Quote without comment

[Arny Krueger]

"Robert Orban" > wrote in message


> Through hard experience I've found that with
> recordings of this vintage, it really pays to find
> sealed, unplayed copies even if one has to wait for them
> to show up on eBay and even if one has to pay more. There
> were a *lot* of bad phono playback systems in the late
> 60s, and even one play through some of them could audibly
> damage the vinyl.

> Finally, after doing this a hundred times or so I have to
> observe that the audio quality of the run of the mill
> vinyl from that era was pretty bad. It got a lot better
> starting in mid-1969, probably because a new generation
> of disc cutters was just coming on line.

> I find
> incomprehensible the affection that some people evidently
> have for the audio quality of vinyl from that era.

> Bob Orban

Who is Robert Orban?

Robert Orban is one of the most productive minds in the audio industry, and
has been so for the past 30-40 years.

http://www.orban.com/about/timeline/

Patents:
3,980,828 Reverberation system with extended frequency response
4,103,243 Method and system for controlling peak signal levels in a
bandlimited recording or transmission system employing high-frequency
pre-emphasis
4,208,548 Apparatus and method for peak-limiting audio frequency signals
4,228,368 Polarity correcting circuit
4,241,266 Peak-limiting apparatus for audio signal
4,249,042 Multiband cross-coupled compressor with overshoot protection
circuit
4,412,100 Multiband signal processor
4,460,871 Multiband cross-coupled compressor with overshoot protection
circuit
4,495,643 Audio peak limiter using Hilbert transforms
4,525,857 Crossover network
4,674,122 Encoding for the FMX companding system
4,837,824 Stereophonic image widening circuit
4,888,789 Adjustable equalizer for compensating for high frequency rolloff
and typical AM receivers
5,050,217 Dynamic noise reduction and spectral restoration system
5,168,526 Distortion-cancellation circuit for audio peak limiting
5,282,252 Audio equalizer providing reciprocal equalization plus
infinite-depth notch
5,444,788 Audio compressor combining feedback and feedfoward sidechain
processing
5,574,791 Combined de-esser and high-frequency enhancer using single pair of
level detectors
6,337,999 Oversampled differential clipper
6,434,241 Controlling the peak levels of the FM composite signal by
half-cosine interpolation
Papers:
A Short History of Transmission Audio Processing in the United States
http://www.bext.com/histproc.htm

[Clyde Slick]

On 29 Aug, 15:13, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Robert Orban" > wrote in message
>
>
>
>
>
> > Through hard experience I've found that with
> > recordings of this vintage, it really pays to find
> > sealed, unplayed copies even if one has to wait for them
> > to show up on eBay and even if one has to pay more. There
> > were a *lot* of bad phono playback systems in the late
> > 60s, and even one play through some of them could audibly
> > damage the vinyl.
> > Finally, after doing this a hundred times or so I have to
> > observe that the audio quality of the run of the mill
> > vinyl from that era was pretty bad. It got a lot better
> > starting in mid-1969, probably because a new generation
> > of disc cutters was just coming on line.
> > I find
> > incomprehensible the affection that some people evidently
> > have for the audio quality of vinyl from that era.
> > Bob Orban
>
> Who is Robert Orban?
>
> Robert Orban is one of the most productive minds in the audio industry, and
> has been so for the past 30-40 years.
>
> http://www.orban.com/about/timeline/
>
> Patents:
> 3,980,828 Reverberation system with extended frequency response
> 4,103,243 Method and system for controlling peak signal levels in a
> bandlimited recording or transmission system employing high-frequency
> pre-emphasis
> 4,208,548 Apparatus and method for peak-limiting audio frequency signals
> 4,228,368 Polarity correcting circuit
> 4,241,266 Peak-limiting apparatus for audio signal
> 4,249,042 Multiband cross-coupled compressor with overshoot protection
> circuit
> 4,412,100 Multiband signal processor
> 4,460,871 Multiband cross-coupled compressor with overshoot protection
> circuit
> 4,495,643 Audio peak limiter using Hilbert transforms
> 4,525,857 Crossover network
> 4,674,122 Encoding for the FMX companding system
> 4,837,824 Stereophonic image widening circuit
> 4,888,789 Adjustable equalizer for compensating for high frequency rolloff
> and typical AM receivers
> 5,050,217 Dynamic noise reduction and spectral restoration system
> 5,168,526 Distortion-cancellation circuit for audio peak limiting
> 5,282,252 Audio equalizer providing reciprocal equalization plus
> infinite-depth notch
> 5,444,788 Audio compressor combining feedback and feedfoward sidechain
> processing
> 5,574,791 Combined de-esser and high-frequency enhancer using single pair of
> level detectors
> 6,337,999 Oversampled differential clipper
> 6,434,241 Controlling the peak levels of the FM composite signal by
> half-cosine interpolation
> Papers:
> A Short History of Transmission Audio Processing in the United Stateshttp://www.bext.com/histproc.htm

yea, alright, but what about a patent for the Omni ashtray?
been there, done that?

[Arny Krueger]

"MiNe 109" > wrote in message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Robert Orban" > wrote in
>> message
>>
>>
>>> Through hard experience I've found that with
>>> recordings of this vintage, it really pays to find
>>> sealed, unplayed copies even if one has to wait for them
>>> to show up on eBay and even if one has to pay more.
>>> There were a *lot* of bad phono playback systems in the
>>> late 60s, and even one play through some of them could
>>> audibly damage the vinyl.

>>> Finally, after doing this a hundred times or so I have
>>> to observe that the audio quality of the run of the mill
>>> vinyl from that era was pretty bad. It got a lot better
>>> starting in mid-1969, probably because a new generation
>>> of disc cutters was just coming on line.

>>> I find
>>> incomprehensible the affection that some people
>>> evidently have for the audio quality of vinyl from that
>>> era.

>>> Bob Orban

>> Who is Robert Orban?

> Nice appeal to authority.

If you and Jen promise to never appeal to authority, personal or otherwise,
I'll do the same. ;-)

> Was someone arguing in favor of
> damaged, poor-quality vinyl?

Nice job of missing the point of the second paragraph, Stephen.
"Distractions R U", right? ;-)

It should be pretty obvious to an unbiased reader (not Stephen or Jen for
example) that the second paragraph refers to undamaged, even completely
virgin LPs. The point of the first paragraph is that Orban has very high
standards for choosing and preparing LPs for digitizing. But even given
that, the LP format still falls way short of modern standards for quality
audio.

[jakdedert]

MiNe 109 wrote:
<snip>
>>> Finally, after doing this a hundred times or so I have to
>>> observe that the audio quality of the run of the mill
>>> vinyl from that era was pretty bad. It got a lot better
>>> starting in mid-1969, probably because a new generation
>>> of disc cutters was just coming on line.
>>> I find
>>> incomprehensible the affection that some people evidently
>>> have for the audio quality of vinyl from that era.
>>> Bob Orban
>> Who is Robert Orban?
>
> Nice appeal to authority. Was someone arguing in favor of damaged,
> poor-quality vinyl?
>
I dunno. I didn't read the thread which provoked the above. My
experience in the 60's/70's was that the vast majority of vinyl records
(the only kind available, of course) were real crap, quality wise. If
one wanted a quiet, clean copy of a given suite of music, it was
necessary to buy multiple copies and transfer immediately to tape. I
never--repeat, NEVER--heard a completely pop-free album in my entire
life...and I was a dealer.

Still, there is that nostalgia for the 'good ol' days' that persists and
grows.

jak

> Stephen.
>

[Arny Krueger]

"jakdedert" > wrote in message

> MiNe 109 wrote:


> <snip>
>>>> Finally, after doing this a hundred times or so I have
>>>> to observe that the audio quality of the run of the
>>>> mill vinyl from that era was pretty bad. It got a lot
>>>> better starting in mid-1969, probably because a new
>>>> generation of disc cutters was just coming on line.
>>>> I find
>>>> incomprehensible the affection that some people
>>>> evidently have for the audio quality of vinyl from
>>>> that era. Bob Orban
>>> Who is Robert Orban?
>>
>> Nice appeal to authority. Was someone arguing in favor
>> of damaged, poor-quality vinyl?
>
> I dunno. I didn't read the thread which provoked the
> above.


You can find it here:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio.pro/msg/81b8d154c20e0ebf

> My experience in the 60's/70's was that the vast
> majority of vinyl records (the only kind available, of
> course) were real crap, quality wise.

In the US, particularly true. I spent a year in Germany near the end of the
60s and the quality of LPs was considerably better over there. But the
inherent limitations of the LP format still intruded, big time.

> If one wanted a
> quiet, clean copy of a given suite of music, it was
> necessary to buy multiple copies and transfer immediately
> to tape.

Hence my Revox A-77 in the day.

> I never--repeat, NEVER--heard a completely
> pop-free album in my entire life...and I was a dealer.

Even the enhanced quality of european pressings didn't totally erase that
problem.

> Still, there is that nostalgia for the 'good ol' days'
> that persists and grows.

I think that in the end, it will be yet another boomer thing that dies with
that generation.

[George M. Middius]

jakdedert said:

> Still, there is that nostalgia for the 'good ol' days' that persists and
> grows.

You're fueling the Krooborg's jihad.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Robert Orban" > wrote in message
>
>
> > Through hard experience I've found that with
> > recordings of this vintage, it really pays to find
> > sealed, unplayed copies even if one has to wait for them
> > to show up on eBay and even if one has to pay more. There
> > were a *lot* of bad phono playback systems in the late
> > 60s, and even one play through some of them could audibly
> > damage the vinyl.
>
> > Finally, after doing this a hundred times or so I have to
> > observe that the audio quality of the run of the mill
> > vinyl from that era was pretty bad. It got a lot better
> > starting in mid-1969, probably because a new generation
> > of disc cutters was just coming on line.
>
> > I find
> > incomprehensible the affection that some people evidently
> > have for the audio quality of vinyl from that era.
>
> > Bob Orban

I don't find a whole lot to disagree with here. There was a lot of junk
out there, as there is presently in digital. Just about all Columbia
and DGG was very bad in the 60s. A shame considering the performances
they recorded. Most of Mercury, Decca, EMI, Harmonia Mundi, and much of
RCA sounded terrific on the other hand.

[Arny Krueger]

"MiNe 109" > wrote in message

> In article >,
> jakdedert > wrote:
>
>> MiNe 109 wrote:
>> <snip>
>>>>> Finally, after doing this a hundred times or so I
>>>>> have to observe that the audio quality of the run of
>>>>> the mill vinyl from that era was pretty bad. It got a
>>>>> lot better starting in mid-1969, probably because a
>>>>> new generation of disc cutters was just coming on
>>>>> line.
>>>>> I find
>>>>> incomprehensible the affection that some people
>>>>> evidently have for the audio quality of vinyl from
>>>>> that era.
>>>>> Bob Orban
>>>> Who is Robert Orban?
>>>
>>> Nice appeal to authority. Was someone arguing in favor
>>> of damaged, poor-quality vinyl?
>>>
>> I dunno. I didn't read the thread which provoked the
>> above. My experience in the 60's/70's was that the vast
>> majority of vinyl records (the only kind available, of
>> course) were real crap, quality wise. If one wanted a
>> quiet, clean copy of a given suite of music, it was
>> necessary to buy multiple copies and transfer
>> immediately to tape. I never--repeat, NEVER--heard a
>> completely pop-free album in my entire life...and I was
>> a dealer.

> I swore off classical lps after a bad stretch of DGs in
> the early eighties. After that, the decision was made for
> me!

So you never play classical LPs any more?

>> Still, there is that nostalgia for the 'good ol' days'
>> that persists and grows.

> Can't have that.

Actually, desipite all the phoney angst we hear from vinylistas, there's no
problem with sentimentality at all.

The problem comes when a tiny minority of vinyl bigots confuse
sentimentality for LP's well-known audible foilbles with improved sound
quality and realism.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in
message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Robert Orban" > wrote in
>> message
>>
>>
>>> Through hard experience I've found that with
>>> recordings of this vintage, it really pays to find
>>> sealed, unplayed copies even if one has to wait for them
>>> to show up on eBay and even if one has to pay more.
>>> There were a *lot* of bad phono playback systems in the
>>> late 60s, and even one play through some of them could
>>> audibly damage the vinyl.
>>
>>> Finally, after doing this a hundred times or so I have
>>> to observe that the audio quality of the run of the mill
>>> vinyl from that era was pretty bad. It got a lot better
>>> starting in mid-1969, probably because a new generation
>>> of disc cutters was just coming on line.
>>
>>> I find
>>> incomprehensible the affection that some people
>>> evidently have for the audio quality of vinyl from that
>>> era.
>>
>>> Bob Orban
>
> I don't find a whole lot to disagree with here.

Except when you start free-associating with the usual vinylista propaganda
about certain LPs sounding more realistic than any CD.

> There
> was a lot of junk out there, as there is presently in
> digital.

The difference is that the junk problem with the LP could never be
adequately solved. The junk problem with CDs is simply that there's no
accounting for taste.

> Just about all Columbia and DGG was very bad in
> the 60s. A shame considering the performances they
> recorded. Most of Mercury, Decca, EMI, Harmonia Mundi,
> and much of RCA sounded terrific on the other hand.

Still had the usual litany of vinyl noises, distortion and coloration.

[Arny Krueger]

"MiNe 109" > wrote in message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
>>
>>> In article
>>> >, "Arny
>>> Krueger" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Robert Orban" > wrote in
>>>> message
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Through hard experience I've found that with
>>>>> recordings of this vintage, it really pays to find
>>>>> sealed, unplayed copies even if one has to wait for
>>>>> them to show up on eBay and even if one has to pay
>>>>> more. There were a *lot* of bad phono playback
>>>>> systems in the late 60s, and even one play through
>>>>> some of them could audibly damage the vinyl.
>>
>>>>> Finally, after doing this a hundred times or so I have
>>>>> to observe that the audio quality of the run of the
>>>>> mill vinyl from that era was pretty bad. It got a lot
>>>>> better starting in mid-1969, probably because a new
>>>>> generation of disc cutters was just coming on line.
>>
>>>>> I find
>>>>> incomprehensible the affection that some people
>>>>> evidently have for the audio quality of vinyl from
>>>>> that era.
>>
>>>>> Bob Orban
>>
>>>> Who is Robert Orban?
>>
>>> Nice appeal to authority.
>>
>> If you and Jen promise to never appeal to authority,
>> personal or otherwise, I'll do the same. ;-)
>
> Appeals to authority are usually in service of an
> argument.
>
>>> Was someone arguing in favor of
>>> damaged, poor-quality vinyl?
>>
>> Nice job of missing the point of the second paragraph,
>> Stephen. "Distractions R U", right? ;-)
>
> Most lps were junk. Who was saying otherwise?

Come on Stephen, the truth is that compared to a well-made digital
recording, the very best LP ever made was still, noisy, colored, and
distorted junk.

>> It should be pretty obvious to an unbiased reader (not
>> Stephen or Jen for example) that the second paragraph
>> refers to undamaged, even completely virgin LPs. The
>> point of the first paragraph is that Orban has very high
>> standards for choosing and preparing LPs for digitizing.
>> But even given that, the LP format still falls way short
>> of modern standards for quality audio.

> The first paragraph doesn't mention digitizing at all.

Come on Stephen, I posted a link to the whole post. The original post on
RAO could be linked to the OP I quoted on RAP in two clicks. Can you
possibly bring yourself to judge a statement in its proper context?

> Still, in cases of deteriorated or missing original
> master tapes, an LP transfer might be the best way to
> hear a specific recording.

In the absence of superior options which often abound, we sometimes must get
desperate and dab some makeup on LP's sonic piggishness, in order to just
enjoy the music.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in
> message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Robert Orban" > wrote in
> >> message
> >>
> >>
> >>> Through hard experience I've found that with
> >>> recordings of this vintage, it really pays to find
> >>> sealed, unplayed copies even if one has to wait for them
> >>> to show up on eBay and even if one has to pay more.
> >>> There were a *lot* of bad phono playback systems in the
> >>> late 60s, and even one play through some of them could
> >>> audibly damage the vinyl.
> >>
> >>> Finally, after doing this a hundred times or so I have
> >>> to observe that the audio quality of the run of the mill
> >>> vinyl from that era was pretty bad. It got a lot better
> >>> starting in mid-1969, probably because a new generation
> >>> of disc cutters was just coming on line.
> >>
> >>> I find
> >>> incomprehensible the affection that some people
> >>> evidently have for the audio quality of vinyl from that
> >>> era.
> >>
> >>> Bob Orban
> >
> > I don't find a whole lot to disagree with here.
>
> Except when you start free-associating with the usual vinylista propaganda
> about certain LPs sounding more realistic than any CD.

What does that have to do with your quote?

>
> > There
> > was a lot of junk out there, as there is presently in
> > digital.
>
> The difference is that the junk problem with the LP could never be
> adequately solved. The junk problem with CDs is simply that there's no
> accounting for taste.

Whatever. There are bad LPs and there are bad CDs. So?

>
> > Just about all Columbia and DGG was very bad in
> > the 60s. A shame considering the performances they
> > recorded. Most of Mercury, Decca, EMI, Harmonia Mundi,
> > and much of RCA sounded terrific on the other hand.
>
> Still had the usual litany of vinyl noises, distortion and coloration.

And many sounded more like music than any CD I've heard. That's based on
the highest authority for the purposes of my music listening: my ears.

[Arny Krueger]

"MiNe 109" > wrote in message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
>>
>>> In article
>>> >, "Arny
>>> Krueger" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> "MiNe 109" > wrote in
>>>> message
>>>>
>>>>> In article
>>>>> >, "Arny
>>>>> Krueger" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Robert Orban" > wrote in
>>>>>> message
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Through hard experience I've found that with
>>>>>>> recordings of this vintage, it really pays to find
>>>>>>> sealed, unplayed copies even if one has to wait for
>>>>>>> them to show up on eBay and even if one has to pay
>>>>>>> more. There were a *lot* of bad phono playback
>>>>>>> systems in the late 60s, and even one play through
>>>>>>> some of them could audibly damage the vinyl.
>>>>
>>>>>>> Finally, after doing this a hundred times or so I
>>>>>>> have to observe that the audio quality of the run
>>>>>>> of the mill vinyl from that era was pretty bad. It
>>>>>>> got a lot better starting in mid-1969, probably
>>>>>>> because a new generation of disc cutters was just
>>>>>>> coming on line.
>>>>
>>>>>>> I find
>>>>>>> incomprehensible the affection that some people
>>>>>>> evidently have for the audio quality of vinyl from
>>>>>>> that era.
>>>>
>>>>>>> Bob Orban
>>>>
>>>>>> Who is Robert Orban?
>>>>
>>>>> Nice appeal to authority.
>>>>
>>>> If you and Jen promise to never appeal to authority,
>>>> personal or otherwise, I'll do the same. ;-)
>>>
>>> Appeals to authority are usually in service of an
>>> argument.
>>>
>>>>> Was someone arguing in favor of
>>>>> damaged, poor-quality vinyl?
>>>>
>>>> Nice job of missing the point of the second paragraph,
>>>> Stephen. "Distractions R U", right? ;-)
>>>
>>> Most lps were junk. Who was saying otherwise?
>>
>> Come on Stephen, the truth is that compared to a
>> well-made digital recording, the very best LP ever made
>> was still, noisy, colored, and distorted junk.

> That's an opinion.

No, that's a fact to just about everybody with the proverbial brain, and its
a fact to a great many more. Fact is there is this tiny noisy minority who
are sort of like the audio world's version of extremely pierced people. They
mostly want to be thought of as being special. Many will take up any number
of completely anti-factual not to mention illogical positions to get the
special attention that they crave.

> As for "still," one spins vinyl.

Naah, compared to the CD that spins at 300 rpm and up, the 33 rpm LP is
standing still.

>>>> It should be pretty obvious to an unbiased reader (not
>>>> Stephen or Jen for example) that the second paragraph
>>>> refers to undamaged, even completely virgin LPs. The
>>>> point of the first paragraph is that Orban has very
>>>> high standards for choosing and preparing LPs for
>>>> digitizing. But even given that, the LP format still
>>>> falls way short of modern standards for quality audio.
>>
>>> The first paragraph doesn't mention digitizing at all.
>>
>> Come on Stephen, I posted a link to the whole post. The
>> original post on RAO could be linked to the OP I quoted
>> on RAP in two clicks. Can you possibly bring yourself to
>> judge a statement in its proper context?

> That brings up the question of why you crossposted while
> suppressing the group in which it originated.

The supression exists only in your mind, Stephen. Knowlegable persons used
google to trace the post id, and quickly found out everything there was to
know. Need a google 101 course, Stephen?


>>> Still, in cases of deteriorated or missing original
>>> master tapes, an LP transfer might be the best way to
>>> hear a specific recording.

>> In the absence of superior options which often abound,
>> we sometimes must get desperate and dab some makeup on
>> LP's sonic piggishness, in order to just enjoy the music.

> Straight transfers, a little de-clicking, and there you
> are.

I can see that even with the link to Orban's OP staring you in the face
Stephen, you are caught flat on your feet, and have hung yourself out to
dry. Here it is again:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio.pro/msg/81b8d154c20e0ebf

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in
message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in
>> message
>>
>>> In article
>>> >, "Arny
>>> Krueger" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Robert Orban" > wrote in
>>>> message
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Through hard experience I've found that with
>>>>> recordings of this vintage, it really pays to find
>>>>> sealed, unplayed copies even if one has to wait for
>>>>> them to show up on eBay and even if one has to pay
>>>>> more. There were a *lot* of bad phono playback
>>>>> systems in the late 60s, and even one play through
>>>>> some of them could audibly damage the vinyl.
>>>>
>>>>> Finally, after doing this a hundred times or so I have
>>>>> to observe that the audio quality of the run of the
>>>>> mill vinyl from that era was pretty bad. It got a lot
>>>>> better starting in mid-1969, probably because a new
>>>>> generation of disc cutters was just coming on line.
>>>>
>>>>> I find
>>>>> incomprehensible the affection that some people
>>>>> evidently have for the audio quality of vinyl from
>>>>> that era.
>>>>
>>>>> Bob Orban
>>>
>>> I don't find a whole lot to disagree with here.
>>
>> Except when you start free-associating with the usual
>> vinylista propaganda about certain LPs sounding more
>> realistic than any CD.
>
> What does that have to do with your quote?
>
>>
>>> There
>>> was a lot of junk out there, as there is presently in
>>> digital.
>>
>> The difference is that the junk problem with the LP
>> could never be adequately solved. The junk problem with
>> CDs is simply that there's no accounting for taste.
>
> Whatever. There are bad LPs and there are bad CDs. So?
>
>>
>>> Just about all Columbia and DGG was very bad in
>>> the 60s. A shame considering the performances they
>>> recorded. Most of Mercury, Decca, EMI, Harmonia Mundi,
>>> and much of RCA sounded terrific on the other hand.

>> Still had the usual litany of vinyl noises, distortion
>> and coloration.

> And many sounded more like music than any CD I've heard.

Jen, even with the usual litany of vinyl noises, distortion
and coloration? I seriously doubt it. More like you're a hopeless romantic,
as demonstrated by how you throw good money after bad for overpriced vinyl
players.

> That's based on the highest authority for the purposes of
> my music listening: my ears.

No doubt damaged by exposure to too much live music way too loud.

[Arny Krueger]

"Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
oups.com

> Some people prefer the treble digital artifacts of CD.

There ain't no such thing.

[John Byrns]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> It should be pretty obvious to an unbiased reader (not Stephen or Jen for
> example) that the second paragraph refers to undamaged, even completely
> virgin LPs. The point of the first paragraph is that Orban has very high
> standards for choosing and preparing LPs for digitizing. But even given
> that, the LP format still falls way short of modern standards for quality
> audio.

Arny, every time I read one of your posts I get the impression that all
you listen to is the equipment and technology, and and that you rarely
listen to the music. There is much great and worthwhile music that
comes to us by way 78s, a format with even lower standards than the LPs
you so decry.

Your listing of Bob Orban's patents is very impressive, and I have
always admired and respected Bob's inventiveness and creativity. But
while several of Bob's inventions are indispensable, most of them are
sort of like guns, in that they are not always used for their intended
purpose and are also often used for evil, as they commonly are in
today's audio world.

Bob himself seems to espouse this philosophy of misuse in his post
describing the extensive processing he does to the sound of the original
LP when transferring it to digital. I would be happier with a basically
straight transfer from LP to digital, with the only special processing
applied being some modest declicking.


Regards,

John Byrns

--
Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/

[George M. Middius]

John Byrns said to SnottyBorg:

> > It should be pretty obvious to an unbiased reader (not Stephen or Jen for

> Arny, every time I read one of your posts I get the impression that all
> you listen to is the equipment and technology, and and that you rarely
> listen to the music.

Well, naturally. Arnii has no procedures for "testing" music. He lives
to "test" equipment. All "tests" to date have prooved™ there is no
"relaibley percievable" difference between Krooger's audio krap and the
high-priced stuff Krooger can't afford.

> There is much great and worthwhile music that
> comes to us by way 78s, a format with even lower standards than the LPs
> you so decry.

"Music is irrelevant to audio."
-- A. Krooger (1998, 2001, 2003, 2004, 2006)

[Arny Krueger]

"Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
oups.com
> On Aug 29, 9:04 am, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> In article
>>> >,
>>> jakdedert > wrote:
>>
>>>> MiNe 109 wrote:
>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>> Finally, after doing this a hundred times or so I
>>>>>>> have to observe that the audio quality of the run of
>>>>>>> the mill vinyl from that era was pretty bad. It got
>>>>>>> a lot better starting in mid-1969, probably because
>>>>>>> a new generation of disc cutters was just coming on
>>>>>>> line.
>>>>>>> I find
>>>>>>> incomprehensible the affection that some people
>>>>>>> evidently have for the audio quality of vinyl from
>>>>>>> that era.
>>>>>>> Bob Orban
>>>>>> Who is Robert Orban?
>>
>>>>> Nice appeal to authority. Was someone arguing in favor
>>>>> of damaged, poor-quality vinyl?
>>
>>>> I dunno. I didn't read the thread which provoked the
>>>> above. My experience in the 60's/70's was that the
>>>> vast majority of vinyl records (the only kind
>>>> available, of course) were real crap, quality wise.
>>>> If one wanted a quiet, clean copy of a given suite of
>>>> music, it was necessary to buy multiple copies and
>>>> transfer immediately to tape. I never--repeat,
>>>> NEVER--heard a completely pop-free album in my entire
>>>> life...and I was a dealer.
>>> I swore off classical lps after a bad stretch of DGs in
>>> the early eighties. After that, the decision was made
>>> for me!
>>
>> So you never play classical LPs any more?
>>
>>>> Still, there is that nostalgia for the 'good ol' days'
>>>> that persists and grows.
>>> Can't have that.
>>
>> Actually, desipite all the phoney angst we hear from
>> vinylistas, there's no problem with sentimentality at
>> all.
>>
>> The problem comes when a tiny minority of vinyl bigots
>> confuse sentimentality for LP's well-known audible
>> foilbles with improved sound quality and realism.

> The fact is is that when best practices were followed
> throughout the chain, vinyl wasn't too bad, but it was
> never intended to equal 30 ips half inch half track,

Vinyl was never intended to equal 30 ips half track?

Ask Doug Sax!

> and it never did.

Doug Sax thought differently. Hence: Sheffield Records.

> To this day GOOD analog tape is the gold
> standard of recording, and neither vinyl nor CD equals it.

Both are arguable, but that that the CD format sonically surpasses analog
tape is fact.

> There was some pretty good vinyl at times. Most of it was
> mediocre, even classical releases, and much terrible.
> Most CDs are mediocre and the digitization rate is not
> adequate for best results especially in the treble. The
> rule of analog accuracy is five times bandwidth, as every
> old Tektronix catalog stated, but a <23 kHz brick wall
> for 20 kHz repro is obvious horse**** on its face.

> No one is advocating vinyl today as a primary release
> format. But antivinyl activism fails on the basis of
> confusing sunk costs with marginal costs:

> http://isteve.blogspot.com/2007/08/whats-opposite-of-sunk-cost-fallacy.html

Relevance to vinyl?????????????/

> Vinyl is the BEST source of much of the 100+ year library
> of recorded sound which mankind possesses.

Not really. There is no 100+ year library of recorded sound on vinyl simply
because vinyl wasn't available and/or wasn't commonly used for something
like the first half of those 100 years.

Other than oddities like those Sheffield Records direct-disc recordings,
virtually all of the recordings that were made on vinyl were first recorded
on magnetic tape. If they are valuable but aren't available on tape, then
someone screwed up.

> If you want
> to hear the voice of people long dead (or living people
> in historical context if they are even modestly old) and
> the sounds of music as it was played decades ago, as a
> "consumer", vinyl is often it.

Bad history.

> Many LPs were never
> reissued as CDs and many others were poorly done.

Bad history. Virtually all vinyl LPs were transcribed from tape. Before
LPs there were 78s, and 78s were generally recorded on far harder substances
than vinyl.

> Even
> many of the latest releases on CD are from less than
> excellent masters and sound worse than extant vinyl.

That's an archiving problem, not a technical situation. If people threw away
their master tapes, that's too bad.

> Therefore vinyl playback is not an otiose matter at all.

Thus, the use of vinyl masters is a testimonial to the human propensity to
screw up.

[Arny Krueger]

"John Byrns" > wrote in message


> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:

>> It should be pretty obvious to an unbiased reader (not
>> Stephen or Jen for example) that the second paragraph
>> refers to undamaged, even completely virgin LPs. The
>> point of the first paragraph is that Orban has very high
>> standards for choosing and preparing LPs for digitizing.
>> But even given that, the LP format still falls way short
>> of modern standards for quality audio.

> Arny, every time I read one of your posts I get the
> impression that all you listen to is the equipment and
> technology, and and that you rarely listen to the music.

John, it is just your prejudices and biases working overtime, it would seem.

> There is much great and worthwhile music that comes to us
> by way 78s, a format with even lower standards than the
> LPs you so decry.

Agreed, but that isn't what I was talking about. What's unclear about "the
LP format still falls way short
of modern standards for quality audio" .

Can you distinguish between audio and music?

I can.

> Your listing of Bob Orban's patents is very impressive,
> and I have always admired and respected Bob's
> inventiveness and creativity. But while several of Bob's
> inventions are indispensable, most of them are sort of
> like guns, in that they are not always used for their
> intended purpose and are also often used for evil, as
> they commonly are in today's audio world.

Agreed. But, I don't see mankind stopping the manufacture and development of
weapons, any time soon. And, when someone shoots someone else, rarely if
ever is the weapons manufacturer or developer held responsibile. If you want
to make up your own laws, be my guest but not my guide!

> Bob himself seems to espouse this philosophy of misuse in
> his post describing the extensive processing he does to
> the sound of the original LP when transferring it to
> digital.

That's a reach!

> I would be happier with a basically straight
> transfer from LP to digital, with the only special
> processing applied being some modest declicking.

I'd like to get away with that more often in the work I do. Trouble is, most
if not all of the LPs I end uptranscribing seem to need more processing than
that.

[Arny Krueger]

"Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
ups.com
>>> It should be pretty obvious to an unbiased reader (not
>>> Stephen or Jen for example) that the second paragraph
>>> refers to undamaged, even completely virgin LPs. The
>>> point of the first paragraph is that Orban has very
>>> high standards for choosing and preparing LPs for
>>> digitizing. But even given that, the LP format still
>>> falls way short of modern standards for quality audio.
>
> I submit the CD does too. And in the case of pop music
> made after 1965 or so, we shouldn't have to go from a
> vinyl release but the original two track tape masters.

Two track masters have been generally used since about a decade before 1965.

[Arny Krueger]

"Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
oups.com
>> Actually, desipite all the phoney angst we hear from
>> vinylistas, there's no problem with sentimentality at
>> all.
>>
>> The problem comes when a tiny minority of vinyl bigots
>> confuse sentimentality for LP's well-known audible
>> foilbles with improved sound quality and realism.

> If improved sound quality and realism were the standard
> the CD would be superceded.

Trouble is the absence of properly-done listening tests where the CD format
has been found to change sound quality.

[Arny Krueger]

"Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
ups.com
> On Aug 29, 10:28 am, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>> "Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
>>
>> oups.com
>>
>>> Some people prefer the treble digital artifacts of CD.
>>
>> There ain't no such thing.
>
> But, unfortunately, there are. CD sample rate is NOT high
> enough,

Prove it. In fact a sample rate as low as 32 KHz can give transparent
reproduction of just about every kind of music there is.

> and that's the consensus view of hundreds of pros
> as well as in compliance with the generally accepted
> rules of bandwidth.

100's of pros? OK, so there is a tiny fraction of poorly-informed pros out
there. So what?

> You want a lot of headroom of
> bandwidth-five times was the precision analog rule.

Bret you're conflating headroom with bandwidth. They aren't the same. They
are orthogonal. Know what that means?

> In
> practice you probably don't need a 100 kHz Nyquist wall,
> and as you pointed out earlier it means excessive use of
> available file size and throughput, but having the brick
> wall at 30-40 kHz is just common sense at modern data
> density rates.

That sort of nonsense is supported by neither scientific test, nor the
consensus of the 100's of millions of listeners, musicians, and production
people.

> SACD and DVD-A are available and should be the standard
> today, with a CD layer for compatibility. It's not
> terribly expensive.

It's a waste of good bandwidth. SACD and DVD were failures in the
mainstream marketplace because they had no reliably perceptible benefits.

[John Byrns]

In article om>,
Bret Ludwig > wrote:

> On Aug 29, 10:28 am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> > "Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
> >
> > oups.com
> >
> > > Some people prefer the treble digital artifacts of CD.
> >
> > There ain't no such thing.
>
> But, unfortunately, there are. CD sample rate is NOT high enough, and
> that's the consensus view of hundreds of pros as well as in compliance
> with the generally accepted rules of bandwidth.

Exactly what is the CD sample rate not high enough for, and how do you
justify that statement? If the audio is first run through a 20 kHz
brick-wall filter the CD sample rate is plenty high. Brick-wall filters
can be built with today's digital techniques that do not contribute
phase distortion to the filtered signal. Done right CD is the ultimate
format for consumer audio, unfortunately we are well down the road
toward abandoning it in favor of low bit rate mp3s and other similar
formats.


Regards,

John Byrns

--
Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/

[ScottW]

On Aug 29, 10:37 am, John Byrns > wrote:
> In article om>,
> Bret Ludwig > wrote:
>
> > On Aug 29, 10:28 am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> > > "Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
>
> > oups.com
>
> > > > Some people prefer the treble digital artifacts of CD.
>
> > > There ain't no such thing.
>
> > But, unfortunately, there are. CD sample rate is NOT high enough, and
> > that's the consensus view of hundreds of pros as well as in compliance
> > with the generally accepted rules of bandwidth.
>
> Exactly what is the CD sample rate not high enough for, and how do you
> justify that statement? If the audio is first run through a 20 kHz
> brick-wall filter the CD sample rate is plenty high. Brick-wall filters
> can be built with today's digital techniques that do not contribute
> phase distortion to the filtered signal.

How does one implement an anti-aliasing filter on the
input before a signal is digitized.....digitally?


ScottW

[Arny Krueger]

"John Byrns" > wrote in message

> In article
> om>,
> Bret Ludwig > wrote:
>
>> On Aug 29, 10:28 am, "Arny Krueger" >
>> wrote:
>>> "Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
>>>
>>> oups.com
>>>
>>>> Some people prefer the treble digital artifacts of CD.
>>>
>>> There ain't no such thing.
>>
>> But, unfortunately, there are. CD sample rate is NOT
>> high enough, and that's the consensus view of hundreds
>> of pros as well as in compliance with the generally
>> accepted rules of bandwidth.

> Exactly what is the CD sample rate not high enough for,

A very relevant question.

The SACD and DVD-A advocates have missed a tremendous sales demonstration
opportunity.

All they have to do is set up a booth or room at the AES or some high end
show (e.g. HE 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008...), composed of one
of their new and nifty players playing one of their new and nifty discs
thorugh a great audio system in a great room. Of course, there would be a
back-to-back 16/44 KHz converter pair (example: Midiman's Flying Cow)
operating at unity gain and with minimal delay, that listeners could switch
in and out of the signal path. A blind demonstration facility would be an
available option.

If 44 KHz sampling and 21 KHz brick wall filters were the sonic problem that
Bret and so many others claim, the difference should be immediately obvious,
blind test or not.

> and how do you justify that statement?

I suspect that engineers from Sony, Philips, Pioneer, and Panasonic already
did this test, at the very least. They didn't hear a difference, and hence
all the obfuscation that we've had to this day.

> If the audio is
> first run through a 20 kHz brick-wall filter the CD
> sample rate is plenty high.

Agreed, and it takes a brick wall filter at less than 16 KHz to be audible
with a general sampling of music.

> Brick-wall filters can be
> built with today's digital techniques that do not
> contribute phase distortion to the filtered signal.

Agreed. And converters that include these filters are a few bucks, at the
most.

> Done
> right CD is the ultimate format for consumer audio,

It's overkill!

[Arny Krueger]

"ScottW" > wrote in message
ups.com
> On Aug 29, 10:37 am, John Byrns >
> wrote:
>> In article
>> om>,
>> Bret Ludwig > wrote:
>>
>>> On Aug 29, 10:28 am, "Arny Krueger" >
>>> wrote:
>>>> "Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
>>
>>>> oups.com
>>
>>>>> Some people prefer the treble digital artifacts of CD.
>>
>>>> There ain't no such thing.
>>
>>> But, unfortunately, there are. CD sample rate is NOT
>>> high enough, and that's the consensus view of hundreds
>>> of pros as well as in compliance with the generally
>>> accepted rules of bandwidth.
>>
>> Exactly what is the CD sample rate not high enough for,
>> and how do you justify that statement? If the audio is
>> first run through a 20 kHz brick-wall filter the CD
>> sample rate is plenty high. Brick-wall filters can be
>> built with today's digital techniques that do not
>> contribute phase distortion to the filtered signal.
>
> How does one implement an anti-aliasing filter on the
> input before a signal is digitized.....digitally?

Before oversampling, brick-wall filtering was done in the analog domain,
with complex filters.

The brick wall filter in the CDP-101 had about 100 components (mostly coils
and capacitors) for 2
channels.

What oversampling does is put the brick-wall filter into the digital domain,
but running at a far higher sample rate then say 44 KHz. Relatively simple
analog filters running at far higher frequencies are then sufficient.

[John Byrns]

In article om>,
ScottW > wrote:

> On Aug 29, 10:37 am, John Byrns > wrote:
> > In article om>,
> > Bret Ludwig > wrote:
> >
> > > On Aug 29, 10:28 am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> > > > "Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
> >
> > > oups.com
> >
> > > > > Some people prefer the treble digital artifacts of CD.
> >
> > > > There ain't no such thing.
> >
> > > But, unfortunately, there are. CD sample rate is NOT high enough, and
> > > that's the consensus view of hundreds of pros as well as in compliance
> > > with the generally accepted rules of bandwidth.
> >
> > Exactly what is the CD sample rate not high enough for, and how do you
> > justify that statement? If the audio is first run through a 20 kHz
> > brick-wall filter the CD sample rate is plenty high. Brick-wall filters
> > can be built with today's digital techniques that do not contribute
> > phase distortion to the filtered signal.
>
> How does one implement an anti-aliasing filter on the
> input before a signal is digitized.....digitally?

By oversampling sufficiently that the required analog filter has
negligible impact.


Regards,

John Byrns

--
Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/

[John Byrns]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "John Byrns" > wrote in message
>
> > In article
> > om>,
> > Bret Ludwig > wrote:
> >
> >> On Aug 29, 10:28 am, "Arny Krueger" >
> >> wrote:
> >>> "Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
> >>>
> >>> oups.com
> >>>
> >>>> Some people prefer the treble digital artifacts of CD.
> >>>
> >>> There ain't no such thing.
> >>
> >> But, unfortunately, there are. CD sample rate is NOT
> >> high enough, and that's the consensus view of hundreds
> >> of pros as well as in compliance with the generally
> >> accepted rules of bandwidth.
>
> > Exactly what is the CD sample rate not high enough for,
>
> A very relevant question.
>
> The SACD and DVD-A advocates have missed a tremendous sales demonstration
> opportunity.
>
> All they have to do is set up a booth or room at the AES or some high end
> show (e.g. HE 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008...), composed of one
> of their new and nifty players playing one of their new and nifty discs
> thorugh a great audio system in a great room. Of course, there would be a
> back-to-back 16/44 KHz converter pair (example: Midiman's Flying Cow)
> operating at unity gain and with minimal delay, that listeners could switch
> in and out of the signal path. A blind demonstration facility would be an
> available option.
>
> If 44 KHz sampling and 21 KHz brick wall filters were the sonic problem that
> Bret and so many others claim, the difference should be immediately obvious,
> blind test or not.
>
> > and how do you justify that statement?
>
> I suspect that engineers from Sony, Philips, Pioneer, and Panasonic already
> did this test, at the very least. They didn't hear a difference, and hence
> all the obfuscation that we've had to this day.
>
> > If the audio is
> > first run through a 20 kHz brick-wall filter the CD
> > sample rate is plenty high.
>
> Agreed, and it takes a brick wall filter at less than 16 KHz to be audible
> with a general sampling of music.
>
> > Brick-wall filters can be
> > built with today's digital techniques that do not
> > contribute phase distortion to the filtered signal.
>
> Agreed. And converters that include these filters are a few bucks, at the
> most.
>
> > Done
> > right CD is the ultimate format for consumer audio,
>
> It's overkill!

The "ultimate" is always overkill to some extent, by definition.


Regards,

John Byrns

--
Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/

[[email protected]]

On Aug 29, 1:56 pm, ScottW > wrote:
> On Aug 29, 10:37 am, John Byrns > wrote:
> > Exactly what is the CD sample rate not high enough for, and how do you
> > justify that statement? If the audio is first run through a 20 kHz
> > brick-wall filter the CD sample rate is plenty high. Brick-wall filters
> > can be built with today's digital techniques that do not contribute
> > phase distortion to the filtered signal.
>
> How does one implement an anti-aliasing filter on the
> input before a signal is digitized.....digitally?

Yes, in essence.

Put in a VERY gentle analog filter whose low-pass is at,
say, 64x that of your base sample rate. Oversample the
A/D at 64x your final sample rate, e.g., 2.822 MHz, and
then do your real anti-aliasing filtering entirely in the
digital domain. You can now build yourself a very nice
filter at 20+ kHz that has in-band response anomolies
of under +-.1 dB, excellent phase repsonse and more.

Same thing for the output reconstruction filter: oversample
the stream, do your filtering digitally, then convert and follow
with a final very gentle analog filter. Those analog filters
now need not be at the top of the bandwidth, they can be
32x higher, far above the 5 times limit that Ludwig is
wagging about.

It, by the way, has been routinely this for the last couple
of decades in one form or another.

[Arny Krueger]

"Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
ups.com

>>> I submit the CD does too. And in the case of pop music
>>> made after 1965 or so, we shouldn't have to go from a
>>> vinyl release but the original two track tape masters.

>> Two track masters have been generally used since about a
>> decade before 1965.

> Since most releases then were mono, they were one track
> masters.

Dirty little secret Bret - people were recording stereo for years before
stereo LPs became available.

> Mono LPs were available until well into the rock era.

Irrelevant to how they were recorded.

> And in fact most people prefer mono Beatles and
> Stones LPs (of that era) sonically.

OK, so their engineers didn't always know how to mix properly.

Say it to yourself as many times as it takes Bret - music and audio are two
different things that often converge, but it ain't necessarily so all of the
time.

[Arny Krueger]

"Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
oups.com
>>>> The problem comes when a tiny minority of vinyl bigots
>>>> confuse sentimentality for LP's well-known audible
>>>> foilbles with improved sound quality and realism.
>>> The fact is is that when best practices were followed
>>> throughout the chain, vinyl wasn't too bad, but it was
>>> never intended to equal 30 ips half inch half track,
>>
>> Vinyl was never intended to equal 30 ips half track?
>>
>> Ask Doug Sax!
>>
>>> and it never did.
>>
>> Doug Sax thought differently. Hence: Sheffield Records.
>
> Doug never said LP was BETTER than pro tape, but that it
> wasn't better than the live signal feed, and that saving
> a step in the chain would mean better fidelity. In fact
> it did.

Time to use a little logic Bret. If something degrades the sound of a
medium, then its accuracy is equal or less than that medium. For example,
people cut lots of very successful LPs from digital masters that were less
than 44 KHz and 16 bits.

>>> To this day GOOD analog tape is the gold
>>> standard of recording, and neither vinyl nor CD equals
>>> it.

>> Both are arguable, but that that the CD format sonically
>> surpasses analog tape is fact.

> Not good pro analog tape, it does not.

I know better because I've heard it.

> Pro highbit digital formats, whether tape or hard drive, do.

Note to Bret: Highbit is digital, not analog. I clearly said analog tape.

>>> Vinyl is the BEST source of much of the 100+ year
>>> library of recorded sound which mankind possesses.
>>
>> Not really. There is no 100+ year library of recorded
>> sound on vinyl simply because vinyl wasn't available
>> and/or wasn't commonly used for something like the first
>> half of those 100 years.

> In a lot of cases, transcriptions were made of earlier
> material onto vinyl and the vinyl is all that survives,

Then a lot of quality was lost due to carelessness. Bret, this is about
technology not occasional lapses.

> or the old acetates and wax has further deteriorated by
> time and more playing.

True to this day, in which case transcription to digital is the rule.

> In others, the tapes have not survived or have not aged well.

Bret why can't you admit it - that you made a mistake and said that vinyl
has been around for 100 years. Heck, PVC wasn't even invented until the
1920s! And, PVC was not in general use until the 1950s because it was soft
and would be destroyed by a lot of the 78 rpm playback equipment that was
widely used.

> Give us your assessment, Arny, of Sticky Shed Syndrome
> sometime;-)

It is a problem that is generally reversible. You bake the tapes in a warm
oven and drive off the moisture.

>> Other than oddities like those Sheffield Records
>> direct-disc recordings, virtually all of the recordings
>> that were made on vinyl were first recorded on magnetic
>> tape. If they are valuable but aren't available on tape,
>> then someone screwed up.

> Yes Arny, they did. In some cases that someone was the
> tape makers. Other times the record companies, the vault
> people, or any of dozens of others.

There was no amount of not screwing up that would result in Vinyl best the
BEST source of much of the 100+ year library of recorded sound which mankind
possesses, because prior to about 58 years ago there were very few vinyl
recordings being made and distributed.

Vinyl is a screwed-up enough medium that transcribing shellac and wax
recordings to it would result in a sound quality loss.

[Arny Krueger]

"Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
ups.com
>>>> But, unfortunately, there are. CD sample rate is NOT
>>>> high enough, and that's the consensus view of hundreds
>>>> of pros as well as in compliance with the generally
>>>> accepted rules of bandwidth.
>>> Exactly what is the CD sample rate not high enough for,
>>
>> A very relevant question.
>>
>> The SACD and DVD-A advocates have missed a tremendous
>> sales demonstration opportunity.
>>
>> All they have to do is set up a booth or room at the AES
>> or some high end show (e.g. HE 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005,
>> 2006, 2007, 2008...), composed of one of their new and
>> nifty players playing one of their new and nifty discs
>> thorugh a great audio system in a great room. Of course,
>> there would be a back-to-back 16/44 KHz converter pair
>> (example: Midiman's Flying Cow) operating at unity gain
>> and with minimal delay, that listeners could switch in
>> and out of the signal path. A blind demonstration
>> facility would be an available option.
>>
>
> I have an mechanical engineer friend that worked on the
> Orenda engine project (basically an aluminum BB Chevy
> certified as an aircraft engine.) He was assigned the
> cylinder heads, which had to have two spark plugs per
> cylinder. He immediately sent off a memo stating that he
> felt that this would decrease reliability by making
> another stress riser to form cracks. They wrote the
> Canada Transport people and they wrote back: It's not our
> job to prove that two ignition systems are more reliable:
> it's your job to prove they are less reliable. it's our
> job to determine what constitutes proof. And since there
> are thirty thousand airplanes with dual ignition in
> Canada we will have to make change over if you do, we
> will require really good proof. Now if you would like to
> continue.....

This relates to the audio topic how???????????????

[robert casey]

>
> I submit the CD does too. And in the case of pop music made after
> 1965 or so, we shouldn't have to go from a vinyl release but the
> original two track tape masters.
>

This assumes that those tapes were kept in good enviroments all this
time. And that the tape was of good quality and was able to last
without chemical breakdown and such.

[robert casey]

> I don't find a whole lot to disagree with here. There was a lot of junk
> out there, as there is presently in digital. Just about all Columbia
> and DGG was very bad in the 60s. A shame considering the performances
> they recorded. Most of Mercury, Decca, EMI, Harmonia Mundi, and much of
> RCA sounded terrific on the other hand.

Bell Records LPs tended to sound distorted. Their 45s were absolute crap.

Heard that they used a version of vinyl that was supposed to sound
really good on the first play, but sounded like crap on subsequent
plays... Disposable music?... Well, some of it was....

[Scott Dorsey]

Robert Casey > wrote:
>
>> I submit the CD does too. And in the case of pop music made after
>> 1965 or so, we shouldn't have to go from a vinyl release but the
>> original two track tape masters.
>
>This assumes that those tapes were kept in good enviroments all this
>time. And that the tape was of good quality and was able to last
>without chemical breakdown and such.

And they weren't bulk-erased by the label in order to re-use the tape,
or shredded by the musician's angry ex-wife or misfiled in the archive
never to be seen again.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[ScottW]

On Aug 29, 1:27 pm, wrote:
> On Aug 29, 1:56 pm, ScottW > wrote:
>
> > On Aug 29, 10:37 am, John Byrns > wrote:
> > > Exactly what is the CD sample rate not high enough for, and how do you
> > > justify that statement? If the audio is first run through a 20 kHz
> > > brick-wall filter the CD sample rate is plenty high. Brick-wall filters
> > > can be built with today's digital techniques that do not contribute
> > > phase distortion to the filtered signal.
>
> > How does one implement an anti-aliasing filter on the
> > input before a signal is digitized.....digitally?
>
> Yes, in essence.
>
> Put in a VERY gentle analog filter whose low-pass is at,
> say, 64x that of your base sample rate. Oversample the
> A/D at 64x

Is the A/D output changing at every sample or is constant
for 64 samples?
If its constant....then how does this prevent aliasing
that gets past the digital antialiasing filter?

> your final sample rate, e.g., 2.822 MHz, and
> then do your real anti-aliasing filtering entirely in the
> digital domain. You can now build yourself a very nice
> filter at 20+ kHz that has in-band response anomolies
> of under +-.1 dB, excellent phase repsonse and more.
>
> Same thing for the output reconstruction filter: oversample
> the stream, do your filtering digitally, then convert and follow
> with a final very gentle analog filter. Those analog filters
> now need not be at the top of the bandwidth, they can be
> 32x higher, far above the 5 times limit that Ludwig is
> wagging about.
>
> It, by the way, has been routinely this for the last couple
> of decades in one form or another.

Which seems to indicate that the CD sample rate is
truly insufficient for the entire process. It is only sufficient
for storage and playback.
I return to the question, "Exactly what is the CD sample
rate not high enough for....?"

ScottW

[MiNe 109]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> >>
> >>> In article
> >>> >, "Arny
> >>> Krueger" > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> "MiNe 109" > wrote in
> >>>> message
> >>>>
> >>>>> In article
> >>>>> >, "Arny
> >>>>> Krueger" > wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> "Robert Orban" > wrote in
> >>>>>> message
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Through hard experience I've found that with
> >>>>>>> recordings of this vintage, it really pays to find
> >>>>>>> sealed, unplayed copies even if one has to wait for
> >>>>>>> them to show up on eBay and even if one has to pay
> >>>>>>> more. There were a *lot* of bad phono playback
> >>>>>>> systems in the late 60s, and even one play through
> >>>>>>> some of them could audibly damage the vinyl.
> >>>>
> >>>>>>> Finally, after doing this a hundred times or so I
> >>>>>>> have to observe that the audio quality of the run
> >>>>>>> of the mill vinyl from that era was pretty bad. It
> >>>>>>> got a lot better starting in mid-1969, probably
> >>>>>>> because a new generation of disc cutters was just
> >>>>>>> coming on line.
> >>>>
> >>>>>>> I find
> >>>>>>> incomprehensible the affection that some people
> >>>>>>> evidently have for the audio quality of vinyl from
> >>>>>>> that era.
> >>>>
> >>>>>>> Bob Orban
> >>>>
> >>>>>> Who is Robert Orban?
> >>>>
> >>>>> Nice appeal to authority.
> >>>>
> >>>> If you and Jen promise to never appeal to authority,
> >>>> personal or otherwise, I'll do the same. ;-)
> >>>
> >>> Appeals to authority are usually in service of an
> >>> argument.
> >>>
> >>>>> Was someone arguing in favor of
> >>>>> damaged, poor-quality vinyl?
> >>>>
> >>>> Nice job of missing the point of the second paragraph,
> >>>> Stephen. "Distractions R U", right? ;-)
> >>>
> >>> Most lps were junk. Who was saying otherwise?
> >>
> >> Come on Stephen, the truth is that compared to a
> >> well-made digital recording, the very best LP ever made
> >> was still, noisy, colored, and distorted junk.
>
> > That's an opinion.
>
> No, that's a fact to just about everybody with the proverbial brain, and its
> a fact to a great many more. Fact is there is this tiny noisy minority who
> are sort of like the audio world's version of extremely pierced people. They
> mostly want to be thought of as being special. Many will take up any number
> of completely anti-factual not to mention illogical positions to get the
> special attention that they crave.

No, it's your opinion. The "facts" are subject to differing degrees of
what's important to the listening experience, thresholds of audibility,
etc.

> > As for "still," one spins vinyl.
>
> Naah, compared to the CD that spins at 300 rpm and up, the 33 rpm LP is
> standing still.

Still is still moving to me.

> >>>> It should be pretty obvious to an unbiased reader (not
> >>>> Stephen or Jen for example) that the second paragraph
> >>>> refers to undamaged, even completely virgin LPs. The
> >>>> point of the first paragraph is that Orban has very
> >>>> high standards for choosing and preparing LPs for
> >>>> digitizing. But even given that, the LP format still
> >>>> falls way short of modern standards for quality audio.
> >>
> >>> The first paragraph doesn't mention digitizing at all.
> >>
> >> Come on Stephen, I posted a link to the whole post. The
> >> original post on RAO could be linked to the OP I quoted
> >> on RAP in two clicks. Can you possibly bring yourself to
> >> judge a statement in its proper context?
>
> > That brings up the question of why you crossposted while
> > suppressing the group in which it originated.
>
> The supression exists only in your mind, Stephen. Knowlegable persons used
> google to trace the post id, and quickly found out everything there was to
> know. Need a google 101 course, Stephen?

I looked at "Newsgroups" in the header and didn't see "rec.audio.pro".

If you're using google, well, some prefer dedicated newsreaders.

> >>> Still, in cases of deteriorated or missing original
> >>> master tapes, an LP transfer might be the best way to
> >>> hear a specific recording.
>
> >> In the absence of superior options which often abound,
> >> we sometimes must get desperate and dab some makeup on
> >> LP's sonic piggishness, in order to just enjoy the music.
>
> > Straight transfers, a little de-clicking, and there you
> > are.
>
> I can see that even with the link to Orban's OP staring you in the face
> Stephen, you are caught flat on your feet, and have hung yourself out to
> dry. Here it is again:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio.pro/msg/81b8d154c20e0ebf

Since that cite isn't important enough to your argument for you to
quote, I will wait for you to actually state a case.

Stephen

[Mr.T]

"MiNe 109" > wrote in message
...
>Was someone arguing in favor of damaged,
> poor-quality vinyl?

Unfortunately that was just the new stuff!

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> It should be pretty obvious to an unbiased reader (not Stephen or Jen for
> example) that the second paragraph refers to undamaged, even completely
> virgin LPs. The point of the first paragraph is that Orban has very high
> standards for choosing and preparing LPs for digitizing. But even given
> that, the LP format still falls way short of modern standards for quality
> audio.

And that debate was finished a decade or two ago for *intelligent* people.

Anyone may still PREFER to listen to anything they like, the problem they
have is accepting that they may PREFER something that is actually INFERIOR
to the original sound. Hence their continued need to convince themselves.

Such people even prefer vinyl, and valve amps to live music concerts without
PA, but I don't see so many debates on that issue. Even they have trouble
arguing that case :-)

MrT.

[ScottW]

On Aug 29, 3:09 pm, "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote:
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > It should be pretty obvious to an unbiased reader (not Stephen or Jen for
> > example) that the second paragraph refers to undamaged, even completely
> > virgin LPs. The point of the first paragraph is that Orban has very high
> > standards for choosing and preparing LPs for digitizing. But even given
> > that, the LP format still falls way short of modern standards for quality
> > audio.
>
> And that debate was finished a decade or two ago for *intelligent* people.
>
> Anyone may still PREFER to listen to anything they like, the problem they
> have is accepting that they may PREFER something that is actually INFERIOR
> to the original sound. Hence their continued need to convince themselves.
>

I've been to enough live rock concerts to know that if not being true
to the original sound is inferior, I'll take inferiority....no, I'll
demand
it.

ScottW

[Mr.T]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..
> > I submit the CD does too. And in the case of pop music
> > made after 1965 or so, we shouldn't have to go from a
> > vinyl release but the original two track tape masters.
>
> Two track masters have been generally used since about a decade before
1965.

But unless the owner of the tapes and/or copyright holder wishes to release
to CD, how is a simple LP owner going to get a hold of them?

Also another fact, I have copied an LP to CD for the original recording
artist, where the record label/recording studio had lost the original master
tapes. That is certainly not an isolated incident either, unfortunately.

MrT.

[MiNe 109]

In article >,
"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote:

> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> ...
> >Was someone arguing in favor of damaged,
> > poor-quality vinyl?
>
> Unfortunately that was just the new stuff!

And after it was damaged, too, forget it!

Stephen

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in
> message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in
> >> message
> >> .
> >> net
> >>> In article
> >>> >, "Arny
> >>> Krueger" > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> "Robert Orban" > wrote in
> >>>> message
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> Through hard experience I've found that with
> >>>>> recordings of this vintage, it really pays to find
> >>>>> sealed, unplayed copies even if one has to wait for
> >>>>> them to show up on eBay and even if one has to pay
> >>>>> more. There were a *lot* of bad phono playback
> >>>>> systems in the late 60s, and even one play through
> >>>>> some of them could audibly damage the vinyl.
> >>>>
> >>>>> Finally, after doing this a hundred times or so I have
> >>>>> to observe that the audio quality of the run of the
> >>>>> mill vinyl from that era was pretty bad. It got a lot
> >>>>> better starting in mid-1969, probably because a new
> >>>>> generation of disc cutters was just coming on line.
> >>>>
> >>>>> I find
> >>>>> incomprehensible the affection that some people
> >>>>> evidently have for the audio quality of vinyl from
> >>>>> that era.
> >>>>
> >>>>> Bob Orban
> >>>
> >>> I don't find a whole lot to disagree with here.
> >>
> >> Except when you start free-associating with the usual
> >> vinylista propaganda about certain LPs sounding more
> >> realistic than any CD.
> >
> > What does that have to do with your quote?
> >
> >>
> >>> There
> >>> was a lot of junk out there, as there is presently in
> >>> digital.
> >>
> >> The difference is that the junk problem with the LP
> >> could never be adequately solved. The junk problem with
> >> CDs is simply that there's no accounting for taste.
> >
> > Whatever. There are bad LPs and there are bad CDs. So?
> >
> >>
> >>> Just about all Columbia and DGG was very bad in
> >>> the 60s. A shame considering the performances they
> >>> recorded. Most of Mercury, Decca, EMI, Harmonia Mundi,
> >>> and much of RCA sounded terrific on the other hand.
>
> >> Still had the usual litany of vinyl noises, distortion
> >> and coloration.
>
> > And many sounded more like music than any CD I've heard.
>
> Jen, even with the usual litany of vinyl noises, distortion
> and coloration? I seriously doubt it. More like you're a hopeless romantic,
> as demonstrated by how you throw good money after bad for overpriced vinyl
> players.

Yes, that must be it.

My name is Jenn, btw.)

>
> > That's based on the highest authority for the purposes of
> > my music listening: my ears.
>
> No doubt damaged by exposure to too much live music way too loud.

Yes, I'm sure.

[Jenn]

In article om>,
Bret Ludwig > wrote:

> On Aug 29, 10:28 am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> > "Jenn" > wrote in
> >
> > odigy.net
> >
> >
> >
> > > In article >,
> > > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> > >> "Jenn" > wrote in
> > >> message
> >
> > >>.net
> > >>> In article
> > >>> >, "Arny
> > >>> Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> > >>>> "Robert Orban" > wrote in
> > >>>> message
> >
> >
> > >>>>> Through hard experience I've found that with
> > >>>>> recordings of this vintage, it really pays to find
> > >>>>> sealed, unplayed copies even if one has to wait for
> > >>>>> them to show up on eBay and even if one has to pay
> > >>>>> more. There were a *lot* of bad phono playback
> > >>>>> systems in the late 60s, and even one play through
> > >>>>> some of them could audibly damage the vinyl.
> >
> > >>>>> Finally, after doing this a hundred times or so I have
> > >>>>> to observe that the audio quality of the run of the
> > >>>>> mill vinyl from that era was pretty bad. It got a lot
> > >>>>> better starting in mid-1969, probably because a new
> > >>>>> generation of disc cutters was just coming on line.
> >
> > >>>>> I find
> > >>>>> incomprehensible the affection that some people
> > >>>>> evidently have for the audio quality of vinyl from
> > >>>>> that era.
> >
> > >>>>> Bob Orban
> >
> > >>> I don't find a whole lot to disagree with here.
> >
> > >> Except when you start free-associating with the usual
> > >> vinylista propaganda about certain LPs sounding more
> > >> realistic than any CD.
> >
> > > What does that have to do with your quote?
> >
> > >>> There
> > >>> was a lot of junk out there, as there is presently in
> > >>> digital.
> >
> > >> The difference is that the junk problem with the LP
> > >> could never be adequately solved. The junk problem with
> > >> CDs is simply that there's no accounting for taste.
> >
> > > Whatever. There are bad LPs and there are bad CDs. So?
> >
> > >>> Just about all Columbia and DGG was very bad in
> > >>> the 60s. A shame considering the performances they
> > >>> recorded. Most of Mercury, Decca, EMI, Harmonia Mundi,
> > >>> and much of RCA sounded terrific on the other hand.
> > >> Still had the usual litany of vinyl noises, distortion
> > >> and coloration.
> > > And many sounded more like music than any CD I've heard.
> >
> > Jen, even with the usual litany of vinyl noises, distortion
> > and coloration? I seriously doubt it. More like you're a hopeless
> > romantic,
> > as demonstrated by how you throw good money after bad for overpriced vinyl
> > players.
> >
> > > That's based on the highest authority for the purposes of
> > > my music listening: my ears.
> >
> > No doubt damaged by exposure to too much live music way too loud.
>
> It is a fact classical musicians suffer even more hearing damage than
> rock musicians in many cases.

No, it's not. You're really saying that the average classical musician
suffers more hearing damage than the average rock band musician?

[Mr.T]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..
> > My experience in the 60's/70's was that the vast
> > majority of vinyl records (the only kind available, of
> > course) were real crap, quality wise.
>
> In the US, particularly true. I spent a year in Germany near the end of
the
> 60s and the quality of LPs was considerably better over there. But the
> inherent limitations of the LP format still intruded, big time.

Yes, and Japanese pressings.
You can imagine how bad Australian pressings of US artists were, that I even
imported US pressings where necessary :-(
I still have a number of identical recodings from both countries, and the US
pressings were almost always better.
And yet we get people in Australia who still prefer vinyl too.
In fact the worse it sounds, the better they seem to like it :-)

> Hence my Revox A-77 in the day.

My choice too. And I'm so pleased I don't have to bother with the tape costs
any more though! Or the inconvenience of all that tape handling.
Not to mention the initial cost of buying the Revox or that other popular
choice for many, the Nakamichi 1000 or Dragon etc.
PLUS the cost of the turntable/tone arm/cartridge and stylus replacements!

Now that a $30 CD player sounds better, it really makes a lot of people
think it must be impossible.
Hurray for technology I say.

> I think that in the end, it will be yet another boomer thing that dies
with
> that generation.

One can hope, but there will always be a few people with a need to confront
reality somehow.

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..
> The problem comes when a tiny minority of vinyl bigots confuse
> sentimentality for LP's well-known audible foilbles with improved sound
> quality and realism.

It is impossible to be the former, without the latter delusion.

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> The fact is is that when best practices were followed throughout the
> chain, vinyl wasn't too bad, but it was never intended to equal 30
> ips half inch half track, and it never did.

So true.

>To this day GOOD analog
> tape is the gold standard of recording, and neither vinyl nor CD
> equals it.

Yeah right :-)
As long as you ignore all the problems with tape, and don't actually have a
clue about the ACTUAL performance of tape Vs digital recording.

MrT

[Mr.T]

"Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Some people prefer the treble digital artifacts of CD

And some people like to pluck quasi-scientific sounding terms out of their
arse :-)

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..
> The SACD and DVD-A advocates have missed a tremendous sales demonstration
> opportunity.
>
> All they have to do is set up a booth or room at the AES or some high end
> show (e.g. HE 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008...), composed of
one
> of their new and nifty players playing one of their new and nifty discs
> thorugh a great audio system in a great room. Of course, there would be a
> back-to-back 16/44 KHz converter pair (example: Midiman's Flying Cow)
> operating at unity gain and with minimal delay, that listeners could
switch
> in and out of the signal path. A blind demonstration facility would be an
> available option.


But since that doesn't work for their purpose, what they first do is totally
REMASTER the sound before going to DVDA/SACD so that it MUST sound
different.
Then people can pick the difference, when compared to a standard CD. :-)

Fortunately for once the number of people conned seems to be well short of
expectations :-)

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..
> > I have an mechanical engineer friend that worked on the
> > Orenda engine project (basically an aluminum BB Chevy
> > certified as an aircraft engine.) He was assigned the
> > cylinder heads, which had to have two spark plugs per
> > cylinder. He immediately sent off a memo stating that he
> > felt that this would decrease reliability by making
> > another stress riser to form cracks. They wrote the
> > Canada Transport people and they wrote back: It's not our
> > job to prove that two ignition systems are more reliable:
> > it's your job to prove they are less reliable. it's our
> > job to determine what constitutes proof. And since there
> > are thirty thousand airplanes with dual ignition in
> > Canada we will have to make change over if you do, we
> > will require really good proof. Now if you would like to
> > continue.....

> This relates to the audio topic how???????????????


Not at all, but at least it was an interesting read, unlike most of this
thread :-)

MrT.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote:

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
> > It should be pretty obvious to an unbiased reader (not Stephen or Jen for
> > example) that the second paragraph refers to undamaged, even completely
> > virgin LPs. The point of the first paragraph is that Orban has very high
> > standards for choosing and preparing LPs for digitizing. But even given
> > that, the LP format still falls way short of modern standards for quality
> > audio.
>
> And that debate was finished a decade or two ago for *intelligent* people.

If by "quality audio" you mean technical superiority, then I would go
with that. Past that, we're talking preference, and therefore
intelligence has nothing to do with it.

>
> Anyone may still PREFER to listen to anything they like, the problem they
> have is accepting that they may PREFER something that is actually INFERIOR
> to the original sound. Hence their continued need to convince themselves.

No, it's very simple: if a person likes the sound of some recording,
based on his/her experience of that music, "inferior" has nothing to do
with it. By definition, for that person, it is "superior".

>
> Such people even prefer vinyl, and valve amps to live music concerts without
> PA, but I don't see so many debates on that issue. Even they have trouble
> arguing that case :-)

I think that it's a perfectly legit preference. Now if your ideal is
reproducing, as closely as you can, the live music experience in your
home, then what you say above seems odd.

[Robert Orban]

In article >,
says...
>
>
>In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> It should be pretty obvious to an unbiased reader (not Stephen or Jen for
>> example) that the second paragraph refers to undamaged, even completely
>> virgin LPs. The point of the first paragraph is that Orban has very high
>> standards for choosing and preparing LPs for digitizing. But even given
>> that, the LP format still falls way short of modern standards for quality
>> audio.
>
>Arny, every time I read one of your posts I get the impression that all
>you listen to is the equipment and technology, and and that you rarely
>listen to the music. There is much great and worthwhile music that
>comes to us by way 78s, a format with even lower standards than the LPs
>you so decry.
>
>Your listing of Bob Orban's patents is very impressive, and I have
>always admired and respected Bob's inventiveness and creativity. But
>while several of Bob's inventions are indispensable, most of them are
>sort of like guns, in that they are not always used for their intended
>purpose and are also often used for evil, as they commonly are in
>today's audio world.
>
>Bob himself seems to espouse this philosophy of misuse in his post
>describing the extensive processing he does to the sound of the original
>LP when transferring it to digital. I would be happier with a basically
>straight transfer from LP to digital, with the only special processing
>applied being some modest declicking.

In my opinion (and that of my colleague Greg Ogonowski, an aficionado of
music from that era as well as an audio processing designer who is well
respected in the industry) the majority of popular music LPs from the late
'60s sound mediocre or worse. Because of a lack of standardized control room
monitoring and haphazard acoustic treatment, tonal balances from one LP to
the next were *grossly* (and unmusically) inconsistent. Many records had
sibilance distortion cut into them (I base this statement on the fact that I
have heard sibilance breakup during the first play of a surprising number of
virgin, factory-sealed LPs with a well set up Shure V15VXMR).

Sibilance distortion could be cut into the vinyl for several reasons.
"Acceleration limiters" of the era (like the Fairchild Conax) were crude at
best and not always used as required, and channel-strip de-essers were almost
unknown outside of cinema re-recording stages. So vocals in LPs of the era
tended to be boxy-sounding (although with natural sibilance balances) or to
be equalized to have more presence. The latter technique allowed sibilance to
sound clean on 15 ips and 30 ips master tapes (which have plenty of high
frequency headroom) but could cause major problems in cutting because the HF
headroom characteristic of vinyl (expressed in terms of cutting stylus
velocity) basically follows a 75 microsecond de-emphasis curve (i.e. -3 dB at
2122 Hz with a 6 dB/octave rolloff above that frequency), which is the high
frequency pole of RIAA playback EQ. I created the first Orban/Parasound de-
esser after watching mixers wrestle with the "vocal presence vs. sibilance"
problem. Admittedly, some engineers of the era coped reasonably well with the
presence/sibilance tradeoff, mostly by choice and placement of microphones,
but a surprising number did not. (My hat is off to Chuck Britz, who recorded
the Beach Boys at Capitol during this era.)

A surprising number of records from this era had hum cut on them, mostly from
instrument amplifiers (noise gates on individual mixer inputs were uncommon
in those days) or even from problems in the cutting chain. (The first time I
heard a major-label LP hum all the way through, including in the bands
between cuts, I could scarcely believe my ears.) A good restoration suite
will have a hum-removal comb filter available, which can be applied
selectively to the areas in the music where the hum is not psychoacoustically
masked by the music.

I have had a certain amount of personal experience engineering records in the
early '70s (with Beaver & Krause for Warner Bros.) and I recall inconsistent
control room monitoring environments, mediocre cutting chains that yielded
vinyl that sounded disappointing compared to the master tapes, and low
headroom recording tape that, combined with unavailability in many studios of
Dolby A noise reduction on the multitrack tape recorders, led to noise levels
on vinyl that were dominated by tape hiss. (We used Dolby A noise reduction
everywhere on all of the Warner Bros. B&K recordings, which paid off
particularly well when these were re-released on CD a number of years back
because they did not need aggressive single-ended noise reduction to sound
clean and quiet on CD.)

By 1980, the above limitations had disappeared. De-essers were widely used
during mixdown, noise reduction was available in every major studio for
tracking and mixing, monitors were calibrated, control room acoustics were
engineered instead of being catch-as-catch-can, and cutting chains had
improved immensely.

In 2007, people expect better sound than most pop music studios were able to
produce in the mid to late '60s. That is why my philosophy in transferring
LPs is to also remaster them to take advantage of signal processing tools
that engineers in the late '60s didn't have available. I know that some
people have a fetish for maintaining the original sound as much as possible,
but most folks who were actually studio engineers at the time have no
nostalgia for the technical limitations of the studios back in the day. As
for me, my transfers have gotten a lot of favorable comments from serious
collectors of obscure late '60s music. As far as I am concerned, the highest
praise I can get is "your transfer sounds like a good modern remastering of
the original master tape" (assuming, of course, that said "modern
remastering" does not include additional digital peak limiting, which I never
use in these transfers). To me, this requires a low, uncolored noise floor
and a spectral balance that allows the musical details to be heard clearly.
If I have done my job well, the music should appear to have snapped into
focus, no matter how murky or badly equalized the original LP sounded.
Percussion should sound punchy. Vocals should sound present but not sibilant.
The technical quality of the recording should never get in the way of the
music.

Bob Orban

[Mr.T]

"Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> > Two track masters have been generally used since about a decade before
1965.
>
> Since most releases then were mono, they were one track masters.
> Mono LPs were available until well into the rock era. And in fact
> most people prefer mono Beatles and Stones LPs (of that era)
> sonically.

And in fact most of the Beatles and stones MONO releases were made on FOUR
track tape, just as many albums of the era were.
The Original Sgt Peppers mix was MONO, and master recordings made using TWO
by FOUR track tape machines synced together.

The mix down tape, and the original master tapes are not the same.

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"ScottW" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> > Anyone may still PREFER to listen to anything they like, the problem
they
> > have is accepting that they may PREFER something that is actually
INFERIOR
> > to the original sound. Hence their continued need to convince
themselves.
> >
>
> I've been to enough live rock concerts to know that if not being true
> to the original sound is inferior, I'll take inferiority....no, I'll
> demand
> it.

But of course live ROCK concerts involve so many variables as far as sound
reinforcement equipment and venue acoustics, that EVERY gig is unique.
(even ignoring the performance itself)

YOU of course are welcome to demand inferior sound, just don't expect the
rest of us to do so.

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Jenn" > wrote in message
news:jennconductsREMOVETHIS-> >
> > And that debate was finished a decade or two ago for *intelligent*
people.
>
> If by "quality audio" you mean technical superiority, then I would go
> with that. Past that, we're talking preference,

Which is what I said.

> > Anyone may still PREFER to listen to anything they like, the problem
they
> > have is accepting that they may PREFER something that is actually
INFERIOR
> > to the original sound. Hence their continued need to convince
themselves.
>
> No, it's very simple: if a person likes the sound of some recording,
> based on his/her experience of that music, "inferior" has nothing to do
> with it. By definition, for that person, it is "superior".

And that's the problem, you still can't seperate PREFERENCE from reality.
The recording that most closely matches the original input signal is
technically "superior" no matter what YOU might PREFER.

> > Such people even prefer vinyl, and valve amps to live music concerts
without
> > PA, but I don't see so many debates on that issue. Even they have
trouble
> > arguing that case :-)
>
> I think that it's a perfectly legit preference. Now if your ideal is
> reproducing, as closely as you can, the live music experience in your
> home, then what you say above seems odd.

??? What YOU say seems odd!

But keep trying, I'm sure you will convince yourself sooner or later.

MrT.

[Scott Dorsey]

Robert Orban > wrote:
>In my opinion (and that of my colleague Greg Ogonowski, an aficionado of
>music from that era as well as an audio processing designer who is well
>respected in the industry) the majority of popular music LPs from the late
>'60s sound mediocre or worse.

Oh, absolutely. BUT, it was typical of the times. In the case of classical
music, in which there was a reference to go by, it's clear that you can make
sonic changes to the originals.

But in the case of pop and rock music in which the reference was only in
the head of the producer, I am really reluctant to see sonic changes,
because they affect the music. Whether those changes are adverse or not
is in the eye of the beholder, of course, but I think the first rule is
to do no harm.

A couple examples: first, the Leon Russell live album. It has _no_ low
end. Someone just ran it through a sharp high-pass in the cutting room,
maybe to get rid of some low end problems in the live tapes. The CD
issue has the low end restored, more or less to what we would consider
concert level today... and it totally changes the impact of the music.
I think it does so in a bad way. You could argue it does so in a good
way, but either way it changes it.

Itchykoo Park used to be famous for the really, really deep kick drum,
which sounded like cardboard on small speakers. It was the lowest I
had ever seen anyone cut on a 45, and there was no way that record could
be played on a typical record player of the sixties. The CD reissue
turns it into a modern-style kick drum. It's a totally different song
when you do this.

Because of a lack of standardized control room
>monitoring and haphazard acoustic treatment, tonal balances from one LP to
>the next were *grossly* (and unmusically) inconsistent. Many records had
>sibilance distortion cut into them (I base this statement on the fact that I
>have heard sibilance breakup during the first play of a surprising number of
>virgin, factory-sealed LPs with a well set up Shure V15VXMR).

Absolutely.

>Sibilance distortion could be cut into the vinyl for several reasons.
>"Acceleration limiters" of the era (like the Fairchild Conax) were crude at
>best and not always used as required, and channel-strip de-essers were almost
>unknown outside of cinema re-recording stages. So vocals in LPs of the era
>tended to be boxy-sounding (although with natural sibilance balances) or to
>be equalized to have more presence. The latter technique allowed sibilance to
>sound clean on 15 ips and 30 ips master tapes (which have plenty of high
>frequency headroom) but could cause major problems in cutting because the HF
>headroom characteristic of vinyl (expressed in terms of cutting stylus
>velocity) basically follows a 75 microsecond de-emphasis curve (i.e. -3 dB at
>2122 Hz with a 6 dB/octave rolloff above that frequency), which is the high
>frequency pole of RIAA playback EQ. I created the first Orban/Parasound de-
>esser after watching mixers wrestle with the "vocal presence vs. sibilance"
>problem. Admittedly, some engineers of the era coped reasonably well with the
>presence/sibilance tradeoff, mostly by choice and placement of microphones,
>but a surprising number did not. (My hat is off to Chuck Britz, who recorded
>the Beach Boys at Capitol during this era.)

This is where microscopic examination comes into play because it allows you
to see if the sibilance is due to groove geometry or due to something wrong
in the mixing room. If it's due to groove geometry, there is often something
that you can do about it in playback (sometimes involving major changes to
the cartridge alignment to compensate for misaligned cutting heads).

>In 2007, people expect better sound than most pop music studios were able to
>produce in the mid to late '60s. That is why my philosophy in transferring
>LPs is to also remaster them to take advantage of signal processing tools
>that engineers in the late '60s didn't have available. I know that some
>people have a fetish for maintaining the original sound as much as possible,
>but most folks who were actually studio engineers at the time have no
>nostalgia for the technical limitations of the studios back in the day.

I understand the technical limitations of the day, but I think those technical
limitations affect the music stylistically and they need to be retained. I
also think Bach should be played on original instruments for the same time.

>If I have done my job well, the music should appear to have snapped into
>focus, no matter how murky or badly equalized the original LP sounded.
>Percussion should sound punchy. Vocals should sound present but not sibilant.
>The technical quality of the recording should never get in the way of the
>music.

I'd agree with this in the case of classical music, but with some rock, the
recording does get in the way of the music and that's what makes the music
what it is.
--scott


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

[Mr.T]

"ScottW" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> I don't think symphonys are all that consistent and venue acoustics
> are also highly variable.

Yes, true. So what?

> > YOU of course are welcome to demand inferior sound, just don't expect
the
> > rest of us to do so.
>
> Of course it does take a superior system to create a more
> pleasing experience from inferior sound.

For "superior" read "more expensive" anyway :-)

> For technical audible accuracy....an iPod will probably do.

Sure, using non compressed files, they can be damn good.
Better than a $100k turntable, which always amuses me.
But no need to spend the money Apple charge, a cheap CD player will do just
as well :-)

MrT.

[George M. Middius]

My God -- is Krooglish kontagious?

> And that's the problem, you still can't seperate PREFERENCE from reality.
> The recording that most closely matches the original input signal is
> technically "superior" no matter what YOU might PREFER.

Maybe she didn't mean "superior" in a "technical" sense, you fatuous
fart.

[[email protected]]

On Aug 29, 5:13 pm, ScottW > wrote:
> On Aug 29, 1:27 pm, wrote:
> > On Aug 29, 1:56 pm, ScottW > wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 29, 10:37 am, John Byrns > wrote:
> > > > Exactly what is the CD sample rate not high enough for, and how do you
> > > > justify that statement? If the audio is first run through a 20 kHz
> > > > brick-wall filter the CD sample rate is plenty high. Brick-wall filters
> > > > can be built with today's digital techniques that do not contribute
> > > > phase distortion to the filtered signal.
>
> > > How does one implement an anti-aliasing filter on the
> > > input before a signal is digitized.....digitally?
>
> > Yes, in essence.
>
> > Put in a VERY gentle analog filter whose low-pass is at,
> > say, 64x that of your base sample rate. Oversample the
> > A/D at 64x
>
> Is the A/D output changing at every sample or is constant
> for 64 samples?

Irrelevant, all the data in the other 63 samples represents
information that's above the baseband, and whether it's
constant, changing or simply zeros, it's not in the baseband.

> If its constant....then how does this prevent aliasing
> that gets past the digital antialiasing filter?

Because the digital anti-aliasing filter IS A FILTER.
Its low-pass is at 20+ kHz. The aliasing issue
will only occur at 64x that, or at 1.28 MHz, and above.
Now, a simple, gentle, low-order analog filter is all
that's needed prior to the oversampler to prevent
this from generating aliases. That 1280 Mhz band
limit for the oversampler is SIX OCTAVES away
from from the baseband limit of 20+ kHz.

> > It, by the way, has been routinely this for the last couple
> > of decades in one form or another.
>
> Which seems to indicate that the CD sample rate is
> truly insufficient for the entire process.

It would seem that way if you don't understand the
process. The oversampling is done NOT because
of the bandwidth requirements, or any nonsense
like "capturing the stuff between the samples," it
is done because a 20 kHz anti-aliasing filter is
SO much better done in the digital domain than
in the analog domain.

One of the outcomes of the Nyquist/Shannon principles
is that once you know the bandwidth, sampling at a rate
just greater than that bandwidth will COMPLETELY capture
the entire waveform, contrary to the nonsense that
Ludwig claims. That's because it is the bandwidth AND
THE BANDWIDTH ALONE (all other things being equal)
that determines the trajectory of the signal between the
two sample intervals. If the bandwidth is limited to
less than 1/2 the sample rate, than what the signal
does between each sample is FULLY determined:
it can only take one path. Therefore, sampling at a rate
higher than that will NOT get you ANY more information,
it will only give you more data (and, that data is effectively
redundant: it contains nothing new or different than what
the minimally required sample rate already gave you).

With no intent on being insulting, if you feel that
oversampling means "indicate that the CD sample
rate is truly insufficient for the entire process," than you
clearly do not understand the process at all. If you feel
the need to make that comment, I might suggest you
study up on the principles involved, If you still believe
your view to be correct, be prepared to make the criticism
with the same degree of mathematical and scientific rigor
that Shannon, Nyquist, Blesser and others have used in
developing that foundation.

Me, I absolutely would NOT take the bet that you'd have
any success.

[Mr.T]

"George M. Middius" <cmndr _ george @ comcast . net> wrote in message
...
> > And that's the problem, you still can't seperate PREFERENCE from
reality.
> > The recording that most closely matches the original input signal is
> > technically "superior" no matter what YOU might PREFER.
>
> Maybe she didn't mean "superior" in a "technical" sense,

Just the "Alice in Wonderland" sense then?

>you fatuous fart.

Looking in the mirror are you?

MrT.

[Robert Orban]

In article >, says...

>
>But in the case of pop and rock music in which the reference was only in
>the head of the producer, I am really reluctant to see sonic changes,
>because they affect the music. Whether those changes are adverse or not
>is in the eye of the beholder, of course, but I think the first rule is
>to do no harm.
>
>A couple examples: first, the Leon Russell live album. It has _no_ low
>end. Someone just ran it through a sharp high-pass in the cutting room,
>maybe to get rid of some low end problems in the live tapes. The CD
>issue has the low end restored, more or less to what we would consider
>concert level today... and it totally changes the impact of the music.
>I think it does so in a bad way. You could argue it does so in a good
>way, but either way it changes it.
>
>Itchykoo Park used to be famous for the really, really deep kick drum,
>which sounded like cardboard on small speakers. It was the lowest I
>had ever seen anyone cut on a 45, and there was no way that record could
>be played on a typical record player of the sixties. The CD reissue
>turns it into a modern-style kick drum. It's a totally different song
>when you do this.

I understand your point, but I would ask you this -- *what* sound was in the
head of the producer? Was it as heard on Altec A7's? UREI's? JBL's? All of
those speakers were significantly colored and all sounded different from each
other, so the sound "in the producer's head" might be quite different than the
sound we hear on modern, well-engineered loudspeakers and might have been
different if the producer had mixed in a different control room with different
acoustics and/or a different model of loudspeaker.

As I stated in my post, I prefer to try to "correct" spectral balances that I
believe were probably caused by colored loudspeakers in the original mixdown
room or in the mastering room. I can only justify this by (1) my personal
preference (I'm not getting paid for my restoration work :-) and (2)
experiments done by Sean Olive and Floyd Toole on consumer loudspeaker
preference. With reference to the "remastering" controversy, what I take away
from Olive and Toole's work is that people seem to have a pretty well-defined
model in their brains of what a natural spectral balance should sound like and
they consistently prefer loudspeakers that supply this to them. Thanks largely
to O&T's work, today's popular loudspeakers are not only less colored than any
time in the past but also sound closer to each other regarding spectral
balance. It's amazing what you can get in a $250 loudspeaker today (from
companies like PSB, Mirage, Energy, etc., not to mention the speaker
manufacturers under the Harman banner) compared to what you could get even 10
years ago.

Bob Orban

[hank alrich]

Robert Casey > wrote:

> >
> > I submit the CD does too. And in the case of pop music made after
> > 1965 or so, we shouldn't have to go from a vinyl release but the
> > original two track tape masters.
> >
>
> This assumes that those tapes were kept in good enviroments all this
> time. And that the tape was of good quality and was able to last
> without chemical breakdown and such.

Assuming they could even be found.

--
ha
Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam

[George M. Middius]

First it's derivative Krooglish, then it's a lame IKYABWAI. Audio
'borgism is definitely viral.

> > > The recording that most closely matches the original input signal is
> > > technically "superior" no matter what YOU might PREFER.

> > Maybe she didn't mean "superior" in a "technical" sense,

> Just the "Alice in Wonderland" sense then?

No, in the human sense, you putz.

> >you fatuous fart.

> Looking in the mirror are you?

<sigh>

Why don't you ask yourself this simple question: "Why am I so threatened
by the viability of vinyl and turntables?"

Much better than a feeble-minded IKYABWAI, don't you "think"?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Aug 29, 9:04 am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> The problem comes when a tiny minority of vinyl bigots confuse
> sentimentality for LP's well-known audible foilbles with improved sound
> quality and realism.

Then it's war, and rightfully so!

[dizzy]

Bret Ludwig wrote:

>The rule of analog accuracy is five times bandwidth, as
>every old Tektronix catalog stated,

No, you misunderstand. What you need your scope to have "5X
bandwidth" is to see the *harmonics* which may be in the signal that
you want to see. You do *not* need 100kHz bandwidth in your scope to
see a 20kHz sine wave. Indeed, a scope with 20kHz bandwidth would
work (see note).

You *do* need 5X or more the bandwidth (relative to the fundamental)
of a *complex* wave, for example a square wave, since, as you should
know, a complex wave is a sine wave with added harmonics, in this
example 60kHz, 100kHz, 140kHz, etc. Without enough bandwidth in the
scope to handle the harmonics, the display will show a gross
distortion of what's really there - perhaps showing only a sine wave
when the signal is in fact a square wave.

You can see that the above situation does *not* apply to audible
sound, since your ears do not hear anything above around 20kHz. Your
ears literally don't give a rats ass (can't tell) the difference
between a 20kHz sine wave and a 20kHz square wave, so there's *no*
need for anything like 5X "bandwidth headroom".

>but a <23 kHz brick wall for 20
>kHz repro is obvious horse**** on its face.

As is your entire erroneous "case", it seems.

(Note: the analog bandwidth rating of a scope is the -3dB point of
it's vertical amplifiers, so you would not expect to get an accurate
measurement of your signal's amplitude if you were looking at a signal
over about 80% of the scope's bandwidth, i.e. if accurately measuring
the amplitude of your 20kHz sine wave was something you wanted to do,
you'd want at least a 25kHz scope. In practice this is rarely an
issue - the far more common issues are distortion of the displayed
signal due to capacitive loading of the circuit by the scope-probe,
and sometimes, yes, insufficient bandwidth to capture the higher
harmonics required to accurately display the true waveform.)

[dizzy]

ScottW wrote:

>It is only sufficient for storage and playback.

Duh, that's what the CD is for.

The CD is indeed quite sufficient, for the job it needs to do - store
and distribute audio.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> news:jennconductsREMOVETHIS-> >
> > > And that debate was finished a decade or two ago for *intelligent*
> people.
> >
> > If by "quality audio" you mean technical superiority, then I would go
> > with that. Past that, we're talking preference,
>
> Which is what I said.
>
> > > Anyone may still PREFER to listen to anything they like, the problem
> they
> > > have is accepting that they may PREFER something that is actually
> INFERIOR
> > > to the original sound. Hence their continued need to convince
> themselves.
> >
> > No, it's very simple: if a person likes the sound of some recording,
> > based on his/her experience of that music, "inferior" has nothing to do
> > with it. By definition, for that person, it is "superior".
>
> And that's the problem, you still can't seperate PREFERENCE from reality.
> The recording that most closely matches the original input signal is
> technically "superior" no matter what YOU might PREFER.

Of course. But when I sit back in my chair and listen, what medium is
"technically superior" matters not a bit. What matters is how the music
sounds. YMMV, of course.

>
> > > Such people even prefer vinyl, and valve amps to live music concerts
> without
> > > PA, but I don't see so many debates on that issue. Even they have
> trouble
> > > arguing that case :-)
> >
> > I think that it's a perfectly legit preference. Now if your ideal is
> > reproducing, as closely as you can, the live music experience in your
> > home, then what you say above seems odd.
>
> ??? What YOU say seems odd!

How so?

>
> But keep trying, I'm sure you will convince yourself sooner or later.

I'm not trying to convince myself of anything. I know what I listen for
in music. You seem to want me to listen for "technical superiority".

[Mr.T]

"George M. Middius" <cmndr _ george @ comcast . net> wrote in message
...
> > > Maybe she didn't mean "superior" in a "technical" sense,
>
> > Just the "Alice in Wonderland" sense then?
>
> No, in the human sense, you putz.
> > >you fatuous fart.

Name calling, the last resort of those who have no rational argument.


> Why don't you ask yourself this simple question: "Why am I so threatened
> by the viability of vinyl and turntables?"

Since I already said you are welcome to YOUR *preference*, why don't you ask
YOURSELF why you cannot just accept YOUR OWN *preference* without trying to
change the rest of the worlds opinion? Or somehow feel the need to justify a
preference with total bull****!
Insecurity issues perhaps?

MrT.

[George M. Middius]

Shhhh! said to TurdBorg:

> > The problem comes when a tiny minority of vinyl bigots confuse
> > sentimentality for LP's well-known audible foilbles with improved sound
> > quality and realism.

> Then it's war, and rightfully so!

Arnii appreciates the free flow of information....
http://www.nogw.com/images/fox_septic.jpg

[Mr.T]

"Jenn" > wrote in message
news:jennconductsREMOVETHIS-
> > The recording that most closely matches the original input signal is
> > technically "superior" no matter what YOU might PREFER.
>
> Of course. But when I sit back in my chair and listen, what medium is
> "technically superior" matters not a bit. What matters is how the music
> sounds.

Which is fine, that's why we all get to choose our own preferences.
But then there is no need to argue suedo scientific bull**** to justify a
*preference*.

> I'm not trying to convince myself of anything. I know what I listen for
> in music. You seem to want me to listen for "technical superiority".

In fact I couldn't give a rat's what you prefer to listen to, just your
continuing need to justify it.

MrT.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> news:jennconductsREMOVETHIS-
> > > The recording that most closely matches the original input signal is
> > > technically "superior" no matter what YOU might PREFER.
> >
> > Of course. But when I sit back in my chair and listen, what medium is
> > "technically superior" matters not a bit. What matters is how the music
> > sounds.
>
> Which is fine, that's why we all get to choose our own preferences.

Exactly.

> But then there is no need to argue suedo scientific bull**** to justify a
> *preference*.

Perhaps you should address that to someone who has actually done what
you accuse, rather than to me.

>
> > I'm not trying to convince myself of anything. I know what I listen for
> > in music. You seem to want me to listen for "technical superiority".
>
> In fact I couldn't give a rat's what you prefer to listen to, just your
> continuing need to justify it.

And I couldn't give a rat's what YOU prefer either. Again, I suggest
that you relax, have a cookie, and complain to those who actually DO
have a need to justify their preferences.

[Mr.T]

"Jenn" > wrote in message

et...
> Perhaps you should address that to someone who has actually done what
> you accuse, rather than to me.

Maybe you can tell us again what you were actually disagreeing with then?

MrT.

[Arny Krueger]

"MiNe 109" > wrote in message


> Since that cite isn't important enough to your argument
> for you to quote, I will wait for you to actually state a
> case.

You're cornered and talking trash Stephen. I win.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in
message


> And I couldn't give a rat's what YOU prefer either.

If preferences are so worthless, why do you keep bothering us with yours,
Jen?

[Peter Wieck]

Keeerist....

Ninety-two (92) post including this one to-date.

Fly-poop to the right.
Pepper to the left.

Ain't none of you gonna change your closely held beliefs or reach any
sort of religious, vinyl, analog or digital epiphany.

Give it up, already!

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in
message

> In article
> om>,
> Bret Ludwig > wrote:
>
>> On Aug 29, 10:28 am, "Arny Krueger" >
>> wrote:
>>> "Jenn" > wrote in
>>>
>>> odigy.net


>>>> That's based on the highest authority for the purposes
>>>> of my music listening: my ears.

>>> No doubt damaged by exposure to too much live music way
>>> too loud.

<Jenn does not deny that she has hearing damage.>

>> It is a fact classical musicians suffer even more
>> hearing damage than rock musicians in many cases.

> No, it's not.

Proof by assertion?

Simple denial is miles from an intelligent argument.

> You're really saying that the average
> classical musician suffers more hearing damage than the
> average rock band musician?

Jenn proves once again that she can paraphrase what others write. Trouble
is, she's again adding nothing of substance to the discussion.

[Arny Krueger]

"ScottW" > wrote in message


> Anyway watching George defend vinyl is as intolerable
> to vinylphiles

Couldn't happen to a nicer group of people.

> as objectivists must find Arny representing objectivism.

Why would I bother trying to represent objectivism when I am a subjectivist?

You seem to be very badly confused, Scott.

[Arny Krueger]

"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
u

> "Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
> oups.com...

>> The fact is is that when best practices were followed
>> throughout the chain, vinyl wasn't too bad, but it was
>> never intended to equal 30 ips half inch half track, and
>> it never did.

> So true.

>> To this day GOOD analog
>> tape is the gold standard of recording, and neither
>> vinyl nor CD equals it.

> Yeah right :-)

I still remember the days when people were serious about distributing
pre-recorded open reel tapes.

Compared to vinyl, a 7.5 ips half or quarter track tape could be quite a
treat. Especially the half tracks.

But, compared to the CD format, 7.5 ips quarter track is a very sonically
limited medium. Frankly, it sometimes has a tendency to take some of the
life out of LPs transcribed with it.

> As long as you ignore all the problems with tape, and
> don't actually have a clue about the ACTUAL performance
> of tape Vs digital recording.

Agreed. Relevant evidence:

16/44 is sonically transparent:

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

Very high quality high speed analog tape isn't sonically transparent:

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

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in
> message
>
> > In article
> > om>,
> > Bret Ludwig > wrote:
> >
> >> On Aug 29, 10:28 am, "Arny Krueger" >
> >> wrote:
> >>> "Jenn" > wrote in
> >>> .
> >>> pr
> >>> odigy.net
>
>
> >>>> That's based on the highest authority for the purposes
> >>>> of my music listening: my ears.
>
> >>> No doubt damaged by exposure to too much live music way
> >>> too loud.
>
> <Jenn does not deny that she has hearing damage.>

I don't feel the need to counter every ridiculous claim that is made.

>
> >> It is a fact classical musicians suffer even more
> >> hearing damage than rock musicians in many cases.
>
> > No, it's not.
>
> Proof by assertion?

Gee, why don't you make the same assertion about Bret's statement just
above mine?

>
> Simple denial is miles from an intelligent argument.

Making an unsupported statement like Bret's is miles from an intelligent
argument.

>
> > You're really saying that the average
> > classical musician suffers more hearing damage than the
> > average rock band musician?
>
> Jenn proves once again that she can paraphrase what others write. Trouble
> is, she's again adding nothing of substance to the discussion.

It's called "asking for clarification".

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in
> message
>
>
> > And I couldn't give a rat's what YOU prefer either.
>
> If preferences are so worthless, why do you keep bothering us with yours,
> Jen?

Who said that preferences are worthless, Army? And I keep "bothering"
you with my preferences because the name of the group is
rec.audio.OPINION. If that "bothers" you, you are clearly free not to
read it.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> et...
> > Perhaps you should address that to someone who has actually done what
> > you accuse, rather than to me.
>
> Maybe you can tell us again what you were actually disagreeing with then?
>
> MrT.

At what point of the nearly 100 post thread? Concerning the above, I'm
disagreeing that I argued "suedo scientific bull**** to justify a
*preference*."

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in
message


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

>>> And I couldn't give a rat's what YOU prefer either.

>> If preferences are so worthless, why do you keep
>> bothering us with yours, Jen?

> Who said that preferences are worthless, Army?

I guess that means that you aren't aware of the meaning of what you said,
Jenn.

> And I keep "bothering" you with my preferences because the name
> of the group is rec.audio.OPINION.

But, the name of the group is not
rec.audio.opinion.bore.us.all.to.death.with.the.sa me.old.same.old.vynalista.propaganda
..

[Andrew Barss]

In rec.audio.tech Bret Ludwig > wrote:

: You don't NEED an all aluminum, wet linered, gear driven DOHC V12
: with a one piece girdle lower end, dry sump, three valve and two plug
: per cylinder engine with fully mechanical timed fuel injection with
: dual redundant supervisory electronic control in a car. But if you are
: paying three or four hundred grand for a sports car that's the kind of
: overkill you want.

But a Ferrari, Lamborghini, etc. goes faster and handles differently than
a Toyota. If SACD indeed doesn't produce audible differences from
regular CD, then it's like paying a premium for a car engine that
has exactly the same performance properties as a regular Toyota engine.
Which even an extreme gearhead wouldn't do.


-- Andy Barss

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in
> message
>
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in
> >> message
> >> .
> >> net
>
> >>> And I couldn't give a rat's what YOU prefer either.
>
> >> If preferences are so worthless, why do you keep
> >> bothering us with yours, Jen?
>
> > Who said that preferences are worthless, Army?
>
> I guess that means that you aren't aware of the meaning of what you said,
> Jenn.

I responded Mr. T's statement. He doesn't care what I prefer, and I
don't care what he prefers. To you this means that I believe that
preferences are worthless?

>
> > And I keep "bothering" you with my preferences because the name
> > of the group is rec.audio.OPINION.
>
> But, the name of the group is not
> rec.audio.opinion.bore.us.all.to.death.with.the.sa me.old.same.old.vynalista.pr
> opaganda

I'm responding to YOUR posts, Arny.

BTW, why don't you post in this manner over at RAHE?

[Clyde Slick]

On 30 Aug, 19:13, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Jenn" > wrote in
>
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in
> >> message
>
> >>> And I couldn't give a rat's what YOU prefer either.
> >> If preferences are so worthless, why do you keep
> >> bothering us with yours, Jen?
> > Who said that preferences are worthless, Army?
>
> I guess that means that you aren't aware of the meaning of what you said,
> Jenn.
>
> > And I keep "bothering" you with my preferences because the name
> > of the group is rec.audio.OPINION.
>
> But, the name of the group is not
> rec.audio.opinion.bore.us.all.to.death.with.the.sa me.old.same.old.vynalista.propaganda
> .


But, the name of the group is
rec.audio.opinion.arny's.is.the.only.one.that is.right

[Peter Wieck]

On Aug 30, 12:19 pm, Andrew Barss > wrote:

> But a Ferrari, Lamborghini, etc. goes faster and handles differently than
> a Toyota. If SACD indeed doesn't produce audible differences from
> regular CD, then it's like paying a premium for a car engine that
> has exactly the same performance properties as a regular Toyota engine.
> Which even an extreme gearhead wouldn't do.

But Audiophools... whoops... -philes do this all the time and with
even less discernable results. Often enough even those who actually
know better, sadly.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[John Atkinson]

On Aug 30, 11:59 am, Jenn > wrote:
> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> > <Jenn does not deny that she has hearing damage.>
>
> I don't feel the need to counter every ridiculous claim that is made.

Arny just can't forgive you, Jenn, for a) being a woman,
b) knowing more than he does about music, c) expressing
your preference for something he has _proved_ can't
be preferred, and d) there's that woman thing again. :-)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Jenn]

In article om>,
John Atkinson > wrote:

> On Aug 30, 11:59 am, Jenn > wrote:
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> > > <Jenn does not deny that she has hearing damage.>
> >
> > I don't feel the need to counter every ridiculous claim that is made.
>
> Arny just can't forgive you, Jenn, for a) being a woman,
> b) knowing more than he does about music, c) expressing
> your preference for something he has _proved_ can't
> be preferred, and d) there's that woman thing again. :-)
>
> John Atkinson
> Editor, Stereophile

Well, yeah... ;-)

[Arny Krueger]

"John Atkinson" > wrote
in message
ups.com
> On Aug 30, 11:59 am, Jenn
> > wrote:
>> In article
>> >, "Arny
>> Krueger" > wrote:
>>> <Jenn does not deny that she has hearing damage.>
>>
>> I don't feel the need to counter every ridiculous claim
>> that is made.
>
> Arny just can't forgive you, Jenn, for a) being a woman,
> b) knowing more than he does about music, c) expressing
> your preference for something he has _proved_ can't
> be preferred, and d) there's that woman thing again. :-)

John, I'd like to read your rationale for your fan.. I mean hypothesis that
I can't forgive Jenn for being a woman. If there is none, then I'll
attribute it to your well-known lack of sufficience rationality.

[Arny Krueger]

"Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
ups.com
>> I still remember the days when people were serious about
>> distributing pre-recorded open reel tapes.
>>
>> Compared to vinyl, a 7.5 ips half or quarter track tape
>> could be quite a treat. Especially the half tracks.
>>
>> But, compared to the CD format, 7.5 ips quarter track is
>> a very sonically limited medium. Frankly, it sometimes
>> has a tendency to take some of the life out of LPs
>> transcribed with it.
>
> Consumo quarter inch open reel was usually not terribly
> good, sadly.

That's not what I'm talking about.

I'm talking Revox A77 in a prime state of adjustment by a factory rep.

[Peter Larsen]

Arny Krueger wrote:

>> Consumo quarter inch open reel was usually not terribly
>> good, sadly.

> That's not what I'm talking about.

> I'm talking Revox A77 in a prime state of adjustment by a factory rep.

Ah well, their were usually broken, or at least off compared to
testtapes, ex works because they playback amp was not modified to fit
the requirementes of the actual head (my understanding of something that
was explained to me) .... an A77 in a prime state of adjustment for
something other than Scotch 207 (Revox tape reportedly was just that),
that is something quite different. Mine was 3.5 dB down in replay of 18
kHz, ref a BASF test tape, with the factory fitted replay amp components
and consequently had that much less headroom than it should have had
when aligned for best record-playback performance.


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[John Atkinson]

On Aug 30, 5:09 pm, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> John, I'd like to read your rationale for your fan.. I mean hypothesis
> that I can't forgive Jenn for being a woman. If there is none, then I'll
> attribute it to your well-known lack of sufficience rationality.

There's no arguing with _that_ sentence!

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Mr.T]

"Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Most consumo tape machines were poor too. But now it's possible to
> find and refurbish vintage studio machines at hobbyist prices.

And even if you could actually afford the tape, the performance will still
be far below a cheap computer and sound card, let alone a good one!

But nostalgia still aint what it used to be :-)

MrT.

[Peter Scott]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Robert Orban" > wrote in message
>
>
>> Through hard experience I've found that with
>> recordings of this vintage, it really pays to find
>> sealed, unplayed copies even if one has to wait for them
>> to show up on eBay and even if one has to pay more. There
>> were a *lot* of bad phono playback systems in the late
>> 60s, and even one play through some of them could audibly
>> damage the vinyl.
>
>> Finally, after doing this a hundred times or so I have to
>> observe that the audio quality of the run of the mill
>> vinyl from that era was pretty bad. It got a lot better
>> starting in mid-1969, probably because a new generation
>> of disc cutters was just coming on line.
>
>> I find
>> incomprehensible the affection that some people evidently
>> have for the audio quality of vinyl from that era.
>
>> Bob Orban
>

I feel a bit nervous entering this debate. However I think my comments
are worthwhile as I have been listening to recorded music for 50 years
on a huge variety of equipment.

Vinyl varied enormously. I can remember trekking back to HMV in Oxford
Street many times before I got a decent pressing of a particular album.
Contrary to some other postings I think that DG was amongst the best.
Then, despite having a Shure V15 that tracked at 0.8g, wear inevitably
set in and the noise levels crept up. Always of course most on the ones
that I liked most. Despite the greatest care, fingers got onto the
surface and other accidents added the pops and sizzles. Yes I recorded
all new records onto an A77 after an initial few listens. The tape type
wasn't so much of a problem because of the adjustable dolby level.
However there was loss.

There is a sound (!) argument that the analogue nature of vinyl should
have some advantages. The main one is that, subject to the stylus being
small and stable enough to track and to differentiate the information,
the result surely must be smoother. This should mean less distortion.
The buffs used to call this 'musicality'. Despite the various tricks
used by CD players to fill the in the steps, digital has steps between
adjacent samples. At 16 bit these can be quite large in power terms at
the highest audio levels. After all, 16 bit was chosen only because it
was the maximum you could use to fit one hour onto a standard CD. It
never was the optimum technical specification. When we start hearing 20
bit or better on DVD type disks the step issue should go.

What I like about CD is the silence. Oh, and the dynamic range. Oh, and
the resistance to minor damage. Oh, and being able to play it in my car.

I still listen to vinyl. Once my brain blots out the background noise, I
really do enjoy it. Now that I have a sound system that can reproduce
the whole audio range at a realistic level, I find that the dynamic
range, particularly low frequencies, is much better than I used to hear
on lesser systems. And it is ... er... musical!!

One last point. Just as people have forgotten what good live acting is
because of the crap they watch on TV, so MP3 has degraded people's idea
of what fidelity is. I exclude this ng of course. It is fine on
headphones and tweaked mini systems, but having got used to MP3, people
regard CD as wonderful. Music is now designed so that it sounds good on
such systems, just as Berry Gordy mixed motown to sound good on 6 x 4
car speakers. It's only when you listen to acoustic instruments with a
complex waveform and set of overtones, particularly orchestral ones like
the violin, or a grand piano, that you realise the limitations of CD and
MP3.

So I reckon all this discussion will stop when disk capacity is enough
to move to higher digital resolutions.

Peter Scott

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

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

>> I would be happier with a basically straight
>> transfer from LP to digital, with the only special
>> processing applied being some modest declicking.
>
> I'd like to get away with that more often in the work I do. Trouble is,
> most if not all of the LPs I end uptranscribing seem to need more
> processing than that.


C'mon Arny. Stop the BS:-)) Recording engineer,
acoustics consultant, architect, recording engineer (!!!)
and now transcription engineer. Whatever next? :-)))

"Facts about Krooborg" states that you're a second-hand
computer repair man from Michigan!

Iain

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"John Atkinson" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> On Aug 30, 11:59 am, Jenn > wrote:
>> In article >,
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>> > <Jenn does not deny that she has hearing damage.>
>>
>> I don't feel the need to counter every ridiculous claim that is made.
>
> Arny just can't forgive you, Jenn, for a) being a woman,
> b) knowing more than he does about music, c) expressing
> your preference for something he has _proved_ can't
> be preferred, and d) there's that woman thing again. :-)
>
> John Atkinson
> Editor, Stereophile
>

Though I admire her perseverance, Jenn's argument with
Arny is futile. I get the impression Jenn is a gifted
musician with a high level of audio perception.

Arny, on the other hand, doesn't know a French horn from
a frying pan:-) Technically he is not a lot better either.
Ask him for a link to one of his choir "recordings"
of the Born Again Tambournine Bashers. Quite horrific!

The last time one of Arny's "recordings" escaped, I sent
it to a colleague who lectures in Recording Arts
at conservatory level. At the end of his lecture, he played
it to his students. There was a long embarrassed silence.
Most students had sickly grins on their faces - they
did not know whether to laugh or cry. Then one,
a very gifted young cellist, ran out from the auditorium
in tears. She told her fellow students later that she
thought the whole thing was a cruel sacrilegious hoax.

Iain

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
...
>
> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> news:jennconductsREMOVETHIS-> >
>> > And that debate was finished a decade or two ago for *intelligent*
> people.
>>
>> If by "quality audio" you mean technical superiority, then I would go
>> with that. Past that, we're talking preference,
>
> Which is what I said.
>
>> > Anyone may still PREFER to listen to anything they like, the problem
> they
>> > have is accepting that they may PREFER something that is actually
> INFERIOR
>> > to the original sound. Hence their continued need to convince
> themselves.
>>
>> No, it's very simple: if a person likes the sound of some recording,
>> based on his/her experience of that music, "inferior" has nothing to do
>> with it. By definition, for that person, it is "superior".
>
> And that's the problem, you still can't seperate PREFERENCE from reality.
> The recording that most closely matches the original input signal is
> technically "superior" no matter what YOU might PREFER.
>


In that case, Mr T, vinyl is, at least as far as most pop
recordings are concerned, the winner. You clearly have
no experience in CD mastering of pop material on a professional
level or you would know that rarely does the pre-production
CD bear a close resemblance to the studio master (or "input signal"
as you seem to prefer to call it)

Here we have the crux of the matter. Analaogue disc cutting is
incredibly skilled, with the object of the excercise being to
cut a lacquer as close as possible to the studio master. Any
fool can make it different (that is, if he has the courage to
lower the cutting stylus to the lacquer:-))

Now, due the commercial pressures, and "louder is better"
school of thought, a thriving industry in CD mastering has
emerged. Mastering is regarded as another step in the
production chain, where sometimes horrificdecisions are taken
in the attempt to give the public what they (think they) want.

Iain

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"MiNe 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
>>
>> > In article >,
>> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>> >
>> >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
>> >>
>> >>> In article
>> >>> >, "Arny
>> >>> Krueger" > wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> "Robert Orban" > wrote in
>> >>>> message
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> Through hard experience I've found that with
>> >>>>> recordings of this vintage, it really pays to find
>> >>>>> sealed, unplayed copies even if one has to wait for
>> >>>>> them to show up on eBay and even if one has to pay
>> >>>>> more. There were a *lot* of bad phono playback
>> >>>>> systems in the late 60s, and even one play through
>> >>>>> some of them could audibly damage the vinyl.
>> >>
>> >>>>> Finally, after doing this a hundred times or so I have
>> >>>>> to observe that the audio quality of the run of the
>> >>>>> mill vinyl from that era was pretty bad. It got a lot
>> >>>>> better starting in mid-1969, probably because a new
>> >>>>> generation of disc cutters was just coming on line.
>> >>
>> >>>>> I find
>> >>>>> incomprehensible the affection that some people
>> >>>>> evidently have for the audio quality of vinyl from
>> >>>>> that era.
>> >>
>> >>>>> Bob Orban
>> >>
>> >>>> Who is Robert Orban?
>> >>
>> >>> Nice appeal to authority.
>> >>
>> >> If you and Jen promise to never appeal to authority,
>> >> personal or otherwise, I'll do the same. ;-)
>> >
>> > Appeals to authority are usually in service of an
>> > argument.
>> >
>> >>> Was someone arguing in favor of
>> >>> damaged, poor-quality vinyl?
>> >>
>> >> Nice job of missing the point of the second paragraph,
>> >> Stephen. "Distractions R U", right? ;-)
>> >
>> > Most lps were junk. Who was saying otherwise?
>>
>> Come on Stephen, the truth is that compared to a well-made digital
>> recording, the very best LP ever made was still, noisy, colored, and
>> distorted junk.
>
> That's an opinion. As for "still," one spins vinyl.
>
>> >> It should be pretty obvious to an unbiased reader (not
>> >> Stephen or Jen for example) that the second paragraph
>> >> refers to undamaged, even completely virgin LPs. The
>> >> point of the first paragraph is that Orban has very high
>> >> standards for choosing and preparing LPs for digitizing.
>> >> But even given that, the LP format still falls way short
>> >> of modern standards for quality audio.
>>
>> > The first paragraph doesn't mention digitizing at all.
>>
>> Come on Stephen, I posted a link to the whole post. The original post on
>> RAO could be linked to the OP I quoted on RAP in two clicks. Can you
>> possibly bring yourself to judge a statement in its proper context?
>
> That brings up the question of why you crossposted while suppressing the
> group in which it originated.
>
>> > Still, in cases of deteriorated or missing original
>> > master tapes, an LP transfer might be the best way to
>> > hear a specific recording.
>>
>> In the absence of superior options which often abound, we sometimes must
>> get
>> desperate and dab some makeup on LP's sonic piggishness, in order to just
>> enjoy the music.
>
> Straight transfers, a little de-clicking, and there you are.
>
Indeed. A little *manual* declicking - I might add.
Don't be taken in by Arny's BS. He's a computer repair man:-)

Iain

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"MiNe 109" > wrote in message
...

> Still, in cases of deteriorated or missing original master tapes, an lp
> transfer might be the best way to hear a specific recording.
>

From tape to vinyl is a three, four, or five step process. Any of the
"negatives" from these intermediate steps can be used for
transcription in CD mastering. This is often done.

Transfer from a pressing is the least desirable option.

Iain

[Eeyore]

Iain Churches wrote:

> "MiNe 109" > wrote
>
> > Still, in cases of deteriorated or missing original master tapes, an lp
> > transfer might be the best way to hear a specific recording.
>
> From tape to vinyl is a three, four, or five step process. Any of the
> "negatives" from these intermediate steps can be used for
> transcription in CD mastering. This is often done.
>
> Transfer from a pressing is the least desirable option.

Maybe you should explain how the stampers are generated ?

Graham

[[email protected]]

On Sep 3, 5:02 am, "Iain Churches" > wrote:
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > "John Byrns" > wrote in message
> >> I would be happier with a basically straight
> >> transfer from LP to digital, with the only special
> >> processing applied being some modest declicking.
>
> > I'd like to get away with that more often in the work I do. Trouble is,
> > most if not all of the LPs I end uptranscribing seem to need more
> > processing than that.
>
> C'mon Arny. Stop the BS:-)) Recording engineer,
> acoustics consultant, architect, recording engineer (!!!)
> and now transcription engineer. Whatever next? :-)))
>
> "Facts about Krooborg" states that you're a second-hand
> computer repair man from Michigan!
>
> Iain


he is a retired man
from an automaker
time and ambition is his to claim.

[George M. Middius]

Iain Churches said:

> "Facts about Krooborg" states that you're a second-hand
> computer repair man from Michigan!

Also Chrysler Ashtray Designer Emeritus. (It says so on his toilet paper.)

[Scott Dorsey]

Robert Orban > wrote:
>In article >, says...
>>
>>Itchykoo Park used to be famous for the really, really deep kick drum,
>>which sounded like cardboard on small speakers. It was the lowest I
>>had ever seen anyone cut on a 45, and there was no way that record could
>>be played on a typical record player of the sixties. The CD reissue
>>turns it into a modern-style kick drum. It's a totally different song
>>when you do this.
>
>I understand your point, but I would ask you this -- *what* sound was in the
>head of the producer? Was it as heard on Altec A7's? UREI's? JBL's? All of
>those speakers were significantly colored and all sounded different from each
>other, so the sound "in the producer's head" might be quite different than the
>sound we hear on modern, well-engineered loudspeakers and might have been
>different if the producer had mixed in a different control room with different
>acoustics and/or a different model of loudspeaker.

Absolutely! This is completely true, and it's something you can't ever
really deal with.

On one side of the line we have the folks in Japan paying huge amounts of
money for old Altec studio monitors in an attempt to recreate the sound
heard on the original playback.

On the other side of the line we have mastering engineers with presets
in their head... I know folks who would listen to something, say instantly,
"Wow, that was mixed on NS-10s" and instantly dial in an NS-10 correction
curve to compensate, so that folks listening on fairly flat systems would
get something approaching the effect the original production folks did.

Lots of stuff in the seventies was screechy to the point of being hard to
cut on vinyl, because of the aggressive use of narrowband monitors and
cocaine in that era. I have trouble listening to that stuff without grabbing
the tone controls. You could argue I am doing the recording integrity a
disservice by doing that, and I would probably agree, but I'll keep doing
it anyway.

>As I stated in my post, I prefer to try to "correct" spectral balances that I
>believe were probably caused by colored loudspeakers in the original mixdown
>room or in the mastering room. I can only justify this by (1) my personal
>preference (I'm not getting paid for my restoration work :-) and (2)
>experiments done by Sean Olive and Floyd Toole on consumer loudspeaker
>preference. With reference to the "remastering" controversy, what I take away
>from Olive and Toole's work is that people seem to have a pretty well-defined
>model in their brains of what a natural spectral balance should sound like and
>they consistently prefer loudspeakers that supply this to them. Thanks largely
>to O&T's work, today's popular loudspeakers are not only less colored than any
>time in the past but also sound closer to each other regarding spectral
>balance. It's amazing what you can get in a $250 loudspeaker today (from
>companies like PSB, Mirage, Energy, etc., not to mention the speaker
>manufacturers under the Harman banner) compared to what you could get even 10
>years ago.

I am not familiar with the Toole work you're referring to, but it sounds
very interesting. I'd love to see a citation. I've always attributed the
different sonic character of various nation's loudspeaker designs to local
sonic preferences (ie. the propensity of American home speakers to have flabby
out of control bass, of British speakers to have restricted but tight bass,
of Japanese speakers to be smiley filtered). Maybe that's not true.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"Eeyore" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Iain Churches wrote:
>
>> "MiNe 109" > wrote
>>
>> > Still, in cases of deteriorated or missing original master tapes, an lp
>> > transfer might be the best way to hear a specific recording.
>>
>> From tape to vinyl is a three, four, or five step process. Any of the
>> "negatives" from these intermediate steps can be used for
>> transcription in CD mastering. This is often done.
>>
>> Transfer from a pressing is the least desirable option.
>
> Maybe you should explain how the stampers are generated ?

I am referring to original metalwork.
You cannot use a stamper - it's a positive:-)>

Iain

PS. The world is still waiting for your improved definition of the
term "dBm", Graham

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"George M. Middius" <cmndr _ george @ comcast . net> wrote in message
...
>
>
> Iain Churches said:
>
>> "Facts about Krooborg" states that you're a second-hand
>> computer repair man from Michigan!
>
> Also Chrysler Ashtray Designer Emeritus. (It says so on his toilet paper.)
>
How could someone so cruelly mis-inform me on such an important
matter? :-)

[Clyde Slick]

On 3 Sep, 18:13, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

>
> Lots of stuff in the seventies was screechy to the point of being hard to
> cut on vinyl, because of the aggressive use of narrowband monitors and
> cocaine in that era.

It's almost impossible to cut cocaine on vinyl. CD's do better for
that,
though they are way to small. But the smooth frequency response
makes it possible.

[John Byrns]

In article >,
"Iain Churches" > wrote:

> "Eeyore" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > Iain Churches wrote:
> >
> >> "MiNe 109" > wrote
> >>
> >> > Still, in cases of deteriorated or missing original master tapes, an lp
> >> > transfer might be the best way to hear a specific recording.
> >>
> >> From tape to vinyl is a three, four, or five step process. Any of the
> >> "negatives" from these intermediate steps can be used for
> >> transcription in CD mastering. This is often done.
> >>
> >> Transfer from a pressing is the least desirable option.
> >
> > Maybe you should explain how the stampers are generated ?
>
> I am referring to original metalwork.
> You cannot use a stamper - it's a positive:-)>

I am confused by your use of the term "positive", can you define the
meaning of the word "positive" in disk cutting? Are you saying that the
final LP the consumer buys is a "negative"?


Regards,

John Byrns

--
Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/

[Phildo]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> On 3 Sep, 18:13, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>
>>
>> Lots of stuff in the seventies was screechy to the point of being hard to
>> cut on vinyl, because of the aggressive use of narrowband monitors and
>> cocaine in that era.
>
> It's almost impossible to cut cocaine on vinyl. CD's do better for
> that,
> though they are way to small. But the smooth frequency response
> makes it possible.

I've seen DJs pour lines on to decks while they are spinning and snort it
off them before the stylus gets to that point.

Phildo

[George M. Middius]

Iain Churches said:

> >> "Facts about Krooborg" states that you're a second-hand
> >> computer repair man from Michigan!

> > Also Chrysler Ashtray Designer Emeritus. (It says so on his toilet paper.)

> How could someone so cruelly mis-inform me on such an important
> matter? :-)

That's what you get for relying on underground reference books. The
Resistance's official handbook on audio 'borgism is quite comprehensive.

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >, Phildo > wrote:
>"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>> On 3 Sep, 18:13, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Lots of stuff in the seventies was screechy to the point of being hard to
>>> cut on vinyl, because of the aggressive use of narrowband monitors and
>>> cocaine in that era.
>>
>> It's almost impossible to cut cocaine on vinyl. CD's do better for
>> that,
>> though they are way to small. But the smooth frequency response
>> makes it possible.
>
>I've seen DJs pour lines on to decks while they are spinning and snort it
>off them before the stylus gets to that point.

Well, it least it's readily soluble so the vacuum machine can get the
residue out, unlike with the candle wax....
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"George M. Middius" <cmndr _ george @ comcast . net> wrote in message
...
>
>
> Iain Churches said:
>
>> >> "Facts about Krooborg" states that you're a second-hand
>> >> computer repair man from Michigan!
>
>> > Also Chrysler Ashtray Designer Emeritus. (It says so on his toilet
>> > paper.)
>
>> How could someone so cruelly mis-inform me on such an important
>> matter? :-)
>
> That's what you get for relying on underground reference books. The
> Resistance's official handbook on audio 'borgism is quite comprehensive.
>
> ´


I received an e-mail circular some years ago, when I first
began "discussions" with Arny on UKRA.
This was prior to his being born again. At that time he
had quite the foulest mouth of anyone on Usenet)

The e-mail was entitled "Facts About Krooborg". I gave it only a
cursory glance, but the "computer repair man" stuck in my mind for
some reason.

I exchange an e-mail now and again with a second generation
Danish American. He calls Arny "Kruborg" Good Danish
humour:-)

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"John Byrns" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Iain Churches" > wrote:
>
>> "Eeyore" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> >
>> > Iain Churches wrote:
>> >
>> >> "MiNe 109" > wrote
>> >>
>> >> > Still, in cases of deteriorated or missing original master tapes, an
>> >> > lp
>> >> > transfer might be the best way to hear a specific recording.
>> >>
>> >> From tape to vinyl is a three, four, or five step process. Any of the
>> >> "negatives" from these intermediate steps can be used for
>> >> transcription in CD mastering. This is often done.
>> >>
>> >> Transfer from a pressing is the least desirable option.
>> >
>> > Maybe you should explain how the stampers are generated ?
>>
>> I am referring to original metalwork.
>> You cannot use a stamper - it's a positive:-)>
>
> I am confused by your use of the term "positive", can you define the
> meaning of the word "positive" in disk cutting? Are you saying that the
> final LP the consumer buys is a "negative"?
>


Once again I cannot vouch for the terminology that may be used in the
US. I can only tell you what we used in the UK when I was there.

The first link in the chain is the lacquer, cut from the
master tape. It could be played like any other disc,
if you had an arm that could accomodate its 14
inch diameter. Yes, you are correct. It can be regarded
as a negative, (the logic being that the grooves are below
the surface of the disc) Try not to think in photographic terms.

Lacquers going for production were carefully inspected
with a microscope, but *never* played.

The next step is the silver deposit into the grooves of this lacquer
to make a positive. What were grooves on the lacquer
are raised "moraine" type lines. This we called the
stamper. One can make a further negative from this by the
same plating process. This was called the "matrix" and needs
to be carefully "peeled" away from the stamper.

The number which you will see on the vinyl (in the case of
Decca cuts always besides the lock point in the scroll out)
is the matrix number, which tells you who the cutting
engineer was, and how many times this particular
side has been cut. The factory ask for a recut in the event
that stampers are worn or damaged and new ones cannot
be grown.

On a very short run, just one positive stamper would suffice.
For medium runs, new stampers can be grown from the matrix
(which being a negative, i.e. having grooves, can also be played)
This is the metal which is used for transcription if required for
CD pre-mastering. They have an incredibly quiet surface.

One could go even a step further and make a "mother" from
which multiple "matrices"are made, where metal was
required for local pressing work by overseas agents.

Many record companies that still have metalwork from
the 78rpm days, use a metal matrix for CD transfer. These
too sound quite remarkable. I have ben involved in several
such projects of early jazz material. Metalwork must never be
cleaned or polished. It has an adverse effect on the background
noise. A stained matrix sounds a lot better than its cosmetic
appearance would lead you to believe.

I have some ABBA neg metals from my days at RCA. I play them
now and again. Quite remarkable.

Iain

[Arny Krueger]

"Iain Churches" > wrote in message
ti.fi...
>
> "Eeyore" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>>
>> Iain Churches wrote:
>>
>>> "MiNe 109" > wrote
>>>
>>> > Still, in cases of deteriorated or missing original master tapes, an
>>> > lp
>>> > transfer might be the best way to hear a specific recording.
>>>
>>> From tape to vinyl is a three, four, or five step process. Any of the
>>> "negatives" from these intermediate steps can be used for
>>> transcription in CD mastering. This is often done.
>>>
>>> Transfer from a pressing is the least desirable option.

>> Maybe you should explain how the stampers are generated ?

> I am referring to original metalwork.
> You cannot use a stamper - it's a positive:-)>

Iain has apparently never heard of those special styli ground to ride on the
top of the raised groove of a stamper.

[George M. Middius]

The Krooborg takes heart from Queenie Catie's mindless flailing on behalf
of scientism.

> > I am referring to original metalwork.
> > You cannot use a stamper - it's a positive:-)>

> Iain has apparently never heard

Trite "debating trade" ploy by the Krooborg. Point to Mr. Churches.

[Arny Krueger]

"John Byrns" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Iain Churches" > wrote:
>
>> "Eeyore" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> >
>> > Iain Churches wrote:
>> >
>> >> "MiNe 109" > wrote
>> >>
>> >> > Still, in cases of deteriorated or missing original master tapes, an
>> >> > lp
>> >> > transfer might be the best way to hear a specific recording.
>> >>
>> >> From tape to vinyl is a three, four, or five step process. Any of the
>> >> "negatives" from these intermediate steps can be used for
>> >> transcription in CD mastering. This is often done.
>> >>
>> >> Transfer from a pressing is the least desirable option.
>> >
>> > Maybe you should explain how the stampers are generated ?
>>
>> I am referring to original metalwork.
>> You cannot use a stamper - it's a positive:-)>
>
> I am confused by your use of the term "positive", can you define the
> meaning of the word "positive" in disk cutting?

Postive does not relate to cutting, it relates to preparing the dies for
stamping.

A positive has a groove configuration that is similar to the original
lacquer and the final LP.

The stamper, and the father are negatives.

There are a number of different processes that are used, depending on the
size of the production run. The simplest is where the lacquer plated to
create a mother, and the mother is plated to create a stamper. For longer
runs, the process is: lacquer plated to create a mother, the mother plated
to make a father, the father plated to create stamper. & etc.

Plating steps can be repeated to make more copies of the next step at the
cost of some wear and tear on the master. For example, a mother can be
plated several times to make several fathers, and so on.

> Are you saying that the
> final LP the consumer buys is a "negative"?

No, he gets a positive.

[Arny Krueger]

"Iain Churches" > wrote in message
i.fi...
>
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "John Byrns" > wrote in message
>
>>> I would be happier with a basically straight
>>> transfer from LP to digital, with the only special
>>> processing applied being some modest declicking.

>> I'd like to get away with that more often in the work I do. Trouble is,
>> most if not all of the LPs I end uptranscribing seem to need more
>> processing than that.

> C'mon Arny. Stop the BS:-)) Recording engineer,
> acoustics consultant, architect, recording engineer (!!!)
> and now transcription engineer. Whatever next? :-)))

Whatever next?

I perform all the corresponding tasks for lighting and video as well.

PAR cans, DMX, RGBVH, DLP, HDTV, MPEG, all spoken and performed here.

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...

> I am not familiar with the Toole work you're referring to, but it sounds
> very interesting. I'd love to see a citation.

ADAIK, its one of the white papers on the Harmon web site.

> I've always attributed the
> different sonic character of various nation's loudspeaker designs to local
> sonic preferences (ie. the propensity of American home speakers to have
> flabby
> out of control bass, of British speakers to have restricted but tight
> bass,
> of Japanese speakers to be smiley filtered).

Probably true at one time.

> Maybe that's not true.

IME speaker sound has become more internationalized.

[Arny Krueger]

"Iain Churches" > wrote in message
i.fi...
>
> "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>> news:jennconductsREMOVETHIS-> >
>>> > And that debate was finished a decade or two ago for *intelligent*
>> people.
>>>
>>> If by "quality audio" you mean technical superiority, then I would go
>>> with that. Past that, we're talking preference,
>>
>> Which is what I said.
>>
>>> > Anyone may still PREFER to listen to anything they like, the problem
>> they
>>> > have is accepting that they may PREFER something that is actually
>> INFERIOR
>>> > to the original sound. Hence their continued need to convince
>> themselves.
>>>
>>> No, it's very simple: if a person likes the sound of some recording,
>>> based on his/her experience of that music, "inferior" has nothing to do
>>> with it. By definition, for that person, it is "superior".
>>
>> And that's the problem, you still can't seperate PREFERENCE from reality.
>> The recording that most closely matches the original input signal is
>> technically "superior" no matter what YOU might PREFER.
>>
>
>
> In that case, Mr T, vinyl is, at least as far as most pop
> recordings are concerned, the winner.

True 30 years ago. But, the market has evolved.

> You clearly have
> no experience in CD mastering of pop material on a professional
> level or you would know that rarely does the pre-production
> CD bear a close resemblance to the studio master (or "input signal"
> as you seem to prefer to call it)

YMMV, but that is often true.

However this was even more the case with vinyl. You can put anything on a CD
that you can put on any digital master - only with a possible slight
inaudble loss of resolution. In contrast, it is quite east to make a digital
master that can never be cut on a practically usable LP. Therefore, LPs are
of necessity further removed from the master.

> Here we have the crux of the matter. Analaogue disc cutting is
> incredibly skilled, with the object of the excercise being to
> cut a lacquer as close as possible to the studio master.

Again, it is a trivial matter to create a digital master that will never be
able to be cut on a practically usable LP. The same master can often be
bit-for-bit reproduced on a CD.

[Mr.T]

"Peter Scott" > wrote in message
...
>Despite the various tricks
> used by CD players to fill the in the steps, digital has steps between
> adjacent samples.

Not when dithered, a necessary part of the process.

>At 16 bit these can be quite large in power terms at
> the highest audio levels. After all, 16 bit was chosen only because it
> was the maximum you could use to fit one hour onto a standard CD. It
> never was the optimum technical specification. When we start hearing 20
> bit or better on DVD type disks the step issue should go.

So please name ONE single CD that uses over 90dB DNR, and may actually
benefit from having more than 96dB?
Now tell me where you propose to listen to it? :-)

> What I like about CD is the silence. Oh, and the dynamic range.

And yet you still claim 16 bits is inadequate, despite no commercial disks
using the full potential of standard CD performance.

> So I reckon all this discussion will stop when disk capacity is enough
> to move to higher digital resolutions.

So why hasn't SACD done it already then?

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Iain Churches" > wrote in message
i.fi...
> > And that's the problem, you still can't seperate PREFERENCE from
reality.
> > The recording that most closely matches the original input signal is
> > technically "superior" no matter what YOU might PREFER.
>
> In that case, Mr T, vinyl is, at least as far as most pop
> recordings are concerned, the winner.

Thanks for pointing out you have no idea of the difference between the
possible system performance and an actual musical performance.

>You clearly have
> no experience in CD mastering of pop material on a professional
> level or you would know that rarely does the pre-production
> CD bear a close resemblance to the studio master (or "input signal"
> as you seem to prefer to call it)

And you would clearly be both wrong and irrelevant.

> Now, due the commercial pressures, and "louder is better"
> school of thought, a thriving industry in CD mastering has
> emerged. Mastering is regarded as another step in the
> production chain, where sometimes horrificdecisions are taken
> in the attempt to give the public what they (think they) want.

Which was often the case with vinyl as well, and has NOTHING to do with the
format.
But thanks for pointing out the limits of your understanding.

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Iain Churches" > wrote in message
i.fi...
> Don't be taken in by Arny's BS. He's a computer repair man:-)

At least he can do something useful then, not just make stupid insults!

MrT.

[John Byrns]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "John Byrns" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "Iain Churches" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Eeyore" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Iain Churches wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> "MiNe 109" > wrote
> >> >>
> >> >> > Still, in cases of deteriorated or missing original master tapes, an
> >> >> > lp
> >> >> > transfer might be the best way to hear a specific recording.
> >> >>
> >> >> From tape to vinyl is a three, four, or five step process. Any of the
> >> >> "negatives" from these intermediate steps can be used for
> >> >> transcription in CD mastering. This is often done.
> >> >>
> >> >> Transfer from a pressing is the least desirable option.
> >> >
> >> > Maybe you should explain how the stampers are generated ?
> >>
> >> I am referring to original metalwork.
> >> You cannot use a stamper - it's a positive:-)>
> >
> > I am confused by your use of the term "positive", can you define the
> > meaning of the word "positive" in disk cutting?
>
> Postive does not relate to cutting, it relates to preparing the dies for
> stamping.
>
> A positive has a groove configuration that is similar to the original
> lacquer and the final LP.
>
> The stamper, and the father are negatives.
>
> There are a number of different processes that are used, depending on the
> size of the production run. The simplest is where the lacquer plated to
> create a mother, and the mother is plated to create a stamper. For longer
> runs, the process is: lacquer plated to create a mother, the mother plated
> to make a father, the father plated to create stamper. & etc.
>
> Plating steps can be repeated to make more copies of the next step at the
> cost of some wear and tear on the master. For example, a mother can be
> plated several times to make several fathers, and so on.
>
> > Are you saying that the
> > final LP the consumer buys is a "negative"?
>
> No, he gets a positive.

But Iain said "You cannot use a stamper - it's a positive", how can both
the stamper and the LP both be "positive"? I think Iain has another
definition for "positive".


Regards,

John Byrns

--
Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Iain Churches" > wrote in message
> ti.fi...
>>
>> "Eeyore" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>>
>>> Iain Churches wrote:
>>>
>>>> "MiNe 109" > wrote
>>>>
>>>> > Still, in cases of deteriorated or missing original master tapes, an
>>>> > lp
>>>> > transfer might be the best way to hear a specific recording.
>>>>
>>>> From tape to vinyl is a three, four, or five step process. Any of the
>>>> "negatives" from these intermediate steps can be used for
>>>> transcription in CD mastering. This is often done.
>>>>
>>>> Transfer from a pressing is the least desirable option.
>
>>> Maybe you should explain how the stampers are generated ?
>
>> I am referring to original metalwork.
>> You cannot use a stamper - it's a positive:-)>
>
> Iain has apparently never heard of those special styli ground to ride on
> the top of the raised groove of a stamper.
Indeed I have. Decca used to make them for studio use.
AFAIK they were not available to the public.

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"John Byrns" > wrote in message
...

> But Iain said "You cannot use a stamper - it's a positive", how can both
> the stamper and the LP both be "positive"? I think Iain has another
> definition for "positive".
>


Hello John. I described the process in the terminology we we used
at Decca to you in a post yesterday. Afer this I received a message
from a guy who works as the Swedish mint in Stockholm. He told
me that the stamper used to strike coins and medals, which has the
raised surface, is also called a "positiv"

Similarly, he pointed out, in map making, countours above sea level
are termed positive contours, so this logic is not un-common.

I would not be at all surprised if you use opposite/different terms
in the US. In Europe we have a history of seeing things
differently:-)

Some of these have been discussed on RAT: Plate/anode,
common cathode/cathode coupled, tube/valve etc etc.
Many of the German and UK equipment makers and
studios used at one time what seemed a much more
sensible convention for wiring XLR connectors.
1-Ground, 2.Cld, 3 Hot.

But, call it what you will, the fact still remains, that,
without the use of the inverted stylus which Arny
mentioned, one cannot normally transcribe
from a stamper.

Best regards
Iain

[Peter Scott]

Mr.T wrote:
> "Peter Scott" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Despite the various tricks
>> used by CD players to fill the in the steps, digital has steps between
>> adjacent samples.
>
> Not when dithered, a necessary part of the process.

Doesn't alter the argument that there are steps that have to be filled
in by some technique. The real in-fill information is not there.


>
> And yet you still claim 16 bits is inadequate, despite no commercial disks
> using the full potential of standard CD performance.

If 16 bits is adequate why are recordings made at, and broadcast data
links use, higher resolutions?
>



--
__________________________________________________ _______________________

Composed using Mozilla Thunderbird and virus checked using Grisoft AVG

Peter Scott
__________________________________________________ _______________________

[Mr.T]

"Peter Scott" > wrote in message
om...
> >> Despite the various tricks
> >> used by CD players to fill the in the steps, digital has steps between
> >> adjacent samples.
> >
> > Not when dithered, a necessary part of the process.
>
> Doesn't alter the argument that there are steps that have to be filled
> in by some technique. The real in-fill information is not there.

So what, you lose a couple of dB DNR, you still have 30dB or so more than
the best vinyl, when it's new.

> > And yet you still claim 16 bits is inadequate, despite no commercial
disks
> > using the full potential of standard CD performance.
>
> If 16 bits is adequate why are recordings made at, and broadcast data
> links use, higher resolutions?

Mainly because they can, and partly because they at least understand the
difference between recording, and final distribution requirements.

MrT.

[[email protected]]

On Sep 3, 10:17 pm, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> IME speaker sound has become more internationalized.

proof for my assertion;
incompetent="Arny Krueger"

[[email protected]]

On Sep 3, 10:15 pm, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Iain Churches" > wrote in message
>
> > C'mon Arny. Stop the BS:-)) Recording engineer,
> > acoustics consultant, architect, recording engineer (!!!)
> > and now transcription engineer. Whatever next? :-)))
>
> Whatever next?
>
> I perform all the corresponding tasks for lighting and video as well.
>
> PAR cans, DMX, RGBVH, DLP, HDTV, MPEG, all spoken and performed here.

jack(off) of all trades

master of none

[Phildo]

> "Iain Churches" > wrote in message
> i.fi...
>> C'mon Arny. Stop the BS:-)) Recording engineer,
>> acoustics consultant, architect, recording engineer (!!!)
>> and now transcription engineer. Whatever next? :-)))

Whatever he wants to pretend to be. Arny is a fraud, everybody knows it,
including himself. I guess he just enjoys being laughed at.

Phildo

[John Phillips]

On 2007-09-04, Peter Scott > wrote:
>
>
> Mr.T wrote:
>> "Peter Scott" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Despite the various tricks
>>> used by CD players to fill the in the steps, digital has steps between
>>> adjacent samples.
>>
>> Not when dithered, a necessary part of the process.
>
> Doesn't alter the argument that there are steps that have to be filled
> in by some technique. The real in-fill information is not there.

You seem to cover two types of "step" in one argument: time steps
("adjacent samples") and level steps ("digital" - i.e. quantized to
the 16 bits you quote).

With respect to the time steps no information is lost at all in sampling
provided the input is properly filtered to include only information below
half the sampling rate. This is a well-known consequence of the sampling
theorem which has been known and practised for decades. The only issue
is the engineering of the anti-aliasing filter and that's been so good
for such a long time that it is, to all intents and purposes, perfect
with respect to known human hearing limits.

Then the CD player's reconstruction filter is there to remove ultrasonic
aliases, not for the human ear which cannot perceive them but for the
equipment which may intermodulate if they are present at high enough
levels. That isn't any form of trick to fill in these time steps since
there's nothing mising to fill in.

With respect to level steps (16 bit quantization), steps of 1/65,566
of full scale are there indeed, and that introduces a noise floor 96.3
dB below full scale. That's rather good with respect to even the most
dynamic of real-life performances. If the performance can be captured
adequately on vinyl it will always be better in this respect on CD.
(Note that I am talking technically here - I know there are people who
prefer the sound of vinyl to CD.)

In fact with dither you can easily hear a tone on CD that's 106 dB
below full scale - yes that's below 1 LSB peak-to-peak. I even tried
that myself as an exercise and it's very well reproduced, especially
with higher orders of noise-shaped dither.

>> And yet you still claim 16 bits is inadequate, despite no commercial disks
>> using the full potential of standard CD performance.
>
> If 16 bits is adequate why are recordings made at, and broadcast data
> links use, higher resolutions?

Recordings are these days made at higher resolution so that they can be
digitally processed without introducing significant quantization errors.
It's easier to do this with 24-bit processing than it is with 16-bit
processing. Then you create the clean 16-bit CD master. And 24-bit A/D
converters (nominally 24 bit anyway) are quite readily available now.

As for broadcast digital audio links, in UK they are Nicam728 and the
data carried is 14-bit (actually its compressed slightly on the link to
13 bits IIRC). Possibly in other parts of the world they use more than
16 bits but I don't know the standards. Out of interest can you point
me to the relevant references?

--
John Phillips

[Arny Krueger]

"Iain Churches" > wrote in message
i.fi...
>
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> . ..
>>
>> "Iain Churches" > wrote in message
>> ti.fi...
>>>
>>> "Eeyore" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Iain Churches wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "MiNe 109" > wrote
>>>>>
>>>>> > Still, in cases of deteriorated or missing original master tapes, an
>>>>> > lp
>>>>> > transfer might be the best way to hear a specific recording.
>>>>>
>>>>> From tape to vinyl is a three, four, or five step process. Any of the
>>>>> "negatives" from these intermediate steps can be used for
>>>>> transcription in CD mastering. This is often done.
>>>>>
>>>>> Transfer from a pressing is the least desirable option.
>>
>>>> Maybe you should explain how the stampers are generated ?
>>
>>> I am referring to original metalwork.
>>> You cannot use a stamper - it's a positive:-)>
>>
>> Iain has apparently never heard of those special styli ground to ride on
>> the top of the raised groove of a stamper.

> Indeed I have. Decca used to make them for studio use.

They were more widely available than that.

> AFAIK they were not available to the public.

Decca was a minority supplier of cartridges, especially in the US. Their
cartridges had a horrible reputation for reliability.

[Arny Krueger]

"Peter Scott" > wrote in message
...

> There is a sound (!) argument that the analogue nature of vinyl should
> have some advantages.

Not true. If you properly understand the theory and practice of the two
technologies, the rather grotesque limitions of real-world analog
record/playback media as compared to digital becomes obvious.

In the case of video, analog is even starting to lose out to digital, even
in the prosaic world of interconnects. In the case of multichannel audio,
analog has already lost out to digital for consumers.

> The main one is that, subject to the stylus being small and stable enough
> to track and to differentiate the information, the result surely must be
> smoother.

Absolutely untrue if you understand the details of the mechanical
limitations of vinyl.

> This should mean less distortion.

Absolutely untrue if you understand the details of the mechanical
limitations of vinyl. Back in the day of there was a tremendous lot
studied, written, and put into practice about attempts to alleviate vinyl's
inherent errors of a fairly gross nature.

> The buffs used to call this 'musicality'.

It still is all about musicality. I don't know how adding random noise,
distortion, phase and frequency response errors of a highly audible nature
can make a good audio signal sound better. This is not even like musical
instrument amps, where the distortion that is added is designed to be
euphonic. With vinyl you take what the medium gives you, and you don't have
any choices except to alleviate what you can, which isn't enough for most
people.

> Despite the various tricks used by CD players to fill the in the steps,
> digital has steps between adjacent samples.

There are no gaps and there are no tricks.

> At 16 bit these can be quite large in power terms at the highest audio
> levels.

Nonsense. When you're talking about gaps and steps, you're talking about
something that can be easily measured. Obviously, you've never looked at a
scope attached to the output of a phono preamp playing a LP and a CD player,
and compared the two. The output of a CD player is a very nice signal,
potentially the cleanest audio signal in most lab settings. The output of a
phono preamp playing a LP is a real mess. For openers it tends to jump
around a lot due to the inherent subsonic and bass noise due to the
turntable and the non-flatness of the record.

> After all, 16 bit was chosen only because it was the maximum you could use
> to fit one hour onto a standard CD.

Not true at all. In fact it takes only about 12 bits to provide a good sonic
representation of music. The remaining 4 bits were added more or less
gratuitously because they were free - they were already part of the
off-the-shelf digital hardware that was readily available at the time.

Furthermore, the original CD was not a 1 hour or 60 minute medium, but a 74
minute medium.

> It never was the optimum technical specification.

Right, it was overkill.

> When we start hearing 20 bit or better on DVD type disks the step issue
> should go.

Sorry about your lack of real-world experience, but most recordists, even
amateurs on a budget have been able to make recordings with more than 16 bit
resolution at the media level for a number of years. Its no sonic magic
bullet.

Ditto for the SACD and DVD-A formats that have been on the market for about
5 years, and pretty much tanked for lack of mainstream interest. One of the
bigger jokes about SACD and particularly DVD-A is that while some people
ranted and raved about the benefits of the enhanced resolution, the
recordings they were often made from from music that was recorded with 16
bits or less, at far lower sample rates than they were delivered.

It is a simple fact that once resolution is lost it is gone forever, and
putting it on higher resolution medium does nothing but twiddle bits. So,
these purported sensitive listeners were reporting improved sound quality
due to enhanced resolution that existed only in their minds.

One reason that SACD and DVD-A tanked is that the CD format is already an
overkill format, as I explained above.

> What I like about CD is the silence. Oh, and the dynamic range. Oh, and
> the resistance to minor damage. Oh, and being able to play it in my car.

Hold those thoughts. Most people just like the overall improved sound
quality.

> I still listen to vinyl. Once my brain blots out the background noise, I
> really do enjoy it. Now that I have a sound system that can reproduce the
> whole audio range at a realistic level, I find that the dynamic range,
> particularly low frequencies, is much better than I used to hear on lesser
> systems. And it is ... er... musical!!

Musical in a limited sort of way. No way can vinyl have as good clean bass
as is readily available with digital.

> One last point. Just as people have forgotten what good live acting is
> because of the crap they watch on TV, so MP3 has degraded people's idea of
> what fidelity is.

It is still possible to hear a lot of live music. Or at least music that
includes live acoustic musical instruments and has not been recorded, by MP3
or otherwise.

> I exclude this ng of course. It is fine on headphones and tweaked mini
> systems, but having got used to MP3, people regard CD as wonderful.

To tell the truth I never got used to the inherently crappy sound of even
the best LPs played on very fine systems. And that was after going through
the 78 -> LP conversion and the mono->stereo conversion. Compared to the
LP, the CD was a very strong and clean breath of fresh air.

> Music is now designed so that it sounds good on such systems, just as
> Berry Gordy mixed motown to sound good on 6 x 4 car speakers.

Actually, Berry Gordy mixed Motown to sound good on a 4" round speaker in a
$15 LP player. Motown's consoles had a high-slope 85 Hz high pass filters
right in the mixer channel strips.

> It's only when you listen to acoustic instruments with a complex waveform
> and set of overtones, particularly orchestral ones like the violin, or a
> grand piano, that you realise the limitations of CD and MP3.

The limitations of the CD format that you think you hear are figments of
your imagination. It is a rare person who does not hear the benefits of the
CD format. After all, why did the LP 98% disappear from the market place?

> So I reckon all this discussion will stop when disk capacity is enough to
> move to higher digital resolutions.

You really need to get out more. We've had DVDs for at least 7 years, and
even the older 1-layer DVDs have about 8 times the capacity of a CD.
2-layer DVDs with about 16 times the capacity of the CD have been in routine
distribution to consumers for at least 5 years.

[Arny Krueger]

"Peter Scott" > wrote in message
om...
>
>
> Mr.T wrote:
>> "Peter Scott" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Despite the various tricks
>>> used by CD players to fill the in the steps, digital has steps between
>>> adjacent samples.
>>
>> Not when dithered, a necessary part of the process.
>
> Doesn't alter the argument that there are steps that have to be filled in
> by some technique.

The steps only exist on the media and the circuitr direcly associated with
it. Even in that form they are like the steps of a regular stairway - they
are solid and need no filling-in.

All digital signals that have been properly converted back to analog are
smooth, and this has been true for over 40 years. It was true of the very
first CD player on the market - the CDP 101.

Peter, you are really one sad mess of erroneous, out-of-date information. I
presume that you can read - you should search google and bring yourself up
to date.

[George M. Middius]

Iain Churches said:

> >> >> "Facts about Krooborg" states that you're a second-hand
> >> >> computer repair man from Michigan!

> >> > Also Chrysler Ashtray Designer Emeritus. (It says so on his toilet
> >> > paper.)

> >> How could someone so cruelly mis-inform me on such an important
> >> matter? :-)

> > That's what you get for relying on underground reference books. The
> > Resistance's official handbook on audio 'borgism is quite comprehensive.

> I received an e-mail circular some years ago, when I first
> began "discussions" with Arny on UKRA.

Do you still have the email? I'd be interested in knowing who sent it. The
maddening emerged originally on RAO and spread to other audio groups.

> This was prior to his being born again.

When was Krooger "born again"? I have to say his piety is overwhelming.

> At that time he had quite the foulest mouth of anyone on Usenet)

Not just on Usenet, I'm afraid. He's a veritable two-legged sewer in
person.

> The e-mail was entitled "Facts About Krooborg". I gave it only a
> cursory glance, but the "computer repair man" stuck in my mind for
> some reason.

He's also a "web designer". Check out his aBxism site for some advanced
design concepts.

> I exchange an e-mail now and again with a second generation
> Danish American. He calls Arny "Kruborg" Good Danish
> humour:-)

You can't make too many jokes when it comes to Arnii Krooborg.

[John Byrns]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> Actually, Berry Gordy mixed Motown to sound good on a 4" round speaker in a
> $15 LP player. Motown's consoles had a high-slope 85 Hz high pass filters
> right in the mixer channel strips.

You aren't implying that "a 4 inch round speaker in a $15 LP player" is
flat down to 85 Hz, or can reproduce any significant amount of power at
that frequency, are you? And what about the output transformer in that
$15 player, how low might it have gone? I would think Motown should
have set the cutoff frequency of their filters a little higher if
simulating "a 4 inch round speaker in a $15 LP player" was their goal.
It sounds to me more like the real purpose of 85 Hz filters was to avoid
troubling the $15 players with signals they couldn't dream of
reproducing and that would have the potential of introducing various
forms of annoying distortion.


Regards,

John Byrns

--
Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/

[Steven Sullivan]

In rec.audio.tech Bret Ludwig > wrote: > On Aug 29, 10:28 am, "Arny
Krueger" > wrote: > > "Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message >
> > > oups.com > > > > > Some people prefer
the treble digital artifacts of CD. > > > > There ain't no such thing.

> But, unfortunately, there are. CD sample rate is NOT high enough, and
> that's the consensus view of hundreds of pros as well as in compliance
> with the generally accepted rules of bandwidth. You want a lot of
> headroom of bandwidth-five times was the precision analog rule. In
> practice you probably don't need a 100 kHz Nyquist wall


I can think of two 'pros' who actually design DACs -- Dan Lavry and Bruno Putzys
-- who don't seem to think the base SR needs to be anywhere near 100 kHz, and nor is it clear
that either thinks 44.1 is 'not enough -- when implemented properly.


"Nyquist pointed out that the sampling rate needs only to exceed twice the signal bandwidth.
What is the audio bandwidth? Research shows that musical instruments may produce energy
above 20 KHz, but there is little sound energy at above 40KHz. Most microphones do not pick
up sound at much over 20KHz. Human hearing rarely exceeds 20KHz, and certainly does not
reach 40KHz. The above suggests that 88.2 or 96KHz would be overkill. In fact all the
objections regarding audio sampling at 44.1KHz, (including the arguments relating to pre
ringing of an FIR filter) are long gone by increasing sampling to about 60KHz."

So if going as fast as say 88.2 or 96KHz is already faster than the optimal rate, how can we
explain the need for 192KHz sampling? Some tried to present it as a benefit due to narrower
impulse response: implying either "better ability to locate a sonic impulse in space" or "a
moreanalog like behavior". Such claims show a complete lack of understanding of signal theory
fundamentals."

--http://www.lavryengineering.com/documents/Sampling_Theory.pdf


Putzys doesn't put a hard number on it, but it seems from the below , a system that *properly*
filters content above *22.05 kHz* would be sufficient...for those who can actually hear
content at 20 kHz.


"The specifications of commercially available filters are invariably set as follows:
passband: 0 to 0.4535*fs
stopband: up from 0.5465*fs
and of course -6dB at 0.5*fs
In a halfband filter, passband and stopband are mirror images of eachother.

You'd ask why on earth such a specific number? Well.....:
0.4535*44100Hz=20000Hz.
Yup. Audioskepticism gone bad. Someone must have "scientifically" decided that humans hear up
to exactly 20000.0000Hz and if there's some aliasing right beyond that, who cares. Wrong of
course. I've done blind ABX tests on source material alternatively coded to 44.1kHz sampling
with "standard filters" and with filters that really go to 0 at 22.05kHz and got 20/20 on
that. With the radio playing and cars passing by my lab. It's not subtle.

Having established using a blind test that the effect of the alias band between 20kHz and
24.1kHz is audible, it makes sense to note what this aliasing sounds like, subjectively. It
sounds like the stereo image is more fussy and flattened, with an annoying grainy top end. Uh.
Precisely what audiophiles had been complaining about when they talked about "CD sound". Use
the correct filters on either end of the record/reproduce chain and the problem is gone. I've
done tests and demos with SACD vs correctly encoded 44.1kHz and most listeners feel pretty
hard pressed telling one from the other.

It's not the steepness of the filter that causes the problem. It's just that nobody cares to
heed the hard-nosed maths of nyquist/shannon to its full extent. Only, and only because
half-band filters are cheaper to implement, and because someone thought that the 20kHz limit
of the human ear had been set to a bone-hard perfectly round number by, well by whom really?"


http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1789022&postcount=36



___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

[Steven Sullivan]

In rec.audio.tech Bret Ludwig > wrote:

> >
> > > I submit the CD does too. And in the case of pop music
> > > made after 1965 or so, we shouldn't have to go from a
> > > vinyl release but the original two track tape masters.
> >
> > Two track masters have been generally used since about a decade before 1965.

> Since most releases then were mono, they were one track masters.
> Mono LPs were available until well into the rock era. And in fact
> most people prefer mono Beatles and Stones LPs (of that era)
> sonically.

Amazing. You've polled them?


___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

[Steven Sullivan]

In rec.audio.tech Scott Dorsey > wrote:
> Robert Orban > wrote:
> >preference. With reference to the "remastering" controversy, what I take away
> >from Olive and Toole's work is that people seem to have a pretty well-defined
> >model in their brains of what a natural spectral balance should sound like and
> >they consistently prefer loudspeakers that supply this to them. Thanks largely
> >to O&T's work, today's popular loudspeakers are not only less colored than any
> >time in the past but also sound closer to each other regarding spectral
> >balance. It's amazing what you can get in a $250 loudspeaker today (from
> >companies like PSB, Mirage, Energy, etc., not to mention the speaker
> >manufacturers under the Harman banner) compared to what you could get even 10
> >years ago.

> I am not familiar with the Toole work you're referring to, but it sounds
> very interesting. I'd love to see a citation. I've always attributed the
> different sonic character of various nation's loudspeaker designs to local
> sonic preferences (ie. the propensity of American home speakers to have flabby
> out of control bass, of British speakers to have restricted but tight bass,
> of Japanese speakers to be smiley filtered). Maybe that's not true.
> --scott
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."


the work is included in this review:

Toole, F. (2006) Loudspeakers and Rooms for Sound Reproduction.A Scientific Review - JAES 54:6
451-476

and here's a primary paper:

Olive, S. (2003) Differences in Performance and Preference of Trained versus Untrained
Listeners in Loudspeaker Tests: A Case Study - JAES 51:9 806-825

--

___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Iain Churches" > wrote in message
> i.fi...
>>
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>>>
>>> "Iain Churches" > wrote in message
>>> ti.fi...
>>>>
>>>> "Eeyore" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Iain Churches wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "MiNe 109" > wrote
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > Still, in cases of deteriorated or missing original master tapes,
>>>>>> > an lp
>>>>>> > transfer might be the best way to hear a specific recording.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From tape to vinyl is a three, four, or five step process. Any of
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> "negatives" from these intermediate steps can be used for
>>>>>> transcription in CD mastering. This is often done.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Transfer from a pressing is the least desirable option.
>>>
>>>>> Maybe you should explain how the stampers are generated ?
>>>
>>>> I am referring to original metalwork.
>>>> You cannot use a stamper - it's a positive:-)>
>>>
>>> Iain has apparently never heard of those special styli ground to ride on
>>> the top of the raised groove of a stamper.
>
>> Indeed I have. Decca used to make them for studio use.
>
> They were more widely available than that.
>
>> AFAIK they were not available to the public.
>
> Decca was a minority supplier of cartridges, especially in the US. Their
> cartridges had a horrible reputation for reliability.
>

I have two Decca London cartridges, amongst those which I use for
transcription.When set up correctly, they sound very good indeed.
Some clients ask for them specifically over the ubiquitous
Shure V15/III. It's simple a matter of taste.

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"MiNe 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Iain Churches" > wrote:
>
>> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>> > Still, in cases of deteriorated or missing original master tapes, an lp
>> > transfer might be the best way to hear a specific recording.
>> >
>>
>> From tape to vinyl is a three, four, or five step process. Any of the
>> "negatives" from these intermediate steps can be used for
>> transcription in CD mastering. This is often done.
>>
>> Transfer from a pressing is the least desirable option.
>
> Okay, in the absence of safety copies, mixdown tapes, metal parts, etc...

Most record companies keep multitracks and also stereo
master mixes (and also a "B" tape) of everything they still
have in catalogue. Some lease contracts stipulate that all
"materials" must be returned to the owner at the end of the
lease period.

The cost of multritrack tape was quite a large chunk of the
budget so some budget studios rented them to the client for the
duration of the project and then re-used them as soon as
the project was approved for release.

As a very last resort, it is possible to make a production
master from a good clean vinyl pressing. I have been involved
in this kind of project several times. Most people have never
heard a clean vinyl pressing played on a trranscription-quality
turntable/arm with an MC cartidge and a high quality
RIAA stage. It can sound remarkably good.

The public do not need to know (and probably don't care:-)
that there are quite many pop CD's which have been
re-mastered in this way.

Iain

[Arny Krueger]

"Iain Churches" > wrote in message
.fi...
>
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> . ..

>> Decca was a minority supplier of cartridges, especially in the US. Their
>> cartridges had a horrible reputation for reliability.

> I have two Decca London cartridges, amongst those which I use for
> transcription.When set up correctly, they sound very good indeed.

Whatever that means.

> Some clients ask for them specifically over the ubiquitous
> Shure V15/III. It's simple a matter of taste.

Shure probably inadevertantly lost more V15s in production and distribution
than Decca Londons were ever built.

[Arny Krueger]

"John Byrns" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:

>> Actually, Berry Gordy mixed Motown to sound good on a 4" round speaker in
>> a
>> $15 LP player. Motown's consoles had a high-slope 85 Hz high pass filters
>> right in the mixer channel strips.

> You aren't implying that "a 4 inch round speaker in a $15 LP player" is
> flat down to 85 Hz, or can reproduce any significant amount of power at
> that frequency, are you?

No, especially not the 4 inchers in question. They probably had a FS in the
150 Hz range.

> And what about the output transformer in that
> $15 player, how low might it have gone?

Unknown, but it could have been better than the speaker.

> I would think Motown should
> have set the cutoff frequency of their filters a little higher if
> simulating "a 4 inch round speaker in a $15 LP player" was their goal.

I didn't say that they were trying to simulate a 4" round speaker. They were
trying to condition the signal so that playing it through a 4" round speaker
didn't do too awfully much violence.

> It sounds to me more like the real purpose of 85 Hz filters was to avoid
> troubling the $15 players with signals they couldn't dream of
> reproducing and that would have the potential of introducing various
> forms of annoying distortion.

Exactly.

[George M. Middius]

The Krooborg runs aground on the rocks of clearly expressed thoughts.

> > I have two Decca London cartridges, amongst those which I use for
> > transcription.When set up correctly, they sound very good indeed.

> Whatever that means.

Arnii, weren't you just babbling about mental counseling? I hope you didn't
murder yet another therapist. Dr. Kroomacher made you promise to stop at
ten. You didn't Break your Promise while getting borned again, did you?

> > Some clients ask for them specifically over the ubiquitous
> > Shure V15/III. It's simple a matter of taste.

> Shure probably inadevertantly[sic]

Krooglish!

[Clyde Slick]

On 4 Sep, 16:27, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:

>
> All digital signals that have been properly converted back to analog are
> smooth, and this has been true for over 40 years.

Mud can be smooth, too.

[Mr.T]

"John Phillips" > wrote in message
...
> In fact with dither you can easily hear a tone on CD that's 106 dB
> below full scale - yes that's below 1 LSB peak-to-peak. I even tried
> that myself as an exercise and it's very well reproduced, especially
> with higher orders of noise-shaped dither.

Sure, now you need to look up the difference between wide band noise
measurements and narrow band noise measurement to understand why.

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> > Some clients ask for them specifically over the ubiquitous
> > Shure V15/III. It's simple a matter of taste.
>
> Shure probably inadevertantly lost more V15s in production and
distribution
> than Decca Londons were ever built.

And went on to make a far better cartridge than the V15III anyway, the
V15VMR.
I certainly know which I would play my records with, and it's NOT the Decca.

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Mud can be smooth, too.

A good analogy for vinyl. And pigs love mud too :-)

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message
...
>In rec.audio.tech Bret Ludwig > wrote:
> > Mono LPs were available until well into the rock era. And in fact
> > most people prefer mono Beatles and Stones LPs (of that era)
> > sonically.
>
> Amazing. You've polled them?

Well John Lennon did say he preferred the Mono version of Sgt Peppers to the
stereo version.
Why? Well he and Paul did the mono mix and George Martin did the stereo mix
:-)

(or so it's been written, I wasn't there personally)

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Iain Churches" > wrote in message
.fi...
> The public do not need to know (and probably don't care:-)
> that there are quite many pop CD's which have been
> re-mastered in this way.

That does help explain Iain's attitude to his customers.
Those more used to CD quality though, DO find it annoying when they buy a
reissue on CD that has some of the noise of a vinyl pressing, plus the
artefacts of single ended noise reduction attempts, plus the extra
distortion etc.
Personally I am ****ed off, especially if I already have it on vinyl and was
hoping for something a step closer to the master tapes.

Those who prefer vinyl probably think it's fine though.

MrT.

[John Phillips]

On 2007-09-05, Mr.T <MrT@home> wrote:
>
> "John Phillips" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In fact with dither you can easily hear a tone on CD that's 106 dB
>> below full scale - yes that's below 1 LSB peak-to-peak. I even tried
>> that myself as an exercise and it's very well reproduced, especially
>> with higher orders of noise-shaped dither.
>
> Sure, now you need to look up the difference between wide band noise
> measurements and narrow band noise measurement to understand why.

Indeed. Actually I used to do DSP in a past element of my professional
life. However I always did find it to be a good idea to test a practical
implementation to check my understanding of the theory.

--
John Phillips

[Arny Krueger]

"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
u...
>
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> > Some clients ask for them specifically over the ubiquitous
>> > Shure V15/III. It's simple a matter of taste.
>>
>> Shure probably inadevertantly lost more V15s in production and
> distribution
>> than Decca Londons were ever built.
>
> And went on to make a far better cartridge than the V15III anyway, the
> V15VMR.

Not to mention the intermediate models of V15.

> I certainly know which I would play my records with, and it's NOT the
> Decca.

Agreed. That some would prefer them has to be more about sentiment than
practicality or accuracy.

[Arny Krueger]

"John Phillips" > wrote in message
...
> On 2007-09-05, Mr.T <MrT@home> wrote:
>>
>> "John Phillips" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> In fact with dither you can easily hear a tone on CD that's 106 dB
>>> below full scale - yes that's below 1 LSB peak-to-peak. I even tried
>>> that myself as an exercise and it's very well reproduced, especially
>>> with higher orders of noise-shaped dither.
>>
>> Sure, now you need to look up the difference between wide band noise
>> measurements and narrow band noise measurement to understand why.
>
> Indeed. Actually I used to do DSP in a past element of my professional
> life. However I always did find it to be a good idea to test a practical
> implementation to check my understanding of the theory.

I got my first experiences with hearing tones zillions of dB below the
broadband noise level in the Army. We would routinely hear targets in
Doppler radar audio signals that looked like pure noise on a scope. The
equipment that did the same thing to track the target or display the target
involved purpose-built spectrum analyzers with fairly narrow bandwidth.

[John Phillips]

On 2007-09-05, Arny Krueger > wrote:
>
> "John Phillips" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 2007-09-05, Mr.T <MrT@home> wrote:
>>>
>>> "John Phillips" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> In fact with dither you can easily hear a tone on CD that's 106 dB
>>>> below full scale - yes that's below 1 LSB peak-to-peak. I even tried
>>>> that myself as an exercise and it's very well reproduced, especially
>>>> with higher orders of noise-shaped dither.
>>>
>>> Sure, now you need to look up the difference between wide band noise
>>> measurements and narrow band noise measurement to understand why.
>>
>> Indeed. Actually I used to do DSP in a past element of my professional
>> life. However I always did find it to be a good idea to test a practical
>> implementation to check my understanding of the theory.
>
> I got my first experiences with hearing tones zillions of dB below the
> broadband noise level in the Army. We would routinely hear targets in
> Doppler radar audio signals that looked like pure noise on a scope. The
> equipment that did the same thing to track the target or display the target
> involved purpose-built spectrum analyzers with fairly narrow bandwidth.

Of course the point of the test was not spcifically to show that tones
below the noise floor could be heard. Rather to show that the CD medium
is perfectly capable of carrying information whose level is below its
nominal quantization limit. This sometimes surprises those who think that
digital systems lose detail that analogue systems retain.

--
John Phillips

[Arny Krueger]

"John Phillips" > wrote in message
...
> On 2007-09-05, Arny Krueger > wrote:
>>
>> "John Phillips" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On 2007-09-05, Mr.T <MrT@home> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "John Phillips" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> In fact with dither you can easily hear a tone on CD that's 106 dB
>>>>> below full scale - yes that's below 1 LSB peak-to-peak. I even tried
>>>>> that myself as an exercise and it's very well reproduced, especially
>>>>> with higher orders of noise-shaped dither.
>>>>
>>>> Sure, now you need to look up the difference between wide band noise
>>>> measurements and narrow band noise measurement to understand why.
>>>
>>> Indeed. Actually I used to do DSP in a past element of my professional
>>> life. However I always did find it to be a good idea to test a
>>> practical
>>> implementation to check my understanding of the theory.

>> I got my first experiences with hearing tones zillions of dB below the
>> broadband noise level in the Army. We would routinely hear targets in
>> Doppler radar audio signals that looked like pure noise on a scope. The
>> equipment that did the same thing to track the target or display the
>> target
>> involved purpose-built spectrum analyzers with fairly narrow bandwidth.

> Of course the point of the test was not spcifically to show that tones
> below the noise floor could be heard. Rather to show that the CD medium
> is perfectly capable of carrying information whose level is below its
> nominal quantization limit. This sometimes surprises those who think that
> digital systems lose detail that analogue systems retain.

Agreed. The idea that digital systems can't pass signals smaller than one
quantization level is one of those things that is "intuitively clear" to
many.

[Robert Orban]

In article >, says...

>
>I am not familiar with the Toole work you're referring to, but it sounds
>very interesting. I'd love to see a citation. I've always attributed the
>different sonic character of various nation's loudspeaker designs to local
>sonic preferences (ie. the propensity of American home speakers to have
flabby
>out of control bass, of British speakers to have restricted but tight bass,
>of Japanese speakers to be smiley filtered). Maybe that's not true.

It looks like it was just Olive. Here's the reference:

Differences in Performance and Preference of Trained versus Untrained
Listeners in Loudspeaker Tests: A Case Study
AES Journal Volume 51 Number 9 pp. 806-825; September 2003

Listening tests on four different loudspeakers were conducted over the course
of 18 months using 36 different groups of listeners. The groups included 256
untrained listeners whose occupations fell into one of four categories: audio
retailer, marketing and sales, professional audio reviewer, and college
student. The loudspeaker preferences and performance of these listeners were
compared to those of a panel of 12 trained listeners. Significant differences
in performance, expressed in terms of the magnitude of the loudspeaker F
statistic FL, were found among the different categories of listeners. The
trained listeners were the most discriminating and reliable listeners, with
mean FL values 3-27 times higher than the other four listener categories.
Performance differences aside, loudspeaker preferences were generally
consistent across all categories of listeners, providing evidence that the
preferences of trained listeners can be safely extrapolated to a larger
population. The highest rated loudspeakers had the flattest measured frequency
response maintained uniformly off axis. Effects and interactions between
training, programs, and loudspeakers are discussed.

Author: Olive, Sean E.
E-lib Location: (CD aes20) /jrnl2003/2003/0806.pdf

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
u...
>
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> > Some clients ask for them specifically over the ubiquitous
>> > Shure V15/III. It's simple a matter of taste.
>>
>> Shure probably inadevertantly lost more V15s in production and
> distribution
>> than Decca Londons were ever built.
>
> And went on to make a far better cartridge than the V15III anyway, the
> V15VMR.
> I certainly know which I would play my records with, and it's NOT the
> Decca.
>

When paying for a transcription, a client must be allowed
the possibility to make a choice. Many have their own cartridge which
they bring with them. I keep a spare SME headshell for this.

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
u...
>
> "Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message
> ...
>>In rec.audio.tech Bret Ludwig > wrote:
>> > Mono LPs were available until well into the rock era. And in fact
>> > most people prefer mono Beatles and Stones LPs (of that era)
>> > sonically.
>>
>> Amazing. You've polled them?
>
> Well John Lennon did say he preferred the Mono version of Sgt Peppers to
> the
> stereo version.
> Why? Well he and Paul did the mono mix and George Martin did the stereo
> mix
> :-)
>
> (or so it's been written, I wasn't there personally)
>
Nonsense. George Martin was a producer! He did not mix anything!
The engineer for St Peppers was Geoff Emerick, with Richard Lush
and Phil McDonald as Assistant engineers. The same crew
were responsible for stereo and mono versions. I knew all three
of them personally.

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
...
>
> "Iain Churches" > wrote in message
> .fi...
>> The public do not need to know (and probably don't care:-)
>> that there are quite many pop CD's which have been
>> re-mastered in this way.
>
> That does help explain Iain's attitude to his customers.

Mr. T. You are sounding more like Arny by the day:-))
You seem also to be at the same level of comprehension!

My comments above were made about pop recordings. I am
a classical music engineer (with a penchant for jazz when an
interesting project comes along) I do however attend pop
mastering sessions often.

> Those more used to CD quality though, DO find it annoying when they buy a
> reissue on CD that has some of the noise of a vinyl pressing, plus the
> artefacts of single ended noise reduction attempts, plus the extra
> distortion etc.

You really don't have a clue about transcription or
mastering do you:-)

If you are foolish enough to buy CD's with the artefacts
you describe, then you are deserve exactly what you get.


> Personally I am ****ed off, especially if I already have it on vinyl and
> was
> hoping for something a step closer to the master tapes.´

Having never heard the master tapes, how can you possibly
know? LOL:-)

Please read my earlier comments about CD pre-production
mastering.

Iain

[Arny Krueger]

"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
...
>
> "Iain Churches" > wrote in message
> .fi...

>> The public do not need to know (and probably don't care:-)
>> that there are quite many pop CD's which have been
>> re-mastered in this way.

> That does help explain Iain's attitude to his customers.

Yup, he presumes that they can't smell crap when he serves it up to them.

> Those more used to CD quality though, DO find it annoying when they buy a
> reissue on CD that has some of the noise of a vinyl pressing, plus the
> artefacts of single ended noise reduction attempts, plus the extra
> distortion etc.

You bet.

Futheremore, a lot of record company engineers don't seem to have the time,
interest, or technology to do a decent job of recovering lost music from
vinyl hell. OTOH, there are specialists and talented amateurs who can do a
lot.

> Personally I am ****ed off, especially if I already have it on vinyl and
> was
> hoping for something a step closer to the master tapes.

Agreed. However, remember that Iain seems to think of passage through the
dark and twisted valley of the groove of vinyl as a "beautification" step
for those master tapes.

> Those who prefer vinyl probably think it's fine though.

They seem to have developed a habit of ignoring or even preferring all of
the usual sonic trash that vinyl adds.

Strange.

[Peter Scott]

John Phillips wrote:
> On 2007-09-04, Peter Scott > wrote:
>>

>
> As for broadcast digital audio links, in UK they are Nicam728 and the
> data carried is 14-bit (actually its compressed slightly on the link to
> 13 bits IIRC). Possibly in other parts of the world they use more than
> 16 bits but I don't know the standards. Out of interest can you point
> me to the relevant references?
>

I thought that the BBC used 20 bit for data links from live concerts
such as the Proms. Perhaps I'm wrong. I know that much lower resolutions
are used on the broadcast material on most digital channels.
--
__________________________________________________ _______________________

Composed using Mozilla Thunderbird and virus checked using Grisoft AVG

Peter Scott
__________________________________________________ _______________________

[Peter Scott]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Peter Scott" > wrote in message
> ...
>
Thanks for all your comments and those from others. Looks

like I have been poorly educated in the technicalities of

CD. I'll take your advice and update my knowledge. I guess

the pictures that I have in mind about the stepped nature

of samples is far too simplistic.




>
>

--
__________________________________________________ _______________________

Composed using Mozilla Thunderbird and virus checked using Grisoft AVG

Peter Scott
__________________________________________________ _______________________

[Mr.T]

"Iain Churches" > wrote in message
ti.fi...
> >> The public do not need to know (and probably don't care:-)
> >> that there are quite many pop CD's which have been
> >> re-mastered in this way.
> >
> > Those more used to CD quality though, DO find it annoying when they buy
a
> > reissue on CD that has some of the noise of a vinyl pressing, plus the
> > artefacts of single ended noise reduction attempts, plus the extra
> > distortion etc.
>
> If you are foolish enough to buy CD's with the artefacts
> you describe, then you are deserve exactly what you get.

You are so lucky then that you can listen to every single CD you have before
you buy it.
Most people are not so lucky. Or maybe you just don't buy any?

> > Personally I am ****ed off, especially if I already have it on vinyl and
> > was
> > hoping for something a step closer to the master tapes.´
>
> Having never heard the master tapes, how can you possibly
> know? LOL:-)

Well the noise and distortion is a give away to those who can tell. I guess
that doesn't include you.

MrT.

[John Phillips]

On 2007-09-07, Peter Scott > wrote:
>
>
> John Phillips wrote:
>> On 2007-09-04, Peter Scott > wrote:
>>>
>
>>
>> As for broadcast digital audio links, in UK they are Nicam728 and the
>> data carried is 14-bit (actually its compressed slightly on the link to
>> 13 bits IIRC). Possibly in other parts of the world they use more than
>> 16 bits but I don't know the standards. Out of interest can you point
>> me to the relevant references?
>>
>
> I thought that the BBC used 20 bit for data links from live concerts
> such as the Proms. Perhaps I'm wrong. I know that much lower resolutions
> are used on the broadcast material on most digital channels.

Ah, you may be right. I was thinking of the links to the transmitters
and I now suspect that was not the right meaning of broadcast digital
audio links.

--
John Phillips

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"George M. Middius" <cmndr _ george @ comcast . net> wrote in message
...
>
>
> Iain Churches said:
>
>> >> >> "Facts about Krooborg" states that you're a second-hand
>> >> >> computer repair man from Michigan!
>
>> >> > Also Chrysler Ashtray Designer Emeritus. (It says so on his toilet
>> >> > paper.)
>
>> >> How could someone so cruelly mis-inform me on such an important
>> >> matter? :-)
>
>> > That's what you get for relying on underground reference books. The
>> > Resistance's official handbook on audio 'borgism is quite
>> > comprehensive.
>
>> I received an e-mail circular some years ago, when I first
>> began "discussions" with Arny on UKRA.
>
> Do you still have the email? I'd be interested in knowing who sent it. The
> maddening emerged originally on RAO and spread to other audio groups.

Sadly no. I think its sender was a subscriber to RAO, a group I had
not even heard of at that time. I took a look there once. That was
enough for me.

Other than an announcement saying that Arny had been voted
"No.1 Sh*t on Usenet" I have no other bits of endearing
biographical info:-) except:

There was a very good cartoon posted on a university
audio website. It depicted a control room with Phil A at the
console and Arny as tape op. You could see a huge number of
people all with tambourines in the studio. The conductor looked
like Sir Simon Rattle ! Phil was shouting down the talkback,
calling the conductor a an autistic pommy cretin, while Arny,
with achinagraph pencil in his mouth, was pondering
"Do all symphonies sound the same?"


>> This was prior to his being born again.
>
> When was Krooger "born again"? I have to say his piety is overwhelming.

Isn't Arny a born again Baptist?

They have the most dreadful music! Give me a Russian Orthodox
Choir any day:-)


Iain

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Iain Churches" > wrote in message
>> .fi...
>
>>> The public do not need to know (and probably don't care:-)
>>> that there are quite many pop CD's which have been
>>> re-mastered in this way.

Arny. It's nice to see yourself and Mr.T hand in hand on
Usenet. You deserve each other:-)
>
>> That does help explain Iain's attitude to his customers.
>
> Yup, he presumes that they can't smell crap when he serves it up to them.

Arny. Please remind me. Which one of us has made
>1000 recordings without a single one being published
or being accepted for commercial release???

I fear it must be your goodself who is turning out
the cr*p :-)))

In classical recording proper, client, artist and listener
all have very high expectations indeed.

Cordially,
Iain

[George M. Middius]

Iain Churches said:

> Arny. Please remind me. Which one of us has made
> >1000 recordings without a single one being published
> or being accepted for commercial release???

Irrelevant. Krooger has "been there done, that" LoT"s.

> I fear it must be your goodself who is turning out
> the crap :-)))

Crap is not wasted chez Krooger. It's not just the worms that benefit from
the surplus.

> In classical recording proper, client, artist and listener
> all have very high expectations indeed.

Unfair, Iain. Krooger's "audio career" exists entirely on Usenet. When you
or others remind Mr. **** of how real music is recorded in the real world,
that's equivalent to beating a cripple with his own crutches.

[Arny Krueger]

"Iain Churches" > wrote in message
ti.fi...

> Arny. Please remind me. Which one of us has made
>>1000 recordings without a single one being published
> or being accepted for commercial release???

Well Iain, since admit that you've never made a recording that you could say
was your own personal creation as I have, the answer is...

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Iain Churches" > wrote in message
> ti.fi...
>
>> Arny. Please remind me. Which one of us has made
>>>1000 recordings without a single one being published
>> or being accepted for commercial release???
>
> Well Iain, since admit that you've never made a recording that you could
> say was your own personal creation as I have, the answer is...

Personal creation?? Is that what you call that hideous racket? LOL:-)
If your work was of any merit whatsoever, at any level, someone
would have tried to make money with it. It is not. They did not.

With your Been There, Done That attitude, you still do not understand
that recording production requires a small but highly skilled team of
professionals. One needs production, recording, editing,
pre-production, mastering, sleeve notes with translation into four
languages, photography, marketing etc etc.

You and your tambourine bashers are in another world:-)

[Arny Krueger]

"Iain Churches" > wrote in message
i.fi...
>
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> . ..
>>
>> "Iain Churches" > wrote in message
>> ti.fi...
>>
>>> Arny. Please remind me. Which one of us has made
>>>>1000 recordings without a single one being published
>>> or being accepted for commercial release???
>>
>> Well Iain, since admit that you've never made a recording that you could
>> say was your own personal creation as I have, the answer is...
>
> Personal creation?? Is that what you call that hideous racket? LOL:-)
> If your work was of any merit whatsoever, at any level, someone
> would have tried to make money with it. It is not. They did not.
>
> With your Been There, Done That attitude, you still do not understand
> that recording production requires a small but highly skilled team of
> professionals.

Sue me for knowing better than that.

> One needs production, recording, editing,
> pre-production, mastering, sleeve notes with translation into four
> languages, photography, marketing etc etc.

Tell that to any number of legendary one-man production groups that did it
all themselves. BTW, it is quite clear Iain that you've lost perspective
with your deification of the last 4 items on your list. Note that in the US
liner notes need only be done in 1 language, because we've managed to agree
among ourselves about that! Europe should try it!

> You and your tambourine bashers are in another world:-)
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Clyde Slick]

On 9 Sep, 21:54, "Iain Churches" > wrote:
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>
> . ..
>
>
>
> > "Iain Churches" > wrote in message
> ti.fi...
>
> >> Arny. Please remind me. Which one of us has made
> >>>1000 recordings without a single one being published
> >> or being accepted for commercial release???
>
> > Well Iain, since admit that you've never made a recording that you could
> > say was your own personal creation as I have, the answer is...
>
> Personal creation?? Is that what you call that hideous racket? LOL:-)
> If your work was of any merit whatsoever, at any level, someone
> would have tried to make money with it. It is not. They did not.
>
> With your Been There, Done That attitude, you still do not understand
> that recording production requires a small but highly skilled team of
> professionals. One needs production, recording, editing,
> pre-production, mastering, sleeve notes with translation into four
> languages, photography, marketing etc etc.
>
> You and your tambourine bashers are in another world:-)

Arny worships at The Church of The Holy Castenet.
Tamborines are a heresy.

[Clyde Slick]

On 9 Sep, 21:54, "Iain Churches" > wrote:
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>
> . ..
>
>
>
> > "Iain Churches" > wrote in message
> ti.fi...
>
> >> Arny. Please remind me. Which one of us has made
> >>>1000 recordings without a single one being published
> >> or being accepted for commercial release???
>
> > Well Iain, since admit that you've never made a recording that you could
> > say was your own personal creation as I have, the answer is...
>
> Personal creation?? Is that what you call that hideous racket? LOL:-)
> If your work was of any merit whatsoever, at any level, someone
> would have tried to make money with it. It is not. They did not.
>
> With your Been There, Done That attitude, you still do not understand
> that recording production requires a small but highly skilled team of
> professionals. One needs production, recording, editing,
> pre-production, mastering, sleeve notes with translation into four
> languages, photography, marketing etc etc.
>
> You and your tambourine bashers are in another world:-)

Besides, what would you know about "Churches", anyway?

[Clyde Slick]

On 9 Sep, 23:50, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:


>
> Tell that to any number of legendary one-man production groups that did it
> all themselves.

So, now you are comparing yourself to Pierre Sprey.
Besides, "at least" he designed the ashtray for the F-15,
not for some pathetic Omni.

[Jenn]

In article . com>,
Clyde Slick > wrote:

> On 9 Sep, 21:54, "Iain Churches" > wrote:
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> >
> > . ..
> >
> >
> >
> > > "Iain Churches" > wrote in message
> > ti.fi...
> >
> > >> Arny. Please remind me. Which one of us has made
> > >>>1000 recordings without a single one being published
> > >> or being accepted for commercial release???
> >
> > > Well Iain, since admit that you've never made a recording that you could
> > > say was your own personal creation as I have, the answer is...
> >
> > Personal creation?? Is that what you call that hideous racket? LOL:-)
> > If your work was of any merit whatsoever, at any level, someone
> > would have tried to make money with it. It is not. They did not.
> >
> > With your Been There, Done That attitude, you still do not understand
> > that recording production requires a small but highly skilled team of
> > professionals. One needs production, recording, editing,
> > pre-production, mastering, sleeve notes with translation into four
> > languages, photography, marketing etc etc.
> >
> > You and your tambourine bashers are in another world:-)
>
> Arny worships at The Church of The Holy Castenet.
> Tamborines are a heresy.

And keys... don't forget the keys! ;-)

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Iain Churches" > wrote in message
> i.fi...
>>
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>>>
>>> "Iain Churches" > wrote in message
>>> ti.fi...
>>>
>>>> Arny. Please remind me. Which one of us has made
>>>>>1000 recordings without a single one being published
>>>> or being accepted for commercial release???
>>>
>>> Well Iain, since admit that you've never made a recording that you could
>>> say was your own personal creation as I have, the answer is...
>>
>> Personal creation?? Is that what you call that hideous racket? LOL:-)
>> If your work was of any merit whatsoever, at any level, someone
>> would have tried to make money with it. It is not. They did not.
>>
>> With your Been There, Done That attitude, you still do not understand
>> that recording production requires a small but highly skilled team of
>> professionals.
>
> Sue me for knowing better than that.

You probably don't have a cent:-)

>> One needs production, recording, editing,
>> pre-production, mastering, sleeve notes with translation into four
>> languages, photography, marketing etc etc.
>
> Tell that to any number of legendary one-man production groups that did it
> all themselves. BTW, it is quite clear Iain that you've lost perspective
> with your deification of the last 4 items on your list. Note that in the
> US liner notes need only be done in 1 language, because we've managed to
> agree among ourselves about that! Europe should try it!

By definition, one man cannot be a production group!

The EU is, I am told, a larger and probably in cultural terms a
richer ecomomy than the US. It has been standard practice here
for classical recordings to have sleeve notes in three or four
languages since the late 1960s.

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
u...
>
> "Iain Churches" > wrote in message
> ti.fi...
>> >> The public do not need to know (and probably don't care:-)
>> >> that there are quite many pop CD's which have been
>> >> re-mastered in this way.
>> >
>> > Those more used to CD quality though, DO find it annoying when they buy
> a
>> > reissue on CD that has some of the noise of a vinyl pressing, plus the
>> > artefacts of single ended noise reduction attempts, plus the extra
>> > distortion etc.
>>
>> If you are foolish enough to buy CD's with the artefacts
>> you describe, then you are deserve exactly what you get.
>
> You are so lucky then that you can listen to every single CD you have
> before
> you buy it.
> Most people are not so lucky. Or maybe you just don't buy any?

I get sent some 10CDs a month as complimentary
evaluation or review copies. I buy five or six (often boxed sets)
at trade price.

>
>> > Personally I am ****ed off, especially if I already have it on vinyl
>> > and
>> > was
>> > hoping for something a step closer to the master tapes.´
>>
>> Having never heard the master tapes, how can you possibly
>> know? LOL:-)
>
> Well the noise and distortion is a give away to those who can tell. I
> guess
> that doesn't include you.

Can't tell? LOL. You are the one who is buying
sub-standard product:-)

I see there is a competition on at the moment to guess what the
"T" in Mr.T might stand for. Most of the suggestions seem to
have (how should I put it?) "anatomical connotations" Your
fellow audiophiles do not seem to hold you in high esteem!

Is that why you choose to cower behind anonymity and
a false e-mail address, and never post anything of value,
(a link to a schematic, one of your audio projects,
or an answer to a question) ?

I shall not bother to reply to your drivel in future.

Iain

[Mr.T]

"Iain Churches" > wrote in message
i.fi...
> >> >> The public do not need to know (and probably don't care:-)
> >> >> that there are quite many pop CD's which have been
> >> >> re-mastered in this way.
> >> Having never heard the master tapes, how can you possibly
> >> know? LOL:-)
> >
> > Well the noise and distortion is a give away to those who can tell. I
> > guess that doesn't include you.
>
> Can't tell? LOL. You are the one who is buying
> sub-standard product:-)

That's what you are delivering unfortunately.
And *IF* you can tell, why are you so arrogant as to assume no one else
can????
But I'll bet you can't tell simply because your head is stuck too far up
your arse!


> I shall not bother to reply to your drivel in future.

We can only hope, at least we will be spared your drivel.

MrT.

[Clyde Slick]

On 10 Sep, 09:22, "Iain Churches" > wrote:

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>
> . ..
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Iain Churches" > wrote in message
> i.fi...
>
> >> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> . ..

>
> > Sue me for knowing better than that.
>
> You probably don't have a cent:-)

"at least" he has a scent, but an unpleasant one, at that.

I see that Arny is begging for a second lawsuit against him.

[Phildo]

"Iain Churches" > wrote in message
i.fi...
> Isn't Arny a born again Baptist?

Arny says he's a xtian but doesn't lead by example and is a very poor
example of what a xtian should be.

He only goes to church because they let him play with their mixing desk
which is the only way he gets to fulfil his dream of doing live sound. He so
desperately wants to be a real engineer, sort of like the Pinocchio of the
live sound world.

Phildo