Some People Haven't a Clue

[Audio_Empire[_2_]]

I was reading the monthly column in a well-known audio magazine by an equal=
ly well known audio journalist today and realized that this journalist simp=
ly hasn't a clue about digital sound and how it works. He was discussing a =
new box-set of stereo LPs of all of the Beatles albums. It seems that Apple=
records mastered these LPs from the 16-bit/44.1 KHz ADC conversions of the=
original analog master tapes, rather than going back to the original maste=
rs themselves. The excuse given by an Apple Records spokesperson for why th=
ey took this route rather than doing a proper re-mastering from the edited =
analog session masters was that Apple didn't want to risk damage to the ori=
ginals. This journalist wondered why keep master tapes at all if not to use=
them for re-issues. While I agree with him that LP reissues should be made=
from the original analog source material, It is his following conclusion t=
hat I find rather clueless. This journalist went on to say that an analog m=
aster has an infinite amount of information on it (!) and as digital gets b=
etter, one can always go back and "mine" those masters for more and more de=
tail. He went on to say that the moment one digitizes an analog source, som=
ething is lost that can never be retrieved from that digitized result. To m=
e this shows a basic lack of understanding on this journalist's part about =
the basic nature of both an analog recording and a digital copy of same.=20

The first thing that this writer gets wrong is the notion that an analog ma=
ster tape has an infinite amount of information on it. Anyone who has any t=
echnical experience with professional audio recording will tell you that pr=
o analog tape recorders, whether two track stereo or 48 track machines runn=
ing two-inch wide tape at 15 ups, they are (were?) generally only maintaine=
d to 15KHz. Head alignment, EQ, bias, etc. was all set so that a clean 15 K=
Hz can be laid-down and retrieved reliably. Frequencies above that are simp=
ly not practical and things like over biasing to maintain low distortion an=
d self erasure due to the signal's own high-frequency content pretty much l=
imited the top end response on even the finest studio recorders. Add to tha=
t the frequency response characteristics of most microphones used by studio=
s (especially when the Beatles were recording) and you will find that most =
of them had a rather large frequency response peak at roughly 16 KHz (cause=
d by the resonance of the microphone's diaphragm) above which, the output =
of said capsules dropped off like a falling stone. Add to that the fact tha=
t even with the addition of Dolby A noise reduction, somewhere in the regio=
n of about 76 dB ( half track/15 ips) is about the limit on dynamic range, =
then one can start to see that the notion that an analog master tape has "i=
nfinite information" on it is simply ludicrous. 16-bit/
44.1 KHz digital is better in every way: Lower distortion, wider, flatter f=
requency response, more dynamic range, etc. From his wording, one gathers t=
hat this audio journalist still believes that because digital quantization =
"samples" an analog signal, that music "between the samples" is forever and=
irrecoverably lost.=20

Now, I don't give a hoot or a holler in Hell about the Beatles on LP or any=
other media, but I do agree with this article's author that if someone is =
plunking down a big hunk of change for a big boxed set of=20
LPs, that he ought to be getting a pure analog experience (after all, if th=
e LPs are just copies of Red Book digital masters, then one might as well j=
ust buy the CDs), but his notion that the analog masters simply have more i=
nformation on them than a digital copy of those masters is simply and unaba=
shedly misleading and wrong.

Comments? Other points of view?

Audio_Empire

[Gary Eickmeier]

Audio_Empire wrote:

<....>

> Now, I don't give a hoot or a holler in Hell about the Beatles on LP
> or any other media, but I do agree with this article's author that if
> someone is plunking down a big hunk of change for a big boxed set of
> LPs, that he ought to be getting a pure analog experience (after all,
> if the LPs are just copies of Red Book digital masters, then one
> might as well just buy the CDs), but his notion that the analog
> masters simply have more information on them than a digital copy of
> those masters is simply and unabashedly misleading and wrong.
>
> Comments? Other points of view?

Just one - I got my first CD player, the Sony CDP-101, around the beginning
of the CD era, and haven't been interested in playing my extensive LP
collection ever since. This includes some of the famous direct to disc
original issues from Sheffield et alia. I just hate LPs.

Gary Eickmeier

[Scott[_6_]]

On Feb 9, 8:11=A0pm, Audio_Empire > wrote:
> I was reading the monthly column in a well-known audio magazine by an equ=
ally well known audio journalist today and realized that this journalist si=
mply hasn't a clue about digital sound and how it works. He was discussing =
a new box-set of stereo LPs of all of the Beatles albums. It seems that App=
le records mastered these LPs from the 16-bit/44.1 KHz ADC conversions of t=
he original analog master tapes, rather than going back to the original mas=
ters themselves. The excuse given by an Apple Records spokesperson for why =
they took this route rather than doing a proper re-mastering from the edite=
d analog session masters was that Apple didn't want to risk damage to the o=
riginals. This journalist wondered why keep master tapes at all if not to u=
se them for re-issues. While I agree with him that LP reissues should be ma=
de from the original analog source material, It is his following conclusion=
that I find rather clueless. This journalist went on to say that an analog=
master has an infinite amount of information on it (!) and as digital gets=
better, one can always go back and "mine" those masters for more and more =
detail. He went on to say that the moment one digitizes an analog source, s=
omething is lost that can never be retrieved from that digitized result. To=
me this shows a basic lack of understanding on this journalist's part abou=
t the basic nature of both an analog recording and a digital copy of same.
>
> The first thing that this writer gets wrong is the notion that an analog =
master tape has an infinite amount of information on it. Anyone who has any=
technical experience with professional audio recording will tell you that =
pro analog tape recorders, whether two track stereo or 48 track machines ru=
nning two-inch wide tape at 15 ups, they are (were?) generally only maintai=
ned to 15KHz. Head alignment, EQ, bias, etc. was all set so that a clean 15=
KHz can be laid-down and retrieved reliably. Frequencies above that are si=
mply not practical and things like over biasing to maintain low distortion =
and self erasure due to the signal's own high-frequency content pretty much=
limited the top end response on even the finest studio recorders. Add to t=
hat the frequency response characteristics of most microphones used by stud=
ios (especially when the Beatles were recording) and you will find that mos=
t of them had a rather large frequency response peak at roughly 16 KHz (cau=
sed by the resonance of the =A0microphone's diaphragm) above which, the out=
put of said capsules dropped off like a falling stone. Add to that the fact=
that even with the addition of Dolby A noise reduction, somewhere in the r=
egion of about 76 dB ( half track/15 ips) is about the limit on dynamic ran=
ge, then one can start to see that the notion that an analog master tape ha=
s "infinite information" on it is simply ludicrous. 16-bit/
> 44.1 KHz digital is better in every way: Lower distortion, wider, flatter=
frequency response, more dynamic range, etc. From his wording, one gathers=
that this audio journalist still believes that because digital quantizatio=
n "samples" an analog signal, that music "between the samples" is forever a=
nd irrecoverably lost.
>
> Now, I don't give a hoot or a holler in Hell about the Beatles on LP or a=
ny other media, but I do agree with this article's author that if someone i=
s plunking down a big hunk of change for a big boxed set of
> LPs, that he ought to be getting a pure analog experience (after all, if =
the LPs are just copies of Red Book digital masters, then one might as well=
just buy the CDs), but his notion that the analog masters simply have more=
information on them than a digital copy of those masters is simply and una=
bashedly misleading and wrong.
>
> Comments? Other points of view?
>
> Audio_Empire

Who said that? What article? Like to see it first hand before
condemning the writer. By the way claiming infinite information on the
analog tape doesn't mean the person doesn't know much about digital.
It means they don't know much about analog or basic quantum physics.

By the way, these LPs were mastered from the 24/96 digital copies
taken from the analog master tapes that had all the fixes and
mastering moves built into them. They were not taken from the 16/44.1
transfers. These 24/96 transfers had all the approvals from the
various estates and entities that had a say so in approving any
product. That is why they were used more than any other reason.

[Andrew Haley]

Audio_Empire > wrote:

> I was reading the monthly column in a well-known audio magazine by
> an equally well known audio journalist today and realized that this
> journalist simply hasn't a clue about digital sound and how it
> works. He was discussing a new box-set of stereo LPs of all of the
> Beatles albums.

Yes, I read that too. A veritable train wreck of a piece.

> It seems that Apple records mastered these LPs from the 16-bit/44.1
> KHz ADC conversions of the original analog master tapes, rather than
> going back to the original masters themselves. The excuse given by
> an Apple Records spokesperson for why they took this route rather
> than doing a proper re-mastering from the edited analog session
> masters was that Apple didn't want to risk damage to the
> originals.

AFAIK this is part of whole story, but not the whole thing. The
digitization process has been described at great length in several
places. After each track was digitized, if necessary the azimuth was
adjusted and the tape path cleaned: these are very old tapes, after
all. This made the digital copies the best possible reference for all
subsequent uses. If the LPs had been made by a direct analogue
transfer from the master tapes they would have been worse, not better.

> This journalist wondered why keep master tapes at all if not to use
> them for re-issues. While I agree with him that LP reissues should
> be made from the original analog source material, It is his
> following conclusion that I find rather clueless. This journalist
> went on to say that an analog master has an infinite

I think he said "virtually infinite".

> amount of information on it (!) and as digital gets better, one can
> always go back and "mine" those masters for more and more detail. He
> went on to say that the moment one digitizes an analog source,
> something is lost that can never be retrieved from that digitized
> result. To me this shows a basic lack of understanding on this
> journalist's part about the basic nature of both an analog recording
> and a digital copy of same.

Indeed, but I suppose his readers like that: it's the fallacy of the
appeal to emotion rather than valid logic. Maybe if he took Signal
Processing 101 (and managed to pass the exam) his income from the
audio press would dry up.

Andrew.

[[email protected]]

On Saturday, February 9, 2013 11:11:25 PM UTC-5, Audio_Empire wrote:
> I was reading the monthly column in a well-known audio magazine by an equ=
ally well known audio
> journalist today and realized that this journalist simply hasn't a clue a=
bout digital sound and how it
> works.=20

I'm guessin' Fremer. Call it a hunch.

> He was discussing a new box-set of stereo LPs of all of the Beatles album=
s. It seems that Apple
> records mastered these LPs from the 16-bit/44.1 KHz ADC conversions of th=
e original analog master
> tapes, rather than going back to the original masters themselves. The exc=
use given by an Apple
> Records spokesperson for why they took this route rather than doing a pro=
per re-mastering from the
> edited analog session masters was that Apple didn't want to risk damage t=
o the originals.=20

Probably a wise business decision. The 16/44.1 conversions should be indist=
inguishable from the analog masters, so why risk the masters? A few ignoran=
t purists will complain, but most buyers will either understand that this i=
s a good move, or else won't care. Mostly the latter.

> This journalist went on to say that an analog master has an infinite amou=
nt of information on it (!)
> and as digital gets better, one can always go back and "mine" those maste=
rs for more and more
> detail. He went on to say that the moment one digitizes an analog source,=
something is lost that can
> never be retrieved from that digitized result.=20

Definitely Fremer. Instead of measuring jitter to the picosecond, S-pile co=
uld actually perform the far more useful service of testing and reporting o=
n turntables and cartridges, which are certainly popular with its readershi=
p=97and do actually sound different! Instead, they outsource the entire ana=
log realm to a moron. (And he's as much a moron about analog as digital. He=
sounds like he knows what he's talking about, but he just parrots what the=
turntable makers tell him.)

bob

[Scott[_6_]]

On Feb 10, 11:38=A0am, wrote:
> On Saturday, February 9, 2013 11:11:25 PM UTC-5, Audio_Empire wrote:
> > I was reading the monthly column in a well-known audio magazine by an e=
qually well known audio
> > journalist today and realized that this journalist simply hasn't a clue=
about digital sound and how it
> > works.
>
> I'm guessin' Fremer. Call it a hunch.
>
> > He was discussing a new box-set of stereo LPs of all of the Beatles alb=
ums. It seems that Apple
> > records mastered these LPs from the 16-bit/44.1 KHz ADC conversions of =
the original analog master
> > tapes, rather than going back to the original masters themselves. The e=
xcuse given by an Apple
> > Records spokesperson for why they took this route rather than doing a p=
roper re-mastering from the
> > edited analog session masters was that Apple didn't want to risk damage=
to the originals.
>
> Probably a wise business decision. The 16/44.1 conversions should be indi=
stinguishable from the analog masters, so why risk the masters? A few ignor=
ant purists will complain, but most buyers will either understand that this=
is a good move, or else won't care. Mostly the latter.
>
> > This journalist went on to say that an analog master has an infinite am=
ount of information on it (!)
> > and as digital gets better, one can always go back and "mine" those mas=
ters for more and more
> > detail. He went on to say that the moment one digitizes an analog sourc=
e, something is lost that can
> > never be retrieved from that digitized result.
>
> Definitely Fremer. Instead of measuring jitter to the picosecond, S-pile =
could actually perform the far more useful service of testing and reporting=
on turntables and cartridges, which are certainly popular with its readers=
hip=97and do actually sound different! Instead, they outsource the entire a=
nalog realm to a moron. (And he's as much a moron about analog as digital. =
He sounds like he knows what he's talking about, but he just parrots what t=
he turntable makers tell him.)
>
> bob

I just read Fremer's overview of the box set. So I don't think it was
him. He got the facts right for starters
"Clearly the engineers feel that digitizing analog at high sampling
and bit rates is essentially transparent to the source or they might
not have done it. And once they had the music captured at 192/24 bit
they also felt down-converting it to 44.1/24 wouldn't diminish the
sonic quality." Even I had forgotten the unusual 24/44.1 conversion.
(looks like he accidentally reversed the numbers) I saw no mention of
the word "infinite" anywhere in his article.

[allen]

On 10 Feb 2013 04:11:25 GMT, Audio_Empire >
wrote:

>I was reading the monthly column in a well-known audio magazine by an equally well known audio journalist today and realized that this journalist simply hasn't a clue about digital sound and how it works. He was discussing a new box-set of stereo LPs of all of the Beatles albums. It seems that Apple records mastered these LPs from the 16-bit/44.1 KHz ADC conversions of the original analog master tapes, rather than going back to the original masters themselves.

AIUI the vinyl masters are non-peak limited versions of the 24 bit
remasters...which leaves one more marketing opportunity: non-peak
limited CD remasters. Sad, cynical.

[KH]

On 2/10/2013 12:38 PM, wrote:
> On Saturday, February 9, 2013 11:11:25 PM UTC-5, Audio_Empire wrote:
>> I was reading the monthly column in a well-known audio magazine by an =
equally well known audio
>> journalist today and realized that this journalist simply hasn't a clu=
e about digital sound and how it
>> works.
>
> I'm guessin' Fremer. Call it a hunch.
>
>> He was discussing a new box-set of stereo LPs of all of the Beatles al=
bums. It seems that Apple
>> records mastered these LPs from the 16-bit/44.1 KHz ADC conversions of=
the original analog master
>> tapes, rather than going back to the original masters themselves. The =
excuse given by an Apple
>> Records spokesperson for why they took this route rather than doing a =
proper re-mastering from the
>> edited analog session masters was that Apple didn't want to risk damag=
e to the originals.
>
> Probably a wise business decision. The 16/44.1 conversions should be in=
distinguishable from the analog masters, so why risk the masters? A few i=
gnorant purists will complain, but most buyers will either understand tha=
t this is a good move, or else won't care. Mostly the latter.
>
>> This journalist went on to say that an analog master has an infinite a=
mount of information on it (!)
>> and as digital gets better, one can always go back and "mine" those ma=
sters for more and more
>> detail. He went on to say that the moment one digitizes an analog sour=
ce, something is lost that can
>> never be retrieved from that digitized result.
>
> Definitely Fremer. Instead of measuring jitter to the picosecond, S-pil=
e could actually perform the far more useful service of testing and repor=
ting on turntables and cartridges, which are certainly popular with its r=
eadership=97and do actually sound different! Instead, they outsource the =
entire analog realm to a moron. (And he's as much a moron about analog as=
digital. He sounds like he knows what he's talking about, but he just pa=
rrots what the turntable makers tell him.)
>
> bob
>
Nope, Dudley. And while I agree that the article is a joke, at least=20
Dudley admits the whole thing may be his imagination, or that it may be=20
he just enjoys the distortion. And he's OK with that. Now, after=20
admitting those caveats, one has to question why anyone should listen to=20
him? Technically wrong, and may be imagining things or enjoying=20
distortion. What's not to like?

Keith

[Audio_Empire[_2_]]

On Sunday, February 10, 2013 6:56:55 AM UTC-8, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
> Audio_Empire wrote:
>=20
>=20
>=20
> <....>
>=20
>=20
>=20
> > Now, I don't give a hoot or a holler in Hell about the Beatles on LP
>=20
> > or any other media, but I do agree with this article's author that if
>=20
> > someone is plunking down a big hunk of change for a big boxed set of
>=20
> > LPs, that he ought to be getting a pure analog experience (after all,
>=20
> > if the LPs are just copies of Red Book digital masters, then one
>=20
> > might as well just buy the CDs), but his notion that the analog
>=20
> > masters simply have more information on them than a digital copy of
>=20
> > those masters is simply and unabashedly misleading and wrong.
>=20
> >
>=20
> > Comments? Other points of view?
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Just one - I got my first CD player, the Sony CDP-101, around the beginni=
ng=20
>=20
> of the CD era, and haven't been interested in playing my extensive LP=20
>=20
> collection ever since. This includes some of the famous direct to disc=20
>=20
> original issues from Sheffield et alia. I just hate LPs.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Gary Eickmeier

Well, you're not alone in that sentiment and you are certainly entitled to =
feel that way about records. I, on the other hand, view records (LPs, stere=
o or mono or 78's for that matter) the same way I view CDs, SACDs, DVD-A's,=
R-to-R tapes, DAT tapes, or 24-bit so-called "high resolution downloads. I=
..E. Just another viable music source.

[Audio_Empire[_2_]]

On Sunday, February 10, 2013 1:37:52 PM UTC-8, Scott wrote:
> On Feb 10, 11:38=A0am, wrote:
>=20
> > On Saturday, February 9, 2013 11:11:25 PM UTC-5, Audio_Empire wrote:
>=20
> > > I was reading the monthly column in a well-known audio magazine by an=
equally well known audio
>=20
> > > journalist today and realized that this journalist simply hasn't a cl=
ue about digital sound and how it
>=20
> > > works.
>=20
> >
>=20
> > I'm guessin' Fremer. Call it a hunch.
>=20
> >
>=20
> > > He was discussing a new box-set of stereo LPs of all of the Beatles a=
lbums. It seems that Apple
>=20
> > > records mastered these LPs from the 16-bit/44.1 KHz ADC conversions o=
f the original analog master
>=20
> > > tapes, rather than going back to the original masters themselves. The=
excuse given by an Apple
>=20
> > > Records spokesperson for why they took this route rather than doing a=
proper re-mastering from the
>=20
> > > edited analog session masters was that Apple didn't want to risk dama=
ge to the originals.
>=20
> >
>=20
> > Probably a wise business decision. The 16/44.1 conversions should be in=
distinguishable from the analog masters, so why risk the masters? A few ign=
orant purists will complain, but most buyers will either understand that th=
is is a good move, or else won't care. Mostly the latter.

I'm not arguing that point. Whatever differences one might hear between a g=
iven reissue and perhaps previous reissues or the original release are like=
ly not going to stem from cutting the new reissues from
a digitalization of the original masters (under most circumstances). Howeve=
r. I do believe that a person
buying a new LP set (for a considerable amount of change, I'll wager) shoul=
d get what he thinks he
is paying for (in this case, analog LPs).
>=20
> >
>=20
> > > This journalist went on to say that an analog master has an infinite =
amount of information on it (!)
>=20
> > > and as digital gets better, one can always go back and "mine" those m=
asters for more and more
>=20
> > > detail. He went on to say that the moment one digitizes an analog sou=
rce, something is lost that can
>=20
> > > never be retrieved from that digitized result.
>=20
> >
>=20
> > Definitely Fremer. Instead of measuring jitter to the picosecond, S-pil=
e could actually perform the far more useful service of testing and reporti=
ng on turntables and cartridges, which are certainly popular with its reade=
rship=97and do actually sound different! Instead, they outsource the entire=
analog realm to a moron. (And he's as much a moron about analog as digital=
.. He sounds like he knows what he's talking about, but he just parrots what=
the turntable makers tell him.)
>=20
> >
>=20
> > bob
>=20
>=20
>=20
> I just read Fremer's overview of the box set. So I don't think it was
>=20
> him. He got the facts right for starters
>=20
> "Clearly the engineers feel that digitizing analog at high sampling
>=20
> and bit rates is essentially transparent to the source or they might
>=20
> not have done it. And once they had the music captured at 192/24 bit
>=20
> they also felt down-converting it to 44.1/24 wouldn't diminish the
>=20
> sonic quality." Even I had forgotten the unusual 24/44.1 conversion.
>=20
> (looks like he accidentally reversed the numbers) I saw no mention of
>=20
> the word "infinite" anywhere in his article.

Well, no, it wasn't Fremer

[Audio_Empire[_2_]]

On Sunday, February 10, 2013 8:34:51 AM UTC-8, Scott wrote:
> On Feb 9, 8:11=A0pm, Audio_Empire wrote:
>=20

> By the way, these LPs were mastered from the 24/96 digital copies
>=20
> taken from the analog master tapes that had all the fixes and
>=20
> mastering moves built into them. They were not taken from the 16/44.1
>=20
> transfers. These 24/96 transfers had all the approvals from the
>=20
> various estates and entities that had a say so in approving any
>=20
> product. That is why they were used more than any other reason.

Well, all that means is that the writer in question is even more clueless o=
n
these matters than I thought he was

[Audio_Empire[_2_]]

On Sunday, February 10, 2013 3:26:17 PM UTC-8, KH wrote:
> On 2/10/2013 12:38 PM, wrote:
>=20
> > On Saturday, February 9, 2013 11:11:25 PM UTC-5, Audio_Empire wrote:
>=20
> >> I was reading the monthly column in a well-known audio magazine by an =
equally well known audio
>=20
> >> journalist today and realized that this journalist simply hasn't a clu=
e about digital sound and how it
>=20
> >> works.
>=20
> >
>=20
> > I'm guessin' Fremer. Call it a hunch.
>=20
> >
>=20
> >> He was discussing a new box-set of stereo LPs of all of the Beatles al=
bums. It seems that Apple
>=20
> >> records mastered these LPs from the 16-bit/44.1 KHz ADC conversions of=
the original analog master
>=20
> >> tapes, rather than going back to the original masters themselves. The =
excuse given by an Apple
>=20
> >> Records spokesperson for why they took this route rather than doing a =
proper re-mastering from the
>=20
> >> edited analog session masters was that Apple didn't want to risk damag=
e to the originals.
>=20
> >
>=20
> > Probably a wise business decision. The 16/44.1 conversions should be in=
distinguishable from the analog masters, so why risk the masters? A few ign=
orant purists will complain, but most buyers will either understand that th=
is is a good move, or else won't care. Mostly the latter.
>=20
> >
>=20
> >> This journalist went on to say that an analog master has an infinite a=
mount of information on it (!)
>=20
> >> and as digital gets better, one can always go back and "mine" those ma=
sters for more and more
>=20
> >> detail. He went on to say that the moment one digitizes an analog sour=
ce, something is lost that can
>=20
> >> never be retrieved from that digitized result.
>=20
> >
>=20
> > Definitely Fremer. Instead of measuring jitter to the picosecond, S-pil=
e could actually perform the far more useful service of testing and reporti=
ng on turntables and cartridges, which are certainly popular with its reade=
rship=97and do actually sound different! Instead, they outsource the entire=
analog realm to a moron. (And he's as much a moron about analog as digital=
.. He sounds like he knows what he's talking about, but he just parrots what=
the turntable makers tell him.)
>=20
> >
>=20
> > bob
>=20
> >
>=20
> Nope, Dudley. And while I agree that the article is a joke, at least=20
>=20
> Dudley admits the whole thing may be his imagination, or that it may be=
=20
>=20
> he just enjoys the distortion. And he's OK with that. Now, after=20
>=20
> admitting those caveats, one has to question why anyone should listen to=
=20
>=20
> him? Technically wrong, and may be imagining things or enjoying=20
>=20
> distortion. What's not to like?
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Keith

I generally enjoy Dudley's column - especially when he writes about vintage=
Hi-Fi. He has, in the last couple of years, written extensively about seve=
ral ancient turntables that he has rescued from the dust bin, a Thorens TD-=
124, a Garrard 301/401, and most recently a Rek-O-Kut Rondine Jr. I was esp=
ecially interested in the latter because I too "rebuilt" a Rondine when I w=
as a teen. I did it quite differently, however. While Dudley actually resto=
red his Rondine jr., I repurposed mine. I had a capstan motor out of an old=
, junked Presto monaural professional tape recorder that I salvaged from a =
local FM radio station. I sat down and did the math to figure out what the =
capstan motor's shaft diameter needed to be to properly drive a 12" platter=
through a belt. I made a drawing of the finished shaft complete with all d=
imensions, and took it to a machine shop. I even thought to have the shaft =
machined as an ellipse with the correct shaft diameter at the apex of the e=
llipse. All I kept from my Rondine was the bearing well and the platter. I =
ordered a replacement belt for an Empire 208 belt drive turntable (which us=
ed the belt around the 12'' platter and not around a smaller sub-platter as=
with most later designs). and made a new chassis plate out of a sheet of h=
eavy gauge stainless steel, and mounted the motor on new grommets. It worke=
d perfectly. The Presto capstan motor had so much torque that it could have=
powered a golf cart! The result was that the table got up to playing speed=
in less than one-revolution!

[[email protected]]

On Sunday, February 10, 2013 6:26:17 PM UTC-5, KH wrote:

> Nope, Dudley.

Good heavens, that means there's more than one of them!

bob

[Edmund[_2_]]

On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 04:11:25 +0000, Audio_Empire wrote:

> I was reading the monthly column in a well-known audio magazine by an
> equally well known audio journalist today and realized that this
> journalist simply hasn't a clue about digital sound and how it works. He
> was discussing a new box-set of stereo LPs of all of the Beatles albums.
> It seems that Apple records mastered these LPs from the 16-bit/44.1 KHz
> ADC conversions of the original analog master tapes, rather than going
> back to the original masters themselves. The excuse given by an Apple
> Records spokesperson for why they took this route rather than doing a
> proper re-mastering from the edited analog session masters was that
> Apple didn't want to risk damage to the originals. This journalist
> wondered why keep master tapes at all if not to use them for re-issues.
> While I agree with him that LP reissues should be made from the original
> analog source material, It is his following conclusion that I find
> rather clueless. This journalist went on to say that an analog master
> has an infinite amount of information on it (!) and as digital gets
> better, one can always go back and "mine" those masters for more and
> more detail. He went on to say that the moment one digitizes an analog
> source, something is lost that can never be retrieved from that
> digitized result. To me this shows a basic lack of understanding on this
> journalist's part about the basic nature of both an analog recording and
> a digital copy of same.
>
> The first thing that this writer gets wrong is the notion that an analog
> master tape has an infinite amount of information on it. Anyone who has
> any technical experience with professional audio recording will tell you
> that pro analog tape recorders, whether two track stereo or 48 track
> machines running two-inch wide tape at 15 ups, they are (were?)
> generally only maintained to 15KHz. Head alignment, EQ, bias, etc. was
> all set so that a clean 15 KHz can be laid-down and retrieved reliably.
> Frequencies above that are simply not practical and things like over
> biasing to maintain low distortion and self erasure due to the signal's
> own high-frequency content pretty much limited the top end response on
> even the finest studio recorders. Add to that the frequency response
> characteristics of most microphones used by studios (especially when the
> Beatles were recording) and you will find that most of them had a rather
> large frequency response peak at roughly 16 KHz (caused by the resonance
> of the microphone's diaphragm) above which, the output of said capsules
> dropped off like a falling stone. Add to that the fact that even with
> the addition of Dolby A noise reduction, somewhere in the region of
> about 76 dB ( half track/15 ips) is about the limit on dynamic range,
> then one can start to see that the notion that an analog master tape has
> "infinite information" on it is simply ludicrous. 16-bit/
> 44.1 KHz digital is better in every way: Lower distortion, wider,
> flatter frequency response, more dynamic range, etc. From his wording,
> one gathers that this audio journalist still believes that because
> digital quantization "samples" an analog signal, that music "between the
> samples" is forever and irrecoverably lost.
>
> Now, I don't give a hoot or a holler in Hell about the Beatles on LP or
> any other media, but I do agree with this article's author that if
> someone is plunking down a big hunk of change for a big boxed set of
> LPs, that he ought to be getting a pure analog experience (after all, if
> the LPs are just copies of Red Book digital masters, then one might as
> well just buy the CDs), but his notion that the analog masters simply
> have more information on them than a digital copy of those masters is
> simply and unabashedly misleading and wrong.
>
> Comments? Other points of view?
>
> Audio_Empire

I don't know if you are wrong but there are at least other claims.
http://www.channld.com/vinylanalysis1.html

I don't know what to believe and what not concerning what ( frequencies )
where recorded those days but when the CD arrived, my LP's sounded MUCH
better then the CD's.

As for the journalist, although it is philosophic more then anything
he is right about the "infinite" ( not really ) amount of information on
the analog recording and he is completely right that any information lost
by the AD conversion is lost forever.
And he is right again about the utter stupidity from Apple records to
keep the original recordings is a vault and NOT using them.
Great thinking of those bunch or idiots!
The obvious way to preserve the best possible quality is digitizing the
original masters at the highest possible sample rate, after that they can
always trow away quality as they like.
But maybe Apple records is not as stupid as it seems to be, maybe they
like to trow away quality right from the start! After all if there is no
decent recording to be found, they can claim that there crappy apple
players sounds " as good " as decent audio equipment.

Edmund

[Arny Krueger[_5_]]

"Audio_Empire" > wrote in message
...
I was reading the monthly column in a well-known audio magazine by an
equally well known audio journalist today and realized that this journalist
simply hasn't a clue about digital sound and how it works. He was discussing
a new box-set of This journalist went on to say that an analog master has an
infinite amount of information on it (!) and as digital gets better, one can
always go back and "mine" those masters for more and more detail. He went on
to say that the moment one digitizes an analog source, something is lost
that can never be retrieved from that digitized result. To me this shows a
basic lack of understanding on this journalist's part about the basic nature
of both an analog recording and a digital copy of same.
[/quote]

While the amount of informationon an analog master is not infinite, even
unhearable information on an analog source can be useful in ways that are
audible. There are a number of processes for removing the wow and flutter
(jitter) from analog masters that can produce stunningly good results. Two
such methdologies are known under the brand names Plangent and Capstan. One
implementation of this process is described in this document:
ftp://ftp.bestweb.net/aes117.pdf .

"Here we describe a system whereby analog hardware is combined with the
theory of nonuniform sampling
in order to correct for wow and futter effects in analog tape transfers. We
show how in certain instances
the medium itself can provide an accurate measurement of a recording's
timing irregularities, in which case
digital signal processing techniques permit a playback-rate correction of
what is essentially an irregularly
sampled audio waveform. Results using both real and synthetic data
demonstrate the effectiveness of the
method, both in cases of severe degradation as well as high-quality analog
transfers heretofore considered
normal"

More information including demo tracks you can download and listen to can be
found at: http://www.plangentprocesses.com/ and
http://www.plangentprocesses.com/examples.htm

There is at least one other implementation of this process using a slightly
different technique.

http://www.celemony.com/cms/index.php?id=capstan

The general process operates as follows:

(1) A signal component in the source that can be reasonbly expected to have
a steady frequency is identified as a reference. The two most common
examples of this are power supply hum and tape bias. Unintended recordings
of other EMI sources including video displays may also be used.

(2) Time base correction techniques of which several are well known and
relatively easy to implement are used to remove any of the readily
identified errors in the reference, which are applied to the rest of the
recording.

That's it!

Recovering tape recording bias signals from analog tape is sometimes
possible using tape heads with very narrow gaps. Ordinarily their use would
serve no purpose, since the signal being recovered is known to be inaudible.

While the source material does not have infinite resolution, it may contain
inaudible signals that can be used to greatly improve its audible
properties.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Feb 11, 6:39=A0am, Edmund > wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 04:11:25 +0000, Audio_Empire wrote:
> > I was reading the monthly column in a well-known audio magazine by an
> > equally well known audio journalist today and realized that this
> > journalist simply hasn't a clue about digital sound and how it works. H=
e
> > was discussing a new box-set of stereo LPs of all of the Beatles albums=
..
> > It seems that Apple records mastered these LPs from the 16-bit/44.1 KHz
> > ADC conversions of the original analog master tapes, rather than going
> > back to the original masters themselves. The excuse given by an Apple
> > Records spokesperson for why they took this route rather than doing a
> > proper re-mastering from the edited analog session masters was that
> > Apple didn't want to risk damage to the originals. This journalist
> > wondered why keep master tapes at all if not to use them for re-issues.
> > While I agree with him that LP reissues should be made from the origina=
l
> > analog source material, It is his following conclusion that I find
> > rather clueless. This journalist went on to say that an analog master
> > has an infinite amount of information on it (!) and as digital gets
> > better, one can always go back and "mine" those masters for more and
> > more detail. He went on to say that the moment one digitizes an analog
> > source, something is lost that can never be retrieved from that
> > digitized result. To me this shows a basic lack of understanding on thi=
s
> > journalist's part about the basic nature of both an analog recording an=
d
> > a digital copy of same.
>
> > The first thing that this writer gets wrong is the notion that an analo=
g
> > master tape has an infinite amount of information on it. Anyone who has
> > any technical experience with professional audio recording will tell yo=
u
> > that pro analog tape recorders, whether two track stereo or 48 track
> > machines running two-inch wide tape at 15 ups, they are (were?)
> > generally only maintained to 15KHz. Head alignment, EQ, bias, etc. was
> > all set so that a clean 15 KHz can be laid-down and retrieved reliably.
> > Frequencies above that are simply not practical and things like over
> > biasing to maintain low distortion and self erasure due to the signal's
> > own high-frequency content pretty much limited the top end response on
> > even the finest studio recorders. Add to that the frequency response
> > characteristics of most microphones used by studios (especially when th=
e
> > Beatles were recording) and you will find that most of them had a rathe=
r
> > large frequency response peak at roughly 16 KHz (caused by the resonanc=
e
> > of the =A0microphone's diaphragm) above which, the output of said capsu=
les
> > dropped off like a falling stone. Add to that the fact that even with
> > the addition of Dolby A noise reduction, somewhere in the region of
> > about 76 dB ( half track/15 ips) is about the limit on dynamic range,
> > then one can start to see that the notion that an analog master tape ha=
s
> > "infinite information" on it is simply ludicrous. 16-bit/
> > 44.1 KHz digital is better in every way: Lower distortion, wider,
> > flatter frequency response, more dynamic range, etc. From his wording,
> > one gathers that this audio journalist still believes that because
> > digital quantization "samples" an analog signal, that music "between th=
e
> > samples" is forever and irrecoverably lost.
>
> > Now, I don't give a hoot or a holler in Hell about the Beatles on LP or
> > any other media, but I do agree with this article's author that if
> > someone is plunking down a big hunk of change for a big boxed set of
> > LPs, that he ought to be getting a pure analog experience (after all, i=
f
> > the LPs are just copies of Red Book digital masters, then one might as
> > well just buy the CDs), but his notion that the analog masters simply
> > have more information on them than a digital copy of those masters is
> > simply and unabashedly misleading and wrong.
>
> > Comments? Other points of view?
>
> > Audio_Empire
>
> I don't know if you are wrong but there are at least other claims.http://=
www.channld.com/vinylanalysis1.html
>
> I don't know what to believe and what not concerning what ( frequencies )
> where recorded those days but when the CD arrived, my LP's sounded MUCH
> better then the CD's.

As they should. The CD box set suffers from a substantial amount of
compression. The LP box set does not.

>
> As for the journalist, although it is philosophic more then anything
> he is right about the "infinite" ( not really ) amount of information on
> the analog recording and he is completely right that any information lost
> by the AD conversion is lost forever.

The information on analog tape is finite. That is a basic physical
fact. Think about it. Just consider this for a moment. If the tape
were twice as long would it have infinity x 2 amount of information?
It's finite. OTOH he is right that whatever information that is lost
in any digital conversion remains lost anywhere down the line from the
digital copy. It's kind of a tautology but it is true.


> And he is right again about the utter stupidity from Apple records to
> keep the original recordings is a vault and NOT using them.
> Great thinking of those bunch or idiots!


this is not such a simple issue. After the original transfer from tape
to 24/192 the mastering engineers did a lot of work on the material. I
mean a lot. That was finished in 24/44.1 and *that* master was what
was submitted to the various estates and parties with the right of
approval. This was quite a process. It took over a year to get all the
approvals needed to release the CD box set. So when they did the vinyl
they had a choice between using that master which had already been
approved by all interested parties or going back to the analog tapes,
cutting all of the albums from scratch, trying to get the same results
they got in the digital domain on the first go around and then going
through the approval process again. This was simply too impractical
for this particular project. So the thinking behind the choice makes
sense even if it isn't what some of us would want.

> The obvious way to preserve the best possible quality is digitizing the
> original masters at the highest possible sample rate, after that they can
> always trow away quality as they like.

That was done. The flat transfers on 192/24 still exist.


> But maybe Apple records is not as stupid as it seems to be, maybe they
> like to trow away quality right from the start! After all if there is no
> decent recording to be found, they can claim that there crappy apple
> players sounds " as good " as decent audio equipment.


I think you are comparing Apples to Apples. Two different Apples.

[Audio_Empire[_2_]]

On Monday, February 11, 2013 6:39:01 AM UTC-8, Edmund wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 04:11:25 +0000, Audio_Empire wrote:
>
>
>
> > I was reading the monthly column in a well-known audio magazine by an
>
> > equally well known audio journalist today and realized that this
>
> > journalist simply hasn't a clue about digital sound and how it works. He
>
> > was discussing a new box-set of stereo LPs of all of the Beatles albums.
>
> > It seems that Apple records mastered these LPs from the 16-bit/44.1 KHz
>
> > ADC conversions of the original analog master tapes, rather than going
>
> > back to the original masters themselves. The excuse given by an Apple
>
> > Records spokesperson for why they took this route rather than doing a
>
> > proper re-mastering from the edited analog session masters was that
>
> > Apple didn't want to risk damage to the originals. This journalist
>
> > wondered why keep master tapes at all if not to use them for re-issues.
>
> > While I agree with him that LP reissues should be made from the original
>
> > analog source material, It is his following conclusion that I find
>
> > rather clueless. This journalist went on to say that an analog master
>
> > has an infinite amount of information on it (!) and as digital gets
>
> > better, one can always go back and "mine" those masters for more and
>
> > more detail. He went on to say that the moment one digitizes an analog
>
> > source, something is lost that can never be retrieved from that
>
> > digitized result. To me this shows a basic lack of understanding on this
>
> > journalist's part about the basic nature of both an analog recording and
>
> > a digital copy of same.
>
> >
>
> > The first thing that this writer gets wrong is the notion that an analog
>
> > master tape has an infinite amount of information on it. Anyone who has
>
> > any technical experience with professional audio recording will tell you
>
> > that pro analog tape recorders, whether two track stereo or 48 track
>
> > machines running two-inch wide tape at 15 ups, they are (were?)
>
> > generally only maintained to 15KHz. Head alignment, EQ, bias, etc. was
>
> > all set so that a clean 15 KHz can be laid-down and retrieved reliably.
>
> > Frequencies above that are simply not practical and things like over
>
> > biasing to maintain low distortion and self erasure due to the signal's
>
> > own high-frequency content pretty much limited the top end response on
>
> > even the finest studio recorders. Add to that the frequency response
>
> > characteristics of most microphones used by studios (especially when the
>
> > Beatles were recording) and you will find that most of them had a rather
>
> > large frequency response peak at roughly 16 KHz (caused by the resonance
>
> > of the microphone's diaphragm) above which, the output of said capsules
>
> > dropped off like a falling stone. Add to that the fact that even with
>
> > the addition of Dolby A noise reduction, somewhere in the region of
>
> > about 76 dB ( half track/15 ips) is about the limit on dynamic range,
>
> > then one can start to see that the notion that an analog master tape has
>
> > "infinite information" on it is simply ludicrous. 16-bit/
>
> > 44.1 KHz digital is better in every way: Lower distortion, wider,
>
> > flatter frequency response, more dynamic range, etc. From his wording,
>
> > one gathers that this audio journalist still believes that because
>
> > digital quantization "samples" an analog signal, that music "between the
>
> > samples" is forever and irrecoverably lost.
>
> >
>
> > Now, I don't give a hoot or a holler in Hell about the Beatles on LP or
>
> > any other media, but I do agree with this article's author that if
>
> > someone is plunking down a big hunk of change for a big boxed set of
>
> > LPs, that he ought to be getting a pure analog experience (after all, if
>
> > the LPs are just copies of Red Book digital masters, then one might as
>
> > well just buy the CDs), but his notion that the analog masters simply
>
> > have more information on them than a digital copy of those masters is
>
> > simply and unabashedly misleading and wrong.
>
> >
>
> > Comments? Other points of view?
>
> >
>
> > Audio_Empire
>
>
>
> I don't know if you are wrong but there are at least other claims.
>
> http://www.channld.com/vinylanalysis1.html

If you re-read carefully what I said about analog tape in studios back in the
day was that the machines were only MAINTAINED out to 15 KHz. That maintenance
did not in any way shape or form limit them to a brick-wall 15KHz upper frequency
limit. When I was working at Coast Recorders in SF the machines were maintained
to be flat to 15KHz round trip. That meant if you laid-down a 15 KHz tone at -20dB
(based on "0" Vu = 400nW of fluxivity) through the record head, and picked it up on
the playback head, it would read the same -20dB when the VU meters were switched
from source to tape. This was done at 15KHz because it's very difficult to align a
regular 2-track set of tape heads with a 20 KHz signal much less an 8, 16, or greater
number of tracks. it really can't be done, and even if it could be done the results aren't
worth the time. One simply can't get it perfect because both head blocks (record and
playback) have all of the individual "heads" stacked in one head block! Each head would
ideally be exactly parallel to the one below it and the one above it but due to
manufacturing variations, they are not, and since one cannot adjust each
head separately in such a way that adjusting one would not affect the others in the stack,
a compromise was needed. 15 KHz is far less demanding and will yield far more stable
results than will 20 KHz.
>
>
> I don't know what to believe and what not concerning what ( frequencies )
>
> where recorded those days but when the CD arrived, my LP's sounded MUCH
>
> better then the CD's.

That has little to do with frequency response per-se. Many early CDs sounded
terrible. It was partially the CD itself and partially the early players. SOME LPs
still sound better today than the CD of the same material. Pop music is so
heavily compressed in dynamic range these days (the result of the so-called
"Loudness Wars") that many of them are unlistenable to anyone who cares
about sound (I'm talking pop titles here).
>
>
>
> As for the journalist, although it is philosophic more then anything
>
> he is right about the "infinite" ( not really ) amount of information on
>
> the analog recording and he is completely right that any information lost
>
> by the AD conversion is lost forever.

Except that less is lost in an analog to digital copy/conversion than is lost in an
analog to analog copy.

> And he is right again about the utter stupidity from Apple records to
> keep the original recordings in a vault and NOT using them.
> Great thinking of those bunch or idiots!

Well there are reasons for not wanting to play one's precious masters.
They are, after all, often irreplaceable and an analog copy is a
generation worse than the master itself. Some recording companies
routinely ran two tape decks in parallel when recording their session
tapes. The "backup" was never played, but went directly into the vaults.
Not everyone did that, though making the masters priceless.

> The obvious way to preserve the best possible quality is digitizing the
> original masters at the highest possible sample rate, after that they can
> always trow away quality as they like.
> But maybe Apple records is not as stupid as it seems to be, maybe they
> like to trow away quality right from the start! After all if there is no
> decent recording to be found, they can claim that there crappy apple
> players sounds " as good " as decent audio equipment.

Uh, don't look now, but Apple Records is British company founded by the
Beatles in the late '60's and is owned by EMI - Electrical and Musical
Industries Ltd. who also own such labels as Parlaphone, His Master's Voice
(HMV), British Columbia, Odeon, Capitol Records, etc., and has nothing
whatsoever to do with Apple Computer Inc., an American company founded
in the 1970's by Steve Jobs, Steve Wozniak ands others.

> Edmund

[Audio_Empire[_2_]]

On Monday, February 11, 2013 8:37:08 AM UTC-8, Scott wrote:
> On Feb 11, 6:39=A0am, Edmund > wrote:
>=20
> > On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 04:11:25 +0000, Audio_Empire wrote:
>=20
> > > I was reading the monthly column in a well-known audio magazine by an
>=20
> > > equally well known audio journalist today and realized that this
>=20
> > > journalist simply hasn't a clue about digital sound and how it works.=
He
>=20
> > > was discussing a new box-set of stereo LPs of all of the Beatles albu=
ms.
>=20
> > > It seems that Apple records mastered these LPs from the 16-bit/44.1 K=
Hz
>=20
> > > ADC conversions of the original analog master tapes, rather than goin=
g
>=20
> > > back to the original masters themselves. The excuse given by an Apple
>=20
> > > Records spokesperson for why they took this route rather than doing a
>=20
> > > proper re-mastering from the edited analog session masters was that
>=20
> > > Apple didn't want to risk damage to the originals. This journalist
>=20
> > > wondered why keep master tapes at all if not to use them for re-issue=
s.
>=20
> > > While I agree with him that LP reissues should be made from the origi=
nal
>=20
> > > analog source material, It is his following conclusion that I find
>=20
> > > rather clueless. This journalist went on to say that an analog master
>=20
> > > has an infinite amount of information on it (!) and as digital gets
>=20
> > > better, one can always go back and "mine" those masters for more and
>=20
> > > more detail. He went on to say that the moment one digitizes an analo=
g
>=20
> > > source, something is lost that can never be retrieved from that
>=20
> > > digitized result. To me this shows a basic lack of understanding on t=
his
>=20
> > > journalist's part about the basic nature of both an analog recording =
and
>=20
> > > a digital copy of same.
>=20
> >
>=20
> > > The first thing that this writer gets wrong is the notion that an ana=
log
>=20
> > > master tape has an infinite amount of information on it. Anyone who h=
as
>=20
> > > any technical experience with professional audio recording will tell =
you
>=20
> > > that pro analog tape recorders, whether two track stereo or 48 track
>=20
> > > machines running two-inch wide tape at 15 ups, they are (were?)
>=20
> > > generally only maintained to 15KHz. Head alignment, EQ, bias, etc. wa=
s
>=20
> > > all set so that a clean 15 KHz can be laid-down and retrieved reliabl=
y.
>=20
> > > Frequencies above that are simply not practical and things like over
>=20
> > > biasing to maintain low distortion and self erasure due to the signal=
's
>=20
> > > own high-frequency content pretty much limited the top end response o=
n
>=20
> > > even the finest studio recorders. Add to that the frequency response
>=20
> > > characteristics of most microphones used by studios (especially when =
the
>=20
> > > Beatles were recording) and you will find that most of them had a rat=
her
>=20
> > > large frequency response peak at roughly 16 KHz (caused by the resona=
nce
>=20
> > > of the =A0microphone's diaphragm) above which, the output of said cap=
sules
>=20
> > > dropped off like a falling stone. Add to that the fact that even with
>=20
> > > the addition of Dolby A noise reduction, somewhere in the region of
>=20
> > > about 76 dB ( half track/15 ips) is about the limit on dynamic range,
>=20
> > > then one can start to see that the notion that an analog master tape =
has
>=20
> > > "infinite information" on it is simply ludicrous. 16-bit/
>=20
> > > 44.1 KHz digital is better in every way: Lower distortion, wider,
>=20
> > > flatter frequency response, more dynamic range, etc. From his wording=
,
>=20
> > > one gathers that this audio journalist still believes that because
>=20
> > > digital quantization "samples" an analog signal, that music "between =
the
>=20
> > > samples" is forever and irrecoverably lost.
>=20
> >
>=20
> > > Now, I don't give a hoot or a holler in Hell about the Beatles on LP =
or
>=20
> > > any other media, but I do agree with this article's author that if
>=20
> > > someone is plunking down a big hunk of change for a big boxed set of
>=20
> > > LPs, that he ought to be getting a pure analog experience (after all,=
if
>=20
> > > the LPs are just copies of Red Book digital masters, then one might a=
s
>=20
> > > well just buy the CDs), but his notion that the analog masters simply
>=20
> > > have more information on them than a digital copy of those masters is
>=20
> > > simply and unabashedly misleading and wrong.
>=20
> >
>=20
> > > Comments? Other points of view?
>=20
> >
>=20
> > > Audio_Empire
>=20
> >
>=20
> > I don't know if you are wrong but there are at least other claims.http:=
//www.channld.com/vinylanalysis1.html
>=20
> >
>=20
> > I don't know what to believe and what not concerning what ( frequencies=
)
>=20
> > where recorded those days but when the CD arrived, my LP's sounded MUCH
>=20
> > better then the CD's.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> As they should. The CD box set suffers from a substantial amount of
>=20
> compression. The LP box set does not.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> >
>=20
> > As for the journalist, although it is philosophic more then anything
>=20
> > he is right about the "infinite" ( not really ) amount of information o=
n
>=20
> > the analog recording and he is completely right that any information lo=
st
>=20
> > by the AD conversion is lost forever.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> The information on analog tape is finite. That is a basic physical
>=20
> fact. Think about it. Just consider this for a moment. If the tape
>=20
> were twice as long would it have infinity x 2 amount of information?
>=20
> It's finite. OTOH he is right that whatever information that is lost
>=20
> in any digital conversion remains lost anywhere down the line from the
>=20
> digital copy. It's kind of a tautology but it is true.

Yes, in a tautological way, it is "true".


=20
> > And he is right again about the utter stupidity from Apple records to
>=20
> > keep the original recordings is a vault and NOT using them.
>=20
> > Great thinking of those bunch or idiots!
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> this is not such a simple issue. After the original transfer from tape
>=20
> to 24/192 the mastering engineers did a lot of work on the material. I
>=20
> mean a lot. That was finished in 24/44.1 and *that* master was what
>=20
> was submitted to the various estates and parties with the right of
>=20
> approval. This was quite a process. It took over a year to get all the
>=20
> approvals needed to release the CD box set. So when they did the vinyl
>=20
> they had a choice between using that master which had already been
>=20
> approved by all interested parties or going back to the analog tapes,
>=20
> cutting all of the albums from scratch, trying to get the same results
>=20
> they got in the digital domain on the first go around and then going
>=20
> through the approval process again. This was simply too impractical
>=20
> for this particular project. So the thinking behind the choice makes
>=20
> sense even if it isn't what some of us would want.

Well, of course. Record manufacturing is a business. The perfectionist mark=
et
for any sound sources is a tiny one. To give it more than mere lip service =
would
be a misallocation of resources. I certainly understand the market forces a=
t work
here, but OTOH, vinyl sales are a minuscule portion of that tiny market, bu=
t to
advocate that there are any vinyl lovers in this day and age that aren't a =
part of
that minuscule audiophile market would be ludicrous. Who, for instance, oth=
er
than an audiophile is going to shell out $350 for a set of records that are=
available
as CDs for for almost 1/3 the price?=20
=20
That brings me back to my original point. Anyone who would go the the expen=
se=20
of buying a huge box set of LPs and then go to the trouble to maintain them=
,=20
obviously wants analog. They should get it. It doesn't matter that a digita=
l=20
conversion of the original analog studio masters might benefit from modern
technology, and might actually sound better than the original master tapes=
=20
(especially after more than 40 years), but that's not really the point. Rec=
ord=20
buyers generally buy vinyl because they like the sound of analog and they=
=20
should have it. I wouldn't buy such a set even if I did have any regard the=
=20
Beatles and their music (which I don't) and would go for the CD set. I have=
more
than 2000 LPs and I still listen to them and get a great amount of pleasure
from them. But that is the sum total of my involvement in vinyl these days.
I haven't bought an LP in probably 10 years. The last LP I bought was the=
=20
Classic Records remastering on 200 gram vinyl, single-sided, 45 RPM
of Stravinky's "The Firebird" with Antal Dorati and the London Philharmonic=
=20
on Mercury. It is still the best sounding commercially released
recording I've ever heard and sonically, easily tromps the Mercury CD=20
of the same performance.=20

[Dick Pierce[_2_]]

Edmund wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 04:11:25 +0000, Audio_Empire wrote:
>> This journalist went on to say that an analog master
>>has an infinite amount of information on it (!)
>
> As for the journalist, although it is philosophic more then anything
> he is right about the "infinite" ( not really ) amount of information on
> the analog recording

No, the journalist is absolutely 100% dead wrong in the assertion
that an analog recording contains infinite information. And, to
one other respondant to this thread, it does not contain
"virtually infinite" information.

Simply put, a system which exists for finite time and containing
finite energy CANNOT hold infinite information. Infinite information
rquires two very important properties: it's bandwidth MUST be
infinite, and its dynamic range must be infinite. No such system
exists anywhere in this universe, and to claim that an LP or analog
tape meets these fundamental requirements is absurd, even from some
vague "philosophic" standpoint.

Stepping back from thsi absurdity and examining the assertion a bit
more, it stems from the seemingly intuitive notion that a system
with continuous-time and continuous-amplitude ("analog") representation
must therefore be able to represent an infinite mumber of different,
unqiue and USEFULLY unique states. This is not the case theorectically
much less so in physical practicality.

Let's examine one "intuitive" notion: since an analog wavefore is NOT
discrete time sampled, then it can, in the time between what a CD can
do in its sample "snapshots" do anything, indeed, the path can take
on any of an infinite set of possible paths.

That notion is false for several reasons: first, thwe number of paths
available is struictly limited by the bandwidth of the system. the
available paths between any two times is simply a parallel definition of
bandwidth. Let's take a somewhat extreme example: in the 22 microseconds
between the samples of a CD, a pure analog signal from a system with a
20 kHz bandwidth cannot wiggle back and forth 5 times: such a signal
require sthe system to have a bandwidth 5 times higher than that, or
100 kHz. EVERY system MUST loose information because of this
limited bandwidth.

Secondly, while at any given instant, a continuous amplitude
representation CAN, in nphyical reality, take on "any" value
up to its limit, EVERY system has a non-zero amount of noise, and
that noise, at any given instant, adds an inevitable ambiguity and
uncertainty: EVERY system MUST loose information because of the
ambiguous and uncertain nature of noise. That noise destroys
information: it replaces a definite, exact value with an uncertain
one.

Nyquist and Shannon rigorously showed, over a half century ago,
that the amount of unqiquely useful information in a system is,
in essence, proportional to the product of the system's bandwidth
and the system's dynamic range.

If this author can, with equal rigor, proce Shannon's and Nyquist's
result are incorrect, then that author should come forth with that
proof.

While it might seem like the notion of analog having "infinite
resolution" is intuitively correct, it's yet another example of
intuition being at complete odds with physical reality.

As to "comment," I have but one: it comes as no suprise to
this respondent that after more than 30 years attempting to
debunk this kind of nonsense, that there remain people who
are either unaware or simply obstinently stupid about the
underlying physical principles of the subject about which
they choose to hold forth. WE can thanks the likes of Absolute
Sund, Positive Feedback and, to a lesser extent, Stereophile
and other, for allowing this sort of b*llsh*t science to
survive and thrive. It's not that they have dumbed down the
science, the have replaced it wholesale with complete
gobbledygook.

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

[Edmund[_2_]]

On Mon, 11 Feb 2013 16:37:08 +0000, Scott wrote:

> On Feb 11, 6:39*am, Edmund > wrote:
>> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 04:11:25 +0000, Audio_Empire wrote:
>> > I was reading the monthly column in a well-known audio magazine by an
>> > equally well known audio journalist today and realized that this
>> > journalist simply hasn't a clue about digital sound and how it works.
>> > He was discussing a new box-set of stereo LPs of all of the Beatles
>> > albums. It seems that Apple records mastered these LPs from the
>> > 16-bit/44.1 KHz ADC conversions of the original analog master tapes,
>> > rather than going back to the original masters themselves. The excuse
>> > given by an Apple Records spokesperson for why they took this route
>> > rather than doing a proper re-mastering from the edited analog
>> > session masters was that Apple didn't want to risk damage to the
>> > originals. This journalist wondered why keep master tapes at all if
>> > not to use them for re-issues. While I agree with him that LP
>> > reissues should be made from the original analog source material, It
>> > is his following conclusion that I find rather clueless. This
>> > journalist went on to say that an analog master has an infinite
>> > amount of information on it (!) and as digital gets better, one can
>> > always go back and "mine" those masters for more and more detail. He
>> > went on to say that the moment one digitizes an analog source,
>> > something is lost that can never be retrieved from that digitized
>> > result. To me this shows a basic lack of understanding on this
>> > journalist's part about the basic nature of both an analog recording
>> > and a digital copy of same.
>>
>> > The first thing that this writer gets wrong is the notion that an
>> > analog master tape has an infinite amount of information on it.
>> > Anyone who has any technical experience with professional audio
>> > recording will tell you that pro analog tape recorders, whether two
>> > track stereo or 48 track machines running two-inch wide tape at 15
>> > ups, they are (were?) generally only maintained to 15KHz. Head
>> > alignment, EQ, bias, etc. was all set so that a clean 15 KHz can be
>> > laid-down and retrieved reliably. Frequencies above that are simply
>> > not practical and things like over biasing to maintain low distortion
>> > and self erasure due to the signal's own high-frequency content
>> > pretty much limited the top end response on even the finest studio
>> > recorders. Add to that the frequency response characteristics of most
>> > microphones used by studios (especially when the Beatles were
>> > recording) and you will find that most of them had a rather large
>> > frequency response peak at roughly 16 KHz (caused by the resonance of
>> > the *microphone's diaphragm) above which, the output of said capsules
>> > dropped off like a falling stone. Add to that the fact that even with
>> > the addition of Dolby A noise reduction, somewhere in the region of
>> > about 76 dB ( half track/15 ips) is about the limit on dynamic range,
>> > then one can start to see that the notion that an analog master tape
>> > has "infinite information" on it is simply ludicrous. 16-bit/
>> > 44.1 KHz digital is better in every way: Lower distortion, wider,
>> > flatter frequency response, more dynamic range, etc. From his
>> > wording, one gathers that this audio journalist still believes that
>> > because digital quantization "samples" an analog signal, that music
>> > "between the samples" is forever and irrecoverably lost.
>>
>> > Now, I don't give a hoot or a holler in Hell about the Beatles on LP
>> > or any other media, but I do agree with this article's author that if
>> > someone is plunking down a big hunk of change for a big boxed set of
>> > LPs, that he ought to be getting a pure analog experience (after all,
>> > if the LPs are just copies of Red Book digital masters, then one
>> > might as well just buy the CDs), but his notion that the analog
>> > masters simply have more information on them than a digital copy of
>> > those masters is simply and unabashedly misleading and wrong.
>>
>> > Comments? Other points of view?
>>
>> > Audio_Empire
>>
>> I don't know if you are wrong but there are at least other
>> claims.http://www.channld.com/vinylanalysis1.html
>>
>> I don't know what to believe and what not concerning what ( frequencies
>> )
>> where recorded those days but when the CD arrived, my LP's sounded MUCH
>> better then the CD's.
>
> As they should. The CD box set suffers from a substantial amount of
> compression. The LP box set does not.
>
>
>> As for the journalist, although it is philosophic more then anything he
>> is right about the "infinite" ( not really ) amount of information on
>> the analog recording and he is completely right that any information
>> lost by the AD conversion is lost forever.
>
> The information on analog tape is finite. That is a basic physical fact.

Of course it is IRL.

> Think about it. Just consider this for a moment. If the tape were twice
> as long would it have infinity x 2 amount of information? It's finite.
> OTOH he is right that whatever information that is lost in any digital
> conversion remains lost anywhere down the line from the digital copy.
> It's kind of a tautology but it is true.
>
>
>> And he is right again about the utter stupidity from Apple records to
>> keep the original recordings is a vault and NOT using them.
>> Great thinking of those bunch or idiots!
>
>
> this is not such a simple issue. After the original transfer from tape
> to 24/192 the mastering engineers did a lot of work on the material. I
> mean a lot. That was finished in 24/44.1 and *that* master was what was
> submitted to the various estates and parties with the right of approval.
> This was quite a process. It took over a year to get all the approvals
> needed to release the CD box set. So when they did the vinyl they had a
> choice between using that master which had already been approved by all
> interested parties or going back to the analog tapes, cutting all of the
> albums from scratch, trying to get the same results they got in the
> digital domain on the first go around and then going through the
> approval process again. This was simply too impractical for this
> particular project. So the thinking behind the choice makes sense even
> if it isn't what some of us would want.
>
>> The obvious way to preserve the best possible quality is digitizing the
>> original masters at the highest possible sample rate, after that they
>> can always trow away quality as they like.
>
> That was done. The flat transfers on 192/24 still exist.

What I understand from Audio_Empire is that an LP is made from
16bit /44.1KHz masters.
Which is pretty much useless, unless someone wants to combine the worst
of two worlds.

>
>> But maybe Apple records is not as stupid as it seems to be, maybe they
>> like to trow away quality right from the start! After all if there is
>> no decent recording to be found, they can claim that there crappy apple
>> players sounds " as good " as decent audio equipment.
>
>
> I think you are comparing Apples to Apples. Two different Apples.

OK my bad but I don't understand why anyone would make a record from a
redbook digital master.

Edmund

[Audio_Empire[_2_]]

On Monday, February 11, 2013 2:44:07 PM UTC-8, Dick Pierce wrote:
> Edmund wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 04:11:25 +0000, Audio_Empire wrote:
>
> >> This journalist went on to say that an analog master
>
> >>has an infinite amount of information on it (!)
>
> >
>
> > As for the journalist, although it is philosophic more then anything
>
> > he is right about the "infinite" ( not really ) amount of information on
>
> > the analog recording
>
>
>
> No, the journalist is absolutely 100% dead wrong in the assertion
>
> that an analog recording contains infinite information. And, to
>
> one other respondant to this thread, it does not contain
>
> "virtually infinite" information.
>
>
>
> Simply put, a system which exists for finite time and containing
>
> finite energy CANNOT hold infinite information. Infinite information
>
> rquires two very important properties: it's bandwidth MUST be
>
> infinite, and its dynamic range must be infinite. No such system
>
> exists anywhere in this universe, and to claim that an LP or analog
>
> tape meets these fundamental requirements is absurd, even from some
>
> vague "philosophic" standpoint.
>
>
>
> Stepping back from thsi absurdity and examining the assertion a bit
>
> more, it stems from the seemingly intuitive notion that a system
>
> with continuous-time and continuous-amplitude ("analog") representation
>
> must therefore be able to represent an infinite mumber of different,
>
> unqiue and USEFULLY unique states. This is not the case theorectically
>
> much less so in physical practicality.

I got the impression that this journalist still harbors the notion (that first
raised its ugly head in the mid-eighties when CD was introduced) that digital
quantization somehow throws away information that occurs "between samples".
It was nonsense then, it's nonsense now. I can see how someone unfamiliar
with sampling theory might think that, but an oft-published audio journalist
should at least KNOW better even if he doesn't completely understand it. It has
certainly been explained often enough in the ensuing years.

> Let's examine one "intuitive" notion: since an analog wavefore is NOT
>
> discrete time sampled, then it can, in the time between what a CD can
>
> do in its sample "snapshots" do anything, indeed, the path can take
>
> on any of an infinite set of possible paths.

That seems to be a widely held misconception.


>That notion is false for several reasons: first, the number of paths
>
> available is struictly limited by the bandwidth of the system. the
>
> available paths between any two times is simply a parallel definition of
>
> bandwidth. Let's take a somewhat extreme example: in the 22 microseconds
>
> between the samples of a CD, a pure analog signal from a system with a
>
> 20 kHz bandwidth cannot wiggle back and forth 5 times: such a signal
>
> require sthe system to have a bandwidth 5 times higher than that, or
>
> 100 kHz. EVERY system MUST loose information because of this
>
> limited bandwidth.

Nicely put!


> Secondly, while at any given instant, a continuous amplitude
>
> representation CAN, in nphyical reality, take on "any" value
>
> up to its limit, EVERY system has a non-zero amount of noise, and
>
> that noise, at any given instant, adds an inevitable ambiguity and
>
> uncertainty: EVERY system MUST loose information because of the
>
> ambiguous and uncertain nature of noise. That noise destroys
>
> information: it replaces a definite, exact value with an uncertain
>
> one.
>
>
>
> Nyquist and Shannon rigorously showed, over a half century ago,
>
> that the amount of unqiquely useful information in a system is,
>
> in essence, proportional to the product of the system's bandwidth
>
> and the system's dynamic range.

> If this author can, with equal rigor, proce Shannon's and Nyquist's
>
> result are incorrect, then that author should come forth with that
>
> proof.


> While it might seem like the notion of analog having "infinite
>
> resolution" is intuitively correct, it's yet another example of
>
> intuition being at complete odds with physical reality.


> As to "comment," I have but one: it comes as no suprise to
>
> this respondent that after more than 30 years attempting to
>
> debunk this kind of nonsense, that there remain people who
>
> are either unaware or simply obstinently stupid about the
>
> underlying physical principles of the subject about which
>
> they choose to hold forth. WE can thanks the likes of Absolute
>
> Sund, Positive Feedback and, to a lesser extent, Stereophile
>
> and other, for allowing this sort of b*llsh*t science to
>
> survive and thrive. It's not that they have dumbed down the
>
> science, the have replaced it wholesale with complete
>
> gobbledygook.

And often, it's "gobbledygook" with purpose!

[Audio_Empire[_2_]]

On Monday, February 11, 2013 5:25:12 PM UTC-8, Edmund wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Feb 2013 16:37:08 +0000, Scott wrote:
<snip>
> >> The obvious way to preserve the best possible quality is digitizing the
>
> >> original masters at the highest possible sample rate, after that they
>
> >> can always trow away quality as they like.
>
> >
>
> > That was done. The flat transfers on 192/24 still exist.
>
>
>
> What I understand from Audio_Empire is that an LP is made from
>
> 16bit /44.1KHz masters.


Someone who knows more about this particular set of re-issues (and for that
matter Beatles reissues in general) than I do has noted that the analog studio
masters were digitized at 24-bit, 192 KHz, but that those digital masters
weren't directly used to cut the LPs, a 16-bit, 44.1 KHz copy of the 24/192
digitization was used to cut the LPs and that is what the journalist to whom
I was referring said. Even though I doubt seriously that it would make any
audible difference to the LP sound once disc cutting moves were applied, still
the details about the transfer was hardly my original point. I had two:
1) If a record company is going to go to the trouble to press fresh, new
reissues of old analog material onto vinyl, it should be from the original
analog source, not from some digital copies of same. Using CD quality
masters might not be a compromise sonically, but to do so IS more than
slightly dishonest (in my estimation).
2) The journalist in question seem to not have a clue about either digital
quantization of analog material or the real properties of analog tape.

> Which is pretty much useless, unless someone wants to combine the worst
> of two worlds.

I don't know about useless. I'm sure that there must be buyers for that LP set who won't
know or won't care what the source material for the LPs was. But as I stated earlier,
I cannot imagine that in 2013 there is any LP market except vinylphiles and believe
me THEY CARE.


> >> But maybe Apple records is not as stupid as it seems to be, maybe they
>
> >> like to trow away quality right from the start! After all if there is
>
> >> no decent recording to be found, they can claim that there crappy apple
>
> >> players sounds " as good " as decent audio equipment.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > I think you are comparing Apples to Apples. Two different Apples.
>
>
>
> OK my bad but I don't understand why anyone would make a record from a
> redbook digital master.

Neither would most people. Given the size and type of market that exists for
new vinyl, it would seem like a slap in the face to those who would be in the
market for any vinyl re-issues. Might as well save the extra dough and by a
set of CDs. They are much cheaper than this LP set.

[KH]

On 2/10/2013 9:02 PM, Audio_Empire wrote:
> On Sunday, February 10, 2013 3:26:17 PM UTC-8, KH wrote:
>> On 2/10/2013 12:38 PM, wrote:
>>> On Saturday, February 9, 2013 11:11:25 PM UTC-5, Audio_Empire wrote:
>>>> I was reading the monthly column in a well-known audio magazine by an equally well known audio
>>>> journalist today and realized that this journalist simply hasn't a clue about digital sound and how it
>>>> works.
>>>
>>> I'm guessin' Fremer. Call it a hunch.
>>>
>>>> He was discussing a new box-set of stereo LPs of all of the Beatles albums. It seems that Apple
>>>> records mastered these LPs from the 16-bit/44.1 KHz ADC conversions of the original analog master
>>>> tapes, rather than going back to the original masters themselves. The excuse given by an Apple
>>>> Records spokesperson for why they took this route rather than doing a proper re-mastering from the
>>>> edited analog session masters was that Apple didn't want to risk damage to the originals.
>>>
>>> Probably a wise business decision. The 16/44.1 conversions should
>>> be indistinguishable from the analog masters, so why risk the
>>> masters? A few ignorant purists will complain, but most buyers
>>> will either understand that this is a good move, or else won't
>>> care. Mostly the latter.
>>>
>>>> This journalist went on to say that an analog master has an infinite amount of information on it (!)
>>>> and as digital gets better, one can always go back and "mine" those masters for more and more
>>>> detail. He went on to say that the moment one digitizes an analog source, something is lost that can
>>>> never be retrieved from that digitized result.
>>>
>>> Definitely Fremer. Instead of measuring jitter to the picosecond,
>>> S-pile could actually perform the far more useful service of
>>> testing and reporting on turntables and cartridges, which are
>>> certainly popular with its readership—and do actually sound
>>> different! Instead, they outsource the entire analog realm to a
>>> moron. (And he's as much a moron about analog as digital. He
>>> sounds like he knows what he's talking about, but he just parrots
>>> what the turntable makers tell him.)
>>>
>>> bob
>>>
>> Nope, Dudley. And while I agree that the article is a joke, at least
>> Dudley admits the whole thing may be his imagination, or that it may be
>> he just enjoys the distortion. And he's OK with that. Now, after
>> admitting those caveats, one has to question why anyone should listen to
>> him? Technically wrong, and may be imagining things or enjoying
>> distortion. What's not to like?
>>
>> Keith
>
> I generally enjoy Dudley's column - especially when he writes about
> vintage Hi-Fi. He has, in the last couple of years, written
> extensively about several ancient turntables that he has rescued
> from the dust bin, a Thorens TD-124, a Garrard 301/401, and most
> recently a Rek-O-Kut Rondine Jr. I was especially interested in the
> latter because I too "rebuilt" a Rondine when I was a teen. I did it
> quite differently, however. While Dudley actually restored his
> Rondine jr., I repurposed mine. I had a capstan motor out of an old,
> junked Presto monaural professional tape recorder that I salvaged
> from a local FM radio station. I sat down and did the math to figure
> out what the capstan motor's shaft diameter needed to be to properly
> drive a 12" platter through a belt. I made a drawing of the finished
> shaft complete with all dimensions, and took it to a machine shop. I
> even thought to have the shaft machined as an ellipse with the
> correct shaft diameter at the apex of the ellipse. All ! I kept from
> my Rondine was the bearing well and the platter. I ordered a
> replacement belt for an Empire 208 belt drive turntable (which used
> the belt around the 12'' platter and not around a smaller
> sub-platter as with most later designs). and made a new chassis
> plate out of a sheet of heavy gauge stainless steel, and mounted the
> motor on new grommets. It worked perfectly. The Presto capstan motor
> had so much torque that it could have powered a golf cart! The
> result was that the table got up to playing speed in less than
> one-revolution!


I would agree - his TT refit columns have been interesting. Actually
"hobby-based" articles, which are quite rare. This article, OTOH wasn't
his finest work...

Keith

[Scott[_6_]]

On Feb 11, 5:25*pm, Edmund > wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Feb 2013 16:37:08 +0000, Scott wrote:
> > On Feb 11, 6:39*am, Edmund > wrote:
> >> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 04:11:25 +0000, Audio_Empire wrote:
> >> > I was reading the monthly column in a well-known audio magazine by an
> >> > equally well known audio journalist today and realized that this
> >> > journalist simply hasn't a clue about digital sound and how it works.
> >> > He was discussing a new box-set of stereo LPs of all of the Beatles
> >> > albums. It seems that Apple records mastered these LPs from the
> >> > 16-bit/44.1 KHz ADC conversions of the original analog master tapes,
> >> > rather than going back to the original masters themselves. The excuse
> >> > given by an Apple Records spokesperson for why they took this route
> >> > rather than doing a proper re-mastering from the edited analog
> >> > session masters was that Apple didn't want to risk damage to the
> >> > originals. This journalist wondered why keep master tapes at all if
> >> > not to use them for re-issues. While I agree with him that LP
> >> > reissues should be made from the original analog source material, It
> >> > is his following conclusion that I find rather clueless. This
> >> > journalist went on to say that an analog master has an infinite
> >> > amount of information on it (!) and as digital gets better, one can
> >> > always go back and "mine" those masters for more and more detail. He
> >> > went on to say that the moment one digitizes an analog source,
> >> > something is lost that can never be retrieved from that digitized
> >> > result. To me this shows a basic lack of understanding on this
> >> > journalist's part about the basic nature of both an analog recording
> >> > and a digital copy of same.
>
> >> > The first thing that this writer gets wrong is the notion that an
> >> > analog master tape has an infinite amount of information on it.
> >> > Anyone who has any technical experience with professional audio
> >> > recording will tell you that pro analog tape recorders, whether two
> >> > track stereo or 48 track machines running two-inch wide tape at 15
> >> > ups, they are (were?) generally only maintained to 15KHz. Head
> >> > alignment, EQ, bias, etc. was all set so that a clean 15 KHz can be
> >> > laid-down and retrieved reliably. Frequencies above that are simply
> >> > not practical and things like over biasing to maintain low distortion
> >> > and self erasure due to the signal's own high-frequency content
> >> > pretty much limited the top end response on even the finest studio
> >> > recorders. Add to that the frequency response characteristics of most
> >> > microphones used by studios (especially when the Beatles were
> >> > recording) and you will find that most of them had a rather large
> >> > frequency response peak at roughly 16 KHz (caused by the resonance of
> >> > the *microphone's diaphragm) above which, the output of said capsules
> >> > dropped off like a falling stone. Add to that the fact that even with
> >> > the addition of Dolby A noise reduction, somewhere in the region of
> >> > about 76 dB ( half track/15 ips) is about the limit on dynamic range,
> >> > then one can start to see that the notion that an analog master tape
> >> > has "infinite information" on it is simply ludicrous. 16-bit/
> >> > 44.1 KHz digital is better in every way: Lower distortion, wider,
> >> > flatter frequency response, more dynamic range, etc. From his
> >> > wording, one gathers that this audio journalist still believes that
> >> > because digital quantization "samples" an analog signal, that music
> >> > "between the samples" is forever and irrecoverably lost.
>
> >> > Now, I don't give a hoot or a holler in Hell about the Beatles on LP
> >> > or any other media, but I do agree with this article's author that if
> >> > someone is plunking down a big hunk of change for a big boxed set of
> >> > LPs, that he ought to be getting a pure analog experience (after all,
> >> > if the LPs are just copies of Red Book digital masters, then one
> >> > might as well just buy the CDs), but his notion that the analog
> >> > masters simply have more information on them than a digital copy of
> >> > those masters is simply and unabashedly misleading and wrong.
>
> >> > Comments? Other points of view?
>
> >> > Audio_Empire
>
> >> I don't know if you are wrong but there are at least other
> >> claims.http://www.channld.com/vinylanalysis1.html
>
> >> I don't know what to believe and what not concerning what ( frequencies)
> >> where recorded those days but when the CD arrived, my LP's sounded MUCH
> >> better then the CD's.
>
> > As they should. The CD box set suffers from a substantial amount of
> > compression. The LP box set does not.
>
> >> As for the journalist, although it is philosophic more then anything he
> >> is right about the "infinite" ( not really ) amount of information on
> >> the analog recording and he is completely right that any information
> >> lost by the AD conversion is lost forever.
>
> > The information on analog tape is finite. That is a basic physical fact.
>
> Of course it is IRL.
>
> > Think about it. Just consider this for a moment. If the tape were twice
> > as long would it have infinity x 2 amount of information? It's finite.
> > OTOH he is right that whatever information that is lost in any digital
> > conversion remains lost anywhere down the line from the digital copy.
> > It's kind of a tautology but it is true.
>
> >> And he is right again about the utter stupidity from Apple records to
> >> keep the original recordings is a vault and NOT using them.
> >> Great thinking of those bunch or idiots!
>
> > this is not such a simple issue. After the original transfer from tape
> > to 24/192 the mastering engineers did a lot of work on the material. I
> > mean a lot. That was finished in 24/44.1 and *that* master was what was
> > submitted to the various estates and parties with the right of approval.
> > This was quite a process. It took over a year to get all the approvals
> > needed to release the CD box set. So when they did the vinyl they had a
> > choice between using that master which had already been approved by all
> > interested parties or going back to the analog tapes, cutting all of the
> > albums from scratch, trying to get the same results they got in the
> > digital domain on the first go around and then going through the
> > approval process again. This was simply too impractical for this
> > particular project. So the thinking behind the choice makes sense even
> > if it isn't what some of us would want.
>
> >> The obvious way to preserve the best possible quality is digitizing the
> >> original masters at the highest possible sample rate, after that they
> >> can always trow away quality as they like.
>
> > That was done. The flat transfers on 192/24 still exist.
>
> What I understand from Audio_Empire is that an LP is made from
> 16bit /44.1KHz masters.
> Which is pretty much useless, unless someone wants to combine the worst
> of two worlds.
>
> >> But maybe Apple records is not as stupid as it seems to be, maybe they
> >> like to trow away quality right from the start! After all if there is
> >> no decent recording to be found, they can claim that there crappy apple
> >> players sounds " as good " as decent audio equipment.
>
> > I think you are comparing Apples to Apples. Two different Apples.
>
> OK my bad but I don't understand why anyone would make a record from a
> redbook digital master.
>
> Edmund

They didn't. The source was the 24/44.1 masters. The fact that the LPs
do not suffer from the same compression makes them well worth
considering over the CDs. That they are all unique new masters makes
them all worth considering on an individual basis. Many people,
including MF no less, has found that certain titles offer better sound
than any previous incarnation. Seems to me that would make them worth
considering. What matters is the quality of the final product not the
methodologies in making it.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Feb 11, 7:39*pm, Audio_Empire > wrote:
> On Monday, February 11, 2013 5:25:12 PM UTC-8, Edmund wrote:
> > On Mon, 11 Feb 2013 16:37:08 +0000, Scott wrote:
> <snip>
> > >> The obvious way to preserve the best possible quality is digitizing the
>
> > >> original masters at the highest possible sample rate, after that they
>
> > >> can always trow away quality as they like.
>
> > > That was done. The flat transfers on 192/24 still exist.
>
> > What I understand from Audio_Empire is that an LP is made from
>
> > 16bit /44.1KHz masters.
>
> Someone who knows more about this particular set of re-issues (and for that
> matter Beatles reissues in general) than I do has noted that the analog studio
> masters were digitized at 24-bit, 192 KHz, but that those digital masters
> weren't directly used to cut the LPs, a 16-bit, 44.1 KHz copy of the 24/192
> digitization was used to cut the LPs and that is what the journalist to whom
> I was referring said. Even though I doubt seriously that it would make any
> audible difference to the LP sound once disc cutting moves were applied, still
> the details about the transfer was hardly my original point. I had two:
> 1) If a record company is going to go to the trouble to press fresh, new
> reissues of old analog material onto vinyl, it should be from the original
> analog source, not from some digital copies of same. Using CD quality
> masters might not be a compromise sonically, but to do so IS more than
> slightly dishonest (in my estimation).
> 2) The journalist in question seem to not have a clue about either digital
> quantization of analog material or the real properties of analog tape.
>
> > Which is pretty much useless, unless someone wants to combine the worst
> > of two worlds.
>
> I don't know about useless. I'm sure that there must be buyers for that LP set who won't
> know or won't care what the source material for the LPs was. But as I stated earlier,
> I cannot imagine that in 2013 there is any LP market except vinylphiles and believe
> me THEY CARE.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > >> But maybe Apple records is not as stupid as it seems to be, maybe they
>
> > >> like to trow away quality right from the start! After all if there is
>
> > >> no decent recording to be found, they can claim that there crappy apple
>
> > >> players sounds " as good " as decent audio equipment.
>
> > > I think you are comparing Apples to Apples. Two different Apples.
>
> > OK my bad but I don't understand why anyone would make a record from a
> > redbook digital master.
>
> Neither would most people. Given the size and type of market that exists for
> new vinyl, it would seem like a slap in the face to those who would be in the
> market for any vinyl re-issues. Might as well save the extra dough and by a
> set of CDs. They are much cheaper than this LP set.

The guy who actually cut these LPs has said the source was the 24/44.1
masters. I'll take his word on the subject over anybody else's word.
he also explained quite clearly why that was used and why the original
analog tapes could not possibly have been used. The trouble of
starting from scratch and going through all the approvals would have
made the project cost prohibitive. IOW it was this or nothing. There
is nothing bone headed about that choice.

[Andrew Haley]

Edmund > wrote:

> I don't know if you are wrong but there are at least other claims.
> http://www.channld.com/vinylanalysis1.html

I don't dispute that spectrogram, but I do doubt that it's an accurate
copy of the master tape. What's to say that the upper harmonics
aren't distortion in the vinyl replay chain? It's hard to know
without the original master tape, but I'd lay a small wager on it.

> As for the journalist, although it is philosophic more then anything
> he is right about the "infinite" ( not really ) amount of
> information on the analog recording and he is completely right that
> any information lost by the AD conversion is lost forever.

In what sense can he be right? The amount of information isn't
infinite or virtually infinite.

Andrew.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Feb 11, 7:38*pm, Audio_Empire > wrote:
> On Monday, February 11, 2013 2:44:07 PM UTC-8, Dick Pierce wrote:
> > Edmund wrote:
>
> > > On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 04:11:25 +0000, Audio_Empire wrote:
>
> > >> This journalist went on to say that an analog master
>
> > >>has an infinite amount of information on it (!)
>
> > > As for the journalist, although it is philosophic more then anything
>
> > > he is right about the "infinite" ( not really ) amount of information on
>
> > > the analog recording
>
> > No, the journalist is absolutely 100% dead wrong in the assertion
>
> > that an analog recording contains infinite information. And, to
>
> > one other respondant to this thread, it does not contain
>
> > "virtually infinite" information.
>
> > Simply put, a system which exists for finite time and containing
>
> > finite energy CANNOT hold infinite information. Infinite information
>
> > rquires two very important properties: it's bandwidth MUST be
>
> > infinite, and its dynamic range must be infinite. No such system
>
> > exists anywhere in this universe, and to claim that an LP or analog
>
> > tape meets these fundamental requirements is absurd, even from some
>
> > vague "philosophic" standpoint.
>
> > Stepping back from thsi absurdity and examining the assertion a bit
>
> > more, it stems from the seemingly intuitive notion that a system
>
> > with continuous-time and continuous-amplitude ("analog") representation
>
> > must therefore be able to represent an infinite mumber of different,
>
> > unqiue and USEFULLY unique states. This is not the case theorectically
>
> > much less so in physical practicality.
>
> I got the impression that this journalist still harbors the notion (that first
> raised its ugly head in the mid-eighties when CD was introduced) that digital
> quantization somehow throws away information that occurs "between samples".
> It was nonsense then, it's nonsense now. I can see how someone unfamiliar
> with sampling theory might think that, but an oft-published audio journalist
> should at least KNOW better even if he doesn't completely understand it. It has
> certainly been explained often enough in the ensuing years.
>
> > Let's examine one "intuitive" notion: since an analog wavefore is NOT
>
> > discrete time sampled, then it can, in the time between what a CD can
>
> > do in its sample "snapshots" do anything, indeed, the path can take
>
> > on any of an infinite set of possible paths.
>
> That seems to be a widely held misconception.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >That notion is false for several reasons: first, the number of paths
>
> > available is struictly limited by the bandwidth of the system. the
>
> > available paths between any two times is simply a parallel definition of
>
> > bandwidth. Let's take a somewhat extreme example: in the 22 microseconds
>
> > between the samples of a CD, a pure analog signal from a system with a
>
> > 20 kHz bandwidth cannot wiggle back and forth 5 times: such a signal
>
> > require sthe system to have a bandwidth 5 times higher than that, or
>
> > 100 kHz. EVERY system MUST loose information because of this
>
> > limited bandwidth.
>
> Nicely put!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Secondly, while at any given instant, a continuous amplitude
>
> > representation CAN, in nphyical reality, take on "any" value
>
> > up to its limit, EVERY system has a non-zero amount of noise, and
>
> > that noise, at any given instant, adds an inevitable ambiguity and
>
> > uncertainty: EVERY system MUST loose information because of the
>
> > ambiguous and uncertain nature of noise. That noise destroys
>
> > information: it replaces a definite, exact value with an uncertain
>
> > one.
>
> > Nyquist and Shannon rigorously showed, over a half century ago,
>
> > that the amount of unqiquely useful information in a system is,
>
> > in essence, proportional to the product of the system's bandwidth
>
> > and the system's dynamic range.
> > If this author can, with equal rigor, proce Shannon's and Nyquist's
>
> > result are incorrect, then that author should come forth with that
>
> > proof.
> > While it might seem like the notion of analog having "infinite
>
> > resolution" is intuitively correct, it's yet another example of
>
> > intuition being at complete odds with physical reality.
> > As to "comment," I have but one: it comes as no suprise to
>
> > this respondent that after more than 30 years attempting to
>
> > debunk this kind of nonsense, that there remain people who
>
> > are either unaware or simply obstinently stupid about the
>
> > underlying physical principles of the subject about which
>
> > they choose to hold forth. WE can thanks the likes of Absolute
>
> > Sund, Positive Feedback and, to a lesser extent, Stereophile
>
> > and other, for allowing this sort of b*llsh*t science to
>
> > survive and thrive. It's not that they have dumbed down the
>
> > science, the have replaced it wholesale with complete
>
> > gobbledygook.
>
> And often, it's "gobbledygook" with purpose!

I don't know what he thinks but the fact is quantization error is a
reality and the fact is in any A/D conversion there is distortion and
irretrievable loss of information. Whether or not it matters is
another issue. But there is no point in glossing over the reality of
it.

[Andrew Haley]

Audio_Empire > wrote:

> Someone who knows more about this particular set of re-issues (and
> for that matter Beatles reissues in general) than I do has noted
> that the analog studio masters were digitized at 24-bit, 192 KHz,
> but that those digital masters weren't directly used to cut the LPs,
> a 16-bit, 44.1 KHz copy of the 24/192 digitization was used to cut
> the LPs and that is what the journalist to whom I was referring
> said.

Art Didley says 24/44.1. I don't think it makes any audible
difference.

> Even though I doubt seriously that it would make any audible
> difference to the LP sound once disc cutting moves were applied,
> still the details about the transfer was hardly my original point. I
> had two: 1) If a record company is going to go to the trouble to
> press fresh, new reissues of old analog material onto vinyl, it
> should be from the original analog source, not from some digital
> copies of same. Using CD quality masters might not be a compromise
> sonically, but to do so IS more than slightly dishonest (in my
> estimation).

What if the engineers involved wanted to do the best possible job?
Maybe only a few of the recipients of these vinyl remasters will be
analog hi-fi obsessives. The rest -- people who love the feel and
ritual and happy memories of vinyl -- might as well have the best
quality anyone can get.

Andrew.

[Edmund[_2_]]

On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 14:49:12 +0000, Scott wrote:

> On Feb 11, 5:25*pm, Edmund > wrote:
>> On Mon, 11 Feb 2013 16:37:08 +0000, Scott wrote:
>> > On Feb 11, 6:39*am, Edmund > wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 04:11:25 +0000, Audio_Empire wrote:
>> >> > I was reading the monthly column in a well-known audio magazine by
>> >> > an equally well known audio journalist today and realized that
>> >> > this journalist simply hasn't a clue about digital sound and how
>> >> > it works. He was discussing a new box-set of stereo LPs of all of
>> >> > the Beatles albums. It seems that Apple records mastered these LPs
>> >> > from the 16-bit/44.1 KHz ADC conversions of the original analog
>> >> > master tapes, rather than going back to the original masters
>> >> > themselves. The excuse given by an Apple Records spokesperson for
>> >> > why they took this route rather than doing a proper re-mastering
>> >> > from the edited analog session masters was that Apple didn't want
>> >> > to risk damage to the originals. This journalist wondered why keep
>> >> > master tapes at all if not to use them for re-issues. While I
>> >> > agree with him that LP reissues should be made from the original
>> >> > analog source material, It is his following conclusion that I find
>> >> > rather clueless. This journalist went on to say that an analog
>> >> > master has an infinite amount of information on it (!) and as
>> >> > digital gets better, one can always go back and "mine" those
>> >> > masters for more and more detail. He went on to say that the
>> >> > moment one digitizes an analog source, something is lost that can
>> >> > never be retrieved from that digitized result. To me this shows a
>> >> > basic lack of understanding on this journalist's part about the
>> >> > basic nature of both an analog recording and a digital copy of
>> >> > same.
>>
>> >> > The first thing that this writer gets wrong is the notion that an
>> >> > analog master tape has an infinite amount of information on it.
>> >> > Anyone who has any technical experience with professional audio
>> >> > recording will tell you that pro analog tape recorders, whether
>> >> > two track stereo or 48 track machines running two-inch wide tape
>> >> > at 15 ups, they are (were?) generally only maintained to 15KHz.
>> >> > Head alignment, EQ, bias, etc. was all set so that a clean 15 KHz
>> >> > can be laid-down and retrieved reliably. Frequencies above that
>> >> > are simply not practical and things like over biasing to maintain
>> >> > low distortion and self erasure due to the signal's own
>> >> > high-frequency content pretty much limited the top end response on
>> >> > even the finest studio recorders. Add to that the frequency
>> >> > response characteristics of most microphones used by studios
>> >> > (especially when the Beatles were recording) and you will find
>> >> > that most of them had a rather large frequency response peak at
>> >> > roughly 16 KHz (caused by the resonance of the *microphone's
>> >> > diaphragm) above which, the output of said capsules dropped off
>> >> > like a falling stone. Add to that the fact that even with the
>> >> > addition of Dolby A noise reduction, somewhere in the region of
>> >> > about 76 dB ( half track/15 ips) is about the limit on dynamic
>> >> > range, then one can start to see that the notion that an analog
>> >> > master tape has "infinite information" on it is simply ludicrous.
>> >> > 16-bit/
>> >> > 44.1 KHz digital is better in every way: Lower distortion, wider,
>> >> > flatter frequency response, more dynamic range, etc. From his
>> >> > wording, one gathers that this audio journalist still believes
>> >> > that because digital quantization "samples" an analog signal, that
>> >> > music "between the samples" is forever and irrecoverably lost.
>>
>> >> > Now, I don't give a hoot or a holler in Hell about the Beatles on
>> >> > LP or any other media, but I do agree with this article's author
>> >> > that if someone is plunking down a big hunk of change for a big
>> >> > boxed set of LPs, that he ought to be getting a pure analog
>> >> > experience (after all, if the LPs are just copies of Red Book
>> >> > digital masters, then one might as well just buy the CDs), but his
>> >> > notion that the analog masters simply have more information on
>> >> > them than a digital copy of those masters is simply and
>> >> > unabashedly misleading and wrong.
>>
>> >> > Comments? Other points of view?
>>
>> >> > Audio_Empire
>>
>> >> I don't know if you are wrong but there are at least other
>> >> claims.http://www.channld.com/vinylanalysis1.html
>>
>> >> I don't know what to believe and what not concerning what (
>> >> frequencies)
>> >> where recorded those days but when the CD arrived, my LP's sounded
>> >> MUCH better then the CD's.
>>
>> > As they should. The CD box set suffers from a substantial amount of
>> > compression. The LP box set does not.
>>
>> >> As for the journalist, although it is philosophic more then anything
>> >> he is right about the "infinite" ( not really ) amount of
>> >> information on the analog recording and he is completely right that
>> >> any information lost by the AD conversion is lost forever.
>>
>> > The information on analog tape is finite. That is a basic physical
>> > fact.
>>
>> Of course it is IRL.
>>
>> > Think about it. Just consider this for a moment. If the tape were
>> > twice as long would it have infinity x 2 amount of information? It's
>> > finite. OTOH he is right that whatever information that is lost in
>> > any digital conversion remains lost anywhere down the line from the
>> > digital copy. It's kind of a tautology but it is true.
>>
>> >> And he is right again about the utter stupidity from Apple records
>> >> to keep the original recordings is a vault and NOT using them.
>> >> Great thinking of those bunch or idiots!
>>
>> > this is not such a simple issue. After the original transfer from
>> > tape to 24/192 the mastering engineers did a lot of work on the
>> > material. I mean a lot. That was finished in 24/44.1 and *that*
>> > master was what was submitted to the various estates and parties with
>> > the right of approval.
>> > This was quite a process. It took over a year to get all the
>> > approvals needed to release the CD box set. So when they did the
>> > vinyl they had a choice between using that master which had already
>> > been approved by all interested parties or going back to the analog
>> > tapes, cutting all of the albums from scratch, trying to get the same
>> > results they got in the digital domain on the first go around and
>> > then going through the approval process again. This was simply too
>> > impractical for this particular project. So the thinking behind the
>> > choice makes sense even if it isn't what some of us would want.
>>
>> >> The obvious way to preserve the best possible quality is digitizing
>> >> the original masters at the highest possible sample rate, after that
>> >> they can always trow away quality as they like.
>>
>> > That was done. The flat transfers on 192/24 still exist.
>>
>> What I understand from Audio_Empire is that an LP is made from 16bit
>> /44.1KHz masters.
>> Which is pretty much useless, unless someone wants to combine the worst
>> of two worlds.
>>
>> >> But maybe Apple records is not as stupid as it seems to be, maybe
>> >> they like to trow away quality right from the start! After all if
>> >> there is no decent recording to be found, they can claim that there
>> >> crappy apple players sounds " as good " as decent audio equipment.
>>
>> > I think you are comparing Apples to Apples. Two different Apples.
>>
>> OK my bad but I don't understand why anyone would make a record from a
>> redbook digital master.
>>
>> Edmund
>
> They didn't. The source was the 24/44.1 masters.

I believe you but it is not what Audio_Empire said.

> The fact that the LPs do not suffer from the same compression makes
> them well worth
> considering over the CDs.

What "compression" 16 VS 24 bit? Give me the digital download then.

> That they are all unique new masters makes
> them all worth considering on an individual basis. Many people,
> including MF no less, has found that certain titles offer better sound
> than any previous incarnation. Seems to me that would make them worth
> considering. What matters is the quality of the final product not the
> methodologies in making it.

The final quality strongly depends on the method used to produce it.
There is no way in the world vinyl record produced from a 16/44.1 ( as
said ) master will sound better then a CD.
I can imagine "they" would leave the analog masters intact but I would
say, if one must make an analog record, use the best source available.
So that would be the 24/192 "master".

Edmund

[Scott[_6_]]

On Tuesday, February 12, 2013 7:33:24 AM UTC-8, Edmund wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 14:49:12 +0000, Scott wrote:
> > On Feb 11, 5:25�pm, Edmund > wrote:
> >> On Mon, 11 Feb 2013 16:37:08 +0000, Scott wrote:
> >> > On Feb 11, 6:39�am, Edmund > wrote:
> >> >> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 04:11:25 +0000, Audio_Empire wrote:
> >> >> > I was reading the monthly column in a well-known audio magazine by
> >> >> > an equally well known audio journalist today and realized that
> >> >> > this journalist simply hasn't a clue about digital sound and how
> >> >> > it works. He was discussing a new box-set of stereo LPs of all of
> >> >> > the Beatles albums. It seems that Apple records mastered these LPs
> >> >> > from the 16-bit/44.1 KHz ADC conversions of the original analog
> >> >> > master tapes, rather than going back to the original masters
> >> >> > themselves. The excuse given by an Apple Records spokesperson for
> >> >> > why they took this route rather than doing a proper re-mastering
> >> >> > from the edited analog session masters was that Apple didn't want
> >> >> > to risk damage to the originals. This journalist wondered why keep
> >> >> > master tapes at all if not to use them for re-issues. While I
> >> >> > agree with him that LP reissues should be made from the original
> >> >> > analog source material, It is his following conclusion that I find
> >> >> > rather clueless. This journalist went on to say that an analog
> >> >> > master has an infinite amount of information on it (!) and as
> >> >> > digital gets better, one can always go back and "mine" those
> >> >> > masters for more and more detail. He went on to say that the
> >> >> > moment one digitizes an analog source, something is lost that can
> >> >> > never be retrieved from that digitized result. To me this shows a
> >> >> > basic lack of understanding on this journalist's part about the
> >> >> > basic nature of both an analog recording and a digital copy of
> >> >> > same.
> >>
> >> >> > The first thing that this writer gets wrong is the notion that an
> >> >> > analog master tape has an infinite amount of information on it.
> >> >> > Anyone who has any technical experience with professional audio
> >> >> > recording will tell you that pro analog tape recorders, whether
> >> >> > two track stereo or 48 track machines running two-inch wide tape
> >> >> > at 15 ups, they are (were?) generally only maintained to 15KHz.
> >> >> > Head alignment, EQ, bias, etc. was all set so that a clean 15 KHz
> >> >> > can be laid-down and retrieved reliably. Frequencies above that
> >> >> > are simply not practical and things like over biasing to maintain
> >> >> > low distortion and self erasure due to the signal's own
> >> >> > high-frequency content pretty much limited the top end response on
> >> >> > even the finest studio recorders. Add to that the frequency
> >> >> > response characteristics of most microphones used by studios
> >> >> > (especially when the Beatles were recording) and you will find
> >> >> > that most of them had a rather large frequency response peak at
> >> >> > roughly 16 KHz (caused by the resonance of the �microphone's
> >> >> > diaphragm) above which, the output of said capsules dropped off
> >> >> > like a falling stone. Add to that the fact that even with the
> >> >> > addition of Dolby A noise reduction, somewhere in the region of
> >> >> > about 76 dB ( half track/15 ips) is about the limit on dynamic
> >> >> > range, then one can start to see that the notion that an analog
> >> >> > master tape has "infinite information" on it is simply ludicrous.
> >> >> > 16-bit/
> >> >> > 44.1 KHz digital is better in every way: Lower distortion, wider,
> >> >> > flatter frequency response, more dynamic range, etc. From his
> >> >> > wording, one gathers that this audio journalist still believes
> >> >> > that because digital quantization "samples" an analog signal, that
> >> >> > music "between the samples" is forever and irrecoverably lost.
> >>
> >> >> > Now, I don't give a hoot or a holler in Hell about the Beatles on
> >> >> > LP or any other media, but I do agree with this article's author
> >> >> > that if someone is plunking down a big hunk of change for a big
> >> >> > boxed set of LPs, that he ought to be getting a pure analog
> >> >> > experience (after all, if the LPs are just copies of Red Book
> >> >> > digital masters, then one might as well just buy the CDs), but his
> >> >> > notion that the analog masters simply have more information on
> >> >> > them than a digital copy of those masters is simply and
> >> >> > unabashedly misleading and wrong.
> >>
> >> >> > Comments? Other points of view?
> >>
> >> >> > Audio_Empire
> >>
> >> >> I don't know if you are wrong but there are at least other
> >> >> claims.http://www.channld.com/vinylanalysis1.html
> >>
> >> >> I don't know what to believe and what not concerning what (
> >> >> frequencies)
> >> >> where recorded those days but when the CD arrived, my LP's sounded
> >> >> MUCH better then the CD's.
> >>
> >> > As they should. The CD box set suffers from a substantial amount of
> >> > compression. The LP box set does not.
> >>
> >> >> As for the journalist, although it is philosophic more then anything
> >> >> he is right about the "infinite" ( not really ) amount of
> >> >> information on the analog recording and he is completely right that
> >> >> any information lost by the AD conversion is lost forever.
> >>
> >> > The information on analog tape is finite. That is a basic physical
> >> > fact.
> >>
> >> Of course it is IRL.
> >>
> >> > Think about it. Just consider this for a moment. If the tape were
> >> > twice as long would it have infinity x 2 amount of information? It's
> >> > finite. OTOH he is right that whatever information that is lost in
> >> > any digital conversion remains lost anywhere down the line from the
> >> > digital copy. It's kind of a tautology but it is true.
> >>
> >> >> And he is right again about the utter stupidity from Apple records
> >> >> to keep the original recordings is a vault and NOT using them.
> >> >> Great thinking of those bunch or idiots!
> >>
> >> > this is not such a simple issue. After the original transfer from
> >> > tape to 24/192 the mastering engineers did a lot of work on the
> >> > material. I mean a lot. That was finished in 24/44.1 and *that*
> >> > master was what was submitted to the various estates and parties with
> >> > the right of approval.
> >> > This was quite a process. It took over a year to get all the
> >> > approvals needed to release the CD box set. So when they did the
> >> > vinyl they had a choice between using that master which had already
> >> > been approved by all interested parties or going back to the analog
> >> > tapes, cutting all of the albums from scratch, trying to get the same
> >> > results they got in the digital domain on the first go around and
> >> > then going through the approval process again. This was simply too
> >> > impractical for this particular project. So the thinking behind the
> >> > choice makes sense even if it isn't what some of us would want.
> >>
> >> >> The obvious way to preserve the best possible quality is digitizing
> >> >> the original masters at the highest possible sample rate, after that
> >> >> they can always trow away quality as they like.
> >>
> >> > That was done. The flat transfers on 192/24 still exist.
> >>
> >> What I understand from Audio_Empire is that an LP is made from 16bit
> >> /44.1KHz masters.
> >> Which is pretty much useless, unless someone wants to combine the worst
> >> of two worlds.
> >>
> >> >> But maybe Apple records is not as stupid as it seems to be, maybe
> >> >> they like to trow away quality right from the start! After all if
> >> >> there is no decent recording to be found, they can claim that there
> >> >> crappy apple players sounds " as good " as decent audio equipment.
> >>
> >> > I think you are comparing Apples to Apples. Two different Apples.
> >>
> >> OK my bad but I don't understand why anyone would make a record from a
> >> redbook digital master.
> >>
> >> Edmund
> >
> > They didn't. The source was the 24/44.1 masters.
>
> I believe you but it is not what Audio_Empire said.

I understand that. I am just trying to inject facts where I see misinformation. Not pointing a finger at you here.

> > The fact that the LPs do not suffer from the same compression makes
> > them well worth
> > considering over the CDs.
>
> What "compression" 16 VS 24 bit? Give me the digital download then.

The compression that was added to the mastering when they made the CDs. They decided they would be better off making them sound more "modern" That was not done to the LPs. It is an obvious reason why the LPs would sound better than the CDs. There are other reasons but that is a pretty obvious one.


> > That they are all unique new masters makes
> > them all worth considering on an individual basis. Many people,
> > including MF no less, has found that certain titles offer better sound
> > than any previous incarnation. Seems to me that would make them worth
> > considering. What matters is the quality of the final product not the
> > methodologies in making it.
>
> The final quality strongly depends on the method used to produce it.
> There is no way in the world vinyl record produced from a 16/44.1 ( as
> said ) master will sound better then a CD.

Actually there are several ways in which it can happen and does happen. A lot can and often does go wrong on the way to making CDs and you also have the benefits of various euphonic distortions with the LPs depending on your system to a large degree.

> I can imagine "they" would leave the analog masters intact but I would
> say, if one must make an analog record, use the best source available.
> So that would be the 24/192 "master".
>

Well imagine this for a moment. "They" run the original master 15 times trying to get the perfect cut with all the mastering moves on the fly. "They" send the test pressing to Paul, Ringo, Yoko and everyone else who has the right to refuse it's release. 3 months later you have responses from every interested party. Half of them approve of it half of them have various notes.. Some of which are next to impossible to achieve in the analog domain. You go back and do a dozen more cuts in the analog domain. You send out the new test pressings. half the parties that rejected the first pressing are now on board but you lost one who accepted the first pressing. You go back and do it again and again. Now...multiply this by the number of LPs in the box set and you have some idea what EMI was probably facing if they were to go back to the analog masters and start from scratch. Does that sound like a good project for any business to take on? Do you now see how this could be an issue with the original analog tapes? The real lesson we should take from this is that the small audiophile reissue labels that are doing these kinds of reissues from the original analog tapes and giving us SOTA sound quality are really performing miracles despite all odds.

[Edmund[_2_]]

On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 14:50:01 +0000, Andrew Haley wrote:

> Edmund > wrote:
>
>> I don't know if you are wrong but there are at least other claims.
>> http://www.channld.com/vinylanalysis1.html
>
> I don't dispute that spectrogram, but I do doubt that it's an accurate
> copy of the master tape. What's to say that the upper harmonics aren't
> distortion in the vinyl replay chain? It's hard to know without the
> original master tape, but I'd lay a small wager on it.

I don't know either and I could not find more info on the internet about
what is or was possible with recording in the whole chain.
Some people say there is vinyl with 35 and even 50 kHz on it.
What is true or not I don't know but I do know that even today I have a
hard time finding even a mic that is able to record those frequencies.

>
>> As for the journalist, although it is philosophic more then anything he
>> is right about the "infinite" ( not really ) amount of information on
>> the analog recording and he is completely right that any information
>> lost by the AD conversion is lost forever.
>
> In what sense can he be right? The amount of information isn't infinite
> or virtually infinite.

I know the information isn't infinite, it just hasn't the hard limit that
a digital master has given an certain sample rate. With a "perfect"
analog recording -that doesn't exist either I know that too- there is no
such hard limit.


>
> Andrew.

Edmund

[Dick Pierce[_2_]]

Edmund wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 14:50:01 +0000, Andrew Haley wrote:
>>Edmund > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I don't know if you are wrong but there are at least other claims.
>>>http://www.channld.com/vinylanalysis1.html
>>
>>I don't dispute that spectrogram, but I do doubt that it's an accurate
>>copy of the master tape. What's to say that the upper harmonics aren't
>>distortion in the vinyl replay chain? It's hard to know without the
>>original master tape, but I'd lay a small wager on it.
>
> I don't know either and I could not find more info on the internet about
> what is or was possible with recording in the whole chain.

Examining the spectrogram reveals little in terms of a definite
diagnosis: the extended information is clearly harmonically
related to the below 20 kHz signal, so it could just as likely
be due to simple non-linearity in either the recording or playback
process. Phone cartridges, for example, are far from the perfect
linear devices we might like to think of them as.

> Some people say there is vinyl with 35 and even 50 kHz on it.

I can say with some certainty that there IS information at
those frequencies on almost every LP I have ever examined,
and I can say with equal cerainty that those signals have
little if anything to do with the original signal AND they
were very likely NOT present when fed to the cutter head.
They consist of noise, distortion artifacts and the like.

> What is true or not I don't know but I do know that even today I have a
> hard time finding even a mic that is able to record those frequencies.

Yup, that's right. But ANY nonlinearity ANYWHERE in the
chain is going to produce high-frequency artifacts,
that might SEEM to be correlated with the signal, but
are, in fact, added by the reproduction chain and NOT
present in the original suignal.

>>>As for the journalist, although it is philosophic more then anything he
>>>is right about the "infinite" ( not really ) amount of information on
>>>the analog recording and he is completely right that any information
>>>lost by the AD conversion is lost forever.
>>
>>In what sense can he be right? The amount of information isn't infinite
>>or virtually infinite.
>
> I know the information isn't infinite, it just hasn't the hard limit that
> a digital master has given an certain sample rate.

You are mistaking simple "bandwidth" with information. You are
ignoring, it seems, the role of dynamic range. You are also,
it seems, assuming that all information is useful. Noise is
information, but it's arguably not useful in and of itself.

> With a "perfect" analog recording -that doesn't exist either
> I know that too- there is no such hard limit.

The limit is an awful lot harder than you, and at least one other
poster, might think. Yes, there might be ONE part of the change
that has maybe has a 6 dB or 12 dB/octave rolloff, but you have
to account for them all. And when you do, the "ugly" Nyquist
limiting looks very nice and neat by comparison.

Consider the typical microphone, which has a series of complex
resonances and cancellations and the like. Now consider the
mic preamps and the electronics associated with that. Next,
let's look at the tape recorder, for which the definition
for the equalization curves beyond 15-20 kHz doesn't exist,
now, look at the phenomenon of head cancellation as the
wavelength approaches the dimensions of the gap, and self-
erasure and a similar set of issues on playback, and the forced
limitation of the bandwidth being fed to the cutter head to
prevent its self-immolation and the physical, limits of the
cutting stylus itself, and on and on and on and on.

Please, the effective "analog rolloff" is not some simple, nice
6- or 12-dB/octave, it's MUCH greater than that and VERY messy.

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

[Dick Pierce[_2_]]

Scott wrote:
> I don't know what he thinks but the fact is quantization error is a
> reality and the fact is in any A/D conversion there is distortion and
> irretrievable loss of information.

ALL attempts at transduction or copying that do not involve
bit-for-bit copies, be they analog-to-digital converstion or
analog-to-analog copies lose information, ALL of them.

The microphone loses information because of its limited bandwidth
and dynamic range. The electronics that follow add ambiguation
through noise and thus destroy information. MOST assuredly,
the original tape recorder on which the master tape is recorded
loses information because of its frequency response and dynamic
range lmiitations. So does subsequent mixing and mastering. So
does the cutter, so does the pressing so does the playback, the
speakers, the room and, just as importantly, your ears.

And all of these stages, ADD information that wasn't previously
there. That added information might even mimic what was
previously lost, though poorly at best. But each stage does it.
Including your ears (and the brain connected to them).

> Whether or not it matters is another issue. But there is no
> point in glossing over the reality of it.

Correct, but there seems to be a lot of glossing over the
horrid messiness of "pure" analog chains: the best of them
are still pretty grotty, ignoring whether one likes the results
or not.

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

[Audio_Empire[_2_]]

<snip>
> I would agree - his TT refit columns have been interesting. Actually
>
> "hobby-based" articles, which are quite rare. This article, OTOH wasn't
>
> his finest work...

No it wasn't. But few "subjective" reviewers have any technical knowledge, and many who
think they understand a concept, merely repeat the misinformation that they have been fed.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Tuesday, February 12, 2013 10:37:14 AM UTC-8, Dick Pierce wrote:
> Scott wrote:
> > I don't know what he thinks but the fact is quantization error is a
> > reality and the fact is in any A/D conversion there is distortion and
> > irretrievable loss of information.
>
> ALL attempts at transduction or copying that do not involve
> bit-for-bit copies, be they analog-to-digital converstion or
> analog-to-analog copies lose information, ALL of them.
>
> The microphone loses information because of its limited bandwidth
> and dynamic range. The electronics that follow add ambiguation
> through noise and thus destroy information. MOST assuredly,
> the original tape recorder on which the master tape is recorded
> loses information because of its frequency response and dynamic
> range lmiitations. So does subsequent mixing and mastering. So
> does the cutter, so does the pressing so does the playback, the
> speakers, the room and, just as importantly, your ears.
>
> And all of these stages, ADD information that wasn't previously
> there. That added information might even mimic what was
> previously lost, though poorly at best. But each stage does it.
> Including your ears (and the brain connected to them).
>
> > Whether or not it matters is another issue. But there is no
> > point in glossing over the reality of it.
>
> Correct, but there seems to be a lot of glossing over the
> horrid messiness of "pure" analog chains: the best of them
> are still pretty grotty, ignoring whether one likes the results
> or not.

Yes, if we are going to shy away from glossing over such things it
certainly is worth noting when some folks paint an unrealistic
picture of the virtues of any component or analog in general. They
all distort and lose information. And it is just as well to note
that losing information does not mean it is audible. I don't know
that I see a whole lot of glossing over those other facts around
here much. Maybe in some other neck of the woods. But all too often I
see some folks dragging out Shannon/Nyquist and saying "see digital
IS perfect." To me that shows the same level of understanding as does
claims of infinite resolution of analog. All analog media are finite
in their resolution and all A/D converters lose some information. No
real point in rehashing the audio myths that say otherwise. The real
meaningful discussion is how different real world processes audibly
affect the signal.

In the case of the Beatles reissues we will never be able to put that
question to the test. Personally I'm not so worried about it. I
prefer to just listen to them and judge them on the merits of what I
hear. And as far as that goes I think they turned out to be a mixed
bag.

[Audio_Empire[_2_]]

On Tuesday, February 12, 2013 10:35:04 AM UTC-8, Dick Pierce wrote:
> Edmund wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 14:50:01 +0000, Andrew Haley wrote:
> >>Edmund > wrote:
> >>
> >>>I don't know if you are wrong but there are at least other claims.
> >>>http://www.channld.com/vinylanalysis1.html
> >>
> >>I don't dispute that spectrogram, but I do doubt that it's an accurate
> >>copy of the master tape. What's to say that the upper harmonics aren't
> >>distortion in the vinyl replay chain? It's hard to know without the
> >>original master tape, but I'd lay a small wager on it.
> >
> > I don't know either and I could not find more info on the internet about
> > what is or was possible with recording in the whole chain.
>
> Examining the spectrogram reveals little in terms of a definite
> diagnosis: the extended information is clearly harmonically
> related to the below 20 kHz signal, so it could just as likely
> be due to simple non-linearity in either the recording or playback
> process. Phone cartridges, for example, are far from the perfect
> linear devices we might like to think of them as.
>
> > Some people say there is vinyl with 35 and even 50 kHz on it.
>
> I can say with some certainty that there IS information at
> those frequencies on almost every LP I have ever examined,
> and I can say with equal cerainty that those signals have
> little if anything to do with the original signal AND they
> were very likely NOT present when fed to the cutter head.
> They consist of noise, distortion artifacts and the like.

With regard to your above comment, CD-4 discs had a subcarrier that
went up to 50K+ with a special CD-4 cutting head. Regular stereo
Neumann and Ortofon cutters could easily do 50 KHz especially when
half-speed mastering. I can almost guarantee that unless the disc is a
CD-4 disc, the 50 KHz signal one can see on an LP is not any
intelligence, but rather various types of high-frequency spuriae. I
will also pretty much guarantee that if your cartridge isn't equipped
with a Shibata or similarly shaped stylus that ultra high-frequency
information won't survive many plays. Analog tape recorders are pretty
much out of bandwidth (even at 15 ips) by the mid 20 KHz region and
I've never seen a mike with any significant (useful) output above
about 20 KHz and no output at all above 30 KHz.

> > What is true or not I don't know but I do know that even today I have a
> > hard time finding even a mic that is able to record those frequencies.
>
> Yup, that's right. But ANY nonlinearity ANYWHERE in the
> chain is going to produce high-frequency artifacts,
> that might SEEM to be correlated with the signal, but
> are, in fact, added by the reproduction chain and NOT
> present in the original suignal.

That is quite true. It can come from just about anywhere.


> >>>As for the journalist, although it is philosophic more then anything he
> >>>is right about the "infinite" ( not really ) amount of information on
> >>>the analog recording and he is completely right that any information
> >>>lost by the AD conversion is lost forever.
> >>
> >>In what sense can he be right? The amount of information isn't infinite
> >>or virtually infinite.
> >
> > I know the information isn't infinite, it just hasn't the hard limit that
> > a digital master has given an certain sample rate.
>
> You are mistaking simple "bandwidth" with information. You are
> ignoring, it seems, the role of dynamic range. You are also,
> it seems, assuming that all information is useful. Noise is
> information, but it's arguably not useful in and of itself.
>
> > With a "perfect" analog recording -that doesn't exist either
> > I know that too- there is no such hard limit.
>
> The limit is an awful lot harder than you, and at least one other
> poster, might think. Yes, there might be ONE part of the change
> that has maybe has a 6 dB or 12 dB/octave rolloff, but you have
> to account for them all. And when you do, the "ugly" Nyquist
> limiting looks very nice and neat by comparison.
>
> Consider the typical microphone, which has a series of complex
> resonances and cancellations and the like. Now consider the
> mic preamps and the electronics associated with that. Next,
> let's look at the tape recorder, for which the definition
> for the equalization curves beyond 15-20 kHz doesn't exist,
> now, look at the phenomenon of head cancellation as the
> wavelength approaches the dimensions of the gap, and self-
> erasure and a similar set of issues on playback, and the forced
> limitation of the bandwidth being fed to the cutter head to
> prevent its self-immolation and the physical, limits of the
> cutting stylus itself, and on and on and on and on.
>
> Please, the effective "analog rolloff" is not some simple, nice
> 6- or 12-dB/octave, it's MUCH greater than that and VERY messy.

One thing about record cutting that I always found fascinating is how
complex the system is. Modern cutting heads take hundreds of Watts
just to get them going at all, and just a few more to burn 'em out!
Cutting heads need such esoterica as acceleration limiter. overshoot
damper circuitry (this is an electromechanically resonant system,
after all). With all of the doodads a cutting system uses just to
protect itself from the very signal that it is there to transcribe to
disc, it seems somewhat of a miracle to me that it works at all.

[Dick Pierce[_2_]]

Scott wrote:
> Maybe in some other neck of the woods. But all too often I
> see some folks dragging out Shannon/Nyquist and saying "see digital
> IS perfect."

I would like to see a direct quote from someone who
made this assertion. Since I am the one who used the
specific phrase regarding Shannon and Nyquist in the
context of the current threads, can I infer that you
accusing me of saying "digital is perfect?"

If so, I might suggest you review what you think you wrote
before you retract that assertion.

> To me that shows the same level of understanding as does
> claims of infinite resolution of analog.

It may show thatto you, but you've reached a conclusion
quite different than what I was saying.

> All analog media are finite in their resolution

AND THEREFORE LOSE INFORMATION,

> and all A/D converters lose some information.

> No real point in rehashing the audio myths that say otherwise.

They are rehashed here and in the high-end audio press over
and over again.

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

[Audio_Empire[_2_]]

On Wednesday, February 13, 2013 6:31:08 AM UTC-8, Scott wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 12, 2013 10:37:14 AM UTC-8, Dick Pierce wrote:
> > Scott wrote:
> > > I don't know what he thinks but the fact is quantization error is a
> > > reality and the fact is in any A/D conversion there is distortion and
> > > irretrievable loss of information.
> >
> > ALL attempts at transduction or copying that do not involve
> > bit-for-bit copies, be they analog-to-digital converstion or
> > analog-to-analog copies lose information, ALL of them.
> >
> > The microphone loses information because of its limited bandwidth
> > and dynamic range. The electronics that follow add ambiguation
> > through noise and thus destroy information. MOST assuredly,
> > the original tape recorder on which the master tape is recorded
> > loses information because of its frequency response and dynamic
> > range lmiitations. So does subsequent mixing and mastering. So
> > does the cutter, so does the pressing so does the playback, the
> > speakers, the room and, just as importantly, your ears.
> >
> > And all of these stages, ADD information that wasn't previously
> > there. That added information might even mimic what was
> > previously lost, though poorly at best. But each stage does it.
> > Including your ears (and the brain connected to them).
> >
> > > Whether or not it matters is another issue. But there is no
> > > point in glossing over the reality of it.
> >
> > Correct, but there seems to be a lot of glossing over the
> > horrid messiness of "pure" analog chains: the best of them
> > are still pretty grotty, ignoring whether one likes the results
> > or not.
>
> Yes, if we are going to shy away from glossing over such things it
> certainly is worth noting when some folks paint an unrealistic
> picture of the virtues of any component or analog in general. They
> all distort and lose information. And it is just as well to note
> that losing information does not mean it is audible. I don't know
> that I see a whole lot of glossing over those other facts around
> here much. Maybe in some other neck of the woods. But all too often I
> see some folks dragging out Shannon/Nyquist and saying "see digital
> IS perfect." To me that shows the same level of understanding as does
> claims of infinite resolution of analog. All analog media are finite
> in their resolution and all A/D converters lose some information. No
> real point in rehashing the audio myths that say otherwise. The real
> meaningful discussion is how different real world processes audibly
> affect the signal.

Would it be fair to say that digital recording and playback affect the
audibility of the processes involved less than analog (of course
todays pop and jazz digital are ruined by dynamic range compression,
but that's not the media's fault).

[Audio_Empire[_2_]]

On Tuesday, February 12, 2013 8:11:20 PM UTC-8, Audio_Empire wrote:
> <snip>
> > I would agree - his TT refit columns have been interesting. Actually
> > "hobby-based" articles, which are quite rare. This article, OTOH wasn't
> > his finest work...
>
> No it wasn't. But few "subjective" reviewers have any technical
> knowledge, and many who think they understand a concept, merely
> repeat the misinformation that they have been fed.

I forgot to add that even a master's degree in electronic engineering
doesn't make one completely immune from the rich stew that is audio
mythology 8^)

[Scott[_6_]]

On Wednesday, February 13, 2013 11:54:15 AM UTC-8, Dick Pierce wrote:
> Scott wrote:
>
> > Maybe in some other neck of the woods. But all too often I
>
> > see some folks dragging out Shannon/Nyquist and saying "see digital
>
> > IS perfect."
>
>
>
> I would like to see a direct quote from someone who
>
> made this assertion.

If you are asking for one I'll just show you one from one of my favorite sources of misinformation.
"The Nyquist theorem (which is mathematically proven) says that the exact waveform can be reproduced if the original signal is frequency limited to less than half the sampling frequency."

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=98761&hl=nyquist+perfect

IMO "exact" and "perfect" are synonymous as used here. I can find more but you only asked for one.

> Since I am the one who used the
>
> specific phrase regarding Shannon and Nyquist in the
>
> context of the current threads, can I infer that you
>
> accusing me of saying "digital is perfect?"

Nope. No such inference was intended.


>
>
>
> If so, I might suggest you review what you think you wrote
>
> before you retract that assertion.


But alas, it isn't so. The assertion was never made so there is nothing to retract. I did read what you wrote and it was clear that *you* are not guilty of spreading this common audio myth.



>
>
>
> > To me that shows the same level of understanding as does
>
> > claims of infinite resolution of analog.
>
>
>
> It may show thatto you, but you've reached a conclusion
>
> quite different than what I was saying.

My conclusion is based on things other people have said.


>
>
>
> > All analog media are finite in their resolution
>
>
>
> AND THEREFORE LOSE INFORMATION,

Yeah I said that. Not sure why you feel the need to shout it.


>
>
>
> > and all A/D converters lose some information.
>
>
>
> > No real point in rehashing the audio myths that say otherwise.
>
>
>
> They are rehashed here and in the high-end audio press over
>
> and over again.
>


Indeed they are. But if we are *not* doing it (which it appears neither of us are) then there is no need for us to rehash them in this thread. If someone decides to breach that then of course we should set them straight.

[Edmund[_2_]]

On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 18:35:04 +0000, Dick Pierce wrote:

> Edmund wrote:
>> On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 14:50:01 +0000, Andrew Haley wrote:
>>>Edmund > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I don't know if you are wrong but there are at least other claims.
>>>>http://www.channld.com/vinylanalysis1.html
>>>
>>>I don't dispute that spectrogram, but I do doubt that it's an accurate
>>>copy of the master tape. What's to say that the upper harmonics aren't
>>>distortion in the vinyl replay chain? It's hard to know without the
>>>original master tape, but I'd lay a small wager on it.
>>
>> I don't know either and I could not find more info on the internet
>> about what is or was possible with recording in the whole chain.
>
> Examining the spectrogram reveals little in terms of a definite
> diagnosis: the extended information is clearly harmonically related to
> the below 20 kHz signal, so it could just as likely be due to simple
> non-linearity in either the recording or playback process. Phone
> cartridges, for example, are far from the perfect linear devices we
> might like to think of them as.
>
>> Some people say there is vinyl with 35 and even 50 kHz on it.
>
> I can say with some certainty that there IS information at those
> frequencies on almost every LP I have ever examined,
> and I can say with equal cerainty that those signals have little if
> anything to do with the original signal AND they were very likely NOT
> present when fed to the cutter head.
> They consist of noise, distortion artifacts and the like.

Do you know if there are records with real music recorded in high(er)
frequencies to what frequency and is there is such information somewhere
to be found on the internet?
What about the half speed cut records?



>
>> What is true or not I don't know but I do know that even today I have a
>> hard time finding even a mic that is able to record those frequencies.
>
> Yup, that's right. But ANY nonlinearity ANYWHERE in the chain is going
> to produce high-frequency artifacts,
> that might SEEM to be correlated with the signal, but are, in fact,
> added by the reproduction chain and NOT present in the original suignal.
>
>>>>As for the journalist, although it is philosophic more then anything
>>>>he is right about the "infinite" ( not really ) amount of information
>>>>on the analog recording and he is completely right that any
>>>>information lost by the AD conversion is lost forever.
>>>
>>>In what sense can he be right? The amount of information isn't
>>>infinite or virtually infinite.
>>
>> I know the information isn't infinite, it just hasn't the hard limit
>> that a digital master has given an certain sample rate.
>
> You are mistaking simple "bandwidth" with information. You are ignoring,
> it seems, the role of dynamic range. You are also,
> it seems, assuming that all information is useful. Noise is information,
> but it's arguably not useful in and of itself.
>
>> With a "perfect" analog recording -that doesn't exist either I know
>> that too- there is no such hard limit.
>
> The limit is an awful lot harder than you, and at least one other
> poster, might think. Yes, there might be ONE part of the change that has
> maybe has a 6 dB or 12 dB/octave rolloff, but you have to account for
> them all. And when you do, the "ugly" Nyquist limiting looks very nice
> and neat by comparison.
>
> Consider the typical microphone, which has a series of complex
> resonances and cancellations and the like. Now consider the mic preamps
> and the electronics associated with that. Next,
> let's look at the tape recorder, for which the definition for the
> equalization curves beyond 15-20 kHz doesn't exist,
> now, look at the phenomenon of head cancellation as the wavelength
> approaches the dimensions of the gap, and self- erasure and a similar
> set of issues on playback, and the forced limitation of the bandwidth
> being fed to the cutter head to prevent its self-immolation and the
> physical, limits of the cutting stylus itself, and on and on and on and
> on.
>
> Please, the effective "analog rolloff" is not some simple, nice 6- or
> 12-dB/octave, it's MUCH greater than that and VERY messy.

I appreciate what you are saying, really but I wonder how and why some
analog recordings sound so good...

Edmund

[[email protected]]

On Sunday, February 10, 2013 4:37:52 PM UTC-5, Scott wrote:

> I just read Fremer's overview of the box set. So I don't think it was
> him. He got the facts right for starters
> "Clearly the engineers feel that digitizing analog at high sampling
> and bit rates is essentially transparent to the source or they might
> not have done it. And once they had the music captured at 192/24 bit
> they also felt down-converting it to 44.1/24 wouldn't diminish the
> sonic quality."

Pity you missed the very next sentence:

"Here I definitely differ with the producers!"

Fremer has long held that vinyl offers higher resolution than CD. He hasn't changed, and he will never get it right.

bob

[Dick Pierce[_2_]]

Scott wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 13, 2013 11:54:15 AM UTC-8, Dick Pierce wrote:
>
>>Scott wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Maybe in some other neck of the woods. But all too often I
>>
>>>see some folks dragging out Shannon/Nyquist and saying "see digital
>>>IS perfect."
>>
>>
>>
>>I would like to see a direct quote from someone who
>>made this assertion.
>
> If you are asking for one I'll just show you one from
> one of my favorite sources of misinformation.
>
> "The Nyquist theorem (which is mathematically proven) says
> that the exact waveform can be reproduced if the original
> signal is frequency limited to less than half the sampling frequency."
>
> http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=98761&hl=nyquist+perfect
>
> IMO "exact" and "perfect" are synonymous as used here.
> I can find more but you only asked for one.

Fine, several poiunts.

The quote you supplied does NOT say that "digital is perfect."

Second, exactly what is the myth, misinformation, whatever,
in statement you quoted, as you quoted it? Do you have
reason to believe that the Shannon/Nyquist sampling theorem
is incorrect?

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

[Dick Pierce[_2_]]

Edmund wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 18:35:04 +0000, Dick Pierce wrote:
>>I can say with some certainty that there IS information at those
>>frequencies on almost every LP I have ever examined,
>>and I can say with equal cerainty that those signals have little if
>>anything to do with the original signal AND they were very likely NOT
>>present when fed to the cutter head.
>>They consist of noise, distortion artifacts and the like.
>
> Do you know if there are records with real music recorded in high(er)
> frequencies to what frequency and is there is such information somewhere
> to be found on the internet?
> What about the half speed cut records?

Sure, it's possible that it's there: one cannot a priori
discount that possibility.

But two points: first, the RIAA curve is undefined past 20 kHz,
and any number of preamps throw another pole or two in to
reduce the bandwidth even further. Second, it's REALLY, REALLY
hard to get the stylus tip resonance much above 20 kHz, and
that resonance represents yet another 12 dB/octave low-pass
filter.

So, it's on there, so what, it's not likely you can get it off.

>>Please, the effective "analog rolloff" is not some simple, nice 6- or
>>12-dB/octave, it's MUCH greater than that and VERY messy.
>
> I appreciate what you are saying, really but I wonder how and why some
> analog recordings sound so good...

First, define "so good." I might hazard to say that "so good"
means "I like it a lot." A perfectly legitimate definition,
but one that has definiable objective context behind it as
it stands.

Secondly, you seem to be equating extended bandwith with
"so good", as if this were the sole or at least principle
criteria defining what "sounds good." It's not. There are
ALL sorts of phenomenon that exist well within the audio
bandwidth that could be the source of such an evocation.
Have you eliminatd all of those as a possibility. What if
the technical properties of the recording were, in fact,
abysmal, yet the music, the performance, even the album
cover, overwhelmed the objective sound attributes?

Third, where is the data suggesting even a correlation
between those analog recordings that "sound so good"
and extended bandwidth well above 20 kHz. Can you, in fact,
show that the recordings that "sound so good" have this
information on them.

Conversely, can you show that recordings that have information
extending well beyond 20 kHz necessarily "sound so good?"

I think the Ansermet Beethoven 7th is one of those recordings
that "sound so good," yet I also know that the top end is
fairly limited (I've, in fact, measured it). It drops like
a stone above about 16 kHz, and, indeed, except for noise,
the specturm looks like it came out of a digital channel
running at 38 kHz with a fast but sloppy 16 kHz anti-aliasing
filter.

Yet it sounds so good, so much so that I'd rather listen to
the LP than and CD, simply because, to me, it is far an away
the best performance, to me.

When and if I ever find a CD of THAT performance, my opinion
may change.

But it is MY opinion, dammit!

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

[Audio_Empire[_2_]]

On Wednesday, February 13, 2013 2:10:07 PM UTC-8, Scott wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 13, 2013 11:54:15 AM UTC-8, Dick Pierce wrote:
>
> > Scott wrote:
<snip>

> > > All analog media are finite in their resolution
> > AND THEREFORE LOSE INFORMATION,
>
> Yeah I said that. Not sure why you feel the need to shout it.
>
> > > and all A/D converters lose some information.
> > > No real point in rehashing the audio myths that say otherwise.
>
> > They are rehashed here and in the high-end audio press over
> > and over again.
>
> Indeed they are. But if we are *not* doing it (which it appears neither of us are) then there is no need for us to rehash them in this thread. If someone decides to breach that then of course we should set them straight.

Yes, the beat goes on. The current Editor of another high-end rag, In answering a letter from a
reader who was advising that said Editor go on the Internet and read an (unspecified in the letter) article exploding the myth that 24-bit sounds no better than 16-bit.

That Editor's response was that they get letters from people all the time who have read some "anti-audiophile propaganda" asserting that 16/44.1 digital audio is perfect, or that all amps sound the same and that there is no difference between different cables or interconnects. . He goes on to say that the
(unspecified) article asserts that not only is 24-bit no better than 16-bit but actually sounds slightly INFERIOR to 16/44.1 or 16/48 and merely uses 6X the storage space for no improvement of the sound. He then goes on to say that said article author seems credible on the surface, but is actually naive at best.

This Editor went on to explain that the resolution of a digital audio system isn't determined by the number of bits in a system, but rather by the number of bits BEING USED at any given moment. He then gives an example that a very low-level passage might be encoded at -80dBFS. on a 16-bit system, such a low-level signal is only being encoded by THREE bits and with 24-bits it's being encoded with ELEVEN bits. That's just GOT TO BE better, right, ,says he, ignoring dither in a 16-bit system altogether.

He goes on to say those who insist that 24-bits offer no advantage over 16-bits in a system based upon a 20 KHz bandwidth fails to address the "Well Documented" problem of the time-domain distortion introduced by steep filters with cut-off frequencies close to the audio passband. In his explanation, faster sample rates take care of the problem by allowing for filters with gentler slopes and cut-off frequencies well above the audio band which do less damage to the signal. He finishes by reiterating that finally, anyone who listens to a 16/44.1 version of a recording vs, say, a 24/178.4 version can simply come to no other conclusion than that hi-res sounds significantly better.

I know this editor and have worked with him in the past. He is technically savvy (or rather he should be, given his background), but this mixture of fact and mythology misses so many known real-world issues that to call it a competent or digitally savvy dissertation on why 24-bit is better than 16-bit would be
stretching the definition of competent to the point of failure. Yes, 24-bit MASTERING can yield better results than 16-bit mastering (if the recording engineer knows what he is doing) but not for the reasons given in this apologetic response to a reader's query.

[Audio_Empire[_2_]]

On Wednesday, February 13, 2013 4:41:10 PM UTC-8, Edmund wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 18:35:04 +0000, Dick Pierce wrote:
>
> > Edmund wrote:
> >> On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 14:50:01 +0000, Andrew Haley wrote:
> >>>Edmund > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>I don't know if you are wrong but there are at least other claims.
> >>>>http://www.channld.com/vinylanalysis1.html
> >>>
> >>>I don't dispute that spectrogram, but I do doubt that it's an accurate
> >>>copy of the master tape. What's to say that the upper harmonics aren't
> >>>distortion in the vinyl replay chain? It's hard to know without the
> >>>original master tape, but I'd lay a small wager on it.
> >>
> >> I don't know either and I could not find more info on the internet
> >> about what is or was possible with recording in the whole chain.
> >
> > Examining the spectrogram reveals little in terms of a definite
> > diagnosis: the extended information is clearly harmonically related to
> > the below 20 kHz signal, so it could just as likely be due to simple
> > non-linearity in either the recording or playback process. Phone
> > cartridges, for example, are far from the perfect linear devices we
> > might like to think of them as.
> >
> >> Some people say there is vinyl with 35 and even 50 kHz on it.
> >
> > I can say with some certainty that there IS information at those
> > frequencies on almost every LP I have ever examined,
> > and I can say with equal cerainty that those signals have little if
> > anything to do with the original signal AND they were very likely NOT
> > present when fed to the cutter head.
> > They consist of noise, distortion artifacts and the like.
>
> Do you know if there are records with real music recorded in high(er)
> frequencies to what frequency and is there is such information somewhere
> to be found on the internet?
>
> What about the half speed cut records?

As I said in an earlier post, Most cutting heads made after about 1975
definitely have frequency responses that can get to 35 or even 50 KHz
due to their necessity to cut CD-4 quadraphonic discs with a 50 KHz
sub-carrier. And any stereo cutter head should be able to do so when
half speed mastering is employed. After all, a cutting master tape
running at 7.5 ips when it had been recorded at 15 ips, feeding a
cutter head cutting a groove into a blank disc running at 16.6 RPM
gives the cutter head the ability to inscribe TWICE it's full-speed
cut-off frequency (when played back at the full 33.3 RPM.

That doesn't mean that the head can actually do, say 40 KHz or better,
because the signal it's being fed has only half the high-frequency
that the tape would have at full speed. Also, keep in mind that while
half-speed mastering doubles the available high-frequency content of a
vinyl record, it halves its low end. I.E. if the cutter head has a
low-frequency limit of 20 Hz at normal mastering speeds, at half-
speed that limit becomes 40 Hz.

[KH]

On 2/13/2013 3:10 PM, Scott wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 13, 2013 11:54:15 AM UTC-8, Dick Pierce wrote:
>> Scott wrote:
>>
>>> Maybe in some other neck of the woods. But all too often I
>>
>>> see some folks dragging out Shannon/Nyquist and saying "see digital
>>
>>> IS perfect."
>>
>>
>>
>> I would like to see a direct quote from someone who
>>
>> made this assertion.
>
> If you are asking for one I'll just show you one from one of my favorite sources of misinformation.
> "The Nyquist theorem (which is mathematically proven) says that the exact waveform can be reproduced if the original signal is frequency limited to less than half the sampling frequency."
>
> http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=98761&hl=nyquist+perfect
>
> IMO "exact" and "perfect" are synonymous as used here. I can find more but you only asked for one.

You seem to have left out the clear caveat in the very next sentence;
"The word "exact" gets a little shaky if the initial assumptions aren't
met (example: each sample is taken exactly on time.)" from which it is
abundantly clear that the OP was decidedly Not implying "digital is
perfect", merely that if "done perfectly" - an impossibility - the
resulting waveform would be perfect, which IS clearly supported by
information theory.

And of course, you excised the context of the statement as well, in that
it was a response to the ludicrous claim that "...converting an analog
signal into a discrete-time one (as it happens when converting from
analog to digital) destroys the phase information in the two top octaves
of the resulting spectrum. In a CD-standard digital recording, all phase
information are lost from 5.5kHz up to 22kHz,"

I don't see how the quote you provided has ANY relevance to your claim.

Keith

[Scott[_6_]]

On Wednesday, February 13, 2013 4:49:59 PM UTC-8, wrote:
> On Sunday, February 10, 2013 4:37:52 PM UTC-5, Scott wrote:
>
> > I just read Fremer's overview of the box set. So I don't think it was
> > him. He got the facts right for starters
> > "Clearly the engineers feel that digitizing analog at high sampling
> > and bit rates is essentially transparent to the source or they might
> > not have done it. And once they had the music captured at 192/24 bit
> > they also felt down-converting it to 44.1/24 wouldn't diminish the
> > sonic quality."
>
> Pity you missed the very next sentence:
>
> "Here I definitely differ with the producers!"
>
> Fremer has long held that vinyl offers higher resolution than CD. He
> hasn't changed, and he will never get it right.


I didn't miss it. It simply had nothing to do with whether or not
Fremer had authored the misinformation about the actual source for the
LPs or made the claim of infinite resolution of analog. So I was just
staying on subject.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Wednesday, February 13, 2013 7:41:41 PM UTC-8, Dick Pierce wrote:
> Scott wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, February 13, 2013 11:54:15 AM UTC-8, Dick Pierce wrote:
>
> >
>
> >>Scott wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>>Maybe in some other neck of the woods. But all too often I
>
> >>
>
> >>>see some folks dragging out Shannon/Nyquist and saying "see digital
>
> >>>IS perfect."
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>I would like to see a direct quote from someone who
>
> >>made this assertion.
>
> >
>
> > If you are asking for one I'll just show you one from
>
> > one of my favorite sources of misinformation.
>
> >
>
> > "The Nyquist theorem (which is mathematically proven) says
>
> > that the exact waveform can be reproduced if the original
>
> > signal is frequency limited to less than half the sampling frequency."
>
> >
>
> > http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=98761&hl=nyquist+perfect
>
> >
>
> > IMO "exact" and "perfect" are synonymous as used here.
>
> > I can find more but you only asked for one.
>
>
>
> Fine, several poiunts.
>
>
>
> The quote you supplied does NOT say that "digital is perfect."

In effect it does.

>
>
>
> Second, exactly what is the myth, misinformation, whatever,
>
> in statement you quoted, as you quoted it? Do you have
>
> reason to believe that the Shannon/Nyquist sampling theorem
>
> is incorrect?
>

No. But this represents exactly what I was talking about. It is in reference to actual digitization of an actual analog signal. So it is exactly the myth I claim is constantly dragged out. The myth that one can cite Shannon/Nyquist in support of the incorrect belief that "the EXACT WAVEFORM CAN BE REPRODUCED if the ORIGINAL (analog) SIGNAL is frequency limited to less than half the sampling frequency. So while I don't believe there is a problem with Shannon/Nyquist theorem I do see a problem with the claim that it is proof that one can "exactly reproduce" the "original signal" digitally.

I hope that clears things up.

[Edmund[_2_]]

On Thu, 14 Feb 2013 03:43:05 +0000, Dick Pierce wrote:

> Edmund wrote:
>> On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 18:35:04 +0000, Dick Pierce wrote:
>>>I can say with some certainty that there IS information at those
>>>frequencies on almost every LP I have ever examined,
>>>and I can say with equal cerainty that those signals have little if
>>>anything to do with the original signal AND they were very likely NOT
>>>present when fed to the cutter head.
>>>They consist of noise, distortion artifacts and the like.
>>
>> Do you know if there are records with real music recorded in high(er)
>> frequencies to what frequency and is there is such information
>> somewhere to be found on the internet?
>> What about the half speed cut records?
>
> Sure, it's possible that it's there: one cannot a priori discount that
> possibility.
>
> But two points: first, the RIAA curve is undefined past 20 kHz,
> and any number of preamps throw another pole or two in to reduce the
> bandwidth even further. Second, it's REALLY, REALLY hard to get the
> stylus tip resonance much above 20 kHz, and that resonance represents
> yet another 12 dB/octave low-pass filter.
>
> So, it's on there, so what, it's not likely you can get it off.
>
>>>Please, the effective "analog rolloff" is not some simple, nice 6- or
>>>12-dB/octave, it's MUCH greater than that and VERY messy.
>>
>> I appreciate what you are saying, really but I wonder how and why some
>> analog recordings sound so good...
>
> First, define "so good." I might hazard to say that "so good" means "I
> like it a lot." A perfectly legitimate definition, but one that has
> definiable objective context behind it as it stands.

To my knowledge there is no unambiguous way to measure the quality of
reproduced music so I mean it in a pure subjective manner.
>
> Secondly, you seem to be equating extended bandwith with "so good", as
> if this were the sole or at least principle criteria defining what
> "sounds good." It's not.

I really just think it is at least ONE of the things that matter.

> There are ALL sorts of phenomenon that exist
> well within the audio bandwidth that could be the source of such an
> evocation.
> Have you eliminatd all of those as a possibility. What if the technical
> properties of the recording were, in fact, abysmal, yet the music, the
> performance, even the album cover, overwhelmed the objective sound
> attributes?
>
> Third, where is the data suggesting even a correlation between those
> analog recordings that "sound so good"
> and extended bandwidth well above 20 kHz. Can you, in fact, show that
> the recordings that "sound so good" have this information on them.

I do have heard a few SACD recordings from the concert hall in Amsterdam
which sound really good in to ears but I have no means to measure what is
really recorded.
>
> Conversely, can you show that recordings that have information extending
> well beyond 20 kHz necessarily "sound so good?"

No I cannot, I am curious and I like to know.
And as a matter of fact I am planning to do some research.
>
> I think the Ansermet Beethoven 7th is one of those recordings that
> "sound so good," yet I also know that the top end is fairly limited
> (I've, in fact, measured it). It drops like a stone above about 16 kHz,
> and, indeed, except for noise,
> the specturm looks like it came out of a digital channel running at 38
> kHz with a fast but sloppy 16 kHz anti-aliasing filter.
>
> Yet it sounds so good, so much so that I'd rather listen to the LP than
> and CD, simply because, to me, it is far an away the best performance,
> to me.
>
> When and if I ever find a CD of THAT performance, my opinion may change.
>
> But it is MY opinion, dammit!
OK thanks



Edmund

[Scott[_6_]]

On Wednesday, February 13, 2013 8:05:12 PM UTC-8, KH wrote:
> On 2/13/2013 3:10 PM, Scott wrote:
> > On Wednesday, February 13, 2013 11:54:15 AM UTC-8, Dick Pierce wrote:
> >> Scott wrote:
> >>
> >>> Maybe in some other neck of the woods. But all too often I
> >>> see some folks dragging out Shannon/Nyquist and saying "see digital
> >>> IS perfect."
> >>
> >> I would like to see a direct quote from someone who
> >> made this assertion.
> >
> > If you are asking for one I'll just show you one from one of my
> > favorite sources of misinformation.
> > "The Nyquist theorem (which is mathematically proven) says that
> > the exact waveform can be reproduced if the original signal is
> > frequency limited to less than half the sampling frequency."
> >
> > http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=98761&hl=nyquist+perfect
> >
> > IMO "exact" and "perfect" are synonymous as used here. I can find
> > more but you only asked for one.
>
> You seem to have left out the clear caveat in the very next sentence;
> "The word "exact" gets a little shaky if the initial assumptions aren't
> met (example: each sample is taken exactly on time.)"

Seriously? You think that makes it correct? You think that is all it takes?

> from which it is
> abundantly clear that the OP was decidedly Not implying "digital is
> perfect", merely that if "done perfectly" - an impossibility - the
> resulting waveform would be perfect, which IS clearly supported by
> information theory.

Really? So you don't believe in quantization error?

> And of course, you excised the context of the statement as well, in that
> it was a response to the ludicrous claim that "...converting an analog
> signal into a discrete-time one (as it happens when converting from
> analog to digital) destroys the phase information in the two top octaves
> of the resulting spectrum. In a CD-standard digital recording, all phase
> information are lost from 5.5kHz up to 22kHz,"
>
> I don't see how the quote you provided has ANY relevance to your claim.
>

People often see what they want to see.

[Audio_Empire[_2_]]

On Wednesday, February 13, 2013 7:43:05 PM UTC-8, Dick Pierce wrote:
> Edmund wrote:
> > On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 18:35:04 +0000, Dick Pierce wrote:
> >>I can say with some certainty that there IS information at those
> >>frequencies on almost every LP I have ever examined,
> >>and I can say with equal cerainty that those signals have little if
> >>anything to do with the original signal AND they were very likely NOT
> >>present when fed to the cutter head.
> >>They consist of noise, distortion artifacts and the like.
> >
> > Do you know if there are records with real music recorded in high(er)
> > frequencies to what frequency and is there is such information somewhere
> > to be found on the internet?
> > What about the half speed cut records?
>
> Sure, it's possible that it's there: one cannot a priori
> discount that possibility.
>
> But two points: first, the RIAA curve is undefined past 20 kHz,
> and any number of preamps throw another pole or two in to
> reduce the bandwidth even further. Second, it's REALLY, REALLY
> hard to get the stylus tip resonance much above 20 kHz, and
> that resonance represents yet another 12 dB/octave low-pass
> filter.
>
> So, it's on there, so what, it's not likely you can get it off.
>
> >>Please, the effective "analog rolloff" is not some simple, nice 6- or
> >>12-dB/octave, it's MUCH greater than that and VERY messy.
> >
> > I appreciate what you are saying, really but I wonder how and why some
> > analog recordings sound so good...
>
> First, define "so good." I might hazard to say that "so good"
> means "I like it a lot." A perfectly legitimate definition,
> but one that has definiable objective context behind it as
> it stands.
>
> Secondly, you seem to be equating extended bandwith with
> "so good", as if this were the sole or at least principle
> criteria defining what "sounds good." It's not. There are
> ALL sorts of phenomenon that exist well within the audio
> bandwidth that could be the source of such an evocation.
> Have you eliminatd all of those as a possibility. What if
> the technical properties of the recording were, in fact,
> abysmal, yet the music, the performance, even the album
> cover, overwhelmed the objective sound attributes?
>
> Third, where is the data suggesting even a correlation
> between those analog recordings that "sound so good"
> and extended bandwidth well above 20 kHz. Can you, in fact,
> show that the recordings that "sound so good" have this
> information on them.

Of course not. In fact, even if they did, it would be irrelevant
because humans can't hear that high. There is some evidence to
support that young female children, below the age of puberty, can
hear 23 -25 KHz reliably, and as young adults (if they haven't had
their hearing damaged by long exposure to high-levels of sound
pressure) can hear 20 KHz and can keep their acuity to those
frequencies longer than can young men. OTOH, such good high
frequency hearing doesn't seem to make females susceptible to being
audiophiles, which leads me to believe that such hearing does not
make music sound any better to young women that it does for young men.

But more importantly, even if some recordings do have response beyond
20 KHz, there's damn little actual information up there. This is
because the recording systems used to capture and mass produce music
simply does not capture information much beyond 20 KHz because (A)
it's difficult, and (B) humans can't hear it anyway, even if musical
instruments do actually produce it.

> Conversely, can you show that recordings that have information
> extending well beyond 20 kHz necessarily "sound so good?"

No.

> I think the Ansermet Beethoven 7th is one of those recordings
> that "sound so good," yet I also know that the top end is
> fairly limited (I've, in fact, measured it). It drops like
> a stone above about 16 kHz, and, indeed, except for noise,
> the specturm looks like it came out of a digital channel
> running at 38 kHz with a fast but sloppy 16 kHz anti-aliasing
> filter.

I don't doubt it. Older condenser microphones have a peak at around
14-16 KHz and fall off like that proverbial stone after that peak.
The tape recorder used to capture the Ansermat Beethoven 7th's
round-trip frequency response likewise probably falls off very
quickly above 15 KHz for reasons of both practicality and physics.

> Yet it sounds so good, so much so that I'd rather listen to
> the LP than and CD, simply because, to me, it is far and away
> the best performance, to me.

Yes, I have a copy and I agree that it is a marvelous performance, but
to me there is another just as good - Bruno Walter and the New York
Philharmonic.

I too have performance that to me sound better on LP than on CD (I've
mentioned the Mercury Classic Records reissue of Stravinsky's
"Firebird" with Dorati and the LSO pressed on single-side 200 gram
vinyl and 45 RPM playback speed many times.It is the best sounding
commercial recording that I have ever heard - bar none. The CD is
absolutely anemic by comparison and both were mastered by the
original producer (Wilma Cozert-Fine) from the same master tape!)

> When and if I ever find a CD of THAT performance, my opinion
> may change.

That's on British Decca (London Records) label isn't it? Most of
Decca's classical fare has been released to CD. I'm surprised it's
not available. You got me interested, I will pause here while I go
look. Be back in a mo...


OK I found it. From Arkive Music

http://tinyurl.com/d9x3abd

Label: London Eloquence - Catalog: 4800394. Release Date:
08/04/2009. Number of Discs: 2
Composer: Ludwig van Beethoven "Symphony 5 through 8"
Conductor: Ernest Ansermet
Orchestra/Ensemble: Suisse Romande Orchestra
$15.99

> But it is MY opinion, dammit!

I don't disagree (try Ansermet's "Three Cornered Hat". another of the
great sounding Suisse Romande recordings). The late 50's Decca stereo
recordings (made with the "Decca tree" three microphone arrangement)
all sound spectacular. Simple stereo mike setup, straight to tape
with no fiddling from electronic enhancements, just the honest truth.
That's why classical music audio enthusiasts still buy these 50+
year-old recordings from the likes of Mercury, RCA Red Seal, London,
Columbia, etc. No recordings of these works ever sounded better (and
most not as good, in spite of the "advances" in recording technology
in the ensuing decades). Add to that the great conductors from the
early part of the 20th century such as Ansermet, Ormandy, Walter,
Szell, Boult, Furtwangler, Von Karajan, Reiner, etc. and you have
the best recordings technically and performance-wise.

[Dick Pierce[_2_]]

Scott wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 13, 2013 7:41:41 PM UTC-8, Dick Pierce wrote:
>>Scott wrote:
>>>"The Nyquist theorem (which is mathematically proven) says
>>> that the exact waveform can be reproduced if the original
>>> signal is frequency limited to less than half the sampling frequency."
>>The quote you supplied does NOT say that "digital is perfect."
> In effect it does.

To you. It does not to me. It simply, to me, states that
when the nyquist criteria is met, and that means the
signal must be limited to less than half the sampling rate,
samplig does NOT lose any information needed to reproduce
an exact replica of the signal meeting the criterion.

>>Second, exactly what is the myth, misinformation, whatever,
>>in statement you quoted, as you quoted it? Do you have
>>reason to believe that the Shannon/Nyquist sampling theorem
>>is incorrect?

> No.

You proceed to contradict yourself:

> But this represents exactly what I was talking about.
> It is in reference to actual digitization of an actual
> analog signal. So it is exactly the myth I claim is
> constantly dragged out. The myth that one can cite
> Shannon/Nyquist in support of the incorrect belief that
> "the EXACT WAVEFORM CAN BE REPRODUCED if the ORIGINAL
> (analog) SIGNAL is frequency limited to less than half the
> sampling frequency.

Please, with some degree of rigor, demonstrate why you
claim this is a myth.

> So while I don't believe there is a problem with
> Shannon/Nyquist theorem

Then it can reproduce the waveform.

> I do see a problem with the claim that it is proof that one
> can "exactly reproduce" the "original signal" digitally.
>
> I hope that clears things up.

It does. With all due respect, and with no intent to cast insult,
it seem to clarify that either you do not understand the sampling
theorem, or that you are inarticulate about your belief in its
shortcomings that your view is not getting across.

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

[Dick Pierce[_2_]]

Audio_Empire wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 13, 2013 7:43:05 PM UTC-8, Dick Pierce wrote:
>>I think the Ansermet Beethoven 7th is one of those recordings
>>that "sound so good," yet I also know that the top end is
>>fairly limited (I've, in fact, measured it). It drops like
>>a stone above about 16 kHz, and, indeed, except for noise,
>>the specturm looks like it came out of a digital channel
>>running at 38 kHz with a fast but sloppy 16 kHz anti-aliasing
>>filter.
>
> I don't doubt it. Older condenser microphones have a peak at around
> 14-16 KHz and fall off like that proverbial stone after that peak.
> The tape recorder used to capture the Ansermat Beethoven 7th's
> round-trip frequency response likewise probably falls off very
> quickly above 15 KHz for reasons of both practicality and physics.

I think you missed the point of the context I introduced.
I like this recording exclusively because of the performance.
The technology details and the technological failings and
limitations are, to me, utterly irrelevant. The performance
transcends all that. I can think of a number of other examples,
Bernstein's Shostakovich 5th: an absolutely exhilarating
performance cmopletely unequaled by any other (although in
this case, the one pressing I have is so BADLY mastered it
is sometimes difficult difficult to listen through: it was
a perfect macth for an old Quad 33 with it's nice tone controls).
to sit through)

>>When and if I ever find a CD of THAT performance, my opinion
>>may change.
>
> That's on British Decca (London Records) label isn't it? Most of
> Decca's classical fare has been released to CD. I'm surprised it's
> not available. You got me interested, I will pause here while I go
> look. Be back in a mo...

Actually, I was also inspired to go look, and I found the
complete Ansermet Beethoven Symphony set and bought it:
$0 bucks and it will be here by Saturday!

>>But it is MY opinion, dammit!
>
> I don't disagree (try Ansermet's "Three Cornered Hat". another of the
> great sounding Suisse Romande recordings). The late 50's Decca stereo
> recordings (made with the "Decca tree" three microphone arrangement)
> all sound spectacular. Simple stereo mike setup, straight to tape
> with no fiddling from electronic enhancements, just the honest truth.
> That's why classical music audio enthusiasts still buy these 50+
> year-old recordings from the likes of Mercury, RCA Red Seal, London,
> Columbia, etc. No recordings of these works ever sounded better (and
> most not as good, in spite of the "advances" in recording technology
> in the ensuing decades). Add to that the great conductors from the
> early part of the 20th century such as Ansermet, Ormandy, Walter,
> Szell, Boult, Furtwangler, Von Karajan, Reiner, etc. and you have
> the best recordings technically and performance-wise.

I have been forced on a number of occasions to sit through
the Berlioz Symphonie Fantastique, which I found to be,
well, silly at best (if you can't do a fugue, please don't
try). Late Sunday, on WGBH, on a program called "The BSO on
record," they played what was one of the last recordings made
by Charles Munsch with the BSO: it was of the Berlioz, and
was at once a thrilling and sensitive performance and actually
sounded quite nice as well. Enough so that I may actually get
a copy.

Now, to put this into some perspective, if I acquire such
a disk, my Berlioz section will grow to 1/6th the size of
my Jan Pieterszoon Sweelink section, and perhaps 1/20th my
Diederich Buxtehude section (quick anecdote, I was at the
Harvard Coop and grabbed a boxed set of the complete organ
works by Bustehude performed by Andre Isoir: 7 disks and
their scanner insisted it was one. Lovely set for 85% off)


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

[Dick Pierce[_2_]]

Scott wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 13, 2013 8:05:12 PM UTC-8, KH wrote:
>>On 2/13/2013 3:10 PM, Scott wrote:
>>from which it is
>>abundantly clear that the OP was decidedly Not implying "digital is
>>perfect", merely that if "done perfectly" - an impossibility - the
>>resulting waveform would be perfect, which IS clearly supported by
>>information theory.
>
> Really? So you don't believe in quantization error?

Hold it, part of your confusionm is clear. Several points:

1. Sampling and quantization are two different processes,
that can be treated completely separate from one another.
Sampling does not case quantization errors. It can create
errors IF the original signal is improperly band
limited before sampling. If properly band limited, it
will not create errors.

Now, you can argue whether or not the original filtering
is the issue, but that's a separate argument, in fact.

2. Quantization without at least simple dithering, yes, does
create quantization errors, but NO ONE in their right minds
(high end community excepted, of course) does such a thing.

And propoer dithering or noise shaping eliminates (not, not
masks, not covers up, rather ELIMINATES< as in "makes it go
away) quantization error. WHat you are left with is a simple
noise floor with resolution extending well below the least
significant bit of resoltuion.

>>And of course, you excised the context of the statement as well, in that
>>it was a response to the ludicrous claim that "...converting an analog
>>signal into a discrete-time one (as it happens when converting from
>>analog to digital) destroys the phase information in the two top octaves
>>of the resulting spectrum. In a CD-standard digital recording, all phase
>>information are lost from 5.5kHz up to 22kHz,"
>>
>>I don't see how the quote you provided has ANY relevance to your claim.
>>
> People often see what they want to see.

Yes, apparently they do.

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

[Edmund[_2_]]

On Thu, 14 Feb 2013 22:14:07 +0000, Dick Pierce wrote:

> Scott wrote:
>> On Wednesday, February 13, 2013 7:41:41 PM UTC-8, Dick Pierce wrote:
>>>Scott wrote:
>>>>"The Nyquist theorem (which is mathematically proven) says
>>>> that the exact waveform can be reproduced if the original signal is
>>>> frequency limited to less than half the sampling frequency."
>>>The quote you supplied does NOT say that "digital is perfect."
>> In effect it does.
>
> To you. It does not to me. It simply, to me, states that when the
> nyquist criteria is met, and that means the signal must be limited to
> less than half the sampling rate, samplig does NOT lose any information
> needed to reproduce an exact replica of the signal meeting the
> criterion.

So if I offer you an analog signal, limited to 40kHz you can sample that
at 80 kHz and 4 bit, you can recreate the input signal exactly?
Well, would you like to prove that?


Edmund

[Scott[_6_]]

On Thursday, February 14, 2013 2:14:07 PM UTC-8, Dick Pierce wrote:
> Scott wrote:
>=20
> > On Wednesday, February 13, 2013 7:41:41 PM UTC-8, Dick Pierce wrote:
>=20
> >>Scott wrote:
>=20
> >>>"The Nyquist theorem (which is mathematically proven) says=20
>=20
> >>> that the exact waveform can be reproduced if the original
>=20
> >>> signal is frequency limited to less than half the sampling frequency.=
"
>=20
> >>The quote you supplied does NOT say that "digital is perfect."=20
>=20
> > In effect it does.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> To you. It does not to me. It simply, to me, states that
>=20
> when the nyquist criteria is met, and that means the
>=20
> signal must be limited to less than half the sampling rate,
>=20
> samplig does NOT lose any information needed to reproduce
>=20
> an exact replica of the signal meeting the criterion.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> >>Second, exactly what is the myth, misinformation, whatever,
>=20
> >>in statement you quoted, as you quoted it? Do you have
>=20
> >>reason to believe that the Shannon/Nyquist sampling theorem
>=20
> >>is incorrect?
>=20
>=20
>=20
> > No.=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> You proceed to contradict yourself:
>=20
>=20
>=20
> > But this represents exactly what I was talking about.=20
>=20
> > It is in reference to actual digitization of an actual
>=20
> > analog signal. So it is exactly the myth I claim is
>=20
> > constantly dragged out. The myth that one can cite
>=20
> > Shannon/Nyquist in support of the incorrect belief that
>=20
> > "the EXACT WAVEFORM CAN BE REPRODUCED if the ORIGINAL
>=20
> > (analog) SIGNAL is frequency limited to less than half the
>=20
> > sampling frequency.=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Please, with some degree of rigor, demonstrate why you
>=20
> claim this is a myth.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> > So while I don't believe there is a problem with
>=20
> > Shannon/Nyquist theorem
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Then it can reproduce the waveform.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> > I do see a problem with the claim that it is proof that one
>=20
> > can "exactly reproduce" the "original signal" digitally.
>=20
> >=20
>=20
> > I hope that clears things up.=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> It does. With all due respect, and with no intent to cast insult,
>=20
> it seem to clarify that either you do not understand the sampling
>=20
> theorem, or that you are inarticulate about your belief in its
>=20
> shortcomings that your view is not getting across.
>=20


Didn't we just go over quantization error? That is the one and only answer =
to all your questions above. The FACT is no digital system can "exactly" re=
produce an analog signal and dragging out Nyquist in support of the notion =
that any digital system *can* "exactly" reproduce an analog signal is an a=
udio myth.=20

Now I am done with this little side bar.=20

[Audio_Empire[_2_]]

On Thursday, February 14, 2013 3:36:42 PM UTC-8, Dick Pierce wrote:
> Audio_Empire wrote:
> > On Wednesday, February 13, 2013 7:43:05 PM UTC-8, Dick Pierce wrote:
> >>I think the Ansermet Beethoven 7th is one of those recordings
> >>that "sound so good," yet I also know that the top end is
> >>fairly limited (I've, in fact, measured it). It drops like
> >>a stone above about 16 kHz, and, indeed, except for noise,
> >>the specturm looks like it came out of a digital channel
> >>running at 38 kHz with a fast but sloppy 16 kHz anti-aliasing
> >>filter.
> >
> > I don't doubt it. Older condenser microphones have a peak at around
> > 14-16 KHz and fall off like that proverbial stone after that peak.
> > The tape recorder used to capture the Ansermat Beethoven 7th's
> > round-trip frequency response likewise probably falls off very
> > quickly above 15 KHz for reasons of both practicality and physics.
>
> I think you missed the point of the context I introduced.
> I like this recording exclusively because of the performance.
> The technology details and the technological failings and
> limitations are, to me, utterly irrelevant. The performance
> transcends all that. I can think of a number of other examples,
> Bernstein's Shostakovich 5th: an absolutely exhilarating
> performance cmopletely unequaled by any other (although in
> this case, the one pressing I have is so BADLY mastered it
> is sometimes difficult difficult to listen through: it was
> a perfect macth for an old Quad 33 with it's nice tone controls).
> to sit through)

Well. if I did miss your point, it was because you stated it poorly.
You said that it was a great sounding recording in spite of the fact
that it had little content above about 16 KHz. That looks to me like
you were talking about the SOUND of the record, not the performance. I
understand the idea of the sound being utterly irrelevant, to your
enjoyment of the performance, but you didn't say that. I have a bunch
of 78's (transcribed to CD of course, the 78's themselves are too much
trouble to listen to) that have great performances that I listen to in
spite of the limitations of the medium. (Vaughan Williams' Oboe
concerto on early 1950's Mercury 78's with the oboe solo played by
Mitch Miller (yes, THAT Mitch Miller) with the Cleveland Orchestra,
Louis Lane conducting comes immediately to mind, here).

> >>When and if I ever find a CD of THAT performance, my opinion
> >>may change.
> >
> > That's on British Decca (London Records) label isn't it? Most of
> > Decca's classical fare has been released to CD. I'm surprised it's
> > not available. You got me interested, I will pause here while I go
> > look. Be back in a mo...
>
> Actually, I was also inspired to go look, and I found the
> complete Ansermet Beethoven Symphony set and bought it:
> $0 bucks and it will be here by Saturday!
>
> >>But it is MY opinion, dammit!
> >
> > I don't disagree (try Ansermet's "Three Cornered Hat". another of the
> > great sounding Suisse Romande recordings). The late 50's Decca stereo
> > recordings (made with the "Decca tree" three microphone arrangement)
> > all sound spectacular. Simple stereo mike setup, straight to tape
> > with no fiddling from electronic enhancements, just the honest truth.
> > That's why classical music audio enthusiasts still buy these 50+
> > year-old recordings from the likes of Mercury, RCA Red Seal, London,
> > Columbia, etc. No recordings of these works ever sounded better (and
> > most not as good, in spite of the "advances" in recording technology
> > in the ensuing decades). Add to that the great conductors from the
> > early part of the 20th century such as Ansermet, Ormandy, Walter,
> > Szell, Boult, Furtwangler, Von Karajan, Reiner, etc. and you have
> > the best recordings technically and performance-wise.
>
> I have been forced on a number of occasions to sit through
> the Berlioz Symphonie Fantastique, which I found to be,
> well, silly at best (if you can't do a fugue, please don't
> try). Late Sunday, on WGBH, on a program called "The BSO on
> record," they played what was one of the last recordings made
> by Charles Munsch with the BSO: it was of the Berlioz, and
> was at once a thrilling and sensitive performance and actually
> sounded quite nice as well. Enough so that I may actually get
> a copy.

I love WGBH/WCRB radio. It is on my Squeezebox Touch all the time and
I listen to the station almost exclusively for classics. I think it is
probably the best classical music station in America. Love the BSO and
I also love the archival BSO recordings that they play. Some are from
record/CD others are past live concerts either from Symphony Hall in
the winter and Tanglewood in the summer. Great stuff! a real American
treasure. So glad it's available via Internet "radio". I don't even
have an FM tuner in my stereo system any more. My Yamaha T-85 (one of
the best "digital" tuners ever made), just sits in my closet, unused.

> Now, to put this into some perspective, if I acquire such
> a disk, my Berlioz section will grow to 1/6th the size of
> my Jan Pieterszoon Sweelink section, and perhaps 1/20th my
> Diederich Buxtehude section (quick anecdote, I was at the
> Harvard Coop and grabbed a boxed set of the complete organ
> works by Bustehude performed by Andre Isoir: 7 disks and
> their scanner insisted it was one. Lovely set for 85% off)

Berlioz fails to be one of my favorite composers as well. In fact, I
doubt if I have more than a couple Berlioz works in my collection.
Yes, I have "Symphony Fantastique" and I think I have a disc of
Berlioz overtures, but that's about all I can recall. My tastes run to
Beethoven, Dvorak, Rachmaninoff, Richard Strauss, Wagner (orchestra)
Tchaikovsky, Ravel, Vaughan Williams Holst, Debussy, Puccini, Verde,
etc.

[Audio_Empire[_2_]]

On Thursday, February 14, 2013 2:14:07 PM UTC-8, Dick Pierce wrote:
> Scott wrote:
> > On Wednesday, February 13, 2013 7:41:41 PM UTC-8, Dick Pierce wrote:
> >>Scott wrote:
> >>>"The Nyquist theorem (which is mathematically proven) says
> >>> that the exact waveform can be reproduced if the original
> >>> signal is frequency limited to less than half the sampling frequency."
> >>The quote you supplied does NOT say that "digital is perfect."
> > In effect it does.
>
> To you. It does not to me. It simply, to me, states that
> when the nyquist criteria is met, and that means the
> signal must be limited to less than half the sampling rate,
> samplig does NOT lose any information needed to reproduce
> an exact replica of the signal meeting the criterion.

If I might chime in here. That's not exactly correct. It is correct
as far as it goes, but I'm sure that you didn't mean to infer that
a musical performance recorded in 8-bit 32 KHz sampling rate
is going adequately reconstruct the actual original waveform?
Even given that the highs would be truncated at about 15 KHz,
which was once considered part of the definition of High-
Fidelity, the dynamic range of such a quantization would be
limited to about 48 dB and distortion would be very high compared
to 16-bit, 44.1 KHz.

At one time it was postulated that 8-bit, 32 KHz could work as a
viable consumer medium IF the analog signal were compressed
a la DBX before quantization and then expanded by the same
ratio after the D/A conversion on playback. The expander
would be a part of the player.

> >>Second, exactly what is the myth, misinformation, whatever,
> >>in statement you quoted, as you quoted it? Do you have
> >>reason to believe that the Shannon/Nyquist sampling theorem
> >>is incorrect?
>
> > No.
>
> You proceed to contradict yourself:
>
> > But this represents exactly what I was talking about.
> > It is in reference to actual digitization of an actual
> > analog signal. So it is exactly the myth I claim is
> > constantly dragged out. The myth that one can cite
> > Shannon/Nyquist in support of the incorrect belief that
> > "the EXACT WAVEFORM CAN BE REPRODUCED if the ORIGINAL
> > (analog) SIGNAL is frequency limited to less than half the
> > sampling frequency.

ONLY if the sampling frequency and bit depth were adequate to
encompass the bandwidth of the signal being sampled. Without that
condition, one could argue that a modern telephone system could
reconstruct a symphony orchestra waveform completely and perfectly,
but of course, we all know it can't. It was designed to have enough
bandwidth and dynamic range to encompass voice, but no more. But if we
assume that a digital system is designed to encompass the entire audio
spectrum and is used to that end, then Nyquist/Shannon in quite
correct in anticipating that the outcome of the applied theorem will
be. It is NOT a myth or an overstatement of capability in any way
shape or form.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Thursday, February 14, 2013 7:40:47 PM UTC-8, Dick Pierce wrote:
> Scott wrote:
> > On Wednesday, February 13, 2013 8:05:12 PM UTC-8, KH wrote:
> >>On 2/13/2013 3:10 PM, Scott wrote:
> >>from which it is
> >>abundantly clear that the OP was decidedly Not implying "digital is
> >>perfect", merely that if "done perfectly" - an impossibility - the
> >>resulting waveform would be perfect, which IS clearly supported by
> >>information theory.
> >
> > Really? So you don't believe in quantization error?
>
> Hold it, part of your confusionm is clear. Several points:
>
> 1. Sampling and quantization are two different processes,
> that can be treated completely separate from one another.
> Sampling does not case quantization errors. It can create
> errors IF the original signal is improperly band
> limited before sampling. If properly band limited, it
> will not create errors.
>
> Now, you can argue whether or not the original filtering
> is the issue, but that's a separate argument, in fact.
>
> 2. Quantization without at least simple dithering, yes, does
> create quantization errors, but NO ONE in their right minds
> (high end community excepted, of course) does such a thing.
>
> And propoer dithering or noise shaping eliminates (not, not
> masks, not covers up, rather ELIMINATES< as in "makes it go
> away) quantization error. WHat you are left with is a simple
> noise floor with resolution extending well below the least
> significant bit of resoltuion.
>
> >>And of course, you excised the context of the statement as well, in that
> >>it was a response to the ludicrous claim that "...converting an analog
> >>signal into a discrete-time one (as it happens when converting from
> >>analog to digital) destroys the phase information in the two top octaves
> >>of the resulting spectrum. In a CD-standard digital recording, all phase
> >>information are lost from 5.5kHz up to 22kHz,"

My point has nothing to do with any of that. The fact is any AD
converter is going to be making quantization errors when sampling
any analog signal. Nyquist theorem assumes no such error. So in
practice no AD converter will ever "exactly" encode an analog signal
despite the truth of Nyquist theorem.

[quoted text deleted -- deb]

[Dick Pierce[_2_]]

Edmund wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Feb 2013 22:14:07 +0000, Dick Pierce wrote:
>
>
>>Scott wrote:
>>
>>>On Wednesday, February 13, 2013 7:41:41 PM UTC-8, Dick Pierce wrote:
>>>
>>>>Scott wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"The Nyquist theorem (which is mathematically proven) says
>>>>>that the exact waveform can be reproduced if the original signal is
>>>>>frequency limited to less than half the sampling frequency."
>>>>
>>>>The quote you supplied does NOT say that "digital is perfect."
>>>
>>>In effect it does.
>>
>>To you. It does not to me. It simply, to me, states that when the
>>nyquist criteria is met, and that means the signal must be limited to
>>less than half the sampling rate, samplig does NOT lose any information
>>needed to reproduce an exact replica of the signal meeting the
>>criterion.
>
>
> So if I offer you an analog signal, limited to 40kHz you can sample that
> at 80 kHz and 4 bit, you can recreate the input signal exactly?
> Well, would you like to prove that?

You just went and changed the conditions. To this point, all
the discussion had to do with sampling. One other poster is
clearly confused about the difference between sampling in the time
domain and quantization in the amplitude domain, and it appears
that you have similarly bundled the two together as well.

Let's examine your statement, for it contains several errors:

"So if I offer you an analog signal, limited to 40kHz
you can sample that at 80 kHz

First error, the bandwidth must be limited to LESS THAN HALF
the sample rate, NOT half the sample rate.

"and 4 bit"

Second error, just like in the sampling error above, you made
an assumption about the signal which may, in fact, not be true.
Now IF the dynamic range is limited to 24 dB, then with proper
dithering, yes, all of the information present in the original
signal WILL be available at the output of the system.

Now, the separation between sampling and quantization is NOT
some clever symantic trick, rather it is at the very basis of
the process. If it helps, you can think of the sampling
process as quantization in the time domain, and what many here
term "quantization" as quantization in the amplitude domain.
Assuming the wo are inextricably tied together is the root
of much confusion, as exhibited by your question as one example.

Let's rephrase your question slightly, relating it to more
practical terms: what is the capability of a sampling system
with a sample rate of 88.2 kHz (twice Redbook CD rate) and a
signed 16-bit linear integer quantization (redbook CD spec),
using adequate dithering (or noise shaping)?

Well, IF the input signal is limited to less than half the
sample rate, let's say 40 kHz, and the dynamic range of the
input signal does not exceed 96 dB, ALL the information in
that signal will be captured and be available in the output
of the system. NO information in either the time domain or
the amplitude domain will be lost.

Now, recall where I said that the resolution of the system is
defined by the product of the bandwidth and quantization level?
That allows us to trade off one form the other, for example,
I could double the sample rate (to 176.4 kHz) and, in doing
so, gain an extra 3 dB of resolution, and, assuming my signal
is STILL limited to 40 kHz, I can now use a 15-bit encoding
instead of 16 bit and still achieve that 40 kHz, 96 dB
resolution with no information loss. Double it again
(352.8 kHz), and I get to throw away another bit and still
achieve the same base-band resolution (40 kHz, 96 dB).

And, by the way, that 96 dB I stated is the BROADBAND dynamic
range: it DOES NOT represent a hard floor like so many assume,
it is simply the braodband noise floor of the system: valid
signal information is still encoded BELOW that noise floor, so
that narrow-band avergaing systems, like spectrum analyzers
or human hearing, are QUITE capable of hearing the real signal
BELOW that noise floor.

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

[Edmund[_2_]]

On Fri, 15 Feb 2013 15:04:03 +0000, Dick Pierce wrote:

> Edmund wrote:
>> On Thu, 14 Feb 2013 22:14:07 +0000, Dick Pierce wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Scott wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wednesday, February 13, 2013 7:41:41 PM UTC-8, Dick Pierce wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Scott wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>"The Nyquist theorem (which is mathematically proven) says that the
>>>>>>exact waveform can be reproduced if the original signal is frequency
>>>>>>limited to less than half the sampling frequency."
>>>>>
>>>>>The quote you supplied does NOT say that "digital is perfect."
>>>>
>>>>In effect it does.
>>>
>>>To you. It does not to me. It simply, to me, states that when the
>>>nyquist criteria is met, and that means the signal must be limited to
>>>less than half the sampling rate, samplig does NOT lose any information
>>>needed to reproduce an exact replica of the signal meeting the
>>>criterion.
>>
>>
>> So if I offer you an analog signal, limited to 40kHz you can sample
>> that at 80 kHz and 4 bit, you can recreate the input signal exactly?
>> Well, would you like to prove that?
>
> You just went and changed the conditions. To this point, all the
> discussion had to do with sampling. One other poster is clearly confused
> about the difference between sampling in the time domain and
> quantization in the amplitude domain, and it appears that you have
> similarly bundled the two together as well.
>
> Let's examine your statement, for it contains several errors:
>
> "So if I offer you an analog signal, limited to 40kHz you can sample
> that at 80 kHz
>
> First error, the bandwidth must be limited to LESS THAN HALF the sample
> rate, NOT half the sample rate.

I am not sure but If my memory serves me well one need at least twice the
highest frequency as sample rate.
In your terms LESS OR EQUAL TO HALF THE SAMPLE RATE.
Correct me if you are sure that I am wrong.
>
> "and 4 bit"
>
> Second error, just like in the sampling error above, you made an
> assumption about the signal which may, in fact, not be true. Now IF the
> dynamic range is limited to 24 dB, then with proper dithering, yes, all
> of the information present in the original signal WILL be available at
> the output of the system.

Well you did not mention the dynamic range at all.

----------------

"The Nyquist theorem (which is mathematically proven) says
that the exact waveform can be reproduced if the original
signal is frequency limited to less than half the sampling frequency."

------------------------

And I don't think that is right.



>
> Now, the separation between sampling and quantization is NOT some clever
> symantic trick, rather it is at the very basis of the process. If it
> helps, you can think of the sampling process as quantization in the time
> domain, and what many here term "quantization" as quantization in the
> amplitude domain. Assuming the wo are inextricably tied together is the
> root of much confusion, as exhibited by your question as one example.
>
> Let's rephrase your question slightly,

No lets not do that.
Stick to what I asked which is an analog signal.

Edmund

[Dick Pierce[_2_]]

Audio_Empire wrote:
> On Thursday, February 14, 2013 2:14:07 PM UTC-8, Dick Pierce wrote:
>
>>Scott wrote:
>>
>>>On Wednesday, February 13, 2013 7:41:41 PM UTC-8, Dick Pierce wrote:
>>>
>>>>Scott wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"The Nyquist theorem (which is mathematically proven) says
>>>>>that the exact waveform can be reproduced if the original
>>>>>signal is frequency limited to less than half the sampling frequency."
>>>>
>>>>The quote you supplied does NOT say that "digital is perfect."
>>>
>>>In effect it does.
>>
>>To you. It does not to me. It simply, to me, states that
>>when the nyquist criteria is met, and that means the
>>signal must be limited to less than half the sampling rate,
>>samplig does NOT lose any information needed to reproduce
>>an exact replica of the signal meeting the criterion.
>
>
> If I might chime in here. That's not exactly correct. It is correct
> as far as it goes, but I'm sure that you didn't mean to infer that
> a musical performance recorded in 8-bit 32 KHz sampling rate
> is going adequately reconstruct the actual original waveform?
> Even given that the highs would be truncated at about 15 KHz,
> which was once considered part of the definition of High-
> Fidelity, the dynamic range of such a quantization would be
> limited to about 48 dB and distortion would be very high compared
> to 16-bit, 44.1 KHz.

There seems to be a general,confusion here: sampling and
quantization ARE |NOT the same thing: they are two separate
processes. You cna have one without the other, and you
can certainly treat and explore the two separately (despite
the fact that in most audio systems, the two work together).

As an aside, let me give some examples of one without the
other: first, a switched-capacitor filter is a discrete-
time sampled, continuous-amplitude system. No quantization
takes place. Another example in the audio realm is the
old classic bucket-brigade CCD analog delay lines, again,
a discrete-time sampled, continuous-amplitude system with
no quantization. And, for a very common one, an FM stereo
broadcast can be viewed as yet another discrete-time sampled
time-division multiplexed, continuous amplitude system.

ALL of these systems are sampled systems, but NONE of them
have quantization. You don't talk about the "bit-depth" of
FM radio (but, you most assuredly could, since their dynamic
range has a bit-depth equivalent).

And ALL of these systems require the SAME constraints as a
classic digital audio system: their input bandwidth MUST be
limited to less than half the sample rate. In the case of
FM stereo, whose effective sample rate is 38 kHz, the bandwidth
of the base channel (which holds the L+R information) and the
subchannel (which holds the L-R information are both limited
to 15 kHz or so.

Look at ANY of the data sheets on analog bucket-brigade delay
lines or switched-capacitor filters, they tell you that a low-
pass filter is mandatory to prevent aliasing by the sampling
process.

And NONE of these examples are quantized.

Let's explore a system closer to the topic at hand, a classic
analog to digital converter, which does the digitization in TWO
steps: First, you have your sample-and-hold amplifier. It's
job is to simply sit there and listen to, but otherwise ignore
the incoming signal voltage. Then at the moment commanded by
the sample clock, it captures ("samples") the instantaneous
voltage and "holds" on to it. So far, NO QUANTIZATION HAS
OCCURED: THERE IS NO "BIT DEPTH" ISSUE.

Now, if at this point, the sample-and-hold amplifier is
presented with a signal exceeding less than half the sample
clock rate, aliasing WILL occur: the Nyquist criteria has
been violated. It's too late at this point to deal with
out-of-band foldback to the base band, or "aliasing." It
should have been taken care of BEFORE the sample-and-hold
step.

But once again: NO QUANTIZATION HAS YET OCCURRED, therefore
the question of "bit depth" is completely irrelevant.

Only after the sample and hold amplifier has captured and
held a sample, which to this point is still a continuous-
amplitude representation, do we start to think about
quantization. Now, bit depth becomes an issue, and so does
dealing wiuth quantization error. Pick a bit depth which you
find suitable, say 16 bits. Now, if you do NOTHING else,
you WILL get quantization errors. BBut NO A/D converter used
for audio proceeds in this fashion: ALL of them apply dither
and/or noise shaping BEFORE quantization. And the application
of dither and/or noise chaping ELIMINATES quantization error.
It does NOT cover it up, it does not mask it, it does not
replace quantization error, IT ELIMINATES it.

Now you have a stream of digital data which, if the bit depth
exceeds the original dynamic range of the original signal
AND the bandwidth is less than 1/2 the sample rate, ALL
information in that signal WILL be captured.

Nowhere, it should be noted, did I say that "digital audio
is perfect", because just like the claims that analog has
infinite resolution, that would require infinite sample rate
and infinitie bit dpeth. Rather, I said that within the
constraints set by the sample rate and the bit depth,
a properly implemented PRACTICAL digital system IS capable
of capturing ALL information in the signal presented to it.

Religious-like, self-contradictory beliefs based on
misunderstandings and obstinate opinions notwithstanding.

> ONLY if the sampling frequency and bit depth were adequate to
> encompass the bandwidth of the signal being sampled. Without that
> condition, one could argue that a modern telephone system could
> reconstruct a symphony orchestra waveform completely and perfectly,
> but of course, we all know it can't.

Hold it, you have already violated the basic constraints,
if you make the assumption that the minimum bandwidth
required is 15 kHz or greater. No one said a telephone
could, and Shannon and Nyquist tell us why. Is this a strawman?

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

[KH]

On 2/14/2013 8:06 AM, Scott wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 13, 2013 8:05:12 PM UTC-8, KH wrote:
>> On 2/13/2013 3:10 PM, Scott wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, February 13, 2013 11:54:15 AM UTC-8, Dick Pierce wrote:
>>>> Scott wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Maybe in some other neck of the woods. But all too often I
>>>>> see some folks dragging out Shannon/Nyquist and saying "see digital
>>>>> IS perfect."
>>>>
>>>> I would like to see a direct quote from someone who
>>>> made this assertion.
>>>
>>> If you are asking for one I'll just show you one from one of my
>>> favorite sources of misinformation.
>>> "The Nyquist theorem (which is mathematically proven) says that
>>> the exact waveform can be reproduced if the original signal is
>>> frequency limited to less than half the sampling frequency."
>>>
>>> http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=98761&hl=nyquist+perfect
>>>
>>> IMO "exact" and "perfect" are synonymous as used here. I can find
>>> more but you only asked for one.
>>
>> You seem to have left out the clear caveat in the very next sentence;
>> "The word "exact" gets a little shaky if the initial assumptions aren't
>> met (example: each sample is taken exactly on time.)"
>
> Seriously? You think that makes it correct? You think that is all it takes?

Well, yes. In fact that is all that is required to make it "correct".
It still says *nothing* about "digital is perfect".


>> from which it is
>> abundantly clear that the OP was decidedly Not implying "digital is
>> perfect", merely that if "done perfectly" - an impossibility - the
>> resulting waveform would be perfect, which IS clearly supported by
>> information theory.
>
> Really? So you don't believe in quantization error?

In "sampling"? No. And sampling is what that statement relates to. I
believe Dick Pierce has sufficiently addressed that.

>
>> And of course, you excised the context of the statement as well, in that
>> it was a response to the ludicrous claim that "...converting an analog
>> signal into a discrete-time one (as it happens when converting from
>> analog to digital) destroys the phase information in the two top octaves
>> of the resulting spectrum. In a CD-standard digital recording, all phase
>> information are lost from 5.5kHz up to 22kHz,"
>>
>> I don't see how the quote you provided has ANY relevance to your claim.
>>
>
> People often see what they want to see.

Yes, they do. And no one, with even a superficial objective reading,
would construe the post you cited as saying "digital is perfect".

Keith

[Audio_Empire[_2_]]

On Friday, February 15, 2013 5:36:20 PM UTC-8, Dick Pierce wrote:
> Audio_Empire wrote:
> > On Thursday, February 14, 2013 2:14:07 PM UTC-8, Dick Pierce wrote:
> >
> >>Scott wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Wednesday, February 13, 2013 7:41:41 PM UTC-8, Dick Pierce wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>Scott wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>"The Nyquist theorem (which is mathematically proven) says
> >>>>>that the exact waveform can be reproduced if the original
> >>>>>signal is frequency limited to less than half the sampling frequency."
> >>>>
> >>>>The quote you supplied does NOT say that "digital is perfect."
> >>>
> >>>In effect it does.
> >>
> >>To you. It does not to me. It simply, to me, states that
> >>when the nyquist criteria is met, and that means the
> >>signal must be limited to less than half the sampling rate,
> >>samplig does NOT lose any information needed to reproduce
> >>an exact replica of the signal meeting the criterion.
> >
> >
> > If I might chime in here. That's not exactly correct. It is correct
> > as far as it goes, but I'm sure that you didn't mean to infer that
> > a musical performance recorded in 8-bit 32 KHz sampling rate
> > is going adequately reconstruct the actual original waveform?
> > Even given that the highs would be truncated at about 15 KHz,
> > which was once considered part of the definition of High-
> > Fidelity, the dynamic range of such a quantization would be
> > limited to about 48 dB and distortion would be very high compared
> > to 16-bit, 44.1 KHz.
>
> There seems to be a general,confusion here: sampling and
> quantization ARE |NOT the same thing: they are two separate
> processes. You cna have one without the other, and you
> can certainly treat and explore the two separately (despite
> the fact that in most audio systems, the two work together).
>
> As an aside, let me give some examples of one without the
> other: first, a switched-capacitor filter is a discrete-
> time sampled, continuous-amplitude system. No quantization
> takes place. Another example in the audio realm is the
> old classic bucket-brigade CCD analog delay lines, again,
> a discrete-time sampled, continuous-amplitude system with
> no quantization. And, for a very common one, an FM stereo
> broadcast can be viewed as yet another discrete-time sampled
> time-division multiplexed, continuous amplitude system.

Yes, I understand this difference. When I use the term quantization I
mean the general process of converting an analog AC signal to a
digital one. This is irrespective of the sampling rate which is driven
by the bandwidth that needs to be quantized.

> ALL of these systems are sampled systems, but NONE of them
> have quantization. You don't talk about the "bit-depth" of
> FM radio (but, you most assuredly could, since their dynamic
> range has a bit-depth equivalent).
>
> And ALL of these systems require the SAME constraints as a
> classic digital audio system: their input bandwidth MUST be
> limited to less than half the sample rate. In the case of
> FM stereo, whose effective sample rate is 38 kHz, the bandwidth
> of the base channel (which holds the L+R information) and the
> subchannel (which holds the L-R information are both limited
> to 15 kHz or so.

I also believe that Shannon had some input into the allocation of
bandwidth for FM after the Second World War. as well.

> Look at ANY of the data sheets on analog bucket-brigade delay
> lines or switched-capacitor filters, they tell you that a low-
> pass filter is mandatory to prevent aliasing by the sampling
> process.
>
> And NONE of these examples are quantized.

Understood. Like I said, I'm not confused. I was using the term to
describe the digitizing of a finite analog AC signal and was not
confusing quantization with sampling at all. If I expressed that
poorly, then mia culpa, but I was not at all confused when I wrote
it.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Friday, February 15, 2013 8:16:30 PM UTC-8, KH wrote:
> On 2/14/2013 8:06 AM, Scott wrote:
>=20
> > On Wednesday, February 13, 2013 8:05:12 PM UTC-8, KH wrote:
>=20
> >> On 2/13/2013 3:10 PM, Scott wrote:
>=20
> >>> On Wednesday, February 13, 2013 11:54:15 AM UTC-8, Dick Pierce wrote:
>=20
> >>>> Scott wrote:
>=20
> >>>>
>=20
> >>>>> Maybe in some other neck of the woods. But all too often I
>=20
> >>>>> see some folks dragging out Shannon/Nyquist and saying "see digital
>=20
> >>>>> IS perfect."
>=20
> >>>>
>=20
> >>>> I would like to see a direct quote from someone who
>=20
> >>>> made this assertion.
>=20
> >>>
>=20
> >>> If you are asking for one I'll just show you one from one of my
>=20
> >>> favorite sources of misinformation.
>=20
> >>> "The Nyquist theorem (which is mathematically proven) says that
>=20
> >>> the exact waveform can be reproduced if the original signal is
>=20
> >>> frequency limited to less than half the sampling frequency."
>=20
> >>>
>=20
> >>> http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=3D98761&hl=3D=
nyquist+perfect
>=20
> >>>
>=20
> >>> IMO "exact" and "perfect" are synonymous as used here. I can find
>=20
> >>> more but you only asked for one.
>=20
> >>
>=20
> >> You seem to have left out the clear caveat in the very next sentence;
>=20
> >> "The word "exact" gets a little shaky if the initial assumptions aren'=
t
>=20
> >> met (example: each sample is taken exactly on time.)"
>=20
> >
>=20
> > Seriously? You think that makes it correct? You think that is all it ta=
kes?
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Well, yes. In fact that is all that is required to make it "correct".=20
>=20
> It still says *nothing* about "digital is perfect".

No "in fact" that is not all it takes. If that were all it took then bit de=
pth would be irrelevant to resolution.=20

>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> >> from which it is
>=20
> >> abundantly clear that the OP was decidedly Not implying "digital is
>=20
> >> perfect", merely that if "done perfectly" - an impossibility - the
>=20
> >> resulting waveform would be perfect, which IS clearly supported by
>=20
> >> information theory.
>=20
> >
>=20
> > Really? So you don't believe in quantization error?
>=20
>=20
>=20
> In "sampling"? No. And sampling is what that statement relates to. I=20
>=20
> believe Dick Pierce has sufficiently addressed that.

Well that seems to be the problem. The statement is limited to sampling rat=
es and ignores the fact that quantization error is also a factor when it co=
mes to Nyquist. There can be no quanitization error for Nyquist to give us =
an "exact" copy of an analog signal. There is always some quantization erro=
r. So the claim "The Nyquist theorem (which is mathematically proven) says =
that the exact waveform can be reproduced if the original signal is frequen=
cy limited to less than half the sampling frequency." Is an "audio" myth.It=
doesn't happen in real AD conversion. Nyquist works perfectly and gives ex=
act waveforms on a mathematical level not on a practical level. but heck, a=
sine wave has infinite resolution on a mathematical level. On a mathematic=
al level both *audio myths* are actually true. Now I look forward to the ar=
guments that a sine wave doesn't have infinite resolution on a mathematical=
level. That will be fun.=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> >
>=20
> >> And of course, you excised the context of the statement as well, in th=
at
>=20
> >> it was a response to the ludicrous claim that "...converting an analog
>=20
> >> signal into a discrete-time one (as it happens when converting from
>=20
> >> analog to digital) destroys the phase information in the two top octav=
es
>=20
> >> of the resulting spectrum. In a CD-standard digital recording, all pha=
se
>=20
> >> information are lost from 5.5kHz up to 22kHz,"
>=20
> >>
>=20
> >> I don't see how the quote you provided has ANY relevance to your claim=
..
>=20
> >>
>=20
> >
>=20
> > People often see what they want to see.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Yes, they do. And no one, with even a superficial objective reading,=20
>=20
> would construe the post you cited as saying "digital is perfect".
>=20
>=20
You really don't get to speak for anyone other than yourself.=20

[Audio_Empire[_2_]]

On Saturday, February 16, 2013 6:37:47 AM UTC-8, Scott wrote:
<snip>
> > In "sampling"? No. And sampling is what that statement relates to. I
> > believe Dick Pierce has sufficiently addressed that.
>
> Well that seems to be the problem. The statement is limited to
> sampling rates and ignores the fact that quantization error is also
> a factor when it comes to Nyquist. There can be no quanitization
> error for Nyquist to give us an "exact" copy of an analog signal.
> There is always some quantization error. So the claim "The Nyquist
> theorem (which is mathematically proven) says that the exact
> waveform can be reproduced if the original signal is frequency
> limited to less than half the sampling frequency." Is an "audio"
> myth.It doesn't happen in real AD conversion. Nyquist works
> perfectly and gives exact waveforms on a mathematical level not on a
> practical level. but heck, a sine wave has infinite resolution on a
> mathematical level. On a mathematical level both *audio myths* are
> actually true. Now I look forward to the arguments that a sine wave
> doesn't have infinite resolution on a mathematical level. That will
> be fun.

I suspect that you are putting too much emphasis on quantization
error. It's been a long time since I studied the nuts and bolts of
digital audio, but it seems to me that unless quantization error is
greater than one LSB (Least Significant Bit), that it really has no
effect on the reconstructed waveform. Modern ADCs and DAC chips are
laser trimmed so that quantization error is kept low to non-existent,
IIRC.


[quoted text deleted -- deb]

[Dick Pierce[_2_]]

Audio_Empire wrote:
> On Saturday, February 16, 2013 6:37:47 AM UTC-8, Scott wrote:
> <snip>
>
>>>In "sampling"? No. And sampling is what that statement relates to. I
>>>believe Dick Pierce has sufficiently addressed that.
>>
>>Well that seems to be the problem. The statement is limited to
>>sampling rates and ignores the fact that quantization error is also
>>a factor when it comes to Nyquist. There can be no quanitization
>>error for Nyquist to give us an "exact" copy of an analog signal.
>>There is always some quantization error. So the claim "The Nyquist
>>theorem (which is mathematically proven) says that the exact
>>waveform can be reproduced if the original signal is frequency
>>limited to less than half the sampling frequency." Is an "audio"
>>myth.It doesn't happen in real AD conversion. Nyquist works
>>perfectly and gives exact waveforms on a mathematical level not on a
>>practical level. but heck, a sine wave has infinite resolution on a
>>mathematical level. On a mathematical level both *audio myths* are
>>actually true. Now I look forward to the arguments that a sine wave
>>doesn't have infinite resolution on a mathematical level. That will
>>be fun.
>
>
> I suspect that you are putting too much emphasis on quantization
> error. It's been a long time since I studied the nuts and bolts of
> digital audio, but it seems to me that unless quantization error is
> greater than one LSB (Least Significant Bit), that it really has no
> effect on the reconstructed waveform. Modern ADCs and DAC chips are
> laser trimmed so that quantization error is kept low to non-existent,
> IIRC.

Uh, no.

First, modern A/D converters used for audio are almost
universally delta-signa converters, different than
the typical combination of DAC, successive approximation
register and comparator. The DAC in such a case would
typically use an R-2R ladder for bit weighting and COULD
benefit from laser trimming for linearity.

But conversion linearity (e.g., the steps are equidistant
and the conversion is monotonic and no missing codes,
etc.) is not quiet what "qauntization error" is typically
considered in this context.

The quantization arizes from the fact that a once continuous
(which is NOT the same as "infinite resolution) signal is
now, well, quantized.

If that's all the converter does, two attributes are noted:

1. the quantization process is essentially like a modulation
(gee, that's why it's called PCM, or "pulse code modulation")
and modulation creates spurious information. This is the
so-called "stair-step" problem that so many in the high-end
considered to be such a terrible disease, and

2. your converter design is defective.

What is done is immediately BEFORE the quantization step, a process
known (in the simplest case) as "dither" is performed. This is
essentially the addition of a small amount of random noise, on the
order of an LSB, to the signal BEFORE the quantizer. It's function
is to essentially randomize the statistics of the quantizer. The
result is that you ELIMINATE (that means, you make it go away)
the quantization error in the qauntizer.

ALL A/D converters used in audio have at least dither and, in most
cases a process called "noise shaping" where, in essence, the error
is fed back through the quantizer, with appropriate weighting, so
that the resulting dither signal is added back into the input so
as also to eliminate the quantization error (notice again,
"eliminate"). Noise shaping is, in effect, different than
straight dither because the noise spectrum of random dither is
essentially white (equal energy at every frequency), whereas
you chose the weighting of your noise shaper right, and you stick
the energy at places where the ear is less sensitive to it. You,
in essence, increase the noise floor at, oh, above 15 kHz, but
reduce it at, say, 2 kHz - 7 kHz, where the ear is most sensitive.

Now, intuitively, it might seem like magic, and those that are
in to faith-based as opposed to fact-based audio simply will
refuse to accept it. But a simple example will illustrate how
it works, and the principle is quite straightforward.

It depends upon the fact that the ear (and most measuring
instruments) do not hear "instantaneous" signals, but rather
detect the average properties of the filter (averaging is
another word for filtering, and the ear is basically a
spectrum ananlyzer, i.e. a series of narrow-band filters
spaced out in frequency. By taking advantage of this averaging,
dither can encode signals well below the least significant
bit quantization level.

Let's consider a sinple DC signal for our example. The smallest
value ("least significant bit") our gedanken quantizer can
encode is 1. Any value smaller than that ends up being 0.
So, 20 consecutive samples of the value, say, 0.35, end up
all being 0:

# Signal Quantized
1 0.35 0
2 0.35 0
3 0.35 0
4 0.35 0
5 0.35 0
6 0.35 0
7 0.35 0
8 0.35 0
9 0.35 0
10 0.35 0
11 0.35 0
12 0.35 0
13 0.35 0
14 0.35 0
15 0.35 0
16 0.35 0
17 0.35 0
18 0.35 0
19 0.35 0
20 0.35 0

Averaged over those 20 snapshots, the result is 0. Clearly,
the error in the quantizer has lost information in the
original signal.

Instead, let's add a small random number to the signal,
and then quantize the sum:

# Signal Dither Sig+dither Quantized
1 0.35 0.086643028 0.436643028 0
2 0.35 0.016667786 0.366667786 0
3 0.35 0.196228521 0.546228521 1
4 0.35 0.104346522 0.454346522 0
5 0.35 0.187354055 0.537354055 1
6 0.35 0.155220547 0.505220547 1
7 0.35 0.093829761 0.443829761 0
8 0.35 -0.015919348 0.334080652 0
9 0.35 0.066064189 0.416064189 0
10 0.35 0.157076587 0.507076587 1
11 0.35 -0.177857024 0.172142976 0
12 0.35 -0.155519641 0.194480359 0
13 0.35 -0.306383986 0.043616014 0
14 0.35 0.446211844 0.796211844 1
15 0.35 -0.351768339 -0.001768339 0
16 0.35 0.226796118 0.576796118 1
17 0.35 -0.022827209 0.327172791 0
18 0.35 0.427503922 0.777503922 1
19 0.35 0.081767267 0.431767267 0
20 0.35 0.049525623 0.399525623 0

THESE samples, which are no longer all 0's, but
seem to "randomly" flip back and forth betweem 0 and
1, when averaged over the same set, result in, surprise,
0.35.

That's because the flipping of the quantized values is
NOT purely random, but rather is "weighted" to flip to
1 about 35% of the time by the signal value of 0.35.

One might argue that I picked a trivial example of a
single, constant value (a "DC voltage), and that music
signals are something different.

Yes, it's true I picked a single value, NOT because the
math works any better, but simply becasue the example is
much more obvious in a character-oriented presentation.
Do the same thing with ANY real signal, and look (or,
what the hell, listen) to the results, and you find the
signal, right there, the quantization distortion is gone.
Depending upon the kind of signal, you can here the signal
FAR below the "quantization error" floor that at least
one respondant insists MUST be there. Easily 20 dB lower
for simple dither models (the example I did above uses
+- 1/2 LSB of triangular probability distributed or TPD
broadband dither).

Gee, that would seem to suggest that with proper dither,
a 16-bit system really is a 19 1/3 bit system. And,
broadband, that's correct, and the limit is NOT the
quantization error, but the perceptual noise floor.

If "quantization error" were, in fact, happening as at
least one respondant insists (with no proof, BTW), then
there would be NOTHING below the LSB of the system.

Indeed, people see what they want to see. Any number of
religions rely on that failing of humans.

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

[Scott[_6_]]

On Saturday, February 16, 2013 12:11:46 PM UTC-8, Audio_Empire wrote:
> On Saturday, February 16, 2013 6:37:47 AM UTC-8, Scott wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > > In "sampling"? No. And sampling is what that statement relates to. I
>
> > > believe Dick Pierce has sufficiently addressed that.
>
> >
>
> > Well that seems to be the problem. The statement is limited to
>
> > sampling rates and ignores the fact that quantization error is also
>
> > a factor when it comes to Nyquist. There can be no quanitization
>
> > error for Nyquist to give us an "exact" copy of an analog signal.
>
> > There is always some quantization error. So the claim "The Nyquist
>
> > theorem (which is mathematically proven) says that the exact
>
> > waveform can be reproduced if the original signal is frequency
>
> > limited to less than half the sampling frequency." Is an "audio"
>
> > myth.It doesn't happen in real AD conversion. Nyquist works
>
> > perfectly and gives exact waveforms on a mathematical level not on a
>
> > practical level. but heck, a sine wave has infinite resolution on a
>
> > mathematical level. On a mathematical level both *audio myths* are
>
> > actually true. Now I look forward to the arguments that a sine wave
>
> > doesn't have infinite resolution on a mathematical level. That will
>
> > be fun.
>
>
>
> I suspect that you are putting too much emphasis on quantization
>
> error. It's been a long time since I studied the nuts and bolts of
>
> digital audio, but it seems to me that unless quantization error is
>
> greater than one LSB (Least Significant Bit), that it really has no
>
> effect on the reconstructed waveform. Modern ADCs and DAC chips are
>
> laser trimmed so that quantization error is kept low to non-existent,
>
> IIRC.
>

It may be low but it is not non existent.

[KH]

On 2/17/2013 7:42 AM, Scott wrote:
> On Saturday, February 16, 2013 12:11:46 PM UTC-8, Audio_Empire wrote:

>> Modern ADCs and DAC chips are
>> laser trimmed so that quantization error is kept low to non-existent,
>>
>> IIRC.
>>
>
> It may be low but it is not non existent.


Uhm, as Dick Pierce just pointed out, by providing a clear example of
the mathematical mechanism involved (thx Dick, a simple and illustrative
treatise), it *is* non-existent. How about you provide some evidence to
the contrary?

And no, that *still* doesn't imply that "digital is perfect".

Keith

[Scott[_6_]]

On Sunday, February 17, 2013 10:26:26 AM UTC-8, KH wrote:
> On 2/17/2013 7:42 AM, Scott wrote:
> > On Saturday, February 16, 2013 12:11:46 PM UTC-8, Audio_Empire wrote:
>
> >> Modern ADCs and DAC chips are
> >> laser trimmed so that quantization error is kept low to non-existent,
> >>
> >> IIRC.
> >>
> >
> > It may be low but it is not non existent.
>
> Uhm, as Dick Pierce just pointed out, by providing a clear example of
> the mathematical mechanism involved (thx Dick, a simple and illustrative
> treatise), it *is* non-existent. How about you provide some evidence to
> the contrary?

No that is not what he pointed out. He made a big deal about the
terminology and pointed out how dither works to *lower* the
distortion. Some distortion is still there. If you think it isn't you
are simply wrong.

[Andrew Haley]

Scott > wrote:
> On Sunday, February 17, 2013 10:26:26 AM UTC-8, KH wrote:
>> On 2/17/2013 7:42 AM, Scott wrote:
>> > On Saturday, February 16, 2013 12:11:46 PM UTC-8, Audio_Empire wrote:
>>
>> >> Modern ADCs and DAC chips are
>> >> laser trimmed so that quantization error is kept low to non-existent,
>> >>
>> >> IIRC.
>> >>
>> >
>> > It may be low but it is not non existent.
>>
>> Uhm, as Dick Pierce just pointed out, by providing a clear example of
>> the mathematical mechanism involved (thx Dick, a simple and illustrative
>> treatise), it *is* non-existent. How about you provide some evidence to
>> the contrary?
>
> No that is not what he pointed out. He made a big deal about the
> terminology and pointed out how dither works to *lower* the
> distortion. Some distortion is still there. If you think it isn't
> you are simply wrong.

He wasn't asking for more assertions, but evidence.

I'd like to recommend that you read Resolution Below the Least
Significant Bit in Digital Systems with Dither by Vanderkooy and
Lip****z. This very famous paper (available on the Internet if you
search for it) comes to the same conclusion as Dick Pierce: dither
effectively turns [all of] the signal distortion caused by quantization
into wide-band noise. If you can find any fault in that paper, it
would be interesting to see you present it here.

They say:

We feel that the audio community in general does not yet understand
the nature of quantization error in digital systems, and in
particular the beneficial effects of adding an appropriate amount of
dither. We shall show that dither really does remove the "digital"
aspects of quantization error, leaving an equivalent analog signal
with high resolution and some benign wide-band noise.

Andrew.

[Arny Krueger[_5_]]

"Scott" > wrote in message
...
> On Sunday, February 17, 2013 10:26:26 AM UTC-8, KH wrote:
>> On 2/17/2013 7:42 AM, Scott wrote:
>> > On Saturday, February 16, 2013 12:11:46 PM UTC-8, Audio_Empire wrote:
>>
>> >> Modern ADCs and DAC chips are
>> >> laser trimmed so that quantization error is kept low to non-existent,
>> >>
>> >> IIRC.
>> >>
>> >
>> > It may be low but it is not non existent.

>> Uhm, as Dick Pierce just pointed out, by providing a clear example of
>> the mathematical mechanism involved (thx Dick, a simple and illustrative
>> treatise), it *is* non-existent. How about you provide some evidence to
>> the contrary?

> No that is not what he pointed out. He made a big deal about the
> terminology and pointed out how dither works to *lower* the
> distortion. Some distortion is still there. If you think it isn't you
> are simply wrong.

I think we're on the brink of an exceptional claim. Properly applied TPDF
dither can be mathematically proven to competely decorrelate the first
moment of the quantization error (AKA distortion amplitude) and make it
statistically independent of the signal. In layman's terms that means
"nonlinear distortion amplitude sums to zero". Furthemore, properly applied
TPDF dither can be mathematically proven to competely decorrelate the second
moment of the quantization error (AKA distortion power) and make it
statistically independent of the signal. In layman's terms that means
"nonlinear distortion power sums to zero".

I can see the correlation summing to zero and still be non-zero at times,
but for the square of the correlation to sum to zero, AFAIK the correlation
has to be solidly zero at all times.

The only case where the sum of the square of an error signal sums to a
non-zero number that comes to mind is when the error signal is imaginary.
;-)

As a practical matter it can be observed that there are many different kinds
of dither including TPDF dither that randomize the quantization error to the
point where electrical and mathematical means of detecting it are completely
frustrated.

This information has been known and widely disseminated without controversy
for several decades.

I would be very interested in knowing what more recent authority could be
formally cited that would change that situation.

[Dick Pierce[_2_]]

Scott wrote:
> No that is not what he pointed out. He made a big deal about the
> terminology and pointed out how dither works to *lower* the
> distortion. Some distortion is still there. If you think it isn't you
> are simply wrong.

Please support your assertion with the same rigor and used
by Shannon, Nyquist, Lip****z, Vanderkooy, and others.

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

[Dick Pierce[_2_]]

Andrew Haley wrote:
> Scott > wrote:
>>On Sunday, February 17, 2013 10:26:26 AM UTC-8, KH wrote:
>>>On 2/17/2013 7:42 AM, Scott wrote:
>>>>It may be low but it is not non existent.
>>>Uhm, as Dick Pierce just pointed out, by providing a clear example of
>>>the mathematical mechanism involved (thx Dick, a simple and illustrative
>>>treatise), it *is* non-existent. How about you provide some evidence to
>>>the contrary?
>>
>>No that is not what he pointed out. He made a big deal about the
>>terminology and pointed out how dither works to *lower* the
>>distortion. Some distortion is still there. If you think it isn't
>>you are simply wrong.
>
> He wasn't asking for more assertions, but evidence.
>

But wait: assertions are pretty much all high-end audio has
to live on any more, since facts have been taken away after
it starting poking itself in the eye with them.

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

[Audio_Empire[_2_]]

On Tuesday, February 19, 2013 6:41:31 AM UTC-8, Andrew Haley wrote:
>
> He wasn't asking for more assertions, but evidence.
>
> I'd like to recommend that you read Resolution Below the Least
> Significant Bit in Digital Systems with Dither by Vanderkooy and
> Lip****z. This very famous paper (available on the Internet if you
> search for it) comes to the same conclusion as Dick Pierce: dither
> effectively turns [all of] the signal distortion caused by quantization
> into wide-band noise. If you can find any fault in that paper, it
> would be interesting to see you present it here.
>
> They say:
>
> We feel that the audio community in general does not yet understand
> the nature of quantization error in digital systems, and in
> particular the beneficial effects of adding an appropriate amount of
> dither. We shall show that dither really does remove the "digital"
> aspects of quantization error, leaving an equivalent analog signal
> with high resolution and some benign wide-band noise.

Isn't that "benign wide-band noise" essentially below the threshold of
audibility?
I would think that it would be. Can someone address this question?

[KH]

On 2/18/2013 8:58 PM, Scott wrote:
> On Sunday, February 17, 2013 10:26:26 AM UTC-8, KH wrote:
>> On 2/17/2013 7:42 AM, Scott wrote:
>>> On Saturday, February 16, 2013 12:11:46 PM UTC-8, Audio_Empire wrote:
>>
>>>> Modern ADCs and DAC chips are
>>>> laser trimmed so that quantization error is kept low to non-existent,
>>>>
>>>> IIRC.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It may be low but it is not non existent.
>>
>> Uhm, as Dick Pierce just pointed out, by providing a clear example of
>> the mathematical mechanism involved (thx Dick, a simple and illustrative
>> treatise), it *is* non-existent. How about you provide some evidence to
>> the contrary?
>
> No that is not what he pointed out. He made a big deal about the
> terminology and pointed out how dither works to *lower* the
> distortion. Some distortion is still there.

Well, no, as you're fond of saying, you don't get to speak for other
people. Mr. Pierce said, and I quote:

"What is done is immediately BEFORE the quantization step, a process
known (in the simplest case) as "dither" is performed. This is
essentially the addition of a small amount of random noise, on the
order of an LSB, to the signal BEFORE the quantizer. It's function
is to essentially randomize the statistics of the quantizer. The
result is that you ELIMINATE (that means, you make it go away)
the quantization error in the qauntizer."

Note the use of "ELIMINATE" - not lower, not reduce, eliminate
quantization error. Your characterization is flat wrong.

> If you think it isn't you
> are simply wrong.

Assertion is not evidence. How about some citations?

Keith

[Arny Krueger[_5_]]

"KH" > wrote in message
...
> On 2/18/2013 8:58 PM, Scott wrote:

>> No that is not what he pointed out. He made a big deal about the
>> terminology and pointed out how dither works to *lower* the
>> distortion. Some distortion is still there.

If the point is that someone on this forum said something like that, it is
meaningless. With all due respect for our esteemed moderator(s), nothing
posted here goes through a proper editorial review by a duely credentialed
editorial board that is poart of an internationally respected a
professional organization such as the AES. Thease are all casual
conversations.

> Well, no, as you're fond of saying, you don't get to speak for other
> people. Mr. Pierce said, and I quote:

> "What is done is immediately BEFORE the quantization step, a process
> known (in the simplest case) as "dither" is performed. This is
> essentially the addition of a small amount of random noise, on the
> order of an LSB, to the signal BEFORE the quantizer. It's function
> is to essentially randomize the statistics of the quantizer. The
> result is that you ELIMINATE (that means, you make it go away)
> the quantization error in the qauntizer."

> Note the use of "ELIMINATE" - not lower, not reduce, eliminate
> quantization error. Your characterization is flat wrong.

Agreed.

>> If you think it isn't you are simply wrong.

He is certainly correct.

> Assertion is not evidence. How about some citations?

I'm sure that anecdotal evidence from any number of musical artists,
recording engineers and mastering engineers can be provided. This speaks to
the fact that these people are primarily artists, and are not world-class
technical experts even though their professional endeavors may involve the
exercise of certain non-trivial amounts of technical expertise.

[Arny Krueger[_5_]]

"Audio_Empire" > wrote in message
...
> On Tuesday, February 19, 2013 6:41:31 AM UTC-8, Andrew Haley wrote:
>>
>> He wasn't asking for more assertions, but evidence.
>>
>> I'd like to recommend that you read Resolution Below the Least
>> Significant Bit in Digital Systems with Dither by Vanderkooy and
>> Lip****z. This very famous paper (available on the Internet if you
>> search for it) comes to the same conclusion as Dick Pierce: dither
>> effectively turns [all of] the signal distortion caused by quantization
>> into wide-band noise. If you can find any fault in that paper, it
>> would be interesting to see you present it here.
>>
>> They say:
>>
>> We feel that the audio community in general does not yet understand
>> the nature of quantization error in digital systems, and in
>> particular the beneficial effects of adding an appropriate amount of
>> dither. We shall show that dither really does remove the "digital"
>> aspects of quantization error, leaving an equivalent analog signal
>> with high resolution and some benign wide-band noise.
>
> Isn't that "benign wide-band noise" essentially below the threshold of
> audibility?

"It depends"

> I would think that it would be. Can someone address this question?

This is controversial, it depends on who you believe. If you believe
Fielder, he said that > 120 dB dynamic range is an absolute requirement. If
you believe Krueger, he says that 88 dB suffices. If you believe Vanderkooy
and Lipchitz, 16 bit media can have an effective perceived dynamic range on
the order of 120 dB.

I say that at least two facts support Krueger:

(1) Three well-funded attempts have made to raise the performance of
mainstream prerecorded media to > 93 or 96 dB/ They have all had enough time
to prove themselves in the marketplace. They all failed to gain even a tiny
fraction of critical mass in the mainstream marketplace.

(2) All three attempts included legacy sources with << 93-96 dB actual
dynamic range, and nobody made a specific complaint based on "Just
listening". Technical measurements proved the existence of the lapses in up
to 50% of the so-called hi rez media.

[Dick Pierce[_2_]]

ScottW wrote:
> On Feb 19, 7:49 pm, KH > wrote:
>>On 2/18/2013 8:58 PM, Scott wrote:
>>>No that is not what he pointed out. He made a big deal about the
>>>terminology and pointed out how dither works to *lower* the
>>>distortion. Some distortion is still there.
>>
>>Well, no, as you're fond of saying, you don't get to speak for other
>>people. Mr. Pierce said, and I quote:
>>
>>"What is done is immediately BEFORE the quantization step, a process
>>known (in the simplest case) as "dither" is performed. This is
>>essentially the addition of a small amount of random noise, on the
>>order of an LSB, to the signal BEFORE the quantizer. It's function
>>is to essentially randomize the statistics of the quantizer. The
>>result is that you ELIMINATE (that means, you make it go away)
>>the quantization error in the qauntizer."
>
> Is "eliminate" the right description? My understanding is (and I'd
> be happily corrected if this is wrong) is that dither decorrelates the
> quanitization error from the original signal...a necessary requirement
> for distortion is that it correlates with the original signal. Dither
> decorrelates and therefore essentially replaces quantization
> distortion with noise.
> The beneifts are that with noise shaping the added noise can be placed
> where it is least offensive to the human ear and the original low
> level signal on the threshold of dynamic range is still there and we
> can hear signals below noise better than a distorted low level signal.
> Again, I'd be happily corrected if my simple understanding is
> incorrect.

well, you're right, but incomplete. Talking about things like
decorrelating the quantization error" whiule technically correct,
fails to convey to the audience at hand the basic concept of
what's happening and why it's good.

Look at it from a different viewpoint: if you were to draw a
graph of the input to a perfect, noiseless linear "analog"
system vs its ouput, it should be a straight line at 45 degrees
from horizontal, from lower left to upper right, assuming the
system is perfect, linear and noiseless.

Now, draw the same graph for the perfect "analog" system, but
with a little noise. Averaged over a long enough period, the
graph would be a straight line, but over a short period, you'd
see a reasonable approximation of that straight line, only noisy.

Now, draw the same graph of an undithered digital linear PCM system.
Your graph would be a series of equi-spaced stairsteps, the classical,
naive view of a digital system.

Another step: dither the input to your digital system and now plot
the graph. Averaged over a long enough period, the graph
would a straight line, but obver a short period, you'd see a
reasomable approximation of that straight line, only noisy.

Now, compare to ofthose graphs, first the perfect analog
system but with a little noise:

Averaged over a long enough period, the graph would be
a straight line, but over a short period, you'd see a
reasonable approximation of that straight line, only
noisy.

The properly dithered digital system:

Averaged over a long enough period, the graph would be
a straight line, but obver a short period, you'd see a
reasonable approximation of that straight line, only
noisy.

Yes, in the latter case, the noise is certainly decorrelating
the quantixation products from the signal, but looking at it
in such a narrow (but correct) way loses the essence of what
dithering is doing: it is linearizing the system.

And, over the limits of its dynamic range, it is perfectly
linear, the residual is noise, only noise. Yes, that noise is
decorrleated from the signal. But it's noise, and the system
is linear.

Linear system don't have distortion, despite what one person
or another may want to assert, no matter how vigorously.

Now, said persons may want to accuse me of vigorous assertions:
fine, have at it. But I'm willing to refer said parties to the following:

Blesser, B. A., "Elementary and Basic Aspects of Digital
Audio," AES Digital Audio Collected Papers, 1983

Blesser, B. A., "Digitization of Audio: A Comprehensive
Examination of Theory, Implementation and Current Practice,"
JAES, vol 26, no. 10, 1978 Oct.

Lip****z, Wannamaker and Vaderkooy, "Quantization and Dither:
A Theoretical Sruvey," JAES, vol. 40, no. 5, 1992 May

Schuman, L., "Dither Signals and Their Effect on Quantization
Noise," IEEE Trans Comm. Tech., COM-12 1964 Dec.

Vanderkooy and Lip****z, "Dither in Digital Audio," JAES, vol 35,
no. 12, 1987 Dec.

Vanderkooy and Lip****z, "Resolution Below the Least Significant
Bit in Digtial Audio Systems with Dither," JAES, vol. 32, no. 3,
1984 March.

Blesser and Locanthi, "The Applicaion of Narrow-Band Dither
Operating at the Nyquist Frequency in Digital Systems to
Provide Improved Signal-to-Noise Ratio over Conventional
Dithering," JAES, vol. 25, no. 6, 1987 June

Jayant and Rabiner, "The Application of Dither to the Quantization
of Speech Signals," Bell Sys. Tech J., vol 51, 1972

Shannon, C. E., "Communications in the Presence of Noise," Proc.
IRE, vol. 37, 1949.

Shannon, C.E., "A mathematical Theory of Communication," Bell
Sys. Tech. J., vol. 27, 1948 Oct.

So, to those who say assert things like:

"No that is not what he pointed out. He made a big deal
about the terminology and pointed out how dither works
to *lower* the distortion. Some distortion is still there."

or

"[quantization distortion] It may be low but it is not
non existent."

or

"There is always some quantization error."

or

"The fact is any AD converter is going to be making
quantization errors when sampling any analog signal."

To said person(s), I have provided 10 peer-reviewed, rigorous
(certainly by ANY standards of the high-end press) articles that
would tend to refute such assertions. How about coming up with
10 references that, with equal rigor, supports these assertions?

How about 10? 3?

And, as one in this thread said,

"People often see what they want to see."

Most especially when they aren't looking.

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

[Audio_Empire[_2_]]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Audio_Empire" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Tuesday, February 19, 2013 6:41:31 AM UTC-8, Andrew Haley wrote:
> >>
> >> He wasn't asking for more assertions, but evidence.
> >>
> >> I'd like to recommend that you read Resolution Below the Least
> >> Significant Bit in Digital Systems with Dither by Vanderkooy and
> >> Lip****z. This very famous paper (available on the Internet if you
> >> search for it) comes to the same conclusion as Dick Pierce: dither
> >> effectively turns [all of] the signal distortion caused by quantization
> >> into wide-band noise. If you can find any fault in that paper, it
> >> would be interesting to see you present it here.
> >>
> >> They say:
> >>
> >> We feel that the audio community in general does not yet understand
> >> the nature of quantization error in digital systems, and in
> >> particular the beneficial effects of adding an appropriate amount of
> >> dither. We shall show that dither really does remove the "digital"
> >> aspects of quantization error, leaving an equivalent analog signal
> >> with high resolution and some benign wide-band noise.
> >
> > Isn't that "benign wide-band noise" essentially below the threshold of
> > audibility?
>
> "It depends"
>
> > I would think that it would be. Can someone address this question?
>
> This is controversial, it depends on who you believe. If you believe
> Fielder, he said that > 120 dB dynamic range is an absolute requirement. If
> you believe Krueger, he says that 88 dB suffices. If you believe Vanderkooy
> and Lipchitz, 16 bit media can have an effective perceived dynamic range on
> the order of 120 dB.
>
> I say that at least two facts support Krueger:
>
> (1) Three well-funded attempts have made to raise the performance of
> mainstream prerecorded media to > 93 or 96 dB/ They have all had enough time
> to prove themselves in the marketplace. They all failed to gain even a tiny
> fraction of critical mass in the mainstream marketplace.
>
> (2) All three attempts included legacy sources with << 93-96 dB actual
> dynamic range, and nobody made a specific complaint based on "Just
> listening". Technical measurements proved the existence of the lapses in up
> to 50% of the so-called hi rez media.

Due to a peculiar competition between record companies of late, which
has been named "the loudness wars" by the industry press, most modern
CD releases (and even re-releases) are so drastically compressed in
volume that they have less dynamic range than a cheap LP of the
1970's.

[Dick Pierce[_2_]]

Audio_Empire wrote:
> Due to a peculiar competition between record companies of late, which
> has been named "the loudness wars" by the industry press, most modern
> CD releases (and even re-releases) are so drastically compressed in
> volume that they have less dynamic range than a cheap LP of the
> 1970's.

Well it depends upon what "most" means. In terms of sheer numbers,
"most" means primarily pop-oriented releases and, yes, "most" of
them and thus "most" CDs are compressed.

But I find that "most" classical CD releases do not suffer this
unfortunate fate.

I was able to finally grab (becasue, after waiting about 15 years,
I finally looked) the complete set Beethoven Symphonies conducted
by Ansermet with the L'Orchestre de la Suisse Romande on Decca.
VERY satisfactory set, and compared the 7th to my almost pristine
LP copy from the early 70s, and my opinion is that every last bit
of dynamic range on the LP is available on the CD, 'cept for the
lack of surface noise.

This is true of the the vast mojority of my classical CDs.

Perhaps classic music represents such a small part of the total
market that they're not worth spending any time or effort
"improving" them, save the same is true of more recent
recordings.

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

[Audio_Empire[_2_]]

On Saturday, February 23, 2013 8:15:59 PM UTC-8, Dick Pierce wrote:
> Audio_Empire wrote:
> > Due to a peculiar competition between record companies of late, which
> > has been named "the loudness wars" by the industry press, most modern
> > CD releases (and even re-releases) are so drastically compressed in
> > volume that they have less dynamic range than a cheap LP of the
> > 1970's.
>
> Well it depends upon what "most" means. In terms of sheer numbers,
> "most" means primarily pop-oriented releases and, yes, "most" of
> them and thus "most" CDs are compressed.
>
> But I find that "most" classical CD releases do not suffer this
> unfortunate fate.

No, they don't. Thank the fates. But even most classical CDs don't
sound as good as they could or should sound This is even true of most
SACDs and DVD-A's as well as audio Blu-Rays. One of the reasons I
believe that many audiophiles are so impressed with hi-res downloads
is due to the fact that many of these are straight A/D conversions of
either the master tapes (both analog and digital) or something very
close to a master tape with no compression or limiting. I suspect that
this aspect of what is as yet still very much a "cottage industry" is
much more responsible for the enthusiasm that many express about this
delivery medium than is the 24-bit/96 KHz or 192 KHz bit depth and
sampling rate.

> I was able to finally grab (becasue, after waiting about 15 years,
> I finally looked) the complete set Beethoven Symphonies conducted
> by Ansermet with the L'Orchestre de la Suisse Romande on Decca.
> VERY satisfactory set, and compared the 7th to my almost pristine
> LP copy from the early 70s, and my opinion is that every last bit
> of dynamic range on the LP is available on the CD, 'cept for the
> lack of surface noise.

Well, it ought to be. I do a lot of recording. Even though I capture
in DSD, my deliverable product to my clients is via 16-bit/44.1 KHz
CD. They sound not just good, but spectacular. I get comments all the
time from people un-used to a CD sounding that good! Many fellow audio
enthusiasts for whom I've played these CDs have seemed astonished by
what they hear, and many assume that I'm playing an SACD or a DVD-A
(mortals can't burn the former, the software is stratospherically
expensive, but I do have software that allows me to burn DVD-As.
That's what I make for ME to listen to, but I take regular old Red
Book CDs to play for others at their locations)

> This is true of the the vast mojority of my classical CDs.

Thankfully! I wish it were as true for most jazz. I have a lot of jazz
on JVC XRCD and it sounds spectacular (mostly Rudy Van Gelder stuff
from the late 1950's and early 1960's sourced from Riverside, Blue
Note and other small jazz labels. But the stuff from the major labels
such as Warner-Electra, MCA, Sony, etc. is lousy.

> Perhaps classic music represents such a small part of the total
> market that they're not worth spending any time or effort
> "improving" them, save the same is true of more recent
> recordings.

That's possible, but I think it's more likely that it is a totally
different division with wildly different marketing strategy from the
"pop" side of the house. This doesn't make classical music immune from
the excesses of multi-mike and multi-channel though. I still hear a
lot poorly recorded classical music with lousy sound caused by that
disgusting practice. Luckily the GREAT stuff from the golden age of
classical recording still sounds wonderful when remastered properly.
After all, the decent stereo mike technique is there and multi-track
hadn't made any inroads into classical recording yet when these
recordings were made.