Blu-ray Hi Fidelity Pure Audio discs

[geoff]

..... passed under the radar for me.

Any supposed benefit over DVD-A or SACD, apart from higher capacity
potentially enabling more types of multi-channel versions available on
a same disc ?

Must find one, probably 'Crime Of the Century' (24/96 apparently) , to
compare with CD and SACD versions I already have. I never did get a
DVD-A capable player , so can't compare that ....

geoff

[geoff]

On 16/02/2016 2:23 p.m., geoff wrote:
> .... passed under the radar for me.
>
> Any supposed benefit over DVD-A or SACD, apart from higher capacity
> potentially enabling more types of multi-channel versions available
> on a same disc ?
>
> Must find one, probably 'Crime Of the Century' (24/96 apparently) , to
> compare with CD and SACD versions I already have. I never did get a
> DVD-A capable player , so can't compare that ....
>
> geoff

Bloody hell. Now it seems there is yet a *different* thing again called
Pure Audio Blu-ray. I just can't keep up !

geoff

[JackA]

On Monday, February 15, 2016 at 8:23:41 PM UTC-5, geoff wrote:
> .... passed under the radar for me.
>
> Any supposed benefit over DVD-A or SACD, apart from higher capacity
> potentially enabling more types of multi-channel versions available on
> a same disc ?
>
> Must find one, probably 'Crime Of the Century' (24/96 apparently) , to
> compare with CD and SACD versions I already have. I never did get a
> DVD-A capable player , so can't compare that ....

I don't like the remastering to begin with, a bit too harsh for my ears. Good luck, maybe you'll be Bloody Well Right and you'll find a nice sounding rendition.

Jack
>
> geoff

[JackA]

On Monday, February 15, 2016 at 8:53:47 PM UTC-5, geoff wrote:
> On 16/02/2016 2:23 p.m., geoff wrote:
> > .... passed under the radar for me.
> >
> > Any supposed benefit over DVD-A or SACD, apart from higher capacity
> > potentially enabling more types of multi-channel versions available
> > on a same disc ?
> >
> > Must find one, probably 'Crime Of the Century' (24/96 apparently) , to
> > compare with CD and SACD versions I already have. I never did get a
> > DVD-A capable player , so can't compare that ....
> >
> > geoff
>
> Bloody hell. Now it seems there is yet a *different* thing again called
> Pure Audio Blu-ray. I just can't keep up !

My guess, they just digitally enhance the songs and stick it on a new and improved HQ format. I don't hear ANY remixing of Crime Of The Century, just digital enhancing.

Jack

>
> geoff

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 2/15/2016 8:53 PM, geoff wrote:
> Bloody hell. Now it seems there is yet a *different* thing again called
> Pure Audio Blu-ray. I just can't keep up !

But vinyl is forever. ;)

--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[geoff]

On 16/02/2016 3:04 p.m., JackA wrote:
> On Monday, February 15, 2016 at 8:53:47 PM UTC-5, geoff wrote:
>> On 16/02/2016 2:23 p.m., geoff wrote:
>>> .... passed under the radar for me.
>>>
>>> Any supposed benefit over DVD-A or SACD, apart from higher capacity
>>> potentially enabling more types of multi-channel versions available
>>> on a same disc ?
>>>
>>> Must find one, probably 'Crime Of the Century' (24/96 apparently) , to
>>> compare with CD and SACD versions I already have. I never did get a
>>> DVD-A capable player , so can't compare that ....
>>>
>>> geoff
>> Bloody hell. Now it seems there is yet a *different* thing again called
>> Pure Audio Blu-ray. I just can't keep up !
> My guess, they just digitally enhance the songs and stick it on a new and improved HQ format. I don't hear ANY remixing of Crime Of The Century, just digital enhancing.
>
> Jack
>
>> geoff


Doh - the concept is that there is *no* 'enhancing', remixing, or
remastering.

geoff

[geoff]

On 16/02/2016 4:20 PM, Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 2/15/2016 8:53 PM, geoff wrote:
>> Bloody hell. Now it seems there is yet a *different* thing again called
>> Pure Audio Blu-ray. I just can't keep up !
>
> But vinyl is forever. ;)
>

Have got 'Crime' on regular vinyl, and a pommie hi-fi mag 'super-cut'
vinyl version too. I must be going for some sort of 'record' here ;-)

geoff

[Scott Dorsey]

geoff > wrote:
>.... passed under the radar for me.
>
>Any supposed benefit over DVD-A or SACD, apart from higher capacity
>potentially enabling more types of multi-channel versions available on
>a same disc ?

OR multiple mixes of the same material. OR days worth of 44.1/16 elevator
music for background systems. Or (and this is the big deal) video mixed
with uncompressed multichannel audio.

The problem with the system, though, is that although the storage capacity
is high, the bandwidth getting data off the disk is still limiting.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[[email protected]]

On Monday, February 15, 2016 at 10:32:08 PM UTC-5, geoff wrote:

>
>
> Doh - the concept is that there is *no* 'enhancing', remixing, or
> remastering.
>
> geoff
___________

sigh...

Again, we agree on something geoff - yet
most of the time are at each others'
throat philosophically. Why???

[Scott Dorsey]

> wrote:
>On Monday, February 15, 2016 at 10:32:08 PM UTC-5, geoff wrote:
>
>> Doh - the concept is that there is *no* 'enhancing', remixing, or
>> remastering.
>
>Again, we agree on something geoff - yet
>most of the time are at each others'
>throat philosophically. Why???

Because every time you open your mouth you display complete and total
ignorance of the technical issues and every attempt to explain them to
you has been futile.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[[email protected]]

On Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 11:33:50 AM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
l.com> wrote:
> >On Monday, February 15, 2016 at 10:32:08 PM UTC-5, geoff wrote:
> >
> >> Doh - the concept is that there is *no* 'enhancing', remixing, or
> >> remastering.
> >
> >Again, we agree on something geoff - yet
> >most of the time are at each others'
> >throat philosophically. Why???
>
> Because every time you open your mouth you display complete and total
> ignorance of the technical issues and every attempt to explain them to
> you has been futile.
> --scott
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
__________

Break that down for me. Because frankly,
nobody on here has been able to prove
my alleged "ignorance of the technical
issues".

[None]

< thekma @ gurglemail.com > wrote in message
...
> Break that down for me. Because frankly,
> nobody on here has been able to prove
> my alleged "ignorance of the technical
> issues".

Usenet comedy post of the week!

[david gourley[_2_]]

said...news:89da7dd3-99df-4b25-b010-
:

> On Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 11:33:50 AM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> l.com> wrote:
>> >On Monday, February 15, 2016 at 10:32:08 PM UTC-5, geoff wrote:
>> >
>> >> Doh - the concept is that there is *no* 'enhancing', remixing, or
>> >> remastering.
>> >
>> >Again, we agree on something geoff - yet
>> >most of the time are at each others'
>> >throat philosophically. Why???
>>
>> Because every time you open your mouth you display complete and total
>> ignorance of the technical issues and every attempt to explain them to
>> you has been futile.
>> --scott
>> --
>> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
> __________
>
> Break that down for me. Because frankly,
> nobody on here has been able to prove
> my alleged "ignorance of the technical
> issues".

Why should anyone bother when you're doing such a good job of it yourself ?

david

[[email protected]]

david gourley wrote: said...news:89da7dd3-99df-4b25-b010-
:
- show quoted text -
Why should anyone bother when you're doing such a good job of it yourself ?

david "


As I asked Dorsey I'm asking you: PROVE my ALLEGED
audio incompetence. If you and he have the guts to, that
is.

[None]

> wrote in message
...
> david gourley wrote:
> said...news:89da7dd3-99df-4b25-b010-
> :
> - show quoted text -
> Why should anyone bother when you're doing such a good job of it
> yourself ?
>
> david "
>
>
> As I asked Dorsey I'm asking you: PROVE my ALLEGED
> audio incompetence. If you and he have the guts to, that
> is.

Brave Sir Theckma, the quadruple-amputee black knight, tells King
Arthur to "come back here and take what's coming to you. I'll bite
your legs off!"

[John Williamson]

On 16/02/2016 17:18, wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 11:33:50 AM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> l.com> wrote:

>> Because every time you open your mouth you display complete and total
>> ignorance of the technical issues and every attempt to explain them to
>> you has been futile.
>> --scott
>> --
>> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
> __________
>
> Break that down for me. Because frankly,
> nobody on here has been able to prove
> my alleged "ignorance of the technical
> issues".
>
We don't need to, you do it every time you post here.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[[email protected]]

John Williamson wrote: "We don't need to, you do it every
time you post here. "

You know what? You're ALL full of it.

There are two groups of people on here -
The group that includes you, Dorsey, geoff,
trevor, JackA, and Mike Rivers, and, the
group comprising of one member: "None".
The only difference between the two
groups is that one of them doesn't resort
to name-calling potty-mouth diatribe.

Other than that, you're all the SAME:
FULL OF IT. "Every time I post here"
is not an acceptable example to give
of how "little" I know about live audio
or studio recording or mastering.
You're all just a bunch of cowards who
can't accept that someone who doesn't
do it as a full time job actually still
knows a thing or ten about it. Well
that's just too bad: I'm proud of my
audio skill set and I don't need any
endorsement from ANY of you!

[None]

< theckma @ tantrum.edu > wrote in message
...
> Waaaaaa-aaa-aaaah !

I guess you'll have to go eat worms.

[Scott Dorsey]

> wrote:
>
>As I asked Dorsey I'm asking you: PROVE my ALLEGED
>audio incompetence. If you and he have the guts to, that
>is.

Well, three messages earlier in this thread you were suggesting that
recordings would sound better if they peaked at -6dBFS. This indicates
to me that in spite of many people trying to explain it to you in the
past year or so you still don't get the notion of peak vs. average
levels which is absolutely basic and fundamental to the concept of
loudness. Any time anyone tries to explain in any even remotely technical
way, you complain that you don't do math. This is bad, because digital
audio _is_ math.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[[email protected]]

Scott Dorsey wrote: "
> wrote:
>
>As I asked Dorsey I'm asking you: PROVE my ALLEGED
>audio incompetence. If you and he have the guts to, that
>is.

Well, three messages earlier in this thread you were suggesting that recordings would sound better if they
peaked at -6dBFS. "

LIAR.

Here is the text of that conversation:
""geoff asked: "So what's this 'Conservative settings' ? "

Never peaking above -6dBfs? I own
a few CDs like that. Whole thing
was recorded at insanely low levels. ""

Now just WHERE THE **** did I
suggest that peaks at -6 would sound
better - Huh?! Talk about comprehension
problems... And it wasn't in this thread
either - it came from the "OT Joe Walsh"
thread.

All I was saying there was, if the peak
levels of those certain CDs of mine were
-6dBFS or lower, imagine how low down
the averages must be, or the RMS,
which Foobar 2000 measures along
with the peaks. Apparently it is YOU
who were not able to glean all that
from what I wrote!


"This indicates to me that..."

What does your TOILET SEAT
indicate? Come on, spit it
out.


"in spite of many people trying to explain it to you in the past year or so you still don't get the notion of peak vs. average levels which is
absolutely basic and fundamental to the concept of loudness."

BULL ****. I probably understand
it better than the likes of YOU!



"Any time anyone tries to explain in any even remotely technical way, you complain that you don't do math.
This is bad, because digital audio _is_ math.
- show quoted text -"

[None]

< Theckma @ sevenwords . com > wrote in message
news:798259c5-cea4-476f-9eb3-
> < Theckma potty-mouth diatribe snecked >

Theckma, is that what you meant by potty-mouth diatribe? You know, the
potty-mouth diatribe that you were whining about out of the other side
of your hole, not even an hour ago?

[JackA]

On Monday, February 15, 2016 at 10:32:08 PM UTC-5, geoff wrote:
> On 16/02/2016 3:04 p.m., JackA wrote:
> > On Monday, February 15, 2016 at 8:53:47 PM UTC-5, geoff wrote:
> >> On 16/02/2016 2:23 p.m., geoff wrote:
> >>> .... passed under the radar for me.
> >>>
> >>> Any supposed benefit over DVD-A or SACD, apart from higher capacity
> >>> potentially enabling more types of multi-channel versions available
> >>> on a same disc ?
> >>>
> >>> Must find one, probably 'Crime Of the Century' (24/96 apparently) , to
> >>> compare with CD and SACD versions I already have. I never did get a
> >>> DVD-A capable player , so can't compare that ....
> >>>
> >>> geoff
> >> Bloody hell. Now it seems there is yet a *different* thing again called
> >> Pure Audio Blu-ray. I just can't keep up !
> > My guess, they just digitally enhance the songs and stick it on a new and improved HQ format. I don't hear ANY remixing of Crime Of The Century, just digital enhancing.
> >
> > Jack
> >
> >> geoff
>
>
> Doh - the concept is that there is *no* 'enhancing', remixing, or
> remastering.

I see, so it must sound as boring as Hel*.

Jack
>
> geoff

[JackA]

On Monday, February 15, 2016 at 10:20:23 PM UTC-5, Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 2/15/2016 8:53 PM, geoff wrote:
> > Bloody hell. Now it seems there is yet a *different* thing again called
> > Pure Audio Blu-ray. I just can't keep up !
>
> But vinyl is forever. ;)

That could be true. But, with vinyl, they had real audio engineers. With CD, any average Joe will do for (re)mastering.

Jack
>
> --
> For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[geoff]

On 17/02/2016 12:50 p.m., JackA wrote:
> > remastering. > > I see, so it must sound as boring as Hel*. > >

As boring as what the band and/or producer decided was *exactly* what
they wanted released.

geoff

[Matt Faunce]

Scott Dorsey > wrote:
> > wrote:
>>
>> As I asked Dorsey I'm asking you: PROVE my ALLEGED
>> audio incompetence. If you and he have the guts to, that
>> is.
>
> Well, three messages earlier in this thread you were suggesting that
> recordings would sound better if they peaked at -6dBFS. This indicates
> to me that in spite of many people trying to explain it to you in the
> past year or so you still don't get the notion of peak vs. average
> levels which is absolutely basic and fundamental to the concept of
> loudness. Any time anyone tries to explain in any even remotely technical
> way, you complain that you don't do math. This is bad, because digital
> audio _is_ math.
> --scott

Maybe he had a principle in mind that is similar to this:

Gabe M. Wiener wrote the following in the liner notes to the CD The
Buxtehude Project, volume II.

"The question of gain structure on a recording such as this is a salient
one. Certainly this is a case where the dynamic range of the instrument
does not even begin to approach the limits of the 24-bit recording medium.
To that end, there were several gain structure options open to us. Textbook
digital practice would suggest that the harpsichord should be recorded and
mastered such that at some point in the recording, the level 0 dBfs is
reached. There are several practical considerations that make such an
approach both problematic and undesirable. Since the harpsichord is not a
very loud instrument, listeners would need to place their volume controls
in the lowest area of travel in order to achieve a proper listening level.
Our own research has shown that nearly all volume controls, including those
on high-end systems, exhibit a pronounced loss of resolution at the bottom
end of their travel.

"All preamplifiers have a gain range in which they operate best. We have
therefore chosen to take into account the gain ranges of both the recording
and reproduction chains in setting the mastering level. You will find that
the ideal listening level for this recording will likely be in the optimum
gain range of your preamplifier. …"

--
Matt

[Matt Faunce]

Matt Faunce > wrote:
> Scott Dorsey > wrote:
>> > wrote:
>>>
>>> As I asked Dorsey I'm asking you: PROVE my ALLEGED
>>> audio incompetence. If you and he have the guts to, that
>>> is.
>>
>> Well, three messages earlier in this thread you were suggesting that
>> recordings would sound better if they peaked at -6dBFS. This indicates
>> to me that in spite of many people trying to explain it to you in the
>> past year or so you still don't get the notion of peak vs. average
>> levels which is absolutely basic and fundamental to the concept of
>> loudness. Any time anyone tries to explain in any even remotely technical
>> way, you complain that you don't do math. This is bad, because digital
>> audio _is_ math.
>> --scott
>
> Maybe he had a principle in mind that is similar to this:
>
> Gabe M. Wiener wrote the following in the liner notes to the CD The
> Buxtehude Project, volume II.
>
> "The question of gain structure on a recording such as this is a salient
> one. Certainly this is a case where the dynamic range of the instrument
> does not even begin to approach the limits of the 24-bit recording medium.
> To that end, there were several gain structure options open to us. Textbook
> digital practice would suggest that the harpsichord should be recorded and
> mastered such that at some point in the recording, the level 0 dBfs is
> reached. There are several practical considerations that make such an
> approach both problematic and undesirable. Since the harpsichord is not a
> very loud instrument, listeners would need to place their volume controls
> in the lowest area of travel in order to achieve a proper listening level.
> Our own research has shown that nearly all volume controls, including those
> on high-end systems, exhibit a pronounced loss of resolution at the bottom
> end of their travel.
>
> "All preamplifiers have a gain range in which they operate best. We have
> therefore chosen to take into account the gain ranges of both the recording
> and reproduction chains in setting the mastering level. You will find that
> the ideal listening level for this recording will likely be in the optimum
> gain range of your preamplifier. …"
>

Oh, I forgot to say that it's a solo harpsichord recording.

--
Matt

[Scott Dorsey]

Matt Faunce > wrote:
>> Gabe M. Wiener wrote the following in the liner notes to the CD The
>> Buxtehude Project, volume II.
>>
>> "The question of gain structure on a recording such as this is a salient
>> one. Certainly this is a case where the dynamic range of the instrument
>> does not even begin to approach the limits of the 24-bit recording medium.
>> To that end, there were several gain structure options open to us. Textbook
>> digital practice would suggest that the harpsichord should be recorded and
>> mastered such that at some point in the recording, the level 0 dBfs is
>> reached. There are several practical considerations that make such an
>> approach both problematic and undesirable. Since the harpsichord is not a
>> very loud instrument, listeners would need to place their volume controls
>> in the lowest area of travel in order to achieve a proper listening level.
>> Our own research has shown that nearly all volume controls, including those
>> on high-end systems, exhibit a pronounced loss of resolution at the bottom
>> end of their travel.

I didn't think this was a good idea then, and I still don't really think
it is. He's throwing away dynamic range (of which we have plenty) in order
to get the levels correct with an "average knob setting." That's not as
bad as trying to pump the levels up in order to get them louder with the
"average knob setting" but I think it's just as silly either way. People
will adjust the level to sound right to them.

>> "All preamplifiers have a gain range in which they operate best. We have
>> therefore chosen to take into account the gain ranges of both the recording
>> and reproduction chains in setting the mastering level. You will find that
>> the ideal listening level for this recording will likely be in the optimum
>> gain range of your preamplifier. …"

On a lot of those recordings, he also included proper playback levels in
the liner notes, of the "the opening chord should be 72 dBA at the listening
position" or something like that. I think _that_ is really good.

But... we hashed and rehashed all of this out here on this newsgroup 25
years ago...

>Oh, I forgot to say that it's a solo harpsichord recording.

And a really good one, too. It has a sense of space.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[[email protected]]

Matt Faunce wrote: "Maybe he had a principle in mind that is similar to this:

Gabe M. Wiener wrote the following in the liner notes to the CD The
Buxtehude Project, volume II. "


All I was trying to say - in that other thread, by
the way - was that the levels, as placed/burned/
transcribed to CD, seemed low, both as judged
by how much higher I had to turn up my listening
volume, and by how low the peaks registered in
the DAW. I understand that the levels at which
they were transferred to CD have nothing to do
with levels during recording, mixing, or
mastering.


And as I stated to Dorsey, I never said, or
implied, that such low levels would "sound
better". What crevice on which moon of Jupiter
he extracted that from eludes me. LOL

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 2/16/2016 7:26 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> He's throwing away dynamic range (of which we have plenty) in order
> to get the levels correct with an "average knob setting." That's not as
> bad as trying to pump the levels up in order to get them louder with the
> "average knob setting" but I think it's just as silly either way. People
> will adjust the level to sound right to them.

SOME people will, probably most people who listen to harpsichord soloist
recordings will. However, most pop music listeners don't want to have to
bother setting their volume control. They're happy letting the record
producer do it for them. There are more music consumers like that than
ones who know where the volume knob is, and that's what got us into this
loudness mess.

> On a lot of those recordings, he also included proper playback levels in
> the liner notes, of the "the opening chord should be 72 dBA at the listening
> position" or something like that. I think_that_ is really good.

I remember a few records that, in the liner notes, said "Play this
record LOUD."

--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[david gourley[_2_]]

Mike Rivers > :

-snip -

> I remember a few records that, in the liner notes, said "Play this
> record LOUD."
>

That's right, and I still have a few of those !

david

[JackA]

On Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 6:53:21 PM UTC-5, geoff wrote:
> On 17/02/2016 12:50 p.m., JackA wrote:
> > > remastering. > > I see, so it must sound as boring as Hel*. > >
>
> As boring as what the band and/or producer decided was *exactly* what
> they wanted released.

I guess you're like most who claim the band or group decides sound quality and mixes. And Producers? Yeah, why one didn't even know there was a stereo mix. Spare me.

Jack

>
> geoff

[JackA]

On Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 6:53:21 PM UTC-5, geoff wrote:
> On 17/02/2016 12:50 p.m., JackA wrote:
> > > remastering. > > I see, so it must sound as boring as Hel*. > >
>
> As boring as what the band and/or producer decided was *exactly* what
> they wanted released.
>
> Geoff

And the funniest one of them all was the claim that Brian Wilson (Beach Boys) mixed to mono, since he had hearing in only one ear! Why many Beach Boys tunes were mono. But you find the gerbil scurrying his fanny to Australia when someone claimed to make stereo out of one of his mono only songs.

Jack

[Matt Faunce]

Scott Dorsey > wrote:
> Matt Faunce > wrote:
>>> Gabe M. Wiener wrote the following in the liner notes to the CD The
>>> Buxtehude Project, volume II.
>>>
>>> "The question of gain structure on a recording such as this is a salient
>>> one. Certainly this is a case where the dynamic range of the instrument
>>> does not even begin to approach the limits of the 24-bit recording medium.
>>> To that end, there were several gain structure options open to us. Textbook
>>> digital practice would suggest that the harpsichord should be recorded and
>>> mastered such that at some point in the recording, the level 0 dBfs is
>>> reached. There are several practical considerations that make such an
>>> approach both problematic and undesirable. Since the harpsichord is not a
>>> very loud instrument, listeners would need to place their volume controls
>>> in the lowest area of travel in order to achieve a proper listening level.
>>> Our own research has shown that nearly all volume controls, including those
>>> on high-end systems, exhibit a pronounced loss of resolution at the bottom
>>> end of their travel.
>
> I didn't think this was a good idea then, and I still don't really think
> it is. He's throwing away dynamic range (of which we have plenty) in order
> to get the levels correct with an "average knob setting." That's not as
> bad as trying to pump the levels up in order to get them louder with the
> "average knob setting" but I think it's just as silly either way. People
> will adjust the level to sound right to them.
>
>>> "All preamplifiers have a gain range in which they operate best. We have
>>> therefore chosen to take into account the gain ranges of both the recording
>>> and reproduction chains in setting the mastering level. You will find that
>>> the ideal listening level for this recording will likely be in the optimum
>>> gain range of your preamplifier. …"
>
> On a lot of those recordings, he also included proper playback levels in
> the liner notes, of the "the opening chord should be 72 dBA at the listening
> position" or something like that. I think _that_ is really good.

Yes, he included that.

> But... we hashed and rehashed all of this out here on this newsgroup 25
> years ago...

I'll have to check that out. (I faintly remember reading it, but I can't
remember what the disagreeing side's case was.)

>> Oh, I forgot to say that it's a solo harpsichord recording.
>
> And a really good one, too. It has a sense of space.
> --scott

Yes. I enjoy the sound.
--
Matt

[Trevor]

On 16/02/2016 2:20 PM, Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 2/15/2016 8:53 PM, geoff wrote:
>> Bloody hell. Now it seems there is yet a *different* thing again called
>> Pure Audio Blu-ray. I just can't keep up !
>
> But vinyl is forever. ;)

Nope, like all plastics it will turn into soup eventually. Polycarbonate
is more stable than vinyl however.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

On 17/02/2016 5:50 AM, david gourley wrote:
> said...news:89da7dd3-99df-4b25-b010-
>> Break that down for me. Because frankly,
>> nobody on here has been able to prove
>> my alleged "ignorance of the technical
>> issues".
>
> Why should anyone bother when you're doing such a good job of it yourself ?

:-) :-)

[Matt Faunce]

> wrote:
>
> And as I stated to Dorsey, I never said, or
> implied, that such low levels would "sound
> better".

Yes you did. Here's the context:

JackA wrote regarding "Sony PCM machines" and the engineers who used them,
"It seems most were concerned about distortion, and used conservative
settings of those machines."

Geoff disagreed.

Jack continued but didn't answer Geoff's disagreement.

Geoff asked, "So what's this 'Conservative settings' ?"

Then you wrote in response to that question, "Never peaking above -6dBfs?"

So there you have it, you guessed that "Never peaking above -6dBfs" was a
way to avoid or mitigate distortion.

--
Matt

[John Williamson]

On 17/02/2016 00:50, Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 2/16/2016 7:26 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> He's throwing away dynamic range (of which we have plenty) in order
>> to get the levels correct with an "average knob setting." That's not as
>> bad as trying to pump the levels up in order to get them louder with the
>> "average knob setting" but I think it's just as silly either way. People
>> will adjust the level to sound right to them.
>
> SOME people will, probably most people who listen to harpsichord soloist
> recordings will. However, most pop music listeners don't want to have to
> bother setting their volume control. They're happy letting the record
> producer do it for them. There are more music consumers like that than
> ones who know where the volume knob is, and that's what got us into this
> loudness mess.
>
Something that hasn't helped on this side of the Atlantic is a law
limiting the power output on the headphone sockets of portable players
so that to hear the programme content above outside noise, the volume
needs to be set at 11.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 2/17/2016 4:21 AM, John Williamson wrote:
> Something that hasn't helped on this side of the Atlantic is a law
> limiting the power output on the headphone sockets of portable players
> so that to hear the programme content above outside noise, the volume
> needs to be set at 11.

Apparently this is now a requirement for CE certification of certain
classes of devices. When I reviewed the TASCAM DR-44WL recorder, I
observed that the headphone output started clipping a just-under-0dBFS
sine wave when the volume control was only about half way up. One
consequence of this is that if you're monitoring a recording with
headphones (doesn't everyone?) and need more volume, you may hear
clipping from the headphone amplifier leading you to reduce the record
level when not necessary.

I chastised them for not providing enough headroom in the headphone
amplifier and was pointed to a section of the requirement that they
needed to meet in order to sell the recorder world wide. It was kind of
wishy-washy about what devices had to be so limited and how the limiting
was to be done - I thought it was aimed at what are primarily consumer
devices, which this particular recorder isn't, IMHO.

The idea isn't new. Back when the Walkman was a hot item and portable
cassette players came with earphones (nobody thought that there might be
better 'phones in that day), for a while, Sony was putting a little red
light on their Walkman players that came on when the volume at the
supplied headphones reached what they considered a harmful level. Of
course every kid wanted that red light to come on and stay on. ;)



--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 2/17/2016 3:26 AM, Matt Faunce wrote:
> > wrote:
>>
>> And as I stated to Dorsey, I never said, or
>> implied, that such low levels would "sound
>> better".
>
> Yes you did. Here's the context:
>
> JackA wrote regarding "Sony PCM machines" and the engineers who used them,
> "It seems most were concerned about distortion, and used conservative
> settings of those machines."

> Geoff asked, "So what's this 'Conservative settings' ?"
>
> Then you wrote in response to that question, "Never peaking above -6dBfs?"
>
> So there you have it, you guessed that "Never peaking above -6dBfs" was a
> way to avoid or mitigate distortion.

That's one way to mitigate distortion. But you can drive the input stage
too hard, get distortion there, and turn the output (to the A/D
converter) down so the meters never go above -6 dBFS and you'll be
making a nice clean recording of a distorted signal. You can even do
this with a Zoom H2 recorder using the internal mic.

It's true, though, that in the days of "Sony PCM machines," which I take
to mean those of the PCM-1600 or PCM-F1 era, the converters got pretty
non-linear near the top of the scale, so it was indeed a good idea to be
conservative with the digital recording level for the cleanest
recordings. The higher noise floor from not squeezing the last possible
bit out of the converters was usually a better trade-off than the
distortion. Nowadays you can get a plug-in that simulates that kind of
converter because today's converters are too good to produce crappy audio.


--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[[email protected]]

Matt Faunce wrote: > wrote:
>
> And as I stated to Dorsey, I never said, or
> implied, that such low levels would "sound
> better".

Yes you did. Here's the context:

JackA wrote regarding "Sony PCM machines" and the engineers who used them,
"It seems most were concerned about distortion, and used conservative
settings of those machines."

Geoff disagreed.

Jack continued but didn't answer Geoff's disagreement.

Geoff asked, "So what's this 'Conservative settings' ?"

Then you wrote in response to that question, "Never peaking above -6dBfs?"

So there you have it, you guessed that "Never peaking above -6dBfs" was a
way to avoid or mitigate distortion.

--
Matt "

BULL


****.


geoff asked what was meant by "conservative
settings, and I suggested one, giving an
example of such on some CDs of mine.

I made NO IMPLICATIONS as to its effect
on sound quality, distortion or otherwise.

So STOP TRYING TO TWIST MY WORDS
around into something that suits you! And
get a job with Roger Ailes if that's the game
you enjoy playing.

[JackA]

On Wednesday, February 17, 2016 at 3:29:35 AM UTC-5, Matt Faunce wrote:
> > wrote:
> >
> > And as I stated to Dorsey, I never said, or
> > implied, that such low levels would "sound
> > better".
>
> Yes you did. Here's the context:
>
> JackA wrote regarding "Sony PCM machines" and the engineers who used them,
> "It seems most were concerned about distortion, and used conservative
> settings of those machines."
>
> Geoff disagreed.

Excuse me, but Geoff never did any CD mastering, but neither did I, so I found someone (defunct site who did), that is where the Sony machines are mentioned. It also mentions Sony felt losing a few bits out of 65+k (16 bit), was no big deal, so there was NO headroom, approved by Sony.

Jack
>
> Jack continued but didn't answer Geoff's disagreement.
>
> Geoff asked, "So what's this 'Conservative settings' ?"
>
> Then you wrote in response to that question, "Never peaking above -6dBfs?"
>
> So there you have it, you guessed that "Never peaking above -6dBfs" was a
> way to avoid or mitigate distortion.
>
> --
> Matt

[JackA]

On Wednesday, February 17, 2016 at 3:29:35 AM UTC-5, Matt Faunce wrote:
> > wrote:
> >
> > And as I stated to Dorsey, I never said, or
> > implied, that such low levels would "sound
> > better".
>
> Yes you did. Here's the context:
>
> JackA wrote regarding "Sony PCM machines" and the engineers who used them,
> "It seems most were concerned about distortion, and used conservative
> settings of those machines."
>
> Geoff disagreed.
>
> Jack continued but didn't answer Geoff's disagreement.
>
> Geoff asked, "So what's this 'Conservative settings' ?"
>
> Then you wrote in response to that question, "Never peaking above -6dBfs?"
>
> So there you have it, you guessed that "Never peaking above -6dBfs" was a
> way to avoid or mitigate distortion.
>
> --
> Matt

And THEN, I'm told THEY used to add equalization during the cutting process for vinyl, but Bob Ludwig mentions it was included on the master tape.

You get all kinds of stories, sadly.

http://tapeop.com/interviews/105/bob-ludwig/

Jack

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >, Trevor > wrote:
>On 16/02/2016 2:20 PM, Mike Rivers wrote:
>> On 2/15/2016 8:53 PM, geoff wrote:
>>> Bloody hell. Now it seems there is yet a *different* thing again called
>>> Pure Audio Blu-ray. I just can't keep up !
>>
>> But vinyl is forever. ;)
>
>Nope, like all plastics it will turn into soup eventually. Polycarbonate
>is more stable than vinyl however.

The problem with pressed CDs is the interface between the aluminum layer and
the polycarbonate base. If that can be kept stable, you're good to go.

The problem with vinyl is mostly loss of plasticizer.

Either one is likely to be pretty good if they are well-made, certainly a
whole lot better than CD-Rs. But you never really know until they fail.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[JackA]

On Monday, February 15, 2016 at 10:32:08 PM UTC-5, geoff wrote:
> On 16/02/2016 3:04 p.m., JackA wrote:
> > On Monday, February 15, 2016 at 8:53:47 PM UTC-5, geoff wrote:
> >> On 16/02/2016 2:23 p.m., geoff wrote:
> >>> .... passed under the radar for me.
> >>>
> >>> Any supposed benefit over DVD-A or SACD, apart from higher capacity
> >>> potentially enabling more types of multi-channel versions available
> >>> on a same disc ?
> >>>
> >>> Must find one, probably 'Crime Of the Century' (24/96 apparently) , to
> >>> compare with CD and SACD versions I already have. I never did get a
> >>> DVD-A capable player , so can't compare that ....
> >>>
> >>> geoff
> >> Bloody hell. Now it seems there is yet a *different* thing again called
> >> Pure Audio Blu-ray. I just can't keep up !
> > My guess, they just digitally enhance the songs and stick it on a new and improved HQ format. I don't hear ANY remixing of Crime Of The Century, just digital enhancing.
> >
> > Jack
> >
> >> geoff
>
>
> Doh - the concept is that there is *no* 'enhancing', remixing, or
> remastering.

I have yet to hear a "remix" that didn't have less noise than a "master" tape.
Master tapes are used, they wear, while (multi-track) session tapes are seldom accessed.

Jack
>
> geoff

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 2/17/2016 11:04 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> The problem with pressed CDs is the interface between the aluminum layer and
> the polycarbonate base. If that can be kept stable, you're good to go.
>
> The problem with vinyl is mostly loss of plasticizer.
>
> Either one is likely to be pretty good if they are well-made, certainly a
> whole lot better than CD-Rs. But you never really know until they fail.

Punched mylar tape?

--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[John Williamson]

On 17/02/2016 11:59, Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 2/17/2016 4:21 AM, John Williamson wrote:
>> Something that hasn't helped on this side of the Atlantic is a law
>> limiting the power output on the headphone sockets of portable players
>> so that to hear the programme content above outside noise, the volume
>> needs to be set at 11.
>
> Apparently this is now a requirement for CE certification of certain
> classes of devices. When I reviewed the TASCAM DR-44WL recorder, I
> observed that the headphone output started clipping a just-under-0dBFS
> sine wave when the volume control was only about half way up. One
> consequence of this is that if you're monitoring a recording with
> headphones (doesn't everyone?) and need more volume, you may hear
> clipping from the headphone amplifier leading you to reduce the record
> level when not necessary.
>
> I chastised them for not providing enough headroom in the headphone
> amplifier and was pointed to a section of the requirement that they
> needed to meet in order to sell the recorder world wide. It was kind of
> wishy-washy about what devices had to be so limited and how the limiting
> was to be done - I thought it was aimed at what are primarily consumer
> devices, which this particular recorder isn't, IMHO.
>
Yep. The limit with the supplied headphones (usually high efficiency
earbuds with a horrible specification) is 80dB from the maximum input to
the amplifier from the source. (Full scale on digital, 0dB reference
level on tape, and so on.) The law may be incorrectly applied, but if
it's available through normal retail channels, it counts as consumer.

Some of them can be hacked to give decent volume, as the power amp has
lots in reserve, but not all are amenable to hacking. The Rockbox
project is now almost redundant, but worth looking at for older machines.

> The idea isn't new. Back when the Walkman was a hot item and portable
> cassette players came with earphones (nobody thought that there might be
> better 'phones in that day), for a while, Sony was putting a little red
> light on their Walkman players that came on when the volume at the
> supplied headphones reached what they considered a harmful level. Of
> course every kid wanted that red light to come on and stay on. ;)
>
Of course, and for a short term of listening such as a CD or tape er
day, that was sort of okay. It was when kids started plugging on for
many hours a day that tinnitus and noise related deafness started
appearing in the young, and the Government took steps.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >, Mike Rivers > wrote:
>On 2/17/2016 11:04 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> The problem with pressed CDs is the interface between the aluminum layer and
>> the polycarbonate base. If that can be kept stable, you're good to go.
>>
>> The problem with vinyl is mostly loss of plasticizer.
>>
>> Either one is likely to be pretty good if they are well-made, certainly a
>> whole lot better than CD-Rs. But you never really know until they fail.
>
>Punched mylar tape?

Mylar is good, doesn't get insect infestations, and it's a single material
so there is no interface between materials. It's at interfaces where the
worst problems occur.

I would think polystrene injection-molded 45s would be more stable than
vinyl pressings, at least until you started playing them. No worries about
plasticizer loss.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[geoff]

On 18/02/2016 3:25 a.m., JackA wrote:

> Excuse me, but Geoff never did any CD mastering,


Well at least not on an old Sony PCM-Fxxxx

> but neither did I,

That's for sure.

>> so I found someone (defunct site who did), that is where the Sony
>> machines are mentioned. It also mentions Sony felt losing a few bits out
>> of 65+k (16 bit), was no big deal, so there was NO headroom, approved
>> by Sony.


Que ?

geoff

[JackA]

On Wednesday, February 17, 2016 at 6:28:04 PM UTC-5, geoff wrote:
> On 18/02/2016 3:25 a.m., JackA wrote:
>
> > Excuse me, but Geoff never did any CD mastering,
>
>
> Well at least not on an old Sony PCM-Fxxxx
>
> > but neither did I,
>
> That's for sure.
>
> >> so I found someone (defunct site who did), that is where the Sony
> >> machines are mentioned. It also mentions Sony felt losing a few bits out
> >> of 65+k (16 bit), was no big deal, so there was NO headroom, approved
> >> by Sony.
>
>
> Que ?
>
> geoff

So, how do they create 5.1 Surround Sound without having to use session tapes?...
http://news.acousticsounds.com/post.cfm/doug-sax-takes-us-to-the-dark-side

Jack

[JackA]

On Wednesday, February 17, 2016 at 1:55:56 PM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> In article >, Mike Rivers > wrote:
> >On 2/17/2016 11:04 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> >> The problem with pressed CDs is the interface between the aluminum layer and
> >> the polycarbonate base. If that can be kept stable, you're good to go.
> >>
> >> The problem with vinyl is mostly loss of plasticizer.
> >>
> >> Either one is likely to be pretty good if they are well-made, certainly a
> >> whole lot better than CD-Rs. But you never really know until they fail.
> >
> >Punched mylar tape?
>
> Mylar is good, doesn't get insect infestations, and it's a single material
> so there is no interface between materials.

Correct, it's non organic. However, Mylar is sometime laminated with other materials...

http://www.axemcn.com/?News/DMDINTRODUCTION.html

Jack

It's at interfaces where the
> worst problems occur.
>
> I would think polystrene injection-molded 45s would be more stable than
> vinyl pressings, at least until you started playing them. No worries about
> plasticizer loss.
> --scott
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[geoff]

On 18/02/2016 12:56 p.m., JackA wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 17, 2016 at 6:28:04 PM UTC-5, geoff wrote:
>> On 18/02/2016 3:25 a.m., JackA wrote:
>>
>>> Excuse me, but Geoff never did any CD mastering,
>>
>> Well at least not on an old Sony PCM-Fxxxx
>>
>>> but neither did I,
>> That's for sure.
>>
>>>> so I found someone (defunct site who did), that is where the Sony
>>>> machines are mentioned. It also mentions Sony felt losing a few bits out
>>>> of 65+k (16 bit), was no big deal, so there was NO headroom, approved
>>>> by Sony.
>>
>> Que ?
>>
>> geoff
> So, how do they create 5.1 Surround Sound without having to use session tapes?...
> http://news.acousticsounds.com/post.cfm/doug-sax-takes-us-to-the-dark-side
>
> Jack

Mas 'que' ?

geoff

[Trevor]

On 18/02/2016 3:04 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> In article >, Trevor > wrote:
>> On 16/02/2016 2:20 PM, Mike Rivers wrote:
>>> On 2/15/2016 8:53 PM, geoff wrote:
>>>> Bloody hell. Now it seems there is yet a *different* thing again called
>>>> Pure Audio Blu-ray. I just can't keep up !
>>>
>>> But vinyl is forever. ;)
>>
>> Nope, like all plastics it will turn into soup eventually. Polycarbonate
>> is more stable than vinyl however.
>
> The problem with pressed CDs is the interface between the aluminum layer and
> the polycarbonate base. If that can be kept stable, you're good to go.

Not at all important. You do realise with a commercial compact disk the
pits are pressed into the polycarbonate, and the reflective layer can be
replaced. Whats more the reflective layer of some disks is 24k gold, and
is far more stable than vinyl.


> The problem with vinyl is mostly loss of plasticizer.
>
> Either one is likely to be pretty good if they are well-made, certainly a
> whole lot better than CD-Rs. But you never really know until they fail.

Yes CDR's are a whole different ball game, and can't be relied on at any
time.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

On 17/02/2016 8:21 PM, John Williamson wrote:
> Something that hasn't helped on this side of the Atlantic is a law
> limiting the power output on the headphone sockets of portable players
> so that to hear the programme content above outside noise, the volume
> needs to be set at 11.

And those with even minor hearing loss are still in trouble.

Trevor.

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >, Trevor > wrote:
>On 18/02/2016 3:04 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> In article >, Trevor > wrote:
>>> On 16/02/2016 2:20 PM, Mike Rivers wrote:
>>>> On 2/15/2016 8:53 PM, geoff wrote:
>>>>> Bloody hell. Now it seems there is yet a *different* thing again called
>>>>> Pure Audio Blu-ray. I just can't keep up !
>>>>
>>>> But vinyl is forever. ;)
>>>
>>> Nope, like all plastics it will turn into soup eventually. Polycarbonate
>>> is more stable than vinyl however.
>>
>> The problem with pressed CDs is the interface between the aluminum layer and
>> the polycarbonate base. If that can be kept stable, you're good to go.
>
>Not at all important. You do realise with a commercial compact disk the
>pits are pressed into the polycarbonate, and the reflective layer can be
>replaced. Whats more the reflective layer of some disks is 24k gold, and
>is far more stable than vinyl.

You'd think so, but is anyone out there resputtering discs with damaged
aluminum>? I have a bunch of discs from the PDO plant where contaminants
in the styrene attacked the metallization layer twenty years after manufacture.
You'd think they could be etched and resputtered in theory, but has anyone
ever done that?
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[sTeeVee]

Some new details have emerged about a "nanocrystaline glass structure" set to revolutionize storage longevity theoretically into the "billions of years." That should lower the music (data) loss stress level a wee tad.

[JackA]

On Wednesday, February 17, 2016 at 7:45:56 PM UTC-5, geoff wrote:
> On 18/02/2016 12:56 p.m., JackA wrote:
> > On Wednesday, February 17, 2016 at 6:28:04 PM UTC-5, geoff wrote:
> >> On 18/02/2016 3:25 a.m., JackA wrote:
> >>
> >>> Excuse me, but Geoff never did any CD mastering,
> >>
> >> Well at least not on an old Sony PCM-Fxxxx
> >>
> >>> but neither did I,
> >> That's for sure.
> >>
> >>>> so I found someone (defunct site who did), that is where the Sony
> >>>> machines are mentioned. It also mentions Sony felt losing a few bits out
> >>>> of 65+k (16 bit), was no big deal, so there was NO headroom, approved
> >>>> by Sony.
> >>
> >> Que ?
> >>
> >> geoff
> > So, how do they create 5.1 Surround Sound without having to use session tapes?...
> > http://news.acousticsounds.com/post.cfm/doug-sax-takes-us-to-the-dark-side
> >
> > Jack
>
> Mas 'que' ?

More Than? Less Than? English please.

Here are facts. Take Bachman-Turner Overdrive albums. I have ALL CDs of one album, Not Fragile. I audio enhanced the Polydor (initial one) CD and it sound like the recent 2015 one that MANY applud. That tells me they just digitally enhance what was previously issued.

Even the Top Dogs, like Kevin Gray, I think Doug Sax mentioned him, still sounds bland on a "gold" Audio Fidelity CD.

HOWEVER, there is also a 5.1 edition (Canada based), and I'm guessing that required session tapes for "Surround Sound". I'm no expert with Surround, but isn't it 4+ discrete channels?

Jack

>
> geoff

[John Williamson]

On 18/02/2016 15:14, sTeeVee wrote:
> Some new details have emerged about a "nanocrystaline glass structure" set to revolutionize storage longevity theoretically into the "billions of years." That should lower the music (data) loss stress level a wee tad.
>
As it's an optically writeable format, it's likely that the storage life
will be limited by cosmic ray exposure causing uncorrectable errors and
dependent on density. Erasure could also be accidentally done by
exposure to sufficient light energy, so setting all the bits to the same
value.

It's a vast improvement on current technology, and will probably outlast
us all, though.

The principle isn't new, and someone was selling a "CD burner" that used
CD sized quartz discs to hold roughly a CD's worth of data a while ago.
I don't remember who marketed it, but the research was done by Hitachi.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[geoff]

On 19/02/2016 4:14 a.m., sTeeVee wrote:
> Some new details have emerged about a "nanocrystaline glass structure" set to revolutionize storage longevity theoretically into the "billions of years." That should lower the music (data) loss stress level a wee tad.

Just don't drop yer disc !

geoff

[Trevor]

On 19/02/2016 12:20 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> In article >, Trevor > wrote:
>> On 18/02/2016 3:04 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>> In article >, Trevor > wrote:
>>>> On 16/02/2016 2:20 PM, Mike Rivers wrote:
>>>>> On 2/15/2016 8:53 PM, geoff wrote:
>>>>>> Bloody hell. Now it seems there is yet a *different* thing again called
>>>>>> Pure Audio Blu-ray. I just can't keep up !
>>>>>
>>>>> But vinyl is forever. ;)
>>>>
>>>> Nope, like all plastics it will turn into soup eventually. Polycarbonate
>>>> is more stable than vinyl however.
>>>
>>> The problem with pressed CDs is the interface between the aluminum layer and
>>> the polycarbonate base. If that can be kept stable, you're good to go.
>>
>> Not at all important. You do realise with a commercial compact disk the
>> pits are pressed into the polycarbonate, and the reflective layer can be
>> replaced. Whats more the reflective layer of some disks is 24k gold, and
>> is far more stable than vinyl.
>
> You'd think so, but is anyone out there resputtering discs with damaged
> aluminum>?

Not the issue, since there are probably plenty of other disks available
now without the bother. The point is you CAN do it 100's of years from
now if you needed to.


> I have a bunch of discs from the PDO plant where contaminants
> in the styrene attacked the metallization layer twenty years after manufacture.
> You'd think they could be etched and resputtered in theory, but has anyone
> ever done that?

It's simply a cost issue. The only question atm is are the digital files
still available to make more? Or are there working copies which can be
ripped before you even think of how much a disk repair might be.

Trevor.