recordings were done with
>> spaced omnis as were many of the Telarcs, especially the early ones. Whil=
> e
>> they don't image as well as a =A0coincident, Blumlein, or an M-S stereo p=
> air,
>> and tend to phasing problems, they image better than do multimiked/multit=
> rack
>> (which have no acoustic image at all). Note that when I say
>> multimiked/multitracked I don't refer to a proper stereo pair with highli=
> ght
>> mikes on some instruments. I mean a recording where each instrument or
>> grouping has its own microphone (and sometimes its own track) and is
>> "pan-potted" into place in the final mix).
>>
>>>> Of course, I'm speaking from a listener's perspective. I understand th=
> e
>>>> economics
>>>> of multi-miking/multi track, I just don't think it serves
>>>> the music very well.
>>
>>> Please explain why you think that =A0multi-miking/multi track can't ser=
> ve the
>>> music well.,
>>
>> First of all, multi-miked/multi track recordings aren't stereo. They are
>> multiple channel mono with the instrument's positions pan-potted into pla=
> ce.
>> Close, multiple-miking captures the instruments themselves, not the SPACE
>> that the instruments occupy. Secondly a string section, for instance, can=
> not
>> be made to sound like a string section by mixing the individual violins
>> together from separate tracks or separate mikes. When strings (or woodwin=
> ds,
>> or brasses) are miked individually and then mixed together electronically=
> ,
>> they don't sound the same as they do when miked as a complete ensemble. I=
> n
>> fact the entire orchestra or wind ensemble or string quartet etc., does n=
> ot
>> sound the same close-miked and multi-miked/multi-tracked as they do when
>> recorded with a proper true stereo microphone technique. Lastly,
>> multi-miked/multi-track recordings do not image. I have stereo miked
>> recordings where I can close my eyes and point to every instrument in the
>> group. That's right-to-left as well as front-to-back. In a proper stereo
>> recording those positioning clues ARE there, in a multi-miked/multi-track
>> recording they are NOT there because they weren't captured in the first
>> place.
>>
>>>> I also don't agree with the
>>>> three-channel mono methodology that has dominated small
>>>> jazz ensemble recording for so long.
>>
>>> I'm all about what sounds good. Multi-mono approaches tend towards a ph=
> asey,
>>> sort of almost seasick sort of sound in many cases.
>>
>> I'm all about what sounds REAL. YOu have two ears, not twenty, You only n=
> eed
>> two microphones to record any musical performance of live instruments pla=
> yed
>> in a real acoustic space; pop recordings (which have a different set of
>> values) notwithstanding.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> I have several early Mercury Living Presence recordings which are
> wonderfully spacious, one of them made in the Bolshoi hall of the
> Tchakovsky Conservatory of Music. But, the form I have them in is 3-
> channel SACD's made from the original 3-channel, not 2-channel,
> masters.

I have not had the pleasure of hearing any of those, although I have heard OF
them. I'll bet they sound great! Mercury used mostly Telefunken Omnis in
those days and by today's standards, their patterns are about halfway
between an Omni and a mild cardioid. If you tried the same thing today with a
modern true omnidirectional mike, you likely wouldn't get the same results.

> It is difficult to compare 2-channel and muli-channel playback simply
> because the 2-channel works best in a fairly live room while the muli-
> channel requires a relatively dead room. Mild ringing, which only
> makes a stero playback seem fuller and more natural, can mutilate a
> multi-channel image.

Depends on what you are talking about. Classical recordings made with a
forest of microphones and 16 or more "channels" sound like crap (IMHO) no
matter what the playback space is like. The three-channel Mercury's were done
that way, not for stereo, but so that the center mike/channel could be used
to cut the monaural version of the album. In the later stereo Living Presence
recordings, the center channel was mixed equally into both the left and the
right channel. This helped ameliorate some of the phase problems that are
part and parcel of space omnis and in some venues also tended to fill-in for
the "hole-in-the-middle" effect.

> I have a system which compromises by cutting ringing when in multi-
> channel and seems a decent compromise, but may still bias my
> comparisons. But, I have both stereo and muiti-channel recordings
> which sound very good to me.

Except that heavily mult-tracked recordings don't sound anything like a real
orchestra. They can't because there is no REAL soundstage info.
>
> My experience is that some of my multi-channel recordings have rather
> good images, and some have rather poor ones, and there seems to be
> very little correlation between the results and the minimalist/heavy
> miking philosophy. However, I suspect that the good heavy miking
> recordings record tracks of the room ambience as well as instrumental
> zones. This last may apply when down-mixed to stereo as well.

I have found that when a heavily multi-miked/multi-track recording exhibits
anything like a semblance of decent imaging, It's because the recording team
threw-up an overall stereo pair and let the heavy multi-miking and
multi-track methodology be subordinate to the stereo pair.

I still don't like them because instruments don't sound the same up-close as
they do at a distance when mixed in the air that exists between the ensemble
and the audience (even if that audience is a pair of mikes). Electronic
mixing and "air" mixing aren't the same thing and electronic pan-potting
cannot replicate the sound of a homogenous ensemble playing in a real space.

Arny Krueger

December 25th 09, 08:13 PM

"Audio Empire" > wrote in message

> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 11:51:02 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
> (in article >):

>>> I've never heard a multi-miked, multi-track classical
>>> recording that didn't sound like crap.

>> I don't think that it is possible to know for sure how
>> every classical recording is miced.

> I can tell a multi-miked recording in seconds after it
> starts.

Clearly posturing. All multi-miced recordings are not the same. They are
usually made using a device called a mixing console which is notable for its
faders and channel strips, which allow various channels to be mixed in
various ways, at different amplitudes and with differing amounts of delay
and equalization. Furthermore multi-miced recordings are as their name
suggests, made with microphones, which are varied devices that can be used
in varied ways.

>>> Even spaced omnis is preferable to multi-miking.
>>
>> Now that has got to be hyperbole!

> Not at all. All of the Mercury Living Presence recordings
> were done with spaced omnis as were many of the Telarcs,
> especially the early ones.

If what you're saying is that the best examples of spaced-omni recordings
are preferable to the worst and most extreme examples of close micing with
zillions of directional mics then all we have is an excluded middle
argument.

> While they don't image as well
> as a coincident, Blumlein, or an M-S stereo pair, and
> tend to phasing problems, they image better than do
> multimiked/multitrack (which have no acoustic image at
> all).

Imaging is one of those things that is difficult to measure in the lab and
not generally characterized in any standard way. In short, "good imaging" is
a matter of personal taste.

> Note that when I say multimiked/multitracked I
> don't refer to a proper stereo pair with highlight mikes
> on some instruments.

Now an additional wild card is produced at the last moment - multimicing is
defined to be just one of the nearly infinite number of things that it can
possibly be.

> I mean a recording where each
> instrument or grouping has its own microphone (and
> sometimes its own track) and is "pan-potted" into place
> in the final mix).

I can think of several different ways to do that that would be good practice
but yield generally different sonic results.

>>> Of course, I'm speaking from a listener's perspective.
>>> I understand the economics
>>> of multi-miking/multi track, I just don't think it
>>> serves
>>> the music very well.

>> Please explain why you think that multi-miking/multi
>> track can't serve the music well.,

> First of all, multi-miked/multi track recordings aren't
> stereo.

That would be a controversial view.

> They are multiple channel mono with the
> instrument's positions pan-potted into place.

This would be a outdated, simplistic view. As pointed out earlier the
generally-available technical facilities for mixing in 2010 include a wide
variety of signal processing alternatives that include but are hardly
limited to simple pan-potting.

> Close, multiple-miking captures the instruments themselves, not
> the SPACE that the instruments occupy.

This would be another simplistic view. Even if you put contact mics on an
acoustical instrument it acts like a microphone and picks up significant
amounts of its acoustical environment. More typically the instrument is
miced using a more traditional transducer (omni or directional microphone)
operating over an acoustical path. The simple logistics of micing acoustical
instruments (which I am intimately familiar with because I routinely do SR
and recording of an 18 piece orchestra that includes violins, violas,
cellos, flutes, french horns, clarinets, trumpets of various kinds, acoustic
guitar, harp, etc., etc.) inhibit really close micing because a musican
needs space to read the music and play the instrument and enter and leave
his seat.

> Secondly a string
> section, for instance, cannot be made to sound like a
> string section by mixing the individual violins together
> from separate tracks or separate mikes.

"Cannot made" is a very strong statement. Furthermore, you just previously
allowed that one of the objects of mult-micing could be "an instrument
grouping" which avoids the basic problem. I admit it, I tend to mic my
violins and viola as a group with a coincident pair but that's to as much to
economize on microphones as anything else. OTOH, I mic the cello(s)
separately but nobody complains about unnatural sound.

> When strings (or
> woodwinds, or brasses) are miked individually and then
> mixed together electronically, they don't sound the same
> as they do when miked as a complete ensemble.

Says you, based on an apparently limited understanding of the available
options.

> In fact the
> entire orchestra or wind ensemble or string quartet etc.,
> does not sound the same close-miked and
> multi-miked/multi-tracked as they do when recorded with a
> proper true stereo microphone technique.

"proper, true stereo microphone technique" presumes a lot of agreement as to
what that might be which does not in fact exist. Do I need to do a quick
review of the generally accepted permutations of micing to make this point
more clearly?

> Lastly, multi-miked/multi-track recordings do not image.

Same problem as before. Exactly what constitutes imaging is not well-defined
or generally agreed upon, and there is not a narrow enough definition of
"multi-miked/multi-track recordings" even in just the post I'm responding to
justify reducing the situation to a go/no-go situation.

> I have stereo miked recordings where I can close my eyes and
> point to every instrument in the group.

(1) This is something that you *can't* do from virtually any seat in a
concert hall.

(2) This is something that can be done within the definition of
"multi-miked/multi-track recordings" even in the post I'm responding to.

> That's right-to-left as well as front-to-back. In a proper
> stereo recording those positioning clues ARE there, in a
> multi-miked/multi-track recording they are NOT there
> because they weren't captured in the first place.

Says you, based on what seems to be a limited and outdated understanding of
the relevant technology and available options.

>>> I also don't agree with the
>>> three-channel mono methodology that has dominated small
>>> jazz ensemble recording for so long.

>> I'm all about what sounds good. Multi-mono approaches
>> tend towards a phasey, sort of almost seasick sort of
>> sound in many cases.

> I'm all about what sounds REAL.

But real isn't just one thing.

> YOu have two ears, not twenty,

Ignores the fact that using 20 microphones is not the same as having 20
ears. Anybody who is familar with microhones knows that in general you have
to mic closer to get a similar sonic perspective as you get by listening
from a given location. A mic may have to be at from 1/2 to 1/20 the
distance to get a similar perceived balance between direct and reflected
sound. For example, one of the banes of my life is lecturer who insists on
using a lavilier microphone. Even with the microphone only 2 feet or less
from the lecturer's mouth, tremendous amounts of room reverb is picked up.
This is aside from another serious problem, which is the fact that lavs pick
up vocal sounds that are emitted from the chest, and give an unnatural
sound. My point is that just because a mic is seemingly close to the sound
source is no guarantee that the room sound is excluded.

> You only need two microphones to record any
> musical performance of live instruments played in a real
> acoustic space;

That very much depends on the space and the instruments and what your goals
for an acoustical perspective is. Remember that most musical venues have
upwards of 26 rows of seats and each row of seats has from 15 to 75 seats
side-by-side. Depending on which seats and which venues, moving only 3
seats in any of 4 directions yields an audibly different sonic experience.
There is no one right answer for micing a musical presentation.

> pop recordings (which have a different set of values) notwithstanding.

If were talking live concerts, pop can be very different, or very much the
same. Pop done exclusively with electronic instruments is clearly different
from pop or traditional music done with acoustic instruments, but the degree
of similarity can be whatever the producers decide it should be. Electronic
and acoustic instruments are frequently mixed and matched.

Fred.

December 26th 09, 12:01 AM

On Dec 25, 3:12=A0pm, Audio Empire > wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 17:48:34 -0800, Fred. wrote
> (in article >):
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 24, 10:52=3DA0am, Audio Empire > wrote:
> >> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 11:51:02 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
> >> (in article >):
>
> > =A0 =A0[ Excessive quotation snipped =A0 --dsr ]
>
> >>> I don't think that it is possible to know for sure how every classica=
l
> >>> recording is miced.
>
> >> I can tell a multi-miked recording in seconds after it starts.
>
> >>>> Even spaced omnis is preferable to multi-miking.
>
> >>> Now that has got to be hyperbole!
>
> >> Not at all. All of the Mercury Living Presence recordings were done wi=
th
> >> spaced omnis as were many of the Telarcs, especially the early ones. W=
hil=3D
> > e
> >> they don't image as well as a =3DA0coincident, Blumlein, or an M-S ste=
reo p=3D
> > air,
> >> and tend to phasing problems, they image better than do multimiked/mul=
tit=3D
> > rack
> >> (which have no acoustic image at all). Note that when I say
> >> multimiked/multitracked I don't refer to a proper stereo pair with hig=
hli=3D
> > ght
> >> mikes on some instruments. I mean a recording where each instrument or
> >> grouping has its own microphone (and sometimes its own track) and is
> >> "pan-potted" into place in the final mix).
>
> >>>> Of course, I'm speaking from a listener's perspective. I understand =
th=3D
> > e
> >>>> economics
> >>>> of multi-miking/multi track, I just don't think it serves
> >>>> the music very well.
>
> >>> Please explain why you think that =3DA0multi-miking/multi track can't=
ser=3D
> > ve the
> >>> music well.,
>
> >> First of all, multi-miked/multi track recordings aren't stereo. They a=
re
> >> multiple channel mono with the instrument's positions pan-potted into =
pla=3D
> > ce.
> >> Close, multiple-miking captures the instruments themselves, not the SP=
ACE
> >> that the instruments occupy. Secondly a string section, for instance, =
can=3D
> > not
> >> be made to sound like a string section by mixing the individual violin=
s
> >> together from separate tracks or separate mikes. When strings (or wood=
win=3D
> > ds,
> >> or brasses) are miked individually and then mixed together electronica=
lly=3D
> > ,
> >> they don't sound the same as they do when miked as a complete ensemble=
.. I=3D
> > n
> >> fact the entire orchestra or wind ensemble or string quartet etc., doe=
s n=3D
> > ot
> >> sound the same close-miked and multi-miked/multi-tracked as they do wh=
en
> >> recorded with a proper true stereo microphone technique. Lastly,
> >> multi-miked/multi-track recordings do not image. I have stereo miked
> >> recordings where I can close my eyes and point to every instrument in =
the
> >> group. That's right-to-left as well as front-to-back. In a proper ster=
eo
> >> recording those positioning clues ARE there, in a multi-miked/multi-tr=
ack
> >> recording they are NOT there because they weren't captured in the firs=
t
> >> place.
>
> >>>> I also don't agree with the
> >>>> three-channel mono methodology that has dominated small
> >>>> jazz ensemble recording for so long.
>
> >>> I'm all about what sounds good. Multi-mono approaches tend towards a =
ph=3D
> > asey,
> >>> sort of almost seasick sort of sound in many cases.
>
> >> I'm all about what sounds REAL. YOu have two ears, not twenty, You onl=
y n=3D
> > eed
> >> two microphones to record any musical performance of live instruments =
pla=3D
> > yed
> >> in a real acoustic space; pop recordings (which have a different set o=
f
> >> values) notwithstanding.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > I have several early Mercury Living Presence recordings which are
> > wonderfully spacious, one of them made in the Bolshoi hall of the
> > Tchakovsky Conservatory of Music. =A0But, the form I have them in is 3-
> > channel SACD's made from the original 3-channel, not 2-channel,
> > masters.
>
> I have not had the pleasure of hearing any of those, although I have hear=
d OF
> them. I'll bet they sound great! Mercury used mostly Telefunken Omnis in
> those days =A0and by today's standards, their patterns are about halfway
> between an Omni and a mild cardioid. If you tried the same thing today wi=
th a
> modern true omnidirectional mike, you likely wouldn't get the same result=
s.
>
> > It is difficult to compare 2-channel and muli-channel playback simply
> > because the 2-channel works best in a fairly live room while the muli-
> > channel requires a relatively dead room. =A0Mild ringing, which only
> > makes a stero playback seem fuller and more natural, can mutilate a
> > multi-channel image.
>
> Depends on what you are talking about. Classical recordings made with a
> forest of microphones and 16 or more "channels" sound like crap (IMHO) no
> matter what the playback space is like. The three-channel Mercury's were =
done
> that way, not for stereo, but so that the center mike/channel could be us=
ed
> to cut the monaural version of the album. In the later stereo Living Pres=
ence
> recordings, the center channel was mixed equally into both the left and t=
he
> right channel. This helped ameliorate some of the phase problems that are
> part and parcel of space omnis and in some venues also tended to fill-in =
for
> the "hole-in-the-middle" effect. =A0
>
> > I have a system which compromises by cutting ringing when in multi-
> > channel and seems a decent compromise, but may still bias my
> > comparisons. =A0But, I have both stereo and muiti-channel recordings
> > which sound very good to me.
>
> Except that heavily mult-tracked recordings don't sound anything like a r=
eal
> orchestra. They can't because there is no REAL soundstage info.
>
>
>
> > My experience is that some of my multi-channel recordings have rather
> > good images, and some have rather poor ones, and there seems to be
> > very little correlation between the results and the minimalist/heavy
> > miking philosophy. =A0However, I suspect that the good heavy miking
> > recordings record tracks of the room ambience as well as instrumental
> > zones. =A0This last may apply when down-mixed to stereo as well.
>
> I have found that when a heavily multi-miked/multi-track recording exhibi=
ts
> anything like a semblance of decent imaging, It's because the recording t=
eam
> threw-up an overall stereo pair and let the heavy multi-miking and
> multi-track methodology be subordinate to the stereo pair.
>
> I still don't like them because instruments don't sound the same up-close=
as
> they do at a distance when mixed in the air that exists between the ensem=
ble
> and the audience (even if that audience is a pair of mikes). Electronic
> mixing and "air" mixing aren't the same thing and electronic pan-potting
> cannot replicate the sound of a homogenous ensemble playing in a real spa=
ce.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

The MLP SACD's are not partciularly expensive as SACD's go, and are
pretty easy to find on the internet. I just did a search on
_Balalaika Favorites_ (Osipov Folk Orchestra) and it was selling at a
number of places, some of them among the last places I would think to
look for quality recordings. They are transfers from aged 35mm film
and despite the efforts to compensate seem just a little acid. But
the acidity is not enough to keep me from preferring the SACD to the
original CD transfers (included on the Hybrid SACD for reference).
But, you should probably listen to at least a clip if you are
considering buying. You may respond to things quite differently.

And, it may be true, as you suggest, that the good heavy miked
recordings may rely heavily on a small number of mikes and just use
the others for touch-up. I don't see any way to determine that
without shawdowing or interviewing some specific recording engineers,
and sometimes this will require a medium :-).

I do know that my favorite multi-channel recording, which is, in fact,
quad, seems to have nothing but ambience in the rear channels and has
quite a bit of ambience in front. It may well have been done on a 2
main + 2 supplemental mike system, with a back-up on the soloist.
But, I definately prefer it to the 2-channel version I have on the
same SACD. Again, who knows when I have apples to compare with
apples, since the miking was set up with 4-channel in mind, and I play
them both in the same listening room.

Fred.

Audio Empire

December 26th 09, 05:19 AM

On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 12:13:00 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article >):

> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
>
>> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 11:51:02 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
>> (in article >):
>
>>>> I've never heard a multi-miked, multi-track classical
>>>> recording that didn't sound like crap.
>
>>> I don't think that it is possible to know for sure how
>>> every classical recording is miced.
>
>> I can tell a multi-miked recording in seconds after it
>> starts.
>
> Clearly posturing.

Clearly posturing, indeed. All one has to do is notice the lack of any depth
in the soundstage (at best) or no real soundstage at all (at worst).

> All multi-miced recordings are not the same. They are
> usually made using a device called a mixing console which is notable for its
> faders and channel strips, which allow various channels to be mixed in
> various ways, at different amplitudes and with differing amounts of delay
> and equalization.

Sigh! Yes I know, I own several of different sizes.

> Furthermore multi-miced recordings are as their name
> suggests, made with microphones, which are varied devices that can be used
> in varied ways.

Really?
>
>>>> Even spaced omnis is preferable to multi-miking.
>>>
>>> Now that has got to be hyperbole!
>
>> Not at all. All of the Mercury Living Presence recordings
>> were done with spaced omnis as were many of the Telarcs,
>> especially the early ones.
>
> If what you're saying is that the best examples of spaced-omni recordings
> are preferable to the worst and most extreme examples of close micing with
> zillions of directional mics then all we have is an excluded middle
> argument.

I'd say that any recording made with a pair (or three) spaced omnis, is going
to be better than any multi-tracked, multi-miked abortion that I can think of
offhand.

>> While they don't image as well
>> as a coincident, Blumlein, or an M-S stereo pair, and
>> tend to phasing problems, they image better than do
>> multimiked/multitrack (which have no acoustic image at
>> all).
>
> Imaging is one of those things that is difficult to measure in the lab

Yeah, that's true. Well, there has to be SOMETHING that the human ear is
better at than measuring equipment.

> and not generally characterized in any standard way. In short, "good imaging"
is
> a matter of personal taste.

Sorry but that last part is incorrect. Good imaging, while it might not be
quantifiable, certainly can be described in a clear enough manner that most
people will then notice it when they hear it. Perfect imaging would be when
the listener's ear can place each instrument in space exactly where it is in
the ensemble. Front to back, left-to right, up and down, just as we can in
the concert hall. If a recording can do that, to the extent that it can do
that, is the definition of imaging. A properly miked true stereo recording
can do it very well, a heavily multi-miked, multi-track recording, not at
all.

>> Note that when I say multimiked/multitracked I
>> don't refer to a proper stereo pair with highlight mikes
>> on some instruments.
>
> Now an additional wild card is produced at the last moment - multimicing is
> defined to be just one of the nearly infinite number of things that it can
> possibly be.

Heavy multi-miking (the practice that I'm talking about here) is the use of a
forest of microphones capturing each instrument or group of instruments
close-up and usually, though not always, consigning them to a separate
recording track (either analog or digital). This practice started in
classical recording in the late 1960's because producers who did classical
recording found it cheaper (!???) to throw up a forest of mikes, capture the
talent on as many tracks as possible (I've seen recordings where as many as
96 tracks were used with time code locking three 32-track 2" tape transports
together! ), and then get the expensive talent out of the picture as quickly
as possible. Then it was a matter of the producers and the recording
engineers vacillating over the balances and EQ 'till their little hearts'
content. this methodology is responsible for some of the worst sounding
classical recordings in the history of modern recorded sound.
>
>> I mean a recording where each
>> instrument or grouping has its own microphone (and
>> sometimes its own track) and is "pan-potted" into place
>> in the final mix).
>
> I can think of several different ways to do that that would be good practice
> but yield generally different sonic results.

In classical recording it's NEVER good practice. in pop/rock recording, it's
necessary, but then I don't care, because I don't listen to or record
pop/rock.

>>>> Of course, I'm speaking from a listener's perspective.
>>>> I understand the economics
>>>> of multi-miking/multi track, I just don't think it
>>>> serves
>>>> the music very well.
>
>>> Please explain why you think that multi-miking/multi
>>> track can't serve the music well.,
>
>> First of all, multi-miked/multi track recordings aren't
>> stereo.
>
> That would be a controversial view.

I don't see that it is controversial at all. Multi-miked/multi-track
recordings are, by definition, usually an artificial combination of
multiple monaural tracks, mixed into either the right or left channel to some
varying degree. Stereophonic does not mean two channel (or four, or more),
it's a word derived from the Greek "stereos" meaning solid, or three
dimensional and "phonos" meaning sound, I.E. "three dimensional sound".
Multi-miked, multi-channel recordings of the type we are discussing here are
definitely NOT three dimensional, but true stereo recordings are and have
width, depth and height to them.

>> They are multiple channel mono with the
>> instrument's positions pan-potted into place.
>
> This would be a outdated, simplistic view. As pointed out earlier the
> generally-available technical facilities for mixing in 2010 include a wide
> variety of signal processing alternatives that include but are hardly
> limited to simple pan-potting.

Whatever pedanticism you wish. The fact remains that we are talking here of
multiple monaural microphone feeds or most likely, tracks, combined in such a
way as to produce (normally) a two-channel result. This result is realized by
some electronic means. It doesn't matter how elaborate and or sophisticated
these tools are, they aren't going to make real space out of a bunch of
close-miked instrument tracks, and they aren't going to make three-dimensions
out of a plethora of separate track that each, separately have only one.

>> Close, multiple-miking captures the instruments themselves, not
>> the SPACE that the instruments occupy.
>
> This would be another simplistic view. Even if you put contact mics on an
> acoustical instrument it acts like a microphone and picks up significant
> amounts of its acoustical environment.

Not really, or I should say, not to any useful or usable extent.

> More typically the instrument is
> miced using a more traditional transducer (omni or directional microphone)
> operating over an acoustical path.

In heavy multi-miked situations, it's a very short acoustic path, often with
baffles and gobos between each instrument or group of instruments and it's
neighbors to provide for a maximum of isolation.

> The simple logistics of micing acoustical
> instruments (which I am intimately familiar with because I routinely do SR
> and recording of an 18 piece orchestra that includes violins, violas,
> cellos, flutes, french horns, clarinets, trumpets of various kinds, acoustic
> guitar, harp, etc., etc.) inhibit really close micing because a musican
> needs space to read the music and play the instrument and enter and leave
> his seat.

You obviously have never attended a commercial recording session of a large
symphony orchestra. I used to attend recording session of the San Francisco
Symphony when Philips used to record them at a local college auditorium. I've
never so many microphones and gobos in one place! the results sounded like it
too.
>
>> Secondly a string
>> section, for instance, cannot be made to sound like a
>> string section by mixing the individual violins together
>> from separate tracks or separate mikes.
>
> "Cannot made" is a very strong statement.

I made it strong on purpose. Even someone unfamiliar with recording can
figure out that a single violin, hear close-up does not sound like a string
section and you can't attain that sound by mixing together 12 separate
close-miked violins electronically either. The only thing that I can think of
that's worse, is 12 contact-miked violins mixed together (shudder).

> Furthermore, you just previously
> allowed that one of the objects of mult-micing could be "an instrument
> grouping" which avoids the basic problem.

No it doesn't. The instrument grouping are still mono, still close miked,
just not as close as a one-mike-one-track-per-instrument method.

I admit it, I tend to mic my
> violins and viola as a group with a coincident pair but that's to as much to
> economize on microphones as anything else.

And then you try to mix this coincident pair into a cohesive, stereo
recording? .....OK..........????!!!!

OTOH, I mic the cello(s)
> separately but nobody complains about unnatural sound.

Many people never hear live concerts and don't really know how an orchestra
is SUPPOSED to sound or what joy it is to be aurally transported to a venue
by one's stereo system with much of that sound, including it's three
dimensional palpability pretty much in tact.

>> When strings (or
>> woodwinds, or brasses) are miked individually and then
>> mixed together electronically, they don't sound the same
>> as they do when miked as a complete ensemble.
>
> Says you, based on an apparently limited understanding of the available
> options.

Says I WHO KNOWS the available options.

>> In fact the
>> entire orchestra or wind ensemble or string quartet etc.,
>> does not sound the same close-miked and
>> multi-miked/multi-tracked as they do when recorded with a
>> proper true stereo microphone technique.
>
> "proper, true stereo microphone technique" presumes a lot of agreement as to
> what that might be which does not in fact exist. Do I need to do a quick
> review of the generally accepted permutations of micing to make this point
> more clearly?

Don't bother. I probably do more recording in a year than most amateur or
semi-pro recordists have done in a lifetime.

>> Lastly, multi-miked/multi-track recordings do not image.
>
> Same problem as before. Exactly what constitutes imaging is not well-defined
> or generally agreed upon,

Yes it is, see above.

> and there is not a narrow enough definition of
> "multi-miked/multi-track recordings" even in just the post I'm responding to
> justify reducing the situation to a go/no-go situation.

>> I have stereo miked recordings where I can close my eyes and
>> point to every instrument in the group.
>
> (1) This is something that you *can't* do from virtually any seat in a
> concert hall.

Yes you can.
>
> (2) This is something that can be done within the definition of
> "multi-miked/multi-track recordings" even in the post I'm responding to.

I've yet to see it or hear it, and I've never encountered anyone else who
could do it either.

That's right-to-left as well as front-to-back. In a proper
>> stereo recording those positioning clues ARE there, in a
>> multi-miked/multi-track recording they are NOT there
>> because they weren't captured in the first place.
>
> Says you, based on what seems to be a limited and outdated understanding of
> the relevant technology and available options.

Says I who knows what I'm talking about.

>>>> I also don't agree with the
>>>> three-channel mono methodology that has dominated small
>>>> jazz ensemble recording for so long.
>
>>> I'm all about what sounds good. Multi-mono approaches
>>> tend towards a phasey, sort of almost seasick sort of
>>> sound in many cases.
>
>> I'm all about what sounds REAL.
>
> But real isn't just one thing.
>
>> YOu have two ears, not twenty,
>
> Ignores the fact that using 20 microphones is not the same as having 20
> ears. Anybody who is familar with microhones knows that in general you have
> to mic closer to get a similar sonic perspective as you get by listening
> from a given location. A mic may have to be at from 1/2 to 1/20 the
> distance to get a similar perceived balance between direct and reflected
> sound. For example, one of the banes of my life is lecturer who insists on
> using a lavilier microphone. Even with the microphone only 2 feet or less
> from the lecturer's mouth, tremendous amounts of room reverb is picked up.
> This is aside from another serious problem, which is the fact that lavs pick
> up vocal sounds that are emitted from the chest, and give an unnatural
> sound. My point is that just because a mic is seemingly close to the sound
> source is no guarantee that the room sound is excluded.

Well, that point I'll give you. My comment was meant more philosophically
than practically.

Scott[_6_]

December 26th 09, 05:23 AM

On Dec 25, 7:56=A0am, Andrew Barss > wrote:
> Scott > wrote:
>
> :> Supporting raw technology is one thing, showing that it actually audib=
ly
> :> improves the sound quality of vinyl performance is something else.
>
> : So you are of the position that bearing quality, stiffness to mass
> : ratios and isolation from mechanical feedback do not affect vinyl
> : playback performance?
>
> : If you have any published scientific studies that suggest none of
> : these things are a factor in vinyl playback performance feel free to
> : cite them. So far all we have is your personal opinions.
>
> Isn't the burden of proof on the advocate for the new thing? =A0
>
> I mean, I completely agree that many improvements in technology can
> increase function (that's the major reason they're called "improvements")=
..
> But at a certain point, either no further improvement is needed (no one
> needs speakers that can reproduce 500,000 KHz tones, for example), or it'=
s
> measurable but has no effect on the utility of the object, which is what
> Arny Kreuger was suggesting for these bearing 'improvements'.
>
> To make an analogy, I can imgine someone putting these
>
> http://www.zszbearing.com/49/standard-high-temperature-bearing-products
>
> into a turntable, a lawnmower, or a bandsaw. =A0But since their advantage=
is
> continued operation under severe temperature extremes, it would be
> pointless.
>
> If you look around in the industrial world, there are bearings with all
> sorts of wonderful properties, but no all of them are necessary, or
> would make any difference at all, in turntables.
>

You say this as if there is no knowledge in the world about the
affects of bearing performance in vinyl playback. So I would ask you
the same thing that I asked Arny. Is that your position? That the
propperties of bearings in Turntables and pickup arms don't affect
performance? If not then it is not unreasonable to assert that
improvements in bearings will bring about improvements in performance.
And it goes beyond just the direct effects of bearing performance. It
also goes into how the bearing allows for other design choices in the
table and arm. In the case of aribearings it isn't just that an
airbearing is measurably lower in friction than mechanical bearings,
it is that it allows for one to design and impliment a linear tracking
arm in a completely different way. And again, there is far more to
bearing performance than edcution of friction. we also have stiffness
and resonances to consider not to mention play.

Even more obvious would be the value of isolation. I posted some basic
common knowledge information on isolation. It should have been clear
from that information that there are different degrees of
effectiveness in isolation devices. The effects of mechanical feedback
on vinyl playback is also well known and easily measurable. so is it
your position that isolation performance is irrelevant?

> Do you see the logic of this point?

I see the flaw in the logic which is the assumption that bearing
performance may not matter in vinyl playback performance or affect
other critical design and implimentation choices.

>
> If you do, then you'll surely agree that someone building audio component
> X with a newfangled, very high-end ingredient (high-temp bearings,
> platters flat to .000025 inch across several feet (which are pretty
> standard in the machinist industry, for example), exotic materials), etc.=
=A0
> should, as a matter of common sense, be willing to back up claims of
> increased performance with independent data as to whether it is audible. =
=A0
>
> For which, double-blind perception testing is the only game in town.

No I don't see such a burden of proof unless they are trying to
publish peer reviewed papers on the subject. I see no reason why they
are obligated to make their research public when making a competetive
commercial product. But if one is actually interested in knowing if
these breakthroughs are legit one can always contact the designers and
ask the relevant questions. I'd like to see the published peer
reviewed double blind tests from the nay sayers that show every
parameter of vinyl playback perfomance has exceded the thresholds of
human hearing back in the 70s.

Audio Empire

December 26th 09, 03:51 PM

On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 16:01:20 -0800, Fred. wrote
(in article >):

> On Dec 25, 3:12=A0pm, Audio Empire > wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 17:48:34 -0800, Fred. wrote
>> (in article >):
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Dec 24, 10:52=3DA0am, Audio Empire > wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 11:51:02 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
>>>> (in article >):

<Snip extraneous text>

>>> I have several early Mercury Living Presence recordings which are
>>> wonderfully spacious, one of them made in the Bolshoi hall of the
>>> Tchakovsky Conservatory of Music. =A0But, the form I have them in is 3-
>>> channel SACD's made from the original 3-channel, not 2-channel,
>>> masters.
>>
>> I have not had the pleasure of hearing any of those, although I have hear=
> d OF
>> them. I'll bet they sound great! Mercury used mostly Telefunken Omnis in
>> those days =A0and by today's standards, their patterns are about halfway
>> between an Omni and a mild cardioid. If you tried the same thing today wi=
> th a
>> modern true omnidirectional mike, you likely wouldn't get the same result=
> s.
>>
>>> It is difficult to compare 2-channel and muli-channel playback simply
>>> because the 2-channel works best in a fairly live room while the muli-
>>> channel requires a relatively dead room. =A0Mild ringing, which only
>>> makes a stero playback seem fuller and more natural, can mutilate a
>>> multi-channel image.
>>
>> Depends on what you are talking about. Classical recordings made with a
>> forest of microphones and 16 or more "channels" sound like crap (IMHO) no
>> matter what the playback space is like. The three-channel Mercury's were =
> done
>> that way, not for stereo, but so that the center mike/channel could be us=
> ed
>> to cut the monaural version of the album. In the later stereo Living Pres=
> ence
>> recordings, the center channel was mixed equally into both the left and t=
> he
>> right channel. This helped ameliorate some of the phase problems that are
>> part and parcel of space omnis and in some venues also tended to fill-in =
> for
>> the "hole-in-the-middle" effect. =A0
>>
>>> I have a system which compromises by cutting ringing when in multi-
>>> channel and seems a decent compromise, but may still bias my
>>> comparisons. =A0But, I have both stereo and muiti-channel recordings
>>> which sound very good to me.
>>
>> Except that heavily mult-tracked recordings don't sound anything like a r=
> eal
>> orchestra. They can't because there is no REAL soundstage info.
>>
>>
>>
>>> My experience is that some of my multi-channel recordings have rather
>>> good images, and some have rather poor ones, and there seems to be
>>> very little correlation between the results and the minimalist/heavy
>>> miking philosophy. =A0However, I suspect that the good heavy miking
>>> recordings record tracks of the room ambience as well as instrumental
>>> zones. =A0This last may apply when down-mixed to stereo as well.
>>
>> I have found that when a heavily multi-miked/multi-track recording exhibi=
> ts
>> anything like a semblance of decent imaging, It's because the recording t=
> eam
>> threw-up an overall stereo pair and let the heavy multi-miking and
>> multi-track methodology be subordinate to the stereo pair.
>>
>> I still don't like them because instruments don't sound the same up-close=
> as
>> they do at a distance when mixed in the air that exists between the ensem=
> ble
>> and the audience (even if that audience is a pair of mikes). Electronic
>> mixing and "air" mixing aren't the same thing and electronic pan-potting
>> cannot replicate the sound of a homogenous ensemble playing in a real spa=
> ce.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>
> The MLP SACD's are not partciularly expensive as SACD's go, and are
> pretty easy to find on the internet. I just did a search on
> _Balalaika Favorites_ (Osipov Folk Orchestra) and it was selling at a
> number of places, some of them among the last places I would think to
> look for quality recordings. They are transfers from aged 35mm film
> and despite the efforts to compensate seem just a little acid. But
> the acidity is not enough to keep me from preferring the SACD to the
> original CD transfers (included on the Hybrid SACD for reference).
> But, you should probably listen to at least a clip if you are
> considering buying. You may respond to things quite differently.

I have several, and I agree that they sound better than the CDs of the same
performances. What I've NOT heard are these SACDs played with a center
channel from the multi-channel layers on the SACD.

> And, it may be true, as you suggest, that the good heavy miked
> recordings may rely heavily on a small number of mikes and just use
> the others for touch-up. I don't see any way to determine that
> without shawdowing or interviewing some specific recording engineers,
> and sometimes this will require a medium :-).

Use your ears man. If the recording images and was recorded after about 1965,
it is because it's either a stereo recording or a multi-miked/ multi-track
recoding where an overall stereo mike was employed. EMI used to do this, as
did British Decca (London in the USA) with their famous "Decca tree". There
are others.
>
> I do know that my favorite multi-channel recording, which is, in fact,
> quad, seems to have nothing but ambience in the rear channels and has
> quite a bit of ambience in front. It may well have been done on a 2
> main + 2 supplemental mike system, with a back-up on the soloist.
> But, I definately prefer it to the 2-channel version I have on the
> same SACD.

Well, I'm not talking about multi-channel playback such as the so-called
"Quadraphonic Sound" or anything similar. I'm talking about the practice of
using a single mike/track per instrument and the doing something akin to
pan-potting each instrument into it's place left-to-right. This is NOT stereo
by any stretch of the term.

> Again, who knows when I have apples to compare with
> apples, since the miking was set up with 4-channel in mind, and I play
> them both in the same listening room.

Like I said, that's a different case. It is possible to to use four
microphones; a stereo pair for the front and a stereo pair for the rear, and
get real stereo for both the direct and the ambient sound soundfield

Audio_Empire

Arny Krueger

December 26th 09, 05:41 PM

"Scott" > wrote in message
...
On Dec 25, 7:56 am, Andrew Barss > wrote:

> You say this as if there is no knowledge in the world about the
> affects of bearing performance in vinyl playback.

Not at all. It has been well-known for several decades that high quality
turntable bearings can perform better than cutting lathe bearings in general
use. The reason is pretty obvious if you've ever seen a cutting lathe in
person - cutting lathes are far larger and heavier and stress their bearings
more.

> So I would ask you he same thing that I asked Arny. Is that your position?

The idea that turntable performance is irelevant to bearing performance is
both a straw man argument and also an excluded middle argument. It's a straw
man because nobody has seriously advanced it, and its excluded middle
because it is such an extreme postion.

>That the
> properties of bearings in Turntables and pickup arms don't affect
> performance?

Of course they do, but this has been a solved problem for about 5 decades.

> If not then it is not unreasonable to assert that
> improvements in bearings will bring about improvements in performance.

The problem here is the ignorance of the well-known law of diminishing
returns. Once things like bearing performance advance to a certain degree,
they are no longer a significant problem. Further improvements are useless
because the sticking point is somewhere else.

>And it goes beyond just the direct effects of bearing performance.

Despite all of the posturing, we really don't know if even the basic
bearings have been improved, or whether they are simply hype. Which of the
high end manufacturers has given "before" and "after" specs relating to the
purportedly improved bearings? Where have they reliably and objectively
compared to baseline performance? Where are the makes and models of the
supposedly improved bearings been specified?

> It also goes into how the bearing allows for other design choices in the
table and arm. In the case of aribearings it isn't just that an
airbearing is measurably lower in friction than mechanical bearings,
it is that it allows for one to design and impliment a linear tracking
arm in a completely different way.

Air bearing linear tracking tonearms have been around for at least 20 years.

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/4628500.html shows the patent application
for such a thing dated 05/30/1985. That was over 20 years ago. I believe
this idea did come to market and was fairly sucessful. I may ever have one
in my posession. So, how can this be called new technology?

Scott[_6_]

December 26th 09, 09:04 PM

On Dec 26, 9:41=A0am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Scott" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> On Dec 25, 7:56 am, Andrew Barss > wrote:
>
> > You say this as if there is no knowledge in the world about the
> > affects of bearing performance in vinyl playback.
>
> Not at all. It has been well-known for several decades that high quality
> turntable bearings can perform better than cutting lathe bearings in gene=
ral
> use.

1. if you demand published scientific studies for my assertions you
can hardly make your assertions based on what is allegedly "well
known."
2. This is not about turntable bearings v. Cutting lathe bearings.
This is about turntable and pickup arm bearings of the cited rigs v.
what was available prior to the commercial releaase of the CD format.

> > So I would ask you he same thing that I asked Arny. Is that your positi=
on?
>
> The idea that turntable performance is irelevant to bearing performance i=
s
> both a straw man argument and also an excluded middle argument.

That is an ironic argument since I have never made such an argument
that turntable performance is irrelevant to bearing performance.Hence
your argument of a strawman is a straw man. My argument is quite
clear that bearing perfromance is quite relevant to turntable and
pickup arm performance and quite relevant to turntable and pickup arm
design that has other tangental performance effects.

> It's a straw
> man because nobody has seriously advanced it,

Prove it. Show the published scientific studies that support this
extraordinary assertion.

> and its excluded middle
> because it is such an extreme postion.

What middle ground position? Your assertion is that there has been no
advancement in vinyl playback technology or design or implimentation
since the 70s. My aregument is that there has. what "middle ground" is
being excluded?

>
> >That the
> > properties of bearings in Turntables and pickup arms don't affect
> > performance?
>
> Of course they do, but this has been a solved problem for about 5 decades=
..

Prove it. Show the published scientific studies that support this
extraordinary assertion.

>
> > If not then it is not unreasonable to assert that
> > improvements in bearings will bring about improvements in performance.
>
> The problem here is the ignorance of the well-known law of diminishing
> returns.

Sorry Arny, your position is one that there is no returns not that
they are diminishing.

> Once things like bearing performance advance to a certain degree,
> they are no longer a significant problem. Further improvements are useles=
s
> because the sticking point is somewhere else.

If you can demonstrate that the rigs from the 70s were and are
sonically indistinguishable from the rigs I have cited then you win
the argument. Please feel free to show us the published scientific
studies that support this. Until then your position is built upon an
extraordinary axiom not on any sort of meaningful science.

>
> >And it goes beyond just the direct effects of bearing performance.
>
> Despite all of the posturing, we really don't know if even the basic
> bearings have been improved,

Arny *you* don't know.

> or whether they are simply hype. Which of the
> high end manufacturers has given "before" and "after" specs relating to t=
he
> purportedly improved bearings? Where have they reliably and objectively
> compared to baseline performance? Where are the makes and models of the
> supposedly improved bearings been specified?

I have suggested contacting the actual designers,

http://www.rockporttechnologies.com/
http://www.drforsell.com/home.htm
Why assume anything when you can get answers from the source? C'mon
Arny, show us you are genuinely interested in the correct answers by
asking the guys with the goods.

>
> > It also goes into how the bearing allows for other design choices in th=
e
>
> table and arm. In the case of aribearings it isn't just that an
> airbearing is measurably lower in friction than mechanical bearings,
> it is that it allows for one to design and impliment a linear tracking
> arm in a completely different way.
>
> Air bearing linear tracking tonearms have been around for at least 20 yea=
rs.
>
> http://www.freepatentsonline.com/4628500.html=A0shows the patent applicat=
ion
> for such a thing dated =A005/30/1985. =A0 That was over 20 years ago.

That doesn't really help your case Arny since it is your stated
position that there have been no advancements since the 70s. besides
that I am talking about a specific implimentation of air bearings. I
am not talking about the invention of air bearings. Heck they invented
wheels centuries ago. Does that mean there has been no meaningful
technology that has advanced the performance of wheels since the
invention?

> I believe
> this idea did come to market and was fairly sucessful. I may ever have on=
e
> in my posession. So, how can this be called new technology?

Um Arny, I suggest you review the thread. My assertion was that these
advancements took place after the commercial release of CDs. I said
nothing about "new."
Your stated position is that we can go back to the 70s to find the
point at which no advancements have been made in vinyl playback
performace. "new" is not the issue here. we are talking about a 30
year span in whcih you claim no advancement has taken place.

Audio Empire

December 27th 09, 04:10 PM

On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 13:04:42 -0800, Scott wrote
(in article >):

> On Dec 26, 9:41=A0am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>> "Scott" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>> On Dec 25, 7:56 am, Andrew Barss > wrote:
>>
>>> You say this as if there is no knowledge in the world about the
>>> affects of bearing performance in vinyl playback.
>>
>> Not at all. It has been well-known for several decades that high quality
>> turntable bearings can perform better than cutting lathe bearings in gene=
> ral
>> use.
>
> 1. if you demand published scientific studies for my assertions you
> can hardly make your assertions based on what is allegedly "well
> known."
> 2. This is not about turntable bearings v. Cutting lathe bearings.
> This is about turntable and pickup arm bearings of the cited rigs v.
> what was available prior to the commercial releaase of the CD format.

That's what I thought you meant. Turntables, especially belt-drive models
have used so-called thrust bearings using a variety of technologies from
bronze-oilite sleeves to tips of case-hardened steel to actual gemstones like
ruby and sapphire since the 1950's. In the sixties we saw platter bearings
using like-poled magnets to provide an "air bearing" eliminating vertical
contact completely, and since the seventies we have had turntables using
forced air to do the same thing. I suspect that turntables bearings have
been what engineers call a "mature technology" for a long time. Tonearm
ball-bearings are something else. While there are designs that don't need
them at all (SME's knife-edge bearings and unipivot designs come to mind)
It's only recently that real high quality ball-bearings have become available
at a reasonable price. While arms have used ball-bearings in both planes for
decades the good ones were very expensive and the affordable ones were not
very good.

Arny Krueger

December 27th 09, 04:13 PM

"Scott" > wrote in message
...
> On Dec 26, 9:41=A0am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>> "Scott" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>> On Dec 25, 7:56 am, Andrew Barss > wrote:
>>
>> > You say this as if there is no knowledge in the world about the
>> > affects of bearing performance in vinyl playback.
>>
>> Not at all. It has been well-known for several decades that high quality
>> turntable bearings can perform better than cutting lathe bearings in
>> gene=
> ral
>> use.

> 1. if you demand published scientific studies for my assertions you
> can hardly make your assertions based on what is allegedly "well
> known."

Sure I can. I already have posted links to numerous published scientific
studies for my assertions. Clearly, there is a lack of follow-up here,
because if those links had been followed up, this comment would have never
come up. Note that some of the links to published scientific studies were
to open documents on the web, so the poverty defense won't work.

> 2. This is not about turntable bearings v. Cutting lathe bearings

Of course it is. If LP discs can't be made that have low noise and
distortion, all the fancy playback equipment in the world isn't going to
overcome that noise and distortion.

> This is about turntable and pickup arm bearings of the cited rigs v.
> what was available prior to the commercial releaase of the CD format.

Only a slightly different argument. There's no evidence that bearings were
the limiting factor in pre-1983 tone arms.

>> > So I would ask you he same thing that I asked Arny. Is that your
>> > position?

>> The idea that turntable performance is irelevant to bearing performance
>> is
>> both a straw man argument and also an excluded middle argument.

> That is an ironic argument since I have never made such an argument
> that turntable performance is irrelevant to bearing performance.

Niether did I. That argument first shows up in a post that you made, Scott.

Doug McDonald[_4_]

December 27th 09, 11:33 PM

Audio Empire wrote:

>>
>> The MLP SACD's are not partciularly expensive as SACD's go, and are
>> pretty easy to find on the internet. I just did a search on
>> _Balalaika Favorites_ (Osipov Folk Orchestra) and it was selling at a
>> number of places, some of them among the last places I would think to
>> look for quality recordings. They are transfers from aged 35mm film
>> and despite the efforts to compensate seem just a little acid. But
>> the acidity is not enough to keep me from preferring the SACD to the
>> original CD transfers (included on the Hybrid SACD for reference).
>> But, you should probably listen to at least a clip if you are
>> considering buying. You may respond to things quite differently.
>
> I have several, and I agree that they sound better than the CDs of the same
> performances. What I've NOT heard are these SACDs played with a center
> channel from the multi-channel layers on the SACD.
>

I have heard several Mercury 3-channel recordings on my 3-channel
setup, and they are as good as advertised, which is to say,
as good as any recording I have ever heard on my setup, clearly better
than any 2-channel recordings, as far as imaging. Some RCA 3-channel
recordings of that era are as good.

Some Telarc multichannel recordings are as good, some are grossly
bad.

Doug McDonald

Audio Empire

December 28th 09, 01:50 PM

On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 15:33:32 -0800, Doug McDonald wrote
(in article >):

> Audio Empire wrote:
>
>>>
>>> The MLP SACD's are not partciularly expensive as SACD's go, and are
>>> pretty easy to find on the internet. I just did a search on
>>> _Balalaika Favorites_ (Osipov Folk Orchestra) and it was selling at a
>>> number of places, some of them among the last places I would think to
>>> look for quality recordings. They are transfers from aged 35mm film
>>> and despite the efforts to compensate seem just a little acid. But
>>> the acidity is not enough to keep me from preferring the SACD to the
>>> original CD transfers (included on the Hybrid SACD for reference).
>>> But, you should probably listen to at least a clip if you are
>>> considering buying. You may respond to things quite differently.
>>
>> I have several, and I agree that they sound better than the CDs of the same
>> performances. What I've NOT heard are these SACDs played with a center
>> channel from the multi-channel layers on the SACD.
>>
>
> I have heard several Mercury 3-channel recordings on my 3-channel
> setup, and they are as good as advertised, which is to say,
> as good as any recording I have ever heard on my setup, clearly better
> than any 2-channel recordings, as far as imaging. Some RCA 3-channel
> recordings of that era are as good.
>
> Some Telarc multichannel recordings are as good, some are grossly
> bad.
>
> Doug McDonald

With Telarc, it seems to be that the earlier ones, where Bob Woods (Telarc's
recording engineer) was trying to mimic Bob Fine's microphone technique using
spaced Shoeps instrumentation microphones, are lousy. The Shoeps are REAL,
modern omnidirectional microphones and the microphones that Fine used, while
called omnis by their maker Telefunken, were, in reality, about halfway
between a real omni and a mild cardioid. Fines recordings worked (as you have
noted, above), while Woods' "copies" didn't. Eventually Woods found his own
microphone style and Telarc recordings improved vastly.

[email protected][_2_]

December 29th 09, 05:07 AM

Audio Empire wrote:

> With Telarc, it seems to be that the earlier ones, where Bob Woods (Telarc's
> recording engineer) was trying to mimic Bob Fine's microphone technique using
> spaced Shoeps instrumentation microphones, are lousy. The Shoeps are REAL,
> modern omnidirectional microphones and the microphones that Fine used, while
> called omnis by their maker Telefunken, were, in reality, about halfway
> between a real omni and a mild cardioid. Fines recordings worked (as you have
> noted, above), while Woods' "copies" didn't. Eventually Woods found his own
> microphone style and Telarc recordings improved vastly.

It's amazing to me that the old Mercury's are praised for their sound.
The microphones used have valleys and peaks above 5K Hz that amount to
at least +/- 6dB, and that's with a "modern" knock off which actually
performs better than the originals. Tonally, the recordings sound WAY
WRONG and to my ears, are very unpleasant. Acoustic music does NOT
sound like what comes off them. There are some interesting historical
performances on them, but that's about it.

The situation of the "high end" in adulation of them is a poster child
for a severe fault being turned into a virtue by the fanzine gurus.

Andrew Barss[_2_]

December 29th 09, 12:15 PM

Scott > wrote:
: On Dec 25, 7:56=A0am, Andrew Barss > wrote:
:> Scott > wrote:
:>
:> :> Supporting raw technology is one thing, showing that it actually au=
dibly
:> :> improves the sound quality of vinyl performance is something else.
<snip>
:> Isn't the burden of proof on the advocate for the new thing? =A0
<snip>
:> If you look around in the industrial world, there are bearings with al=
l
:> sorts of wonderful properties, but no all of them are necessary, or
:> would make any difference at all, in turntables.

: You say this as if there is no knowledge in the world about the
: affects of bearing performance in vinyl playback. So I would ask you
: the same thing that I asked Arny. Is that your position? That the
: propperties of bearings in Turntables and pickup arms don't affect
: performance?

No, of course that isn't my position, and it isn't the position of nyone=20
with a modicu of sense. BUT: there are many properties of many bearings=20
that are irrelevant to performance. So, the meat of the matter is: does=
=20
putting bearing X into a turntable affect its performance? You are=20
painting with a very broad brush, and asserting that
=20
a) bearing quality is on a single scale

b) the higher a particular set of bearings is on that scale, the better
the performance of the turntable.

The alternative, which I, and I believe Arny Krueger, adsert, is just=20
this:

a') bearing quality is on a series of different scales; quality is=20
dictated by function. (So, e.g., there's a scale of heat resistance,=20
which some bearings that would be superb in a turntable would do badly=20
on.)

b') (b) is false in at least two ways. =20
First, some bearing properties are irrelevant (or perhaps detrimental) t=
o=20
turntable performance. That is,=20
putting them into a turntable produces no audible difference, no=20
improvement in tracking, wear, etc. I gave very high temperature=20
resistance as one example. Another is resistance to deflection under ver=
y=20
heavy load. Very important if you're machining airplane engine rotors,=20
not so much for spinning an LP.=20

Secondly, if you pick a property of bearings that *can* have an audible
effect -- smoothness of spinning, resistance to skipping with footfalls,
etc. for example -- there are in principle, and I would think in=20
pratice, going to be threshold effects. Suppose you rank order three sets=
=20
of bearings along that scale, call them A (medium quality), B (superb=20
quality) and C (out of this world quality), it may very well be that B=20
will produce much better sound than A, while B and C produce no audible=20
difference. So, you need to actually figure out *which* quality increase=
s=20
do *anything*. Which DBTing is for. =20

At the beginning of the process, differentiating two components may be=20
very easy. You may not need to do a DBT to distinguish a really shoddy=20
bearing -- one which binds, squeals, and vibrates like crazy -- from a=20
decent one. (But, and this is important, you could do a DBT here, and=20
confirm the obvious). But as soon as you get to a point where you're=20
comparing two well-made items --- two bearings, two pieces of wire, two=20
fuel additives for a car -- careful testing is called for. And if=20
perception is the measure, it has to be done blind, for obvious reasons.

: If not then it is not unreasonable to assert that
: improvements in bearings will bring about improvements in performance.

*Some* improvements will. Others will not.

: And it goes beyond just the direct effects of bearing performance. It
: also goes into how the bearing allows for other design choices in the
: table and arm.=20

Yes.

In the case of aribearings it isn't just that an
: airbearing is measurably lower in friction than mechanical bearings,
: it is that it allows for one to design and impliment a linear tracking
: arm in a completely different way. And again, there is far more to
: bearing performance than edcution of friction. we also have stiffness
: and resonances to consider not to mention play.

Absolutely.=20

: Even more obvious would be the value of isolation. I posted some basic
: common knowledge information on isolation. It should have been clear
: from that information that there are different degrees of
: effectiveness in isolation devices. The effects of mechanical feedback
: on vinyl playback is also well known and easily measurable. so is it
: your position that isolation performance is irrelevant?

:> Do you see the logic of this point?

: I see the flaw in the logic which is the assumption that bearing
: performance may not matter in vinyl playback performance or affect
: other critical design and implimentation choices.

So you think that ANY improvement in bearing quality, along any scale of=20
measure of quality, will improve audio performance? Really? A bearing=20
rated to keep working at 1500 degrees F is going to make music sound=20
better? Or one that can spin with maximally .00001" deflection when=20
carrying a 500 pound off-balance load and mounted on a horizontal shaft?

Because those are two things that, in the real world of bearings, are=20
considered to matter, for some applications, and for which money is spent=
..=20

-- Andy Barss

Audio Empire

December 29th 09, 04:41 PM

On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 21:07:13 -0800, wrote
(in article >):

> Audio Empire wrote:
>
>> With Telarc, it seems to be that the earlier ones, where Bob Woods
>> (Telarc's
>> recording engineer) was trying to mimic Bob Fine's microphone technique
>> using
>> spaced Shoeps instrumentation microphones, are lousy. The Shoeps are REAL,
>> modern omnidirectional microphones and the microphones that Fine used,
>> while
>> called omnis by their maker Telefunken, were, in reality, about halfway
>> between a real omni and a mild cardioid. Fines recordings worked (as you
>> have
>> noted, above), while Woods' "copies" didn't. Eventually Woods found his own
>> microphone style and Telarc recordings improved vastly.
>
> It's amazing to me that the old Mercury's are praised for their sound.
> The microphones used have valleys and peaks above 5K Hz that amount to
> at least +/- 6dB, and that's with a "modern" knock off which actually
> performs better than the originals.

It IS amazing, isn't it? Condenser mikes made in the '50's and '60's (and
possibly even into the middle seventies -at least on SOME brands) had acid
-etched brass capsule diaphragms. They would take a piece of brass foil and
put resist on some parts of it, leave others exposed and bathed the diaphragm
in acid. This would selectively eat away the foil making it thinner in some
places and thicker in others. This way they could, somewhat control the
frequency response of the capsule. Unfortunately, even after acid etching,
the brass foil still had a lot of mass making the diaphragm resonance quite
low in frequency. The final and largest peak started about 8 KHz on some of
the larger Neumann and Telefunken models and climbed to as much as +12 dB ay
16 KHz only to drop off like a rock above that. Often there were smalle peaks
at 4 KHz, 2 Khz. etc.

Of course, today's condensers, even relatively cheap ones from China, use
diaphragms made of thin mylar which is sputtered with a layer of gold only a
few atoms thick. These optically transparent diaphragms have so little mass
that the fundamental mechanical resonance of the capsule is way above the
microphone's primary passband making them much smoother in frequency response
than were these old (and very expensive" mikes of yesteryear.

> Tonally, the recordings sound WAY
> WRONG and to my ears, are very unpleasant. Acoustic music does NOT
> sound like what comes off them. There are some interesting historical
> performances on them, but that's about it.
>
> The situation of the "high end" in adulation of them is a poster child
> for a severe fault being turned into a virtue by the fanzine gurus.

Well, I won't go so far as to say that they sound totally wrong, but some of
them can sound way bright. The best of them are a serendipitous happenstance
of venue, distance from the ensemble, and the fact that they were originally
recorded for vinyl where the natural poor high-frequency response of the
medium would somewhat ameliorate the aggressiveness of these old mikes.
I used to have a pair of Sony C37Ps and a pair of Telefunken ELA M 251s. I
sold them and bought newer Chinese mikes (at a small fraction of what I sold
the "vintage" mikes for) and find them much more accurate (especially my
Aventone CK-40 stereo mike and my Behringer P-2 Pros) than either the Sonys
or the Telefunkens.

Jenn[_2_]

December 29th 09, 07:04 PM

logging-data="5706"; "
User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.1 (Intel Mac OS X)
X-Auth-Sender: U2FsdGVkX1/UdizPATmYOfA23VHTpfvMkijR+C+hEFc=
Cancel-Lock: sha1:LkD3a/c8hA9a1lE2xPffR5xx2cM=
X-UIDL: !9D!!e54!!^:>"!^_`"!

In article >,
" > wrote:

> It's amazing to me that the old Mercury's are praised for their sound.
> The microphones used have valleys and peaks above 5K Hz that amount to
> at least +/- 6dB, and that's with a "modern" knock off which actually
> performs better than the originals. Tonally, the recordings sound WAY
> WRONG and to my ears, are very unpleasant. Acoustic music does NOT
> sound like what comes off them. There are some interesting historical
> performances on them, but that's about it.
>
> The situation of the "high end" in adulation of them is a poster child
> for a severe fault being turned into a virtue by the fanzine gurus.

I couldn't disagree more about the sound of most of the old Mercury
recordings. Yes, a few are overly bright, IMV. But others,
particularly those recorded in the Eastman Theater (Eastman Wind
Ensemble, Eastman/Rochester Orchestra) are excellent representations of
how music sounds in that hall. The ET is a great venue, and the
recordings sound very realistic. I've conducted in the hall (4
rehearsals, 2 concerts), and have heard about 8 rehearsals and 4
concerts from the audience seats. The hall is neither overly bright nor
dark, and the recordings capture the timbre of the instruments and the
great ambiance of the hall very well.

I also think that some of the recordings done at the Ballroom Studio
(the Starker Bach Cello Suites, for example) are fantastic recordings.

Different strokes and all...

[email protected][_2_]

December 29th 09, 08:04 PM

Audio Empire wrote:

> It IS amazing, isn't it? Condenser mikes made in the '50's and '60's (and
> possibly even into the middle seventies -at least on SOME brands) had acid
> -etched brass capsule diaphragms. They would take a piece of brass foil and
> put resist on some parts of it, leave others exposed and bathed the diaphragm
> in acid. This would selectively eat away the foil making it thinner in some
> places and thicker in others. This way they could, somewhat control the
> frequency response of the capsule. Unfortunately, even after acid etching,
> the brass foil still had a lot of mass making the diaphragm resonance quite
> low in frequency. The final and largest peak started about 8 KHz on some of
> the larger Neumann and Telefunken models and climbed to as much as +12 dB ay
> 16 KHz only to drop off like a rock above that. Often there were smalle peaks
> at 4 KHz, 2 Khz. etc.
>
> Of course, today's condensers, even relatively cheap ones from China, use
> diaphragms made of thin mylar which is sputtered with a layer of gold only a
> few atoms thick. These optically transparent diaphragms have so little mass
> that the fundamental mechanical resonance of the capsule is way above the
> microphone's primary passband making them much smoother in frequency response
> than were these old (and very expensive" mikes of yesteryear.

Nice description of the problem. Thanks.

>> Tonally, the recordings sound WAY
>> WRONG and to my ears, are very unpleasant. Acoustic music does NOT
>> sound like what comes off them. There are some interesting historical
>> performances on them, but that's about it.
>>
>> The situation of the "high end" in adulation of them is a poster child
>> for a severe fault being turned into a virtue by the fanzine gurus.
>
> Well, I won't go so far as to say that they sound totally wrong, but some of
> them can sound way bright. The best of them are a serendipitous happenstance
> of venue, distance from the ensemble, and the fact that they were originally
> recorded for vinyl where the natural poor high-frequency response of the
> medium would somewhat ameliorate the aggressiveness of these old mikes.
> I used to have a pair of Sony C37Ps and a pair of Telefunken ELA M 251s. I
> sold them and bought newer Chinese mikes (at a small fraction of what I sold
> the "vintage" mikes for) and find them much more accurate (especially my
> Aventone CK-40 stereo mike and my Behringer P-2 Pros) than either the Sonys
> or the Telefunkens.

I put a custom software based target curve in the chain when playing
these old LP's, or even the CD reissues. Helps a LOT.

The old even more venerated RCA's and the reissues really have the same
problem, it's seems to be usually just less in degree.

All the old recordings were EQ'ed like mad anyway. Which is really
rather amusing, considering that these days, many try to play them with
minimalist techniques. It doesn't make much sense and sounds screwy.

Soupe du jour

February 7th 10, 06:52 PM

On 8 Dec 2009 19:50:19 GMT, "Harry Lavo" > wrote:

>"bob" > wrote in message
...
>> On Dec 7, 9:04=A0pm, "Harry Lavo" > wrote:
>>>
>>> Did you miss, or simply choose to ignore her comment about it not being a
>>> fad? =A0See my comments to Dick Pierce for more on this.
>>
>> Just because a New York Times reporter says something is not a fad
>> does not mean that it is not a fad. My guess is there's a retro
>> coolness thing going on here, which may or may not last. It may
>> plateau, it may fade away again, we just don't know yet.
>
>The Times reporter didn't say it wasn't a fad -- the ower of J&R said it
>wasn't a fad. Who's better to judge....you, or she who talks to and caters
>to her customers?
>

Or she who will say damn near anything to try to sell more product.
:-)

"Step right up! Getchyer LPs here! Everyone's gettin' 'em - don't you
be late to get yers too!"

I figure the interest in vinyl is about like the interest in tube
gear. There's a small number of people who like the feel of old
technology and are willing to pay extra to have it. It's not
meaningful on a global scale though.

Soupe du jour

February 7th 10, 11:32 PM

On 10 Dec 2009 11:42:13 GMT, "Harry Lavo" > wrote:

>>
>>> J&R sells everything electronic, everything music, everything photo,
>>> everything kitchen, every.....man,
>>
>>So? How is that relevant?
>
>Because she has no apparent commercial reason to be biased towards vinyl and
>against other forms of music and machines to retrieve it, which she also
>sells.

I wouldn't think she would be biased towards vinyl and against other
media. She'll say good things about anything that she can sell.

I was thinking about the "resurgence" of vinyl a bit more, and I'm
still not convinced it exists.

However, I have met people who are getting into vinyl that never had
any LPs before. They have found that there are a lot of inexpensive
"indy" records out there from before CDs were inexpensive enough that
a new band would self-release on CD. Vinyl was cheap, so all the young
hopefuls did vinyl.

These records are now evidently available for a buck or two from
various local used record stores, and are attractive to some people.

Personally, I've found the recording and production quality to be
miserable on this kind of thing, and a lot of the music is best played
on the radio equivalent of Elvira or other late-night TV shows that
play awful movies and make fun of them.

Audio Empire

February 8th 10, 01:28 AM

On Sun, 7 Feb 2010 10:52:31 -0800, Soupe du jour wrote
(in article >):

> On 8 Dec 2009 19:50:19 GMT, "Harry Lavo" > wrote:
>
>> "bob" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Dec 7, 9:04=A0pm, "Harry Lavo" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Did you miss, or simply choose to ignore her comment about it not being a
>>>> fad? =A0See my comments to Dick Pierce for more on this.
>>>
>>> Just because a New York Times reporter says something is not a fad
>>> does not mean that it is not a fad. My guess is there's a retro
>>> coolness thing going on here, which may or may not last. It may
>>> plateau, it may fade away again, we just don't know yet.
>>
>> The Times reporter didn't say it wasn't a fad -- the ower of J&R said it
>> wasn't a fad. Who's better to judge....you, or she who talks to and caters
>> to her customers?
>>
>
> Or she who will say damn near anything to try to sell more product.
>> -)
>
> "Step right up! Getchyer LPs here! Everyone's gettin' 'em - don't you
> be late to get yers too!"
>
> I figure the interest in vinyl is about like the interest in tube
> gear. There's a small number of people who like the feel of old
> technology and are willing to pay extra to have it. It's not
> meaningful on a global scale though.
>

This is kind of a chicken-and-egg question. Certainly there is a self-serving
aspect to the J&R representative's comments. They sell records (I guess) and
they sell turntables and phono cartridges and phono preamps and all the
accouterments thereto. On the other hand, in this economic climate, most
retailers don't sell that which doesn't move off the shelves. So, either J&R
is stuck with a line of items that don't sell very well, an thus the spin to
the NYT to whip-up some interest, or, there really is a Renaissance in vinyl,
no matter how small or fleeting. From the buzz I'm hearing from my local
audiophile community, I'm inclined to believe its' the latter.

Arny Krueger

February 8th 10, 01:32 PM

"Soupe du jour" > wrote in message

> I was thinking about the "resurgence" of vinyl a bit
> more, and I'm still not convinced it exists.

Hope appears to spring eternal. ;-)

Remember, there is still new production of buggy whips. ;-) I suspect that
the resurgence of harness racing due to the legalization of pari-mutual
betting led to a spike in the production of buggy whips some decades back.
Casinos and lotteries have put pari-mutual betting back on the skids around
here. The point is that long term trends tend to reassert themselves after
brief spiking.

> However, I have met people who are getting into vinyl
> that never had any LPs before. They have found that there
> are a lot of inexpensive "indy" records out there from
> before CDs were inexpensive enough that a new band would
> self-release on CD. Vinyl was cheap, so all the young
> hopefuls did vinyl.

One encounters vinyl newbies on various audiophile and audio forums. Many of
them are having err, educational experiences.

One of the problems is that there have apparently been pretty good sales of
very low end turntables. They are often are very cheaply made, and often
packed and shipped very casually and then found to be damaged in shipment.
They often have tracking forces on the order of 5-8 grams, ceramic
cartridges, with more than a few bent styluses.

I've seen pictures of how equipment like this can completely trash a new
180g pressing in one playing. :-(

I've also heard MP3 recordings showing obvious mistracking due to poor
quality equipment or worn LPs.

All those things that are unfamiliar to most younger people due to the past
nearly 30 years of digital bliss.

I was talking to one newbie and he was bragging about how his friends bring
their LPs over to him to record, because their players are incapable of
playing them without skipping. He was kind of surprised when I said that my
standards for adequate LP playback involves a lack of skipping as a baseline
for reasonable performance.

Arny Krueger

February 9th 10, 12:21 AM

"Audio Empire" > wrote in message

> This is kind of a chicken-and-egg question. Certainly
> there is a self-serving aspect to the J&R
> representative's comments.

J&R have a track record of benefitting from both the consumer and
professional market for turntables.

> They sell records (I guess)
> and they sell turntables and phono cartridges and phono
> preamps and all the accouterments thereto. On the other
> hand, in this economic climate, most retailers don't sell
> that which doesn't move off the shelves. So, either J&R
> is stuck with a line of items that don't sell very well,
> an thus the spin to the NYT to whip-up some interest, or,
> there really is a Renaissance in vinyl, no matter how
> small or fleeting.

What I get is the idea that the last resurgance of vinyl was probably based
on naive young people seeing authority figures (e.g. DJs) who based their
authority on their expertise with dynamic modifications of vinyl playback
(e.g. scratching). At one point sales of turntablist equipment exceeded
the sales of the ever-popular electric guitar.

> From the buzz I'm hearing from my
> local audiophile community, I'm inclined to believe its'
> the latter.

I just got a flyer from an audio retailer who is at least courting business
in the dance club sector. The flyer has several pages of turntables and
other digital players. I notice that the pages devoted to turntables are
being scaled back, and that digital players that simulate turntable-like
dynamic alterations of disc media playback (AKA scratching) are now about
half of the listings of this kind.

It was always about the art, not the means to the art. Turntables were just
a means to the art. Provide people with a modern alternative with practical
advantages at a reasonble price, and that's the way that the market is
likely to go.

Jenn[_2_]

February 9th 10, 12:35 AM

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

>dynamic modifications of vinyl playback

Arny, what do you mean by "dynamic modifications"?

Audio Empire

February 9th 10, 03:19 AM

On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 16:21:01 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article >):

> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
>
>
>> This is kind of a chicken-and-egg question. Certainly
>> there is a self-serving aspect to the J&R
>> representative's comments.
>
> J&R have a track record of benefitting from both the consumer and
> professional market for turntables.
>
>> They sell records (I guess)
>> and they sell turntables and phono cartridges and phono
>> preamps and all the accouterments thereto. On the other
>> hand, in this economic climate, most retailers don't sell
>> that which doesn't move off the shelves. So, either J&R
>> is stuck with a line of items that don't sell very well,
>> an thus the spin to the NYT to whip-up some interest, or,
>> there really is a Renaissance in vinyl, no matter how
>> small or fleeting.
>
> What I get is the idea that the last resurgance of vinyl was probably based
> on naive young people seeing authority figures (e.g. DJs) who based their
> authority on their expertise with dynamic modifications of vinyl playback
> (e.g. scratching). At one point sales of turntablist equipment exceeded
> the sales of the ever-popular electric guitar.
>
>> From the buzz I'm hearing from my
>> local audiophile community, I'm inclined to believe its'
>> the latter.
>
> I just got a flyer from an audio retailer who is at least courting business
> in the dance club sector. The flyer has several pages of turntables and
> other digital players. I notice that the pages devoted to turntables are
> being scaled back, and that digital players that simulate turntable-like
> dynamic alterations of disc media playback (AKA scratching) are now about
> half of the listings of this kind.

Possibly, but that flyer is catering to the dance-club sector, not to music
lovers. I get flyers from places like "Audio Advisor" and they sell
belt-drive turntables from around $350 (Rega, Pro-Ject, and Music Hall) all
the way up to many thousands of dollars (VPI, Thorens, SME, to name a few).
They all sell phono preamps, cartridges and arms. What I see is MORE of this
stuff with new models being added all the time, rather than less.

> It was always about the art, not the means to the art. Turntables were just
> a means to the art. Provide people with a modern alternative with practical
> advantages at a reasonble price, and that's the way that the market is
> likely to go.

While your market sense is spot-on, it is by no means the case that
everything the market goes after is necessarily an improvement over what went
before or better than something else similar that the market ignores almost
completely.

Arny Krueger

February 9th 10, 01:16 PM

"Jenn" > wrote in message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> dynamic modifications of vinyl playback
>
> Arny, what do you mean by "dynamic modifications"?

Quoting from my post.

"dynamic alterations of disc media playback (AKA scratching)"

Arny Krueger

February 9th 10, 02:02 PM

"Audio Empire" > wrote in message

> On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 16:21:01 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
> (in article >):
>

>> I just got a flyer from an audio retailer who is at
>> least courting business in the dance club sector. The
>> flyer has several pages of turntables and other digital
>> players. I notice that the pages devoted to turntables
>> are being scaled back, and that digital players that
>> simulate turntable-like dynamic alterations of disc
>> media playback (AKA scratching) are now about half of
>> the listings of this kind.

> Possibly, but that flyer is catering to the dance-club
> sector, not to music lovers. I get flyers from places
> like "Audio Advisor" and they sell belt-drive turntables
> from around $350 (Rega, Pro-Ject, and Music Hall) all the
> way up to many thousands of dollars (VPI, Thorens, SME,
> to name a few). They all sell phono preamps, cartridges
> and arms. What I see is MORE of this stuff with new
> models being added all the time, rather than less.

Just because more people are crowding in to the market to sell, doesn't mean
that more equipment is being sold.

Manufacturers often pay a fee to have their equipment listed in dealer
flyers.

At one time there were 100's of car manufacturers in just the US. Then there
was a shake out and we ended up with just a few survivors.

>> It was always about the art, not the means to the art.
>> Turntables were just a means to the art. Provide people
>> with a modern alternative with practical advantages at a
>> reasonable price, and that's the way that the market is
>> likely to go.

> While your market sense is spot-on, it is by no means the
> case that everything the market goes after is necessarily
> an improvement over what went before or better than
> something else similar that the market ignores almost
> completely.

I see no reliable evidence of improved performance of vinyl recording or
playback equipment in the past 30 years. Most solid technical analyses say
that no improvement of significance is possible unless there are major
changes in the playback process. Probably the only actual change in the past
30 years would be improvements in processing while making digital
transcriptions of LPs due to the use of computers.

Jenn[_2_]

February 9th 10, 03:47 PM

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> dynamic modifications of vinyl playback
> >
> > Arny, what do you mean by "dynamic modifications"?
>
> Quoting from my post.
>
> "dynamic alterations of disc media playback (AKA scratching)"

Yes, I know that you were writing about scratching. My question is,
what is meant by "dynamic alterations"? What does that mean?

Audio Empire

February 9th 10, 09:06 PM

On Tue, 9 Feb 2010 06:02:27 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article >):

> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
>
>> On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 16:21:01 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
>> (in article >):
>>
>
>>> I just got a flyer from an audio retailer who is at
>>> least courting business in the dance club sector. The
>>> flyer has several pages of turntables and other digital
>>> players. I notice that the pages devoted to turntables
>>> are being scaled back, and that digital players that
>>> simulate turntable-like dynamic alterations of disc
>>> media playback (AKA scratching) are now about half of
>>> the listings of this kind.
>
>> Possibly, but that flyer is catering to the dance-club
>> sector, not to music lovers. I get flyers from places
>> like "Audio Advisor" and they sell belt-drive turntables
>> from around $350 (Rega, Pro-Ject, and Music Hall) all the
>> way up to many thousands of dollars (VPI, Thorens, SME,
>> to name a few). They all sell phono preamps, cartridges
>> and arms. What I see is MORE of this stuff with new
>> models being added all the time, rather than less.
>
> Just because more people are crowding in to the market to sell, doesn't mean
> that more equipment is being sold.

Actually, it sort of does mean JUST that if you think about it.
Entrepreneurs don't jump-in to shrinking markets. Business plans are based
on growing markets, otherwise, what's the point?
>
> Manufacturers often pay a fee to have their equipment listed in dealer
> flyers.
>
> At one time there were 100's of car manufacturers in just the US. Then there
> was a shake out and we ended up with just a few survivors.

That "shakeout" was called the Great Depression but it's pretty irrelevant to
this scenario if you ask me. Obviously, many people feel that vinyl is either
a growing market, or it has growth potential. Otherwise, there wouldn't be so
many new players.

>>> It was always about the art, not the means to the art.
>>> Turntables were just a means to the art. Provide people
>>> with a modern alternative with practical advantages at a
>>> reasonable price, and that's the way that the market is
>>> likely to go.
>
>> While your market sense is spot-on, it is by no means the
>> case that everything the market goes after is necessarily
>> an improvement over what went before or better than
>> something else similar that the market ignores almost
>> completely.
>
> I see no reliable evidence of improved performance of vinyl recording or
> playback equipment in the past 30 years.

I suspect that's because of your oft-stated, anti-vinyl bias. IOW, you really
aren't looking very hard. There are some really nice turntables, arms and
cartridges out there at all price points. Materials technology such as
rare-earth magnets, better stylus suspension materials improvement in the
wire used to wind coils. Not to mention low resonance, low mass arm materials
such as carbon fiber and Kevlar, improved manufacturing techniques resulting
in better bearings at cheaper prices, etc. On the turntable front, there are
new low resonance materials for platters. Again, bearing technology has
lowered noise floors both in the rotational mass of the platter and in the
motors. Materials like sorbothane improve suspensions and record support,
etc. While I agree that the basic designs of turntables haven't changed that
much (as in any mature technology), access to what used to be prohibitively
expensive manufacturing techniques and materials or totally new materials, or
materials that have been re-thought with regard to the problems and
challenges of retrieving the most information from a phonograph record have
all conspired to improve these products considerably, and at all price
points. I dare say that a cheap $350 table from Pro-Ject, Rega, or Music Hall
will easily sonically outperform the best, and most expensive record decks of
thirty years ago.

> Most solid technical analyses say
> that no improvement of significance is possible unless there are major
> changes in the playback process.

I disagree. Mature technologies fix overall design at some point in their
development. Further improvements result from refining those technologies by
focusing on their limiting properties and applying new methodologies and
materials to either eliminate or lessen the effects of those limitations. A
somewhat hyperbolic example of this is the US Air Force's B-52 bomber. It's
almost 60 years old. None have been made in over 40 years. Yet, not only do
they still fly, but a B-52 pilot from the 1950's wouldn't recognize one
(beyond it's distinctive shape) if he were to sit in the cockpit today.
Everything has changed EXCEPT the airframe. Controls, avionics, weaponry,
engine technology, mission profiles, everything is different. Yet these
planes, with their late 1940's sub-sonic jet airframe technology are still
viable because improvements to all of the aforementioned systems have been
applied and re-applied to keep the planes current.

> Probably the only actual change in the past
> 30 years would be improvements in processing while making digital
> transcriptions of LPs due to the use of computers.

A very myopic view, in my estimation.

Arny Krueger

February 10th 10, 12:35 AM

"Jenn" > wrote in message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>
>>> In article >,
>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> dynamic modifications of vinyl playback
>>>
>>> Arny, what do you mean by "dynamic modifications"?
>>
>> Quoting from my post.
>>
>> "dynamic alterations of disc media playback (AKA
>> scratching)"
>
> Yes, I know that you were writing about scratching. My
> question is, what is meant by "dynamic alterations"?
> What does that mean?

Dynamic means changing. IOW, the alterations to the sound of the LP are
changing throughout the performance.

Arny Krueger

February 10th 10, 01:34 AM

"Audio Empire" > wrote in message

> On Tue, 9 Feb 2010 06:02:27 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
> (in article >):
>
>> "Audio Empire" > wrote in
>> message
>>> On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 16:21:01 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
>>> (in article >):
>>>
>>
>>>> I just got a flyer from an audio retailer who is at
>>>> least courting business in the dance club sector. The
>>>> flyer has several pages of turntables and other digital
>>>> players. I notice that the pages devoted to turntables
>>>> are being scaled back, and that digital players that
>>>> simulate turntable-like dynamic alterations of disc
>>>> media playback (AKA scratching) are now about half of
>>>> the listings of this kind.
>>
>>> Possibly, but that flyer is catering to the dance-club
>>> sector, not to music lovers. I get flyers from places
>>> like "Audio Advisor" and they sell belt-drive turntables
>>> from around $350 (Rega, Pro-Ject, and Music Hall) all
>>> the way up to many thousands of dollars (VPI, Thorens,
>>> SME, to name a few). They all sell phono preamps,
>>> cartridges and arms. What I see is MORE of this stuff
>>> with new models being added all the time, rather than
>>> less.

>> Just because more people are crowding in to the market
>> to sell, doesn't mean that more equipment is being sold.
>
> Actually, it sort of does mean JUST that if you think
> about it. Entrepreneurs don't jump-in to shrinking
> markets.

Nobody can accurately and reliably predict the future. While the market is
growing, of course it is attractive to entrepreneurs. However, they can't
tell what turns the market will take in the future.

> Business plans are based on growing markets,
> otherwise, what's the point?

The point is that vinyl has been a generally shrinking market for the past
30 years. It was shrinking even before the CD was introduced.

>> Manufacturers often pay a fee to have their equipment
>> listed in dealer flyers.

>> At one time there were 100's of car manufacturers in
>> just the US. Then there was a shake out and we ended up
>> with just a few survivors.

> That "shakeout" was called the Great Depression but it's
> pretty irrelevant to this scenario if you ask me.

Look, your opinon is your opinion and as long as we are talking about the
future, its as accurate as mine.

> Obviously, many people feel that vinyl is either a
> growing market, or it has growth potential. Otherwise,
> there wouldn't be so many new players.

The majority of the new players are bottom-buck, low quality devices.

>>>> It was always about the art, not the means to the art.
>>>> Turntables were just a means to the art. Provide people
>>>> with a modern alternative with practical advantages at
>>>> a reasonable price, and that's the way that the market
>>>> is likely to go.

>>> While your market sense is spot-on, it is by no means
>>> the case that everything the market goes after is
>>> necessarily an improvement over what went before or
>>> better than something else similar that the market
>>> ignores almost completely.

>> I see no reliable evidence of improved performance of
>> vinyl recording or playback equipment in the past 30
>> years.

> I suspect that's because of your oft-stated, anti-vinyl bias.

Is it bias or is it realism?

>IOW, you really aren't looking very hard. There are
> some really nice turntables, arms and cartridges out
> there at all price points.

The new low end stuff that is flooding the marketplace is pretty nasty.
Ceramic cartrdiges, tracking forces of 5 grams or more.

> Materials technology such as rare-earth magnets,

Not new technology. Neodynium magnets were developed in 1982, which is 28
years ago. Shure has been using neodynium in their phono cartrdiges since
no later than 1998, which is 12 years ago. There is no evidence that there
was any actual significant advance in smoothness of frequency response,
tracking, or distortion at that time.

> better stylus suspension materials

Name them if you can. I won't try to address phantoms.

> improvement in the wire used to wind coils.

Something better than copper? Humans have been using copper for at least
11,000 years! Its been used for wire as long as long as electricity has been
known?

> Not to mention low resonance, low mass arm materials such as
> carbon fiber and Kevlar,

The use of carbon fiber to make tone arms is described in United States
Patent 4390382, granted in 1982.

> improved manufacturing
> techniques resulting in better bearings at cheaper
> prices, etc.

The biggest cost cutting technology for bearings has been "Made In China".

> On the turntable front, there are new low
> resonance materials for platters.

Yet another vague claim - I feel like I'm reading a sales blurb, not a
techical paper.

> Again, bearing
> technology has lowered noise floors both in the
> rotational mass of the platter and in the motors.
> Materials like sorbothane improve suspensions and record
> support, etc.

Sorbothane was also invented in 1982, and is now a realtively cheap
commodity. I have sorbothane feet on my laptop because they really grip the
table top and help prevent it slipping off.

I could go on debunking any number of vague optimistic claims, but the proof
is in the performance. The performance of vinyl playback equipment is
eminently measurable, but I see no evidence of improved measured response
anywhere. I see no evidence of measured performance that is even within 2
orders of magnitude of what can be easily achieved with a $69 optical disk
player.

Jenn[_2_]

February 10th 10, 01:11 PM

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>

> > Yes, I know that you were writing about scratching. My
> > question is, what is meant by "dynamic alterations"?
> > What does that mean?
>
> Dynamic means changing. IOW, the alterations to the sound of the LP are
> changing throughout the performance.

I see, thanks. I thought that perhaps that was somehow "dynamic" in the
musical sense, and I was trying to figure out how that applied.

Audio Empire

February 10th 10, 01:13 PM

On Tue, 9 Feb 2010 17:34:53 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article >):

> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
>

[ extra context snipped -- dsr ]

>> improvement in the wire used to wind coils.
>
> Something better than copper?

No. the way that the copper is formed.

Humans have been using copper for at least
> 11,000 years! Its been used for wire as long as long as electricity has been
> known?

>
>> Not to mention low resonance, low mass arm materials such as
>> carbon fiber and Kevlar,
>
> The use of carbon fiber to make tone arms is described in United States
> Patent 4390382, granted in 1982.
>
>> improved manufacturing
>> techniques resulting in better bearings at cheaper
>> prices, etc.
>
> The biggest cost cutting technology for bearings has been "Made In China".

Whatever. Good ones are now cheaper and have made their way into "budget"
players.

>> On the turntable front, there are new low
>> resonance materials for platters.
>
> Yet another vague claim - I feel like I'm reading a sales blurb, not a
> techical paper.

It has to do with the impedance of the record and the platter as a system.

>> Again, bearing
>> technology has lowered noise floors both in the
>> rotational mass of the platter and in the motors.
>> Materials like sorbothane improve suspensions and record
>> support, etc.
>
> Sorbothane was also invented in 1982, and is now a realtively cheap
> commodity.

Just as I said. Earlier 'tables didn't incorporate it. Many modern ones do.

I have sorbothane feet on my laptop because they really grip the
> table top and help prevent it slipping off.

Good for you.

> I could go on debunking any number of vague optimistic claims, but the proof
> is in the performance. The performance of vinyl playback equipment is
> eminently measurable, but I see no evidence of improved measured response
> anywhere. I see no evidence of measured performance that is even within 2
> orders of magnitude of what can be easily achieved with a $69 optical disk
> player.
>
>

It's simple. Everything I have mentioned have made their way into record
playing apparatus in the last 20 years, Just because something was "invented"
in 1982, doesn't mean that it made its way into commercial turntables until
later. The point is that many small improvements make for better overall
performance at lower price points.

Arny Krueger

February 10th 10, 04:12 PM

"Audio Empire" > wrote in message

> On Tue, 9 Feb 2010 17:34:53 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
> (in article >):
>
>> "Audio Empire" > wrote in
>> message
>
>
> [ extra context snipped -- dsr ]
>
>
>>> improvement in the wire used to wind coils.
>>
>> Something better than copper?
>
>
> No. the way that the copper is formed.

Is there a story here?

Drawing wire and annealing it are very old technologies.

Single crystal copper wire is a decades-old technology.

>>> Not to mention low resonance, low mass arm materials
>>> such as carbon fiber and Kevlar,
>>
>> The use of carbon fiber to make tone arms is described
>> in United States Patent 4390382, granted in 1982.
>>
>>> improved manufacturing
>>> techniques resulting in better bearings at cheaper
>>> prices, etc.
>>
>> The biggest cost cutting technology for bearings has
>> been "Made In China".
>
> Whatever. Good ones are now cheaper and have made their
> way into "budget" players.

Hardly an advance of the state of the art.

>>> On the turntable front, there are new low
>>> resonance materials for platters.
>>
>> Yet another vague claim - I feel like I'm reading a
>> sales blurb, not a techical paper.
>
> It has to do with the impedance of the record and the
> platter as a system.

Is there a story here?

If there is, a story needs to say when, where, who, and how. Seeing none, I
surmise that there is in fact no story to tell.

>>> Again, bearing
>>> technology has lowered noise floors both in the
>>> rotational mass of the platter and in the motors.
>>> Materials like sorbothane improve suspensions and record
>>> support, etc.
>>
>> Sorbothane was also invented in 1982, and is now a
>> realtively cheap commodity.
>
> Just as I said. Earlier 'tables didn't incorporate it.
> Many modern ones do.

Simply not true. Sorbothane record mats were available just a few years
after the material was invented.

> I have sorbothane feet on my laptop because they really
> grip the > table top and help prevent it slipping off.

> Good for you.

The point is, sorbothane is old tech for LP playback. There were no trumpets
from heaven when it was first available to audiophiles back in the 1980s.
There appear to be no reliable scientific studies showing signficiant
improvements in dynamic range, frequency response, or nonlinear distortion.

>> I could go on debunking any number of vague optimistic
>> claims, but the proof is in the performance. The
>> performance of vinyl playback equipment is eminently
>> measurable, but I see no evidence of improved measured
>> response anywhere. I see no evidence of measured
>> performance that is even within 2 orders of magnitude of
>> what can be easily achieved with a $69 optical disk
>> player.

> It's simple. Everything I have mentioned have made their
> way into record playing apparatus in the last 20 years,

But there are no documented signficant benefits from it that you appear to
be able to cite.

> Just because something was "invented" in 1982, doesn't
> mean that it made its way into commercial turntables
> until later.

In the case of Sorbothane and single crystal copper wire, the later was just
a few years, and you have provided no reliable evidence that it addressed
the major problems related to LP playback.

> The point is that many small improvements
> make for better overall performance at lower price points.

Equal or near quality at a lower price is laudable, but in fact much of this
benefit has been lost to inflation. A $125 LP player of today can't hold a
candle to a $125 LP player from back in the day. I'm thinking a Dual 1209,
and AR turntable, any number of mainstream Japanese brands, or some such.

Audio Empire

February 11th 10, 05:53 AM

On Wed, 10 Feb 2010 08:12:52 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article >):

> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
>
>> On Tue, 9 Feb 2010 17:34:53 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
>> (in article >):
>>
>>> "Audio Empire" > wrote in
>>> message
>>
>>
>> [ extra context snipped -- dsr ]
>>
>>
>>>> improvement in the wire used to wind coils.
>>>
>>> Something better than copper?
>>
>>
>> No. the way that the copper is formed.
>
> Is there a story here?
>
> Drawing wire and annealing it are very old technologies.
>
> Single crystal copper wire is a decades-old technology.
>
>>>> Not to mention low resonance, low mass arm materials
>>>> such as carbon fiber and Kevlar,
>>>
>>> The use of carbon fiber to make tone arms is described
>>> in United States Patent 4390382, granted in 1982.
>>>
>>>> improved manufacturing
>>>> techniques resulting in better bearings at cheaper
>>>> prices, etc.
>>>
>>> The biggest cost cutting technology for bearings has
>>> been "Made In China".
>>
>> Whatever. Good ones are now cheaper and have made their
>> way into "budget" players.
>
> Hardly an advance of the state of the art.
>
>>>> On the turntable front, there are new low
>>>> resonance materials for platters.
>>>
>>> Yet another vague claim - I feel like I'm reading a
>>> sales blurb, not a techical paper.
>>
>> It has to do with the impedance of the record and the
>> platter as a system.
>
> Is there a story here?
>
> If there is, a story needs to say when, where, who, and how. Seeing none, I
> surmise that there is in fact no story to tell.
>
>>>> Again, bearing
>>>> technology has lowered noise floors both in the
>>>> rotational mass of the platter and in the motors.
>>>> Materials like sorbothane improve suspensions and record
>>>> support, etc.
>>>
>>> Sorbothane was also invented in 1982, and is now a
>>> realtively cheap commodity.
>>
>> Just as I said. Earlier 'tables didn't incorporate it.
>> Many modern ones do.
>
> Simply not true. Sorbothane record mats were available just a few years
> after the material was invented.
>
>> I have sorbothane feet on my laptop because they really
>> grip the > table top and help prevent it slipping off.
>
>> Good for you.
>
> The point is, sorbothane is old tech for LP playback. There were no trumpets
> from heaven when it was first available to audiophiles back in the 1980s.
> There appear to be no reliable scientific studies showing signficiant
> improvements in dynamic range, frequency response, or nonlinear distortion.
>
>>> I could go on debunking any number of vague optimistic
>>> claims, but the proof is in the performance. The
>>> performance of vinyl playback equipment is eminently
>>> measurable, but I see no evidence of improved measured
>>> response anywhere. I see no evidence of measured
>>> performance that is even within 2 orders of magnitude of
>>> what can be easily achieved with a $69 optical disk
>>> player.
>
>
>> It's simple. Everything I have mentioned have made their
>> way into record playing apparatus in the last 20 years,
>
> But there are no documented signficant benefits from it that you appear to
> be able to cite.
>
>> Just because something was "invented" in 1982, doesn't
>> mean that it made its way into commercial turntables
>> until later.
>
> In the case of Sorbothane and single crystal copper wire, the later was just
> a few years, and you have provided no reliable evidence that it addressed
> the major problems related to LP playback.
>
>> The point is that many small improvements
>> make for better overall performance at lower price points.
>
> Equal or near quality at a lower price is laudable, but in fact much of this
> benefit has been lost to inflation. A $125 LP player of today can't hold a
> candle to a $125 LP player from back in the day. I'm thinking a Dual 1209,
> and AR turntable, any number of mainstream Japanese brands, or some such.
>
>

Were talking about today's "budget players". Today's $350 player is better
than yesterday's $125 player or, going even further back, the original AR's
$70 (actually, all else being equal, Seventy 1963 dollars would be more like
875 of 2010's worthless greenbacks - by the fact that 1 US dollar today buys
about what 8 cents bought in the early 1960's). That being the case, I'll
guarantee you that for ~$900 you can get a MUCH better 'table, with arm and
cartridge than was the original AR (which had a lousy arm, though better than
that found on a record changer, the head shells weren't very stiff and the
contacts failed often). As far as a Dual 1209 is concerned, that was a record
changer (I actually have one for transcribing 78's) and was rim drive and had
a high lateral-mass arm (due to the record changing bits it carried with it
under the chassis as it traversed the record). It's fine for 78's but I
wouldn't want to play a good stereo LP on it (it rumbles badly in the
vertical plane, not so badly in the horizontal plane. Luckily, 78's are mono
and the Shure 78 cartridge that I use has no vertical movement element to
it.)

Most aluminum platter turntables ring like bells, and have poor bass
response, probably due to the interaction with the resonance of the aluminum
platter and a peak at the natural ringing frequency of the platter. Some
experts used to recommend that serious audiophiles press "ropes" of
automotive body dampening putty to the underside edge of their aluminum
platters to damp out this ringing. I used a heavy lead-filled rubber mat from
a Japanese company called Nagaoka (not sure about the spelling here).

Using the CBS Labs test record, with and without the aforementioned mat, I
measured much flatter frequency response with the mat in place. In fact,
without the mat, my Thorens TD 160/Signet TK-7E (at the time) showed 30 Hz to
be almost 5 dB down with respect to 1KHz and a narrow peak of about 4 dB at
around 450 Hz, again with respect to 1KHz (using an HP-400 audio voltmeter).
With the Nagaoka mat in place, the setup was less than 1 dB down at 30 Hz and
the peak at 450 Hz was gone. One could easily hear the difference, but it's
always best to measure lest expectations play tricks on one's ears. The bass
reinforcement made my then Infinity speakers set up and do tricks and the
funny "ih" coloration was gone from the midrange. So I know that ringing
aluminum platters are detrimental to turntable performance. Today, of course,
platters on even the cheapest of audiophile grade belt-drive turntables are
made of non-resonant or low-resonance or matched-resonance materials such as
MDF, or acrylics. Strangely, VPI has just introduced a table with what
appears to be an aluminum platter. It's pretty, but unless the aluminum is
just a thin "beauty ring" over one of their massive acrylic platters, I see
it as a step backwards.

Looks-wise, I've always liked the Empire "Troubadour" turntables (301, 401,
501, 601) "Great Gold Idols" we used to call them. Good, relatively high mass
arms with good bearings coupled with thick, heavy machined platters and cast
chassis plates simply oozed build quality. I'd have one today with a (alas,
no longer available) Nagaoka mat and the proper cartridge (designed for
high-mass arms). But I'll bet my JA Michelle Orb and SME Series IV arm will
outperform it seven ways to sundown!

Robert Peirce

February 12th 10, 01:18 AM

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> I could go on debunking any number of vague optimistic claims, but the proof
> is in the performance. The performance of vinyl playback equipment is
> eminently measurable, but I see no evidence of improved measured response
> anywhere. I see no evidence of measured performance that is even within 2
> orders of magnitude of what can be easily achieved with a $69 optical disk
> player.

A lot depends on what you are playing. Some of the early CDs sounded
just plain awful and none of the modern equipment I have heard has been
able to cure that. A lot of LPs were awful as well. I play both LPs
and CDs and among the best of each it is impossible for me to say one is
better than the other.

The biggest complaint I have heard about LPs is they can be noisy. In
my experience this stems from two sources.

First, many people never really took good care of their LPS (and don't
seem to be taking good care of their CDs either) and they could get
pretty dusty. Once a flick of dust is ground in it is there forever.

Second, poor equipment can damage LPs and emphasize any noise issues.

Keeping records clean is a pain and playing them on good equipment is a
necessity. I have LPs dating back to 1958 that are still tick free.
CDs seem to be less sensitive to either issue and I like that.

Audio Empire

February 12th 10, 04:30 AM

On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 17:18:10 -0800, Robert Peirce wrote
(in article >):

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> I could go on debunking any number of vague optimistic claims, but the
>> proof
>> is in the performance. The performance of vinyl playback equipment is
>> eminently measurable, but I see no evidence of improved measured response
>> anywhere. I see no evidence of measured performance that is even within 2
>> orders of magnitude of what can be easily achieved with a $69 optical disk
>> player.
>
> A lot depends on what you are playing. Some of the early CDs sounded
> just plain awful and none of the modern equipment I have heard has been
> able to cure that. A lot of LPs were awful as well. I play both LPs
> and CDs and among the best of each it is impossible for me to say one is
> better than the other.

Agreed. I have lots of CDs and LPs that I do not want to hear - ever again,
because they sound so lousy. The bad LPs all seem to come from the late '60's
and '70's when the recording industry embraced multi-track for classical and
jazz and replaced their tubed electronics with early transistor stuff (just
terrible). As far a CDs were concerned, many of the early ones are
ear-bleedingly bright, overproduced and distorted.
>
> The biggest complaint I have heard about LPs is they can be noisy. In
> my experience this stems from two sources.
>
> First, many people never really took good care of their LPS (and don't
> seem to be taking good care of their CDs either) and they could get
> pretty dusty. Once a flick of dust is ground in it is there forever.

Yep. I have records that are 50 years old and because I took care of them,
they still sound clean and relatively quiet.
>
> Second, poor equipment can damage LPs and emphasize any noise issues.

Agreed I have some earlier LPs that I bought as a pre-teen that are virtually
unplayable now because of the BSR "Monarch" record changer and the Astatic
Ceramic cartridge that I owned then.

> Keeping records clean is a pain and playing them on good equipment is a
> necessity. I have LPs dating back to 1958 that are still tick free.
> CDs seem to be less sensitive to either issue and I like that.

I too have 50 year old + recordings that are likewise in the same condition.
Ultimately, though I find that the best LPs sound more like music than the
best CDs even though the CD is obviously more accurate. How do I reconcile
this seeming contradiction? I have a theory.

As a "recordist", I get to hear and record a lot of live music. I capture
everything from full symphony orchestras, symphonic bands, string quartets,
to big band jazz to small jazz groups playing in local night spots. I use
digital recording equipment, of course, and most of my recording, I do at
24-bit/96KHz (although I'm awaiting delivery of a Korg M-1000 DSD recording
setup). What I have found is that the recording chain is simply not very kind
to music. Under even the best of circumstances, microphones, mixers and A/D
converters "remove" something palpable from the music. The result is a
recording that is extremely accurate to the electrical signal that is being
recorded, but that squeeky clean electrical signal is not very accurate to
the music.

Now, keep in mind that this is just a theory (actually calling it a theory is
a conceit. It's really more of a "notion" as I do not have enough real data
for it to be a theory). I suspect that whatever distortion that the cutting
and playback of vinyl introduces into the chain actually and inadvertently
"synthesizes" some of the feeling of real music that the recording capture
process strips away. It's artificial, of course. It's distortion, of course,
but somehow, on the best LPs it produces an emotional response that is closer
to the sound of the real event than is the (for all intent and purposes)
perfect waveform reproduction we get from the best digital.

Arny Krueger

February 12th 10, 03:25 PM

"Robert Peirce" > wrote in message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> I could go on debunking any number of vague optimistic
>> claims, but the proof is in the performance. The
>> performance of vinyl playback equipment is eminently
>> measurable, but I see no evidence of improved measured
>> response anywhere. I see no evidence of measured
>> performance that is even within 2 orders of magnitude of
>> what can be easily achieved with a $69 optical disk
>> player.
>
> A lot depends on what you are playing. Some of the early
> CDs sounded just plain awful and none of the modern
> equipment I have heard has been able to cure that. A lot
> of LPs were awful as well.

The idea that different players would, could, or should somehow correct bad
mastering is a pretty novel thought.

The CD format is an sonically accurate medium. Do things right and the good
results accurately show up at the output terminals of the player. Do things
wrong, and the bad results show up in the same place.

> I play both LPs and CDs and
> among the best of each it is impossible for me to say one
> is better than the other.

The best CDs don't have the audible noise and distortion that is inherent in
the LP format.

> The biggest complaint I have heard about LPs is they can
> be noisy. In my experience this stems from two sources.

Neither of which can be adequately addressed.

> First, many people never really took good care of their
> LPS (and don't seem to be taking good care of their CDs
> either) and they could get pretty dusty. Once a flick of
> dust is ground in it is there forever.

Dust is always a fact of life unless you want to turn your listening room
into a certifiable clean room. I'm kinda surprised that someone hasn't tried
that approach.

> Second, poor equipment can damage LPs and emphasize any
> noise issues.

Even the best equipment takes its toll on LPs over many playings.

> Keeping records clean is a pain and playing them on good
> equipment is a necessity. I have LPs dating back to 1958
> that are still tick free.

I seriously doubt that. I've never heard a LP that was tick free, even on
the first playing. The only way to eliminate audible tics from LPs involves
digitizing them and digitally processing the tics out of existence.

> CDs seem to be less sensitive to either issue and I like that.

Unlike LPs, CDs simply don't have any tics that are due to the format. The
CD format is a noise and distortion free format. Any noise and distortion
that you hear (highly unlikely) or measure on a CD came from the analog
domain, or the transition from and/or to it.

Audio Empire

February 12th 10, 07:57 PM

On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 07:25:10 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article >):

> "Robert Peirce" > wrote in message
>
>> In article >,
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>
>>> I could go on debunking any number of vague optimistic
>>> claims, but the proof is in the performance. The
>>> performance of vinyl playback equipment is eminently
>>> measurable, but I see no evidence of improved measured
>>> response anywhere. I see no evidence of measured
>>> performance that is even within 2 orders of magnitude of
>>> what can be easily achieved with a $69 optical disk
>>> player.
>>
>> A lot depends on what you are playing. Some of the early
>> CDs sounded just plain awful and none of the modern
>> equipment I have heard has been able to cure that. A lot
>> of LPs were awful as well.
>
> The idea that different players would, could, or should somehow correct bad
> mastering is a pretty novel thought.
>
> The CD format is an sonically accurate medium. Do things right and the good
> results accurately show up at the output terminals of the player. Do things
> wrong, and the bad results show up in the same place.

I disagree. Strongly. The CD format is a WAVEFORM-ACCURATE format. Hook a
cheap crystal microphone to an A/D converter and you won't get anything that
even remotely resembles sonic accuracy.
>
>> I play both LPs and CDs and
>> among the best of each it is impossible for me to say one
>> is better than the other.
>
> The best CDs don't have the audible noise and distortion that is inherent in
> the LP format.

and the best CDs don't sound as much like real music as does a good LP.
>
>> The biggest complaint I have heard about LPs is they can
>> be noisy. In my experience this stems from two sources.
>
> Neither of which can be adequately addressed.
>
>> First, many people never really took good care of their
>> LPS (and don't seem to be taking good care of their CDs
>> either) and they could get pretty dusty. Once a flick of
>> dust is ground in it is there forever.
>
> Dust is always a fact of life unless you want to turn your listening room
> into a certifiable clean room. I'm kinda surprised that someone hasn't tried
> that approach.

It wouldn't surprise me to find that someone HAS.
>
>> Second, poor equipment can damage LPs and emphasize any
>> noise issues.
>
> Even the best equipment takes its toll on LPs over many playings.

Yet I have 50 year-old records that are perfect.
>
>> Keeping records clean is a pain and playing them on good
>> equipment is a necessity. I have LPs dating back to 1958
>> that are still tick free.
>
> I seriously doubt that.

Since I have some that old which are "virtually" tick free, I don't doubt it.

> I've never heard a LP that was tick free, even on
> the first playing.

Don't get around much do you? No, you're right, there's a difference between
completely tick free and virtually tick free. I have lots of the latter, none
of the former.

The only way to eliminate audible tics from LPs involves
> digitizing them and digitally processing the tics out of existence.
>
>> CDs seem to be less sensitive to either issue and I like that.
>
> Unlike LPs, CDs simply don't have any tics that are due to the format. The
> CD format is a noise and distortion free format. Any noise and distortion
> that you hear (highly unlikely) or measure on a CD came from the analog
> domain, or the transition from and/or to it.

And this analog distortion makes canned music sound more lifelike.
>

Arny Krueger

February 13th 10, 11:30 AM

"Audio Empire" > wrote in message

> On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 07:25:10 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
> (in article >):

>> The CD format is an sonically accurate medium. Do things
>> right and the good results accurately show up at the
>> output terminals of the player. Do things wrong, and the
>> bad results show up in the same place.

> I disagree. Strongly. The CD format is a
> WAVEFORM-ACCURATE format.

While waveform-accurate is not standard terminology, the meaning of the
words seems clear enough. Waveform-accurate implies sonic accuracy.
Therefore, your terminology would seem to agree with what I said.

> Hook a cheap crystal microphone
> to an A/D converter and you won't get anything that even
> remotely resembles sonic accuracy.

This while a true statement, seems very strange indeed. Of course hooking a
poor microphone to an accurate recorder will not provide a good recording,
but that says everything about the poor microphone and little about the
accurate recorder. It seems ludicrous that anybody would use a poor
microphone with a good recorder. ? What can you prove about the recorder if
you do something this illogical? Would the poor microphone sound better
with a poor recorder? What is the point?

>>> I play both LPs and CDs and
>>> among the best of each it is impossible for me to say
>>> one >> is better than the other.

>> The best CDs don't have the audible noise and distortion
>> that is inherent in the LP format.

> and the best CDs don't sound as much like real music as
> does a good LP.

Yet another illogical statement. How can intentionally adding audible noise
and distortion to a good quality recording make it sound better? If you put
a fine recording on a CD, you hear a fine recording when you play it back
because the CD format is sonically accurate. If you put a fine recording
onto a LP, its going to come back with added audible noise and distoriton.
How can adding audible noise and distortion make it sound better.

Note that the noise and distortion that the LP format adds was not designed
to be euphonic. The noise and distortion is something undesirable that great
expense and effort was made to reduce as much as possible, and these efforts
ulitmately failed to the extent that it became necessary to invent digital
recording. The noise and distortion that is inherent in the LP format is the
result of any number of technical deficiencies and compromises that were
forced by the basic technology. Inherent problems with the LP format such as
innner groove distortion were not tuned by great symphony conductors in
order to produce a euphonic result. They are the results of things like poor
geometry and problems with plastic materials.

>>> The biggest complaint I have heard about LPs is they can
>>> be noisy. In my experience this stems from two sources.
>>
>> Neither of which can be adequately addressed.
>>
>>> First, many people never really took good care of their
>>> LPS (and don't seem to be taking good care of their CDs
>>> either) and they could get pretty dusty. Once a flick
>>> of dust is ground in it is there forever.
>>
>> Dust is always a fact of life unless you want to turn
>> your listening room into a certifiable clean room. I'm
>> kinda surprised that someone hasn't tried that approach.
>
> It wouldn't surprise me to find that someone HAS.

>>> Second, poor equipment can damage LPs and emphasize any
>>> noise issues.
>>
>> Even the best equipment takes its toll on LPs over many
>> playings.

> Yet I have 50 year-old records that are perfect.

This is impossible since the LPs were obviously imperfect when they were
first made.

>>> Keeping records clean is a pain and playing them on good
>>> equipment is a necessity. I have LPs dating back to
>>> 1958 that are still tick free.

>> I seriously doubt that.

> Since I have some that old which are "virtually" tick
> free, I don't doubt it.

By using the word "virtually", you actually concede my point.

>> I've never heard a LP that was tick free, even on
>> the first playing.

> Don't get around much do you?

Why be unecessarily insulting? We are not talking about the honor of a
family member of yours,we're talking about some obsolete medium that has
fallen into disuse for about 99% of all music lovers because of exactly the
problems that you seem to want to deny the existance of.

> No, you're right, there's a
> difference between completely tick free and virtually
> tick free. I have lots of the latter, none of the former.

CDs are tic free. Always have been, always will be. Its an inherent part of
their technology.

> The only way to eliminate audible tics from LPs involves
>> digitizing them and digitally processing the tics out of
>> existence.
>
>>> CDs seem to be less sensitive to either issue and I
>>> like that.
>>
>> Unlike LPs, CDs simply don't have any tics that are due
>> to the format. The CD format is a noise and distortion
>> free format. Any noise and distortion that you hear
>> (highly unlikely) or measure on a CD came from the
>> analog domain, or the transition from and/or to it.

> And this analog distortion makes canned music sound more
> lifelike.

Since analog noise and distortion is randomly chosen and was never designed
to be euphonic, how can it make music sound more lifelike?

February 13th 10, 11:30 AM

On 2/12/2010 12:57 PM, Audio Empire wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 07:25:10 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
> (in >):
>
>> "Robert > wrote in message

<snip>

>> The CD format is an sonically accurate medium. Do things right and the good
>> results accurately show up at the output terminals of the player. Do things
>> wrong, and the bad results show up in the same place.
>
> I disagree. Strongly. The CD format is a WAVEFORM-ACCURATE format.

I believe that is exactly what he was saying.

> Hook a
> cheap crystal microphone to an A/D converter and you won't get anything that
> even remotely resembles sonic accuracy.

Quite the contrary. Given an accurate amp and speaker (which, although
that is an impossibility, it's a limitation that applies equally no
matter the source material), that CD will give a sonically accurate
reproduction of the acoustic event *as recorded by the mic*. That is
the only accuracy that is available to be had, by any recording medium.

LP doesn't do that. You like the LP sound irrespective of (or because
of) its lack of waveform-accuracy. Fine, your choice.

> And this analog distortion makes canned music sound more lifelike.

Only to some.

Keith Hughes

Audio Empire

February 13th 10, 08:17 PM

On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 03:30:32 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article >):

> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
>
>> On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 07:25:10 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
>> (in article >):
>
>>> The CD format is an sonically accurate medium. Do things
>>> right and the good results accurately show up at the
>>> output terminals of the player. Do things wrong, and the
>>> bad results show up in the same place.
>
>> I disagree. Strongly. The CD format is a
>> WAVEFORM-ACCURATE format.
>
> While waveform-accurate is not standard terminology, the meaning of the
> words seems clear enough. Waveform-accurate implies sonic accuracy.
> Therefore, your terminology would seem to agree with what I said.

No, I don't. Nyquist's theory states that an accurate WAVEFORM can be
reconstructed using from digital quantization. Any waveform can be accurately
digitized, given the required number of bits and the proper sampling
frequency to represent that waveform. But nothing in digital theory states
that the resulting analog reconstruction - at the end of the process- is an
accurate picture OF ANYTHING. If you digitize a poor audio or video signal,
for instance, the other end of the process will not magically make that
reconstructed waveform accurate to the original picture or sound.
>
>> Hook a cheap crystal microphone
>> to an A/D converter and you won't get anything that even
>> remotely resembles sonic accuracy.
>
> This while a true statement, seems very strange indeed. Of course hooking a
> poor microphone to an accurate recorder will not provide a good recording,
> but that says everything about the poor microphone and little about the
> accurate recorder. It seems ludicrous that anybody would use a poor
> microphone with a good recorder. ? What can you prove about the recorder if
> you do something this illogical? Would the poor microphone sound better
> with a poor recorder? What is the point?

The point is that "SOUND" doesn't exist in the digital domain at all. You
said that CD was sonically accurate, Digital quantization doesn't deal with
sound, it deals with an electrical AC signal that represents sound in the
form of an audio waveform. That waveform can be a fairly accurate "snapshot"
of the sonic event, or, perhaps not.
>
>>>> I play both LPs and CDs and
>>>> among the best of each it is impossible for me to say
>>>> one >> is better than the other.
>
>>> The best CDs don't have the audible noise and distortion
>>> that is inherent in the LP format.
>
>> and the best CDs don't sound as much like real music as
>> does a good LP.
>
> Yet another illogical statement. How can intentionally adding audible noise
> and distortion to a good quality recording make it sound better? If you put
> a fine recording on a CD, you hear a fine recording when you play it back
> because the CD format is sonically accurate. If you put a fine recording
> onto a LP, its going to come back with added audible noise and distoriton.
> How can adding audible noise and distortion make it sound better.

My "theory" is that the process of recording removes something from the music
making it threadbare and sterile. The distortion in LP inadvertantly
"synthesizes" something akin to what recording strips away and people who
know the sound of live music respond to that added distortion in a positive
way. I started thinking about this when I began recording the Stanford
University Jazz Orchestra a couple of years ago. Their leader, Dr. Fred
Berry, came over to where I was setting up to look at my recording equipment.
"Digital huh?" He asked. Then he followed with, " Nice setup, but you know,
Analog from LPs sounds more real than digital from CDs."

"Yes," said I. "It does, but it is impractical to record that way these
days."

But it got me thinking. Here is a man who has a doctorate in music, plays a
number of instruments well and who HEARS live music almost every day. He also
thinks that LPs sound more realistic that do CDs. So I made it a point to ask
every musician I encountered which sounded better, LP or CD. Well, it turns
out that most musicians have no opinion, and don't care (they don't really
listen to the same things in a musical performance that most lay-listeners do
and can, essentially, hear what they are listening for on a table radio), but
those that do, universally opine that LP sounds more real to them than does
digital (CD).

I have other indicators that this is the case as well. I have a number of
recordings that were made digitally and released, initially, on LP. When CD
came around, these digital recordings were, naturally, again released in
their native 16-bit digital format. In every case, the LP version sounds far
superior to the CD - even though the MASTER was 16-bit digital to begin with!

One really prime example of this phenomenon is a jazz recording made in 1979
with a Nashville musician named Farrell Morris and called "Bits of percussion
and Jazz". This recording featured no less than Stan Getz on tenor sax and
Ron Carter on bass with a bunch of great Nashville studio musicians filling
in the rest of the 12-piece ensemble. It was recorded, according to the liner
notes, using a Sony 1600, 16-bit/44.1 KHz converter to a BetaMax video
recorder. The album was first released on LP (CD didn't exist then) and
later, briefly, on CD by a small Nashville-based record company called Audio
Directions. The LP is one of the best sounding and most delightful jazz
recordings I've ever heard. It's so palpable that if you take away the (very)
occasional tick and pop, you can close your eyes and the musicians are in the
room with you. The CD is a wholly different experience. It's difficult to
reconcile the knowledge that this is the SAME performance as the LP with what
emanates from one's speakers! The LP is vibrant, alive, images well, has
great bass, the high-frequency percussion sounds are clean and "airy" . The
CD, OTOH, is dull sounding, dead, lacking in presence with wimpy bass, a
flat, 2-dimensional image and is, in no way, anything that anyone would think
twice about upon hearing it. I have other examples of the same phenomenon.
Compare the Charles Dutoit/Montreal Symphony's "DDD" CD recording of Ravel's
"Daphnis and Chloe" with the earlier LP of the same digital master. The LP is
GORGEOUS, the CD is, again, lifeless and ordinary by comparison, with overly
bright, screeching highs, and weak, flaccid bass. I have enough "dual
inventory" like this to know that the LP is doing something to make these
digital recordings sound MORE like music than their CD counterparts. Since I
agree with you that digital is far more ACCURATE than analog, I must conclude
from the above and other things that some of the non-linearities that LP
introduces must be highly euphonic and obviously cause one's musical
perceptions to respond in a much more positive way than they do to straight
digital.

> Note that the noise and distortion that the LP format adds was not designed
> to be euphonic.

It's called serendipity, Arnie

> The noise and distortion is something undesirable that great
> expense and effort was made to reduce as much as possible, and these efforts
> ulitmately failed to the extent that it became necessary to invent digital
> recording.

Now, there's a revisionist view of history, if ever I saw one. I know that
historical revisionism is politically correct in this day and age, Arnie, but
really: "(LP) ultimately failed to the extent that it became necessary to
invent digital recording."? Digital recording was invented for two reasons:
(1) The technology had come of age to allow it and more importantly, (2) due
primarily to the youth market, and their desire for portability, the compact
cassette was eating vinyl's lunch in the record stores. The CD was seen as a
natural progression in that it PROMISED better sound in a portable format.
Record stores liked CD because there were fewer defective discs to deal with
and being smaller, the CD took up less floor space. Kids liked it because
they could easily take their CDs with them and they didn't end up wrapped
around the capstan in their car players like cassettes did. There was NO
thought at the time that vinyl had "failed" only that priorities in the
marketing of music had changed.

>From the very beginning critical listeners (and producers) found CD wanting.

> The noise and distortion that is inherent in the LP format is the
> result of any number of technical deficiencies and compromises that were
> forced by the basic technology. Inherent problems with the LP format such as
> innner groove distortion were not tuned by great symphony conductors in
> order to produce a euphonic result. They are the results of things like poor
> geometry and problems with plastic materials.

Innergrove distortion has been largely banished in more modern LPs, and this
distortion that speak so vehemently against just MIGHT be what makes LP (at
it's best) sound more lifelike and musical.
>
>>>> The biggest complaint I have heard about LPs is they can
>>>> be noisy. In my experience this stems from two sources.
>>>
>>> Neither of which can be adequately addressed.
>>>
>>>> First, many people never really took good care of their
>>>> LPS (and don't seem to be taking good care of their CDs
>>>> either) and they could get pretty dusty. Once a flick
>>>> of dust is ground in it is there forever.
>>>
>>> Dust is always a fact of life unless you want to turn
>>> your listening room into a certifiable clean room. I'm
>>> kinda surprised that someone hasn't tried that approach.
>>
>> It wouldn't surprise me to find that someone HAS.

>>>> Second, poor equipment can damage LPs and emphasize any
>>>> noise issues.
>>>
>>> Even the best equipment takes its toll on LPs over many
>>> playings.
>
>> Yet I have 50 year-old records that are perfect.
>
> This is impossible since the LPs were obviously imperfect when they were
> first made.
>
>>>> Keeping records clean is a pain and playing them on good
>>>> equipment is a necessity. I have LPs dating back to
>>>> 1958 that are still tick free.
>
>>> I seriously doubt that.
>
>> Since I have some that old which are "virtually" tick
>> free, I don't doubt it.
>
> By using the word "virtually", you actually concede my point.
>
>>> I've never heard a LP that was tick free, even on
>>> the first playing.
>
>> Don't get around much do you?
>
> Why be unecessarily insulting?

I didn't mean it as an insult, but rather as a prelude to my next comment, in
which, I essentially, agree with you.

> We are not talking about the honor of a
> family member of yours,we're talking about some obsolete medium that has
> fallen into disuse for about 99% of all music lovers because of exactly the
> problems that you seem to want to deny the existance of.

Bringing up public taste as a defense for anything is a poor debating tactic.
The taste of the hoi poloi is notoriously AWFUL. After all, many millions
more people watch "American Idol" on Fox than watch "Evening at the Met" on
PBS. I wouldn't go there were I you.

>> No, you're right, there's a
>> difference between completely tick free and virtually
>> tick free. I have lots of the latter, none of the former.
>
> CDs are tic free. Always have been, always will be. Its an inherent part of
> their technology.

You are a champion of the obvious, aren't you? No one is denying CD/digital's
strengths. They're convenient, quiet (and usually stay that way) and, for the
average listener, completely satisfactory as a musical source. Records are,
on the other hand, fragile, require a lot of care, require a stringent
playback ritual if the records are to remain in decent shape. They are
inherently noisy, and get noisier with age regardless of how well one cares
for them. Yet, for many, those who CARE about the SOUND of music in their
lives, it's all worth it. Putting up with the ticks and pops, the swishing
sounds, the occasional off-center or warped record, are all rewarded when a
certain LP takes the listener to a place that says "Here is a glimpse of a
live musical performance. Here is what you got into the audio hobby about in
the first place." In my audio life, I live for those moments, those
glimpses. I get them mostly from LPs rather than CDs and even though I'm a
very good recording engineer and a purist (real stereo, only. No multi-miked
8, 16, or 32 track "mono" for me), none of my digital recordings sound as
good as the best LPs.
>
>> The only way to eliminate audible tics from LPs involves
>>> digitizing them and digitally processing the tics out of
>>> existence.
>>
>>>> CDs seem to be less sensitive to either issue and I
>>>> like that.
>>>
>>> Unlike LPs, CDs simply don't have any tics that are due
>>> to the format. The CD format is a noise and distortion
>>> free format. Any noise and distortion that you hear
>>> (highly unlikely) or measure on a CD came from the
>>> analog domain, or the transition from and/or to it.
>
>> And this analog distortion makes canned music sound more
>> lifelike.
>
> Since analog noise and distortion is randomly chosen and was never designed
> to be euphonic, how can it make music sound more lifelike?

Like I said, earlier. Serendipity, Arnie, serendipity.

Audio Empire

February 14th 10, 01:44 AM

On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 03:30:41 -0800, KH wrote
(in article >):

> On 2/12/2010 12:57 PM, Audio Empire wrote:
>> On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 07:25:10 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
>> (in >):
>>
>>> "Robert > wrote in message
>
> <snip>
>
>>> The CD format is an sonically accurate medium. Do things right and the good
>>> results accurately show up at the output terminals of the player. Do things
>>> wrong, and the bad results show up in the same place.
>>
>> I disagree. Strongly. The CD format is a WAVEFORM-ACCURATE format.
>
> I believe that is exactly what he was saying.

No. he said that it was sonically accurate. Digital doesn't record sound, it
records ones-and-zeros. Those ones-and-zeros can represent sound (or video,
or computer data, or anything else that's quantifiable), but it's the analog
equipment BEFORE the quantization that "decides" the sonic accuracy of a
digital recording . IE. the microphones (and the competence of the recordist
using them) , the electronics of the mixing board, the analog section of the
A/D converter that can ensure sonic accuracy (to the extent that this
equipment and it's use IS sonically accurate).
>
>> Hook a
>> cheap crystal microphone to an A/D converter and you won't get anything that
>> even remotely resembles sonic accuracy.
>
> Quite the contrary. Given an accurate amp and speaker (which, although
> that is an impossibility, it's a limitation that applies equally no
> matter the source material), that CD will give a sonically accurate
> reproduction of the acoustic event *as recorded by the mic*. That is
> the only accuracy that is available to be had, by any recording medium.

NO. It will give an electrically accurate reproduction of the signal fed to
it. The moment the microphone turns the sound field into an electrical
signal, we're no longer dealing with sound, we're dealing with an AC waveform
that represents that sonic event ONLY to the capability of the transducer
(microphone).

> LP doesn't do that. You like the LP sound irrespective of (or because
> of) its lack of waveform-accuracy. Fine, your choice.

I like LP sound because it sounds* (for whatever reason) more like REAL
music. and I hear more of that than most people.
>
>> And this analog distortion makes canned music sound more lifelike.
>
> Only to some.
>
> Keith Hughes

* Let me be clear about the statement that LP "SOUNDS more like real music".
As humans, we interpret what we hear. That interpretation is naturally
colored by a combination of experience and knowledge and perhaps a little
instinct mixed in for good measure. There are things that make me want to
experience live music, it's an entirely emotional response. I obviously
became an audiophile because I LIKE that emotional experience and I want it
at my fingertips. Now, all this talk and theorizing about accuracy is all
fine and good, But we don't listen TO technology (OK, some do, I guess), we
listen to the music by way of the technology. As we all know, the technology
is far from perfect. Were it perfect, we would have no need of concert halls
and live performances because our stereo systems would provide that emotional
response we get from listening to live music every time we turn it on. It
doesn't. The most expensive and elaborate stereo system in the world will
fool no one for very long. Yet we can walk down the street past a night spot
with open doors and IMMEDIATELY tell that "there's live music in there".
Because there is something about that sound that is unmistakable. We all
recognize it when we hear it, we all want it, yet, we cannot capture it and
we cannot reproduce it in our homes. It doesn't matter what we use; analog
tape, digital at 32- bits and high sampling rates, it doesn't matter. We
simply cannot get that emotional involvement with music that we get from
hearing it live from listening to recordings.

But, having said that, I will also say that I get glimpses of that emotional
response from some LPs. There is a warmth, an inexplicable feeling of well
being that washes over me when I listen to an LP that I simply don't get with
CDs. This is very similar to the response I have to real, live music. I like
that. I want that. If music listening were purely an intellectual exercise,
I'd agree with you and Arny that since CD is more accurate (and it is) it's
better. But listening to music is NOT in and of itself, a purely intellectual
exercise. It is an emotional experience. It's SUPPOSED to be an emotional
experience. LP elicits, from me (and many music lovers like me) an emotional
response that reminds me of the emotional involvement and response I feel at
a concert. I don't care that it's vinyl's inherent limitations and
distortions that cause that emotional response from me. I don't even care if
that response is caused, in large part by sheer nostalgia for the way
listening to music via records USED TO BE when I was a kid (and this is very
great possibility). It gives me something that causes the same endorphins to
be released in my brain as does the sound of live music played in a real
space. As far as I'm concerned, that's what hi-fi is all about and to hell
with accuracy if accuracy cannot provide that emotional response.

Audio Empire

February 14th 10, 02:45 PM

On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 17:43:42 -0800, Dick Pierce wrote
(in article >):

> Audio Empire wrote:
>> On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 07:25:10 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
>> (in article >):
>>> The CD format is an sonically accurate medium.
> >> Do things right and the good results accurately
> >> show up at the output terminals of the player.
> >> Do things wrong, and the bad results show up in
> >> the same place.
>>
>> I disagree. Strongly. The CD format is a WAVEFORM-
> > ACCURATE format. Hook a cheap crystal microphone to an
> > A/D converter and you won't get anything that
>> even remotely resembles sonic accuracy.
>
> Last time you or me or anyone else actually checked, a crystal
> microphone is NOT part of the CD format, thus the microphone
> and, in fact ANY source device is irrelevant as to whether
> the medium causes significant losses or changes in the signal.

Neither is sound a part of the CD format. I have CDs with computer programs,
computer files, photographs and even video on them. You are either being
purposely argumentative or....???
>
> If I take a good microphone and poke holes in the diaphragm
> and spray salt water into it, and hook it to an A/D converter,
> why does that have ANY relevance on the sonic accuracy capabilities
> of the CD medium? Sure, it will sound like crap, but if you were
> to connect that same busted microphone through the very best
> mic preamp and power amplifier to the very best (by your standards)
> of ooudspeakers, would it not ALSO sound like crap? Is it therefore,
> by your logic, thus true that your choice of speakers is thus crap
> only because the entire chani is crap.

That's not the point and you know it. Again, the amplifier doesn't carry
music, it carries an analog (usually) electrical signal. Same with speakers.
They respond to the electrical signal fed to them. I certainly see your
point, but you are being needlessly argumentative. It's a simple point. CD is
a very accurate digital data medium. That data may be an accurately captured
musical performance, or not.

> Some of us might take a more restrictive view by saying that
> if the microphone is crap, therefore the microphone is crap.

The microphone is irrelevant. The source material is irrelevant. The CD
doesn't care what intelligence the one-and-zeros it holds represents.
>
> By your same argument, a crystal microphone hooked to an LP
> cutting lathe would also result in something that doesn't
> even remotely resemble xsonic accuracy, therefore you would
> have to agree, by your argument, that the LP medium is not
> sonically accurate.

It isn't. these media carry a signal. That signal may or may not be an
accurate representation of some musical performance.
>
> Blaming the medium for the result of deliberately
> picking a faulty source is simply nonsensical.

And no one has done that. I merely made the distinction between signal
accuracy and sonic accuracy.
>
>> and the best CDs don't sound as much like real music
> > as does a good LP.
>
> To you that is: an opinion you get to have.
>
>>> Unlike LPs, CDs simply don't have any tics that are due to the format. The
>>> CD format is a noise and distortion free format. Any noise and distortion
>>> that you hear (highly unlikely) or measure on a CD came from the analog
>>> domain, or the transition from and/or to it.
>>
>> And this analog distortion makes canned music sound more lifelike.
>
> To you that is: an opinion you get to have.

And it seems to be shared by many people who actually know how real, live
music affects listeners.

Arny Krueger

February 14th 10, 02:46 PM

"Audio Empire" > wrote in message

> On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 03:30:41 -0800, KH wrote
> (in article >):
>
>> On 2/12/2010 12:57 PM, Audio Empire wrote:
>>> On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 07:25:10 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
>>> (in >):
>>>
>>>> "Robert > wrote in
>>>> message
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>> The CD format is an sonically accurate medium. Do
>>>> things right and the good results accurately show up
>>>> at the output terminals of the player. Do things
>>>> wrong, and the bad results show up in the same place.
>>>
>>> I disagree. Strongly. The CD format is a
>>> WAVEFORM-ACCURATE format.
>>
>> I believe that is exactly what he was saying.
>
> No. he said that it was sonically accurate.

This is as much of a proven fact as such facts exist in audio. In many
experiments, some even documented in august journals such as the JAES, it
has been shown that the interposition of a good digital link, is not
detectable by human ears, even the ears of experienced listeners listening
to the best modern recordings that they can find, using high quality
associated compoents such as high end and also professional grade amplifiers
and speakers.

> Digital doesn't record sound, it records ones-and-zeros.

This excludes two well-known components of a working digital link, namely
the ADC and DAC. Therefore it is a entirely incomplete statement, and no
theory, hypothesis or experimental result based on it is valid.

The discussion awaits a proper and relevant recitation of how digital audio
works.

Arny Krueger

February 14th 10, 03:41 PM

"Audio Empire" > wrote in message

> On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 03:30:32 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
> (in article >):
>
>> "Audio Empire" > wrote in
>> message
>>> On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 07:25:10 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
>>> (in article >):
>>
>>>> The CD format is an sonically accurate medium. Do
>>>> things right and the good results accurately show up
>>>> at the output terminals of the player. Do things
>>>> wrong, and the bad results show up in the same place.
>>
>>> I disagree. Strongly. The CD format is a
>>> WAVEFORM-ACCURATE format.
>>
>> While waveform-accurate is not standard terminology, the
>> meaning of the words seems clear enough.
>> Waveform-accurate implies sonic accuracy. Therefore,
>> your terminology would seem to agree with what I said.
>
> No, I don't. Nyquist's theory states that an accurate
> WAVEFORM can be reconstructed using from digital
> quantization. Any waveform can be accurately digitized,
> given the required number of bits and the proper sampling
> frequency to represent that waveform.

So far so good.

> But nothing in
> digital theory states that the resulting analog
> reconstruction - at the end of the process- is an
> accurate picture OF ANYTHING.

This is highly incorrect, and misses much of digital theory. Digital theory
also includes Shannon's information theory which provides a means for
evaluating the accuracy of a reproduction of an origional waveform.

> If you digitize a poor
> audio or video signal, for instance, the other end of the
> process will not magically make that reconstructed
> waveform accurate to the original picture or sound.

As others have also pointed out in other words, this statement confuses the
messeger with the message. A digital link acts as a messenger, and as a
reliable messenger (whose reliability can be judged using Information
Theory) a good digital link will provide an excellent replica of the
original waveform. If the message is of poor quality, no good analog or
digital link will improve the basic quality of the message. The better the
link is, the better job it will do of reproducing the imperfections.

Bringing in the quality of the message is on the face of it, a red herring
argument. We're discussing the quality of data links, not the quality of the
data being linked!

>>>> The best CDs don't have the audible noise and
>>>> distortion that is inherent in the LP format.
>>
>>> and the best CDs don't sound as much like real music as
>> does a good LP.
>>
>> Yet another illogical statement. How can intentionally
>> adding audible noise and distortion to a good quality
>> recording make it sound better? If you put a fine
>> recording on a CD, you hear a fine recording when you
>> play it back because the CD format is sonically
>> accurate. If you put a fine recording onto a LP, its
>> going to come back with added audible noise and
>> distoriton. How can adding audible noise and distortion
>> make it sound better.

> My "theory" is that the process of recording removes
> something from the music making it threadbare and
> sterile.

This is an interesting assertion, but I see no evidence to support it.

Since we have only an unfounded assertion before us, there is no need to
take it seriously and discuss it any further. If it were supported it might
be intresting, but there is no support for it at all. No discussions or
conclusions based on this unfounded assertion can possibly gain any
relevance from being based on this unfounded assertion.

We see two fatal flaws in the above discussion. One is the lack of
application of a relatively old, well known and generally accepted
technology, namely Shannon's Information Theory. The second is the the
assertion of a questionable theory, with no supporting evidence or
discussion whatsoever.

There is third fatal flaw in the volumnous text that I deleted which is
that some random collection of noises and distortions, each of which have
thwarted decades of human effort to reduce to inaudibility, none of which
were designed to be euphonic or musical, would somehow restore this
hypothetical missing component of music. Together, we have a sand castle
built on top of a sand castle. The wind of logic blows, the sand dries out
and collapses. All we have is a beach. ;-)

Scott[_6_]

February 14th 10, 03:42 PM

On Feb 13, 3:30=A0am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
>
>
>
> > and the best CDs don't sound as much like real music as
> > does a good LP.
>
> Yet another illogical statement.

It is an observation. logic is not at issue.

> How can intentionally adding audible noise
> and distortion to a good quality recording make it sound better?

Now that is a logical fallacy. Argument by incredulty. One need not
have an explanation for an aesthetic opinion of a perceptual
experience for the aesthetic opinion to hold true.

>=A0If you put
> a fine recording on a CD, you hear a fine recording when you play it back
> because the CD format is sonically accurate.

In practice this simply has all too often not been the case. there are
many many real world examples of fine recordings being sonically
degraded quite severely when released on commercial CD. Even some of
the best efforts done with all due diligence have wrought inferior
results.

> If you put a fine recording
> onto a LP, its going to come back with added audible noise and distoriton=
..

There have been some informal blind comparisons that showed otherwise.

> How can adding audible noise and distortion make it sound better.

It's called a euphonic distortion. a phenomenon that is well known in
many various media.

>
> Note that the noise and distortion that the LP format adds was not design=
ed
> to be euphonic.

This is far too broad and simplistic an assertion to hold water. There
certainly have been euphonic distortions designed into some vinyl
playback equipment. There also does seem to be some euphonic
distortion that happens by happy accident. I would think anyone
involved in any aesthetic endevour on any meaningful level would know
that happy accidents are actually pretty common place and the smart
designer/artisan takes those happy accidents and turns them into
another tool in their palette. It would seem that designers such as Y
Sugano and Dr. Peter Forsell have been bright enough to do just that.

> The noise and distortion is something undesirable that great
> expense and effort was made to reduce as much as possible,

Actually it has been my experience that such efforts when taken to
their extreme have wrought less than ideal results. There are
certainly ugly colorations that can be found in less than excellent
vinyl playback equipment. But IMO one has to be careful not to throw
the proverbial baby out with the bath water. The key to ultimate
success is to preserve and engage euphonic distortions that improve
the aesthetic experience over a broad range of recordings while
reducing the ugly colorations to the point of insignificance. IME this
has been achieved to an extraordinary degree by a number of vinyl
playback setups.

> and these efforts
> ulitmately failed to the extent that it became necessary to invent digita=
l
> recording.

That is an illogical argument because it is based on the plainly
untrue axiom that digital was invented out of necessity.

> The noise and distortion that is inherent in the LP format is the
> result of any number of technical deficiencies and compromises that were
> forced by the basic technology. Inherent problems with the LP format such=
as
> innner groove distortion were not tuned by great symphony conductors in
> order to produce a euphonic result.

I would suggest you limit your comments about the inherent audible
distortions of the media to the *actual* inherent audible distortions
of the media. Innergroove distortion is the result of correctable
problems in geometry and velocity. It is not an inherent audible
distortion.

> They are the results of things like poor
> geometry and problems with plastic materials.

Poor geometry is correctable and so is not an inherent problem.
Plastic materials have what to do with inner groove distortion?

> > Yet I have 50 year-old records that are perfect.
>
> This is impossible since the LPs were obviously imperfect when they were
> first made.

Given the fact that a tick or pop is a defect it clearly is not
impossible to make a defect free LP.

> > And this analog distortion makes canned music sound more
> > lifelike.
>
> Since analog noise and distortion is randomly chosen and was never design=
ed
> to be euphonic, how can it make music sound more lifelike?

one need not know how to observe it. It has been observed whether it
fits your belief system or not. If you want to know how I suggest
asking JJ. He has done some actual research on the issue and is not in
denial about euphonic distortions.

Audio Empire

February 14th 10, 06:16 PM

On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 06:46:05 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article >):

> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
>
>> On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 03:30:41 -0800, KH wrote
>> (in article >):
>>
>>> On 2/12/2010 12:57 PM, Audio Empire wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 07:25:10 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
>>>> (in >):
>>>>
>>>>> "Robert > wrote in
>>>>> message
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>>> The CD format is an sonically accurate medium. Do
>>>>> things right and the good results accurately show up
>>>>> at the output terminals of the player. Do things
>>>>> wrong, and the bad results show up in the same place.
>>>>
>>>> I disagree. Strongly. The CD format is a
>>>> WAVEFORM-ACCURATE format.
>>>
>>> I believe that is exactly what he was saying.
>>
>> No. he said that it was sonically accurate.
>
> This is as much of a proven fact as such facts exist in audio. In many
> experiments, some even documented in august journals such as the JAES, it
> has been shown that the interposition of a good digital link, is not
> detectable by human ears, even the ears of experienced listeners listening
> to the best modern recordings that they can find, using high quality
> associated compoents such as high end and also professional grade amplifiers
> and speakers.
>
>> Digital doesn't record sound, it records ones-and-zeros.
>
> This excludes two well-known components of a working digital link, namely
> the ADC and DAC. Therefore it is a entirely incomplete statement, and no
> theory, hypothesis or experimental result based on it is valid.
>
> The discussion awaits a proper and relevant recitation of how digital audio
> works.
>

I know how digital audio works, and it is irrelevant to my point which is
about semantics, not about the capabilities of digital quantization and/or
it's transmission or storage.

Audio Empire

February 14th 10, 07:02 PM

On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 07:41:56 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article >):

> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
>
>> On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 03:30:32 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
>> (in article >):
>>
>>> "Audio Empire" > wrote in
>>> message
>>>> On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 07:25:10 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
>>>> (in article >):
>>>
>>>>> The CD format is an sonically accurate medium. Do
>>>>> things right and the good results accurately show up
>>>>> at the output terminals of the player. Do things
>>>>> wrong, and the bad results show up in the same place.
>>>
>>>> I disagree. Strongly. The CD format is a
>>>> WAVEFORM-ACCURATE format.
>>>
>>> While waveform-accurate is not standard terminology, the
>>> meaning of the words seems clear enough.
>>> Waveform-accurate implies sonic accuracy. Therefore,
>>> your terminology would seem to agree with what I said.
>>
>> No, I don't. Nyquist's theory states that an accurate
>> WAVEFORM can be reconstructed using from digital
>> quantization. Any waveform can be accurately digitized,
>> given the required number of bits and the proper sampling
>> frequency to represent that waveform.
>
> So far so good.
>
>> But nothing in
>> digital theory states that the resulting analog
>> reconstruction - at the end of the process- is an
>> accurate picture OF ANYTHING.
>
> This is highly incorrect, and misses much of digital theory. Digital theory
> also includes Shannon's information theory which provides a means for
> evaluating the accuracy of a reproduction of an origional waveform.
>
>> If you digitize a poor
>> audio or video signal, for instance, the other end of the
>> process will not magically make that reconstructed
>> waveform accurate to the original picture or sound.
>
> As others have also pointed out in other words, this statement confuses the
> messeger with the message. A digital link acts as a messenger, and as a
> reliable messenger (whose reliability can be judged using Information
> Theory) a good digital link will provide an excellent replica of the
> original waveform. If the message is of poor quality, no good analog or
> digital link will improve the basic quality of the message. The better the
> link is, the better job it will do of reproducing the imperfections.
>
> Bringing in the quality of the message is on the face of it, a red herring
> argument. We're discussing the quality of data links, not the quality of the
> data being linked!
>
>
>
>>>>> The best CDs don't have the audible noise and
>>>>> distortion that is inherent in the LP format.
>>>
>>>> and the best CDs don't sound as much like real music as
>>> does a good LP.
>>>
>>> Yet another illogical statement. How can intentionally
>>> adding audible noise and distortion to a good quality
>>> recording make it sound better? If you put a fine
>>> recording on a CD, you hear a fine recording when you
>>> play it back because the CD format is sonically
>>> accurate. If you put a fine recording onto a LP, its
>>> going to come back with added audible noise and
>>> distoriton. How can adding audible noise and distortion
>>> make it sound better.
>
>> My "theory" is that the process of recording removes
>> something from the music making it threadbare and
>> sterile.
>
> This is an interesting assertion, but I see no evidence to support it.
>
> Since we have only an unfounded assertion before us, there is no need to
> take it seriously and discuss it any further. If it were supported it might
> be intresting, but there is no support for it at all. No discussions or
> conclusions based on this unfounded assertion can possibly gain any
> relevance from being based on this unfounded assertion.
>
> We see two fatal flaws in the above discussion. One is the lack of
> application of a relatively old, well known and generally accepted
> technology, namely Shannon's Information Theory. The second is the the
> assertion of a questionable theory, with no supporting evidence or
> discussion whatsoever.
>
> There is third fatal flaw in the volumnous text that I deleted which is
> that some random collection of noises and distortions, each of which have
> thwarted decades of human effort to reduce to inaudibility, none of which
> were designed to be euphonic or musical, would somehow restore this
> hypothetical missing component of music. Together, we have a sand castle
> built on top of a sand castle. The wind of logic blows, the sand dries out
> and collapses. All we have is a beach. ;-)
>
>

You ignore my overall point, however. My reaction to the sound of vinyl is
that, at it's best, it evokes similar emotional responses from me (and
obviously others) as does the sound of real music played in real space and
CDs mostly do not. Even when they don't leave me completely cold, they don't
evoke in me the feeling of well being and joy that I get from the very best
vinyl. Now, there has to be a reason for this. I am perfectly willing to put
it down to euphonic colorations in the vinyl playback process OR, even to put
it down to something much simpler, like nostalgia (as in playing records
harkens me back to my youth, when playing records was the primary source of
recorded music and that causes the emotional response). I don't pretend to
know the answer. However, I do know that it's a fairly common response among
many audiophiles and music lovers. Either way, it exists and that's pretty
much all that's important. IOW, records, for whatever reason, INVOLVE and
ENGAGE me in the musical performance in ways that CDs, do not. Since that's
what I'm in the hobby for in the first place (to get emotional satisfaction
from listening to reproduced music), it is really a sufficient reason for
preferring Vinyl over CD.

February 14th 10, 07:02 PM

On 2/13/2010 6:44 PM, Audio Empire wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 03:30:41 -0800, KH wrote
> (in >):
>
>> On 2/12/2010 12:57 PM, Audio Empire wrote:
>>> On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 07:25:10 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
>>> (in >):
>>>
>>>> "Robert > wrote in message
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>> The CD format is an sonically accurate medium. Do things right and the good
>>>> results accurately show up at the output terminals of the player. Do things
>>>> wrong, and the bad results show up in the same place.
>>>
>>> I disagree. Strongly. The CD format is a WAVEFORM-ACCURATE format.
>>
>> I believe that is exactly what he was saying.
>
> No. he said that it was sonically accurate.

And so it is. It seems pure pedantry to ignore the ADC/DAC portion of
the digital audio medium in an effort to get to your "ones-and-zeros"
interpretation of digital *audio*. If a sonic waveform, irrespective of
quality, presented at the ADC input is then accurately stored,
accurately retrieved, and accurately presented in analog format at the
output of the DAC, that process is *sonically* accurate. To suggest
otherwise ignores the basic fact that the waveform in question is merely
an electrical (or digitized) representation of an analog wave, the two
being readily and accurately transformable (were perfect speakers
available of course) from one to the other.

> Digital doesn't record sound, it
> records ones-and-zeros. Those ones-and-zeros can represent sound (or video,
> or computer data, or anything else that's quantifiable), but it's the analog
> equipment BEFORE the quantization that "decides" the sonic accuracy of a
> digital recording . IE. the microphones (and the competence of the recordist
> using them) , the electronics of the mixing board, the analog section of the
> A/D converter that can ensure sonic accuracy (to the extent that this
> equipment and it's use IS sonically accurate).

Conflating the storage medium with the recording process. All these
caveats about "deciding" the sonic accuracy apply at least equally to
LP, so how does this morph into an albatross solely around digitals' neck?

<snip>

> I like LP sound because it sounds* (for whatever reason) more like REAL
> music. and I hear more of that than most people.

Good for you. No one is arguing that LP doesn't sound more like live
music *to you*. My argument is with the often seen "LP sounds more like
live music to those who really know what that is" and the "people who
care about *quality* over convenience prefer LP" crowd. Both are simply
untrue in my case.

<snip>
> * Let me be clear about the statement that LP "SOUNDS more like real music".
> As humans, we interpret what we hear. That interpretation is naturally
> colored by a combination of experience and knowledge and perhaps a little
> instinct mixed in for good measure. There are things that make me want to
> experience live music, it's an entirely emotional response. I obviously
> became an audiophile because I LIKE that emotional experience and I want it
> at my fingertips. Now, all this talk and theorizing about accuracy is all
> fine and good, But we don't listen TO technology (OK, some do, I guess), we
> listen to the music by way of the technology. As we all know, the technology
> is far from perfect. Were it perfect, we would have no need of concert halls
> and live performances because our stereo systems would provide that emotional
> response we get from listening to live music every time we turn it on. It
> doesn't. The most expensive and elaborate stereo system in the world will
> fool no one for very long. Yet we can walk down the street past a night spot
> with open doors and IMMEDIATELY tell that "there's live music in there".
> Because there is something about that sound that is unmistakable. We all
> recognize it when we hear it, we all want it, yet, we cannot capture it and
> we cannot reproduce it in our homes. It doesn't matter what we use; analog
> tape, digital at 32- bits and high sampling rates, it doesn't matter.

OK, I can agree with that so far...

> We
> simply cannot get that emotional involvement with music that we get from
> hearing it live from listening to recordings.

Here, however, you are incorrectly using "we". Some, if not many, of
"us" can, on occasion, get the same emotional response from listening to
recordings as from listening to live music. I'd listen to a lot less
recorded music were that not the case.

>
> But, having said that, I will also say that I get glimpses of that emotional
> response from some LPs. There is a warmth, an inexplicable feeling of well
> being that washes over me when I listen to an LP that I simply don't get with
> CDs. This is very similar to the response I have to real, live music. I like
> that. I want that. If music listening were purely an intellectual exercise,
> I'd agree with you and Arny that since CD is more accurate (and it is) it's
> better. But listening to music is NOT in and of itself, a purely intellectual
> exercise. It is an emotional experience. It's SUPPOSED to be an emotional
> experience. LP elicits, from me (and many music lovers like me) an emotional
> response that reminds me of the emotional involvement and response I feel at
> a concert. I don't care that it's vinyl's inherent limitations and
> distortions that cause that emotional response from me. I don't even care if
> that response is caused, in large part by sheer nostalgia for the way
> listening to music via records USED TO BE when I was a kid (and this is very
> great possibility). It gives me something that causes the same endorphins to
> be released in my brain as does the sound of live music played in a real
> space. As far as I'm concerned, that's what hi-fi is all about and to hell
> with accuracy if accuracy cannot provide that emotional response.

Well, I feel for you then. Honestly. While you can't beat (good) live
music, I can recreate that emotional involvement with a great recording
and good playback equipment (depending upon a number of other factors as
well, such as mood, etc.). It's precisely that emotional involvement
that is destroyed for me by the tics and pops of LP. Especially when I
know it's coming up - just ruins it. I still have LP's I listen to, but
as time goes on, the surface noise between tracks becomes much more
discordant to me as well.

LP works magic for you - great. I'm glad you can get that enjoyment from
music on LP. Just allow that while this is true for you, it is simply
the opposite case for many of us.

Keith Hughes

---MIKE---

February 14th 10, 09:00 PM

This has been suggested a number of times before. Take a "super" LP and
copy it onto a CD. Then see if the "magic" is still there. If it is
then that proves the CD system is accurate and that the "magic" is from
euphonic distortions from the LP.

---MIKE---
>>In the White Mountains of New Hampshire
>> (44=B0 15' N - Elevation 1580')

Audio Empire

February 15th 10, 12:23 AM

On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 13:00:24 -0800, MIKE--- wrote
(in article >):

> This has been suggested a number of times before. Take a "super" LP and
> copy it onto a CD. Then see if the "magic" is still there. If it is
> then that proves the CD system is accurate and that the "magic" is from
> euphonic distortions from the LP.

Yes. I have done this and yes, the resultant CD sounds pretty much exactly
like the LP, as far as I can tell. I qualify that statement only to the point
that I haven't actually performed a double blind test between a level-matched
playback of the LP vs a CD copy of itself.

Audio Empire

February 15th 10, 12:59 AM

On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 11:02:22 -0800, KH wrote
(in article >):

> On 2/13/2010 6:44 PM, Audio Empire wrote:
>> On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 03:30:41 -0800, KH wrote
>> (in >):
>>

[ Excessive quotation snipped by moderator -- dsr ]

>> I like LP sound because it sounds* (for whatever reason) more like REAL
>> music. and I hear more of that than most people.
>
> Good for you. No one is arguing that LP doesn't sound more like live
> music *to you*. My argument is with the often seen "LP sounds more like
> live music to those who really know what that is" and the "people who
> care about *quality* over convenience prefer LP" crowd. Both are simply
> untrue in my case.

Well, I can't help it if you can't hear, Arny 8^). But really, it's not that
important. Records involve me (as they do many people) in the music in ways
that CDs do not. You and others react differently to the same two stimuli.
And that's really the bottom line in this debate.
>
> <snip>
>> * Let me be clear about the statement that LP "SOUNDS more like real music".
>> As humans, we interpret what we hear. That interpretation is naturally
>> colored by a combination of experience and knowledge and perhaps a little
>> instinct mixed in for good measure. There are things that make me want to
>> experience live music, it's an entirely emotional response. I obviously
>> became an audiophile because I LIKE that emotional experience and I want it
>> at my fingertips. Now, all this talk and theorizing about accuracy is all
>> fine and good, But we don't listen TO technology (OK, some do, I guess), we
>> listen to the music by way of the technology. As we all know, the technology
>> is far from perfect. Were it perfect, we would have no need of concert halls
>> and live performances because our stereo systems would provide that
>> emotional
>> response we get from listening to live music every time we turn it on. It
>> doesn't. The most expensive and elaborate stereo system in the world will
>> fool no one for very long. Yet we can walk down the street past a night spot
>> with open doors and IMMEDIATELY tell that "there's live music in there".
>> Because there is something about that sound that is unmistakable. We all
>> recognize it when we hear it, we all want it, yet, we cannot capture it and
>> we cannot reproduce it in our homes. It doesn't matter what we use; analog
>> tape, digital at 32- bits and high sampling rates, it doesn't matter.
>
> OK, I can agree with that so far...
>
>> We
>> simply cannot get that emotional involvement with music that we get from
>> hearing it live from listening to recordings.
>
> Here, however, you are incorrectly using "we". Some, if not many, of
> "us" can, on occasion, get the same emotional response from listening to
> recordings as from listening to live music. I'd listen to a lot less
> recorded music were that not the case.
>
>>
>> But, having said that, I will also say that I get glimpses of that emotional
>> response from some LPs. There is a warmth, an inexplicable feeling of well
>> being that washes over me when I listen to an LP that I simply don't get
>> with
>> CDs. This is very similar to the response I have to real, live music. I like
>> that. I want that. If music listening were purely an intellectual exercise,
>> I'd agree with you and Arny that since CD is more accurate (and it is) it's
>> better. But listening to music is NOT in and of itself, a purely
>> intellectual
>> exercise. It is an emotional experience. It's SUPPOSED to be an emotional
>> experience. LP elicits, from me (and many music lovers like me) an emotional
>> response that reminds me of the emotional involvement and response I feel at
>> a concert. I don't care that it's vinyl's inherent limitations and
>> distortions that cause that emotional response from me. I don't even care if
>> that response is caused, in large part by sheer nostalgia for the way
>> listening to music via records USED TO BE when I was a kid (and this is very
>> great possibility). It gives me something that causes the same endorphins to
>> be released in my brain as does the sound of live music played in a real
>> space. As far as I'm concerned, that's what hi-fi is all about and to hell
>> with accuracy if accuracy cannot provide that emotional response.
>
> Well, I feel for you then.

Why? Is that a bad thing? Do you feel for people who prefer spinach over,
say, broccoli? Because feeling sorry for someone who's taste differs from
yours is a pretty empty procedure (and I'm pretty sure it's an arrogant one
too).

> Honestly. While you can't beat (good) live
> music, I can recreate that emotional involvement with a great recording
> and good playback equipment (depending upon a number of other factors as
> well, such as mood, etc.). It's precisely that emotional involvement
> that is destroyed for me by the tics and pops of LP.

They don't bother me any more than do coughs and program rustling at a live
concert (which don't bother me much, either).

> Especially when I
> know it's coming up - just ruins it.

You reaction is not unusual, I have heard others make the same statement.
Luckily, for me, that prior knowledge doesn't really bother me unless its a
REALLY BAD scratch. Then, it bothers me. I don't have many of those and I
tend to not listen to any records that have really bad scratches on them.

> I still have LP's I listen to, but
> as time goes on, the surface noise between tracks becomes much more
> discordant to me as well.

And I still collect CDs because it's what WE HAVE. But I usually wish that a
new CD acquisition was an LP instead.
>
> LP works magic for you - great. I'm glad you can get that enjoyment from
> music on LP. Just allow that while this is true for you, it is simply
> the opposite case for many of us.

I do allow for that. Heck, I RECORD for CD.

Arny Krueger

February 15th 10, 02:19 AM

"Scott" > wrote in message

> On Feb 13, 3:30=A0am, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>> "Audio Empire" > wrote in
>> message
>>
>>

>>> and the best CDs don't sound as much like real music as
>>> does a good LP.

>> Yet another illogical statement.

> It is an observation.

Actually, it is an unfounded and unsupported assertion. There is no need to
argue against it.

February 15th 10, 03:43 AM

On 2/14/2010 5:59 PM, Audio Empire wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 11:02:22 -0800, KH wrote
> (in >):
>
>> On 2/13/2010 6:44 PM, Audio Empire wrote:
>>> On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 03:30:41 -0800, KH wrote
>>> (in >):
>>>

>
> Well, I can't help it if you can't hear, Arny 8^).

Sorry, I'm not Arny (well...maybe not that sorry ;-)

<snip>

>> Well, I feel for you then.
>
> Why? Is that a bad thing?

Yes, IMO it is. That you can't get the "magic" of musical enjoyment
from the predominantly availble recording medium strikes me as
unfortunate. If it doesn't bother you then fine.

> Do you feel for people who prefer spinach over,
> say, broccoli? Because feeling sorry for someone who's taste differs from
> yours is a pretty empty procedure (and I'm pretty sure it's an arrogant one
> too).

If one could only rarely get spinach, and only at high cost (while
having heretofore enjoyed spinach cheaply and in abundance), while
broccoli was ubiquitous and cheap, then yes I would consider that
equally unfortunate. It's not an issue of taste, it's an issue of
availability and access to ones' items of preference. And if you
believe commiseration equals arrogance, then clearly we are at a
communication impasse.

I'll feel equally sorry for myself when CDs die and downloaded digital
(and predominantly lower bitrate MP3's were I hazard a guess) formats
become the only readily accessible format for recorded music.

Keith Hughes

Arny Krueger

February 15th 10, 03:43 AM

"---MIKE---" > wrote in message

> This has been suggested a number of times before. Take a
> "super" LP and copy it onto a CD. Then see if the
> "magic" is still there. If it is then that proves the CD
> system is accurate and that the "magic" is from euphonic
> distortions from the LP.

If one does a level-matched, time-synched, blind test then no listener has
ever reliably detected a difference between LP playback, and LP playback
digitized with good 16/44 digital gear.

If one does a level-matched, time-synched, sighted test then just about any
person, even a deaf person can ever reliably detect a difference between LP
playback, and LP playback digitized with good 16/44 digital gear.

It is therefore safe to assume that sighted bias would be the explanation
for any audible difference that might be perceived under sighted conditions.

Arny Krueger

February 15th 10, 04:41 AM

"Audio Empire" > wrote in message

> You ignore my overall point, however.

No, I buried with good logic.

> My reaction to the
> sound of vinyl is that, at it's best, it evokes similar
> emotional responses from me (and obviously others) as
> does the sound of real music played in real space and CDs
> mostly do not.

That's all fine and good, but that reaction is yours to hold and enjoy and
for many of the rest of us to marvel at its improbability.

> Even when they don't leave me completely
> cold, they don't evoke in me the feeling of well being
> and joy that I get from the very best vinyl. Now, there
> has to be a reason for this.

The reason for this is described in great detail and with a goodly number of
footnotes in a recent book entitled "This Is Your Brain on Music" by Daniel
J. Levitin.

Arny Krueger

February 15th 10, 02:02 PM

"Audio Empire" > wrote in message

> On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 06:46:05 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
> (in article >):
>
>> "Audio Empire" > wrote in
>> message
>>> On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 03:30:41 -0800, KH wrote
>>> (in article >):
>>>
>>>> On 2/12/2010 12:57 PM, Audio Empire wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 07:25:10 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
>>>>> (in >):
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Robert > wrote in
>>>>>> message
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>>> The CD format is an sonically accurate medium. Do
>>>>>> things right and the good results accurately show up
>>>>>> at the output terminals of the player. Do things
>>>>>> wrong, and the bad results show up in the same place.
>>>>>
>>>>> I disagree. Strongly. The CD format is a
>>>>> WAVEFORM-ACCURATE format.
>>>>
>>>> I believe that is exactly what he was saying.
>>>
>>> No. he said that it was sonically accurate.
>>
>> This is as much of a proven fact as such facts exist in
>> audio. In many experiments, some even documented in
>> august journals such as the JAES, it has been shown that
>> the interposition of a good digital link, is not
>> detectable by human ears, even the ears of experienced
>> listeners listening to the best modern recordings that
>> they can find, using high quality associated compoents
>> such as high end and also professional grade amplifiers
>> and speakers.

>>> Digital doesn't record sound, it records
>>> ones-and-zeros.

>> This excludes two well-known components of a working
>> digital link, namely the ADC and DAC. Therefore it is a
>> entirely incomplete statement, and no theory, hypothesis
>> or experimental result based on it is valid.

>> The discussion awaits a proper and relevant recitation
>> of how digital audio works.

> I know how digital audio works,

Then please provide a proper and relevant recitiation of how digital works,
or a well-supported explanation of why it does not work.

Scott[_6_]

February 15th 10, 04:04 PM

On Feb 14, 7:43=A0pm, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "---MIKE---" > wrote in message
>
>
>
> > This has been suggested a number of times before. =A0Take a
> > "super" LP and copy it onto a CD. =A0Then see if the
> > "magic" is still there. =A0If it is then that proves the CD
> > system is accurate and that the "magic" is from euphonic
> > distortions from the LP.
>
> If one does a level-matched, time-synched, blind test then no listener ha=
s
> ever reliably detected a difference between LP playback, and LP playback
> digitized with good 16/44 digital gear.
>

Not true. Steve Hoffman ,amd Kevin Gray did just that and did detect
differences.

> If one does a level-matched, time-synched, sighted test then just about a=
ny
> person, even a deaf person can ever reliably detect a difference between =
LP
> playback, and LP playback digitized with good 16/44 digital gear.
>

And yet at the same session both Steve Hoffman and Kevin Gray could
not detect a difference between a laquer played back on the cutting
lathe and the master tape. If they were deaf they would not have heard
the difference between the master tape and the 16/44 copy they had
just mastered so easily.

> It is therefore safe to assume that sighted bias would be the explanation
> for any audible difference that might be perceived under sighted conditio=
ns.

It is never safe to draw such strong conclusions on data that is so
shakey.

Audio Empire

February 15th 10, 04:05 PM

On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 19:43:58 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article >):

> "---MIKE---" > wrote in message
>
>
>> This has been suggested a number of times before. Take a
>> "super" LP and copy it onto a CD. Then see if the
>> "magic" is still there. If it is then that proves the CD
>> system is accurate and that the "magic" is from euphonic
>> distortions from the LP.
>
> If one does a level-matched, time-synched, blind test then no listener has
> ever reliably detected a difference between LP playback, and LP playback
> digitized with good 16/44 digital gear.

My experience certainly tells me this is true. I can't even tell the
difference when the levels aren't any more carefully matched than an aural
approximation.
>
> If one does a level-matched, time-synched, sighted test then just about any
> person, even a deaf person can ever reliably detect a difference between LP
> playback, and LP playback digitized with good 16/44 digital gear.

???? This seems to contradict your first statement above.
>
> It is therefore safe to assume that sighted bias would be the explanation
> for any audible difference that might be perceived under sighted conditions.

I've never detected any. A CD copy of an LP sounds so close to identical to
the LP itself that even without it being carefully level adjusted and double
blind, I doubt seriously if ANYONE could tell any difference (hint: there
shouldn't be any).

Audio Empire

February 15th 10, 04:05 PM

On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 19:43:48 -0800, KH wrote
(in article >):

> On 2/14/2010 5:59 PM, Audio Empire wrote:
>> On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 11:02:22 -0800, KH wrote
>> (in >):
>>
>>> On 2/13/2010 6:44 PM, Audio Empire wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 03:30:41 -0800, KH wrote
>>>> (in >):
>>>>
>
>>
>> Well, I can't help it if you can't hear, Arny 8^).
>
> Sorry, I'm not Arny (well...maybe not that sorry ;-)
>
> <snip>
>
>>> Well, I feel for you then.
>>
>> Why? Is that a bad thing?
>
> Yes, IMO it is. That you can't get the "magic" of musical enjoyment
> from the predominantly availble recording medium strikes me as
> unfortunate. If it doesn't bother you then fine.
>
>> Do you feel for people who prefer spinach over,
>> say, broccoli? Because feeling sorry for someone who's taste differs from
>> yours is a pretty empty procedure (and I'm pretty sure it's an arrogant one
>> too).
>
> If one could only rarely get spinach, and only at high cost (while
> having heretofore enjoyed spinach cheaply and in abundance), while
> broccoli was ubiquitous and cheap, then yes I would consider that
> equally unfortunate. It's not an issue of taste, it's an issue of
> availability and access to ones' items of preference. And if you
> believe commiseration equals arrogance, then clearly we are at a
> communication impasse.

In this case, your commiseration is unwarranted. I have thousands of LPs. The
kind of music to which I predominately listen (classical), has largely been
recorded in the past in renditions that are considered definitive. For
instance, Bruno Walter's stereo recordings with the NY Philharmonic of
Beethoven's symphonies are not improved upon by "modern" renditions overseen
by any 21st century conductors. Post Glenn Gould performances of Bach's
Brandenburg Concertos, for instance, really add nothing that Mssr. Gould
didn't already say in his readings of the works. So modern recordings don't
really mean that much when those works on LP are already considered the
finest ever recorded.

> I'll feel equally sorry for myself when CDs die and downloaded digital
> (and predominantly lower bitrate MP3's were I hazard a guess) formats
> become the only readily accessible format for recorded music.

But the techno-freaks who post here will tell you that MP3s are
indistinguishable from your beloved CDs because they are "newer technology"
and newer technology simply MUST be better than old, and uncompressed digital
music is OLD technology and is therefore inferior. And as CD displaced LP, so
must MP3 supplant CD - or something like that 8^)

Look at it this way, it seems like you will be able to download 24-bit, 88 or
96 Khz (and maybe a smattering of 192 KHz as well) for a while to come. I
record at 24-bit (32-bit floating, actually) 96 and 192 Khz and I can
certainly hear the improvement over 16-bit 44.1 Khz.

Arny Krueger

February 15th 10, 05:10 PM

"Scott" > wrote in message

> On Feb 14, 7:43=A0pm, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>> "---MIKE---" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>
>>> This has been suggested a number of times before.
>>> =A0Take a "super" LP and copy it onto a CD. =A0Then see
>>> if the "magic" is still there. =A0If it is then that
>>> proves the CD system is accurate and that the "magic"
>>> is from euphonic distortions from the LP.

>> If one does a level-matched, time-synched, blind test
>> then no listener ha= s ever reliably detected a
>> difference between LP playback, and LP playback
>> digitized with good 16/44 digital gear.

> Not true. Steve Hoffman ,amd Kevin Gray did just that
> and did detect differences.

Reliable documentation of any kind?

Documentation for what I say can be found in the JAES. Got a source with
comparable peer reviews and industry acceptance?

"
Audibility of a CD-Standard A/DA/A Loop Inserted into High-Resolution Audio
Playback

"Claims both published and anecdotal are regularly made for audibly superior
sound quality for two-channel audio encoded with longer word lengths and/or
at higher sampling rates than the 16-bit/44.1-kHz CD standard. The authors
report on a series of double-blind tests comparing the analog output of
high-resolution players playing high-resolution recordings with the same
signal passed through a 16-bit/44.1-kHz “bottleneck.” The tests were
conducted for over a year using different systems and a variety of subjects.
The systems included expensive professional monitors and one high-end system
with electrostatic loudspeakers and expensive components and cables. The
subjects included professional recording engineers, students in a university
recording program, and dedicated audiophiles. The test results show that the
CD-quality A/D/A loop was undetectable at normal-to-loud listening levels,
by any of the subjects, on any of the playback systems. The noise of the
CD-quality loop was audible only at very elevated levels.

Authors: Meyer, E. Brad; Moran, David R.
Affiliation: Boston Audio Society, Lincoln, MA, USA
JAES Volume 55 Issue 9 pp. 775-779; September 2007

Arny Krueger

February 15th 10, 05:10 PM

"Audio Empire" > wrote in message

> But the techno-freaks who post here will tell you that
> MP3s are indistinguishable from your beloved CDs because
> they are "newer technology" and newer technology simply
> MUST be better than old, and uncompressed digital music
> is OLD technology and is therefore inferior.

First off, I don't see the point of the name-calling. Let's be fair - if
someone calls out "techno freak" we are all arguably guilty! ;-)

Secondly, the reason why *I* will tell you that a good MP3 is
indistingushable from the CD used to make it because I have extensively and
scientifically tested that situation on many varied occasions and am in both
personal and online contact with 100s of others who have done the same.

And for the record, not all MP3s sound like the CDs used to make them.
You've got to use some good judgement about choice of encoding software and
the parameters used to control the encoding process.

> Look at it this way, it seems like you will be able to
> download 24-bit, 88 or 96 Khz (and maybe a smattering of
> 192 KHz as well) for a while to come. I record at 24-bit
> (32-bit floating, actually) 96 and 192 Khz and I can
> certainly hear the improvement over 16-bit 44.1 Khz.

Level-matched, time-synched, bias-controlled tests?

---MIKE---

February 15th 10, 09:04 PM

Audio Empire wrote:

>Bruno Walter's stereo recordings with
> the NY Philharmonic of Beethoven's
> symphonies

????? I don't think Bruno Walter made any STEREO recordings of Beethoven
symphonies with the NY Philharmonic.
He re-recorded these symphonies in California with the Columbia
symphony.

---MIKE---
>>In the White Mountains of New Hampshire
>> (44=B0 15' N - Elevation 1580')

Audio Empire

February 15th 10, 09:04 PM

On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 09:10:09 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article >):

> "Scott" > wrote in message
>
>> On Feb 14, 7:43=3DA0pm, "Arny Krueger" >
>> wrote:
>>> "---MIKE---" > wrote in message
>>>=20
>>>
>>>=20
>>>> This has been suggested a number of times before.
>>>> =3DA0Take a "super" LP and copy it onto a CD. =3DA0Then see
>>>> if the "magic" is still there. =3DA0If it is then that
>>>> proves the CD system is accurate and that the "magic"
>>>> is from euphonic distortions from the LP.
>=20
>>> If one does a level-matched, time-synched, blind test
>>> then no listener ha=3D s ever reliably detected a
>>> difference between LP playback, and LP playback
>>> digitized with good 16/44 digital gear.
>=20
>> Not true. Steve Hoffman ,amd Kevin Gray did just that
>> and did detect differences.
>=20
> Reliable documentation of any kind?
>=20
> Documentation for what I say can be found in the JAES. Got a source wi=
th=20
> comparable peer reviews and industry acceptance?
>=20
> "
> Audibility of a CD-Standard A/DA/A Loop Inserted into High-Resolution A=
udio=20
> Playback
>=20
>=20
> "Claims both published and anecdotal are regularly made for audibly sup=
erior=20
> sound quality for two-channel audio encoded with longer word lengths an=
d/or=20
> at higher sampling rates than the 16-bit/44.1-kHz CD standard. The auth=
ors=20
> report on a series of double-blind tests comparing the analog output of=
=20
> high-resolution players playing high-resolution recordings with the sam=
e=20
> signal passed through a 16-bit/44.1-kHz =93bottleneck.=94 The tests wer=
e=20
> conducted for over a year using different systems and a variety of subj=
ects.=20
> The systems included expensive professional monitors and one high-end s=
ystem=20
> with electrostatic loudspeakers and expensive components and cables. Th=
e=20
> subjects included professional recording engineers, students in a unive=
rsity=20
> recording program, and dedicated audiophiles. The test results show tha=
t the=20
> CD-quality A/D/A loop was undetectable at normal-to-loud listening leve=
ls,=20
> by any of the subjects, on any of the playback systems. The noise of th=
e=20
> CD-quality loop was audible only at very elevated levels.
>=20
> Authors: Meyer, E. Brad; Moran, David R.
> Affiliation: Boston Audio Society, Lincoln, MA, USA
> JAES Volume 55 Issue 9 pp. 775-779; September 2007=20
>=20
>=20

I see a reference to an A/D/A loop above, but none to vinyl. Did they use=
=20
records for the "A" or master analog tapes? This paper proves nothing abo=
ut=20
whether the "magic" (as the OP called it) of LP can be captured by CD so =
that=20
one cannot tell whether the CD is playing or the LP from which it was mad=
e IF=20
an LP wasn't used in the test. The test also seems to concentrate on 16/4=
4.1=20
vs higher resolution formats rather than vinyl to CD, so I'm not sure wha=
t=20
relevance it has to the questions (above) that the OP asked.=20

Audio Empire

February 16th 10, 12:34 AM

On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 13:04:18 -0800, MIKE--- wrote
(in article >):

> Audio Empire wrote:
>
>> Bruno Walter's stereo recordings with
>> the NY Philharmonic of Beethoven's
>> symphonies
>
> ????? I don't think Bruno Walter made any STEREO recordings of Beethoven
> symphonies with the NY Philharmonic.
> He re-recorded these symphonies in California with the Columbia
> symphony.
>
>
> ---MIKE---
>>> In the White Mountains of New Hampshire
> >> (44=B0 15' N - Elevation 1580')
>

You're right. Mea Culpa. I was thinking of the Mahler cycle with the NYP. The
Beethoven was with the Columbia Symphony Orchestra.

cjt

February 16th 10, 12:36 AM

Audio Empire wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 11:02:22 -0800, KH wrote
> (in article >):
>
>> On 2/13/2010 6:44 PM, Audio Empire wrote:
>>> On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 03:30:41 -0800, KH wrote
>>> (in >):
>>>
>
>
> [ Excessive quotation snipped by moderator -- dsr ]
>
>
>>> I like LP sound because it sounds* (for whatever reason) more like REAL
>>> music. and I hear more of that than most people.
>> Good for you. No one is arguing that LP doesn't sound more like live
>> music *to you*. My argument is with the often seen "LP sounds more like
>> live music to those who really know what that is" and the "people who
>> care about *quality* over convenience prefer LP" crowd. Both are simply
>> untrue in my case.
>

<snip>

I think one big difference between LPs and CDs is that CDs have
considerably more usable dynamic range (due to LP noise levels).
That SHOULD allow a much more realistic experience. Unfortunately,
recording engineers throw much of the value away by over-use of
compression, in order to deliver more "punch" for radio audiences.

While compression was used (of necessity) in creating LPs, my
impression is that it was less pronounced than in modern CD recordings.

I thus contend that CDs have more potential for realistic delivery,
but that LPs, for all their faults, in some instances deliver more
compelling experiences.

February 16th 10, 12:38 AM

On 2/15/2010 9:05 AM, Audio Empire wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 19:43:48 -0800, KH wrote
> (in >):
>
<snip>

>> I'll feel equally sorry for myself when CDs die and downloaded digital
>> (and predominantly lower bitrate MP3's were I hazard a guess) formats
>> become the only readily accessible format for recorded music.
>
> But the techno-freaks who post here will tell you that MP3s are
> indistinguishable from your beloved CDs because they are "newer technology"
> and newer technology simply MUST be better than old, and uncompressed digital
> music is OLD technology and is therefore inferior.

I don't believe I've seen that claim posted here. New technology
*tends* to be better, but sometimes the "better" is related to being
cheaper/easier/more reliable to produce.

> And as CD displaced LP, so
> must MP3 supplant CD - or something like that 8^)

I don't say "must", but it sure seems likely. But similar to my
aversion to the idea of a Kindle-type product, I have issues with the
download distribution and control models irrespective of the sound
quality. I like having CD's that I can physically own and do with as I
please (without having to download, then burn them myself) and books
that I can actually hold in my hands with real turnable pages. And
neither Amazon nor Google can E-snatch my CD's from their cases, or my
books from their shelves.

Keith Hughes

Audio Empire

February 16th 10, 12:39 AM

On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 09:10:18 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article >):

> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
>
>
>> But the techno-freaks who post here will tell you that
>> MP3s are indistinguishable from your beloved CDs because
>> they are "newer technology" and newer technology simply
>> MUST be better than old, and uncompressed digital music
>> is OLD technology and is therefore inferior.
>
>
> First off, I don't see the point of the name-calling. Let's be fair - if
> someone calls out "techno freak" we are all arguably guilty! ;-)

It's no more name-calling than the word "geek" or "Computer-Nerd", but it is
a label. It refers to someone involved in the audio hobby who is more in love
with technology than they are with the music. I didn't invent the term, and I
aimed it at no person in particular (although that doesn't mean that I don't
have several candidates in mind).
>
> Secondly, the reason why *I* will tell you that a good MP3 is
> indistingushable from the CD used to make it because I have extensively and
> scientifically tested that situation on many varied occasions and am in both
> personal and online contact with 100s of others who have done the same.

Like I said.....

> And for the record, not all MP3s sound like the CDs used to make them.
> You've got to use some good judgement about choice of encoding software and
> the parameters used to control the encoding process.

>> Look at it this way, it seems like you will be able to
>> download 24-bit, 88 or 96 Khz (and maybe a smattering of
>> 192 KHz as well) for a while to come. I record at 24-bit
>> (32-bit floating, actually) 96 and 192 Khz and I can
>> certainly hear the improvement over 16-bit 44.1 Khz.
>
> Level-matched, time-synched, bias-controlled tests?

Well, only sort of, accidentally. How about inadvertently recording a live
event using 16/44.1 when one meant to use 24/96 and not noticing the settings
on the recording device (so many things to think about when recording live).
When playing back the recording at home directly off of the recording device,
I noticed that something didn't sound exactly right (this is an ensemble that
I have recorded many times in the same venue using the same setup). Checking,
the settings on the recording device (a ZOOM H4N) I see that it had been
accidently reset to it's default, 16-bit/44.1 KHz. I'm not saying that this
is strictly controlled, but it certainly was double-blind in that I didn't
know it was recorded at the wrong bit-depth and sample rate nor did I know it
when I was listening to the recording the next day. So *I* was certainly
"double-blind" even if the test wasn't!

Audio Empire

February 16th 10, 04:46 AM

On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 16:38:48 -0800, KH wrote
(in article >):

> On 2/15/2010 9:05 AM, Audio Empire wrote:
>> On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 19:43:48 -0800, KH wrote
>> (in >):
>>
> <snip>
>
>>> I'll feel equally sorry for myself when CDs die and downloaded digital
>>> (and predominantly lower bitrate MP3's were I hazard a guess) formats
>>> become the only readily accessible format for recorded music.
>>
>> But the techno-freaks who post here will tell you that MP3s are
>> indistinguishable from your beloved CDs because they are "newer technology"
>> and newer technology simply MUST be better than old, and uncompressed
>> digital
>> music is OLD technology and is therefore inferior.
>
> I don't believe I've seen that claim posted here. New technology
> *tends* to be better, but sometimes the "better" is related to being
> cheaper/easier/more reliable to produce.

It's sarcasm. Not meant to be taken literally.
>
>> And as CD displaced LP, so
>> must MP3 supplant CD - or something like that 8^)
>
> I don't say "must", but it sure seems likely. But similar to my
> aversion to the idea of a Kindle-type product, I have issues with the
> download distribution and control models irrespective of the sound
> quality. I like having CD's that I can physically own and do with as I
> please (without having to download, then burn them myself) and books
> that I can actually hold in my hands with real turnable pages. And
> neither Amazon nor Google can E-snatch my CD's from their cases, or my
> books from their shelves

I use Kindle on my iPod Touch to read books. Since I bought it, about a year
ago I have read almost 40 books on my Touch. I like it a lot. I do feel a
little bad that I can't pass a Kindle book on to my buds when I've finished
with it, but that's their problem, not mine 8^)

Harry Lavo

February 16th 10, 05:20 PM

"Audio Empire" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 13:04:18 -0800, MIKE--- wrote
> (in article >):
>
>> Audio Empire wrote:
>>
>>> Bruno Walter's stereo recordings with
>>> the NY Philharmonic of Beethoven's
>>> symphonies
>>
>> ????? I don't think Bruno Walter made any STEREO recordings of Beethoven
>> symphonies with the NY Philharmonic.
>> He re-recorded these symphonies in California with the Columbia
>> symphony.
>>
>>
>> ---MIKE---
>>>> In the White Mountains of New Hampshire
>> >> (44=B0 15' N - Elevation 1580')
>>
>
> You're right. Mea Culpa. I was thinking of the Mahler cycle with the NYP.
> The
> Beethoven was with the Columbia Symphony Orchestra.
>

New York or LA, these are my favorite recordings of the Beethoven
Symphonies.....I bought a gift set years ago for a girl friend, and they
have gone out of print (as a set). I made CD-R's, but also have at least
half of them on vinyl. It is funny that modern music reviewers almost never
make reference to these....

Audio Empire

February 16th 10, 05:20 PM

On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 16:38:02 -0800, Dick Pierce wrote
(in article >):

> Scott wrote:
>>=20
>> Not true. Steve Hoffman ,amd Kevin Gray did just that and did detect
>> differences.
>>=20
>=20
> Is that the same Steve Hoffman, perchance, that's featured
> in this piece of audio voodoo?
>=20
> http://www.shakti-innovations.com/hallograph.htm
>=20
>=20
Whoops! Credibility gap detected. These ****aki sticks do NOTHING. I had =
a=20
pair in my system (no, I didn't buy them) and noticed no change in anythi=
ng=20
whatsoever (except perhaps a greater chance of stumbling over something i=
n=20
the dark). They are the audio equivalent of snake oil, and not very good=
=20
snake oil at that. How could they do anything, they're just sticks of woo=
d=20
and metal! One only has to read the mumbo-jumbo white paper at the above =
URL=20
to see that :

> The SHAKTI Electromagnetic Stabilizer is a patented Electromagnetic=20
> Interference (EMI) absorption and dissipation apparatus.=A0 EMI is a ge=
neral=20
> term used to describe the negative interaction of radiated fields with =
the=20
> transfer function of electromagnetic components.=A0SHAKTI is a three st=
age=20
> passive device that requires no direct electrical connection to the sig=
nal=20
> path because all interaction takes place through radiated field mutual=20
> coupling.=A0The three broad spectrum traps (Microwave, RF and=20
> Electric/Magnetic), contained within its portable chassis, absorb and=20
> dissipate these parasitic oscillations through inductive coupling.=A0Re=
ducing=20
> these fields results in a more accurate signal transfer of the informat=
ion=20
> the host device carries.=A0Specific applications in use at present time=
are all=20

> types of audio/video components and automotive engine computer processo=
rs=20
> (ECUs) and ignition coils.

I've seen some obfuscating BS verbiage before, but this is worse (better,=
as=20
in more "fun" to read, perhaps?) than even this:

http://www.cardas.com/content.php?area=3Dinsights&content_id=3D7&pagestri=
ng=3DGolden
+Section+Stereo+Magic

Arny Krueger

February 16th 10, 05:20 PM

"cjt" > wrote in message

> I think one big difference between LPs and CDs is that
> CDs have considerably more usable dynamic range (due to
> LP noise levels).

CDs also have far less distortion, both linear and nonlinear. But, that's
the media, not the end product. Because the CD format is so accurate, it
does a better job of reproducing the junky sound of stinky trash, just as it
does a better job of reproducting the clean sound of pure music.

> That SHOULD allow a much more realistic experience.

The key word being allow. They don't stand in the way. But what comes
through is up to the people who send whatever they send.

> Unfortunately, recording engineers throw much of the
> value away by over-use of compression, in order to
> deliver more "punch" for radio audiences.

This was less of a positive value in the days when vinyl was all we had.
Furthermore, there are things you can do to music that will make music "cut
through", that can be done with a CD but can't be done with a LP.

> While compression was used (of necessity) in creating
> LPs, my impression is that it was less pronounced than in
> modern CD recordings.

Two reasons - one was the basic limits of the LP format that couldn't take
loud hot music, and the other was the fact that we've developed so much more
sophisticated signal processing since then.

> I thus contend that CDs have more potential for realistic
> delivery, but that LPs, for all their faults, in some
> instances deliver more compelling experiences.

If you want to deliver bad sound, I know of no better delivery format than
the CD.
If you want to deliver good sound, I know of no better delivery format than
the CD.

Audio Empire

February 16th 10, 06:40 PM

On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 09:20:46 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article >):

> "cjt" > wrote in message
>
>
>> I think one big difference between LPs and CDs is that
>> CDs have considerably more usable dynamic range (due to
>> LP noise levels).
>
> CDs also have far less distortion, both linear and nonlinear. But, that's
> the media, not the end product. Because the CD format is so accurate, it
> does a better job of reproducing the junky sound of stinky trash, just as it
> does a better job of reproducting the clean sound of pure music.
>
>> That SHOULD allow a much more realistic experience.
>
> The key word being allow. They don't stand in the way. But what comes
> through is up to the people who send whatever they send.
>
>> Unfortunately, recording engineers throw much of the
>> value away by over-use of compression, in order to
>> deliver more "punch" for radio audiences.
>
> This was less of a positive value in the days when vinyl was all we had.
> Furthermore, there are things you can do to music that will make music "cut
> through", that can be done with a CD but can't be done with a LP.
>
>> While compression was used (of necessity) in creating
>> LPs, my impression is that it was less pronounced than in
>> modern CD recordings.
>
> Two reasons - one was the basic limits of the LP format that couldn't take
> loud hot music, and the other was the fact that we've developed so much more
> sophisticated signal processing since then.

I think that you may have misunderstood what he said. He was saying that
while some compression was required with LP, it's not required today, but
that today's compression on CD is for EFFECT, and is a lot more INTRUSIVE
than was the compression used on LPs. At least that's the way I interpret
his comments.

>> I thus contend that CDs have more potential for realistic
>> delivery, but that LPs, for all their faults, in some
>> instances deliver more compelling experiences.
>
> If you want to deliver bad sound, I know of no better delivery format than
> the CD.
> If you want to deliver good sound, I know of no better delivery format than
> the CD.

IOW, the medium is very accurate. No argument there. CD (and it's other
digital relatives like DVD-A and SACD) can produce squeaky clean and pristine
examples of any audio signal that is fed to them, good or bad.

Ed Seedhouse[_2_]

February 17th 10, 12:03 AM

On Feb 16, 10:40=A0am, Scott > wrote:
> On Feb 15, 4:38=3DA0pm, Dick Pierce > wrote:
> > Scott wrote:
>
> > > Not true. =3DA0Steve Hoffman ,amd Kevin Gray did just that and did de=
tect
> > > differences.
>
> > Is that the same Steve Hoffman, perchance, that's featured
> > in this piece of audio voodoo?
>
> >http://www.shakti-innovations.com/hallograph.htm

> Yes. do you think that some how renders his level matched blind
> comparisons worthless?

Well, if he actually is associated with nonsense like that web page, I
would require something more than just a third hand report such as
contained in your post. Did he perhaps manage to get this result
published in a reputable peer reviewed scientific journal? If not,
call me when he does.

Audio Empire

February 17th 10, 12:38 AM

On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 09:20:28 -0800, Harry Lavo wrote
(in article >):

> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 13:04:18 -0800, MIKE--- wrote
>> (in article >):
>>
>>> Audio Empire wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bruno Walter's stereo recordings with
>>>> the NY Philharmonic of Beethoven's
>>>> symphonies
>>>
>>> ????? I don't think Bruno Walter made any STEREO recordings of Beethoven
>>> symphonies with the NY Philharmonic.
>>> He re-recorded these symphonies in California with the Columbia
>>> symphony.
>>>
>>>
>>> ---MIKE---
>>>>> In the White Mountains of New Hampshire
>>>>> (44=B0 15' N - Elevation 1580')
>>>
>>
>> You're right. Mea Culpa. I was thinking of the Mahler cycle with the NYP.
>> The
>> Beethoven was with the Columbia Symphony Orchestra.
>>
>
> New York or LA, these are my favorite recordings of the Beethoven
> Symphonies.....I bought a gift set years ago for a girl friend, and they
> have gone out of print (as a set). I made CD-R's, but also have at least
> half of them on vinyl. It is funny that modern music reviewers almost never
> make reference to these....

Yes, in my opinion, they are the definitive Beethoven symphony performances
and this is my point. Somebody said they felt sorry for me that I can't get
real enjoyment out of modern recordings available only on CD. Well, when the
best performances of Beethoven were these from the late 50's and early '60's,
the best Mahler was from the late 50's (Walter, again) the best Mozart was
from Beecham and the LSO from the mid-fifties, the best Vaughan Williams from
Bolt and the LSO from the '60's and the best Richard Strauss was from Reiner
and the Chicago from the '50's, there's little cause for commiseration. On
the contrary, I am privileged to have these great performances and to have so
many LPs that pass, what the late, great J. Gordon Holt used to call, the
"goosebump test".

Back to the Walter. I too have pondered that these performances are rarely
mentioned by music reviewers. I don't have an answer, but they used to. The
last time I saw any of these performances praised was by Edward Tatnal Canby
in Audio Magazine in the 1980's. I have two CDs of Bruno Walter's Beethoven
symphony performances. One is an SACD from Sony/Columbia of the 6th, and the
second is a Japanese market Sony imported by CBS of the 7th and 8th. But I
have the boxed set on LP of all of them.

My second favorite Beethoven symphony recordings are Von Karajan's late 50's
recordings with the Berlin SO on DGG. These sound great (like most DGGs of
the period) as they were all recorded using a single MS mike. Another great
DGG recording from the era is Von Karajan/Sviatoslav Richter's Tchiakovsky's
First Piano Concerto. Still one of the best sounding piano-and-orchestra
recordings I've ever encountered.

Scott[_6_]

February 17th 10, 03:32 PM

On Feb 16, 5:06=A0pm, Dick Pierce > wrote:
> Scott wrote:
> > On Feb 15, 4:38=3DA0pm, Dick Pierce > wrote:
> >>>Not true. =3DA0Steve Hoffman ,amd Kevin Gray did just that and did det=
ect
> >>>differences.
>
> >>Is that the same Steve Hoffman, perchance, that's featured
> >>in this piece of audio voodoo?
>
> >>http://www.shakti-innovations.com/hallograph.htm
>
> > Yes. do you think that some how renders his level matched blind
> > comparisons worthless?
>
> In the absence of anything other than your say-so, yes,
> it does.

That is a non-sequitor. My success or failure to produce anything is
independent of the question asked about whether or not Steve Hoffman's
level matched blind comparisons are worthless. If one wants to make
credibility an issue I suggest one be more careful not to make such
basic mistakes in their logic.

>
> Since you failed to produce anything other than a simple
> statement with no substantiation whatsoever,

I didn't "fail" to produce anything. One can not fail to do something
one did not attempt to do. If you wanted a reference all you had to do
was ask.
http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showthread.php?t=3D133328&highlight=3Dwha=
t+sounds+more+like+the+master+tape

> and I was at
> least able to produce an independent reference of him endorsing
> some wooden carving making some extraordinary claiims, I'd
> say, in the absence of ANY documentation whatsoever, yes,
> it renders your claims worthless. And it is YOUR claim until

> you show otherwise.

That is yet another logical fallacy. Circumstantial ad hominem. Again
if one wants to make credibility an issue one ought to not shoot their
own credibility in the foot with a string of logical fallacies.

Andrew Haley

February 17th 10, 07:29 PM

Scott writes:
> On Feb 16, 5:06=A0pm, Dick Pierce > wrote:
> > Scott wrote:
> > > On Feb 15, 4:38=3DA0pm, Dick Pierce > wrote:
> > >>>Not true. =3DA0Steve Hoffman ,amd Kevin Gray did just that and did det=
> ect
> > >>>differences.
> >
> > >>Is that the same Steve Hoffman, perchance, that's featured
> > >>in this piece of audio voodoo?
> >
> > >>http://www.shakti-innovations.com/hallograph.htm
> >
> > > Yes. do you think that some how renders his level matched blind
> > > comparisons worthless?
> >
> > In the absence of anything other than your say-so, yes,
> > it does.
>
> That is a non-sequitor. My success or failure to produce anything is
> independent of the question asked about whether or not Steve Hoffman's
> level matched blind comparisons are worthless. If one wants to make
> credibility an issue I suggest one be more careful not to make such
> basic mistakes in their logic.
>
> > Since you failed to produce anything other than a simple
> > statement with no substantiation whatsoever,
>
>
> I didn't "fail" to produce anything. One can not fail to do something
> one did not attempt to do. If you wanted a reference all you had to do
> was ask.
> http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showthread.php?t=3D133328&highlight=3Dwha=
> t+sounds+more+like+the+master+tape

Fixed URL:
http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showthread.php?t=133328

That doesn't seem to be a blind test all: there seems to be no mention
of blinding, nor of any controls, nor the number of trials. Why did
you think it was blind? Is there another description of the test
elsewhere?

Andrew.

February 17th 10, 08:40 PM

On 2/17/2010 12:29 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:
> Scott writes:
<snip>

> > I didn't "fail" to produce anything. One can not fail to do something
> > one did not attempt to do. If you wanted a reference all you had to do
> > was ask.
> > http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showthread.php?t=3D133328&highlight=3Dwha=
> > t+sounds+more+like+the+master+tape
>
> Fixed URL:
> http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showthread.php?t=133328
>
> That doesn't seem to be a blind test all: there seems to be no mention
> of blinding, nor of any controls, nor the number of trials. Why did
> you think it was blind? Is there another description of the test
> elsewhere?
>
> Andrew.
>

Even more than that, Hoffman confirms a few things in that thread that
seems to make the claimed comparison completely inappropriate in the
context of this thread, for example;

1. The test was made using the direct cut "acetate", not vinyl, which
Hoffman himself states, in the same thread; "Please note that an actual
record for sale would have gone through the manufacturing process and
the lacquer would have been processed to a MASTER, MOTHER, STAMPER and
VINYL with increased surface noise, etc. but the sound of the music
remains intact for the most part." Interesting caveat, that, "for the
most part". IOW, he recognizes that the acetate and the vinyl will not
sound the same, yet he did not compare the *Vinyl*.

2. More importantly, in the exchange below Hoffman explicitly confirms
that the digital recording and Acetate he compared to the master tape
were *Mastered differently*:

>>Quote:
>>Originally Posted by Ian Lascell View Post
>>Thanks for the clarification. I thought you were saying that the same
>>exact steps/settings were taken to master for each (except for
>>digital conversion). I realize now that you meant you are shooting
>>for the same sound in all formats. Of course that makes sense.

Hoffman:
>Glad you understand what I was trying to say. I am never sure it's
>coming out exactly like I mean it to.. Especially when typing in the
>back seat of a Taxi..

In other words, Hoffman attempted to differentially "tweak" the
mastering of an acetate and a digital recording to sound like the master
tape, and found that his *mastering tweaks* on the acetate sounded
closer to the Master Tape than his *different mastering tweaks* on the
digital recording did. Gee.

How is this test of any value, irrespective of presence/absence of test
controls, in any evaluation except that of Hoffmans' ability to *master*
digital? By his own statements, he was not comparing two direct
transfers, but rather his "tweaks" thereof.

Keith Hughes

Audio Empire

February 17th 10, 09:55 PM

On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 12:40:44 -0800, KH wrote
(in article >):

> On 2/17/2010 12:29 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:
>> Scott writes:
> <snip>
>
>>> I didn't "fail" to produce anything. One can not fail to do something
>>> one did not attempt to do. If you wanted a reference all you had to do
>>> was ask.
>>> http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showthread.php?t=3D133328&highlight=3Dwha
>>> =
>>> t+sounds+more+like+the+master+tape
>>
>> Fixed URL:
>> http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showthread.php?t=133328
>>
>> That doesn't seem to be a blind test all: there seems to be no mention
>> of blinding, nor of any controls, nor the number of trials. Why did
>> you think it was blind? Is there another description of the test
>> elsewhere?
>>
>> Andrew.
>>
>
> Even more than that, Hoffman confirms a few things in that thread that
> seems to make the claimed comparison completely inappropriate in the
> context of this thread, for example;
>
> 1. The test was made using the direct cut "acetate", not vinyl, which
> Hoffman himself states, in the same thread; "Please note that an actual
> record for sale would have gone through the manufacturing process and
> the lacquer would have been processed to a MASTER, MOTHER, STAMPER and
> VINYL with increased surface noise, etc. but the sound of the music
> remains intact for the most part." Interesting caveat, that, "for the
> most part". IOW, he recognizes that the acetate and the vinyl will not
> sound the same, yet he did not compare the *Vinyl*.

Having worked in disc mastering for a while (the company I worked for made
records for schools and other organizations, not for commercial release) I
can say with some confidence that although the actual pressings will be
somewhat noisier than the acetate master, they won't be much noisier. The
result will be the acetate's noise floor plus the vinyl's noise floor. The
mother and stamper, being metal platings don't add any significant noise,
being exact copies of the acetate master (assuming they were "done"
correctly). The end result, of course will be determined by the manufacturing
process. I.E. those variables that we all used to fight when buying records,
underfill, warp, off-center records as well as records pressed at a
temperature that was either too low or too high, and of course, the grade of
raw polyvinyl chloride used by the record company and whether or not the
vinyl mix contains any re-grind.

> 2. More importantly, in the exchange below Hoffman explicitly confirms
> that the digital recording and Acetate he compared to the master tape
> were *Mastered differently*:
>
>
> >>Quote:
> >>Originally Posted by Ian Lascell View Post
> >>Thanks for the clarification. I thought you were saying that the same
> >>exact steps/settings were taken to master for each (except for
> >>digital conversion). I realize now that you meant you are shooting
> >>for the same sound in all formats. Of course that makes sense.
>
> Hoffman:
> >Glad you understand what I was trying to say. I am never sure it's
> >coming out exactly like I mean it to.. Especially when typing in the
> >back seat of a Taxi..
>
> In other words, Hoffman attempted to differentially "tweak" the
> mastering of an acetate and a digital recording to sound like the master
> tape, and found that his *mastering tweaks* on the acetate sounded
> closer to the Master Tape than his *different mastering tweaks* on the
> digital recording did. Gee.

That's pretty normal procedure. Record mastering is a an analog process and
is not as straight forward as digital mastering. There are things that must
be done to the signal in order to successfully cut a record, that don't need
to be done when mastering digitally.

> How is this test of any value, irrespective of presence/absence of test
> controls, in any evaluation except that of Hoffmans' ability to *master*
> digital? By his own statements, he was not comparing two direct
> transfers, but rather his "tweaks" thereof.

It doesn't seem to me that the process Mr. Hoffman describes is anything like
what we are talking about. Unless I've missed something here, we were
discussing whether it is possible to transfer the signal from a vinyl record
onto a CD and "preserve" the LP sound, and to what degree that LP sound is
preserved by the A/D and D/A process. I said that I cannot tell the
difference. The CD made from a record and the record itself sound so close as
to be virtually indistinguishable, one from the other. This is as it should
be since CD is VERY accurate to the signal fed to it.

February 17th 10, 10:57 PM

On 2/17/2010 2:55 PM, Audio Empire wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 12:40:44 -0800, KH wrote
> (in >):
>
>> On 2/17/2010 12:29 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:
>>> Scott writes:
>> <snip>

>> How is this test of any value, irrespective of presence/absence of test
>> controls, in any evaluation except that of Hoffmans' ability to *master*
>> digital? By his own statements, he was not comparing two direct
>> transfers, but rather his "tweaks" thereof.
>
> It doesn't seem to me that the process Mr. Hoffman describes is anything like
> what we are talking about.

Yes, that was my point exactly.

> Unless I've missed something here, we were
> discussing whether it is possible to transfer the signal from a vinyl record
> onto a CD and "preserve" the LP sound, and to what degree that LP sound is
> preserved by the A/D and D/A process. I said that I cannot tell the
> difference. The CD made from a record and the record itself sound so close as
> to be virtually indistinguishable, one from the other. This is as it should
> be since CD is VERY accurate to the signal fed to it.

Exactly. However, this 'test' was provided as 'evidence' that there
have been documented tests showing there *is* a discernable difference
between CD copies of LP's. I don't see it as remotely relevant.

Keith Hughes

Arny Krueger

February 18th 10, 01:02 AM

"Scott" > wrote in message

> On Feb 16, 5:06=A0pm, Dick Pierce >
> wrote:
>> Scott wrote:
>>> On Feb 15, 4:38=3DA0pm, Dick Pierce
>>> > wrote:
>>>>> Not true. =3DA0Steve Hoffman ,amd Kevin Gray did just
>>>>> that and did det= ect differences.
>>
>>>> Is that the same Steve Hoffman, perchance, that's
>>>> featured in this piece of audio voodoo?
>>
>>>> http://www.shakti-innovations.com/hallograph.htm
>>
>>> Yes. do you think that some how renders his level
>>> matched blind comparisons worthless?
>>
>> In the absence of anything other than your say-so, yes,
>> it does.
>
> That is a non-sequitor. My success or failure to produce
> anything is independent of the question asked about
> whether or not Steve Hoffman's level matched blind
> comparisons are worthless. If one wants to make
> credibility an issue I suggest one be more careful not to
> make such basic mistakes in their logic.

Scott if we presume that you are competent to answer reasonable questions
about a topic that you brought up, then what we have established is that a
competent person who has asserted that these tests actually took place is
unable to provide any confirming documentation about them at all. This
suggests that no such documentation exists. If the alleged tests are
impossible for a resonable person to provide any additional supporting
documentation about, then the credibility of the alleged tests is definately
in question.

>> Since you failed to produce anything other than a simple
>> statement with no substantiation whatsoever,

> I didn't "fail" to produce anything. One can not fail to
> do something one did not attempt to do.

That would be false. If a person refuses to attempt to perform a reasonable
action then they have indeed failed to do it.

If you wanted a
> reference all you had to do was ask.
> http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showthread.php?t=3D133328&highlight=3Dwha=
> t+sounds+more+like+the+master+tape

Broken link. The error message suggests that no such post exists.

Searching using the indicated text returns way too many posts and threads to
take time to read.

Andrew Barss[_2_]

February 18th 10, 01:03 AM

Audio Empire > wrote:
: On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 03:30:41 -0800, KH wrote
: (in article >):

:> On 2/12/2010 12:57 PM, Audio Empire wrote:
:>> On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 07:25:10 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
:>> (in >):
:>>
:>>> "Robert > wrote in message
:>
:> <snip>
:>
:>>> The CD format is an sonically accurate medium. Do things right and the good
:>>> results accurately show up at the output terminals of the player. Do things
:>>> wrong, and the bad results show up in the same place.
:>>
:>> I disagree. Strongly. The CD format is a WAVEFORM-ACCURATE format.
:>
:> I believe that is exactly what he was saying.

: No. he said that it was sonically accurate. Digital doesn't record sound, it
: records ones-and-zeros.

True, but misleading. Analog media don't record sound in your sense here
either. A binary digital track on a hard drive is physically represented
as a series of magnetic patterns on a solid platter, period. The same is
true of an analog track on a tape -- it's a series of magnetic patterns
on a flexible piece of plastic. An analog signal on a vinyl
record is a series of grooves and ridges and bumps and indentations carved
into plastic, period.

None of these, in the strictest sense, is sound. (You could read any of
those representations -- analog or digital -- with some other piece of
equipment and get a visual pattern, for example.)

The ones and zeroes are a *representation* of the *analog representations*
recorded on tape by a *representation* of sound waves as patterns of
electrons in a wire connected to a mic. There's actual sound only
pre-microphone in recording, and post-speaker in playback. Any
reproduction medium is going to map that sound onto one or more very
different physical representations, which are the back-converted in
playback.

The isue is whether those mappings -- sound to a physical representation,
or one physical representtion to another -- preserves the information
necessary to reconstruct the sound during playback.

-- Andy Barss

Scott[_6_]

February 18th 10, 01:04 AM

On Feb 17, 11:29=A0am, Andrew Haley > wrote:
> Scott writes:
>
> =A0> On Feb 16, 5:06=3DA0pm, Dick Pierce > wrote:
> =A0> > Scott wrote:
> =A0> > > On Feb 15, 4:38=3D3DA0pm, Dick Pierce > wr=
ote:
> =A0> > >>>Not true. =3D3DA0Steve Hoffman ,amd Kevin Gray did just that an=
d did det=3D
> =A0> ect
> =A0> > >>>differences.
> =A0> >
> =A0> > >>Is that the same Steve Hoffman, perchance, that's featured
> =A0> > >>in this piece of audio voodoo?
> =A0> >
> =A0> > >>http://www.shakti-innovations.com/hallograph.htm
> =A0> >
> =A0> > > Yes. do you think that some how renders his level matched blind
> =A0> > > comparisons worthless?
> =A0> >
> =A0> > In the absence of anything other than your say-so, yes,
> =A0> > it does.
> =A0>
> =A0> That is a non-sequitor. My success or failure to produce anything is
> =A0> independent of the question asked about whether or not Steve Hoffman=
's
> =A0> level matched blind comparisons are worthless. If one wants to make
> =A0> credibility an issue I suggest one be more careful not to make such
> =A0> basic mistakes in their logic.
> =A0>
> =A0> > Since you failed to produce anything other than a simple
> =A0> > statement with no substantiation whatsoever,
> =A0>
> =A0>
> =A0> I didn't "fail" to produce anything. One can not fail to do somethin=
g
> =A0> one did not attempt to do. If you wanted a reference all you had to =
do
> =A0> was ask.
> =A0>http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showthread.php?t=3D3D133328&highlig=
ht...
> =A0> t+sounds+more+like+the+master+tape
>
> Fixed URL:http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showthread.php?t=3D133328
>
> That doesn't seem to be a blind test all: there seems to be no mention
> of blinding, nor of any controls, nor the number of trials. =A0Why did
> you think it was blind? =A0Is there another description of the test
> elsewhere?
>
> Andrew.

Hmmm you are right. weird. But see post #94 "These were Blind as I
mentioned in my first post. Kevin did the knobs and then I did..." It
does mention level matching and time syncing. So those controls were
in place. It also basically says that all three media were very very
close to transparent just that they both heard particular differences
with the CD and the SACD masters but found the laquer to be
transparent, indistinguishable from the master tape. Not sure how many
trials one needs to do if they can't identify a difference. If there
is a difference it has to be subtle if they couldn't identify a
difference. It's a pretty unique test actually. Not many people do
this sort of test at a SOTA mastering facility with a master tape as
the reference. And if one were really really interested in
varification one could actually do it. RTI is still there and they
still have the same cutting lathe and mastering facitities. If one
really wanted to replicate this test they could. The one variable
would be the new A/D converter they now use for mastering CDs. But
that wouldn't stop anyone from testing the claim of transparency of
the cutting lathe and playback at RTI.

Scott[_6_]

February 18th 10, 02:10 PM

On Feb 17, 12:40=A0pm, KH > wrote:
> On 2/17/2010 12:29 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:> Scott writes:
>
> <snip>
>
>
>
>
>
> > =A0 > =A0I didn't "fail" to produce anything. One can not fail to do so=
mething
> > =A0 > =A0one did not attempt to do. If you wanted a reference all you h=
ad to do
> > =A0 > =A0was ask.
> > =A0 > =A0http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showthread.php?t=3D3D133328&=
highlight...
> > =A0 > =A0t+sounds+more+like+the+master+tape
>
> > Fixed URL:
> >http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showthread.php?t=3D133328
>
> > That doesn't seem to be a blind test all: there seems to be no mention
> > of blinding, nor of any controls, nor the number of trials. =A0Why did
> > you think it was blind? =A0Is there another description of the test
> > elsewhere?
>
> > Andrew.
>
> Even more than that, Hoffman confirms a few things in that thread that
> seems to make the claimed comparison completely inappropriate in the
> context of this thread, for example;
>
> 1. =A0The test was made using the direct cut "acetate", not vinyl, which
> Hoffman himself states, in the same thread; "Please note that an actual
> record for sale would have gone through the manufacturing process and
> the lacquer would have been processed to a MASTER, MOTHER, STAMPER and
> VINYL with increased surface noise, etc. but the sound of the music
> remains intact for the most part." =A0Interesting caveat, that, "for the
> most part". =A0IOW, he recognizes that the acetate and the vinyl will not
> sound the same, yet he did not compare the *Vinyl*.
>
> 2. =A0More importantly, in the exchange below Hoffman explicitly confirms
> that the digital recording and Acetate he compared to the master tape
> were *Mastered differently*:
>
> =A0>>Quote:
> =A0>>Originally Posted by Ian Lascell View Post
> =A0>>Thanks for the clarification. I thought you were saying that the sam=
e
> =A0>>exact steps/settings were taken to master for each (except for
> =A0>>digital conversion). I realize now that you meant you are shooting
> =A0>>for the same sound in all formats. Of course that makes sense.
>
> Hoffman:
> =A0>Glad you understand what I was trying to say. I am never sure it's
> =A0>coming out exactly like I mean it to.. Especially when typing in the
> =A0>back seat of a Taxi..
>
> In other words, Hoffman attempted to differentially "tweak" the
> mastering of an acetate and a digital recording to sound like the master
> tape, and found that his *mastering tweaks* on the acetate sounded
> closer to the Master Tape than his *different mastering tweaks* on the
> digital recording did. Gee.
>

Keith that is a gross misrepresentation of what was actually said and
done. context is everything. The above was in reference to How Steve
Hoffman masters LPs CDs and SACDs in general not how he did this
spefici test. Here is the actual description of the actual test.

"We had the master tape of the Riverside stereo LP Bill Evans Trio/
WALTZ FOR DEBBY at AcousTech and decided to do this little comparison.
Since the actual master needs a bunch of "mastering" to make it sound
the best, I set the title track up as if it was going to be mastered
(which in a sense it was, being cut on to an acetate record).

We cut a lacquer ref of the tune with mastering moves while dumping to
the digital computer at the same time with the same moves.

Then, after a break, we sync'd up all three, first matching levels.
Simultaneous playback of all three commenced and as Kevin switched, I
listened. (We took turns switching and listening). "

Clearly the settings were the same for the master tape and the three
samples."while dumping to the digital computer at the same time with
the same moves." Pretty clear no?

Now lets look at the context of your quote.

Steve Hoffman

"The end result sounds as close as possible when I master for CD or
LP. What ever tricks I need to get there when mastering in digital,
well, it seems to work....

Compare a DCC Gold CD I did with a DCC LP of the same title. Pretty
close sonically as they should be. So even though I had to use
different tricks to get them to match, the end result is the same;
they sound the way I want them to sound, no matter what format."

Clearly he is not talking about the specific test but how he masters
commerical CDs in general and gives a specific example of a title that
clearly was not Waltz for Deby.

> How is this test of any value, irrespective of presence/absence of test
> controls, in any evaluation except that of Hoffmans' ability to *master*
> digital? =A0By his own statements, he was not comparing two direct
> transfers, but rather his "tweaks" thereof.

I'm sure anyone can figure out the answers to those questions in light
of the facts that are now present.

Arny Krueger

February 18th 10, 04:37 PM

"Scott" > wrote in message

> On Feb 17, 11:29 am, Andrew Haley
> > wrote:
>> Scott writes:
>>
>>> On Feb 16, 5:06=A0pm, Dick Pierce
>>> > wrote:
>>>> Scott wrote:
>>>>> On Feb 15, 4:38=3DA0pm, Dick Pierce
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>> Not true. =3DA0Steve Hoffman ,amd Kevin Gray did
>>>>>>> just that and did det= ect differences.
>>>>
>>>>>> Is that the same Steve Hoffman, perchance, that's
>>>>>> featured in this piece of audio voodoo?
>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.shakti-innovations.com/hallograph.htm
>>>>
>>>>> Yes. do you think that some how renders his level
>>>>> matched blind comparisons worthless?
>>>>
>>>> In the absence of anything other than your say-so, yes,
>>>> it does.
>>>
>>> That is a non-sequitor. My success or failure to
>>> produce anything is independent of the question asked
>>> about whether or not Steve Hoffman's level matched
>>> blind comparisons are worthless. If one wants to make
>>> credibility an issue I suggest one be more careful not
>>> to make such basic mistakes in their logic.
>>>
>>>> Since you failed to produce anything other than a
>>>> simple statement with no substantiation whatsoever,
>>>
>>>
>>> I didn't "fail" to produce anything. One can not fail
>>> to do something one did not attempt to do. If you
>>> wanted a reference all you had to do was ask.
>>> http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showthread.php?t=3D133328&highlight...
>>> t+sounds+more+like+the+master+tape

>> Fixed
>> URL:http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showthread.php?t=133328

I notice the lack of an apology by the OP for all the time that was wasted
by people who tried to follow up on his post. It took about a working day
for Hoffman's site to let me register there, and then it turned out that the
OP had obviously not checked his work and sent us all on a wild goose chase.
I probably didn't need to register, and share personal information to do so.

>> That doesn't seem to be a blind test all: there seems to
>> be no mention of blinding, nor of any controls, nor the
>> number of trials. Why did you think it was blind? Is
>> there another description of the test elsewhere?

> Hmmm you are right. weird. But see post #94 "These were
> Blind as I mentioned in my first post.

The first post (Post #1) says nothing about actual blinding:

"Then, after a break, we sync'd up all three, first matching levels.
Simultaneous playback of all three commenced and as Kevin switched, I
listened. (We took turns switching and listening)."

I would suggest that these casual experimenters may think of any
experimental controls, whether they involve actual bias controls or not,
"Blinding".

Furthermore, the accuracy of the level matching the time synching is not
given. Level matching could have been off by 3 dB and still be called "level
matching" as it was stated here. Time synching needs to be within a few
milliseconds. Maintaining that sort of precision can be a full-time job in
addition to the listening and switching. Doing this kind of test with only
2 people generally requires the use of a proper switchbox, and none was
identified.

The above is so far from being a properly-documented test that the
discussion of this as a reliable, credible test needs to stop right about
<here>.

The alleged results tax any informed person's credulity and implicitly
dispute the results many, many other listening tests including those that
*have* been properly documented, professionally reviewed, etc.

Comparing this casual evaluation to a JAES paper is like comparing a illegal
midnight street race to a NHRA sanctioned time trial at a championship
event. IMO, only true believers in audio magic and/or worshipers of a
personality cult could have their disbelief so tautly suspended as to be
distracted by this silly sort of thing.

Next!

February 19th 10, 04:40 AM

On 2/18/2010 7:10 AM, Scott wrote:
> On Feb 17, 12:40=A0pm, > wrote:
>> On 2/17/2010 12:29 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:> Scott writes:
>>
>> <snip>

>
> Keith that is a gross misrepresentation of what was actually said and
> done. context is everything. The above was in reference to How Steve
> Hoffman masters LPs CDs and SACDs in general not how he did this
> spefici test. Here is the actual description of the actual test.

Sorry Scott, from my reading, it is *you* are grossly misrepresenting
what was actually said, and misinterpreting the thread in an attempt to
bolster your argument. For example, from Post #45:

>Hi Steve,

> You mentioned ***in your original post*** <emphasis added> that you
> already use your "tricks" when mastering to digital. I'm not asking
> what your tricks are, but wouldn't they mean you are mastering
> differently than you do for analog? If it's not possible to answer
> this question without giving away too much info, I understand. Just
> wondering what I'm not getting.

To which Hoffman replied, in Post #46:

> The end result sounds as close as possible when I master for CD or
> LP. What ever tricks I need to get there when mastering in digital,
> well, it seems to work....

> Compare a DCC Gold CD I did with a DCC LP of the same title. Pretty
> close sonically as they should be. So even though I had to use
> different tricks to get them to match, the end result is the same;
> they sound the way I want them to sound, no matter what format.

And in Post #47, the OP replies (which I quoted previously):

> Thanks for the clarification. I thought you were saying that the same
> exact steps/settings were taken to master for each (except for
> digital conversion). I realize now that you meant you are shooting
> for the same sound in all formats. Of course that makes sense.

> Now lets look at the context of your quote.

Yes, let's...
>
> Steve Hoffman
>
> "The end result sounds as close as possible when I master for CD or
> LP. What ever tricks I need to get there when mastering in digital,
> well, it seems to work....
>
> Compare a DCC Gold CD I did with a DCC LP of the same title. Pretty
> close sonically as they should be. So even though I had to use
> different tricks to get them to match, the end result is the same;
> they sound the way I want them to sound, no matter what format."
>
> Clearly he is not talking about the specific test but how he masters
> commerical CDs in general and gives a specific example of a title that
> clearly was not Waltz for Deby.

No, *clearly* the OP was referring to the original TEST, otherwise the
"in your original post" reference makes no sense. I've provided the
full context above, in sequence. You may choose to interpret that as
Mr. Hoffman having misunderstood the reference, but clearly the OP was
referring to the original post, i.e. the "Test".

>> How is this test of any value, irrespective of presence/absence of test
>> controls, in any evaluation except that of Hoffmans' ability to *master*
>> digital? =A0By his own statements, he was not comparing two direct
>> transfers, but rather his "tweaks" thereof.
>
> I'm sure anyone can figure out the answers to those questions in light
> of the facts that are now present.

Yes, at this point they certainly may.

Keith Hughes

Scott[_6_]

February 20th 10, 02:08 PM

On Feb 18, 8:37=A0am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
"Scott" > wrote in message

> The first post (Post #1) says nothing about actual blinding:

True. So what?

> "Then, after a break, we sync'd up all three, first matching levels.
> Simultaneous playback of all three commenced and as Kevin switched, I
> listened. (We took turns switching and listening)."
>
> I would suggest that these casual experimenters may think of any
> experimental controls, whether they involve actual bias controls or not,
> "Blinding".

You also "suggested" that the thread and the test never existed. So
that does put some perspective on your powers of speculation.

> Furthermore, the accuracy of the level matching the time synching is not
> given. Level matching could have been off by 3 dB and still be called "l=
evel
> matching" as it was stated here.

So the alleged "lack" of level matching and time syncing was the
problem that lead to Steve Hoffman's and Kevin Gray's *inability* to
distinguish the laquer playback from the master tape? OK.........

> Time synching needs to be within a few
> milliseconds. Maintaining that sort of precision can be a full-time job =
in
> addition to the listening and switching. Doing this kind of test with o=
nly
> 2 people generally requires the use of a proper switchbox, and none was
> identified.
>
> The above is so far from being a properly-documented test that the
> discussion of this as a reliable, credible test needs to stop right abou=
t
> <here>.

Except for the fact that anyone with the inclination and motivation
can actually varify the test because it is repeatable. Steve Hoffman
and Kevin Gray are at AcousTech on a regular basis cutting LPs. They
have visitors all the time. If *anyone* really wanted to varify the
results of this comparison they could do so. So the lack of
documentation is pretty irrelevant. The capacity to repeat the test
for the sake of varification exists.

>
> The alleged results tax any informed person's credulity and implicitly
> dispute the results many, many other listening tests including those t=
hat. *have* been properly documented, professionally reviewed, etc.

It is not exactly a logical argument that the results are invalid
because you don't like them as much as other results. This kind of
cherry picking is really quite anti-scientific.

Scott[_6_]

February 20th 10, 03:12 PM

On Feb 18, 8:40=A0pm, KH > wrote:
> On 2/18/2010 7:10 AM, Scott wrote:
>
> > On Feb 17, 12:40=3DA0pm, > =A0wrote:
> >> On 2/17/2010 12:29 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:> =A0Scott writes:
>
> >> <snip>
>
> > Keith that is a gross misrepresentation of what was actually said and
> > done. context is everything. The above was in reference to How Steve
> > Hoffman masters LPs CDs and SACDs in general not how he did this
> > spefici test. Here is the actual description of the actual test.
>
> Sorry Scott, from my reading, it is *you* are grossly misrepresenting
> what was actually said, and misinterpreting the thread in an attempt to
> bolster your argument. =A0For example, from Post #45:
>
> =A0>Hi Steve,
>
> =A0> You mentioned ***in your original post*** <emphasis added> that you
> =A0> already use your "tricks" when mastering to digital. I'm not asking
> =A0> what your tricks are, but wouldn't they mean you are mastering
> =A0> differently than you do for analog? If it's not possible to answer
> =A0> this question without giving away too much info, I understand. Just
> =A0> wondering what I'm not getting.
>
> To which Hoffman replied, in Post #46:
>
> =A0> The end result sounds as close as possible when I master for CD or
> =A0> LP. What ever tricks I need to get there when mastering in digital,
> =A0> well, it seems to work....
>
> =A0> Compare a DCC Gold CD I did with a DCC LP of the same title. Pretty
> =A0> close sonically as they should be. So even though I had to use
> =A0> different tricks to get them to match, the end result is the same;
> =A0> they sound the way I want them to sound, no matter what format.
>
> And in Post #47, the OP replies (which I quoted previously):
>
> =A0> Thanks for the clarification. I thought you were saying that the sam=
e
> =A0> exact steps/settings were taken to master for each (except for
> =A0> digital conversion). I realize now that you meant you are shooting
> =A0> for the same sound in all formats. Of course that makes sense.
>
> > Now lets look at the context of your quote.
>
> Yes, let's...
>
>
>
> > Steve Hoffman
>
> > "The end result sounds as close as possible when I master for CD or
> > LP. What ever tricks I need to get there when mastering in digital,
> > well, it seems to work....
>
> > Compare a DCC Gold CD I did with a DCC LP of the same title. Pretty
> > close sonically as they should be. So even though I had to use
> > different tricks to get them to match, the end result is the same;
> > they sound the way I want them to sound, no matter what format."
>
> > Clearly he is not talking about the specific test but how he masters
> > commerical CDs in general and gives a specific example of a title that
> > clearly was not Waltz for Deby.
>
> No, *clearly* the OP was referring to the original TEST, otherwise the
> "in your original post" reference makes no sense. =A0I've provided the
> full context above, in sequence. =A0You may choose to interpret that as
> Mr. Hoffman having misunderstood the reference, but clearly the OP was
> referring to the original post, i.e. the "Test".
>
> >> How is this test of any value, irrespective of presence/absence of tes=
t
> >> controls, in any evaluation except that of Hoffmans' ability to *maste=
r*
> >> digital? =3DA0By his own statements, he was not comparing two direct
> >> transfers, but rather his "tweaks" thereof.
>
> > I'm sure anyone can figure out the answers to those questions in light
> > of the facts that are now present.
>
> Yes, at this point they certainly may.
>
> Keith Hughes

Keith what is unclear about ""We had the master tape of the Riverside
stereo LP Bill Evans Trio/ WALTZ FOR DEBBY at AcousTech and decided to
do this little comparison. Since the actual master needs a bunch of
"mastering" to make it sound the best, I set the title track up as if
it was going to be mastered (which in a sense it was, being cut on to
an acetate record).

We cut a lacquer ref of the tune with mastering moves while dumping to
the digital computer at the same time with the same moves.

Then, after a break, we sync'd up all three, first matching levels.
Simultaneous playback of all three commenced and as Kevin switched, I
listened. (We took turns switching and listening). ?"

Clearly the settings were the same for the master tape and the three
samples."while dumping to the digital computer at the same time with
the same moves." Did you miss this in my post? You sure didn't address
it. You seemed to miss it before. Is it clear now?

When Steve asks the OP to compare DCC titles on LP and CD he is clealy
talking about something that has nothing to do with this particular
comparison. Waltz for Deby was released by Analog Productions not DCC.
It does not matter what the OP was refering to. What matters is what
Steve Hoffman is refering to when he talks about the specific test and
says ""We had the master tape of the Riverside stereo LP Bill Evans
Trio/ WALTZ FOR DEBBY at AcousTech and decided to do this little
comparison. Since the actual master needs a bunch of "mastering" to
make it sound the best, I set the title track up as if it was going to
be mastered (which in a sense it was, being cut on to an acetate
record).

We cut a lacquer ref of the tune with mastering moves while dumping to
the digital computer at the same time with the same moves.

Then, after a break, we sync'd up all three, first matching levels.
Simultaneous playback of all three commenced and as Kevin switched, I
listened. (We took turns switching and listening). "

That is a clear singular description of the test.

When Steve talks about How he masters LPs and CDs in general he said
"The end result sounds as close as possible when I master for CD or
LP. What ever tricks I need to get there when mastering in digital,
well, it seems to work....

Compare a DCC Gold CD I did with a DCC LP of the same title. Pretty
close sonically as they should be. So even though I had to use
different tricks to get them to match, the end result is the same;
they sound the way I want them to sound, no matter what format."

It should be pretty obvious that he is not talking about the specific
test that he describes so clearly. There was no LP or CD involved in
that test much less any titles he had mastered years before for the
DCC label. Whether or not the OP and Steve were clear on what the
other person was saying is utterly irrlevant. What Steve Hoffman said
about *his test* and *how he masters LPs and CDs in general* should be
crystal clear at this point. The comparison involed *exactly* the same
feed to the cutting lathe and the computer. This was a pure level
matched time synced comparison of the masters in all three formats
that were fed exactly the same signal and compared directly to that
signal done under single blind conditions.

Arny Krueger

February 20th 10, 04:56 PM

"Scott" > wrote in message

> On Feb 18, 8:37=A0am, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote: "Scott" > wrote in message

>

>> The first post (Post #1) says nothing about actual
>> blinding:

> True. So what?

If there was anything about actual blinding in the thread or elsewhere, then
you would have pointed it out by now, Scott. Since you haven't, there is
good reason to believe that there were no controls related to personal bias.
Since personal bias needs to be controled and can invalidate any
observations made in an evaluation like this, we have yet another indication
that the OP you referenced has little or no merit.

>> "Then, after a break, we sync'd up all three, first
>> matching levels. Simultaneous playback of all three
>> commenced and as Kevin switched, I listened. (We took
>> turns switching and listening)."

>> I would suggest that these casual experimenters may
>> think of any experimental controls, whether they
>> involve actual bias controls or not, "Blinding".

> You also "suggested" that the thread and the test never
> existed.

Nice job of avoiding responsibility for providing first no reference, and
then a broken reference.

> So that does put some perspective on your powers
> of speculation.

The perspective is that I'm dealing with a very slippery situation. Facts
are first withheld, then obfuscated, and finally misinterpreted and twisted.

>> Furthermore, the accuracy of the level matching the
>> time synching is not given. Level matching could have
>> been off by 3 dB and still be called "l= evel matching"
>> as it was stated here.

> So the alleged "lack" of level matching and time syncing
> was the problem that lead to Steve Hoffman's and Kevin
> Gray's *inability* to distinguish the laquer playback
> from the master tape? OK.........

No, the lack of *any* necessary experimental controls mean that we're
dealing with just another anecdote with no global meaning or relevance.

>> doiing this kind of test with o= nly 2
>> people generally requires the use of a proper
>> switchbox, and none was identified.

>> The above is so far from being a properly-documented
>> test that the discussion of this as a reliable,
>> credible test needs to stop right abou t <here>.

> Except for the fact that anyone with the inclination and
> motivation can actually varify the test because it is
> repeatable.

No the test is not repeatable because of the lack of experiemental controls.
The test is so badly conditioned that it is arguably improper to call it a
test because a test implies a comparison with a stable, relevant, repeatable
standard. I see none, and I've been looking high and low for it!

> Steve Hoffman and Kevin Gray are at AcousTech
> on a regular basis cutting LPs.

Cutting LPs is a worthwhile task, but does not necessarily suggest or prove
the existence or application of competence in conducting listening tests, as
this anecdote shows.

Interestingly enough, ABX was developed by people with recent experience
with tracking, mixing, mastering and cutting LPs. So, experience with
cutting LPs does not preclude a person from doing proper listening tests,
but it also does not cause people to do proper listening tests.

> They have visitors all the time.

Apparently none of these visitors influenced them to do proper listening
tests.

> If *anyone* really wanted to varify the results
> of this comparison they could do so.

There were arguably no tests to verify due to the abject lack of relevant
experimental controls. There are anecdotes about casual evaluations, and
apparently nothing else.

>> The alleged results tax any informed person's credulity
>> and implicitly dispute the results many, many other
>> listening tests including those that. *have* been properly documented,
>> professionally
> reviewed, etc.

> It is not exactly a logical argument that the results
> are invalid because you don't like them

There is no evidence about whether I like these tests or not.

In fact there were no tests, just anecdotes about casual evaluations that
were performed by people who seem to be poorly informed about doing proper
listening tests.

There *is* evidence that any reasonable person who understands what a good
listening test involves will have grave concerns about Steve Hoffman and
Kevin Gray alleged listening tests at AcousTech. For openers, they weren't
tests due to the lack of a relevant standard of performance. They weren't
tests because there was no reliable determination of conformance or
non-conformance to the non-existent standard. That is failure to conform
with the definition of a test, which is to reliably determine conformance or
non-conformance to a reliable standard.

Scott[_6_]

February 20th 10, 10:52 PM

On Feb 20, 8:56=A0am, ScottW > wrote:
> On Feb 20, 7:12=3DA0am, Scott > wrote:
>
> >""We had the master tape of the Riverside
> > stereo LP Bill Evans Trio/ WALTZ FOR DEBBY at AcousTech and decided to
> > do this little comparison. Since the actual master needs a bunch of
> > "mastering" to make it sound the best, I set the title track up as if
> > it was going to be mastered (which in a sense it was, being cut on to
> > an acetate record).
>
> > We cut a lacquer ref of the tune with mastering moves while dumping to
> > the digital computer at the same time with the same moves.
>
> Could you clarify some things for me?
>
> Where in this process is the application of RIAA eq? =A0Is it already in
> the "actual master" or added with the "mastering moves" or applied by
> the cutter itself?

It is built into the cutting amp. Not built into the mastering moves.

>
> If the digital recording has the "same moves" and RIAA eq application
> then
> is the digital playback being fed back through the same preamp and
> RIAA reverse eq that the acetate playback is being done?

The signal feeding the cutting amp was also being dumped to the
computer no RIAA EQ had been applied to that signal except *in* the
cutting amp. =A0

> How are they
> getting the digital playback levels down to cart output levels for the
> preamp?

It's a line level feed coming off the console to the computer and the
cutting amp.

> This "comparison" sounds like it could have a few variables that
> aren't normally in typical CD mastering.

Nope.

>
> The other discussion also indicates that mastering techniges for CD
> and vinyl are different to achieve best results for each format. =A0No
> surprise.
> But in this case the digital recording is provided only vinyl
> mastering techniques and as such it falls short. =A0I'm not sure what
> this proves.

The settings were set for cutting the laquer but the signal that feeds
the cutting amp is a line level signal. Not sure why that same line
level signal would cause a problem when fed to the computer? It was a
test of the transaprency of the three transcriptions when compared to
the original signal. Not sure how the fact that the settings were
optimized for cutting an LP would make any difference.

Scott[_6_]

February 20th 10, 10:54 PM

On Feb 20, 8:56=A0am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Scott" > wrote in message
>
>
>
> > On Feb 18, 8:37=3DA0am, "Arny Krueger" >
> > wrote: "Scott" > wrote in message
>
> >> =A0The first post (Post #1) says nothing about actual
> >> blinding:
> > True. So what?
>
> If there was anything about actual blinding in the thread or elsewhere, t=
hen
> you would have pointed it out by now, Scott.

No. One citation is good enough. how many times do you have to be told
something to get it? For me once did the trick. The thread is over
fifty pages long if I remember correctly/ the last thing I was going
to do is go through every post and tally the number of times Steve
Hoffman indicated the tests were blind. Once is enough.

> Since you haven't, there is
> good reason to believe that there were no controls related to personal bi=
as.

Seriously? because I didn't choose to tally all the references to
blind controls on a fifty plus page thread there is good reason to
believe the test which was done independenty of and prior to the
existance of that thread didn't have any controls? do I really need to
explain to you how illogical that is?

> >> =A0"Then, after a break, we sync'd up all three, first
> >> =A0matching levels. Simultaneous playback of all three
> >> =A0commenced and as Kevin switched, I listened. (We took
> >> turns switching and listening)."
> >> =A0I would suggest that these casual experimenters may
> >> =A0think of any experimental controls, whether they
> >> =A0involve actual bias controls or not, "Blinding".
> > You also "suggested" that the thread and the test never
> > existed.
>
> Nice job of avoiding responsibility for providing first no reference, and
> then a broken reference.

The search engine works just fine at Steve Hoffman's forum. I see no
excuse for anyone having any trouble finding it. You presented your
failure to find it as evidence that it did not exist. Again, this
provides us with some furhter perspective on the logic you have been
using in your arguments.

>
> > So that does put some perspective on your powers
> > of speculation.
>
> The perspective is that I'm dealing with a very slippery situation. Facts
> are first withheld, then obfuscated, and finally misinterpreted and twist=
ed.

No. The facts were and still are present on the Steve Hoffman forum.
All this posturing is much ado about nothing.

>
> >> =A0Furthermore, the accuracy of the level matching the
> >> =A0time synching is not given. Level matching could have
> >> =A0been off by 3 dB and still be called "l=3D evel matching"
> >> as it was stated here.
> > So the alleged "lack" of level matching and time syncing
> > was the problem that lead to Steve Hoffman's and Kevin
> > Gray's *inability* to distinguish the laquer playback
> > from the master tape? OK.........
>
> No, the lack of *any* necessary experimental controls mean that we're
> dealing with just another anecdote with no global meaning or relevance.

Once again you are speculating despite what was actually asserted by
the guy who was actually there. Your choice to deny the existance of
controls that were plainly described says more about your biases than
the actual comparisons IMO.

>
> >> doiing this kind of test with o=3D nly 2
> >> =A0people generally requires the use of a proper
> >> switchbox, and none was identified.
> >> =A0The above is so far from being a properly-documented
> >> =A0test that the discussion of this as a reliable,
> >> =A0credible test needs to stop right abou t <here>.
> > Except for the fact that anyone with the inclination and
> > motivation can actually varify the test because it is
> > repeatable.
>
> No the test is not repeatable because of the lack of experiemental contro=
ls.

The test absolutely is repeatable despite your wild assertions about
the lack of controls which were explicitly stated by Steve Hoffman.
*If* Steve Hoffman and Kevin Gray failed to propperly level match or
time sync the comparisons then they would have detected a difference
with the laquer as well as the two digital playbacks. Your posturing
about a lack of controls simply does not hold up when one considers
the real world consequences when those controls are not in place. On
top of that, had the controls not been in place as you wish us to
believe despite the clear claims by Steve Hoffman that they were in
place, the test would still be repeatable. All one would have to do is
repeat the test as described with the equipment and the facility that
are still there.

> The test is so badly conditioned that it is arguably improper to call it =
a
> test because a test implies a comparison with a stable, relevant, repeata=
ble
> standard. I see none, and I've been looking high and low for it!

The fact is the facility is still there with all the same mastering
equipment so the test is easily repeated should anyone care to do so.
If the positive results were the result of mismatches in time sync or
level mismatches then one could repeat the test with the same
equipment and varify the time sync and level matches. But the argument
that this was the cause of the perceived differences doesn't hold
water in light of their failure to detect a difference with the
laquer.

>
> > Steve Hoffman and Kevin Gray are at AcousTech
> > on a regular basis cutting LPs.
>
> Cutting LPs is a worthwhile task, but does not necessarily suggest or pro=
ve
> the existence or application of competence in conducting listening tests,=
as
> this anecdote shows.

The anecdote shows no such thing. Again the results are varifiable
since the facility and the equipment used are all still there.

> > They have visitors all the time.
>
> Apparently none of these visitors influenced them to do proper listening
> tests.

Well gosh Arny, why don't you pay them a visit and set them straight?
If it is so easy to hear a difference between a laquer cut and played
back at AcousTech when compared to the master tape I'm sure you would
have no problem making such an identification under blind conditions
that meet the standards you claim are missing.

>
> > If *anyone* really wanted to varify the results
> > of this comparison they could do so.
>
> There were arguably no tests to verify due to the abject lack of relevant
> experimental controls. There are anecdotes about casual evaluations, and
> apparently nothing else.

Once again you are making a completely illogical argument. Even an
anecdote can be tested if circumstance allows. Clearly there was a
test and clearly the test can be repeated if one had the inclination
to do so. In this case circumstance does allow for it.

>
> >> =A0The alleged results tax any informed person's credulity
> >> =A0and implicitly dispute the results many, many =A0other
> >> listening tests including those =A0that. *have* been properly document=
ed,
> >> professionally
> > reviewed, etc.
> > =A0It is not exactly a logical argument that the results
> > are invalid because you don't like them
>
> There is no evidence about whether I like these tests or not.

I think you have provided plenty of evidence about your feelings on
the matter.

>
> In fact there were no tests, just anecdotes about casual evaluations that
> were performed by people who seem to be poorly informed about doing prope=
r
> listening tests.

Thanks for providing more evidence about your *feelings* about the
tests conducted by Steve Hoffman and Kevin Gray.

>
> There *is* evidence that any reasonable person who understands what a goo=
d
> listening test involves will have grave concerns about Steve Hoffman and
> Kevin Gray alleged listening tests at AcousTech. For openers, they weren'=
t
> tests due to the lack of a relevant standard of performance. They weren't
> tests because there was no reliable determination of conformance or
> non-conformance to the non-existent standard. =A0That is failure to confo=
rm
> with the definition of a test, which is to reliably determine conformance=
or
> non-conformance to a reliable standard.

tests don't cease to exist because of semantic arguments. You weren't
there so you have no legitimate claim as to how well they were
conducted. Your arguments are based on speculation and denial of facts
as claimed by the guy who was actually there. Steve Hoffman clearly
states the tests were done blind, level matched and time synced. Your
response to that is that since you don't personally intimately know
that is true then it must not be true. The core problem with your
position is one can make take the same stand and make the same denials
about any test if one is willing to. Flat out denial and incredulty is
not a legitimate argument. If you claim the tests were not level
matched then show us how you know that. If you claim that the tests
were not time synced then show us how you know that. But then you have
to reconcile that these level mismatches and lack of time syncing
failed to produce the same positive identification of a difference
with the laquer. Denying that the tests were tests because you
personally don't have intimate knowledge of how they were conducted
and therefore have chosen to make assumptions that they were done
poorly has so many logical fallacies that I don't really care to cite
them all.

[ Moderator's note: if you two can't convince each other,
perhaps it is time to stop arguing about it and ignore
each other for a while. -- dsr ]

Audio Empire

February 21st 10, 02:11 AM

On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 08:56:48 -0800, ScottW wrote
(in article >):

> On Feb 20, 7:12=A0am, Scott > wrote:
>
>> ""We had the master tape of the Riverside
>> stereo LP Bill Evans Trio/ WALTZ FOR DEBBY at AcousTech and decided to
>> do this little comparison. Since the actual master needs a bunch of
>> "mastering" to make it sound the best, I set the title track up as if
>> it was going to be mastered (which in a sense it was, being cut on to
>> an acetate record).
>>
>> We cut a lacquer ref of the tune with mastering moves while dumping to
>> the digital computer at the same time with the same moves.
>
> Could you clarify some things for me?
>
> Where in this process is the application of RIAA eq? Is it already in
> the "actual master" or added with the "mastering moves" or applied by
> the cutter itself?

Usually, it's applied by the cutting electronics. IOW, The cutting master is
usually "flat" (except for any post capture EQ that may have been done by the
mastering engineer to tailor the master for LP, which is NOT the same thing
as applying the RIAA pre-emphasis)

> If the digital recording has the "same moves" and RIAA eq application
> then
> is the digital playback being fed back through the same preamp and
> RIAA reverse eq that the acetate playback is being done? How are they
> getting the digital playback levels down to cart output levels for the
> preamp?
> This "comparison" sounds like it could have a few variables that
> aren't normally in typical CD mastering.

The RIAA curve is applied solely to the lacquer being cut. It is a fixed
curve, there is no need for it to be applied to the cutting master tape.
Since all records require it, It's just built-in to the cutting head
electronics.

> The other discussion also indicates that mastering techniges for CD
> and vinyl are different to achieve best results for each format. No
> surprise.
> But in this case the digital recording is provided only vinyl
> mastering techniques and as such it falls short. I'm not sure what
> this proves.

I'm not sure what he meant by that either. Why would he dump the master tape
to the computer (ostensibly to digitize it) from the same EQ'd master that he
cut the lacquer from? He says elsewhere that he "masters" the LP and digital
releases differently (which makes sense).

Scott[_6_]

February 21st 10, 04:34 AM

On Feb 20, 6:11=A0pm, Audio Empire > wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 08:56:48 -0800, ScottW wrote
> (in article >):
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 20, 7:12=3DA0am, Scott > wrote:
>
> >> ""We had the master tape of the Riverside
> >> stereo LP Bill Evans Trio/ WALTZ FOR DEBBY at AcousTech and decided to
> >> do this little comparison. Since the actual master needs a bunch of
> >> "mastering" to make it sound the best, I set the title track up as if
> >> it was going to be mastered (which in a sense it was, being cut on to
> >> an acetate record).
>
> >> We cut a lacquer ref of the tune with mastering moves while dumping to
> >> the digital computer at the same time with the same moves.
>
> > Could you clarify some things for me?
>
> > Where in this process is the application of RIAA eq? =A0Is it already i=
n
> > the "actual master" or added with the "mastering moves" or applied by
> > the cutter itself?
>
> Usually, it's applied by the cutting electronics. IOW, The cutting master=
is
> usually "flat" (except for any post capture EQ that may have been done by=
the
> mastering engineer to tailor the master for LP, which is NOT the same thi=
ng
> as applying the RIAA pre-emphasis)
>
> > If the digital recording has the "same moves" and RIAA eq application
> > then
> > is the digital playback being fed back through the same preamp and
> > RIAA reverse eq that the acetate playback is being done? =A0How are the=
y
> > getting the digital playback levels down to cart output levels for the
> > preamp?
> > This "comparison" sounds like it could have a few variables that
> > aren't normally in typical CD mastering.
>
> The RIAA curve is applied solely to the lacquer being cut. It is a fixed
> curve, there is no need for it to be applied to the cutting master tape.
> Since all records require it, It's just built-in to the cutting head
> electronics. =A0
>
> > The other discussion also indicates that mastering techniges for CD
> > and vinyl are different to achieve best results for each format. =A0No
> > surprise.
> > But in this case the digital recording is provided only vinyl
> > mastering techniques and as such it falls short. =A0I'm not sure what
> > this proves.
>
> I'm not sure what he meant by that either. Why would he dump the master t=
ape
> to the computer (ostensibly to digitize it) from the same EQ'd master tha=
t he
> cut the lacquer from? He says elsewhere that he "masters" the LP and digi=
tal
> releases differently (which makes sense).- Hide quoted text -
>

Because he was only mastering Waltz for Deby for the LP. He dumped
*that* signal from the cosole onto the computer *that one time* for
the sake of the test and nothing else. He never explicitely mastered a
CD or SACD of Waltz for Deby. It was a one time thing he did just for
that test.

Steven Sullivan

February 24th 10, 03:12 PM

Scott > wrote:
> On Feb 16, 5:06=A0pm, Dick Pierce > wrote:
> > Scott wrote:
> > > On Feb 15, 4:38=3DA0pm, Dick Pierce > wrote:
> > >>>Not true. =3DA0Steve Hoffman ,amd Kevin Gray did just that and did det=
> ect
> > >>>differences.
> >
> > >>Is that the same Steve Hoffman, perchance, that's featured
> > >>in this piece of audio voodoo?
> >
> > >>http://www.shakti-innovations.com/hallograph.htm
> >
> > > Yes. do you think that some how renders his level matched blind
> > > comparisons worthless?
> >
> > In the absence of anything other than your say-so, yes,
> > it does.

> That is a non-sequitor. My success or failure to produce anything is
> independent of the question asked about whether or not Steve Hoffman's
> level matched blind comparisons are worthless. If one wants to make
> credibility an issue I suggest one be more careful not to make such
> basic mistakes in their logic.

Steve Hoffman has only the faintest idea what a blind test is, which
doesn't stop him from advising his minions that blinds tests
are of little use or meaning to an 'audiophile'.

IIRC he was claiming some years back that ripping audio from CD
reduced its bass. He can't be taken seriously as an
authority on digital audio. His endorsement of patent nonsense
like the Hallograph and his 'Healing Disc' CD is just
more evidence.

--
-S
We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine

C. Leeds

February 25th 10, 02:56 PM

Steven Sullivan wrote:

> Steve Hoffman has only the faintest idea what a blind test is, which
> doesn't stop him from advising his minions that blinds tests
> are of little use or meaning to an 'audiophile'.

In practice, blind testing is of little use to the typical audiophile. A
proper blind test is not a trivial matter to conduct correctly; done
improperly, the test is useless. The time spent conducting a test is
time taken away from the raison d'entre for being an audiophile, which
is to enjoy music. And, because it's a hobby and not a professional
pursuit, it isn't necessary for an audiophile to "prove" anything to
anyone, other than himself. Most of us recognize sound that we like, and
sound that we don't like, and that suffices.

Of course, some people relish conducting equipment tests, and enjoy the
rigor of managing a blind test. That's fine, of course. But, to suggest
that typical audiophiles must also practice blind testing is just silly.

I've participated in a few blind audio tests. I found them interesting,
but tedious - even when I was just a participant - and not especially
useful to me. But, I don't design or market audio equipment, or I'd
likely feel differently.

For some, only a blind test answers their questions about the sound of
audio equipment. For others, simple extended listening suffices. Yes, I
know that the two methods are not mutually exclusive. But when listening
is sufficient, rigorous testing is unnecessary for the typical listener.

I don't conduct blind testing of other consumer products that I
purchase, either.

Arny Krueger

February 25th 10, 05:30 PM

"C. Leeds" > wrote in message

> Steven Sullivan wrote:
>
>> Steve Hoffman has only the faintest idea what a blind
>> test is, which doesn't stop him from advising his
>> minions that blinds tests
>> are of little use or meaning to an 'audiophile'.

> In practice, blind testing is of little use to the
> typical audiophile.

Simply not true as a general rule.

> A proper blind test is not a trivial
> matter to conduct correctly;

That depends what is being tested.

> done improperly, the test is useless.

That applies to sighted evaluations.

It would be very biased of you to not warn people about doing sighted
evaluations and then make a big fuss over DBT, even if your warning (which
is overly-general) were true.

>The time spent conducting a test is time taken
> away from the raison d'entre for being an audiophile,
> which is to enjoy music.

That applies to sighted evaluations, and again it shows prejudice and bias
to not warn people about this problem.

> And, because it's a hobby and
> not a professional pursuit, it isn't necessary for an
> audiophile to "prove" anything to anyone, other than
> himself.

That is not true. Very many audiophiles are interested in proof of claims.
They think that certain claims have been proved to them by their own
experiences, their friends experiences, and by sales people. They believe
stories posted on the web and in magazines. Again, I don't see you applying
your alleg4ed warnings to these circumstances, just to DBTs. Do you think
that is a fair thing to do?

> Most of us recognize sound that we like, and
> sound that we don't like, and that suffices.

That does not tell the whole story. What we like and dislike is not cast in
stone, and it is not always related to reliable evidence provided by our
senses.

For example, normal humans are very susceptible to prejudice and bias. Their
biases color their perceptions. People can be mislead to believe that turth
is untruth, and untruth is truth. This misleading can be caused by an
incorrect interpretation of things they see and hear.

> Of course, some people relish conducting equipment tests,

If what I read on the web and in magazines is any indicator, very many
people do equipment comparisons, for whatever reason.

> and enjoy the rigor of managing a blind test.

I find that very few people are actually aware of what it takes to do a
meaningful equipment comparison. Besides bias controls, they are also
unaware of the need for relatively simple things like level matching.

> That's
> fine, of course. But, to suggest that typical audiophiles
> must also practice blind testing is just silly.

To me it is deceptive to blind tests, when some of the same problems relate
to sighted tests.

> I've participated in a few blind audio tests. I found
> them interesting, but tedious - even when I was just a
> participant - and not especially useful to me.

Sounds to me like you favor evaluating equipment without adequate controls.
This is not unusual. It is something that most high end publications
advocate. By doing listening evaluations without proper controls, you may be
emulating well-known audio authorities who you admire.

> But, I don't design or market audio equipment, or I'd likely
> feel differently.

How would you feel if you knew that you based a purchase decision on a
grotesquely flawed listening evaluation?

> For some, only a blind test answers their questions about
> the sound of audio equipment.

Are you saying that doing a listening test blind makes its outcome false or
disadvantageous for some audiophiles?

> For others, simple extended listening suffices.

Letsee, how many times have I had to correct people with the misapprehension
that DBTs can't involve long term listening? Perhaps even you once or more
often in the past?

> Yes, I know that the two methods are
> not mutually exclusive.

Then why bring up an issue that you know is false?

> But when listening is sufficient,
> rigorous testing is unnecessary for the typical listener.

Interesting choice of words. Rigorous makes it sound like every DBT is
stressful and perhaps even tortorous.

> I don't conduct blind testing of other consumer products
> that I purchase, either.

Most of the consumer products that I purchase are either generic, or have
obvious differences related to them. And yes, I can ABX the difference
between Pepsi and Coke.

Audio Empire

February 25th 10, 08:02 PM

On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 06:56:41 -0800, C. Leeds wrote
(in article >):

> Steven Sullivan wrote:
>
>> Steve Hoffman has only the faintest idea what a blind test is, which
>> doesn't stop him from advising his minions that blinds tests
>> are of little use or meaning to an 'audiophile'.
>
> In practice, blind testing is of little use to the typical audiophile. A
> proper blind test is not a trivial matter to conduct correctly; done
> improperly, the test is useless. The time spent conducting a test is
> time taken away from the raison d'entre for being an audiophile, which
> is to enjoy music. And, because it's a hobby and not a professional
> pursuit, it isn't necessary for an audiophile to "prove" anything to
> anyone, other than himself. Most of us recognize sound that we like, and
> sound that we don't like, and that suffices.

Problem is, people write reviews and make pronouncements based upon these
nebulous feelings about the sound of things. Worse, some lass than scrupulous
or even well meaning but misguided individuals make and sell products of
dubious worth to audiophiles who have no way of ascertaining whether or not
they've been duped. In these cases, only double-blind tests can tell whether
the "differences" heard between components are, in reality, the result of
expectational/sighted bias (if you just spent $4000 for a pair of 1-meter
interconnect cables, believe me, they are going to sound MUCH better than the
cables that they replace - even if they are, in actuality, identical in
sound), or, if those differences are real.

> Of course, some people relish conducting equipment tests, and enjoy the
> rigor of managing a blind test. That's fine, of course. But, to suggest
> that typical audiophiles must also practice blind testing is just silly.

No one is suggesting any such thing. But, others have conducted such tests,
and the results have been published and are, in many cases, available on the
internet. One should avail themselves of these test results where possible.
>
> I've participated in a few blind audio tests. I found them interesting,
> but tedious - even when I was just a participant - and not especially
> useful to me. But, I don't design or market audio equipment, or I'd
> likely feel differently.

Understand that double-blind tests are useful mostly for showing that there
is a difference between the sound of two similar items, but not so useful for
determining which of the two is "better".

> For some, only a blind test answers their questions about the sound of
> audio equipment. For others, simple extended listening suffices. Yes, I
> know that the two methods are not mutually exclusive. But when listening
> is sufficient, rigorous testing is unnecessary for the typical listener.

Like I said, DB or ABX tests are really for finding differences, not for
determining which is better.

> I don't conduct blind testing of other consumer products that I
> purchase, either.

For most products, all one needs to know about a product can be gleaned from
a spec sheet or a simple demonstration. When one buys a car, for instance,
one narrows the candidates down from reading sales brochures, spec sheets and
magazines tests, then goes and drives them and picks the one that suits the
best. Audio is not like that for many. It is an intensely personal thing with
lots of variables most of which result in extremely subtle differences
between products (and often, no differences at all). This allows for lots of
uncertainty between brands, models and even whole classes of equipment
(myrtlewood blocks on top of your amplifier, anyone?).

bob

February 25th 10, 09:11 PM

On Feb 25, 3:02=A0pm, Audio Empire > wrote:

> Understand that double-blind tests are useful mostly for showing that the=
re
> is a difference between the sound of two similar items, but not so useful=
for
> determining which of the two is "better".

A test designed to measure difference would not be good at measuring
other things. But blind comparisons are *very* useful for determining
whether your preference is based on the sound alone, or whether it is
influenced by other factors.

<snip>

> For most products, all one needs to know about a product can be gleaned f=
rom
> a spec sheet or a simple demonstration. When one buys a car, for instance=
,
> one narrows the candidates down from reading sales brochures, spec sheets=
and
> magazines tests, then goes and drives them =A0and picks the one that suit=
s the
> best. Audio is not like that for many. It is an intensely personal thing =
with
> lots of variables most of which result in extremely subtle differences
> between products (and often, no differences at all). This allows for lots=
of
> uncertainty between brands, models and even whole classes of equipment
> (myrtlewood blocks on top of your amplifier, anyone?).

I dunno. Seems to me that cars differ a lot more than amps do. The key
difference would be that we judge a car holistically, weighing
numerous factors affecting performance, comfort and looks=97there are
three different senses involved there.

Whereas with audio gear, we are primarily concerned with a single
sense. If you want to judge a piece of audio gear based solely on what
it sounds like, then you have to test it in a way that excludes other
factors.

bob

Scott[_6_]

February 26th 10, 01:21 AM

On Feb 24, 7:12=A0am, Steven Sullivan > wrote:

> Steve Hoffman has only the faintest idea what a blind test is, which
> doesn't stop him from advising his minions that blinds tests
> are of little use or meaning to an 'audiophile'.
>
> IIRC he was claiming some =A0years back that ripping audio from CD
> reduced its bass. =A0He can't be taken seriously as an
> authority on digital audio. His endorsement of patent nonsense
> like the Hallograph and his 'Healing Disc' CD is just
> more evidence.
>
>

Pure ad hominem. Classic logical fallacy.
I'm guessing you didn't like the results of his level matched, time
synced blind comparisons either?

bob

February 26th 10, 01:22 AM

On Feb 25, 9:56=A0am, "C. Leeds" > wrote:

> I don't conduct blind testing of other consumer products that I
> purchase, either.

Maybe not, but you depend HEAVILY on the objective testing=97blind, when
necessary=97done by others. If you were as concerned about the quality
of the audio products you buy as you are about other consumer
products, you'd want to know what blind tests could tell you, even if
you couldn't conduct them yourself.

bob

Audio Empire

February 26th 10, 02:31 AM

On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 13:11:18 -0800, bob wrote
(in article >):

> On Feb 25, 3:02=A0pm, Audio Empire > wrote:
>
>> Understand that double-blind tests are useful mostly for showing that the=
> re
>> is a difference between the sound of two similar items, but not so useful=
> for
>> determining which of the two is "better".
>
> A test designed to measure difference would not be good at measuring
> other things. But blind comparisons are *very* useful for determining
> whether your preference is based on the sound alone, or whether it is
> influenced by other factors.
>
> <snip>
>
>> For most products, all one needs to know about a product can be gleaned f=
> rom
>> a spec sheet or a simple demonstration. When one buys a car, for instance=
> ,
>> one narrows the candidates down from reading sales brochures, spec sheets=
> and
>> magazines tests, then goes and drives them =A0and picks the one that suit=
> s the
>> best. Audio is not like that for many. It is an intensely personal thing =
> with
>> lots of variables most of which result in extremely subtle differences
>> between products (and often, no differences at all). This allows for lots=
> of
>> uncertainty between brands, models and even whole classes of equipment
>> (myrtlewood blocks on top of your amplifier, anyone?).
>
> I dunno. Seems to me that cars differ a lot more than amps do.

Absolutely. But car preferences can be gleaned very quickly, and people
generally know what they like in a car. For instance a man who likes what a
Ferrari does and how it does it, is unlikely to be satisfied with a Porsche
and would probably never even contemplate one. They are THAT different.

The key
> difference would be that we judge a car holistically, weighing
> numerous factors affecting performance, comfort and looks=97there are
> three different senses involved there.

Yep.
>
> Whereas with audio gear, we are primarily concerned with a single
> sense. If you want to judge a piece of audio gear based solely on what
> it sounds like, then you have to test it in a way that excludes other
> factors.

Sure, and that's difficult because we are multi-sensed beings, it is hard to
separate yourself from the what a component looks like, how it feels to the
touch, how well (or poorly) the controls seem to work, not to mention the
aesthetic values of a piece of gear. That's why so much emphasis is put on
the "bling" factor in speaker cables and interconnects. A speaker cable
that's as thick as a man's forearm, for instance, and covered with braided
nylon fabric with hefty gold interconnects and "pants" over the ends where
the individual conductors emerge from the overall jacket just looks cool. A
Classe or Boulder amplifier just looks prettier with their thick, machined
aluminum front panels than does a Crown monitoring amplifier designed for
rack mounting in a studio or at a concert hall. This isn't lost on hi-end
manufacturers either. The fact that the Crown, at a fraction of the cost,
might actually be a better performing amp usually doesn't even enter into the
equation.

No, looks, feel, price and even weight have as much to do with our perception
of audio gear as does its performance. I remember once having been sent a
huge Philips video center (with surround processing) and a matching separate
6-channel power amp. I was surprised at how heavy they were. While in my
"care", I had an opportunity to open the cabinet up only to find that the
textured, sand-colored, side rails on the cabinets were cast from solid iron!
They made up fully 2/3 of the weight of the switching unit and about half the
weight of the power amp!

Harry Lavo

February 26th 10, 02:31 AM

"bob" > wrote in message
...
> On Feb 25, 3:02=A0pm, Audio Empire > wrote:
>
>> Understand that double-blind tests are useful mostly for showing that
>> the=
> re
>> is a difference between the sound of two similar items, but not so
>> useful=
> for
>> determining which of the two is "better".
>
> A test designed to measure difference would not be good at measuring
> other things. But blind comparisons are *very* useful for determining
> whether your preference is based on the sound alone, or whether it is
> influenced by other factors.
>
> <snip>
>
>> For most products, all one needs to know about a product can be gleaned
>> f=
> rom
>> a spec sheet or a simple demonstration. When one buys a car, for
>> instance=
> ,
>> one narrows the candidates down from reading sales brochures, spec
>> sheets=
> and
>> magazines tests, then goes and drives them =A0and picks the one that
>> suit=
> s the
>> best. Audio is not like that for many. It is an intensely personal thing
>> =
> with
>> lots of variables most of which result in extremely subtle differences
>> between products (and often, no differences at all). This allows for
>> lots=
> of
>> uncertainty between brands, models and even whole classes of equipment
>> (myrtlewood blocks on top of your amplifier, anyone?).
>
> I dunno. Seems to me that cars differ a lot more than amps do. The key
> difference would be that we judge a car holistically, weighing
> numerous factors affecting performance, comfort and looks=97there are
> three different senses involved there.
>
> Whereas with audio gear, we are primarily concerned with a single
> sense. If you want to judge a piece of audio gear based solely on what
> it sounds like, then you have to test it in a way that excludes other
> factors.

Raises an interesting point. Wonder how many people could tell the
difference in a Chevy Malibu vs a BMW 330i, if they were blindfolded, had
earplugs, and were riding as a passenger? So do we start berating anybody
who drives a BMW as being "autophools"?

Arny Krueger

February 26th 10, 02:40 PM

"Harry Lavo" > wrote in message

> Raises an interesting point. Wonder how many people
> could tell the difference in a Chevy Malibu vs a BMW
> 330i, if they were blindfolded, had earplugs, and were
> riding as a passenger?

Most people would notice the Malibu spinning wildly about them and the BMW
just going around the curves when they attempted to run a slalom or
cornering circle at speed. ;-)

Harry, I know that many New Yorkers don't drive as much as those of us who
live in the hinterlands and drive all the time, but the performance
differences between cars as different as these two are pretty significant.
I can think of a dozen places in Manhattan where the real performance
differences between these two cars can be demonstrated quite clearly.

> So do we start berating anybody who drives a BMW as being "autophools"?

As soon as the differences between BMWs and Malibus become small enough to
be as hard to find as the differences between good amplifiers or music
players. Hint: The BMW dealerships in Detroit do a great business because
they sell great cars (but generally have lousy sound systems).

Arny Krueger

February 26th 10, 02:47 PM

"bob" > wrote in message

> On Feb 25, 9:56 am, "C. Leeds" >
> wrote:
>
>> I don't conduct blind testing of other consumer products
>> that I purchase, either.
>
> Maybe not, but you depend HEAVILY on the objective
> testing—blind, when necessary—done by others.

In fact much of the published technical literature about blind testing comes
out of the food industry.

> If you were
> as concerned about the quality of the audio products you
> buy as you are about other consumer products, you'd want
> to know what blind tests could tell you, even if you
> couldn't conduct them yourself.

And here is the point - food and beverages are generally a consistent,
stable, palatable, economical product as is evidenced by the fact that so
many branded products are being overtaken by generic products. Blind testing
no doubt is one reason for this. The winner? The consumer.

Scott[_6_]

February 26th 10, 02:47 PM

On Feb 25, 1:11=A0pm, bob > wrote:

>
> A test designed to measure difference would not be good at measuring
> other things. But blind comparisons are *very* useful for determining
> whether your preference is based on the sound alone, or whether it is
> influenced by other factors.
>

You don't need a DBT to determine this. Your preferences *are*
influenced by bias. That is true no matter how many DBTs you do or
read about. Unless of course you actually don't know what you are
listening to. It is pretty rare that any audiophile can go through
life without knowing what is in their system.

Arny Krueger

February 26th 10, 02:47 PM

"bob" > wrote in message

> On Feb 25, 3:02=A0pm, Audio Empire
> > wrote:
>
>> Understand that double-blind tests are useful mostly for
>> showing that the= re is a difference between the sound
>> of two similar items, but not so useful= for determining
>> which of the two is "better".
>
> A test designed to measure difference would not be good
> at measuring other things.

Case in point is the venerable ABX test.

Professionals know that ABX is the best known so far for detecting small
differences, but the ABC/hr test is far better for ranking sound quality.

> But blind comparisons are
> *very* useful for determining whether your preference is
> based on the sound alone, or whether it is influenced by
> other factors.

Bias controls and other experimental controls that most high end
manfacturers and reviewers shun are always required for a good, relevant,
reliable results.

The real problem with bias controls is that they don't give high end
hypemasters the results that they have bet their farms on.

Robert Peirce

February 26th 10, 02:48 PM

In article >,
"Harry Lavo" > wrote:
> Raises an interesting point. Wonder how many people could tell the
> difference in a Chevy Malibu vs a BMW 330i, if they were blindfolded, had
> earplugs, and were riding as a passenger? So do we start berating anybody
> who drives a BMW as being "autophools"?

Depends on what you use it for. A BMW 330i is probably a much better
track car than a Chevy Mailbu, but it may not be as good for bringing a
lot of groceries home from the store.

I have an MB CLK 350. It turns out to have one wheel drive in snow.
That wheel is the one with no traction. It gets stuck even with snow
tires. My wife's car is all wheel drive. It has all-season tires. A
few weeks ago I got the MB stuck in the driveway and pushed it out with
my wife's car.

Over the Valentine's day weekend we drove from Baltimore to Pittsburgh
through 6" or so of snow in Western Maryland. Trucks were getting stuck
on the hills. Traffic was barely moving in places. We had no problem.
The MB would have been worthless, although it is a lot of fun on the
track.

So, yes, you can tell the difference, but not necessarily which is
better.

[ Let's get back to audio, please. -- dsr ]

Scott[_6_]

February 27th 10, 01:52 AM

On Feb 25, 12:02=A0pm, Audio Empire > wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 06:56:41 -0800, C. Leeds wrote
> (in article >):
>
> > Steven Sullivan wrote:
>
> >> Steve Hoffman has only the faintest idea what a blind test is, which
> >> doesn't stop him from advising his minions that blinds tests
> >> are of little use or meaning to an 'audiophile'.
>
> > In practice, blind testing is of little use to the typical audiophile. =
A
> > proper blind test is not a trivial matter to conduct correctly; done
> > improperly, the test is useless. The time spent conducting a test is
> > time taken away from the raison d'entre for being an audiophile, which
> > is to enjoy music. And, because it's a hobby and not a professional
> > pursuit, it isn't necessary for an audiophile to "prove" anything to
> > anyone, other than himself. Most of us recognize sound that we like, an=
d
> > sound that we don't like, and that suffices.
>
> Problem is, people write reviews and make pronouncements based upon these
> nebulous feelings about the sound of things.

Why is that a problem? That is the nature of subjective review be it
audio, food, movies or anything. *It is subjective.* The readers ought
to know that. If they don't the problem isn't the reviews....

> Worse, some lass than scrupulous
> or even well meaning but misguided individuals make and sell products of
> dubious worth to audiophiles who have no way of ascertaining whether or n=
ot
> they've been duped.

"Worth" like so many other things is actually subjective. If an
audiophile thinks something was worth his or her money it's hard to
argue. The point is to have fun no? If someone is having fun hard to
argue value.

> In these cases, only double-blind tests can tell whether
> the "differences" heard between components are, in reality, the result of
> expectational/sighted bias (if you just spent $4000 for a pair of 1-meter
> interconnect cables, believe me, they are going to sound MUCH better than=
the
> cables that they replace - even if they are, in actuality, identical in
> sound), or, if those differences are real. =A0
>
> > Of course, some people relish conducting equipment tests, and enjoy the
> > rigor of managing a blind test. That's fine, of course. But, to suggest
> > that typical audiophiles must also practice blind testing is just silly=
..
>
> No one is suggesting any such thing. But, others have conducted such test=
s,
> and the results have been published and are, in many cases, available on =
the
> internet. One should avail themselves of these test results where possibl=
e.

Many tests have been "published" the problem is most of them are
anecdotal and some who advocate blind testing as needed for "proof"
have been caught cherry picking from the anecdotes. One can see clear
as day hopw easily one particular anecdote was attacked due to the
undesirable results.

>
>
>
> > I've participated in a few blind audio tests. I found them interesting,
> > but tedious - even when I was just a participant - and not especially
> > useful to me. But, I don't design or market audio equipment, or I'd
> > likely feel differently.
>
> Understand that double-blind tests are useful mostly for showing that the=
re
> is a difference between the sound of two similar items, but not so useful=
for
> determining which of the two is "better".

No. DBTs are useful for removing bias effects. That can be applied to
any test where bias effects are in play. There is nothing unique in
audio about telling differences between two aleged similar items. Fact
is bias is in play and has an affect on preferences even when gross
differences in sound are present. That some audiophiles would limit
their use of bias controls to try to prove a point they already
beleive about differences seems futile. If you think about it.
removing bias from the audition process is far more important when
there are audible differences than when there are not audible
differences. Think about it.

>
> > For some, only a blind test answers their questions about the sound of
> > audio equipment. For others, simple extended listening suffices. Yes, I
> > know that the two methods are not mutually exclusive. But when listenin=
g
> > is sufficient, rigorous testing is unnecessary for the typical listener=
..
>
> Like I said, DB or ABX tests are really for finding differences, not for
> determining which is better.

That is simply not true. DBTs are really for removing bias effects.
Bias effects are in play always when we are talking about subjective
evaluations of perceptions.

>
> > I don't conduct blind testing of other consumer products that I
> > purchase, either.
>
> For most products, all one needs to know about a product can be gleaned f=
rom
> a spec sheet or a simple demonstration.

That will not eliminate bias effects at all.

Audio Empire

February 27th 10, 03:25 PM

On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 17:52:11 -0800, Scott wrote
(in article >):

> On Feb 25, 12:02=A0pm, Audio Empire > wrote:
>> On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 06:56:41 -0800, C. Leeds wrote
>> (in article >):
>>
>>> Steven Sullivan wrote:
>>
>>>> Steve Hoffman has only the faintest idea what a blind test is, which
>>>> doesn't stop him from advising his minions that blinds tests
>>>> are of little use or meaning to an 'audiophile'.
>>
>>> In practice, blind testing is of little use to the typical audiophile. =
> A
>>> proper blind test is not a trivial matter to conduct correctly; done
>>> improperly, the test is useless. The time spent conducting a test is
>>> time taken away from the raison d'entre for being an audiophile, which
>>> is to enjoy music. And, because it's a hobby and not a professional
>>> pursuit, it isn't necessary for an audiophile to "prove" anything to
>>> anyone, other than himself. Most of us recognize sound that we like, an=
> d
>>> sound that we don't like, and that suffices.
>>
>> Problem is, people write reviews and make pronouncements based upon these
>> nebulous feelings about the sound of things.
>
> Why is that a problem? That is the nature of subjective review be it
> audio, food, movies or anything. *It is subjective.* The readers ought
> to know that. If they don't the problem isn't the reviews....
>
>> Worse, some lass than scrupulous
>> or even well meaning but misguided individuals make and sell products of
>> dubious worth to audiophiles who have no way of ascertaining whether or n=
> ot
>> they've been duped.
>
> "Worth" like so many other things is actually subjective. If an
> audiophile thinks something was worth his or her money it's hard to
> argue. The point is to have fun no? If someone is having fun hard to
> argue value.
>
>> In these cases, only double-blind tests can tell whether
>> the "differences" heard between components are, in reality, the result of
>> expectational/sighted bias (if you just spent $4000 for a pair of 1-meter
>> interconnect cables, believe me, they are going to sound MUCH better than=
> the
>> cables that they replace - even if they are, in actuality, identical in
>> sound), or, if those differences are real. =A0
>>
>>> Of course, some people relish conducting equipment tests, and enjoy the
>>> rigor of managing a blind test. That's fine, of course. But, to suggest
>>> that typical audiophiles must also practice blind testing is just silly=
> .
>>
>> No one is suggesting any such thing. But, others have conducted such test=
> s,
>> and the results have been published and are, in many cases, available on =
> the
>> internet. One should avail themselves of these test results where possibl=
> e.
>
> Many tests have been "published" the problem is most of them are
> anecdotal and some who advocate blind testing as needed for "proof"
> have been caught cherry picking from the anecdotes. One can see clear
> as day hopw easily one particular anecdote was attacked due to the
> undesirable results.

If you notice, I was speaking SPECIFICALLY about DBTs and was answering a
poster who thinks that expecting the average audiophile to conduct DBTs is
"silly".
>
>>
>>
>>
>>> I've participated in a few blind audio tests. I found them interesting,
>>> but tedious - even when I was just a participant - and not especially
>>> useful to me. But, I don't design or market audio equipment, or I'd
>>> likely feel differently.
>>
>> Understand that double-blind tests are useful mostly for showing that the=
> re
>> is a difference between the sound of two similar items, but not so useful=
> for
>> determining which of the two is "better".
>
> No. DBTs are useful for removing bias effects. That can be applied to
> any test where bias effects are in play. There is nothing unique in
> audio about telling differences between two aleged similar items. Fact
> is bias is in play and has an affect on preferences even when gross
> differences in sound are present. That some audiophiles would limit
> their use of bias controls to try to prove a point they already
> beleive about differences seems futile. If you think about it.
> removing bias from the audition process is far more important when
> there are audible differences than when there are not audible
> differences. Think about it.

I have. Double blind tests show that difference either exist or do not WHEN
biases are removed. Seems to me we are saying the same thing. Remove the
sighted or expectational biases, and even "true believers" can see the truth
of these so-called "differences" (although many still won't admit it).
>
>>
>>> For some, only a blind test answers their questions about the sound of
>>> audio equipment. For others, simple extended listening suffices. Yes, I
>>> know that the two methods are not mutually exclusive. But when listenin=
> g
>>> is sufficient, rigorous testing is unnecessary for the typical listener=
> .
>>
>> Like I said, DB or ABX tests are really for finding differences, not for
>> determining which is better.
>
> That is simply not true. DBTs are really for removing bias effects.
> Bias effects are in play always when we are talking about subjective
> evaluations of perceptions.

I dunno, when sighted tests find differences that DBTs show not to exist,
then I would say that it's good at revealing whether or not the differences
are real or imagined. In other words, we're saying the same thing, you just
like the way you word it better 8^)
>
>>
>>> I don't conduct blind testing of other consumer products that I
>>> purchase, either.
>>
>> For most products, all one needs to know about a product can be gleaned f=
> rom
>> a spec sheet or a simple demonstration.
>
> That will not eliminate bias effects at all.

Who said it did?

allen

February 27th 10, 09:19 PM

On 26 Feb 2010 02:31:44 GMT, "Harry Lavo" > wrote:

>Raises an interesting point. Wonder how many people could tell the
>difference in a Chevy Malibu vs a BMW 330i, if they were blindfolded, had
>earplugs, and were riding as a passenger? So do we start berating anybody
>who drives a BMW as being "autophools"?

That is indeed an interesting point.
However pretty much the whole point of owning, driving and being seen
in a prestige brand car is to display one's wealth and superior
genetic stock, peacock-style.
Which is not the same as convincing oneself that an expensive piece of
audio equipment *sounds better* than a cheaper piece of equipment
because it looks and costs more...

C. Leeds

February 27th 10, 10:13 PM

I wrote:

>> In practice, blind testing is of little use to the typical audiophile.

audio empire answers
in message >

> No one is suggesting any such thing

Please don't pretend to speak for others in this group.

For example, in this thread, Arny responded to the very same remark
(in message >):

>Simply not true as a general rule.

Others in the past have made similar claims.

I recognize that you agree that blind testing is often of little use to
the typical audiophile. However, many cling to the notion that it's an
essential part of the audio hobby.

Scott[_6_]

February 27th 10, 10:13 PM

On Feb 27, 7:25=A0am, Audio Empire > wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 17:52:11 -0800, Scott wrote
> (in article >):
>
>
> > Many tests have been "published" the problem is most of them are
> > anecdotal and some who advocate blind testing as needed for "proof"
> > have been caught cherry picking from the anecdotes. One can see clear
> > as day hopw easily one particular anecdote was attacked due to the
> > undesirable results.
>
> If you notice, I was speaking SPECIFICALLY about DBTs

I was speaking about blind tests too.

> and was answering a
> poster who thinks that expecting the average audiophile to conduct DBTs i=
s
> "silly".

He is right. It is silly to expect anything of other audiophiles.

> > DBTs are useful for removing bias effects. That can be applied to
> > any test where bias effects are in play. There is nothing unique in
> > audio about telling differences between two aleged similar items. Fact
> > is bias is in play and has an affect on preferences even when gross
> > differences in sound are present. That some audiophiles would limit
> > their use of bias controls to try to prove a point they already
> > beleive about differences seems futile. If you think about it.
> > removing bias from the audition process is far more important when
> > there are audible differences than when there are not audible
> > differences. Think about it.
>
> I have. Double blind tests show that difference either exist or do not WH=
EN
> biases are removed. Seems to me we are saying the same thing. Remove the
> sighted or expectational biases, and even "true believers" can see the tr=
uth
> of these so-called "differences" (although many still won't admit it).

No we are not saying the same thing. what I am saying is remove the
bias and one can get an unbiased opinion on sound quality even when
the differences are gross. My point being that if two things sound the
same and someone prefers one over the other because of biases that
person does not get objectively inferior sound. He gets the same sound
but enjoys it more. OTOH when differences are real but preferences are
swayed by bias then one runs the very real risk of choosing
objectively inferior sound because of bias effects. This audiophile
really does loose out due to bias effects. So while some audiophiles
are obsessing over who is right about what sounds the same they are
missing the boat when bias effects can actually have a real
detrimental effect on one's choice of components. I find that
extremely ironic.

>
>
>

> >> Like I said, DB or ABX tests are really for finding differences, not f=
or
> >> determining which is better.
>
> > That is simply not true. DBTs are really for removing bias effects.
> > Bias effects are in play always when we are talking about subjective
> > evaluations of perceptions.
>
> I dunno, when sighted tests find differences that DBTs show not to exist,
> then I would say that it's good at revealing whether or not the differenc=
es
> are real or imagined. In other words, we're saying the same thing, you ju=
st
> like the way you word it better 8^)

That wasn't my point. You asserted that DBTs were limited in use to
finding differences. They have a much broader range of use which
includes determining unbiased preferences.

>
> >> For most products, all one needs to know about a product can be gleane=
d f=3D
> > rom
> >> a spec sheet or a simple demonstration.
>
> > That will not eliminate bias effects at all.
>
> Who said it did?
>

You said all one needs for *most* products can be gleaned from a spec
sheet or simple demo. Apparently in *most* cases you are not concerned
with bias effects in one's process of choosing. Why the limited
concern for bias effects when they are always in play if not
controlled?

Audio Empire

February 27th 10, 11:01 PM

On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 13:19:56 -0800, allen wrote
(in article >):

> On 26 Feb 2010 02:31:44 GMT, "Harry Lavo" > wrote:
>
>> Raises an interesting point. Wonder how many people could tell the
>> difference in a Chevy Malibu vs a BMW 330i, if they were blindfolded, had
>> earplugs, and were riding as a passenger? So do we start berating anybody
>> who drives a BMW as being "autophools"?
>
> That is indeed an interesting point.
> However pretty much the whole point of owning, driving and being seen
> in a prestige brand car is to display one's wealth and superior
> genetic stock, peacock-style.
> Which is not the same as convincing oneself that an expensive piece of
> audio equipment *sounds better* than a cheaper piece of equipment
> because it looks and costs more...

Oh, no, not at all! 8^)

Not to mention the difficulty one would have driving ANY car blindfolded.
They don't give blind people driving licenses in your state do they? They
would here in CA though, provided you paid the worthless swine in Sacramento
enough....

But there are more differences between a Malibu and a BMW than there is
between two audio amps such as, for instance a Crown XTi1000 at $500 and one
of those gorgeous (to look at) Classe CT-2200 amps at TEN TIMES the Crown's
price at $5000. Of course the $500 Crown has more power into 8 Ohms than does
the Classe (275 W/channel vs 200), but they are otherwise very similar and I
SUPECT that they would be indistinguishable one from the other in a DBT, as
well. Sure, like the Crown vs the Classe, the BMW has more ostentatious
"bling" than the Malibu and costs a LOT more (though not 10X). OTOH, the BMW
actually performs measurably as well as observably much better than the
Malibu. The Beemer, however, is much faster, has lap times around a race
course that are probably at LEAST half that of the Malibu. The BMW
accelerates quicker, has a higher top speed, and stops from any speed in a
shorter distance and will do it all day.

IOW, you pay, Maybe $30,000 for a Chevy Malibu. The BMW costs probably
$80,000 for a 5 series (I'm guessing, of course, but the price delta between
the two is maybe 3X or 4X not 10X). The point is that you actually and
inarguably get more car with the Beemer than with the Malibu while you do not
really get ANYTHING more with the Classe vs the Crown except the bling and
the bragging rights: "This is my new power amp, I paid $5000 for it!"

Audio Empire

February 28th 10, 12:04 PM

On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 14:13:49 -0800, Scott wrote
(in article >):

> On Feb 27, 7:25=A0am, Audio Empire > wrote:
>> On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 17:52:11 -0800, Scott wrote
>> (in article >):
>>
>>
>>> Many tests have been "published" the problem is most of them are
>>> anecdotal and some who advocate blind testing as needed for "proof"
>>> have been caught cherry picking from the anecdotes. One can see clear
>>> as day hopw easily one particular anecdote was attacked due to the
>>> undesirable results.
>>
>> If you notice, I was speaking SPECIFICALLY about DBTs
>
>
> I was speaking about blind tests too.
>
>> and was answering a
>> poster who thinks that expecting the average audiophile to conduct DBTs i=
> s
>> "silly".
>
>
> He is right. It is silly to expect anything of other audiophiles.
>
>
>
>
>>> DBTs are useful for removing bias effects. That can be applied to
>>> any test where bias effects are in play. There is nothing unique in
>>> audio about telling differences between two aleged similar items. Fact
>>> is bias is in play and has an affect on preferences even when gross
>>> differences in sound are present. That some audiophiles would limit
>>> their use of bias controls to try to prove a point they already
>>> beleive about differences seems futile. If you think about it.
>>> removing bias from the audition process is far more important when
>>> there are audible differences than when there are not audible
>>> differences. Think about it.
>>
>> I have. Double blind tests show that difference either exist or do not WH=
> EN
>> biases are removed. Seems to me we are saying the same thing. Remove the
>> sighted or expectational biases, and even "true believers" can see the tr=
> uth
>> of these so-called "differences" (although many still won't admit it).
>
>
> No we are not saying the same thing. what I am saying is remove the
> bias and one can get an unbiased opinion on sound quality even when
> the differences are gross. My point being that if two things sound the
> same and someone prefers one over the other because of biases that
> person does not get objectively inferior sound. He gets the same sound
> but enjoys it more. OTOH when differences are real but preferences are
> swayed by bias then one runs the very real risk of choosing
> objectively inferior sound because of bias effects. This audiophile
> really does loose out due to bias effects. So while some audiophiles
> are obsessing over who is right about what sounds the same they are
> missing the boat when bias effects can actually have a real
> detrimental effect on one's choice of components. I find that
> extremely ironic.

Yes we are saying the same thing and that's my final word on that aspect of
this subject. We just express it differently. I believe that you are thinking
about DBT testing in general and I'm thinking about DBT as applies to cables,
amplifiers, CD players, speakers, audio tweaks, etc.

>>>> Like I said, DB or ABX tests are really for finding differences, not f=
> or
>>>> determining which is better.
>>
>>> That is simply not true. DBTs are really for removing bias effects.
>>> Bias effects are in play always when we are talking about subjective
>>> evaluations of perceptions.
>>
>> I dunno, when sighted tests find differences that DBTs show not to exist,
>> then I would say that it's good at revealing whether or not the differenc=
> es
>> are real or imagined. In other words, we're saying the same thing, you ju=
> st
>> like the way you word it better 8^)
>
> That wasn't my point.

But it was mine.

You asserted that DBTs were limited in use to
> finding differences. They have a much broader range of use which
> includes determining unbiased preferences.

No, I said that they aren't very good for making value judgements about the
quality of those differences. I never said that they were limited to finding
differences. But I was also thinking solely about audio DBTs when I wrote
that. And for sure, the usefulness in audio is pretty much to finding
differences. But in other fields, they are far more useful. For instance,
DBT drug tests can find out if a drug is really effective or not by giving
some testers in the drug a placebo and other the actual drug. Those
administering the test don't know which is which, and the testers don't know
which they are taking. When the results are tabulated, and it is found that a
statistically significant sampling of the group actually given the drug
noticed real improvement of their condition, then it is generally clear that
the drug exhibits SOME effectiveness. This test, however is unlikely to
uncover the extent of the effectiveness, or any side effects. These require
other DBTs designed to uncover those characteristics.

>>>> For most products, all one needs to know about a product can be gleane=
> d f=3D
>>> rom
>>>> a spec sheet or a simple demonstration.
>>
>>> That will not eliminate bias effects at all.
>>
>> Who said it did?
>>
>
> You said all one needs for *most* products can be gleaned from a spec
> sheet or simple demo. Apparently in *most* cases you are not concerned
> with bias effects in one's process of choosing. Why the limited
> concern for bias effects when they are always in play if not
> controlled?
>

Because in most products, selection comes down to suitability to a need,
specifications, and personal taste. For instance a man with six kids is
likely not looking for a sports car to haul them around in. A guy who
commutes 100 miles a day to work, is unlikely to purchase a 14 MPG Dodge Hemi
Charger for that commute. A person who doesn't like brussels sprouts isn't
likely to purchase a frozen entre containing them.

But audio is different. People "think" they hear things (or get told that
they hear things) that simply do not exist (such as a difference in "sound"
between a 1-meter throw-away Radio Shack interconnect and a $4000 1-meter
Nordost Valhalla interconnect or other obscenely priced piece of wire). When
subjected to a double blind test between these two, whereby sighted and
expectational biases are removed, and they hear no difference between the
two, then the totally honest audiophile will admit that he is wrong. On the
other hand, a man who says that two amps sound different and that his super
expensive Whiz-Bang 2000 sounds better than another amp can be vindicated
when the two are compared via a correctly set-up DBT. If he picks his
Whiz-Bang 2000 a statistically meaningful number of times, then we are left
with the overwhelming conclusion that that there probably is a difference
between the sounds of these two amps, and that he was right. What that DBT
fails to reveal, usually, is which one really sounds better. That's often a
question of taste, and DBT's aren't very good at determining that aspect of
the differences in the sound of two DUTs from a taste standpoint.

Scott[_6_]

February 28th 10, 03:27 PM

On Feb 28, 4:04=A0am, Audio Empire > wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 14:13:49 -0800, Scott wrote
> (in article >):

> Yes we are saying the same thing and that's my final word on that aspect =
of
> this subject.

And my final word is that we are not. There you have it.

>
> > =A0You asserted that DBTs were limited in use to
> > finding differences. They have a much broader range of use which
> > includes determining unbiased preferences.
>
> No,

Here is what you actually said. "Like I said, DB or ABX tests are
really for finding differences, not for
determining which is better " So it is what you said.

> I said that they aren't very good for making value judgements about the
> quality of those differences.

I will accept that amended version. It is still completely wrong
though. Bias controlled preference tests are actually very very good
for making value judgements. And they are widely used for that
purpose.

> I never said that they were limited to finding
> differences.

Your words. " "Like I said, DB or ABX tests are really for finding
differences, not for
determining which is better "

> But I was also thinking solely about audio DBTs when I wrote
> that.

Irrelevant. Bias controlled tests can be single, double or even triple
blind. they are essentially all bias controlled tests just that double
blind is better at removing sublime biases than single blind. DBTs are
not only suitable for determining preferences they are ideal if one is
concerned about bias effects which are present in any and all
subjective preferences made without bias controls.

> And for sure, the usefulness in audio is pretty much to finding
> differences.

I'm thinkin Floyd Toole and Sean Olive might disagree given the
multimillion dollar facility they have at HK for doing blind
"preference" comparisons for speaker development.

> > You said all one needs for *most* products can be gleaned from a spec
> > sheet or simple demo. Apparently in *most* cases you are not concerned
> > with bias effects in one's process of choosing. Why the limited
> > concern for bias effects when they are always in play if not
> > controlled?
>
> Because in most products, selection comes down to suitability to a need,
> specifications, and personal taste.

And audio is different?

> For instance a man with six kids is
> likely not looking for a sports car to haul them around in. A guy who
> commutes 100 miles a day to work, is unlikely to purchase a 14 MPG Dodge =
Hemi
> Charger for that commute. A person who doesn't like brussels sprouts isn'=
t
> likely to purchase a frozen entre containing them.
>
> But audio is different.

Audio actually is no different. Bias effects are present in all
subjective perceptual evaluations.

> People "think" they hear things (or get told that
> they hear things) that simply do not exist (such as a difference in "soun=
d"
> between a 1-meter throw-away Radio Shack interconnect and a $4000 1-meter
> Nordost Valhalla interconnect or other obscenely priced piece of wire). W=
hen
> subjected to a double blind test between these two, whereby sighted and
> expectational biases are removed, and they hear no difference between the
> two, then the totally honest audiophile will admit that he is wrong.

It has nothing to do with honesty and the fact is in many cases the
perception of a difference returns as soon as the bias controls are
removed. It is human nature not a matter of honesty.

> On the
> other hand, a man who says that two amps sound different and that his sup=
er
> expensive Whiz-Bang 2000 sounds better than another amp can be vindicated
> when the two are compared via a correctly set-up DBT. If he picks his
> Whiz-Bang 2000 a statistically meaningful number of times, then we are le=
ft
> with the overwhelming conclusion that that there probably is a difference
> between the sounds of these two amps, and that he was right.

If "vindication" is the issue then we are talking about egos here not
audio.

> What that DBT
> fails to reveal, usually, is which one really sounds better.

It all depends on how a DBT is designed. why anyone would bother with
anything that is not geared towards preference is beyond me. well,
actually it isn't. It is the test of choice for those consumed with
debating these things.

> That's often a
> question of taste, and DBT's aren't very good at determining that aspect =
of
> the differences in the sound of two DUTs from a taste standpoint

As said before, you are plainly mistaken on that matter.DBTs are very
very good for making bias controlled determinations of subjective
preferences. Further more, logic dictates that the best use of blind
protocols in the auditioning process would be when making a choice
between components that actually sound different since there is no
wrong choice sonically between components that sound the same. Ironic
that the vast majority of DBTs don't actually make use of them in
their own choices when they are of the most use. Clearly, this is
where we disagree.